"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack
Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not
have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones," he said,
referring to the 19 hijackers
folgendes stand vor einer Woche in der NY Times:
>>In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few
ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and
Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United
States-sponsored "road map" for the Israelis and Palestinians would
be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in
part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region.
The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European
countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted
by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman - the
Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only
Holocaust survivor in Congress - mentioned that the Scandinavian
countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for
the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to
anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president
looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
"I don't know why you're talking about Sweden," Bush said. "They're
the neutral one. They don't have an army."
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply:
"Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're
the ones that are historically neutral, without an army." Then Lantos
mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough
national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. "No, no, it's Sweden that has no army."
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject. <<
Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not
have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones," he said,
referring to the 19 hijackers
folgendes stand vor einer Woche in der NY Times:
>>In the Oval Office in December 2002, the president met with a few
ranking senators and members of the House, both Republicans and
Democrats. In those days, there were high hopes that the United
States-sponsored "road map" for the Israelis and Palestinians would
be a pathway to peace, and the discussion that wintry day was, in
part, about countries providing peacekeeping forces in the region.
The problem, everyone agreed, was that a number of European
countries, like France and Germany, had armies that were not trusted
by either the Israelis or Palestinians. One congressman - the
Hungarian-born Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California and the only
Holocaust survivor in Congress - mentioned that the Scandinavian
countries were viewed more positively. Lantos went on to describe for
the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to
anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president
looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
"I don't know why you're talking about Sweden," Bush said. "They're
the neutral one. They don't have an army."
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply:
"Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're
the ones that are historically neutral, without an army." Then Lantos
mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough
national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. "No, no, it's Sweden that has no army."
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject. <<