The outcry from the right over what it sees as the Bush administration’s capitulation on Hezbollah is starting to feel like another Harriet Miers, Dubai port or immigration moment. Why are so many conservatives mad about how the conservative president has handled this cease-fire? For his part, Washington Post columnist George Will characterizes the outcome this way: "Hezbollah has willingly suffered (temporary) military diminution in exchange for enormous political enlargement."
But President Bush’s rejection of a diplomatic solution would have meant more bombing and death. Is that really the better choice for either Israel or the United States?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice lays out the administration’s thinking in a Washington Post commentary.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
53 Comments
Will must’ve gotten beaned by a foul ball during the last Orioles’ homestand.
Conservatives didn’t want a cease fire, they wanted Jesus to return so he could come back and slaughter all the Jews who didn’t convert to fundyism. Conservatives are the sick a-holes who are debating who “won” this war. Sure many people’s homes on both sides lay in ruins and they are burying their dead children but Pat Robertson and George Bush can say were moved a little closer to armeggedon.
Amen!
I see on another thread that Hank is a proponent of the “stabbed in the back” theory.
You know, we would have won in Viet Nam if we hadnt been “stabbed in the back” by war protesters at home.
We could have won in iraq if we had not been stabbed in the back by the librul media.
Israel could have won this war with Hez if they hadnt been stabbed in the back by the Israeli PM.
Stabbed in the back. Uh, I think it is called public opinion. When you agree blindly with the neocons, it is called supporting the troops, even as they cut their benefits.
Disagree with the policy? Then you are stabbing america in the back.
heheheh. Another talking point exposed. And not for the first time on this blog.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364×1924803
It was amazing to watch Israeli foreign minister Livni (sp?) claim that Israel did NOT destroy civilian infrastructure nor attack Lebanese army positions. She even claimed that Israel did not undermine the Saniora government and that Saniora is a friend to Israel.
Somehow I don’t think he will agree.
As for Condi Rice’s comments – she better hope that she is right and that the formerly US-backed regime in Beirut doesn’t collapse. Anarchy and despair are perfect breeding grounds for radicalism.
A Path To Lasting Peace
By Condoleezza RiceWednesday, August 16, 2006; Page A13
“For the past month the United States has worked urgently to end the violence that Hezbollah and its sponsors have imposed on the people of Lebanon and Israel.”
That is the most outrageous lie that lousy bitch has ever told.
Israel bombs Lebanon with American bombs,{ some were cluster bombs } and the lying bitch says that Hezbollah did it? How far is her head up her ass?????????
This win for Hezbollah will embolden them and all other terrorist groups.
The USA wanted Israel to go in and kick butt, but when the media was propagandizing for Hezbollah and demonizing Israel as baby killers, it was over. The media now chooses winners and loosers.
Since Israel is dominated by wusses of their leftist party, they were loosing the war. They would actually drop leaflets and broadcast on radio their targets. They hope this would reduce civilian causalities, all this did was move the enemy.
USA had to step in and promote a cease-fire, because Israel wasn’t getting the job done and was embarrasing themselves. It was dangerous to have them so humiliated by the terrorist group and media.
I’m sorry! War is war people. Civilians must die. We can try to minimize the casualties, but that isn’t the way we win wars. All the terrorist do is make themselves out to be civilians and hide amoung them. If the civilian population isn’t rooting or pointing them out, then they become an unfortunante circumstance of war.
Truman didn’t think twice about dropping atom bombs on Japan knowing it will kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians. His job was to demoralize the Japanese so much that they end the war and they did.
Now the terrorist along with the media has demoralize the Israelies and the West. Many of you on here will probably think that is a good thing. That’s your opinion. But don’t think for a moment that Islamic Fascist will not spare you.
Joe Williams,
You’re one big fuckin’ manly man. Ever fought in a war?
Farm girl, why do you hate our troops?? HA. Snark, snark.
Good morning girl, and other friends!!
Joe, nobody but big business wins in a war. Nobody.
CF,
Have you studied the history of warfare?
The only “terrorist group were the G-d Zionists.
Zionist-Israel did bomb Lebanon to smithereens and killing women children and babies.
Reduce casualties? They didn’t need to drop bombs in the first place.
War is war? this was a massacre.
USA had to step in and promote a cease-fire? Pure politics, nothing else.
Now he brings-up Truman, oh did Truman do it?
Islamic Fascist? How about the Nazi-Zionist-Jews?
You murder Arabs and they suddenly become Islamic Fascist?
How convenient.
The outrageous propaganda being spewed by Bushco and his Zionist-Jews shows their desperation. They are so wrong in everything they do.
KFG,
Who is cutting benifits? It was Reagan who increased military pay and benifits drastically during his administration.
I am getting plenty of my military benifits just fine. Which ones are you talking about getting cut?
Wait, my bad: DING DING DING! rings the “Joe Williams is an idiot who talks out of his ass” bell. It’s been a while.
Joe Williams’ assertion that “Israel is dominated by wussies of their leftist party” is something so ludicrous and idiotic that it could only be followed by Joe Williams’ name. FYI, the Labor Party has been out of power for some time. The loss of support for the war (Ohlmert’s personal approval numbers have dropped from 73% to 66%) is a function of the Israeli public’s sane recognition that to attack Lebanon was insane and REALLY stupid.
When you have Katusha rockets raining down on you from above, Joe Williams, I’ll be interested in your take on the Israeli public’s will to sustain a stupid and counter-productive conflict.
And finally, I just have to laugh at you, Joe Williams, for your sad, “rah rah rah!” Bush cheerleading. So the U.S. wanted Israel to go in and “kick butt” on some entrenched insurgents, but then the media turned on them? Does this sound like any other justification anyone may have heard for a too-favorably assessed conflict that went south in a big way? When you’re a Bush-worshipper, it’s always someone ELSE’S fault.
Joe Williams, it’s amazing. Your analysis of foreign affairs has gotten even more ignorant and credulous than when I left off posting back in June. Really, you ought to quit listening to Rush. It’s lowering your IQ and addling your brain.
CF, so good to have you back!!!
America’s one of the finest countries anyone ever stole…..Bobcat Goldthwaite
Thank you, ksfarmgrrl.
As for Nathan, I don’t have time for your little Socratic games. Say what you mean.
“How far is her head up her ass?????????”
Uh, I think the question really is:
How far does condi have her head up the PREZNIT’s ass?
The funniest observation I have here is that the only time bush’s base gets riled up at him is when he isnt a BIG ENOUGH ass hole and they wanted him to be meaner and more stupid than he already is!
jesus wept
Here’s a nifty little film I encountered during my summer vacation. Kind of says it all, really, about Iraq and all the rest.
http://piratesandemperors.com/
Dear ksfarmgrrl,
Thanks for taking a lot of pressure off of me! Although you do seem to infer things that I don’t imply, having you posting what I think relieves me from taking the time to post on these subjects myself.
To be completely accurate about my theory on the Viet Nam war you should some how work in a comment or two about my chronic homophobia. Otherwise I might suspect a troll.
I love ya, keep posting!
Hank
They should have a section of the blog set up where KFG can argue with herself like she does here and not take up all of the thread…
This is a thread about the bush base. And there they are.
Um Nathan? I seem to recall you posting an opinion for me on the thread next door. If you do it you don’t get to whine about others doing it.
Aw but let’s get beyond the distractions. I’ve got the bush base here. Let’s better get to know them shall we?
Hank? Nathan? Please share with us your vision for the mideast. Be specific.
Dear JR,
Unfortunately the vision for the mideast will look a lot like its past.
We are fighting against a radical islam bunch of terrorists that even if we did not exist would be fighting amongst themselves. The point I made in the other thread that 90% of the Muslims that are killed in war are being killed by other Muslims is still valid.
The 3400 Iraqis that were killed last month were killed by other Iraqis. Is it a horrible statistic? Yes. But on the other hand, Sadam was killing his people by the hundreds of thousands to maintain control of the country.
Sadam was a continuing threat to the stability of the region. Bush’s plan to bring democracy to the region is a good plan poorly executed.
I probably disagree with at least 50% of Bush’s policies and actions. I think he takes half steps in the right direction. However, when dealing with terrorists like he has been may be worse than no action at all.
I think he is an hoorable man, and a truthful man. It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with anyone that cannot find anything good about Bush or his policies. The lefties on this BLOG have an irrational hate for Bush and that irrational hate makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about what we are doing in the world to make our country safe.
Hank
Hank Price,
Au contraire. We have deployed rational arguments against the policies of George Bush, have been ignored, and have been proven right in every case. No reconstituted WMD programs (right wing lies to the contrary), and now a civil war.
I do agree that Bush is a ‘hoorable’ man, though I’d spell it correctly: he’s a HORRIBLE man, and an even worse president. Totally inept, totally dishonest.
Well Hank
My take is bush has done nothing and I mean absolutely nothing productive foreign or domestically during his entire term. You of course would cite his tax cuts. Being wealthy, you at least have derived some benefit from his administration. So while you would call my view “colored” I can say the same for you.
“Saddam was a continuing threat to the stability of the region”
Uh no Hank. He was installed and supported by the US to serve as a stabilizing influence as a check on Iran. You know, Iran which without Saddam as a check is now the “threat to the stability of the region.”
The entire mideast is in fact a product of US and past empire meddling. You are correct that they will kill each other without our presence. That is what has to happen. That is how they will ultimately learn to live with each other as opposed to killing each other.
As to your assertion that bush is doing his best to make us safe? With a border like a sieve and bush’s blatant attempt to sell out our seaports to a mideast nation I call ANY claim that bush is trying to protect America laughable. I’ll stop at that as I don’t wish to take this thread off topic.
“Joe Williams’ assertion that “Israel is dominated by wussies of their leftist party” is something so ludicrous and idiotic that it could only be followed by Joe Williams’ name”
Damn near sprayed the keyboard with diet soda on that one!
OMG, ain’t it the truth, ain’t it the truth . . .
Here’s another one for “The Daily Howler” category: “The point I made in the other thread that 90% of the Muslims that are killed in war are being killed by other Muslims is still valid.”
Consider this, Hank: by far the vast majority of Americans have been killed in battle by . . . wait for it . . . THEIR FELLOW AMERICANS.
It was called the War between the States 1860-65.
A much more helpful question would be why after the Germans killed millions of Jews, the world decided that they had earned the right to create a state in Palestine.
Why do the Palestinians have to suffer for the sins of the Nazis?
CapnAmer – the answer to your question is rather simple. Christians in Europe had been working for a thousand years (since the proclamation of Pope Urban in 1066 I think) to “cleanse” Europe of Jews. Pogroms were frequent. During the crusades the “holy warriors” would often “warm up” for their forays into the Middle east by killing Jews and Christians (of the ‘wrong denomination’) in Europe.
So, after WW2, they found another way to attain their goal – ‘help’ them leave Europe to someplace else.
Bush’s base will never be happy until they control the entire world. Some want their religious beliefs to be front and center and some want just the greed and power to front and center. After all, if it was not for the Religious Right’s backing – then Bush’s policies would not have the stamp of God on their side.
JR and Capname,
If we let them fight it out, should we not also let Darfur fight it out as with other countries with in fighting. What parameters do we use to decide where we will step in and help. Do we leave teh middle east and suffer the consequences or do we stay no wsince we have helped cause the problem. Innocent people are going to get killed in either case. I just doon’t see how we can be a proponent of one cause and then say anotehr isn’t good enough. I have no idea where you guys stand but your posts made me wonder what we should do. I’d love to hear anybodys ideas. Couldn’t the civil war analogy be made for Bosnia also. It all appears to fall under the guise of ethnic cleansing
hawk – I think we pretty much are stuck in the mess. However, that does NOT mean “stay the course” – we need to change course to try to find solutions to the messes we have created. The US has abandoned the role of peace-maker.
Hawkeye
Well of course I don’t mean to suggest we should allow genocide or wholesale slaughter in the mideast as we are in Darfur.
When I say “let them sort it out” I mean “Quit playing them against one another for our own or Israels ends.”
There are many places where fighting, corruption, torture and killing by a dictator are being done at this moment. So why did Bush choose to invade Iraq? That’s the question by most Americans at this point. 9/11 was carried out by Bin Laden – and now George W. does not even think about him anymore? How can he say that? Does that mean that he doesn’t care anymore about the 3,000+ lives lost that day? Had we of gone after Bin Laden and actually captured him – I wonder would all this fighting elsewhere really be going on?
“They should have a section of the blog set up where KFG can argue with herself like she does here and not take up all of the thread…”
I second that motion. It will be the only section I will read.
JR,
But how do we choose then. If we leave Iraq it will go to that. We don’t go into Darfur. Which is the bigger crime action or inaction. At this point it is apparent that going into Iraq was a poor decision or at least has been handled poorly. Does that mean we now leave. tough questions to answer
hawk – while we unfortunately now have to stay in Iraq to try to clean up the mess Bush made it is clear that we need to change our approach. The failures of the past several years should not be followed with more of the same failures (”stay the course”)
Ben,
No disagreement here, obviosly gotta do it differently and better. I ask the question of everybody again. What civil wars, ethnic cleansing, etc. do we get into and what are those we don’t. Are we the worlds police force or should we be much more isolationist in our viewpoint. I’m sure a good arguement can be made for both
heheh Steven. Thanks! It means a lot to me coming from an accomplished poster such as yourself.
I’d read you too!!!!
…and Tracy, the KING of snark!!!!
“What parameters do we use to decide where we will step in and help?”
The two criteria now used:1) is there human suffering because of a non-democratic government;and2) is there a chance we could snatch up some good sweet crude?
hawk – good quastions. I think a key would be to look at where we might actually make a difference. In the Balkans we seem to have made a significant positive impact with rather little investment. I would also look for leverage – for example US air support/transport/logistics with African Union troops. In a place like Lebanon or Palestine our involvement almots has to be nill since we are an enemy to the Lebanese and palestinian people. So, it has to be case-by-case.
Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to USBy David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today’s population, that is more than $5,700 per person.This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby.
For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.
And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country’s recession-bound economy.
Considering Israel’s deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don’t pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.
Israel’s request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that’s likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.
Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.
Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.
“Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are part of the total package of support for Israel,” argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle East policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the University of Maine.
These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably say it is money well spent to support a beleagured democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if Americans are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden, are little known.
One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost of oil and other economic damage to the US after Israel-Arab wars.
In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to win back territories Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. President Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms, triggering the Arab oil embargo against the US.
That shortfall in oil deliveries kicked off a deep recession. The US lost $420 billion (in 2001 dollars) of output as a result, Stauffer calculates. And a boost in oil prices cost another $450 billion.
Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US set up a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, conservatively, $134 billion, Stauffer reckons.
Other US help includes:
• US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is “a net drain” on the United States economy, says Stauffer.
• The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to Israel, and $600 million in “housing loans.” (See editor’s note below.) Stauffer expects the US Treasury to cover these.
• The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel’s Lavi fighter and Arrow missile projects.
• Israel buys discounted, serviceable “excess” US military equipment. Stauffer says these discounts amount to “several billion dollars” over recent years.
• Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in military aid, ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has won the right to require the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives to Israel.
US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier. Weapons make up almost half of Israel’s manufactured exports. US defense contractors often resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.
• US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.
• Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years, says Stauffer.
Stauffer’s list will be controversial. He’s been assisted in this research by a number of mostly retired military or diplomatic officials who do not go public for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic if they criticize America’s policies toward Israel.
Editor’s note: A previous version of this story incorrectly reported the amount of housing loans guaranteed by the US.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html
“But President Bush’s rejection of a diplomatic solution would have meant more bombing and death. Is that really the better choice for either Israel or the United States?”
You think right-wingers give a DAMN about others dying, as long as its not the ‘precious unborn?’ They ‘love’ Israel for one reason and one reason only: they need for it to exist in order to be destroyed in the Rapture. Can you say soulless fanatics?
The better choice for Israel would be to exterminate every last vestige of Hezbollah. And then wipe out Iran’s nuke sites. Only humiliating crushing defeats of it’s enemies will ensure that Israeli’s live in peace. If you think otherwise you are too stupid to bother talking to.
And you Heckler are obviously a religous zealot little different from the Taliban.
No other conservative has been able to answer honestly this question from me Heckler.Let’s give you a shot.
Aside from biblical references to Jews being “Gods chosen people” and whatever favor that may bring, just what is the United States gaining from its slavish devotion to Zionist Israel?
You are one of bush base Heckler. Just what do you want from him beyond that you posted above?
JR: This may be what you were referring to: Ge 12:2-3 “I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
And the USA has blessed Israel. I would say that we have been blessed as a people.
Religious references aside, Israel is a Democratic beach head in the Middle East. Look at a map of the Middle East. That tiny spot on the Mediterranean is Israel, among the relatively enormous and hostile Arab nations surrounding it. It is hard to think that little spot is the aggressor nation. They have every right to exist no matter what the nut in Iraq says. They have been a loyal friend of the U.S. and I think loyalty goes both ways. It isn’t and shouldn’t be a matter of “what’s in it for us” as implied in your post.http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/middleeast.html
My thoughts on this are admittedly unsophisticated and there are probably better reasons on both sides. But I don’t need any more reasons to support Israel. I would need some damn good ones to change that opinion.
The nut I was referring to is of course in Iran.
THANK YOU OUTLANDER!!
You are the first rightie on this forum to admit that your religious beliefs are a basis for what you see as a serviceable foreign policy. In that, you are more honest than Hank, Nathan, LRB, Paul F Rosell, and as far as I know Heckler.
Honesty is at least a beginning.
Forgive me if I oblige “god” to defend “gods chosen people”.
JR
I’ll answer your question, but first your use of the word ‘Zionist’ denotes a bit of hatred or mistrust that makes you sound a little like Ed.
It’s not what we “Gain” JR, it’s a matter of principle.
The primary reason I support, and the reason the US supports Israel is that they are a Democratic nation, albeit a heavily socialist one, but Democratic none the less. The only one in the region. The only one that’s not run by a dictator or a pack of “Religious Zealots”. The only one where human rights and self determination mean something. We support them because we support freedom. Any “Gain” we pursue is the spread of liberty, not some kind of material gain.
Democrats used to support human rights and liberty, what happened, why the support for all the Arab states that treat their people like donkey shit?
And I’m curious just how I gained the “religious zealot” badge. My faith determines my moral values which in turn determines my political leanings, but I generally leave religion out of my politics.
And JR, if you paid any attention you’d know that I’m no Bushbot.
And JR, The “religious zealots” are the ones trying to wipe Israel off the face of the earth for reasons that are based on their faith. Get it Straight.
I guess this is a shining example of Israel’s version of “human rights.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3283720,00.html
Will
Would you prefer to live under Sharia law?
Heckler,You think those ragtag Muslims are going to be able to take over this country and make us live under Sharia law? With what? With their WWII era weaponry? You think they can defeat the U.S. armed forces? Or how about Israel which is the strongest army in the Middle East, the 14th strongest military in the world and is a nuclear power to boot?
What are you so afraid of? Don’t you know we have enough firepower to blow up the world 33 times? Me thinks your fear is ridiculous.
Don’t let AIPAC get the best of you.