« Bedfellows make for strange politics | Main | Day by Day By Phone »

Israel Update

Israel struck Hezbollah's Beirut Headquarters. Fox reported that Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's leader, was inside the building when it was hit.

From Haaretz:

An Israel Air Force strike destroyed a main Hezbollah office in Beirut's southern suburb on Friday, the group's television station reported.


It gave no word on casualties in the latest of several raids on Hizbollah's stronghold of Haret Hreik.

Shortly before the attack, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's security chiefs approved new targets on Friday against Hezbollah.

The Jerusalem Post says Nasrallah is still alive.

Update: Drudge has a headline on his site which says The Syrian UN Ambassador told Time Magazine that Hezbollah could spread radiation all over Israel if it struck Israel's nuclear sites. Does anyone still not believe that Syria, along with Iran, is behind Hezbollah's provocation?

Update II: Fox is reporting that Nasrallah has said that Hezbollah is declaring all out war against Israel. Let's be honest here. Hezbollah has always been at war against Israel; it's just that Israel is finally responding. Reuters has the report.

Update III: Read Charles Krauthammer's piece. In it he puts to rest the lies that the Arab aggression against Israel was only about "occupation" of Arab land. As Krauthammer points out, every time Israel pulled out of the occupied territories, Gaza in September of 2005 and South Lebanon in 2000, the terrorist organizations didn't halt terrorist attacks, but they ramped them up. So if Israel's pulling out of the occupied territories hasn't satisfied the terrorists, then what do they want? Krauthammer explains plainly:

As the Palestinian excuses for continuing their war disappear one by one, the rhetoric is becoming more bold and honest. Just last Tuesday, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, writing in The Washington Post, referred to Israel as "a supposedly 'legitimate' state.''


He made clear what he wants done with this bastard entity. "Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media,'' he writes, "the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank.'' It is about "a wider national conflict'' that requires the vindication of "Palestinian national rights.''

That, of course, means the right to all of Palestine, with no Jewish state. In the end, the fighting is about "the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967.''

In 1967, Israel acquired the "occupied territories.'' In 1948, Israel acquired life. The fighting raging now in 2006 -- between Israel and the "genocidal Islamism'' (to quote the writer Yossi Klein Halevi) of Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran behind them -- is about whether that life should and will continue to exist.

That's the goal - the complete extermination of the Jewish state.

Update IV: Israel says that Hezbollah has rockets that are capable of reaching most of Israel. Hezbollah is threatening to use them.

Update V: Hezbullah attacked an Israeli navy ship. No one was injured, but the ship may be on fire.

Update VI: Israellycool is liveblogging the day's events, and he has some very interesting updates. He links to Big Pharoah whose father offered his insights:

My dad was a general in the Egyptian army. His comments are always so informative especially if they were related to a war that broke out. He had this to say about Lebanon:
This idiot Nasrallah. He is so funny. He keeps on issuing threats, he has no idea what he is talking about. What Israel is doing to him now is just gentle padding on the shoulders. Abou Shakha dah didn't see what we saw. Israel fought on 3 fronts in 1967 and it was hell. I was there, I saw it all. He has no tanks, no boats, he has nothing except a few toys he got from Iran and it seems abu shakha dah don't know that Israel confronted 3 of the most powerful armies in the region at the same time. If Israel wanted to brutally crush him it can do so in 1 hour.

*Abu Shakha dah literally means "this guy with the piss". We use this slang term to refer to a grown up whose capabilities is of a baby who wets himself.

Update VII: Greg at Outside the Beltway has the video and transcript of Ambassador John Bolton's comments about Lebanon at the UN.

Update VIII: The Israeli UN Ambassador Gillerman exchanged words with the Palestinian Ambassador today. Hot Air has the video. The most memorable line comes at the very beginning: "You are so in love with occupation that you, you cling to it even when we leave every single inch." I am struck by Ambassador Gellerman's civility. At the end of their confrontation, Ambassador Gellerman was a gentleman and reached to shake the Palestinian Ambassador's hand.

Update IV: Al Jazeera reports that Isreal is looking for four Israeli troops who went missing when a navy ship was attacked. Is it true? Who knows, but the Israeli army says that the ship sustained a lot of damage.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Israel Update:

» PostWatch linked with Standing With Israel

Comments (76)

OK...So if they actually co... (Below threshold)
hermie:

OK...So if they actually could do what they claim, how exactly would spreading radiation over the region be considered a 'victory'?

Yes, It shows how brainless... (Below threshold)
914:

Yes, It shows how brainless the terrorists are. They would be spreading radiation all over everyone in the middle east, not just Isrealis? However since they have no regard for life period. I guess that does matter as they would blame Isreal for the radiation as well.

Pyrrhus had 'victories' suc... (Below threshold)

Pyrrhus had 'victories' such as that, and became famous [well, notorious, at any rate] for them.

Yes Kim, that IS the goal b... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Yes Kim, that IS the goal but it isn't news and doesn't change anything. The destruction of Israel is in the very charters of these terrorist organizations. Krauthammer's article is like someone writing an article announcing that illegal aliens are coming across our border.

Well McCain just what was i... (Below threshold)
Luke:

Well McCain just what was it about Krauthammer's article that pi**ed you off?

Truth repeated for further exposure?

McCain: "The destruction... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

McCain: "The destruction of Israel is in the very charters of these terrorist organizations. Krauthammer's article is like someone writing an article announcing that illegal aliens are coming across our border."

Agreed. But apparently America in general, and the Dimocrats specifically, still need "Water is WET" analysis from time to time.

John F'ing Kerry, for example, just yesterday said that Israel needs to employ more "diplomacy" in its dealing with Hezbullah and Hamas.

I guess Kerry didn't get the "Water is WET" memo!

When one party sits down at the "negotiating" table with a NON-NEGOTIABLE demand that the other party DIE...well, it kinda spoils the whole spirit of the affair...don't ya think?

Krauthammer is tiring. If o... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

Krauthammer is tiring. If one were to accept everything in his columns as true, one would still be left wondering what the hell to do with the information. In this case, he seems to think that the pathological hatred of Israel is intractable. So what? Kill all the Arabs? I think that's what he wants. Why won't he say it?

Justrand, "Dimocrats" know better than to use this sort of "analysis" for anything. Because it's completely un-normative. Republicans, on the other hand, are more than happy to have their foreign policy handed to them by wank-tanks like the PNAC.

So, Justrand, what's your solution? Hmm? Are you one of the "Sand-to-Glass" advocates?

Hezbollah, in their announc... (Below threshold)

Hezbollah, in their announcing of the missiles that they're threatening to use, has put themselves into a really f'ing bad situation. It's 'use or lose' time, because you KNOW that the IAF is going to be real hot to find those and destroy them before they can be used.

God, just when you think they can't get any more stupid...

Justrand, "Dimocrats" know ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Justrand, "Dimocrats" know better than to use this sort of "analysis" for anything.
--------------------------------------------------
Democrats simply cut and run. The French simply surrendered. That 's the liberal solution in a few words.

Totally Matt: "So, Justr... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Totally Matt: "So, Justrand, what's your solution? Hmm? Are you one of the "Sand-to-Glass" advocates?"

Nope. I'm one of those "Peace through superior firepower" advocates. From 1948 on the Arab/Muslim world has needed periodic "reminders" that the "Superior Firepower" in the neighborhood isn't THEM.

Egypt and Jordan went 0 for 4 and finally just quit!

But at least they were actual nations with something to lose.

Hezbullah and Hamas are NOT actual nations...and so have nothing to lose but their LIVES. Israel needs to expedite that process!

The problem is that now Iran has stepped up to be the new "Nassar"...only worse. (Assad is just the dummy on Iran's knee). Both Syria AND Iran will most likely need to be taught a lesson...real soon (if not now).

Class appears to be in session in the Middle East.

LAI, you're awesome. Libera... (Below threshold)
TM:

LAI, you're awesome. Liberals in 2006 = the French in 1939. Thanks a lot. Now I have to go shopping for a beret and a carton of Gauloises.

"Cut and run" is Republican jingoism. If that isn't obvious to you, you probably watch Fox News. If you think that peace in Iraq is likely to occur with a large American military presence there, you haven't been paying attention. But do try to stay on topic.

Justrand, how can an organized military eliminate a terrorist organization? It doesn't strike you as a strategic impossibility? A few hundred terrorists will die, as will a few hundred human shields, and their position will not be significantly weakened. The opposite seems more likely, actually.

Israel is reacting in a wro... (Below threshold)

Israel is reacting in a wrong way. Let us try and spread peace inetead of what they are doing,

Peace through firing rocket... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Peace through firing rockets and kidnapping soldiers, MU?

A few hundred terrorists... (Below threshold)
Luke:

A few hundred terrorists will die, as will a few hundred human shields, and their position will not be significantly weakened. The opposite seems more likely, actually.

So TM, your solution is..........?

I do not want to take the liberal position of sticking a flower in the barrel of my gun, humming kumbaya, then stand around with my hands on my ankles, just waiting for the inevitable.

Matt: So your solution is w... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

Matt: So your solution is what? The Israelis should Stop, kneel, and expose their throats to the knives of their Muslim masters? If not then what is your position other than to whine about what others write?

Muslim Unity: You're right - Israel is reacting! Reacting to an act of war by Hamas and Hezbollah. And your position is the same as Matt (See above)?

Golda Meir once stated that the Israelis had a secret weapon in their conflict with their arab neighbors - no alternative. The nation of Israel is a reality. The Muslims in the area need to accept it - and then there might be a chance at peace - not until then. As Golda Meir stated - no alternative.

The saddest thing about all... (Below threshold)

The saddest thing about all this is that we are not standing by their side from the get-go, but at arms-length in the neighborhood. What would be truly appropriate would be to have the new German Army helping out as well. Not that that will happen. Interestingly, I've heard rumors that the Japanese are being helpful.

The Israelis have spent dec... (Below threshold)
hermie:

The Israelis have spent decades being attacked, yet their country still florishes.

The Palestinians keep attacking, and their people keep on getting poorer and more ignorant.

The Israelis are self-sufficient in a number of areas, and are an ecomomic powerhouse.

The Palestinians are the region's beggars, and they have the world's most corrupt 'leaders'.

The Israelis haven't let the terrorists have a tenth of what real damage they can inflict.

The terrorists have to beg Iran and Syria for weapons and have to hide behind civilans for any 'victory' in battle.

Great post Hermie.... (Below threshold)
Luke:

Great post Hermie.

I'm not saying they shouldn... (Below threshold)
Totally Matt:

I'm not saying they shouldn't react with authority to these idiotic kidnappings. I'm just saying that there is no reason to expect that things will be any better when the dust settles; I am aware of no reason to assume that things will ever be peachy-keen for the Israelis, or the Palestinians and their supporters.

As for Israel being "self-sufficient in a number of areas", Hermie, what do you think would happen were the United States to turn its back on her? I'm not saying that the U.S. should ever do that, but I find your remark puzzling. Functionally speaking, Israel is a proxy of the U.S., for better or worse.

OMG Matt, please. Do you r... (Below threshold)
Luke:

OMG Matt, please. Do you really think Israel exists only because of the largesse of the U.S.?

You probably don't think we supply funds, and plenty of funds, to the Palestine people also?

Thus, no sooner has McCain ... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Thus, no sooner has McCain asked why in the world one would simply repeat what is apparently common knowledge (i.e., these organizations want nothing short of exterminating Israel), than Totally Matt (a self-confessed troll) shows up saying that "the problem is it's not normative."

You see, McCain, the problem is that for some of these folks, like TotMatt, reality=normative. Or to put it slightly differently, "I live in the world I want, not the world that is."

Thus, the reality that Hamas (the duly elected government in Gaza), Hizb'allah (part of the government of Lebanon), and various and sundry such groups want to wipe out Israel is simply an inconvenient fact. Now, can't we focus on how to get Israel to offer its own throat up?

After all, hate isn't intractable. And since defeating the terrorists isn't an option, then clearly, the only solution is for the terrorized to give in.

Luke, At least the ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Luke,
At least the Is is much better than most of the European parasites. At least Is has its army to defend itself. The Europeans depend on the US army for their protection during the cold war. They couldn't even take care of their backyard in the Balkans. At the same time, they are shamefully selling us and Is out for the Arab oil and their cheap security (please don't attack us, we are on your side and against Is/American).

TM,
Just a fact: all the Dems are advocating so far are "cut and run" from the terrorists.

TM, Peace talk is j... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

TM,
Peace talk is just illusion. We talked about this before. WE achieved peace in Europe by a long, bloody, and decicive WWII. We defeated the Soviet Union through various proxy wars and a determination to achieve fire-power superiority. The Soviet Union never intend to negotiate for anything except to stop the US from achieving a superior fire-power position. That 's what they taught us in school: capitalism has be buried in the ash-heap of history, not to co-exist with. I think all this is good for clarity. Unless you think living under the boots of Saddam is better, the lives of the Iraqui people are much better now. Obviously the bad guys want to subjugate the Iraqui people again. What side are you on? The peace you are talking about is to be willing to live under the boots of the mad mullahs or dictators like Saddam Hussein. THat is the easy way to achieve peace: acquiece to evils. THis is the perfect example of "cut and run". Maybe cut-and-run is not precise. Surrender is the easy way to achieve peace.

Luke--do you think Israel w... (Below threshold)
TM:

Luke--do you think Israel would still exist today if they had never received economic and military support from the U.S. (which I stated was a good thing)?

L.O., Krauthammer's article contains no explicit suggestions as to what ought to be done. It implies, I believe, that Israel should use whatever means necessary to rid its region of those who would seek to destroy it, and stop when there are no enemies left.

How is that normative? Is it remotely feasible? If you take me to be implying that Israel should capitulate, then you're dishonest or illiterate. I simply think that this will not end happily.

L.A.I. - The Dems aren't advocating "cut and run"; Karl Rove et al are advocating that the media label them as such. It's hyperbolic jingoism, mmmkay? And you lap it up as though it were good for you. Maybe Democrats just think that peace in Iraq will not be had so long as the U.S. military is there in its current capacity. Republicans don't actually have a strategy either, apart from the ones who are also advocating for troop withdrawals.

As for living under Saddam's boots, keep drinking the Kool-Aid. The threat he posed to U.S. security pales in comparison to actual threats like North Korea. I think foreign policy is harder than the PNAC want-wits would have us believe; and I think that a robust approach to international security problems requires better execution than the assorted ham-handed Republican fools running the country have shown themselves to be capable of. And I don't give a shit about whether or not the Democrats would be better at getting things done. I doubt they would be. I'm not a Democrat. All I know for certain is that people who are incompetent (i.e. this administration) shouldn't be allowed to play real-life Risk.

LAI: Let's not for... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

LAI:

Let's not forget that slavery in the United States was defeated, not by appealing to the better nature of the slave-owners, but by war, including war against the civilian population of the South.

Of course, it was the Democrats then, too, who advocated cutting and running.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/democratic-party-platform.htm

Indeed, the language, down to the hyperbole, is remarkably similar.

"When one party sits dow... (Below threshold)
McCain:

"When one party sits down at the "negotiating" table with a NON-NEGOTIABLE demand that the other party DIE...well, it kinda spoils the whole spirit of the affair...don't ya think?"

Agreed, which is why Israel doesn't overtly negotiate with Hamas or Hezbollah. Kill the terrorists, I say, but that isn't quite a justification for bringing down a fragile western-leaning lebanese government that is our tenuous strategic ally and causing the suffering of a lot of innocents, including Christians. Lebanon is half-Christian, another fact that should be well-known that Krauthammer didn't have time to explain.

This is one of the few examples in human history of a democratic government waging war against another democratic government.

FYI L.O.--equating the Dixi... (Below threshold)
TM:

FYI L.O.--equating the Dixiecrats of the Civil War with today's centrist-liberals is straight-up stupidity.

Krauthammer didn't mention ... (Below threshold)
TM:

Krauthammer didn't mention it because details are anathema to him, McCain.

As for living under Sadd... (Below threshold)
Luke:

As for living under Saddam's boots, keep drinking the Kool-Aid. The threat he posed to U.S. security pales in comparison to actual threats like North Korea. I think foreign policy is harder than the PNAC want-wits would have us believe; and I think that a robust approach to international security problems requires better execution than the assorted ham-handed Republican fools running the country have shown themselves to be capable of. And I don't give a shit about whether or not the Democrats would be better at getting things done. I doubt they would be. I'm not a Democrat. All I know for certain is that people who are incompetent (i.e. this administration) shouldn't be allowed to play real-life Risk.

Cliffs Notes: Bush Bad

Certainly no worse than cla... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Certainly no worse than claiming that terrorism has never and can never be defeated.

And those weren't Dixiecrats (a party of Southern Democrats headed by Strom Thurmond in 1948), but Democrats, and in 1864, these were of the North (the southerners having seceded).

Democrats who were loudly proclaiming in 1864 that the war was lost, American rights were shredded by King Lincoln, and who harped on casualties without reference to what was being gained.

But I feed a self-proclaimed troll, silly me.

McCain:

It's not at all clear that such attacks will necessarily bring down the Lebanese government. It would do so, if the Lebanese people equated Hizb'allah with some kind of resistance to Israel, or if the Lebanese were supporting Hizb'allah.

But it would appear, if the blogging is any reflection, that many Lebanese wish Hizb'allah would go away. This is akin to 1982, when, for all that the Lebanese didn't like the Israelis invading them, they bitterly resented the Palestinians for having used their country as a staging ground of attacks (and thereby brought the Israelis upon them).

Given that Egypt, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia are condemning Hizb'allah and are relatively silent on Israel, this would suggest that the presumption that an Israeli attack weakens the Beirut government is at least open to question.

Moreover, given Hizb'allah's links to Iran, and the Iranian ties to Syria, what makes you think that either Lebanese Christians or Muslims favor Hizb'allah at all? Seems to me that they could (and are) viewed as proxies of Damascus, intent on keeping Lebanon on a short-leash on behalf of Assad.

Bush silent: fails to lead ... (Below threshold)
FrankFun08:

Bush silent: fails to lead in crisis
by dpANDREWS, Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 05:58:50 PM EST

Bush is silent with regards to Israel's disproportionate use of force in Lebanon. Perhaps if he, or Condi Rice acted more forcefully yesterday Israel's actions might have been contained and the crisis would not continue to escalate as it does now. Regardless, like the hours after 9/11 the President is almost M.I.A. it seems.

My guess is that despite the massive amount of aid we give to Israel, and the unwavering support we offer them in the UN, they probably would have told Bush to go sh*t in his 10-gallon hat. However Bush seems far too content to let Israel dictate United States foreign policy. That is sad. Bush is in over his head again.

Bush bad, Bush bad, Bush ba... (Below threshold)
Luke:

Bush bad, Bush bad, Bush bad, 10 gallon hat, etc.

This thread has become troll infested. Time to walk the dogs.

"Bush is silent with reg... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Bush is silent with regards to Israel's disproportionate use of force in Lebanon."

Bush's hands are shackled as a result of his continued foreign policy disasters. Every time he opens his mouth Britain, Russia, or China is telling him to shut the f*ck up.

He's effectively rendered our country moot in foreign matters - note how Britain chose to "abstain" in the Israel UN vote on the measure which the US vetoed? In this case our ally's support was reduced to "silence", rather than let the world see their open opposition to Bush.

Lee, your trolling needs wo... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Lee, your trolling needs work.

A good troll's droppings actually bear some vague resemblance to reality. Yours, OTOH.

Frex, here's a list of UNSC Resolutions on Israel, which have been vetoed by the US:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

Whereas prior to Bush, it was often the US standing alone in vetoing, since 2001, Britain has often abstained, rather than voting for the resolutions. (The same, interestingly, applies to Germany.)

Yet, moving Britain from the "votes against Israel" camp to the "abstains on Israel" camp is seen by you as an example of "effectively rendered our country moot in foreign matters"??

I'll bet you proclaim yourself a member of the "reality-based" community, too, doncha?

"Moreover, given Hizb'al... (Below threshold)
McCain:

"Moreover, given Hizb'allah's links to Iran, and the Iranian ties to Syria, what makes you think that either Lebanese Christians or Muslims favor Hizb'allah at all? Seems to me that they could (and are) viewed as proxies of Damascus, intent on keeping Lebanon on a short-leash on behalf of Assad."


They positively do NOT "favor" Hezbollah, which has a minority status in Lebanon nowhere close to Hamas' minority status among the Palestinians. And that is precisely why bombing their airports, power plants, roads, building, and strangling them with a naval blockade is disconcerting to me. I understand the action from an Israeli perspective, but it isn't in our U.S. interests and the collateral damage is enormous.

McCain:If the Leba... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

McCain:

If the Lebanese dislike Hizb'allah, and they lack the ability to get rid of their oppressors on their own (in no small part, one suspects b/c Hizb'allah are being supported by Syria), then it is not at all clear that the Israeli action is going to topple the Beirut government (your contention from your earlier comment).

More to the point, short of fighting an immaculate war, bombing such targets is necessary in order to help drive out Hizb'allah. Cutting an opponent's supply lines is a very very basic approach in warfare. It is a preamble to most other actions, including ground warfare.

The reports, for example, that the Hizb'allah forces have already run out of missiles is an indication of the tenuousness of their supply lines.

Is it in our interests? Well, that depends on whether you think crippling and gutting Hizb'allah and allowing the Lebanese to rule themselves, away from the shadow of Nasrallah and company is in our interests. I happen to think so.

Well sure, if that were a c... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Well sure, if that were a certainly I would agree with you but it is far from certain. I don't believe they are going to drive away Hezbollah this way any more than they've been able to drive Hamas away. The only way they CAN be successful strategically is to provoke Syria and Iran into a wider conflict, topple both government, and install or hope for new governments that will end the funding. We would probably get dragged into that conflict, and although there are arguments to the contrary, I dont think we are in a great position to do that now. And the success of that endeavor is dubious at best from an Israeli or U.S. perspective.

L.O.Don't waste yo... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

L.O.

Don't waste your time on the resident troll, you are trying to reason with an functional illiterate. Why?

DavidB: "Don't waste you... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

DavidB: "Don't waste your time on the resident troll, you are trying to reason with an functional illiterate."

...did you just call Lee "functional"???

That would be the nicest thing ANYONE EVER said to him/her/it. VERY generous of you!!

TM, WHo is competen... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

TM,
WHo is competent to run the US gov in your opinion now? What is your solution? Last time we had a discussion, your solution was to allow Saddam Hussein to continue his reign of terror (rape rooms & real torture chambers) with the full oil-for-food corruption in place until you can convince the mad mullahs to change their fascist streaks.
You are not a Dem, but you are anti-Republican I can tell. Are you a leftist? The plan is simple, Israel is doing the Lebanese gov a huge favor by breaking their back and disarming them. That 's a good plan in my opinion. What is your plan besides asking people to surrender to dictators while you can negotiate with the terrorists and the mad mullahs in the safety of the US of AMerica?

There are some on this thre... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

There are some on this thread that say Iraq is a loser because they weren't the threat that Iran and N. Korea is or was,just wait, until we have to (for the Survival of Democrocy)take both of them out,the screaming of them self same IDIOTS.

Jainphx, These peop... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jainphx,
These people are simply either willfully ignorant or anti-Bush no matter what. We have three bad actors (the axis of evil - Bush was right, wasn't he): Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. So these liberal folks argue that we should take on all of them at the same time. Otherwise, we are hypocrites. The other argument is that we should take out the strongest one first. This is really silly. You take out the weakest one of them first (which is Iraq in this case). That is what rational and intelligent people would do. Also we have ample legal (17 violated UN resolutions) and security reasons to take on Iraq. These folks have been talking about international laws! Wonder who are the hypocrites here. Maybe Bush has plan: he is letting futility taking its diplomatic course with both North Korea and Iran. Then before his term is finished, he would drop the bombs on them if they don't disarm (i hope).

Lurking Observer, now you'r... (Below threshold)
TM:

Lurking Observer, now you're just being an idiot. If you think for some reason I have to be held accountable for the actions of a party that I don't even support a hundred and forty-some years ago, then you're a very stupid person. The Democrats sucked bad. I still think they suck. They're spineless simps who allow Republicans to walk all over them. But be fair: they are no longer pro-slavery, and carry none of that baggage with them. (That I had to even say that is a reflection of what you consider intelligent discussion.)

And yes, Luke, Bush sucks really bad at being the president. He shouldn't have his job. A vast majority of Americans agree with me. You're out of the mainstream (which is something that conservatives purport to care about).

As for who would be better, I can think of maybe 200,000,000 Americans who are at least smarter than him. I'd be happy with a moderate Republican or Democrat running the country with a divided congress. It will take a Reagan or a JFK to make inroads with the other party; maybe Obama, or perhaps Mitt Romney. But if you (L.A.I.) think that Bush is actually the right person for the job, then you have a very feeble imagination and extraordinarily low expectations. He is in over his head again (as already mentioned). He's an embarassment.

jainphx: "There are some on this thread that say Iraq is a loser because they weren't the threat that Iran and N. Korea is or was,just wait, until we have to (for the Survival of Democrocy)take both of them out,the screaming of them self same IDIOTS."

So lemme get this straight. Iran was a real threat, as was North Korea; we invaded Iraq; and now that we need to topple a regime in Iran and/or North Korea, and probably can't, the leftists will scream bloody murder when we try... is that it? Well, call bullshit on someone who actually does that, but for now, I'm going to point out that Iran needs a new regime, but the U.S. can't do shit about it. Somehow in there you see a victory for "your team", but today I find no reason to celebrate for liberals or conservatives, Muslims or Jews, Palestinians or Israelis. That has been my only point throughout this thread, so I take the personal attacks for what they're worth.

TM...we just may need to "<... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

TM...we just may need to "topple a regime in Iran"

I suggest you study physics AND logistics. Both will tell you that a MASSIVE investment in time & energy is required to move, oh, 150000 fully armed and equiped soldiers, say, 6000 miles.

Oddly enough...we already HAVE!

Ever play CHESS??

TM, What is your pl... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

TM,
What is your plan? I don't see a plan from you. You cannot name a person better than Bush at this point. Your plan so far is a joke. So Bush is definitely smarter than you for sure. So you rambling about how incompetent he is just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

Do you still stand by your plan of allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power with his rape rooms, torture chambers, and the oil-for-food corruption in place until you can convince the mad mullahs in Iran to change their fascist streaks?

Ok, at least you agree that the liberal left is totally incompetent and it is not worthy of consideration since they don't have any plan at all. All I have seen so far is your complaint about Bush 's plan. Yet your idea seems to be a joke so far. THis seems to be the hallmark of people who don't have any real solution. All they can do is complain.

Justrand--Saudi Arabia does... (Below threshold)
TM:

Justrand--Saudi Arabia doesn't have military bases in it? Was OBL wrong about that?

L.A.I.--I meant what I said. It's easier to name people who would do worse than Bush. I'd prefer Condi; Romney; Clinton; Obama; hell, all but a couple dozen Senators are better presidential material than the one we've got. David Letterman would make a better president. Don't say that Bush is smarter than I am. That's hitting below the belt. Have you seen his transcripts? Heard him "speak" "English"? Objective evidence that he is, in fact, a moron.

I never said Saddam should stay in power. You are being dishonest. I said that the way he was removed from power has essentially created a potential clone of Iran, where women will have it just as bad as they did under Saddam. Maybe not disbanding the army would have been a good start for preventing civil war and the inevitable Shi'ite tyranny. But if you want to give Bush "credit" for the unqualified humanitarian success that is Iraq, you go right ahead.

CLinton and Obama are a jok... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

CLinton and Obama are a joke. Condi is working for Bush. So he is smart enough to employ Condi. Clinton was obviously incompetent for employing Albright. If you mean Hillary and Obama, both of them don't have any plan yet. DO you know their plan? Can you explain why their plan is better?

AGain, looks like we agree that the liberal left and the DEms are incompetent. All they can do is complain even to the point of undermining the country just for the sake of gaining power. I thought you agreed with that. If not, you have to explain to me why you think they are competent when they don't offer any plan.

So what you want to do with IRaq? You want us to impose our style of democracy on them? You don't offer any plan but complaint.

FInally the fact that you mention David Letterman means that you are not serious and don't know what national security means. So far you don't have any serious offer.

I reiterate that given what you offered so far, it just confirmed my conclusion that the Dems are simply and totally incompetent. So it is good that you don't support them. So please cross the name of Clinton and Obama from your list for your own good.

TM, Bush is much sm... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

TM,
Bush is much smarter than all the Dems have to offer. He has a plan and his plan is much better than anything you offer so far. So how can you claim to be smarter than him? You have been listening to the left for too long.
There are people smarter than Bush for sure, but not the liberals. They don't have any plan. It is easy to complain, we all know that. Smart people can offer a real solution. Accomplishing part of your plan/solution for a really tough problem is much harder and requires far more intelligence than the people who can only complain. For that score Bush is smarter than a lot of people including you. I am not trying to hit below the belt. I simply try to tell it as it is.

He was smart enough to empl... (Below threshold)
TM:

He was smart enough to employ her? Okay, let's give him credit for Condi but let Brownie take the fall for the administration re: Katrina, and let Tenet take the fall for 9/11, 'cause Bush only takes credit when it's for something done right. I don't expect partisan Republicans to be consistent, L.A.I., but you could set a good example.

The Letterman remark was a joke. I had assumed, wrongly, that you would realize it as such. Were I to say that Spongebob Squarepants would make a better president than Bush, would you laugh at me and say "Cartoons are 2-D! How could they animate him into the Oval Office?!"

How is Obama a joke, though? Is it because he's a Democrat? He speaks well and makes a good impression on people. What are you basing your opinion on? And Clinton. Her last name sends shivers up your spine, no doubt, but what about her substantive policies do you dislike? She talks as tough on terror as a lot of Republicans (obviously in part b/c it's election season), so I don't care if you want to dismiss them like that because I actually listen to what someone has to say before writing them off as a bad political joke.

As for what I would change, I think the White House needs a breath of fresh air in it, and a new executive will present an excellent opportunity to recruit new allies and improve America's image (which matters, even if you think it doesn't). Foreign leaders commit political suicide by cozying up to Bush. You might not like it, but it's true. If it's just going to be more of the same from Bush, I honestly think we'd be better off with more of the same from someone else. The situation that Bush has gotten us into has left very little room for immediate improvement. Getting someone who shows respect for his potential allies into the White House will prove very fruitful in dealing with international problems. I don't care if you believe it or not, but Commander Codpiece's arrogance and hyperbole have been a disservice to America and can only have harmed its long-term security.

But I'm flattered that my opinion has solidified your intense hatred of Democrats. If you're so easily convinced, it's no wonder you can see no wrong with this administration.

You could say that Bush is ... (Below threshold)
TM:

You could say that Bush is smarter

1) if his "plan" was anything more than "Stay the course!", which isn't a "plan"; or

2) he actually did any of the conceptualization himself. When I say that I want Bush out, I mean that I want his strategizers out. Those people are most certainly smarter than you or I. But Bush isn't. He was a moron in college, and unless he's supplanted liqour with some secret brain tonic, he's still a moron. Part of that might just be pandering to the base, but his towel-snapping sense of humour reveals him for the oafish jock that he was and always will be.

TM, SO what is the ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

TM,
SO what is the plan from Obama and Hillary? Hitler can speak much better than Obama and Hillary. He had much more charm. You got my drift.
So please explain to me their plan and why you think their plan is better than Bush. So far all you have is words.
Sure Bush made mistake with Brownie and Tenet. He did try to clean up the CIA with Goss. So what? He is not perfect, but you don't give me anyone better yet.
Still what is your plan to show that you are smarter than Bush?

I know what Bush 's plan is... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I know what Bush 's plan is and I can explain it to you. What is your plan?

Bush had higher GPA than Kerry at Yale. So at least he is smarter than Kerry. Did you go to Yale and Harvard?

Since when did "smart" beco... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Since when did "smart" become any requirement for good leadership? If we really valued IQ so highly, Jeffrey Dahmer would be president. Liberals have a strange obsession with form over substance, which is why is why there has never been a great liberal leader.

McCain, Hitler is a... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

McCain,
Hitler is a good leader according to liberals since he can talk and charm people into following him. That 's why the liberal MSM swoon over Clinton for how good he can lie to them.
What I want is plan from the liberals that I can pick at. That 's why the dems are so scared and dare not offer any plan or big ideas for the coming election.

C'mon, McCain. JFK and FDR ... (Below threshold)
TM:

C'mon, McCain. JFK and FDR were great leaders; I would also argue that Lincoln and Jefferson would have qualified as liberal in their day (not to say their opponents had much in common with conservativism).

I think any Democrat would withdraw most of the troops and leave as many there as is required to do what they should be trying to accomplish: maintain security around the government until the rule of law is established, and train the Iraqi forces required to do so. I would also give a timeframe as to what constitutes failure in the latter regard, but not disclose it outside of the Pentagon. I would hire someone more competent than Donald Rumsfeld has shown himself to be--perhaps a distinguished military officer, maybe, and not some ideological hack?--and deal with situations as they occur (which, I think, is what Pelosi means when she idiotically brags about not having a plan). Giving them a timeframe and withdrawing would benefit the terrorists, but so does telling them that we aren't leaving until they stop training people to blow up Iraqis and Americans.

And yes, liberals just adore Hitler. I think that's a poor attempt at a reductio of preferring an intelligent and articulate leader to an uninquisitive goof. If so, it's a reductio of itself. Don't imply that smart people are fascists. A smart person would know better than to do so.

The last time I checked, Ha... (Below threshold)

The last time I checked, Harvard does *not* give away Masters degrees. Dammit! ;-)

LAI,That, and Hitler... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

LAI,
That, and Hitler was a socialist. ;)

leave as many there as i... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

leave as many there as is required to do what they should be trying to accomplish: maintain security around the government until the rule of law is established, and train the Iraqi forces required to do so. I would also give a timeframe as to what constitutes failure in the latter regard, but not disclose it outside of the Pentagon.

Gee, that sounds alot like.... Bush's plan.

"I think any Democrat would... (Below threshold)

"I think any Democrat would withdraw most of the troops and leave as many there as is required to do what they should be trying to accomplish: maintain security around the government until the rule of law is established, and train the Iraqi forces required to do so."

That's what's happening now, and you can't set a timeframe to pull troops out until the government and Iraqi forces can protect themselves.

Dammit SCSI! Stealing my t... (Below threshold)

Dammit SCSI! Stealing my thunder again! ;-)

TM, So what you sai... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

TM,
So what you said simply a rehash of exactly what Bush has been doing: training the Iraqui forces and turn over the security responsibilities to them. They even had plan to reduce the force there. Bush was smart enough to insist that we would stay ther until the Iraqui gov is strong enough to take care of themselves and didn't set a timetable publicly. At least we agree that the Dems have been foolish in pushing for a date to withdraw and done that publicly.

Nothing new here. It just demonstrated that Bush is smarter than the Dems so far. He has a much broader strategy than some limited points you mentioned. Even then, Bush already accomplished that without giving encouragement to the terrorists as the Dems did. So Bush was definitely smarter. Thanks for confirming that for me.

Anything new or a comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism. If you run out of ideas, then I can explain the Bush 's strategy to you.

TM, BTW you didn't ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

TM,
BTW you didn't know that the leftists in England and Europe used to adore Hitler for keeping the trains on time.
Tom,
It is true that Hitler was a socialist. In fact, fascism and communism are the two faces of the same coin: secular statism.

This is how you win wars, a... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

This is how you win wars, and end up winning the peace: you kill ALL of those who want to murder you and your people. When enough are killed, the others figure they don't want to be next. It's why you fight wars.

Haven't we been holding hands and singing kumbaya with these blood-thirsty killers since Jimmy Carter? And what's been accomplished in 28 years since? Absolutely nothing.

So---we--have--to--kill--them--all. As Gen. Patton said, "make the other poor bastard die for his country."

LI:Ummm...OK. I d... (Below threshold)

LI:

Ummm...OK. I didn't comment on Hitler anywhere here...

Sorry Tom, that comment abo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Sorry Tom, that comment about Hitler was SCSI's.

Yeah, I just noticed that, ... (Below threshold)

Yeah, I just noticed that, too. No problem. ;-)

I thought Benito kept the t... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

I thought Benito kept the trains on time.

TB,Shouldn't you be ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

TB,
Shouldn't you be in bed? Get up early, and get your practice in on the greens? ;)

You have a good point, alth... (Below threshold)

You have a good point, although I'm having a bout of I-N-S-O-M-N-I-A...

...and I don't need practice on the greens...it's my Greens-In-Regulation stat that has to get better. WAAAAY better.

Send Hamas and... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Send

Hamas and

Hezbollah

to

their

70

virgins

immediately

TM,JFK and FDR were ... (Below threshold)
McCain:

TM,
JFK and FDR were not "liberals" in the modern sense. JFK was a tax-cutter and a hawk. FDR prosecuted a war in Europe that liberals would call an "unnecessary" war if it happened today, and he was far from a civil libertarian.

I repeat something that has never occurred to me before: there has never been a great liberal leader. The best they can muster is McGovern, Humphrey, Dukakis, and Kerry, presidential nominees for sure, but not great leaders. Interestingly, you would call all of these guys "smart," but the rest of us would call them incompetent. No liberal has ever become president, and I expect that none will ever because liberals are so darn incompetent when it comes to decision making.

Justrand.... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Justrand

...did you just call Lee "functional"???

Well, it can type, that's functional. I never said it could form coherent thoughts!

That would be the nicest thing ANYONE EVER said to him/her/it. VERY generous of you!!

Yes, a couple martinis will do that, my only excuse.

McCain, JFK isn't a liberal... (Below threshold)
TM:

McCain, JFK isn't a liberal because he didn't raise taxes? Lberals aren't objectively "pro-tax", whatever that would mean; we have a different conception of what fair taxation is. It was too high before Kennedy, and he responded accordingly. It's not like he tried to gut social security.

And being a hawk doesn't make you a conservative. Conservatives weren't happy that Clinton wanted to take on Milosevic; Trent Lott and Tom DeLay found the idea distasteful, and I think they're conservative. (Argue about Clinton's motives if you want, but I don't know if I've ever defended the guy.) Hawkishness can occur in either a liberal or a conservative, although usually for different reasons.

WW II would never be perceived as unnecessary by anyone today except Pat Robertson and the patchouli crowd who wouldn't have read the newspapers back then either. That's a really shitty comparison that I resent, actually.

TM. Looks like you... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

TM.
Looks like you don't have any plan except a rehash of what Bush already accomplished already. I also show how Bush is much smarter than the Dems.
So in the end, we need to agree that Bush is a pretty smart fellow at least when compared to the current crop of pathetic liberal Dems and their foolish rhetoric/policies.
Again thanks for confirming my point.

JFK isn't a liberal beca... (Below threshold)

JFK isn't a liberal because he didn't raise taxes? ... It was too high before Kennedy, and he responded accordingly. It's not like he tried to gut social security.

JFK isn't a "liberal" in today's sense, just the same as today's "conservatives" are continually accused of abandoning the "classical" conservatism of Goldwater.

Times change, buckwheat; keep up.

And, if anyone was trying to "gut social security" it would be, first, the liberal's liberal Daniel Moynihan, who drafted the plan, and second Bill Clinton who trumpeted it.

Pesky reality. Sorry.


Conservatives weren't happy that Clinton wanted to take on Milosevic; Trent Lott and Tom DeLay found the idea distasteful, and I think they're conservative.

What planet are you from? The major conservative quibble with the idealistic war in Kosovo was that clinton insisted on playing it "safe" -- which is a violation of every tenet of the military tactics rulebook.


WW II would never be perceived as unnecessary by anyone today except Pat Robertson and the patchouli crowd who wouldn't have read the newspapers back then either. That's a really shitty comparison that I resent, actually.

Resent it all you want, bucko, but there were nazi apologists in the US explaining why, a la Ward Churchill, the Nazis were allowed to anschluss and take Poland and invade France. They were -- boo hoo hoo -- effed up the A by Versaille [which is true but irrelevant] and therefore ...

Pretty much exactly like how the effete intellectuals today are rationalizing why the pan-islamists are justified in jihading whomever they want.

But, as you probably know, History is written by the winners, and, well, the nazi apologists were largely written out of "official" minutes.

Today we only know that Joseph Kennedy Sr and Chuckie Lindbergh were pro-nazi, and forget that they influenced a whole passel of twerps.

rwilymz, Good lesso... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

rwilymz,
Good lesson there. Thanks. I learned a few things myself.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy