Regarding the Israel-Hezbollah war, let me see if I can get this straight (regarding this story...I almost want to apologize for continuing to post on this, but I feel like I have to):- Christopher Shays of Connecticut is “outraged” because Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite, wants Israel to stop destroying Lebanon and spoke up on behalf of the people in that country caught in the crossfire.Yes, I realize that we have a vested interest in Israel’s survival – I don’t mean to ignore that. And yes, I realize that, for reasons of political expediency, politicians are tripping over themselves shouting out their support for Israel, since, in an election year, to do anything but that right now would guarantee a loss in November. And yes, I understand that the U.N. has condemned Israeli violence with its resolutions more than it has for terrorist violence carried out against that country (that’s my guess – with emotions running as high as they are, I’m sure someone will call me on that if I’m wrong).
- Democrat Nita Lowey of New York thinks that, by allowing al-Maliki to speak, “we’re giving a platform to Hezbollah.”
- Dubya is opposed to the case fire and cares not a whit about the humanitarian suffering going on in that country, as per usual (which is being shielded from us in as dutiful a way as possible by our corporate media).
- Charles Schumer of New York showed great leadership by not even bothering to show up and hear al-Maliki speak (and yes, I realize that was a calculated political move out of necessity to appease his Jewish constituency).
But with every passing moment, our intervention in that area of the world looks more and more and more and more foolish, especially since this is the only presidential administration in my history (or anyone else’s, I would imagine) that seeks war at the expense of peace.
Update: As far as Bushco's cluelessness is concerned, this is Exhibit A (via Atrios).
And to antagonize Shia Muslims by not calling for an immediate cease fire by Israel only worsens the danger faced by our people in Iraq who need Shia Muslims in that country to find a way to help lessen the danger they face (Shia who may yet be further radicalized the longer the Israel-Hezbollah war rages on).
The fact that this isn’t understood by more people in this country makes it obvious to me that the combatants in Lebanon aren’t the only ones who are nuts.
Update 1 7/26: Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post has more (also via Atrios...probably have to register to read all of it - I'll find out).
Update 2 7/26: Oh, this is just peachy...
2 comments:
How are you going, Doomsayer? This new strategy of bringing troops into Baghdad is the first step in America's retreat from Iraq. What they're doing is pulling out of the countryside and withdrawing to the big city. It's like Crusaders falling back to the fortified castle when there are too many barbarians to battle. They're ceding al Anbar province, the hotbed of the insurgency, back to the people they were fighting. That's going to leave a swath of land from the Syrian border to Baghdad in enemy hands. Mark my words mate, this is "cut and slink" instead of "cut and run." The U.S. has lost this war. And when it is kicked out of Iraq, the commanders will find a way to blame liberals...
Yep - they can't blame Walter Cronkite this time or the media, since they already own that too. But of course, CNN, MSNBC - and especially the Repug Media Channel - will tell us that any lessening of troop strength was a scheduled draw down in anticipation of turning over control of Iraq to the parliament. Sure it is...
Actually, I heard today that Our High Exalted Leader is going to send more of our people into the meat grinder in the name of policing the Iraqis as opposed to supporting any group that could possibly maintain control of that country (I mean, in something that approximates power sharing unlike Shia dominance with Iran's backing, which is where all of this was destined to go anyway).
Good to hear from you - thanks a lot for the informed comment.
Post a Comment