By Cliff Kincaid The July-August issue of Foreign Policy magazine has an article, "How to Defuse the Bolton Bomb," attacking U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton. It is written by Barbara Crossette, identified as U.N. bureau chief for the New York Times from 1994-2001 and now "a consulting editor at the United Nations Association of the United States." The latter is a main component of the pro-U.N. lobby.
But the Times affiliation is what is most interesting. Here we have a case of a former reporter and bureau chief for the Times who covered the United Nations and now works for the pro-U.N. lobby and has put her name on an article attacking America's Ambassador to the world body. This is an example of the "revolving door" between politics and journalism. One has to be a fool to suppose that Crossette's left-wing bias only emerged after she left the employ of the Times. Her work for the U.N. Association demonstrates that left-wing reporters covering the U.N. will always have a home in the U.N. lobby after they leave journalism.
Before going to work for the U.N. Association, she worked for something called U.N. Wire, funded by U.N. sugar daddy Ted Turner.
The piece is laughable. "As is his right," she says, "Bolton has replaced staffers at the mission in New York with loyalists and true believers." She cites only one, Richard "Terry" Miller, who had been added to the Bolton team at the U.S. Mission. Crossette neglects to mention that Peggy Kerry, John Kerry's equally liberal sister, is still at the U.S. Mission to the U.N., where she handles relations with left-wing non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Bolton can't replace her-or most of the staff up there-because they are considered career civil servants.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Those bitching and moaning are perfect contraindicators. Bolton's doing a righteous job. I'll start to worry if they stop squealing.
As for Rice, I suspect there's truth in the worry that Rice has been listening to the jaded bitches at State - and is losing her perspective.
You know, I think Bush should yank her and all of the intel heads out of their chairs and take them to Camp David for a week - let 'em get away from the agency sluts and get their heads straight, again. Maybe bring in a cult deprogrammer or two, LOL. Then get back in there and kick some serious ass.
#2
You know, I think Bush should yank her and all of the intel heads out of their chairs and take them to Camp David for a week - let 'em get away from the agency sluts and get their heads straight, again. Maybe bring in a cult deprogrammer or two, LOL. Then get back in there and kick some serious ass. Posted by: flyover 2006-07-17 05:02
Cirtification of "cult deprogramming" should be mandetory before any of those donks can enter the State cafeteria or executive dining room. What a bunch of brokeback, swishing wing nuts. No wonder General Powell would rather work on his Volvo than discuss his tenure at State.
#3
We've been easing off of UN reform because we have two difficult projects before the UNSC right now. But it is just the timeout between rounds. We have already made ourselves clear to Kofi, and within the last few weeks have been joined by Japan, also a sizeable contributor, that also is demanding reforms.
Money Quote:
What should the Israelis have done instead? They should have treated Hezbollahland as a country, which it basically is, and attacked it. They should have treated Lebanon as a separate country, which it basically is, and left it alone. Mainstream Lebanese have no problem when Israel hammers Hezbollah in its little enclave. Somebody has to do it, and it cannot be them. If you want to embolden Lebanese to work with Israelis against Hezbollah, or at least move in to Hezbollah's bombed out positions, don't attack all of Lebanon.
Israel should not have bombed Central Beirut, which was almost monolithically anti-Hezbollah. They should not have bombed my old neighborhood, which was almost monolithically anti-Hezbollah. They should not have bombed the Maronite city of Jounieh, which was not merely anti-Hezbollah but also somewhat pro-Israel.
Israelis thinks everyone hates them. It isn't true, especially not in Lebanon. But they will make it so if they do not pay more attention to the internal characteristics of neighboring countries.
Moderator note: links go in the 'source' box, not in the text. Thx, AoS.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/17/2006 11:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I like Mike alot, but he is wrong on this hizzies made up 20% of Lebs govt and it went rogue attack another country. Basically it declared war on Israel, so Israel is attacking the country that attack it.
#3
djohn - 80% of the Lebanese govt is non-Hezb, most of that anti-Hezb. Israel's best course is not to change that situation.
This looks like a rogue Hezb operation not supported by or coordinated with the Lebanese government (Iranian and Syrian govts are probably a different story). Totten has spent a lot of recent time in-country in Lebanon trying to learn about exactly these issues so I'd lean to thinking he knows what he's talking about unless you have better info to lay on the table.
#4
This has become personal for Totten, and that's entirely understandable.
But Israel is totally justified in exacting a military price on a government that has failed to disarm Hezbollah. That price has thus far been minimal compared to the damage the IDF could wreak upon Lebanon. Totten should keep that in mind.
#5
I am sorry, but the 80% cannot control the 20% then you are going to get hammered. Lets say Mexico lob 100 missiles into Texas the US would not seperate good Mexicans from the bad when we invaded. We would take out anything that we thought could be used by the enemy.
#6
I sort of see where Totten is coming from. What I would like to see is the MAP of "Hezbollahland".
From all I've read while they are dominant in the south, they are also dominant in sourt Beirut and the Bekka valley. I'm sure that Israel is trying to keep to those areas but there is nothing stopping the Hezbs from moving in and out of "Lebanon". If Michael can garuntee that the Hezbs stay in Hezzieland I'm sure that the Israelis will only attack them there.
#7
There's another dimensiont to this, Alan. Hezb'Allah are using national assets like the coastal radears, the airport etc. to carry out their attacks. It's not jsut a matter of punishing Lebanon - those assets HAVE to be taken away from Hezb'Allah if the attacks are to be ended.
#8
Might one speculate that Israel sent feelers out to the non-Hezbollah part of the Lebanese government to see how much cooperation they could count on, and found the response less than encouraging?
#11
"Totten has spent a lot of recent time in-country in Lebanon trying to learn about exactly these issues so I'd lean to thinking he knows what he's talking about unless you have better info to lay on the table."
Lebanese radar used in targeting.
Hesb'Allah allowed to keep arms and essentially control southern Lebanon
No coherent policy either before or after this event coming from the Lebanese government.
Lebanon border with Syria not under serious control by the former.
Most importantly, Hesb'Allah having free travel in Lebanon.
SOMETHING big hasn't happened in the current round of fighting between Israel and its terrorist foes. That absence represents a potentially fatal change in Israeli policy.
For all of the air-attacks on targets in Lebanon, the Israeli Defense Force has not sent in ground troops. If IDF tanks don't thrust across the border in force in the next few days, it will reflect the greatest crisis of will in Israel's history.
Israel is signaling its enemies that it's afraid to risk its soldiers' lives. And the terrorists read the message clearly. This caution will only encourage Israel's enemies - just when the seemingly inevitable advent of Iranian nuclear weapons poses the greatest threat to Israel since 1948.
Israel faces enormous challenges and metastasizing threats. Like cancer, those threats will only grow worse if not treated aggressively. By trying to establish "psychological leverage" over the Lebanese government and population with attacks on the country's civilian infrastructure, Israel played into the hands of its enemies and came off as a bully in the eyes of the world. Attempts to wage "war-lite" have a heavy price.
Israel is in a fight for its life, but looks irresolute for the first time in its history. It appears shockingly weak where it counts most, in strength of will. And will is one thing Israel's fanatical enemies do not lack.
If, in the coming days, we do not hear the roar of IDF tanks pursuing Israel's enemies, we may one day hear a new lament for the children of Zion.
#2
This is crap. Israel is acting properly. Strategic strikes and covert ops to conserve forces and maximumize effect should be the rule of the day. They are surrounded by the enemy and should only commit forces when they know it will be decisive.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/17/2006 9:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Remember also that Lebanon is tactically not just one country, but two. That is, Syria, on the flank, has to be seen as a serious threat to any ground assault. So any advance is Lebanon has to not only be long, but wide enough to keep the Syrians from dividing the Israeli forces.
This would be done with a quick thrust just north of the border, with lots of SAM support and artillery to pound every ground access from Israel north, cutting off the Israelis in Lebanon. Then the Syrian air force would turn the tables on the trapped Israelis.
The new Russian SAMs the Syrians have could then really punish the IAF trying to protect their ground forces. At that point, even the Lebanese army could be a player.
#9
I think that Peters editorial is ill-timed. If the Israelis really mean to destroy Hezbollah, they are going to have to take some enormous risks. Somehow, they've got to be able to cut Lebanon in two, encircle Hezbollah, and then squeeze until the damn thing dies. A frontal attack across the Lebanese border doesn't work since Hezb will just retreat/go to ground, forcing the Israelis to occupy Beirut again and subjecting their lines of communication to constant harrassment.
I honestly don't know if Israel has the will or resources to attempt this. I personally don't think that they have any choice. But Peters is off the mark here. I agree with 6 that Israel is shaping the battlefield right now. If they haven't attacked in a month, then Peters screed will have more standing.
#12
I think he misses the mark as well. If Israel invades Lebanon in anything more than a smash and dash back to Israeli territory it will eventually be used against them. Brutal occupation and then any withdrawl turned into chased out.
Best not to go in if staying becomes more painful politically. Best case scenerio is to get the lebanese military to occupy the region after Isreal has hammered it and done raids and done as much damage as possible short of full blown tank columns and occupation.
Let the Leb military say they chases Israel out as they drove over the skulls of Hezbollah, whatever it takes to prop up the right people and remove the wrong ones.
#13
How odd that he would time this article to come out before the Israelis would be able to go in. It's like he's trying to communicate directly with Olmert and tell him what needs to be done.
He's a good historian. I think he's falling prey to that desire to direct from the keyboard rather than to report.
#15
Austin Bay has been reporting (via AT&T) that Israel has sent troops into Lebanon, probably about sundown, Lebanon time. Israel has full night vision capabilities, I doubt Hezbullshit has the same.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/17/2006 22:11 Comments ||
Top||
Center-right ruminations follow, so youve been warned. And if these seem like far-right ramblings, you really need to get out more.
A few people wrote to ask why I linked to that shallow cup of froth on the HuffPo the other day; not a few asked why I condemned this but not that, which was the condemnable thing of the week for some. Fine. Consider it condemned. I should just come up with an all-purpose graphic of myself with my lips cinched tighter than a chickens rectum, with the words IF YOU THINK I SHOULD CONDEMN IT THEN I PROBABLY DO, because I am not a great fan of high-octane bile delivered via firehose 24/7. As I have said before, to no effect, I dont believe that people who disagree with me are BAD and EVIL and want the country DESTROYED. (Which is why its always amusing when the courtesy is not returned. The other day at the park I had a mild little conversation with a nice woman wearing a black rubber bracelet that said I DIDNT VOTE 4 BUSH, just in case the matter came up at this childrens birthday party; the moment she discovered I would be voting against Mike Hatch for governor a man she didnt particularly like the temperature dropped 95 degrees, and she excused herself. Because people like me are RUINING MINNESOTA, I guess, and whats worse is that were doing it intentionally. With foreknowledge of the disastrous consequences, which we want.) I think there are ideas that have unfortunate consequences, but for the most part theyre held by people who believe they will have fortunate outcomes. Im sure most people who read this site who disagree with me have the same opinion. We want the best, and the struggle to find agreement is only fruitful if we respect each others motives. You don't have to respect the arguments, of course, but you have to respect the speaker, right up until the moment when they confirm your suspicions and reveal themselves as an utter diq. After that, well, have fun. (Some people in the public sphere come conveniently pre-revealed, which makes them fair game.)
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mike ||
07/17/2006 07:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
All of us in the free world owe Israel an enormous thank-you for defending freedom, democracy, and security against the Iranian cat's-paw wholly-owned terrorist subsidiaries Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel is doing the Lord's work. They are defending their own homeland and very existence, but they are also defending America's homeland as our frontline democratic ally in the Middle East. Commentary's Norman Podhoretz was exactly right when he coined the term World War IV to describe the global terror conflict. Repeatedly hostile actions by the totalitarians in Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and North Korea are all connected. So are the recently foiled terrorist-cell-block plans in Canada, the U.S., London, and elsewhere around the globe. We are fortunate to have a staunch ally like Israel to assist us in this fight.
As Ben Stein recently put it, "God bless Eretz Israel. God bless Israel for having the cojones to stand up for herself." But supporters of freedom and democracy must also say a prayer for President George W. Bush, who has steadfastly stood up for Israel. He outright refuses to publicly ask Israel to stand down.
Continued on Page 49
By David Warren
Southern Lebanon, then Gaza, were two strips of occupied territory from which the Israelis withdrew entirely and unilaterally, removing all Jewish settlements from the latter. As I, and various other "rightwing nuts" predicted, the vacated territories were immediately used as platforms to attack Israel proper. They fell quickly into the hands of the terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, and Hamas, respectively. With direct Israeli supervision withdrawn, the smuggling of weapons increased radically. Effectively fenced in, so they could not send suicide bombers across the Israeli border, the new masters turned instead to rocket attacks and tunnelling.
When the Israelis withdrew, I wrote that they would have no choice but to return to both territories, and clean them out. We are now at that stage. Both Hamas, in Gaza, and Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon, are now proxies of Iran. Hezbollah was created directly by the ayatollahs as a terrorist organization in 1982, to attack American and Israeli targets then in Beirut. Over time, Hezbollah added various charitable operations, creating a false front behind which it could recruit Jihadis, attract and launder foreign donations, cache weapons and ammunition, etc.
IF there was ever any doubt that Israel's response to Hezbollah's hail of rockets was proportionate to the threat they pose to Israeli security, it has been dispelled by attacks launched from southern Lebanon deep into Israel. With Hezbollah guerillas apparently well-armed thanks to money and material from Iran and Syria, Israel has been obliged to strike back in self-defence and to protect its civilian population in the north, including Haifa and Tiberias, a city hitherto thought to have been beyond the range of Hezbollah's rockets. Reports that Hezbollah has an armoury of thousands of rockets capable of reaching Israel's heartlands -- and conceivably its capital, Tel Aviv -- leave it no option because, it's worth repeating, Israel is facing an implacable enemy that denies its right to exist and wants to wipe it from the map.
Hezbollah appears to have little sympathy for its host country, Lebanon. By attacking Israel -- no doubt taking the opportunity to strike by snatching two Israeli troopers while Israel was preoccupied with its mission to free a kidnapped soldier in Gaza to the south -- Hezbollah has invited a red-blooded reaction. No nation can sit back watching missiles rain down on its territory. Retaliation with a purpose has been Israel's modus operandi. It has hit key highways and Beirut airport to make it difficult for Syria to resupply or reinforce Hezbollah, while also attacking the source of the rockets and those who are launching them. If that includes the head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah -- reported yesterday to have been wounded in an Israeli air raid, reports denied by Hezbollah -- then that's the brutal reality of what Israel must do to survive.
Moreover, Israel is doing Lebanon a favour by containing Hezbollah, a parasitic organisation that has outstayed its welcome in the new but fragile democracy that is Lebanon. Better late than never, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora says there can be no sovereign Lebanese state without disarming Hezbollah. Sadly, the Lebanese Government has been unwilling to take the hard steps necessary to achieve this end. Lebanon's army of about 70,000 soldiers is far superior to Hezbollah's guerilla force, estimated at about 6000, but does not appear to have the will to tackle the task of ridding Lebanon of its unwelcome guests. And given that the Lebanese army could spilt along sectarian lines if ordered to disarm Hezbollah, Mr Siniora should thank Israel further: he gets to keep a relatively unified army intact, while also watching Hezbollah arms and missile sites being destroyed, and its influence on Lebanese politics collaterally reduced.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
07/17/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
'WAR never solves anything" is a much-loved slogan of the peace movement. And excepting the fact that Nazism and fascism perished at the sharp end of a bayonet, perhaps the peaceniks have a point. After all, nothing demonstrates the moral superiority of military passivity like the genocides of Rwanda, Srebrenica and Darfur, ne c'est pas?
But even at its best, war is a dirty business. During one of the most morally sublime campaigns in one of history's most ethically defensible conflicts, the good guys inadvertently killed thousands of innocent bystanders. Yet should the Allies have refrained from invading Normandy because 20,000 friendly civilians would die during the campaign to liberate Europe? Would humanity have been better served by perpetuating French suffering under the boot heel of Nazi oppression?
Collateral casualties are a tragic consequence of even the most well-executed military campaigns. But we consign ourselves to pacifism if we set our moral threshold so high to preclude any action that might inadvertently cause non-combatant deaths. And in the cruel world we inhabit, the vulnerable irrelevance of pacifism is an engraved invitation for tyranny to run wild.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
07/17/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Remember, Paleos and Sunnis, etal. the controversies wid Shia Islam will NOT end just becuz one day Israel may potens surreally be defeated or destroyed, ala America vs Secular Socialist + God-based Socialist, America vs Russia + China/unified Asia. Sunni + Shia may had saved Islam and World from America-West-Israel, but can Sunni + Shia save whats left of the world or Islam from each other???
You just have to read this whole post "Surprised" at the link.
[..]
And then you read something like Hal's latest rant and you ponder the arab mentality. We are the only people in the world who talk about dignity and honor when it comes to military conflict, and who will continue fighting losing wars, unprepared and undermilitarized, because of reasons such as "our pride and dignity" and then wonder why the fuck we lose. I mean, can you imagine if the americans acted the same way? They would never have left Vietnam. They would stay in Iraq forever. You don't see a single american saying "we should stay in Iraq because our national pride and dignity are wounded by the insurgents attacks". Only we would use some half assed justification to keep fighting wars we can't win, where we keep getting our asses kicked, and some how don't see the folly in it at all.
And all of this talk about Israel targeting civillians really pisses me off. Let me clear it up for you once and for all: Hamas and Hezbollah don't have military bases: they plan, operate and attack from homes, where their families are. The Israelis, in order to retaliate, they have to attack those homes, which always lead to those women and children, who live in those houses, to die. If Hamas and Hezbollah don;t want civillians to die, don;t fuckin plan your attacks or launch your attacks near civillians. But you know they do this on purpose, so it would look bad on the Israeli if they attacked. Dude, they called the airport 1 hour before they hit it to have it evacuated, they warned all of southern Beirut yesterday to take cover because they don't want to kill them. Not hezbollah. Hezbollah doesn't give a shit who their missiles hit. And somehow, they remain blameless in the arab mind: after all, they are not jews. Listen, you can not talk shit about how you will beat and destory Israel, and then scream "Humanatarian crisis" when they hit you back. Either suffer the consequences of your actions or SHUT THE FUCK UP. I am sick and tired of your fuckin POSING!
I keep thinking that this is the opprutune time for the lebanese army to go in and disarm hezbollah, and end this once and for all. But they won't. Not because they are above it or because of some notions of nationalism or shit like that: they hate Hezbollah more than Israel does. They simply won;t do it because their army is on permenant vacation and can not be botherd to actually fight, well, anyone.
[..]
#2
Lebanon = Paleos > a true nation-state is one that is capable of not only defending territory from all comers but also capable of controlling the most anarchistic or violent stratums/
segments/elements of their own society. Iff Lebanon and Lebanese people(s) can't = won't do that, they have no nationa-state hence better for the country to be divided or given to those whom can. LEBANON RIGHT NOW IS AT RISK OF BEING ANOTHER POLAND OR SUDETENLAND, ETC. And iff one believes that North Vietnam wanted or had an interest in the southern Vietcong being wiped out by America during Tet 1968, SUNNI MUSLIMS = TET VIETCONG, as vv the Radical Shias and Tehran.
#3
The second highest ranking VietCong ever, who later defected to France, clearly stated in his memoirs that the NVA deliberately use Tet as a means of exterminating the nationalist elements of the VC. The NVA was stunned by the media backstabbing on the US military, and then pushed Tet for all the political hay they could make.
United States intelligence officials believe that the current crisis in the Middle East, that began with incursions into Israel and abductions of soldiers followed by terrorist attacks against the Israeli people, is being fomented by Iran.
The hatred of the Jewish State is no where more evident than in Iran with rhetoric reminiscent of the dark days of Hitler's rise to power. Meanwhile there are a number of so-called experts, such as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who continue to tell the American people and the world that while the Iranian government despises Israelis, the people of Iran don't share those views of hatred and ill-will.
Unfortunately, the truth is the Iranian people share their leaders' hatred for the Jews, according to a recent survey conducted by a polling company owned by an Arab-American, who was allowed access to the Iranian population.
Iranians showed almost total agreement, regardless of age or gender; when asked if the state of Israel is illegitimate and should not exist, 67% agreed and only 9% disagreed, according to the Zogby International poll.
Also, a majority (64%) said they would be willing to suffer through a bad economy if that were the price the country had to pay to develop its nuclear program. Also, 25% said they would blame the United States if the United Nations imposed nuclear-related sanctions, although nearly 40% said they were not sure whom to blame. Only one in six would blame Iran's own government. If their country were to develop nuclear weapons, 25% said it would make the Middle East a safer place, but 35% disagreed with that statement.
Despite tensions between the United States and Iran, most Iranians -- nearly two-thirds -- said they don't believe that the two countries will go to war in the next decade. Iranian men were more interested than women in making the economy work better. Among men, 47% said the economy should be a top government priority, while just 33% of women agreed. The older the respondent, the less important they considered development of a nuclear arsenal.
When it came to their view of the United States, there was a split between the generations. Older Iranians were much more likely to admire the American people and society than younger Iranians. John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International, hypothesized that this generational split may be due in part to the lack of exposure to Americans over the past two decades.
Younger and older Iranians would favor a more conservative, religious society, while those aged 30-49 said they would favor a more liberal, secular culture. What is striking is that just 15% said Iranian culture should stay just the way it is right now. Women were more likely than men to say they wanted a more liberal, secular society.
Among those Iranians with Internet access, 41% said they wanted a more religious culture, compared to 33% who said they wanted a more secular society.
The attitudes of younger Iranians toward the government, people and policies of the United States have been shaped by years of isolation, largely conservative religious leadership, and anti-US rhetoric. This group is consistently more negative in its attitudes towards Americans and the American government than are older Iranians. However, new technology, including satellite television and the Internet, could be used as tools that connect young Iranians with other nations in the region, and the West, according to Zogby.
Those technologies -- Internet access and satellite TV ownership -- appeared to influence attitudes among Iranians, as did gender. Iranians with access to the Internet or satellite TV were significantly more likely than their "unconnected" compatriots to identify the United States as the country they admire the most.
They were also significantly less likely to pick the US government as the one they admire the least: one in three Iranians without Internet access (34%) chose the United States as least admired, compared with fewer than one in five Iranians with Internet access (18%), the poll shows.
The American government also appeared to attract more admiration from Iranians who favor a more secular or liberal direction for Iran.
#5
Zogby starts with an opinion and manufactures a poll that supports it
Posted by: Captain America ||
07/17/2006 20:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The poll confirms what I suspected of Iranian opinion, conditioned as it is. I believe that anti-regime action should not involve heavy attacks on Teheran, because the real capitol of Iran is: Qom. Attack Qom, miltary targets on the strait of Hormuz and the missile launch and nuke sites, and everything else will fall into place. Ahmadinejad has been looking like a winner to Iranians; once he loses that image, he is gonzo.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The July-August issue of Foreign Policy magazine has an article, "How to Defuse the Bolton Bomb," attacking U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton. It is written by Barbara Crossette, identified as U.N. bureau chief for the New York Times from 1994-2001 and now "a consulting editor at the United Nations Association of the United States." The latter is a main component of the pro-U.N. lobby.
