From Galliawatch. Fits well with the feeling I get watching the news on lci ("conservative") and i-télé (limousine liberals), which are in full "Isreal is the ennemy of peace" mode, IMHO. Unanimity reigns supreme, not a single dissisdent voice; France truly is the realm of the "Pensée Unique" (unique thought, establshment driven orthodoxy).
Browsing through the French websites, one finds mostly condemnation of Israel, or at the very least, a kind of perplexity: why would Israel do such a thing? If Jean-Marie Le Pen has been evasive with regard to Islam, he shows no retinence as far as Israel is concerned. His position puts him in the same camp with the noted scholar of Middle East issues and funny man, and überleftist activist driven by hate and resentment against the catholics, the jooos ("zionists") and whitey... all this in name of the so-called "republican values" threatened by you-know-who.
Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala. This strange alliance was the topic of one of my posts back in May. dieudonné ("God given") has in fact remarked he was the left equivalent of pépé Le Pen he admired IIRC for his straight talking, and he wished to be pitted against him at the second turn of the 2007 presidential election.
These two communiqués, once again, illustrate the "unholy alliance" between the Front National and the bloc composed of immigrants, Muslims, blacks, celebrities, the left-wing, the so-called conservatives, and, in general, anti-Semites of all stripes and all conditions. The first one is from Le Pen's website:
Jean-Marie Le Pen expresses his great concern over the Israeli military interventions in Palestine, and now in Lebanon.
These hostilities, that are looking more and more like war, cannot be justified by the kidnapping, however surprising, of one or two Israeli soldiers.
Furthermore, the increased pressure on Iran, the unfolding of a veritable civil war in Iraq and the persistent armed confrontations in Afghanistan constitute an ever greater threat to the peace, not only of the region, but of the entire world. Henceforth, the increase in the price of oil places the economic balance of the world in danger.
Jean-Marie Le Pen calls on the various national and international leaders to act immediately to restore lasting conditions for peace and international security.
Now, from our celebrity candidate for the presidency of France, Dieudonné, who seems to feel that French politicians are siding with Israel:
The Israeli expansionist and racist policy is now out in the open both in Lebanon and in Gaza. The State of Israel used as a pretext the rather suspicious kidnapping of soldiers to launch a massive terrorist offensive against the forces of Palestinian resistance in Gaza and in Lebanon.
It will be noted that these obvious violations of international law, not to mention the most basic humanity, are taking place with the tacit support not only of the USA, but also an important number of French politicians.
Thus, Nicolas Sarkozy, representative of the neo-conservative political trend, not content with having admittedly approved the American aggression in Iraq, now openly supports the Israeli terrorist actions and hides no longer his desire for France to recapture her empire.
I call on all free men in this country to muster up their courage, as the former President of the Constitutional Council, Roland Dumas, has just done, to call a spade a spade, and to assemble for the purpose of demanding that the French authorities condemn the Israeli aggression and that they initiate immediately a dialogue with the elected representatives of the Palestinian people and with the representatives of Hezbollah.
I call on the Jewish organizations of France to exhibit prudence and to cease igniting ethnic tensions through their unconditional support for the policies of Israel.
I hope that Roland Dumas, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, initiates a gathering of all those who seek peace in the Middle East, and who wish to see France initiate steps as she did at the time of the Gulf War, out of respect for her principles and her friendly relations with the Arab-Muslim world.
In addition, the remarks of a deputy from Yvelines, Jacques Myard, have surprised and dismayed some, including the administrator of Occidentalis, Denis Greslin and the Google group Via-Resistancia. Myard apparently has said that "the French government must take all possible measures, including military action, against Israel."
The writer at Via-Resistancia, as transmitted by Occidentalis, laments:
So this is what France is sinking into, back with her former demons from the '40's, when it was fun to spit on Jews, before sending them to the camps...
Never in my life have I felt so ashamed to be a Frenchman. For a long time, Roosevelt and Churchill debated whether or not to consider France as an ally or as an enemy like Italy. Finally Churchill is said to have convinced Truman to place her in the camp of the victors. But 60 years later, we are forced to admit that she did not belong there...
#1
For a long time, Roosevelt and Churchill debated whether or not to consider France as an ally ... But 60 years later, we are forced to admit that she did not belong there
I'm normally a defender of France here, but that statement struck a nerve with it's truth.
#2
I call on the Jewish organizations of France to exhibit prudence and to cease igniting ethnic tensions through their unconditional support for the policies of Israel.
Let me see if I can translate that properly - Jews! Don't support Israel, uncontrollable "youths" in our no-go areas are likely to be offended by it and start burning our stuff again. Since we believe there is nothing worth fighting for, and although you are technically French you are by race inherently evil zionists anyway who would be better off dead so we aren't going to defend you from these "youths". Enjoy your day.
#3
Roosevelt and Churchill debated whether or not to consider France as an ally or as an enemy like Italy.
Let's get our history straight. The very first major American military operation [multi-division] in WWII was the invasion of neutral French North Africa. Without a declaration of war or even an authorization from Congress, Roosevelt launched an invasion of sovereign French territory without anymore notice than the Japanese had done at Pearl Harbor. The hard fighting and fiasco that happened there is well chronicled in An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkinson. Could there be any doubt?
#6
JerseyMike, the guys writing this are first and foremost "youths" and/or pro "youth" leftists, not mainstream-postmodernist-antisemite-froggies as you seem to belive...
dieudonné defines himself as "black", though he is a metis, and his ire against the "zionists" dates back (in his open virulent) form to the refusal from the powers-that-be (french movie industry is of course subsidized) of funding his whitey-culpabilizing movie on slavery, a refusal he blamed on the joooos being unwilling to share their piece of the "victimization action".
In fact, he blames the jooos for taking all the blanket for themselves about the Shoah, and not recognizing the True Victims(Tm) are actually the oppressed blacks, not them.
#8
Also the supposedly black ativist Dieudonné has not stopped whhinning about Palestinians all while being deafeningly silent about Sudan. His only hate is against Jews not against teh opressors of Blacks.
#9
Thanks for the clarification Anon5089, I must have missed that part. I don't really think that I would have changed the tone of my comment all that much with that knowledge though.
My observations are that while Bolton is not perfect, he has demonstrated his ability, especially in recent months, to work with others and follow the president's lead by working multilaterally. In recent weeks I have watched him react to the challenges involving North Korea, Iran and now the Middle East, speaking on behalf of the United States.
I believe Bolton has been tempered and focused on speaking for the administration. He has referred regularly to "my instructions" from Washington, while also displaying his own clear and strong grasp of the issues and the way forward within the Security Council. He has stood many times side by side with his colleagues from Japan, Britain, Canada and other countries, showing a commitment to cooperation within the United Nations.
The deteriorating situation in the Middle East cannot be ignored. The terrorist organization Hezbollah has all but formally declared war on Israel, taking Israeli prisoners and launching more than 1,000 rockets into Israel over the past week. I can see the lip starting to quiver.
The United States, along with the rest of the free world, must confront Iran and North Korea and defend Israel and its democracy while working to bring stability to the entire Middle East and Darfur.
Ambassador Bolton's appointment expires this fall when the Senate officially recesses. Should the president choose to renominate him, I cannot imagine a worse message to send to the terrorists -- and to other nations deciding whether to engage in this effort -- than to drag out a possible renomination process or even replace the person our president has entrusted to lead our nation at the United Nations at a time when we are working on these historic objectives.
For me or my colleagues in the Senate to now question a possible renomination would jeopardize our influence in the United Nations and encourage those who oppose the United States to make Bolton the issue, thereby undermining our policies and agenda.
Should the president send his renomination to the Senate, I will vote to confirm him, and I call on my Democratic colleagues to keep in mind the current situation in the Middle East and the rest of the world should the Senate have an opportunity to vote. I do not believe the United States, at this dangerous time, can afford to have a U.N. ambassador who does not have Congress's full support. It would have taken up a lot less paper to write I. Was. Wrong.> or I. Am. Stupid. or...
You can't call this the Arab-Israeli war of '06, since some of the usual belligerents have declined to participate. You could call it World War III, as Newt Gingrich has suggested, but that annoys everyone who wanted the Cold War to be WWIII, never mind that we got it out of the way without a nuclear swapmeet. You could call it the Israel-Hezbollah War, but that lets Syria and Iran off the hook.
So let's just call it Bush's Fault. At least that's what Howard Dean proposes. The energetic head of the Democratic National Committee had this to say:
"If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had ... when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians."
Does Dean mean the Oslo accords? Clinton had been president less than a year. What's more, Norwegian diplomats did all the heavy lifting (specifically, suspending disbelief about Yasser Arafat's motives, which can throw your back out if you're not careful).
Does Dean mean the Camp David negotiations, which ended in the bloody second intifada? Details, details. Moral Authority, that's what counts. Doesn't stop wars, but it makes the bad guys look extra guilty. Ingrates!
This is not to underestimate Clinton's ability to make other diplomats feel good about themselves or to produce impressive pieces of paper. But Mr. Clinton, at least, is not running in 2008, and neither Al Gore nor John Kerry had Clinton's conspicuous gift for oleaginous empathy.
Then again, who knows? Perhaps Gore would have Moral Authority gushing out his ear if he'd become president and chosen to leave Saddam in power. No question Hezbollah would have been impressed -- perhaps enough to aim the rockets a little to the left, so they'd land on the outskirts of the playgrounds.
But the revealing moment in Dean's assertion was its touching faith in Talk and Work. President Gore or Kerry would have been working day after day after day on the issue. Nonstop! Sleeves rolled up, dinner at the desk: Make another pot of coffee, Mabel, this Golan Heights dispute won't solve itself.
This suggests the Democrats belive the difficulties of the Middle East have the weight and consequence of a tariff dispute. This suggests they don't understand that Hezbollah's definition of "disarm" is blowing off Israeli limbs.
Imagine a typical negotiation ...
Fierce-eyed Hezbollah representative: Thank you for the invitation; lovely office. Death to Israel.
Gullible American: Well, that's just rhetoric; we understand.
Hezbollah: It is not rhetoric. It is truth. The Zionist entity is a festering infected splinter in the lip of the Caliphate.
(Pause)
American: So you're saying you want some antibiotics as well? We can do that. But you have to show us you're ready to coexist with Israel.
Hezbollah: We recognize the right of Israel to exist, but only as a footnote in history books.
American: So we agree on principle, and the rest is just a matter of details. Great! We'll draw up the treaty for the signing ceremony. You're going to love the pens. They're Cross. Smoothest pen you've ever used.
Hezbollah: I will save it to plunge into the heart of the last Jew to crawl towards the sea.
American: Do you need your parking validated?
(Repeat until the most recent accords fall apart, then call for new accords.)
Howard Dean is not a stupid man; he knows Iran and Syria are the real actors behind this game. But his words placate the Democrats' netroots activists who think Bush is stumping the country blaming the Hezbollah attacks on Max Cleland.
Fine. If Israel eliminates Hezbollah, humiliates the fascists of Syria and lets Lebanon get on with the Cedar Revolution devoid of murder-gang influence, will that be Bush's doing?
Of course not. He doesn't have Moral Authority, like Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2006 10:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This guy is fun to read. Pat Buchannan is just dreary.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/20/2006 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
The conventional wisdom is that the United States is so tied down that it can't do much about the rocket attacks on Israel, the blatant sponsorship of terrorists by Iran and Syria, or the Iranian nuclear program.
Oil prices are already sky-high. Any unilateral American action might disrupt tight global supplies. That would derail the economies of our Western allies and only further enrich enemies with windfall profits.
Trying to win hearts and minds for the fragile democracy in Iraq also means we can't afford to offend Arab sensitivities elsewhere. And a lame-duck George Bush, low in the polls and facing uncertain congressional elections this fall, certainly doesn't want to involve the American taxpayer with more costly commitments abroad.
But despite that sound conventional wisdom, an exasperated West is running out of choices in the Middle East.
For years, the Arab world clamored for the Israel "problem" to be solved. Then peace and security would at last supposedly reshape the Middle East. The Western nations understood the "problem" as being Israeli retention of lands it had captured in Sinai, the West Bank, Gaza, Syria and Lebanon after defeating a series of Arab forces bent on destroying the Jewish state.
But after the Israeli departure from Sinai, Gaza and Lebanon, and billions of dollars in American aid to Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians, there is still not much progress toward peace. Past Israeli magnanimity was seen as weakness. Now Israel's reasoned diplomacy has earned it another round of kidnapping, ransom and rocket attacks.
Finally, the world is accepting that the Middle East problem was never about so-called occupied land -- but only about the existence of Israel itself. Hezbollah and Hamas, and those in their midst who tolerate them (or vote for them), didn't so much want Israel out of Lebanon and Gaza as pushed into the Mediterranean altogether. And since there will be no second Holocaust, the Israelis may well soon transform a perennial terrorist war that they can't easily win into a conventional aerial one against a terrorist-sponsoring Syria that they can.
For its part, the United States has spent thousands of lives and billions in treasure trying to birth democracy in Iraq. We wished to end our old cynical support for Middle East dictators that earned us such scorn and instead give liberated Iraqis a choice other than either theocracy or autocracy.
In multilateral fashion, America has also welcomed the help of the European Union, the United Nations, China and Russia in convincing the Iranians of the folly of producing nuclear weapons. But like Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran does not wish to parley -- just as the beheaders and kidnappers in Iraq don't, either.
The two most liberal societies in Europe -- Denmark and the Netherlands -- welcomed almost anyone to their shores from the Middle East. Their multicultural hospitality was supposed to have led to a utopian "diverse" nation of various races, nationalities and religions.
Instead, such liberality has earned both small nations pariah status in the Muslim world for the supposed indiscretions of a few freewheeling filmmakers and cartoonists.
Yet for all their threats, what the Islamists -- from Hezbollah in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley to the Iranian government in Tehran to the jihadists in Iraq's Sunni Triangle -- don't understand is that they are slowly pushing tired Westerners into a corner. If diplomacy, or aid, or support for democracy, or multiculturalism, or withdrawal from contested lands, does not satisfy radical Islamists, what would?
Perhaps nothing.
What then would be the new Western approach to terrorism? Hard and quick retaliation -- but without our past concern for nation-building, or offering a democratic alternative to theocracy and autocracy, or even worrying about whether other Muslims are unfairly lumped in with Islamists who operate freely in their midst.
Any new policy of retaliation -- in light both of Sept. 11 and the messy efforts to birth democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the West Bank -- would be something of an exasperated return to the old cruise-missile payback. Yet in the new world of Iranian nukes and Hezbollah missiles, the West would hit back with something far greater than a cruise missile.
If they are not careful, a Syria or Iran really will earn a conventional war -- not more futile diplomacy or limited responses to terrorism. And history shows that massive attacks from the air are something that the West does well.
So in the meantime, let us hope that democracy prevails in Iraq, that our massive aid is actually appreciated by the Middle East, that diplomacy ultimately works with Iran, that Syria quits supporting terrorists, and that Hamas and Hezbollah cease their rocket attacks against Israel -- more for all their sakes than ours.
#2
Professor Hanson's last paragraph sets forth his hopes for the ME. I prefer to frame his hopes as questions.
In the foreseeable future:
Will democracy (western style) prevail in Iraq ? (Not likely.)
Will massive US aid to the ME be appreciated? (No, never.)
Will diplomacy work with Iran? (No, never.)
Will Syria stop supporting terrorists? (No.)
Will Hamas and Hezbollah stop firing rockets and missles into Israel? (No, never.)
Hanson says Western patience may be wearing thin. I wish that was true, but I don't think it is. In order to extinguish the threat posed by islam to the West (indeed, to the world) we'll need more allies then we currently have. The "elites" of Western Civilization have not yet shown they grasp or recognize the threat posed to the world by islam. Far too many of those in power (those who currently govern us), those who influence those who govern us, fail to acknowledge the truth: islam is the root source/cause of the problem.
This is not going to end well. My young duaghter, my god-children, my nieces and nephews, the children of my friends and their children will inherit an ugly world in the not too distant future all because we adults dithered while there was still time to push islam back from the borders of civilization.
Muslims will not police themselves. Muslims resent the suggestion that they need to police themselves. Muslims believe they have the perfect religion handed to them straight from their god through his perfect messanger. Muslims will not change. Muslims expect everyone else to change to fit the Muslim way of existence. An objective description of islam is: a violent, intolerant polictical ideology pretending to be a religion.
I will cast my vote in support of the politician who states this truth. Meanwhile, I will arm myself in anticipation of the next civil war.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
07/20/2006 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This is not going to end well.
Yes, it will. The intermediate term will get very ugly. But in the end, all will be well.
#4
I think it was a good article and the Muslim world would be wise to heed his words. I don't agree that all Muslims are a bunch of sandmonkeys that want to kill their neighbors. They have good people who just want to live their lives and bad people who go around stirring up trouble for short-sighted political gain or perverse personal satisfaction just like we do. I've said it a million times already, but I'll say it again - they are little different than our leftists who may not go around beheading people, but are actively cheering those who do.
The problem with the Middle East is that so many of them are illiterate and their religion appeals to man's worse nature - rather than to his better nature as Judeo/Christian values do. Revenge, humiliation, blame and intolerance are the values they preach. It's why their once enlightened societies haven't moved forward from the 7th century.
I take hope in a piece I read on LGF today (from Real Clear Politics (I think) stating that there is still a brief window of time when level headed nations can come together and put an end to this with minimal bloodshed instead of all out war. I hope that's right - because if they don't, it's going to get very ugly, very soon because there is just no other way it can go.
#5
While I have some agreement, other parts I take issue with. For instance my long-term axioms:
1) The big military issue for the US since 1991 is the possibility of war with China. Start from the assumption that we (both sides) have been planning elaborate worldwide strategies for years now. One of the biggest contests between us is for resources, especially oil. A recent twist is that India might get into a fight with China first.
2) Iran is in the same position as pre WWII Japan. It should be an economic power, but it wants to dominate not by commerce, but militarily.
3) Iraq is at the center of things on the far side of the world. Africa, Europe, the ME and Central Asia. To have strategic bases there would be like a supersized aircraft carrier as far as the US is concerned.
Now, this being said, I suspect that the Iraqi democracy will survive. We have almost finished creating a military and police for them capable of not just handling internal problems, but defending their country in a conventional war against Iran. If they can obtain an air force, ballistic missile defenses, and heavy mechanized forces, they could actually beat Iran.
So Iran is now starting up unconventional nonsense here, there and elsewhere. Lebanon, Gaza and WB, Somalia, Bosnia, and probably even in SE Asia. All with the intent of dividing the west in so many fronts that they ignore Iran until it has its bomb.
But Iran really has no grasp of how very powerful the great militaries of the planet are. It thinks its pitiful forces are equal to the US, Russia, and China, and better than everybody else. It thinks its ballistic missiles are undefeatable. And that its strategy will overwhelm us.
But so far, Israel has stymied Gaza and Lebanon, and its military still has plenty of chutzpah. It could fight Syria right now, too. No problem. Just Israel. Whether it can get over itself enough to stop the nonsense for good, however, is questionable. But Hezbollah and Hamas are going to be a LOT worse for wear.
The US and its allies keep getting stronger, not weaker, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the US is rebuilding its military might, not being drained in a (laughable) "quagmire". Our military industrial complex is not just fulfilling the needs of the military, but innovating and building *new* weapons systems in "emergency production", like THAAL.
Diplomatically, we are patience itself, because we are laying diplomatic groundwork everywhere, and in a masterful manner. When push comes to shove, Iran will be cut off from its friends, and upset that its oil manipulations won't matter at all.
As annoying as it is, it not only saves American lives, but it accomplishes our war goals before even a shot is fired. We want to win even before that first shot is fired, if possible. Everywhere, the Iranians should meet "lose-lose" scenarios and closed doors.
#6
I've read almost every word VDH has ever written. He should stick to his forté, Classics, where his contributions are useful and stimulating. Unfortunately, almost every prediction he has made about the Middle East for the last four years has been wrong. He told us in the first year of the Iraq confllict that "victory" would come "soon." Four years later and still waiting for victory, Vic. Not that he (or anyone on this website) has ever bothered to define "victory" in any meaningful terms. He formerly intoned that the rising military and civilian carnage was akin to the bloody final days of WWII. Well by this relative chronological point in in WWII, every single member of the Axis was firmly on the run. In contrast, Iraq looks to end up as one or more warring Islamic fundamentalist mini-states. North Korea is lobbing missiles over Japan and Iran is a hair's breadth away from getting the bomb. If the war on terrorism, in good Clauzewitzian form, is actually an instrument of foreign policy, WE ARE LOSING by any measurable criterion.
If we were going to do this, we should have taken a look at how successful occupations of formerly fascist powers work - massive infantry footprint (remember Shinseki's 500,000?) and generation-long presence. That's how it worked in Japan and Germany and they had an established history of parliamentary government! The British transformation of India took much longer (almost a century) due to a lack of that indigenous experience. But in the case of Iraq, this would require a draft in the US and that's the last thing anyone wants. Even VDH doesn't have the stomach or inclination for that!
VDH was also among those who thought the Iraqis would 'welcome us with roses and kisses.' He should have consulted his beloved Greek Historians first: "Nomos (customary practice) is King," (Herodotos) and 'what people really want isn't freedom, but to be left to their own political system' (Thucydides) afford little consolation for those who think that 1200 years of Arab authoritarianism can be transformed in a short period. Democracy is largely an epiphenomenon of institutions (nomoi), and institutions/customs like equal justice under law, pluralism, and secularism in government do not just spring full blown from the head of Zeus . Democracy is not revolutionary, it is evolutionary.
Please send any resoponding post to my email as well.
#2
Yea. TW, wishfull thinking. However, there is a sufi branch of Islam (name slipped through memory cracks) that insists on necessity of existence of Israel, so I thought he may be one of its adherents and yes, there is more than one of them. ;-)
A few interesting points. I posted it as I love this little gem:
This line from an editorial in the London-based, independent paper al-Quds al-Arabi, is typical of much of the coverage: "Mere talk about ceasefire is a defeat to Israel and a victory to the resistance because the psychological and moral harm which befell the Israelis is much bigger than the harm which hit the Lebanese people and the resistance protects them."
#1
What is happening in Lebanon looks like being another stage in this process, with the Arab media not just reporting on events there but playing a part in how the situation evolves.
The reporters and their editors and station owners aren't really good at that cause and effect thingy, are they? You don't need to be psychic to see where their "playing a part" will take them. They will become legitimate targets in the war. It's not cheap or inexpensive to replace all of that broadcasting equipment and reporters by their nature make easy targets.
It's just one more example of how these barbarians have permanently damaged thousands of years of advancing civilization and taken away civilities and liberties that we won't get back in our lifetime.
#2
I assume the BBC is embeded with the terrorists and it's reporters should be shot on sight as spys and agent provocateurs for islamo-facism and full blown stalinist communism.
by Al Stewart (from his CD, Between the Wars)
I'm here sitting in the wreck of Europe
With a map of Europe
Spread out in a hall of Versailles
And every single nationality and principality
have come for a piece of the pie
I'm sitting in the wreck of Europe
With a map of Europe
And the lines and the borders are gone
We've got to do this jigsaw puzzle
It's an awful muddle
But somehow we've got to go on
Lawrence of Arabia is waiting in the wings
He's got some Arab sheikhs and kings
And we're in debt to them somehow
Lawrence of Arabia has got this perfect vision
Gonna sell him down the river
There's no time for him now
I think I'm gonna take a piece of Russia
And a Piece of Germany
And give them to Poland again
I'll put together Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia
And hope that is how they'll remain
Then I'll take a bit of Turkey
Then a lot of Turkey
This is all quite a heady affair
There's Persia and Iraq to pick up
And there's Churchill's hiccup
And we can't leave it up in the air
Woodrow Wilson waves his fourteen points around
And says "The time to act is now
Won't get this opportunity again"
Woodrow Wilson has his fourteen points
But Clemenceau turns to Lloyd George
And says "You know that
God himself had only ten"
Today I'm carried by a league of notions
(It's a league of notions)
By a league of notions
I don't think I quite understand
(I don't think I understand)
I only know from this commotion
(From this commotion)
There's a chance that we could turn
The world in the palm of our hands
(We can turn the world in the palm of our hands)
Voices in the corridors of power
Candles burning hour by hour
Still you know that to the victors go the spoils
Such a great responsibility to make it fair
And there must be some reparations now
And don't forget the oil
Today I'm carried by a league of notions
(It's a league of notions)
By a league of notions
I don't think I quite understand
(I don't think I understand)
I only know from this commotion
(From this commotion)
There's a chance that we could turn
The world in the palm of our hands
(We can turn the world in the palm of our hands)
July 20, 2006: The Maliki "Diplomatic Offensive." The Israeli-Hizbollah war, with its implied threat of ever widening hostilities, may actually help further the cause of a more stable Iraq. With most Arab governments, largely Sunni in religious orientation, almost all blaming the conflict on Hizbollah, and by implication its Shia Iranian backers, Iraq's Shia Prime Minister, Nouri al Maliki, seems to be stepping up a personal "diplomatic offensive" which has already seen him meeting the leaders of several Arab countries (Saudi, Qatar, Kuwait, etc.), with more to come (notably Jordan). While Sunni Arab leaders are not necessarily thrilled over a Shia-dominated Iraq, a stable Iraq (with protection for the Sunni minority), would be a bulwark against Iranian ambitions in the region.
The "war" in Iraq has come down to a competition between Sunni Arab and Shia death squads, to see who can rack up the highest body count. While most Iraqi Sunni Arabs fear for their lives, and continued ability to live in Iraq, the Shia radicals fear only Sunni suicide bombs. The bombing attacks increasingly target radical Shia militias, mainly those loyal to Muqtada al Sadr. Lacking the equipment and trained personnel to carry out an efficient counter-terror operations, Sadr has ordered his guys to just go out and kill lots of Sunni Arabs, any way they can, each time an Sunni bomb goes off in a Shia neighborhood. This has been going on for the last three months, leaving nearly 10,000 civilians dead. The Sunni terrorists and Shia death squads stay away from Iraqi and foreign troops and police.
Even with al Qaeda crippled, there are still several Sunni Arab groups, mainly driven by a radical religious views ("Shia are heretical scum"), who believe that the Shia can still be terrorized into submission. Or, as some believe, a "civil war" can be triggered. This, so the myth goes, will arouse the Sunni Arab masses. Some radicals believe that the Sunni Arabs are actually the majority of Iraqis (actually, they are less than 20 percent, closer to 15 percent these days as more of them flee the country). Other radicals believe that, if Shia death squads kill enough Sunni Arabs, the Sunni Arab nations will be forced to invade and crush the upstart Shia once and for all. It's left rather vague exactly what the U.S. forces would do if Syrian, Jordanian, Kuwaiti and Saudi troops suddenly entered the country.
The government knows that there are only a few dozen, at most, gangs involved in all this killing. The current deal is for the Sunni Arab community to shut down their thugs, while the government takes out the Shia militias. The government has started carrying out their end of the deal, but the Sunni Arabs have moved more slowly. This is because the Sunni Arab thugs are paranoid, quick on the trigger, and willing to murder prominent Sunni Arabs. The Sunni Arabs fear trapped, caught between their own radicals, and the majority of Iraqis (Kurds and Shia Arabs), who would just as soon see Iraq free of Sunni Arabs. The hatreds go deep, Saddam's decades of brutality against Kurds and Shia Arabs saw to that. While pundits go on about Iranian desires to dominate Iraq, the reality is more about vengeance against Sunni Arabs for past sins. Nothing too complicated, but it's a fire that's very difficult to put out.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2006 10:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
In trying to bring together my thoughts on the developments in Israel over the past week, I harkened back to my reading of No Victor, No Vanquished back in 1984. And in reviewing it, I was less struck by the content and more struck by the title. For, indeed, the title tells us more about what lies ahead than do any of the tactical or strategic elements in the book.
Ending a conflict with no victor, no vanquished is a recipe for the initiation of a follow on action. Stalemates beget further action, for the issues and forces at play in the initiation of the conflict are not removed from the situation, they are only stifled from reaching their dynamic conclusion. Stalemates are often imposed by artificial interventions political, public opinion, super-power meddling; so such interventions dont solve the problems, they only delay the inevitable, future realignment of energies, that will result in further conflict.
Our own freedom was not won with a crushing of the British Army, but more a collapse of British will. Without having suffered a crushing defeat, the British were only tempted to try again in 1812.
The resolute defeat of the South that ended the American Civil War, squashed any notion of future secessionist movements in the South.
The politically agreed to Armistice that concluded World War I, only delayed the inevitable, larger war that was necessary to usher out the Franco-Prussian-Anglo-Russo-European martial culture, with its periodic continental conflicts, that had dominated the European landscape for centuries. The crushing defeat of Germany in World War II, the weariness of the rest of the continent, save the USSR, and the costs of fielding a modern army finally ended the near continuous cycle of cross border invasions in Europe. It was the clear defeat of the evil in the Nazi regime, and the coalescing of the good forces of the Allies, that has spared Europe from continental conflict since. An ambiguous outcome would not have provided sixty years of European stability and peace.
The advent of terrorism, coupled with the flooding of weapons into the third world, has given rise to a new type of modern army. This is not an army of technological superiority, or of sophisticated weaponry. This is an army of lightly armed, ruthless
Ideologues. It is an army that seeks war when peace is possible. It is an army that launches unguided munitions into non-military target areas. It is an army that manipulates the governments that shield it, the people it represents, international agencies by the score, and the salivating MSM that covers its every move. It is an army that butchers prisoners, and murders innocents. It is an evil force, and as such it must be defeated.
The only way to achieve longstanding peace in the Middle East is to let these forces come to equilibrium on their own terms. This may indeed result in the politically incorrect notion that one party will be defeated, but this is preferable to the false peace of the last 33 years that resulted in hundreds of Israelis being slain innocently in their streets by an endless stream of evil homicide bombers and cross border rocket attacks.
H&H escalated the unstable, costly peace into war. Let them bear every burden of the fury that they have unleashed they deserve it.
The international community should not interfere, no matter how much the MSM skews the presentation of the facts and ignores its causes. Loss of civilian life is compelling, but no more so than when Israel was losing its citizens when it was supposedly at peace.
Israel needs to press hard and defeat H&H. It is the only way they will see peace. The brokered deals of the past have produced only meaningless Nobel Peace Prizes and no respite from assault they promise no hope in the future. The only hope is for Israel to vanquish H&H, and for the good nations of the world to coalesce against evil. A stalemate will only delay the inevitable...the convergence of these forces at a point in time when one defeats the other, and the vanquished chooses peace over death. We are on the precipice of being there now. There is no reason for Israel to stop. There is no reason for us to try to stop them.
Traditionally, at this point in her response to terror attacks, the world diplomatic community persuades Israel to agree a ceasefire, and the terrorists are saved to fight another day. This is what happened in 1982. The Israelis were in a position to annihilate Yasser Arafat's PLO, whom they had surrounded in Beirut. Instead, they agreed to let them escape to Tunisia. The rest is history: recurring again and again.
Kofi Annan is trying to do the same thing over: to save Hezbollah (this time) with a ceasefire, by promising Israel that a large force of international "peacekeepers" will take their place. But a U.N. force is no likelier to disarm Hezbollah than the Lebanese army was (when Lebanon agreed to disarm Hezbollah, most recently in 2004). After a brief lull in the shooting, and a chance to regroup and rebuild, Hezbollah would be back at Israel's throat.
The Israelis know this, now, from hard experience. There is overwhelming popular support for the course Prime Minister Olmert has set out. The Israelis will not be taking advice, from such as Russia and France. The Americans, even the State Department under Condoleezza Rice, show signs of having seriously absorbed their own lessons from recent history. John Bolton is sitting squarely in the Security Council, prepared to veto every effort to force the Israelis to desist. This time -- with or without the world's permission -- the Israelis are going to finish the job.
This is evident from events in Lebanon, through the last week. The Israeli air force has been doing classic battlefield prep, along the lines of the allied Operation Hail Mary against the Iraqis occupying Kuwait in 1991. You will recall Gen. Colin Powell's memorable phrase: "First we're going to cut them off, then we're going to kill them." The Israeli air strikes on Lebanese airports, harbours, roads and bridges is the "cut them off" part. The "kill them" part is coming.
There have been four call-ups of Israeli reserves. This is never done for show in Israel. Reserves are systematically replacing regulars in West Bank positions; regulars from there and elsewhere are assembling for the trudge north.
It will not be a walkover, as the Israelis know. They will take plenty of casualties. Hezbollah have had years to dig in deep, and the Iranians and Syrians have been very generous in arming and training them. The Israeli command is aware of at least 600 underground missile caches, each one of which will be well-defended. Nearly 200 of those contain missiles capable of hitting Tel Aviv.
The air strikes have only been able to hit launching pads at surface level. The array of Hezbollah anti-tank defences just inside Lebanon's southern border is formidable. The Israelis won't be crossing it for small stakes. Some time in the next few days, the serious fighting will begin.
That none of Hezbollah's longest-range missiles have been used yet (despite Hezbollah boasts and threats), is an indication that Iranian permission is not forthcoming. For the use of such powerful Iranian ordnance against Israeli population centres, even if shot from Lebanese territory, would bring Israeli retaliation against Iran itself. And it is fairly clear from the diplomatic gestures they have been making, and the purely defensive postures the Syrian military has been assuming, that both countries want out of the line of fire.
My sense is that the ayatollahs are already resigning themselves to the loss of Hezbollah, and don't wish to lose Syria, too. The Israeli air force alone is capable of triggering a regime change in Damascus, by decapitating Syria's Alawite leadership. Moreover, an Iran that itself attacks Israel is -- I should think in the certain knowledge of its leaders -- an Iran that will be attacked by the United States.
And so, to the long-term (though obviously not the short-term) benefit of Lebanon, the war will be confined to Lebanon (and Gaza). The long-term benefit is that Hezbollah prevents the emergence of a Lebanon free of Syrian interference, and therefore of Israeli threats. Even some of the Shia realize that Lebanon would be better off, without a private militia much larger than the country's armed forces. Lebanon has a prosperous future in alliance with Israel and the United States. It has no other prosperous future. The idea appears to be seeping into the Lebanese ruling classes. Even the once radical Druze leader, Walid Jumblatt, seems to get this.
For Israel, there is no turning back. It is a categorical imperative: for if the Israeli military isn't facing Hezbollah and Hamas, then Israel's civilians have to face them.
In a strange way, perhaps a way he anticipated, Ariel Sharon's bold decision to remove the Jewish settlements from Gaza, and turn the territory over to Palestinian self-government, clinched the issue. If the subsequent rocket attacks from Gaza, then Lebanon, could be predicted by me, they would have been predicted by him.
The Israeli air force targeted a Hezbollah bunker in the Bourj al-Barajneh section of southern Beirut, Lebanon, on July 19. Senior Hezbollah leaders are thought to have been in the bunker, which is located in a Palestinian refugee camp. Dozens of aircraft participated in the operations, in which 23 tons of explosives were dropped. This operation was evidently aimed at a high-value Hezbollah target, such as the groupÕs leader and chief planner, Hassan Nasrallah. Following the raid, the Israeli NRG Maariv Web site reported that information obtained by security forces revealed Nasrallah was in the bunker at the time of the attack. Hezbollah TV countered, saying none of its leaders were killed in the airstrike.
There is no confirmation yet whether the Hezbollah leader was killed. The next 24 hours will be telling, as Hezbollah will be under intense pressure to produce an audio or video broadcast to prove Nasrallah is still alive. If Hezbollah remains quiet in the following hours, we can bet he is dead.
Nasrallah's death would serve as a precursor to an impending Israeli ground assault. Israel would likely activate its plans to send its forces across the border for a major offensive against Hezbollah bases while the militant group's morale is at its lowest upon learning its notorious leader has been eliminated.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/20/2006 14:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oingo Boingo, anyone?:
There in the shadows, looks like a hand
Without its owner,
to give it a command
It's got a purpose but I
don't know what it is
I'm in trouble
There in the streets, looks like a man
But something
wrong that I don't understand
His eyes are open but
he don't see a thing
His skin is peeling off, his
bones are sticking out
I'm getting scared
Oh my god (Is it dead?)
Is it living? (Is it dead?)
Is it dead or alive?
(Is it dead?), Is it dead?
(Is it dead?)
Is it dead? (Is it dead?)
Is it dead
or alive?
Hiding in the cupboards, like little
mice
Hiding in the frigerator, that isn't nice
It's not an animal, it don't have legs
No
one else can see it
It moves so fast, corner of my
eye
Look again it's gone, it's hiding
Won't somebody help me, doesn't anybody care?
It waits so patiently, for me to lose my guard
I'm
getting scared
Is it dead, is it
(Is it
dead)
Is it dead
(Is it dead)
Is it dead or
alive
(Is it dead)
Is it dead
(Is it dead)
Is it dead, is it
I remember there was a
time
When dead and buried meant just that
Underneath the cold dark ground
Things stay put!
Oh them bones they make them bodies walk
Them
bones, them bones
If they could only talk!
Not the way I read it. The JPost story simply reports the video appearing, highly edited, and some of Nasralla's ramblings. All seemed pretty generic to me.
Hizbullah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, spoke for the first Thursday since the beginning of the week, saying Hizbullah's entire infrastructure and leadership hierarchy were still intact and functional.
To me it sounds like the JPost thinks he's alive and talking. But hope springs eternal.
Email freebie, ergo no link. Sounds like a reasonable analysis. By George Friedman
We have been following developments in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict closely for several days. At this writing, the air-rocket war continues to rage, but the Israeli ground offensive that we would have expected by now has not yet been launched. There is some speculation that it will not be launched -- that a combination of air operations and a diplomatic process will be sufficient, from Israel's point of view, to negate the need for a ground attack.
While the various processes grind their way along, it is time to review the situation.
The first point to bear in mind is that the crisis did not truly begin with the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. The kidnappings presented a serious problem for Israel, but could not, by themselves, define the geopolitical issue. That definition came when Hezbollah rockets struck Haifa, Israel's third-largest city, on July 13. There were also claims coming from Hezbollah, and confirmed by Israeli officials, that Hezbollah had missiles available that could reach Tel Aviv. Israel's population is concentrated in the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor and in the Tel Aviv-Haifa corridor. In effect, Hezbollah had attained the ability to strike at the Israeli heartland. Hezbollah has been hitting the northern part of this heartland, as well as pounding Israel's northern frontier.
The capture of two soldiers posed a symbolic challenge to Israel, but the rocket attacks posed a direct geopolitical threat. Israel had substantial room for maneuver regarding the captured troops. The threat to the heartland, however, could not be evaded. To the extent possible, Israel had to stop the missile attacks. As important, it also had to eliminate Hezbollah's ability to resume such attacks. The Israelis can tolerate these strikes for a certain period of time, so long as the outcome is a final cessation. What was not an option for Israel was to engage in temporary solutions that would allow Hezbollah to attack the heartland regularly, at its discretion. Hezbollah has posed a problem that Israel cannot choose to ignore.
#2
The only real conclusion will be Israel forcing the Lebanese army out of its comfy barracks to occupy the Hezbollah territory and the non-combatant Shiites who live there, for such a length of time that the Leb army develops an inertia in their new space and will have to be disloged.
The only other alternative would be to force all the Shiites into Syria, so Lebanon would be fully Christian and Sunni, no Shiites allowed.
In the same vein of my latest July 13 post, here is some additional info that has been overlooked:
1- Over two weeks ago, Hezbollah's leader Nasrallah told opposition leader Walid Jumblatt: "The stability of Lebanon is vital for us. We have to preserve the touristic season and continue with a dialogue between the different political parties."
2- After the Syrian Army left last year, not only did Syrians still place officials in the Lebanese Army, Secret Service, and high in the administration (for more on that, please read my piece in the "Daily Standard" here), but also Hezbollah did the same.
3- Nasrallah admitted that it took five months of preparation to plan this operation. 5 Months - not spur of the moment help to Hamas!
4- As Bill Roggio pointed out, linking to the English portion of an Asharq Al-Awsat article:
"The source said more than 3,000 Hezbollah members have undergone training in Iran, which included guerrilla warfare, firing missiles and artillery, operating unmanned drones, marine warfare and conventional war operations. He said they have also trained 50 pilots for the past two years. According to the source, Hezbollah currently possesses four types of surface-to-surface missiles, some of which extend to a distance of 150 kilometers."
But the Arabic version of the piece is, as usual, much more detailed: the 200 Iranian Revolutionary Guards have been stationed in Lebanon since 1990. They have married Shia Lebanese women, mostly "Hezbollah widows" and have changed their names to Lebanese names. They installed over twenty fixed rocket bases in the Bekaa Valley and provided Hezbollah with mobile bases to launch rockets. Furthermore a secret elite force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard composed of about twenty men is watching the Israel Defense Forces' every move with very sophisticated high-tech material and then deciding on the targets to hit inside Israel.
5- Hezbollah is purposefully using Christian, Sunni and Druze villages to fire rockets at Israel. In fact, they count on Israel retaliating in these places, killing non-Shia civilians who then in turn might become hostile to Israel and side with Hezbollah.
6- Saad Hariri, Rafik Hariri's son and leader of the majority bloc in Parliament, called for judging the people who have pushed Lebanon into this unwanted war, i.e. Hezbollah.
7- Saudi Arabia's very unusual condemnation of Hezbollah can be also explained by the fact that Hariri holds dual citizenship, Lebanese and Saudi; that Rafik Hariri was extremely close to the Saudi royal family; and that one of the most important Lebanese communities in the world is in Saudi Arabia, numbering around 150,000.
In a departure from almost 60 years of American Middle East policy, the Bush administration hasn't intervened to stop the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah or made a serious effort to negotiate a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. The White House instead has sought to transform the region by ousting or isolating regimes that support terrorism and by promoting democracy. It argues that past administrations' attempts to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East have failed and that more radical change is needed.
In the latest crisis in Lebanon, where Israel has been battering Lebanon-based Hezbollah, President Bush has placed a premium on weakening or dismantling Hezbollah, rather than stopping the violence. So far, however, democracy in Lebanon hasn't resulted in the elimination of Hezbollah; instead, the militant group has been strengthened by elections. And withholding U.S. shuttle diplomacy while allowing Israel to proceed with military force could end up increasing support not only for Hezbollah but also for al-Qaida and other Islamist militant groups. "Everybody abhors the loss of innocent life," Bush said Tuesday. "On the other hand, what we recognize is that the root cause of the problem is Hezbollah. And that problem must be addressed internationally by making it clear to Syria that they've got to stop their support to Hezbollah."
Posted by: Fred ||
07/20/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, there just aren't enough Shuttles to go around, these days, y'see...
Y'know, this is classic MSM / Elitist / Tranzi stupidity. Just because the shuttle diplo baloney was the norm before does not mean it should remain the norm.
Take, for example, how well it has worked out for the last 60 years. It hasn't. There's a war on. Morons.
#3
Ala CHALLENGER, which symbolized Reagan's challenge to the the USSR; and COLUMBIA, which symbolized the implosion = destruction of the USA vv winning the battles but losing the war, along wid the Indian, Japanese-Asian, and Euro-demonauts on board, dare DISCOVERY? blow up when Americans finally realize = discover the WOT is also a War for Socialism-OWG, etal???
#15
Don't do it Joe! You know what happens when Koffee and Cookies get together.
Mmm. We used to have coffee and cookies before our department seminars. I'd buzz around the room during the coffee period and immediately fall asleep in the actual talk. Caffeine and sugar is a dangerous combination.
#16
It's official, Joseph has become a "Rantburg Personality (TM)". Some of these comments are killer! ;)
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
07/20/2006 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
#17
I know it's impossible, but imagine if mucky and joe mendiola had kids together. Rantburg would need its own officially recognized (by the UN, of course) decoder rings. It'd drive the LLL batty (not that they're not there already, lol).
Posted by: BA ||
07/20/2006 21:01 Comments ||
Top||
When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an "act of war," the last pillar of Bush's Middle East policy collapsed.
First came capitulation on the Bush Doctrine, as Pyongyang and Tehran defied Bush's dictum: The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons. Then came suspension of the democracy crusade as Islamic militants exploited free elections to advance to power and office in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq and Iran.
Now, Israel's rampage against a defenseless Lebanon smashing airport runways, fuel tanks, power plants, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, roads and the occasional refugee convoy has exposed Bush's folly in subcontracting U.S. policy out to Tel Aviv, thus making Israel the custodian of our reputation and interests in the Middle East.
The Lebanon that Israel, with Bush's blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its airstrikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.
What Israel is up to was described by its army chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, when he threatened to "turn back the clock in Lebanon 20 years."
Olmert seized upon Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers to unleash the IDF in a pre-planned attack to make the Lebanese people suffer until the Lebanese government disarms Hezbollah, a task the Israeli army could not accomplish in 18 years of occupation.
Israel is doing the same to the Palestinians. To punish these people for the crime of electing Hamas, Olmert imposed an economic blockade of Gaza and the West Bank and withheld the $50 million in monthly tax and customs receipts due the Palestinians.
Then, Israel instructed the United States to terminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority, though Bush himself had called for the elections and for the participation of Hamas. Our Crawford cowboy meekly complied.
The predictable result: Fatah and Hamas fell to fratricidal fighting, and Hamas militants began launching Qassam rockets over the fence from Gaza into Israel. Hamas then tunneled into Israel, killed two soldiers, captured one, took him back into Gaza and demanded a prisoner exchange.
Israel's response was to abduct half of the Palestinian cabinet and parliament and blow up a $50 million U.S.-insured power plant. That cut off electricity for half a million Palestinians. Their food spoiled, their water could not be purified, and their families sweltered in the summer heat of the Gaza desert. One family of seven was wiped out on a beach by what the IDF assures us was an errant artillery shell.
Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counter-attack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired and a right to occupy land from which attacks are mounted on her people.
But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian.
But where are the Christians? Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?
When al-Qaida captured two U.S. soldiers and barbarically butchered them, the U.S. Army did not smash power plants across the Sunni Triangle. Why then is Bush not only silent but openly supportive when Israelis do this?
Democrats attack Bush for crimes of which he is not guilty, including Haditha and Abu Ghraib. Why are they, too, silent when Israel pursues a conscious policy of collective punishment of innocent peoples?
Britain's diplomatic goal in two world wars was to bring the naive cousins in, to "pull their chestnuts out of the fire." Israel and her paid and pro-bono agents here appear determined to expand the Iraq war into Syria and Iran, and have America fight and finish all of Israel's enemies.
That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.
Already, Bush is ranting about Syria being behind the Hezbollah capture of the Israeli soldiers. But where is the proof?
Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?
How much must America pay for the education of this man?
I feel dirty reading his polemics. Assome pundit quipped over one of his speeches to teh GOP convention "I bet it sounded better in the original German"
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/20/2006 09:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Explains why Patrick B. has this guy writing for his American Conservative magazine.
#8
Even a stopped clock Molly Ivins is right twice a day once in a while.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/20/2006 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
#9
That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.
How does he get it so BAssakwards???????
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
07/20/2006 19:35 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Buchanan has a long history of Jew hatred. He is part of the usual suspects. The media some how has an obsession with digging up people from the Nixon era for interviews. No wonder the MSM is losing audience. Get a time machine or something.
Here is some irony. Today on "Softball with Chris "Tweetybird" Mathews," there was a debate between P. Buch. and Bob Shrum (Kerry's campaign manager). Shrum sounded like a political posturing war hawk defending Israel and Buchanan showed his usual Jew bias.
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.
George V. Voinovich
When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an "act of war," the last pillar of Bush's Middle East policy collapsed. 
