Article

2006-08-12 Home Front: WoT

Bush's Statement on the Ceasefire Resolution

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frank G 2006-08-12 10:00|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 You know, I'm a voter. Aren't you supposed to lie to me and kiss my butt? Ghostbusters II

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Aliens

Posted by Glenter Ulineper8090 2006-08-12 10:56|| 2006-08-12 10:56|| Front Page Top

#2 Ahhh but the devil's in the details isn't it? What will be the mechanism for disarming the Hezzies? And what of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, the original casus belli? The UN is once again blowing smoke. For shame, Mr. President. It appears that after almost 5 years, the Bush Doctrine is just so many words...

Posted by doc 2006-08-12 11:14|| 2006-08-12 11:14|| Front Page Top

#3 "These steps are designed to stop Hizballah from acting as a state within a state, and put an end to Iran and Syria's efforts to hold the Lebanese people hostage to their own extremist agenda."

I don't give a candy-coated crap what the resolution is "designed" to do: what matters is what it WILL do. Which, as far as I can tell, is absolutely nothing.

Get the goddamn lead out of your ass, Bush, and FIGHT this fucking war for a change instead of farting around with the UN and its feckless dithering.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-08-12 11:21|| 2006-08-12 11:21|| Front Page Top

#4 The sleezeallahs won through this resolution. The "axis of ignorance" managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in this Hezzballah reload agreement. What stupidity on the part of the West. There will be no peace and no ceasefire. If we can't help the Israelis fight the WOT, we should stop meddling in their affairs. This is appalling. We are stuck on stupid. Did I miss something in the last few days. Did we win the WOT while I was out? Or did we capitulate?

Posted by JohnQC 2006-08-12 11:36|| 2006-08-12 11:36|| Front Page Top

#5 I hear y'all, but I'm not so sure. I think Bush knows perfectly well the resolution isn't likely to do what needs doing.

BUT ... he has the UN on record now - no vetos, no abstentions. That is more leverage then he or Israel had a couple weeks ago.

AND ... he has put on the public record an interpretation of events he intends to measure their response against.

It's frustrating to do it this way. But we aren't invulnerable, alas, to EU regulatory gaming of our export industries, or to the disastrous results of a major global economic meltdown trigged by Chavez and Ahmadinajad blowing up the oil ports etc. He's got to, I think, try to bring along both the EUs and those like them here at home. And he has China and Russia at least officially on record. That means that when there is an 'accidental' bombing of the Chinese embassy again, or whatever, the public denunciations will only go so far ....

Posted by lotp 2006-08-12 11:50|| 2006-08-12 11:50|| Front Page Top

#6 OK, Bush is making the best of a bad situation. Why is it a bad situation?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-12 11:54|| 2006-08-12 11:54|| Front Page Top

#7 enduring ceasefire

Like North and South Korea?

Dave D. wrote: farting around with the UN and its feckless dithering.
I think Bush really DOES believe in the UN, all evidence to the contrary. He said as much in the plod up to the start of the Iraq invasion, and if he has done one thing it is that he says what he means and means what he says.

Posted by eLarson 2006-08-12 11:55|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2006-08-12 11:55|| Front Page Top

#8 You really want a full litany on that NS? Should we maybe start with Jimmah's "beat us, we deserve" sanctimonious sacrifice of US interests to Ahmadinajad a couple decades ago?

It's one place to start ...

Posted by lotp 2006-08-12 11:55|| 2006-08-12 11:55|| Front Page Top

#9 Depends on what you mean by "believes in the UN", I think.

Posted by lotp 2006-08-12 11:56|| 2006-08-12 11:56|| Front Page Top

#10 By the way, where is the nearest Chinese embassy ? Is it in Beirut or Damascus ? Just askin'.

Posted by SOP35/Rat 2006-08-12 12:06|| 2006-08-12 12:06|| Front Page Top

#11 Olmert lost absolutely INVALUABLE time in the way he conducted his war against Hizb'Allah. He needed to use overwhelming, disproportionate force and let the IDF encircle and cut off Hizb'Allah from reinforcement and resupply. The UN is still playing with the facade of evenhandedness. The UN has been an ENABLER of terrorists in south Lebanon for almost a generation now.

One thing that we have been doing is losing the PR war. Terrorists, with the help of the MSM, have been winning it. If you are going to win this war, you have to dominate the battlefield, which includes all fronts.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2006-08-12 12:14|| 2006-08-12 12:14|| Front Page Top

#12 The spineless twit babbles. Thanks for handing the Israelis asses over to the U.N.

They will be about as effective as the ICRC was in Germany during WW2.

This makes me sick.

Posted by Thoth 2006-08-12 12:30|| 2006-08-12 12:30|| Front Page Top

#13 Thoth, don't you think the Israelis did that themselves under Olmert? Just askin.

We HAVE been doing a lot for them - not just diplomatically but logistically, huge amounts of jet fuel etc. Olmert pissed it away, or so it looks from this corner.

Posted by lotp 2006-08-12 12:35|| 2006-08-12 12:35|| Front Page Top

#14 Yeah, Olmert did piss it away. I should probably just shut up on the subject, becuase I am pissed off over it, and will probably say things I later regret. With that in mind, maybe it's just best for me to be mum on the subject.

Posted by Thoth 2006-08-12 12:40|| 2006-08-12 12:40|| Front Page Top

#15 I didn't catch this gem the first time through:

"Put up or shut up, Kofi and assorted Arab councils. We are once again giving the UN one last chance to ACT on its resolutions."

Yes. Once again. Because WE DON'T REALLY MEAN IT.

And the entire world knows it, including the enemy.

Pfeh.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-08-12 12:49|| 2006-08-12 12:49|| Front Page Top

#16 Expanded Israeli Force Finally Doing Something

Posted by Legolas 2006-08-12 13:03|| 2006-08-12 13:03|| Front Page Top

#17 We are once again giving the UN one last chance to ACT on its resolutions."

or perhaps it means, "AS WITH IRAQ We are once again giving the UN one last chance to ACT on its resolutions."

Posted by lotp 2006-08-12 13:06|| 2006-08-12 13:06|| Front Page Top

#18 I think that President Bush is trying to salvage the dog's breakfast that Olmert made. There is a reason why Olmert had to call Bush and why the conversation only lasted 8 minutes. Because of Olmert's indecisiveness, the IDF has lost its aura of invincibility and Hamas has emerged as the only Arab entity to ever stand up to the IDF for more than a week or two. Bush cleared the way for the IDF to go in and smash Hezbollah. Olmert the Spineless frittered away the opportunity of a generation. The blood of the innocents that will die in the future is on his feckless hands. This is an object lesson of what can happen when Liberals make war, think John Kerry, think Al Gore.

Posted by RWV 2006-08-12 13:27|| 2006-08-12 13:27|| Front Page Top

#19 No don't need to go back to Jimmah, just look at the present circumstance.

This is without doubt, Israel's worst wartime performance. Any idea as to why? Did we keep the leash on too tight? Is Olmert/Halutz as bad as I think? Is Hezb'Allah that good? Is there sufficiently more that we don't know to change our minds?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-12 14:19|| 2006-08-12 14:19|| Front Page Top

#20 Because the Israelis did not think their existence was at stake like in 1973, 1967, 1948.

Posted by ed 2006-08-12 14:23|| 2006-08-12 14:23|| Front Page Top

#21 Ed nails it, I think.

Did we keep the leash on too tight? Is Olmert/Halutz as bad as I think? Is Hezb'Allah that good? Is there sufficiently more that we don't know to change our minds?

From what I've read, we had to URGE Olmert to take the opportunity. Might could be he never wanted to respond militarily to the killings/kidnappings at all.

Re: Hezb', if Israel was indeed surprised by the depth of the bunkers and the very modern C3 equipment in them, then yeah, they are equipped better than was thought, better dug in and more heavily trained. If that's the case then Israel may well have not thought their existence was IMMEDIATELY threatened, and figured they could send a message to Iran without a full ground war and occupation.

May be too late, in which case only an international force has any chance of giving Israel a respite, assuming (and they are BIG assumptions) that a) Israel clears out southern Lebanon pretty well first and b) the force is actually gonna do its job.

Okay, I did say they were big assumptions .... but Israel really CAN'T reoccupy Lebanon and hold it. And if they tried, they would be playing right into Iran's trap.

As for us, I suspect we may have relied a lot on Mossad estimates for all that, because our Arabic and Persian speaking reliable data gatherers are stretched thin w/ Iraq and a lot of other issues.

It's a theory, anyway ....

Posted by lotp 2006-08-12 14:54|| 2006-08-12 14:54|| Front Page Top

#22 Ahhh but the devil's in the details isn't it? What will be the mechanism for disarming the Hezzies?

There is none, doc. This, as with all other cease-fires is a hudna and nothing else. Bush is breathing his own exhaust to think otherwise. As leroidavid so aptly stated the situation last Thursday:

How can Bush says that "this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation", and at the same time, put pressure on Israel to delay its offensive, and plan an awful deal at the UN rewarding the Islamic fascists of the Hezbollah ?

All this is incredible.

We are confronted with the hideous spectacle of our politicians willingly turning this conflict into a quagmire. To summon forth the well-beaten and thoroughly deceased equine quadruped, THIS IS NOT ANOTHER VIETNAM.

In Vietnam the Vietcong were supplied by China and Russia, both of whom we could not retaliate against in any effective fashion. Without differentiating between Israeli and American interests (see leroidavid's comment if you are unclear on this), this time around we have a golden opportunity to take the facilitators to task. Syria, and especially Iran, must be held to accounts for their role in furthing this regional bloodshed. Unlike China and Russia, these two rogue nations can be bombed back to the stone-age and deserve it in spades.

How Bush can claim to be fighting terrorism and simultaneously attempt to restrain Israel's attempts to do the same goes beyond comprehension. LEBANON VOTED IN A TERRORIST GOVERNMENT, JUST LIKE THE PALESTINIANS.

It is time to pay the piper for populations that are stupid enough to glorify or legitimize terrorist regimes. What other honest message can we send such unrepetant cultures? We have now reached a point where we must either bow to Islamists as having the unassailable right to wage asymmetrical war against the West or simply begin the wholesale slaughter of them and those who provide them haven. Israel knows and has always known the answer. Why is it so hard for us to finally purchase a clue?

Posted by Zenster 2006-08-12 16:15|| 2006-08-12 16:15|| Front Page Top

#23 "Why is it so hard for us to finally purchase a clue?"

a) Wishful thinking;

b) 9/11 wasn't enough to get us out of our easy chairs;

c) The perfidy of the *SPIT* loyal opposition;

d) OBL was absolutely right about us: we are soft, corrupt, decadent and fickle;

e) The triumph of what I call "process people" over "results people";

f) Getting distracted by interim goals to the point of losing sight of the objective;

g) Terminal Timidity; and

h) All of the above.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-08-12 16:31|| 2006-08-12 16:31|| Front Page Top

#24 LEBANON VOTED IN A TERRORIST GOVERNMENT, JUST LIKE THE PALESTINIANS.

Not quite true. One heavily Shia area voted in some Hezb'allah representatives. Most of the country didn't.

And that's what makes it hard to decide exactly when a country as a whole crosses the line into complicity.

For me it was when Siniora failed to denounce Hezb'allah and basically conceded that he had neither tried nor would try to restrain them. Still, until the attacks I suspect that many Lebanese took the easy way out when bullied by Hezb'allah, but didn't like it, aren't armed and had no reason to believe that a government still heavily under pressure from Syria would back them up if they resisted. That's not heroic, but it's not quite the same thing as supporting HB either.

We gotta do what we gotta do, but I do think there are more or less innocents getting harmed in Lebanon. I just don't know of any other way to get them out, given the utter failure of the UN after the Israeli withdrawl.

Posted by lotp 2006-08-12 16:34|| 2006-08-12 16:34|| Front Page Top

#25 Thank you for clarifying, lotp. It is omelet-making time. Whose eggs would you rather have being crushed? This is the only real question of consequence confronting us at the moment. Innocent or not, people who have terrorists in their midst must now be made to realize that is something that carries a price tag. We can no longer coddle those who refuse to act against terrorism. Unarmed or not, there are significantly greater measures uncooperative populations can take to resist those who put them in harm's way. I refer you to the Danish resistance against the Nazis. A small country like Denmark successfully hobbled the Nazi war machine. If the Danes could do it, so can the Druze or Lebanese Christians. If they want to sit back and watch without actively detrimenting the terrorists, they had better be ready to catch some shrapnel.

Posted by Zenster 2006-08-12 16:50|| 2006-08-12 16:50|| Front Page Top

#26 "For me it was when Siniora failed to denounce Hezb'allah and basically conceded that he had neither tried nor would try to restrain them."

Siniora is weak, and he allowed himself to be blind-sided.

Reuters put out Lebanon as saying 'no' to the initial proposal. 'Lebanon' turned out to be Hesb'Allah and Syria's ally, Nahbi Berri.

Siniora has also been out-flanked and out-spoken by Syria and Iran. Oh, he complained about it, but it was half-hearted.

As for omlet-making, the smart eggs left before and during the civil war. What leadership there is, are either beholden to the Syrians, their own ethnic groups, or their clan. The rest of the populace are either tired of war or fatigued. Likely why the Cedar Revolution could not even depose the current adminstration.

Posted by Fordesque 2006-08-12 18:21|| 2006-08-12 18:21|| Front Page Top

#27 I'm with Zenster. This is a question of survival. Either the West does the job very soon, or we can say hello to the New Islamic Dark Age.

Ceterum censeo, Mecca delenda est.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-08-12 22:25|| 2006-08-12 22:25|| Front Page Top

00:00 mcsegeek1
23:58 Zhang Fei
23:52 Odysseus
23:44 Abdominal Snowman
23:43 Odysseus
23:40 Thoth
23:28 Zhang Fei
23:27 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:25 BA
23:23 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:20 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:19 BA
23:07 Zhang Fei
23:06 twobyfour
23:05 Whising Joluque7603
22:57 Zhang Fei
22:55 the Twelfth Imami
22:55 Fordesque
22:42 49 Pan
22:39 49 Pan
22:38 bombay
22:37 j. D. Lux
22:36 bombay
22:31 j. D. Lux