Friday, July 14, 2006

Israel Smashes Bush's Vase ... Bush Shrugs ... Apparently Didn't Really Like That Vase

Remember how the Bushies and their rightwing enablers were crowing about the "Cedar Revolution" and how Lebanon reflected the broad benefits of iinvading Iraq.

Well, not so much anymore.

Israel has seen fit to hold the whole of Lebanon responsible for Hezbollah's killing of eight and abduction of two IDF soldiers by killing more than 70 Lebanese civilians including, at least, 10 children (which in no way justifies Hezbollah's atrocious rocket attacks on Israeli innocents which have killed 4 including a grandmother and her young grandson).

The Lebanese government that Bush was recently so fond of is coming undone.

So is Bush pissed at Israel's disproportionate and misdirected response?

Hell no ... he has refused to call for a ceasefire and has only called for deaths to be minimized. That's disgusting. No one knows what minimized deaths are, but everyone knows the statement green lights killing.

And everyone now also knows that Bush and Condi's PR spin about Lebanon was just so much politically convenient bullshit.

A call for the end of all violence in Lebanon and Gaza is overdue and that call must be to all involved.


  • Macswain: You write:

    "So is Bush pissed at Israel's disproportionate and misdirected response?

    Hell no ..."

    Care to elaborate further on your anti-Semitic feelings?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:10 AM  

  • For years, Iraq served as the country which kept Iran in check. Sadam waged a long war against one of the "evil empires". Now that Iraq is no more, Iran has no real opposition in its region, and by all honest assessments is THE big winner of our invasion of Iraq. Unintended consequences can be amazing. Stay tuned, this is truly history in the making as the power balance in the entire region is about to dramatically change. "for the loser now will be later to win for the times they are a changin'"

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:31 AM  

  • Why is all? criticism of Israel labeled as anti-sematic

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:37 AM  

  • Anon,

    It's called a copout. If you label people who oppose you as Anti-Semitic, you don't have to defend or examine yourself.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:31 AM  

  • just because Israel's actions cannot be defended, doesn't necessarily mean its critics aren't motivated by anti-Semiticism.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:41 PM  

  • "just because Israel's actions cannot be defended, doesn't necessarily mean its critics aren't motivated by anti-Semiticism."

    Give it a rest, dude.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:32 PM  

  • Interesting post MacSwain. I agree with you that Israel's conduct in Lebanon is difficult or impossible to justify, and that Bush Administration support of it is wrong.

    It's becoming painfully obvious to me that US policy in the Middle East is very heavily influenced by the domestic political imperative of not pissing off Israel's many ferverent US supporters. The political wisdom of this has been pretty clear, and the first response to your post shows that it is still a major factor.

    Calling you anti-Semetic because you dared to question our support of Israeli unfirness in Lebanon strikes me as very similar to calling someone a "n***** lover" who dared to question racial unfairness in the 1950s. I don't doubt that the poster believes that he is right, and identifies strongly with Israel as being "our team," but he should maybe start to wonder if calling everyone who disagrees with him names is a winning argument.

    US ethnic politics helped Israel through the 80s, but because of immigration, I see this starting to turn. Israel has had the strong support of many US Christians, but that is also starting to change, as we see them doing more and more things that clash with basic Christian values.

    I agree that President Bush is on the wrong side of this issue morally. I think that he is on the right side with respect to US domestic politics today, but I suspect that in another 10 years, this will be considered the wrong side. Right now, a main motivation of Americans, like you, to criticize Bush is your political opposition to him. If George Bush opposed Israel's conduct, you'd probably be tempted to denounce him as toadying to oil interests. Still, a debate is progress.

    I don't think it's anti-Semetic to be disturbed that many innocent people and a pro-American government are being pulverized by weapons which we paid for. The personal attack will lose its power as it is increasingly over-used. Right now, unthinking support for Israel is a bi-partisan tradition. I'd be glad to see the Democrats, as a party, advocate a more thoughtful approach, but I've yet to see it.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:46 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home