Hezbollah knows how to play the political game, and now it has proven it knows how to play the military game too: while the anti-Hezbollah Lebanese will resent Hezbollah for making Lebanon an Israeli bombing target, the rest of the Arabs are applauding. And Egypt and Jordan, who've signed peace treaties with Israel, now look like ninnies on the Arab street, and especially on their own Arab streets. What's more, Shaikh Hasan Nasrullah earlier lost a son fighting the Israelis, so his personal stake is widely recognized.
The big winner in all this: Iran. Not only are the Shiites they back in Iraq set to take over that country, but Hezbollah, whom they also back, are the biggest players in Lebanon. As soon as Iran goes nuclear, they'll be the big cahuna in the Middle East, and there ain't one single thing George Bush can do about it, for two reasons:
a) because Russia and China won’t allow him to mess with Iran, and
b) because Bush is the one who, by starting a stupid Neocon war in Iraq, has handed Iraq over to Iran.
This is what happens when you have fucknuts like the Neocons and Cheney meddling in the Middle East, with some BS idea of establishing US supremacy in a region that they know sweet blow-all about. More reason for us to get the hell out of there ASAP.
The Neocons have not only brought huge and lasting failure to US foreign policy. Worse, they've probably torpedoed the GOP and the conservative movement in the US for the foreseeable future, as we are about to find out in the November elections this year.
Which may be the only good result achieved by this wingnut cancer that's been poisoning US politics.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RedTard
Aren't you just so happy that Hezbollah is acting up again.It's the pussy ass apologist left wing idiocy that allows conflicts like this to simmer indefinitely.
Your only solution is that maybe if Israel will take it in the ass long enough Hezbollah and Hamas will quit fucking them. You foolishly believe that if the terrorists are given land and money and concessions they'll suddenly respect Israeli's right to exist and lay down their arms.
The occasional response with overwhelming force is the only thing that has allowed Israel to survive this long. Of course, I doubt the survival of Israel matters much to you in the first place.
This has little to do with the middle east and much to do with an attempt at scoring domestic political points.
2 - Dave Nalle
Where do you buy fairycake with wish icing, again? Are they selling it at the Democratic Underground bake sale?
I think your admiration for the murderers at Hezbollah as so eloquently expressed in the post says it all. Your hatred of Bush has become so out of control that now you think terrorists are the goodguys. I guess they're right when they say that Bush hating is a pathological condition.
Dave
3 - RJ Elliott
Israel left Lebanon 6 years ago. Bush helped bring real democracy there a year or two ago.
Israel left Gaza about a year ago. Bush helped bring real democracy there about six months or so ago.
Hamas is the government in Gaza, and they have attacked Israel. Hezbollah is a part of the government in Lebanon, and they have attacked Israel.
Israel is responding on both fronts. Both Iran and Syria support both of the anti-Israel terrorist forces.
Yet, the poster uses this news as an excuse to attack President Bush and his administration...
"Liberalism is a mental disorder..." - Michael Savage
4 - Adam Ash
RedTard and Dave Nalle:
Your assumptions are as ridiculous as your positions.
I thought I made it clear -- by calling them all the f-ing Israelis, Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc -- that I had no dog in this fight, and that they can all go and fuck themselves. I also call the Hezbollah leader a warlord, which is what he is.
I just didn't assume that I would find blogcritics as insane as all those fucknuts in the Middle East.
The post is neither lefty or rightie, but obviously, you two wingnuts have to see the ENTIRE WORLD through a leftie/rightie prism.
Jeez, try and be non-ideological for once in your narrow wingnut lives. Talk about kneejerk morons.
Just because I think the neocons are troglodyte -- and even you two wingnuts know that by now -- doesn't mean we have to discuss everything in their wingnut terms, or according to your wingnut assumptions, either.
The Middle East is blowing up again, and once again there's precious little our administration can do about it, and we'll have to wait for one who can, which means we'll probably have to wait forever.
For your information, I'm libertarian. Which means I want my government to leave me alone, and to leave everybody overseas alone, too.
Bush is a terrible president in my opinion because he started a war -- which is not leaving anyone overseas alone -- and because he tried to destroy social security, which would be fucking with the only money I've got to retire on.
He's also an idiot, but so was Clinton, Reagan, Bush Sr. Carter and Ford. You have to go back to Nixon to find an OK president, and most Americans don't like him either.
Now, try and call me a leftie again.
5 - Dave Nalle
Adam, we just read what you wrote and reached the inevitable conclusion. Maybe you should reread your own work and you'll see why.
Hell, just read your paragraph on Nasrullah. It's like you're starting his fan-club or something.
Are you aware that the word 'terrorist' isn't featured anywhere in your article, either applied to Hamas or Hezbollah. I think that says an awful lot as well.
But what really reveals your bias is that you try to put the blame for this on Bush. What the hell would you like him to do? Send troops into Lebanon? A hands-off appraoch is the only rational thing to do and so far that's been his policy. Do you have a better one?
Dave
6 - Dave Nalle
And BTW, Adam - I'm a Libertarian, and I don't see much in your belief set and your statements which fits with any form of Libertarianism I'm familiar with. Libertarians generally try to use reason to analyze the world around them.
Dave
7 - gonzo marx
ok...on the Topic...but not really agreeing with anything written here so far(suprise!)
might i note some Facts that everyone here, from either "gang" seem to agree on at least....
Hizballah + Hamas started fucking with Israel
Hizballah is a legally elected part of the Lebanese government
Hamas controls the legally elected Palestinian government
both Hizballah and Hamas receive financial backing (at least) from Iran
besides the human Tragedy of this Conflict (total deaths of innocents from all sides, captured soldiers, collateral deaths from war-damage to infrastructure, etc) we see the clear evidence of smoething unmistakable which no one appears to have pointed out...
these democratically elected groups (Hamas and Hizballah), have entered into a sectarian War of Agression
so much for the hypothesis that bringing "democracy" to the Middle East would be the panacea to the regions Problems
and it raises a Question...
there are many Signs that Iraq could go along a similar theocratic Path, following Iran, and joining with the democratically elected governments of Hamas and Hizballah...to form a "democratic" Caliphate (remember, there were "elections" in Iran as well)
and who is bleeding, and dying on the front lines of all this?
Israelis trying to Live, and the non-Shia (especially the more secular) portions of the surrounding Muslim countries caught up in the jihadist conflicts started by the theocrats "elected" to Power...
no easy Answers anywhere to be found, and the stench of burning Death permeates all Involved...the guilty and Innocent alike
this is NOT any kind of U.S. political bullshit, the ONLY thing the U.S. has involved in this insanity stem from the result of the Policies it has pursued in the Region, many of them evolving from poorly thought out, or just plain uninformed Wishful thinking on the part of those making Policy
the Responsibility lies squarely upon those who ordered the rocket attacks into Israel, as well as the capture for exchange of Israeli soldiers... to be taken into account, is the Israeli reaction, few can lay blame to them for striking out...though many can Question their methodology, none can really blame them for defending themselves from invading rocket attacks as best as they are able...at least this is not some sort of "pre-emptive" type Action...
but rather a militarily directed Reaction to attacks by Factions of foreign governments
the closest thing i can find to any kind of "good news" in all this , is that the "Arab League" appears to be split in it's condemnation of Hizballah for the attacks...it shows that there IS some "sanity" in a few of the Arab governments, while there is a clear Faction which supports the Iranian directed actions of Hizballah and Hamas
the Questions will be...
how does Israel conduct themselves in resolving this Conflict?
how do the Arab governments, not directly involved, conduct themselves?
how does U.S. foreign policy, and that of the other world Powers, react and adjust to ongoing Events as this War unfolds?
me? i'm Concerned for the Innocents who will suffer, as they always do, under this War of Idealogues and Theocrats...
in the macro-geopolitical sense...we must Ask, did U.S. Policy, vis-a-vis Iraq and thus Iran (the old "axis of evil" speech onward)...effect and possibly embolden the "leaders" of Hamas and Hizballah into these attacks?
and what can be done to stop the Conflict, and resolve the underlying Issues that lead to the insanity of this kind of Violence?
no easy Answers..but i do know this, bullshit mindless name-calling and knee-jerk Ideological reactions are NOT any part of the Answer, and help no one
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
8 - Adam Ash
Dave,
I see now that I was giving the Hezbollah leader a bit of a build-up, indeed; well, I guess I myself was so useless at 32, I admire Nasrullah for his youth and for his leadership, which has made Hezbollah a huge factor in Lebanon, and now in the entire Middle East. I wanted to make the point that Hezbollah, a non-state, is now acting with the power of a state. That doesn't mean I'm on their side, or on the Israeli side. I weep for both.
However, I don't know how useful it is to call anyone a terrorist these days. I think Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist, yes.
But why would I call Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists? Seems to me they have a fight going on with Israel, and Israel gives them much better than they've got. If you're going to call these two movements terrorists, you might as well call Israel a terrorist, which I wouldn't want to do, or call America a terrorist, since we've killed more innocent civilians in the world these past three years than anyone else.
But I don't want to call us terrorists at all, so I don't want to call anyone a terrorist. I think it's a word that doesn't allow for any analysis, but is only about name-calling.
Today's terrorist is often tomorrow's freedom fighter. I grew up in South Africa, where we called Mandela and the ANC terrorists, and today everyone calls them freedom fighters.
You're free to call whoever you want a terrorist, though, if it makes you feel better. But it doesn't work for me.
9 - Bliffle
GWB (and his backers) deteriorated our world position by removing Saddam and encouraging an Iran-friendly Iraq while wasting treasure and blood in a useless war based on a frail theory which has proven wrong. He's a poor decision maker and a poor strategist. It'll take a lot of work for successive administrations to repair the damage.
10 - Adam Ash
Dave:
What should Bush do? Nothing. He should've done nothing about Iraq, too, then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today -- which is basically us having handed the entire Middle East over to Iran on a silver platter.
The least Bush does about anything, the better for us. I think he handled Katrina quite well, by doing nothing.
I would be very happy if Bush and Cheney took a long vacation till 2008. I'm already worried they're thinking about attacking Iran in time for the November elections. I wouldn't put it past them.
11 - Sanjay
Adam, when people are dying by the masses in Darfur, then you don't consider it a serious enough issue to warrant a change of presidency. But if an incomparably far fewer number are dying in Lebanon due to fighting that they themselves triggered, then all of a sudden you want the entire US political structure to rearrange itself for it. It's blatant hypocrisy, and it puts your credibility in the toilet.
12 - Rick Moran
Is this for real? I mean, really...
Why not just cut off your own head and hand it to those heroic jihadis who are standing up to the "Israelites." Save them the trouble.
And, btw...I really wish that those who use the term "neocon" would please define it for us? Ignorantly parroting terms you obviously have no clue as to their meaning makes you look like more of an intellectual clod than even your in coherent writing makes you out to be.
13 - Apollo
Adam, Why r u so eager to start a Fan club for Sheikh Hasan? Do u aim to be elected its President for life and get funds from Iran and the middle east. sorry mate, New York Times has beat u to it already ;)
14 - gonzo marx
for Rick...
the defining website for the neocons is definately www.pnac.org
check their Mission Statement page , and see who signed on in '96-97
as to properly defining the neocons in the U.S. Administration...check those signatories...they include..
Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz...all of whom had great Influence on Administration policy
the term "neocon" is properly applied to those who were students of the political theories and philosophy of Leon Strauss at the University of Chicago...
Example: Wolfowitz was a student of Strauss...and when he taught, Scooter Libby (indicted former chief of staff for Cheney) was a student of Wolfowitz's
so, it IS inappropriate to label most of the GOP as "neocons"...few of them actually are, by very definition...however the Bush Administration's Policies have had a heavy dose of neocon Ideology infected into their formation and execution...especially in the Realm of foreign Policy
hope that helps
Excelsior?
15 - Dave Nalle
might i note some Facts that everyone here, from either "gang" seem to agree on at least....
Hizballah + Hamas started fucking with Israel
Hizballah is a legally elected part of the Lebanese government
Hamas controls the legally elected Palestinian government
both Hizballah and Hamas receive financial backing (at least) from Iran
You left out that both Hezballah and Hamas endorse suicide attacks and attacks on civilian targets and are therefore terrorists, distinguishing them from other governments in the region.
besides the human Tragedy of this Conflict (total deaths of innocents from all sides, captured soldiers, collateral deaths from war-damage to infrastructure, etc) we see the clear evidence of smoething unmistakable which no one appears to have pointed out...
these democratically elected groups (Hamas and Hizballah), have entered into a sectarian War of Agression
so much for the hypothesis that bringing "democracy" to the Middle East would be the panacea to the regions Problems
This was already abundantly clear when the current regime in Iran got elected democratically. Democracies do not always produce good leadership or sane policies. Democracy is prone to domination by outspoken minorities, abusive majorities and demagogues. It's a dangerous mix with radical fanatical religion. This is why the US is not a democracy.
dave
16 - Dave Nalle
I see now that I was giving the Hezbollah leader a bit of a build-up, indeed; well, I guess I myself was so useless at 32, I admire Nasrullah for his youth and for his leadership, which has made Hezbollah a huge factor in Lebanon, and now in the entire Middle East. I wanted to make the point that Hezbollah, a non-state, is now acting with the power of a state. That doesn't mean I'm on their side, or on the Israeli side. I weep for both.
I think that the high intensity environment of the area creates a pressure which drives those who are talented to leadership positions at a younger age. Plus the older leaders keep getting killed off. And I agree that if you put aside his willingness to kill innocent civilians because of where they live or their religion his success is pretty impressive. I can't write that off though.
But why would I call Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists? Seems to me they have a fight going on with Israel, and Israel gives them much better than they've got. If you're going to call these two movements terrorists, you might as well call Israel a terrorist, which I wouldn't want to do, or call America a terrorist, since we've killed more innocent civilians in the world these past three years than anyone else.
I'm not sure what I'd call Israel. Because of its ten-fold reprisals which are a violation of the Geneva convention at least in spirit, I'm inclined to call it something negative. But on the other hand, since Hamas and Hezballah specifically target innoocent civilians for murder they can only be considered terrorists. Terrorist groups with a political wing are still terrorists. Did anyone stop calling the IRA terrorists when Sinn Fein began getting people elected to office?
But I don't want to call us terrorists at all, so I don't want to call anyone a terrorist. I think it's a word that doesn't allow for any analysis, but is only about name-calling.
Ah, but by definition the US is not engaging in terrorism. We never - as a matter of policy - target innocents for reprisals or just kill them to make a point or instill terror. While we may have killed civilians as part of a military campaign or as collateral damage, we try to avoid doing so whenever possible. True terrorists - as noted above - actually target the civilians. That's a fundamental difference.
What should Bush do? Nothing. He should've done nothing about Iraq, too, then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today -- which is basically us having handed the entire Middle East over to Iran on a silver platter.
The least Bush does about anything, the better for us. I think he handled Katrina quite well, by doing nothing.
Agreed. And he's doing nothing in the current situation in Israel/Lebanon with great skill.
I would be very happy if Bush and Cheney took a long vacation till 2008. I'm already worried they're thinking about attacking Iran in time for the November elections. I wouldn't put it past them.
Paranoia. No one wants to actually attack Iran. Isolating and pressuring Iran seems to have been the plan all along. That's why Iraq was invaded along with Afghanistan.
Dave
17 - gonzo marx
for comment #15...
..i can easily agree that both Hizballah and Hamas endorse and ocndone suicide attacks, and that does seperate tham from SOME of the other Nations in the region...i allude to that point elsewhere in my analysis...specifically when talking about the split in the Arab League...
also, well am i Aware that the U.S. is a Republic and not a Democracy... might i suggest that when the President speaks on such matters, he makes the same distinctions...accorsding to EVERYTHING he has said publicly about the matter...his Goal is to "bring democracy to the Middle East"
i am merely pointing out how, in some circumstances, one shoudl be careful what one Wishes for
by making an Example of some instances when Bush got just what he asked for, and where that has lead...
i also tend ot Agree on the Iran position where it concerns the "election" of their current Administration being a clear demarcation, re-enforced by the election of a Hamas government ni Palestine
my Point is what does this bode for the Administrations policy in Iraq and it's ramifications as well as how did those Policies affect the current Events...
far better to bring Liberty, and educate about the Rights of the Minority in a Free Society...
there IS a difference...but from reading comment 15, i see no real disagreement with my Analysis, which is Interesting for a few reasons...
but i digress
Excelsior?
18 - Dave Nalle
the defining website for the neocons is definately www.pnac.org
check their Mission Statement page , and see who signed on in '96-97
The PNAC website actually doesn't sound too crazy when read objectively. Because it's for public consumption it's watered down, cleaned up Neoconism. Read up on Strauss or just read up on Stalin to know where the Neocons are headed.
And remember. Bush, at least, is not a Neocon, and the Neocons are there largely because they're relatively competent and their philosophy is not incompatible with the more traditional Republican support for a strong defense - defense being the operative word.
Dave
19 - Adam Ash
Sanjay:
I don't know what Darfur has to do with any of this. Darfur is an African problem, and one day Africa will be able to take care of its own problems. Already South Africa is quietly going around solving many problems in Africa -- it's just not robust enough to attend to Darfur as well.
Unfortunately, neither is the rest of the world, including the often chickenshit UN, who did nothing about Rwanda either. The US will do nothing about it, because Bush/Cheney are driven by only two motives: will they get more votes if they do X, or will their cronies be able to make money if they do X? That's why they've never gone after Bin Laden -- there's no money in it, while their cronies are making pots of money out of the Iraq War, even as it costs us poor tax payers a ton.
As for the current flareup in Lebanon, there is plenty the US could've done, if it hadn't lost its honest-broker status because of Bush/Cheney invading Iraq.
Bush Sr had the best policy in that region; he was not above leaning quite hard on Israel to be a little more peace-loving and negotiate. Clinton tried, but he was a little too starry-eyed; also, at that point the corrupt old bastard Arafat represented the Palestinians, and you couldn't really negotiate with him, even if you gave all his lieutenants a BMW, which was one tactic the world tried.
Under circumstances like today, there is no place for negotiation, because everybody is too hot under the collar. When things calm down again, there may be some room for the next president -- McCain or Hillary -- to bring the parties to the table again.
Bush Jr is the most useless foreign-policy president we've ever had; in fact, he's considered by the rest of the world to be the biggst danger to world peace there is. Don't expect any problems in the world, or domestically in the US, to be solved while Bush/Cheney are in charge. Because they're largely driven by their two motives, and the now-discredited neocon ideology, they're much better at creating problems than solving them.
Rick Moran:
Definition of neocons: the guys of the "The Project for a New American Century," or PNAC. It was founded years ago, long before Bush became president, to press for a new hardline US military intervention strategy "- and for a war with Iraq. The PNAC’s members were Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Condi Rice, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, James Woolsey, Scooter Libby and Zalmay Kahlilzad -- now US Ambassador in Iraq. Is that good enough for you?
20 - gonzo marx
comment #18 makes some very good Points...
but allow me to add, that to most, pre-emptive INvasion ( a neocon Policy) is not "defense", no matter what tricks of solipsism or rationalization are used in attempt to justify the behavior...
i will also agree that W is NOT a neocons signatory....but the vast majority of his Advisors either ARE, or have been, during the formulation fo Administration policies...not Cheney, Runsfeld, Wolfowitz among those signatories...as well as Jeb Bush
that Strauss is close to Stalin ideologically is a decent point that can be discussed, but not really germaine to this discussion...
Excelsior?
21 - Dave Nalle
but allow me to add, that to most, pre-emptive INvasion ( a neocon Policy) is not "defense", no matter what tricks of solipsism or rationalization are used in attempt to justify the behavior...
Right. That's where the Neocons differ fromt he strong defense conservatives. Traditional Republicans don't believe in deploying US troops overseas at all. Before the Neocons got involved people in the GOP were more likely to be pushing for closing our overseas bases than invading anyone.
i will also agree that W is NOT a neocons signatory....but the vast majority of his Advisors either ARE, or have been, during the formulation fo Administration policies...not Cheney, Runsfeld, Wolfowitz among those signatories...as well as Jeb Bush
I'd disagree with this. You keep bringing up the same 3 or 4 people. The fact that perhaps half a dozen out of scores of advisors are Neocons doesn't mean that they're running things. Colin Powell, Condi, Rumsfeld and the members of the Joint Chiefs aren't Neocons.
Plus not all Neocons share the exact same belief set. Remember that top Neocons including their leader William Kristol have attacked the administration and rejected the Iraq war. Some of them have even split off and rejected military interventionism alltogether and believe that Neocon goals ought to focus on expanding our sphere of economic influence, rather like the good old Monroe Doctrine.
The point being that the Neocons aren't necessarily the evil conspiracy they're depicted as by so many, and they certainly aren't hand in glove with the administration.
dave
22 - Adam Ash
To #16, Dave:
Now that's what I call a reasoned analysis, which is why I have a sneaking admiration for you, Dave.
Although I must admit, I like it when you call me names, because I like having an opportunity to call you names, too. In fact, I wish blogcritics was still like the old days, when we could really curse each other out. Remember when one could call Bush a fucking asshole, and call anyone who disagreed with one the most unbelievable shit? Ah, those were the days.
I hope you're right to think it's paranoia to worry about Bush/Cheney attacking Iran. I think they might very well run a few air strikes three weeks before the November election. I think the plan all along was to threaten Iran from a subdued Iraq, but now that Iraq has proved unsubdue-able, Iraq is a spoke in the neocon wheel instead of the intended staging area for a war on Iran, which I believe was the big neocon plan all along.
23 - gonzo marx
comment #21 sez...
*The point being that the Neocons aren't necessarily the evil conspiracy they're depicted as by so many, and they certainly aren't hand in glove with the administration.*
we will just have to disagree on some of this...
and a correction for the Record: unlike what is stated in comment #21...Rumsfeld IS a signatory to the "statement fo principles" on the "newamericancentury" website...
i mention, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby and Perle often when talking about the neocons in the Administration because they were VERY influential in shaping the Policies of the Administration during the first term, and post 9/11..including the invasion of Iraq (the basic arguments and policies were written by Perle and Wolfowitz)
and where i can agree, that there is now a divide in the Ideology amongst many of the founders of the neocon movement...such was NOT the case from '96-'03
just some Thoughts
and no further distraction from me...the Topic is far too Important to be hijacked by american bickering over internal politics
Excelsior?
24 - Arch Conservative
Gee I'm surprised you didn't sneak the word zionist into the title of your post Adam.
I'm truly sorry that Israel has interrupted you wet dream wherein islamofacists take over the world Adam.
25 - Serket
I found the article to be mostly neutral and amusing. With the Buchanan ad I figured Adam was a conservative upset with the Republican leadership.
I am surprised that as a libertarian you support Social Security. And how has S.S. changed since President Bush was elected? We need changes to the system because fewer workers will be supporting more retirees and it could eventually start losing money. Some of the private plans will allow for more personal control and possibly higher returns.