I agree with your assessment. But I would widen it to include virtually every facet of governing. I can't see one instance in the years the Bush Administration has been in power where there have been any steps forward either domestically or in foreign affairs.

This is simply insane foreign policy on Israel's part, wholesale impotence on America's part, and an event that is tailored to breed yet another generation of people hating America and Israel.

The world's appetite for reconstructing the same territorial infrastructures must be at its absolute limit. Instead of being able to dedicate humanitarian aid to truly humanitarian causes, the world must once again throew good money after bad into a bottomless pit of hatred and stupidity.

And now that a real crisis exists, Condi Rice can't devide which pair of shoes to wear.

Back in 2000, when it became glaringly apparent just how utterly unqualified Bush was to hold the office of President, I worried that no one seemed to understand that it was important to have a competent person in that office.  When I would mention this to people they seemed to believe that Bush had all of the same qualifications and more that Clinton had.  I really expected a disaster if Bush got elected.

Well, now we see that I was correct.  Competence doesn't just mean the ability to get tax cuts passed.  It also means the ability to appoint capable people to the many federal jobs the President controls, especially the cabinet officers.  We don't have those capable people in those offices.

Yes, Condi is an embarassment, at best, but a looming disaster at worst.  She fumbled her first job so badly 9/11 was a successful attack on us.  How anyone could dream she could handle her current job amazes me.

What ever our country could do to defuse the Middle East situation can't be done with this crew in charge.  They really have no idea, nor any obvious interest in how to do that.  Beyond plotting to rake in some more billions of dollars for Halliburton and other favored corporations, they seem unable to figure out any way to do any major job.  I have yet to see them show any interest in even trying.

We are in for a rough three years ahead. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I'm not hearing deafening silence from Bush. I'm hearing him excuse Irael's assault on Lebanon. There is something particularly morally repugnant about high tech air power brutally killing anonymous, defenseless civilians on the ground - whether those civiilians are deliberate targets or "collateral damage". That hi tech weaponry is our gift to Israel, which means we bear a lot of responsibility for this tragedy, especially when BushCo and the world's superpower do nothing to stop it.

I think that it’s always politics and self-interest with this administration. While the country was in 9/11 shock and on a never-ending terror alert, Bush could play the cowboy. But war and terror fatigue has set in. Iraq blew the image of Cowboy George in a white hat riding into the sunset. If cowboy diplomacy is out, what’s left for these guys?

The administration is quiet but still defending Israel’s every action as witnessed by the veto of the U.N. resolution condemning Israel’s collective punishment strategy. Eight of the last nine Security Council vetoes have been by the U.S. covering Israeli actions. The article from the Jeruselum Post is interesting, as is the one next to it: "'Lebanon can be shut down for years'." I’m not saying that if Israel is attacked, they shouldn’t act. They just need to act like grownups. Without U.S. involvement, Israel is the only real power here and they need to wield it carefully. And, frankly, I don’t know that direct involvement by the WH would lead to any kind of resolution, peaceful or not.

For a good analysis of where Israel is dragging an impotent US adminstration and Lobby conditioned public, Joshua Landis (SyriaComment.com)

At the most basic level, the present conflagration in Israel and Lebanon is all about gaining "respect" in the tough and nasty street wars of the Middle East. The region's leaders, many of whom are new and untested, are seeking to demonstrate where true authority and might lies now that the tide of American power that swept over the region following 9-11 is draining away. A tectonic shift is taking place as local actors who have had their ears pinned back for several years are beginning to assert themselves anew....

Clearly the Defense Department is running with this and is prepared to use Israel as its stalking horse in the Middle East. How far Washington is willing to go in this game or how far Israel is willing to go is anyone's guess. My guess is that cooler heads in Washington will not allow Israel to drag the US into strikes against Syria or Iran. Both Muqtada al-Sadr and Iranian authorities have said that US soldiers will be targeted if Syria is hit. This is an election year. The US is trying to get itself out of the Middle East quagmire, not into it. The US was led down the garden path by Rumsfeld and Cheney once, it will not allow itself to be so easily led by the nose again. This time there is no believing that western bombs will be met by Arabs with flowers or eager democrats. I don't buy the Defense Department's bluster.

There are plenty of tough talkers in the US. The New Republic has come out swinging in its editorials, calling for the US to get tough with Syria. The Weekly Standard has done the same in an article by Jeffrey Azarva of the Enterprise Institute, entitled, "Getting Serious About Syria."

If Washington and Israel do have to settle this by going to Damascus, then Bashar will have sent his message loud and clear: I am here. I demand respect. Cut out all the silliness about isolation and the blind eye doctor. Syria is an important player. Anyone who wants to do business in the region will have to address me politely and be ready to trade in kind. Syria is not a charitable organization.

Once again, an example of how the Israel Lobby has hijacked US foreign policy. This is, as I've said, all about "Securing the Realm", the last gasp of some very desperate leaders in Israel and the US.

I don't agree that Iran "greenlighted" this - not unless somebody such as Amadinejad went behind the mullahs back to do so.

Look at the situation. Iran is under pressure from the UN and the IAEA to freeze its nuclear energy program. They are trying to stall the negotiations and come up with a way to continue negotiations on their terms.

One might suggest they would do something like this to take the nuclear program off the table, but exactly how does that work when Israel is loudly blaming Iran for every detail of this situation - including accusing Iran of supplying hundreds of Iranian troops and weapons into Lebanon and directly attacking Israel? Do you think the Iranians wouldn't have known that was coming?

Iran had no reason to start this - but Israel certainly did. Israel - or at least the Israeli military - has been impatient with the slow progress of the US's attempts to stop the Iranian program - enough to threaten bombing Iran itself several times. Israel could easily see that the path of UN sanctions and the like could take years and wouldn't be effective anyway.

One of the reasons people keep telling me Bush would never attack Iran is because Iran could retaliate against Israel and the US by using Hizballah and Hamas to conduct "asymmetric warfare" in the region.

Well, Israel has already set that in motion. By widening the ME conflict, they get to use Hamas and Hizballah as reasons to attack Syria and perhaps Iran. They get to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities - facilities not set up for atomic bombs, but for Iran's economic future. Israel gets to seriously damage the Syrian and Iranian economies, at the very least. The best outcome from their standpoint would be if Syria and/or Iran engage Israel militarily as well. Then they can drag the US into the war, and sit back, knock out Lebanon and Hizballah, crush Hamas, all the while letting the US destroy Syria and Iran.

Nice. All their enemies done up in one neat bloodstained bundle.

Why would Iran trigger this at this time? It makes no sense to me, either in timing or reasoning. Iran knows it cannot defeat Israel with Hizballah in any real military sense. Iran knows Israel will blame Iran for starting something like this. Iran knows the US will use that against it.

Iran has no motives to start a wider ME war at this time - unless Iran KNEW it was going to be attacked anyway in the very near future. Then I might buy it.

No actually. I like Fred Barnes.

 Syria's not a charitable organization....

 The Nation points to the illogic of the Bush administration in having pushed Syria out of Lebanon and now demanding that it rein in Hizbullah. If Syria has been reduced to having almost no influence in Lebanon, how exactly would it do that?

{Cole}

"Relations between the United States and Israel are crucial to stability in the Middle East, where the road to peace and prosperity continues to be fraught with many obstacles."

DiFi

Israel's actions are moving Lebanese society squarely behind Hezbollah

Im not so sure thats so true. Many seem to still blame Hizballah for this mess. I actually just read this Lebanese blogger which i thought was intersting: http://lebanonheartblogs.blogspot.com/2006/07/peace-now.html

Also interesting is the response from Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan - while denouncing Israel have also insisted on putting blame on Hizballah for this mess.

A necessary consequence of creating a "majority rule" Shia government in Iraq is the need to talk with the Shia. Instead, the temporal (not spiritual) homeland of the Shia, Iran, is confronted with the harshest possible rhetoric.

It seems to me that we took careful aim and shot off our foot. The internal contradictions of our foreign-policy-by-soundbite have had a significant impact on the current mess in the Middle East and rendered us incredible as any sort of mediating influence.

The countries and organizations confronting Israel regard us now as an overt belligerent. I can see their point. These policies have put the US exactly where we haven't wanted to be for more than 50 years: a lukewarm but unamibiguous and unconditional ally of Israel.

A few years from now, we will be having a "Who lost the Middle East?" discussion.

so what do you suggest? Israel should sit back let hizballah fire rockets into its cities, infiltrate its borders, kill soldiers, kidnap more and then say ok we cant wipe you out so lets give up and negotiate? What western nation in the world would act differently than Israel if its cities were attacked by rockets, there territory infilitrated , there soldiers killed and kidnapped?

What western nation in the world would act differently than Israel if its cities were attacked by rockets, there territory infilitrated , there soldiers killed and kidnapped?

Nearly all western nations in the world would have acted differently than Israel, lh25. There is such a thing as a proportionate reaction, and Israel's reaction has been anything but that.

The Bible tells Christians that Israel is God's chosen nation and to favor it. No matter what. No matter the details of the conflict. No matter who's right and who's wrong. Favor it like a Judge favors the homeowner over the tenant. The Bible teaches when you favor Israel you will be blessed in return.

If you read through Judges and Kings, whenever God is angry with the Israelites he allows their enemies to defeat them in battle. So, if you're going for an overly literal interpretation of the Bible, that would suggest that in a successful Hizbollah attack on Israel, Hizbollah would be an agent of God's wrath.

"This is silence born of over-extension and policy exhaustion.' Besides, I'm not sure Bush ever did have a policy toward Israel and the Palestinians, unless it was some vague hope that the entire world would come into line after we showed in Iraq how American power ruled the world. The "road map" was put forth in the manner of a press release, rather than as part of a policy initiative.

I certainly agree with Josh that those who deplore or defend Israeli conduct of the war flatter Bush by thinking he's up to something. And that's a shame. All past presidents starting with Nixon showed that the one potential escape from the cycle of violence was a sympathetic but not necessarily approving partner in the United States to all parties. (Well, I have to except Reagan, whose status is wildly overrated by most Americans.)

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

If Israel were REALLY serious about peace with Lebanon they would have done the following. After the Cedar Revolution they would have tried to strengthen the central government. Obvious direct aid would have been counter productive but as a good will gesture they could have given up the Sheba farms. This has been a sticking point in Lebanon amoung all factions.

Jumblatt is the only prominent Lebanese who believe it belongs to Syria. However, even he says that if Syria renounces the territory(which it has) then even Jumblatt says the U.N should revise the Blue Line.

Hezbollah has used this to their great advantage to portray themselves as a "resistence" movement that resonates with Lebanese of different stripes. Of course it is B.S. and Israel is technically correct that it is part of the Golan Heights but that is irrelevent in Mideast politics.

Israel kept the Sheba Farms not out of strategic or military interests but just to stick it in Lebanon's eye and show them "who is boss". It is my belief that had Israel really been interested in peace on their northern border they would have gone out of their way to see that the Cedar Revolution would have flourished. They could have used France as the proxy in this effort.

In summary, what Israel really wants is just to be "left alone" and segregated from the rest of the Mideast. That is impossible and if they really want peace they are going to have to work their ass off in helping their neighbors. It does no good for property values or crime to have the nicest house in the neighborhood when evrything else is going to Hell in a Handbasket.

OTOH, Bush and the Repos are being blamed for the rising gasoline prices, and will be blamed for the concomitant slowdown in the U.S. economy as they continue to rise.

Consequently, inaction is not cost-free in political terms.

Rhetoric buster,

Nearly all western nations in the world would have acted differently than Israel....

Any examples?

When did the US decide this?

Today's WaPo Headline

Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy

It seems that Israel's actions are supported by the US and are part of a larger 'strategery' between Israel and the US in support of UN Resolution 1559, which calls for Hezbollah to disarm and the Lebanon military to take control of its southern area.

Other reasons include:

For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.

For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.

The US says it has the support of conservative Arab states.

Click here for the Users Help Forum.

I think you cannot be overly sanguine about the US national leadership, but when it comes to putting blood on the ground for Zion, either cooler heads will prevail or these good folks in Nashville and elsewhere will be heard from and Mr. Rosenberg will really have something to complain, not whine, about.

 This mess could wreck the US political system like pus from an erupting boil.

I like the off the cuff reaction of the CNN anchor this morning when Rice says we aren't calling for a ceasefire and he comments "well aren't they even going to get the Americans out of there".

What did they know and when did they know it? I have an elderly aunt who was in Lebanon a few months ago on a spur of the moment decision to travel with some friends. Is it our government's policy to let Americans wander into harms way and at the same give a green light to whatever collateral damage Israel creates?

Yes, sometimes it's as if they even want Americans killed so they can gin us up for more war.

But who is really running the store? Is it Bush and Condi or does Cheney's office have another back alley game with his neocon pals and their ties in the Mideast?

You stated my bias very well except for one small thing.

I anticipated them.

Since it is Sunday, how about a scripture reading to demonstrate my bias and in the fond hope that the "consequences" of Bush's lies will not be visited on us and on our children's children:

Hosea 8:1-7 

Set the trumpet to your lips! One like a vulture is over the house of the Lord, because they have broken my covenant, and transgressed my law. 2Israel cries to me, “My God, we—Israel—know you!” 3Israel has spurned the good; the enemy shall pursue him. 4They made kings, but not through me; they set up princes, but without my knowledge. With their silver and gold they made idols for their own destruction. 5Your calf is rejected, O Samaria. My anger burns against them. How long will they be incapable of innocence? 6For it is from Israel, an artisan made it; it is not God. The calf of Samaria shall be broken to pieces. 7For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads, it shall yield no meal; if it were to yield, foreigners would devour it.

Oh God save us!!! It's worse than I thought. We've got neocon Newt telling Russert WE are now in WWIII and we have to fight Syria an Iran and Biden saying it's "indirectly our war" and essentially giving Israel a blank check.

Better build your bomb shelters folks. Our government, both parties, is not going to be happy until they have a world war to prove how wicked tough they all are.

Tony's credible on this one. Bush didn't have to call Olmert, isn't supposed to call Olmert and probably has been instructed not to call Olmert. This was all arranged on Olmert's state visit.

"Relations between the United States and Israel are crucial to stability in the Middle East, where the road to peace and prosperity continues to be fraught with many obstacles. In this regard, Congress has placed considerable importance on the maintenance [of good relations with Israel]"

Dianne Feinstein USS

Zionista, as a thoughtful Zionist, do you think there is any way Israel can come out ahead now that its course of "overwhelming retaliation" has been fixed? I have the same sense of impending disater that I had in 2003 when the right-wing Americans/neocons/Bush waltzed us into Iraq. Israel cannot weed out Hezbollah by bombing; if it is really Israeli policy it will require a massive ground presence; does Israel have that capability? Or will it just escalate and attack Syria and Iran hoping to inflict enough pain to force these countries to rein in Hezbollah? I think either of these options is going to be costly, very costly, to Israel. I really do not think this shapes up to be a war like those 30 years ago. There seems to be a much greater determination on the part of Arab/Iranians to cause pain (rather than win battles) than earlier; and in many ways the earlier Hezbollah Israeli conflict and the Iraq conflict have shown how to do it.

well, it seems to me Bush really does believe one should kill them all and let God sort them out. He has said he is an instrument of God. They White House has weekly Bible readings, for Christ's sake!!! (pun - but true), so I don't know why this is a surprise. The problem is not in that the people in charge are religious zealots, the problem is that rational people ignore the fact that people who hear voices, talk to others in their imagination and feel that something is watching them are actually delusional and would be insane by any other standard than religion.

Yes, that is so.  This morning Sibley Telhami the Washington Bureau chief of Al Ahram put it this way.  Lebanese are asking: Who put Hezbolla in charge and who gave them the right to bring us to war?

For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind...Turning and turning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer...

I prefer this

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Iran is in a tight spot, being UNSC bound and all. Greenlighting this is an effective way of saying to the West: not so fast with sanctions and all, Buster. I can make your life very very miserable.

Syria's message is: I ain't dead yet.

Both messages will prove to be effective.

PS One can argue about Syria. (Though it's almost hilarious to see Bush asking it to use its influence in Lebanon when a few months ago he was asking it NOT to use its influence.) But Iran is the natural dominant player in the region (with Israel): everyone knows that, except the US.

Thanks for the link.

Yes, lots of people are mad at Hezbo (for good reasons). But in such situations time always works in favor of the home team. People simply forget who started what and look at the present (like the convoy and the 20 dead).

Alos, Hezbo's prestige is now so big even its enemies in Lebanon (which is about half of the population) will think twice about coming out against it.

Or rather (pace A. Lincoln) who is on God's side?

VLaszlo,

Zionista, as a thoughtful Zionist, do you think there is any way Israel can come out ahead now that its course of "overwhelming retaliation" has been fixed?

I could only believe that if I went with the flock, believing that Israel was the only party to the conflict (among principals and interested third parties) that had any influence on its circumstances. 

Before Israel's course of "overwhelming retaliation" had been fixed, and since Ehud Barak withdrew Israeli forces from Lebanon in 2000, it has been the diplomatic status quo to relieve Lebanon of its compliance with UN Resolution 425 and allow Hizbollah to run its own shop on the border with Israel:

The Security Council,

[...] 3. Decides, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area, the Force to be composed of personnel drawn from Member States

You are asking the question the wrong way.  For Israel, it's not about "coming out ahead."  It's about coming out equal -- not in terms of raw military power, but in terms of national legitimacy.  How can Israel ever feel confident enough in its security to make the moves everyone demands of it while only three out of 22 member nations of the Arab League and only 4 out of 56 member nations of the Organization of Islamic Conferences even have minimally open diplomatic channels with Israel?  This status quo must change before there will be any real stability, let alone peace.  But in the meantime, Israel must act like the sovereign nation it is, defending its borders and citizens, even if most of the region denies it.

I'm puzzled.

The conventional wisdom is that the Lebanese Govt isn't strong enough to dislodge Hezbollah from its priviledged sanctuary by the border. But that the Isrealis are attacking that government to force it to do just that.

One possible explanation is that the Israeli's ( who surely know the true state of Lebanese affairs) real aim is to use the
Lebanese death toll to promote an international demand for outside intervention to do what the Lebanese clearly can't do for themselves .
In short the message they are sending is not to Hezbollah but to us.

Admitting to so calculated a sacrifice of a chosen victim would affront US opinion so Israel would naturally pretend otherwise.

BTW that strategy would be an implicit indication that the Isralies believe(as I do )that Bush's middle east goals (Democracy , Peace) are self contradictory are at least not mutually reinforcing.

I neither claim to believe this theory nor necessarily condemn it. ( My position is that almost anything that stops the killing is good ) . Just trying to understand.

Wow, Zionista, that's a challenge. Canada. Sweden. Germany. The Netherlands. Italy. Portugal.

Note that the question was not which western nations would have done positively nothing but instead which western nations would have acted differently than Israel.

If you need any more examples just ask.

Your frustration is widely shared.
The ME is such a gorgeous part of the world. It could be paradise on earth.

And yet killing seems to be everyone's favorite sport...

PS What you suggest was Intifada I. It proved to be quite effective actually.

Yes Bush claims to be Christian and says he has regular conversations with YHWH

SUNDAY SUNDAY

Psalm 95...

8Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,

9when your ancestors tested me, and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work.

10For forty years I loathed that generation and said, “They are a people whose hearts go astray, and they do not regard my ways.”

11Therefore in my anger I swore, “They shall not enter my rest.”

I'm reposting excerpts of an article "The Rules of the Game" by Daniel Sobelman of Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies written in 2004. I find Sobelman's analysis to very useful in understanding the context of the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah since Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and his warnings to be very prescient.

Still playing by the rules Daniel Sobelman

It would be no exaggeration to say that there are those at the highest levels of Israel's security establishment who are awaiting the moment when Hizballah makes a mistake, thereby providing the trigger and the justification for the Israel Defense Forces to "settle the score" with the Lebanese organization.

This "closing of accounts" was originally predicted to overlap with the onset of the American campaign in Iraq, with Israel's strategists seeding the public climate in anticipation of this eventuality. At first, assessments circulated that Hizballah was poised to ignite Israel's northern front, aiming to disrupt America's impending drive into Iraq; then, press reports routinely surfaced in the Israeli media amplifying the threats posed by the organization[...]

Now, however, with the American campaign behind us, what we see is an Israel-Lebanon border untouched by the war in Iraq. The supposedly inevitable flare-up has not only failed to materialize, but seems to be indefinitely on hold.

In reality, what transpired on this border following the May 2000 Israeli withdrawal is quite different from what Israel had envisaged during the years of conflict in South Lebanon, especially as the unilateral pullout approached.[...]

Hizballah has continued its activity against Israel since the withdrawal, but its scope and nature have been more limited and less troubling than what had been forecast by Israeli intelligence. Instead of the expected deterioration in security, both sides engaged more and more in redefining the "rules of the game". Since the withdrawal, these rules have regulated both the intensity of engagement and the parameters of mutual disengagement. We might describe the current situation as a "war of minds" in which the parties periodically try to refashion these "rules", seeking to gain advantage over one another.

By and large the sides have abided by these ground rules, prudently avoiding disproportionate moves. Infrequently, when one party identifies an apparent imbalance, steps are quickly taken to re-impose the status quo ante. This dynamic has become one of the most important stabilizing features in the border landscape.

But what of the future? Every few months Israeli authorities update the public about threats to national security, stressing the latest numbers of katyusha rockets available to Hizballah--13,000 to date. Yet on the other side, taking into account that the weaker side in the strategic equation is Lebanon and Hizballah, it should not be surprising that the Shiite organization is cautiously observing the rules of the game. After all, Hizballah faces an army whose might is certainly not measured in katyushas. Casting Israel into a limited tactical skirmish-counter skirmish mold is clearly in the interest of Lebanon and Hizballah. It is more surprising that so far Israel is accommodating this situation.

The conflict between Israel and Hizballah has thus changed from one of ongoing combat to one of intermittent outbursts (every few months); even then the eruptions are restricted in nature. Israel has only gradually accepted that the scenario of the Shiite organization initiating a rocket assault across the entire north of Israel is unrealistic for the foreseeable future. By the same token, none of the parties--Hizballah, Lebanon, Syria and Iran--is oblivious to the devastating repercussions that such an attack would wreak upon Lebanon. [...]

Israel's contingency blueprints have tended in the past to become operational under certain--perhaps self fulfilling--circumstances. For now, though, there is a quiet but tense mood along Israel's border with Lebanon--albeit, with a sense of the temporary. Every quiet day reinforces the status quo and the rules governing the situation. As these rules become more entrenched, and as the sides grow accustomed to the inherently circumscribed parameters of the border conflict, this seems to augur well for a period of relative tranquility.

From Those Wonderful Folks Who Gave You "Axis of Evil"