No, this is not 'our war'

Good old Pat has it right this time…

No, this is not ‘our war’.


My country has been “torn to shreds,” said Fouad Siniora, the prime minister of Lebanon, as the death toll among his people passed 300 civilian dead, 1,000 wounded, with half a million homeless.

Israel must pay for the “barbaric destruction,” said Siniora.

To the contrary, says columnist Lawrence Kudlow, “Israel is doing the Lord’s work.”

On American TV, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu says the ruination of Lebanon is Hezbollah’s doing. But is it Hezbollah that is using U.S.-built F-16s, with precision-guided bombs and 155-mm artillery pieces to wreak death and devastation on Lebanon?

No, Israel is doing this, with the blessing and without a peep of protest from President Bush. And we wonder why they hate us.

“Today, we are all Israelis!” brayed Ken Mehlman of the Republican National Committee to a gathering of Christians United for Israel.

One wonders if these Christians care about what is happening to our Christian brethren in Lebanon and Gaza, who have had all power cut off by Israeli airstrikes, an outlawed form of collective punishment, that has left them with no sanitation, rotting food, impure water and days without light or electricity in the horrible heat of July.

When summer power outrages occur in America, it means a rising rate of death among our sick and elderly, and women and infants. One can only imagine what a #### it must be today in Gaza City and Beirut.

But all this carnage and destruction has only piqued the blood lust of the hairy-chested warriors at the Weekly Standard. In a signed editorial, “It’s Our War,” William Kristol calls for America to play her rightful role in this war by “countering this act of aggression by Iran with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?”

“Why wait?” Well, one reason is that the United States has not been attacked. A second is a small thing called the Constitution. Where does George W. Bush get the authority to launch a war on Iran? When did Congress declare war or authorize a war on Iran?

Answer: It never did. But these neoconservatives care no more about the Constitution than they cared about the truth when they lied into war in Iraq.

“Why wait?” How about thinking of the fate of those 25,000 Americans in Lebanon if we launch an unprovoked war on Iran. How many would wind up dead or hostages of Hezbollah if Iran gave the order to retaliate for the slaughter of their citizens by U.S. bombs? What would happen to the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, if Shiites and Iranian “volunteers” joined forces to exact revenge on our soldiers?

What about America? Richard Armitage, who did four tours in Nam and knows a bit about war, says that, in its ability to attack Western targets, al-Qaida is the B Team, Hezbollah the A Team. If Bush bombs Iran, what prevents Hezbollah from launching retaliatory attacks inside the United States?

None of this is written in defense of Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran.

But none of them has attacked our country, nor has Syria, whom Bush I made an ally in the Gulf War and to whom the most decorated soldier in Israeli history, Ehud Barak, offered 99 percent of the Golan Heights. If Nixon, Bush I and Clinton could deal with Hafez al-Assad, a tougher customer than son Bashar, what is the matter with George W. Bush?

The last superpower is impotent in this war because we have allowed Israel to dictate to whom we may and may not talk. Thus, Bush winds up cussing in frustration in St. Petersburg that somebody should tell the Syrians to stop it. Why not pick up the phone, Mr. President?

What is Kristol’s moral and legal ground for a war on Iran? It is the “Iranian act of aggression” against Israel and that Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons – and we can’t have that.

But there is no evidence Iran has any tighter control over Hezbollah than we have over Israel, whose response to the capture of two soldiers had all the spontaneity of the Schlieffen Plan. And, again, Hezbollah attacked Israel, not us. And there is no solid proof Iran is in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it has signed, but Israel refuses to sign.

If Iran’s nuclear program justifies war, why cannot the neocons make that case in the constitutional way, instead of prodding Bush to launch a Pearl Harbor attack? Do they fear they have no credibility left after pushing Bush into this bloody quagmire in Iraq that has cost almost 2,600 dead and 18,000 wounded Americans?

No, Kenny boy, we are not “all Israelis.” Some of us still think of ourselves as Americans, first, last and always

And, no, Mr. Kristol, this is not “our war.” It’s your war.

If the Lebanesse government doesn’t have the political balls to deal with Hezbollah, than they should stop whining.

Disproportionate force…a new buzz word of the bleeding hearts.

Israel has been using disproportionate force against neighboring Arabs for decades. And it’s worked soooooooo well for them, hasn’t it ?

They have every right and reason to get their neighbours to stop attacking them. But it’s really stupid to just keep repeating a method that has never worked. Does Israel really want a solution ? The first step towards that would be to stop denying their role in provoking the Arab hostility.

Oh that’s right, what am I thinking, of course Israel never did anything to provoke hostility. Why don’t pesky bleeding heart liberals understand that it’s ok to occupy the west bank, gaza and golan heights for 40 years. What’s wrong with that ? Why don’t the crazy Arabs just accept it ?

That’s the delusional mentality that needs changing in Israel (and the US for that matter) before anything is gonna change. Yes, Hezbollah etc need to quit their attacks. Yes, Syria, Iran etc need to change their policy too. But Israel is part of the problem too, and I would suggest that they are in the best position to start making positive changes.

No one has clean hands in this matter, there are no clear cut answers.

edit…tomssaidsomethingreallystupidhere…edit… :)

I’m not sure where you’ve seen him talk about the “end times” but he hasn’t mentioned them lately.

ooh, right, Mike, I’m stewped these days, blame the pain killers.

Dunno why my lint trap of a brain spat that out. :(

Anyway, it is sort of interesting how little influence he has now, really - which is OK with me, he holds atrocious views! - but at least he recognizes the distinction between conservative and neo con.

Pat’s a funny guy. Sometimes he makes a lot of sense and other times he loses it altogether. His biggest fault is his bigotry. His biggest asset is he is one of the few who understand economics and like him or not his economic ideas are on target and his predictions have come true.

Chris is all over the place in the last several years. He’s gone from being a fair and impartial interviewer to an all out butt-kisser for Bush’s programs to now questioning the neocon agenda. His butt-kissing has lowered his credibility substantially. Too much alcohol destroys brain cells doncha know.


KF - I agree about Pat but I believe he’s consistently opposed the war in Iraq.

Here’s the video link to the hardball discussion; you are right, PR is prety much right. Very interersting. Lots of very harsh criticism of Cheney et al.

Right - I watched this video. Pat & Shrum actually agree on some stuff. Down with neo-cons!

Gad, it almost makes me think PB is sane. :)

Quote (TomS @ July 24 2006,01:38)
Gad, it almost makes me think PB is sane. :)

The times are indeed dark here in middle earth, when PB becomes the voice of reason.

The ring is powerful and compelling!

Lord KingFish

Did PB ever sell that “evil” Mercedes way back when?