Karl "Bush's Brain" Rove doesn't deserve to have any friends at all for what he's done to this country the past 6 years. Yet today, the "turd blossom" (Bush's nickname for him; don't ask!) must be celebrating, because he's got two new BEST friends. Their names? First, Joe Lieberman, for spouting Rove's own disgraceful, un-American, McCarthyist lines. Lieberman's said a lot of offensive, Rove-like things in recent years, but his comments late last week topped them all:
If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out [of Iraq] by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England.
Sound familiar? Well, here's what Dick Cheney had to say on the same subject:
On Wednesday, Cheney gave his assessment of anti-war challenger Ned Lamont's Democratic primary win over Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, an Iraq war supporter.The vice president suggested that Lamont's victory might encourage "the al-Qaida types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."
He portrayed the Democratic Party as preferring that the United States "retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home."
Disgusting lies, of course. But what else do you expect from Dick "Dick" Cheney? Not much. But Joe Lieberman, who's supposedly a DEMOCRAT?!? Ack; say it ain't so, Joe! Unfortunately, it is. Here's Democratic commentator Mark Shields on last night's NewsHour, utterly laying into Lieberman:
I mean, that is -- that isn't beyond the pale. I mean, that's just unacceptable. That is objectionable and unacceptable language, and it is totally alien to the Joe Lieberman that most of us have known and liked. I mean, it was -- it sounded like the desperate words of a desperate man who was really, you know, at the end of his rope.
Desperate? Now THAT is being charitable! How about "McCarthy-ite" and "Rove-ian." Also, how about "disgraceful," "shameful," and "unforgiveable?" And I say this as someone who used to DEFEND Joe Lieberman. Not anymore, that's for damn sure!
Anyway, enough of Joe Lieberman. On to Karl Rove's new best friend #2. That's right, it's the clowns in THIS crowd, who earlier today staged a self-styled "national emergency action to protest the U.S.-Israeli war against the Palestinian and Lebanese people." That's right, it's all America's and Israel's fault, according to the extreme left-wing (communist, anarchist, anti-Semitic, war-criminal-embracing, etc.) International A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition.
Forget the fact that the Arab-Israeli conflict is incredibly complex. Forget the fact that Hezbollah is an Iranian-sponsored terrorist group that has killed hundreds of Americans in the past. Forget the fact that Hezbollah started this latest round of violence, even though Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon in May 2000. Here's the account of how this war started, courtesy of Wikipedia (bolding added for emphasis):
At 9:05 AM local time (06:05 UTC), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated a diversionary Katyusha rocket and mortar attack on Israeli military positions and on the villages of Even Menahem and Mattat, injuring 5 civilians. At the same time, a ground contingent of Hezbollah attacked two Israeli armored Humvees along the Israel-Lebanon border, near the village of Zar'it, with anti-tank rockets, capturing two Israeli soldiers, and killing three. Five others were killed later on the Lebanese side of the border on 12 July during a mission to rescue the two kidnapped soldiers. In a report the Lebanese police force stated that the Israeli soldiers were attacked and "captured" on the Lebanese side of the border on 12 July during a mission to infiltrate the Lebanese town of Ayta al-Sha`b, though the U.N, EU, G8, and prominent news agencies have characterized the Hezbollah action as "cross-border". In an interview with The Times on 2 August, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two, but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning. Indiscriminately."Hezbollah's attack was named Operation Truthful Promise, after a "promise" by its leader Hassan Nasrallah to kidnap Israeli soldiers and swap them for convicted murderer Samir Kuntar and two other Lebanese prisoners still held by Israel. Later on, Hassan Nasrallah declared: +óGé¼+ôNo military operation will return them+óGé¼-ª The prisoners will not be returned except through one way: indirect negotiations and a trade of prisoners.+óGé¼-¥
So there you have it. This war began due to an act of unprovoked aggression against Israel by the Iranian-sponsored terrorist group Hezbollah. It was not approved by the Lebanese government, or the people of Lebanon as a whole. That is not to justify every single action Israel took in defending itself. And it is not to justify every single action (or inaction) the United States took in this crisis. However, to call this a "U.S.-Israeli war against the Palestinian and Lebanese people" is wrong, disgusting, and also stupid.
Why stupid? Because it plays DIRECTLY into the hands of Karl Rove, George W. Bush, George Allen, Rick Santorum, and every other endangered Republican incumbent this year. Just as with Joe Lieberman's unforgivable comments, the International A.N.S.W.E.R. "action" provides Republicans yet MORE cover and MORE excuses to argue that Democrats, liberals, progressives, and the left in general are weak when it comes to fighting terrorism. Which is extremely convenient for them, given that they're desperate for ANYTHING to distract public anger over the disastrous Iraq War away from them.
Meanwhile, as Joe Lieberman and International A.N.S.W.E.R. give a boost to Karl and Company, the New York Times reports that the Bush Administration's "nearly obsessive focus on the previous [9/11] attacks may have prevented the federal government from combating new threats effectively." In other words, the Bush Admministration and Republican Congress are busy "fighting the last war," as losing armies often do. They are also suffering from an almost complete "failure of imagination," the same failure that the 9/11 Commission said contributed to 9/11 itself.
But today, instead of the American public focusing 100% on the failures of Republicans to defend this nation effectively, they are distracted on the one hand by the McCarthy-ite rhetoric of Joe Lieberman, and on the other by the crazies from International A.N.S.W.E.R.
And Karl Rove? I'm sure he's enjoying all this immensely, probably rubbing his fat, greasy hands together and cackling like Dr. Evil, dreaming up his next diabolical scheme to divide the Democrats and snatch electoral victory from the jaws of defeat this November. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign. The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not necessarily represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.
Jesus, I guess to some people any war is bad, no matter wo well fought, well justified, or clean it is. And the Kosovo campaign was about as justified and clean as they get. As opposed to the Iraq mess.
The only consolation is that they're taken about as seriously as Lyndon LaRouche. But even so, ugh.
Everyone who has dealings with Clark uses the word "nice" to describe him. But he often sides with people whom no one with a full deck would call nice. (Clark did not respond to a Salon News interview request.) Many former friends, more in sorrow than in anger, trace his present positions to the company he keeps: the International Action Center, which proclaims him its founder but seems entirely in the thrall of an obscure Trotskyist sect, the Workers World Party. Whoever writes his scripts, there is little doubt what Ramsey Clark is against now -- any manifestation of the power of the state he once served at the height of the Vietnam War.At the end of 1998 Clark attended a human rights conference in Baghdad, Iraq, where in his keynote speech he pointed out how "the governments of the rich nations, primarily the United States, England and France," dominated the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which showed "little concern for economic, social and cultural rights." The social and cultural rights claimed by his Iraqi hosts include the right to hang opponents in public at the airport, or poison thousands of Kurds and torture and execute any opponent of the regime. And on the legality of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the silence is deafening.
When he flew to Belgrade to support Slobodan Milosevic during NATO's campaign, there was no word about the siege of Sarajevo, the massacre at Srebrenica or the million homeless refugees from Kosovo -- and even less of those olfactorily eloquent mass graves that NATO is now uncovering. But then, urging Belgrade to resist NATO, while he was there picking up an honorary degree, he told his hosts, "It will be a great struggle, but a glorious victory. You can be victorious."
In Grenada he went to advise Bernard Coard, the murderer of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop. Other clients include Radovan Karadzic, the indicted Bosnian Serbian war criminal whom he defended in a New York civil suit brought by Bosnian rape victims, and the Rwandan pastor who is accused of telling Tutsis to hide in his church and then summoning Hutus to massacre them, and then leading killing squads.
Why would a war be started with US-backed Israel and all their extreme and precision weapons. It is crazy. But Israel was so innocent. No, this was the plan. Cause a reaction from arabs re the actions in Palestine and blow Lebanon up.
Israel is the only country that has not defined their borders. That is because they are still grabbing land. They build the giant wall way into Palestian lands, and you can bet they are going to claim some of this northern territory. They say they will define their borders by 2010 (after they get done stealing land and livelihoods).
The mother of one of the soldiers has publicly spoken. She does NOT want this war. The number of refusniks is growing. They are refusing to drop bombs on homes, they are refusing to go. There are so many that they are telling them to go home rather than cloud their mission with jailing Israelis.
I thought we weren't supposed to talk about this on this site. It was inferred that Lowell is the only enlightened one here. So why dangle half truths in front of us.
If they want peace they should create interdependence. It is the ONLY way. There is genocide in Palestine. When will anybody care.
P.S. I have NEVER implied that I am the only one with knowledge of the Middle East. I simply stated my opinion that most media/blog commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict leaves a great deal to be desired. Do you disagree with that?
I'm still wondering (along, I'm sure, with most of the Arab world)how you clean out a guerilla army shooting rockets out of southern Lebanon by killing a bunch of civilians the whole way to the Syrian border.
To me it just looks like killing for killin's sake. There is no glory here. There are no heros. There is only revenge. And I'm tired of Americans making excuses for it. Enough.
The problem here is right-wingers -- in both the U.S. and Israel -- who think that war is the answer to everything and that sitting down to talk with your enemies is a sign of "weakness."
As for Lieberman, I'm almost starting to feel sorry for the guy. He's jumped the shark and he's fast becoming as obsolete as a "Brady Bunch" re-run.
Having said all this, I strenuously disagree with the entire notion that the Israelis were callous to civilian casualties in Lebanon. Quite the contrary; the Israelis tried very hard to minimize civilian casualties, suffering more casualties themselves as as result. Also, I would point out that Hezbollah showed no concern whatsoever for Israeli civilian casualties; in fact, that was its main goal in firing missiles at Israeli cities and towns.
The resulting destruction inflicted terror, suffering, and poverty amongst civilians that lingered for decades. While Stoneman was careful to avoid civilian casualties, resentment, and economic destruction was his legacy. A legacy of brutality, and revenge against a weak foe. Same old, same old.
Total war was widely practiced by the Greeks, as related in the Illiad, by the Romans, as in the destruction of Carthage, and by the Mongols. It was practiced in the Hundred Years War as a matter of policy by the English in France. It sees mention in the Old Testament numerous times and was a feature of several of Timur's campaigns, and in the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. It was also seen in Xinjiang and Gansu during the Manchu supression of the 19th Century Muslim Rebellion.
Other examples of "Total War," according to Wikipedia, include:
*The Civil War
*The American Indian wars
*World War I
*World War II (fire bombing of cities, the Holocaust, etc.)
*Vietnam
One might also add the attacks by Al Qaeda on 9/11/01 in America, 3/11/04 in Madrid, and 7/7/05 in London. Unfortunately, "total war" might very well lead ultimately to "total destruction" for mankind. Let's hope not.