• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you don’t.

Prediction: the GOP will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”

In short, I come down firmly on all sides of the issue.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

Happy indictment week to all who celebrate!

No Justins, No Peace

Glad to see john eastman going through some things.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

I like you, you’re my kind of trouble.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

I conferred with the team and they all agree – still not tired of winning!

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Peak wingnut was a lie.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Trump’s legal defense is going to be a dumpster fire inside a clown car on a derailing train.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / The Mess In the Middle East

The Mess In the Middle East

by John Cole|  July 17, 20065:29 pm| 177 Comments

This post is in: Foreign Affairs

FacebookTweetEmail

I actually had about fifteen posts started on the mess in Lebanon, and every time I get half way through a post, I deleted it because my opinions change. And that is really where I am with this whole bloody mess. I instinctively feel that Israel should have the right to defend herself (I feel they are obligated), but at the same time I am not wholly convinced that the people who need to pay for what is being done to Israelis are the ones feeling the brunt of the Israeli military action.

Quagmire.

BTW- If anyone has some links to some decent overall summaries of what is going on that are not jaded by the hubris that seems to have taken over the blogosphere, please link ’em.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Open Thread
Next Post: Hot As Hell »

Reader Interactions

177Comments

  1. 1.

    Richard 23

    July 17, 2006 at 5:48 pm

    Both sides are batshit crazy. So your flip flopping is understandable.

  2. 2.

    Richard 23

    July 17, 2006 at 5:48 pm

    Oh yeah. FRIST!

  3. 3.

    Craig

    July 17, 2006 at 5:51 pm

    John,
    I think that while it is a messy and bloody situation. Israel has the need to destroy or force Hezbollah into submission. This requires the countries that support or bend to their will stop supporting and bending to them. While most of the people in Lebannon do not support Hezbollah, especially in the north and in Beirut, the govenment of Lebannon needs to be forced to respond. They either can control Hezbollah, or they can’t. If they can’t then Israel has to step in. This is the same situation the US faced in Afghanistan. We were forced to go to Afghanistan and remove the Taliban and root out Al Queda, although we did it poorly. The difference is that Afghanistan can’t toss missiles into US territory like Hezbollah can and does to Israel.

    Clearly, the situation with Syria and Iran supporting Hezbollah needs to be dealth with. But, without stabilizing Lebannon that will not go anywhere. There can be no safe sanctuaries for terrorist organizations. So it follows that Lebannon must be dealth with.

  4. 4.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 5:55 pm

    “…but at the same time I am not wholly convinced that the people who need to pay for what is being done to Israelis are the ones feeling the brunt of the Israeli military action.”

    Well, genius, that’s what happens when terrorists hide behind civilians… behind their own families and inside apartment buildings and mosques.

    Isreal would be overjoyed to hit the terrorists’ military bases… except they don’t HAVE military bases. Hence all fighting back is by definition a war crime.

    That’s why not having a strong disincentive to hide among civilians… disincentives like “if you do that, you get NO geneva rights when captured”… is a VERY BAD IDEA.

    But what should one expect from a proud member of the doucheosphere? Clear thinking? Lack of moral equivelance? I don’t think so.

  5. 5.

    Pb

    July 17, 2006 at 5:58 pm

    John Cole,

    I instinctively feel that Israel should have the right to defend herself (I feel they are obligated), but at the same time I am not wholly convinced that the people who need to pay for what is being done to Israelis are the ones feeling the brunt of the Israeli military action.

    Agreed.

    Ryan Waxx,

    But what should one expect from a proud member of the doucheosphere?

    Uh-huh. And what the fuck would that make you? Go back under your bridge, shitstain–we’re trying to have a discusison over here.

  6. 6.

    Mike P

    July 17, 2006 at 5:59 pm

    I though this post over at Obsidian Wings by hilzoy was pretty good and fairly even handed:
    http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/07/bad_moon_rising.html

  7. 7.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Sorry for interrupting the head-nodding among the faithful.

  8. 8.

    Pb

    July 17, 2006 at 6:04 pm

    Just the other day, Glenn Greenwald had a long post with some great links in the updates (to Obsidian Wings and Billmon). Currently he’s got another post up about the issue, but at the moment, that mostly just talks about the right-wing response to the conflict, which is a theme that he’s been hitting pretty hard lately.

  9. 9.

    Pb

    July 17, 2006 at 6:05 pm

    Ryan Waxx,

    Sorry for interrupting the head-nodding among the faithful.

    You *are* new here, aren’t you? :)

    Let me direct your attention to the now 645+ post flamewar that is still going on in the *previous* post on this conflict…

    …moron.

  10. 10.

    me

    July 17, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    stuff i compiled on some middle-east crisi “art” i made

    Yahoo News photostream:
    tinyurl.com/mp3d6
    Good source for current links and commentary:
    agonist.org/20060713/middle_east_crisis_open_thread
    http://www.antiwar.com/
    media in israel:
    http://www.haaretz.com/
    http://www.jpost.com/
    Palestinian media:
    electronicintifada.net/new.shtml
    Professor Juan Cole’s blog:
    http://www.juancole.com/
    Good neutral backgrounder info:
    http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_03/cover.html
    warincontext.org/
    Goods links from blogger “a star from mosul”:
    astarfrommosul.blogspot.com/2006/07/lebanese-crisis.html#…
    Blog from Lebanon , current updates:
    colddesert.blogspot.com/
    Israeli article for some fresh perspective of the last few days events:
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738607.html
    Lebanese Blogger Forum expresses the ideas of diverse Lebanese bloggers. All of them are blaming Israel; however, they blame Hezbollah as responsible to this war to varying degrees. lebanonheartblogs.blogspot.com/

    UrShalim expresses the day by day situation of family man whose main concern is to protect his family and to move them to a safe place. urshalim.blogspot.com/

    I M ALSO INTERESTED IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE IN THE AREA WHO HAS A BLOG I CAN POST IT HERE, ESPECIALLY LOOKING FOR BLOGS FROM NORTHERN ISRAEL.PLEASE DO NOT RECCOMENT HATEFUL MATERIAL.

    John Stewart from 07/14 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYeWIyRoUPs

    Flikr user who has an amazing collection of links on the crisis:

    divedi.blogspot.com/2006/07/blog-of-day-crisis-in-middle-…

  11. 11.

    demimondian

    July 17, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    Pb, that isn’t nice. And you know how important it is for us to be accepting, kind, and nice to half-witted, dim-headed, moronic-pig newbies like Ryan Waxx.

  12. 12.

    Pb

    July 17, 2006 at 6:11 pm

    demimondian,

    I didn’t want him to get used to receiving any special treatment, so I figured I’d treat him just like a regular (who said something incredibly stupid)–which means, better than I’d treat Darrell. :)

  13. 13.

    Tim F.

    July 17, 2006 at 6:12 pm

    me,

    That works better if you embed your links. Use the ‘link’ button in the grey box above the text window.

  14. 14.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 6:12 pm

    If you want to consider this thread a simple extension of that one, go ahead. I was responding to THIS thread.

    You know, the one where your sole contribution to the actual thread was the single word ‘agreed’?

  15. 15.

    me

    July 17, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    tim i m sorry i m useless with this stuff

  16. 16.

    Steve

    July 17, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    If this conflict were as simple as a fight between Israel and Hezbollah, I think it would be easy for everyone to agree that Hezbollah is an evil, evil terrorist organization and needs to be taken out. As far as I know, they have more American blood on their hands than any terrorist group aside from al-Qaeda.

    But of course, you can’t hurt Hezbollah without also hurting Lebanon, and Lebanon isn’t powerful enough to expel them on its own. The sense is that if Lebanon were to try, the result might well be a military coup. Hezbollah just has too much power, including the lion’s share of the guns. And economic sanctions against Lebanon might just entrench them further, the way Hamas has become the lawfully elected government of the Palestinians. So really, if you think it’s important to eliminate Hezbollah, military action is the only option – but it is even possible to do so without causing irreparable damage to the remainder of Lebanon?

    In 2003, Senator Bob Graham argued that Hezbollah ought to be the next U.S. target, and should be a higher priority than Iraq:

    “Does Saddam Hussein or Hezbollah represent the greater threat to the United States,” asks Graham. “In my opinion, there’s no question that Hezbollah is that greater threat, and yes, we should go after it first and go after it before we go to war with Iraq.”

    Graham says Hezbollah has a global network of radical Islamic supporters, with enough operatives in the U.S. to pose a terrorist threat here.

    “It has a significant presence of its trained operatives inside the United States waiting for the call to action,” says Graham.

    But if we were to know that classified information, would we be more concerned? Would we be more afraid of Hezbollah than we are today?

    “Well, I’m more concerned and more afraid than if I did not know what the scale of their presence was in the United States,” says Graham, without any hesitation.

    “They are a violent terrorist group. And they have demonstrated throughout their now 25-year history a hatred of the United States and a willingness to kill our people.”

    Like most Americans, I wholeheartedly supported the invasion of Afghanistan. And if you had told me in 2003 that Hezbollah was the next target, I would have had no problem whatsoever. Indeed, my own feelings on Iraq were a lot like Sen. Graham’s – I simply didn’t get why Iraq was viewed as the #1 priority.

    If we were talking about the US invading Lebanon to take out Hezbollah, I think it would at least be feasible, not that I believe that option is seriously on the table. Afghanistan would be the model, in a sense, and we could do even better, since Lebanon already has a fledgling democracy and is far better off than the failed state we had to try and rebuild in Afghanistan.

    But we’re not talking about the US, we’re talking about an Israeli campaign that is mostly waged from the air. And I think there is serious doubt whether Israel can do enough damage to Hezbollah with this kind of attack, without an unacceptable degree of damage to the civilians of Lebanon and their infrastructure. Juan Cole argues:

    Israel struck at large numbers of targets on Sunday, and early Monday morning, that had nothing to do with Hezbollah. The far north of Lebanon is Sunni, as is the port of Tripoli, where the Israelis killed a Catholic Lebanese soldier. They also hit factories in north Beirut, not a Shiite area. They bombed a village near Zahle, a notorious center of Greek Orthodox, killing 3 civilians.

    Taking this at face value, there’s grounds to wonder not only how well Israel is carrying out the military mission, but even whether their agenda corresponds with the publicly stated goal of disarming Hezbollah. Certainly, the national security of the US is not Israel’s foremost concern, another reason to wish the US had taken affairs into its own hands once upon a time. (Of course, Lebanon in 2003 under Syrian occupation was a considerably different place.)

    So where should the US be on the present conflict? I’m pretty disappointed in Bush’s nonserious response, joking about pig roasts when asked about the topic at a press conference, then telling Tony Blair off the record that Syria could end the whole thing with a word to Hezbollah. Why Bush isn’t using the occasion to remind the American people of who Hezbollah is and why they are a threat to the US is beyond me – unless he’s worried on some level that people will wonder why Hezbollah hasn’t been more of a priority up till now, which I kind of doubt.

    The abiding sense in America, it seems to me, has always been that we arm Israel because they do our dirty work in the Middle East. We didn’t start the present conflict, but as long as it is going on, why isn’t Bush speaking out more clearly in support of Israel doing our dirty work by eliminating Hezbollah? Instead it’s mushy talk about the right to self-defense, which leaves the American people with the impression that it’s only Israel and not the US which has a dog in this fight. And as events are currently playing out, maybe that’s true.

    We really could be doing so much more about terrorism if it weren’t for the catastrophic blunder of Iraq, which is a ship that has long since sailed but I can still lament it. Instead, we’re left with nothing but Israel as a proxy, yet again, to strike against Hezbollah, and they seem to be doing a rather poor job of it.

  17. 17.

    me

    July 17, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    here s the proper link i hope i don t get hate spammed

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/82946755@N00/188564181/

  18. 18.

    Pb

    July 17, 2006 at 6:17 pm

    Ryan Waxx,

    your sole contribution to the actual thread was the single word ‘agreed’?

    And if you were a regular, then you might have some idea of how unusual that is. Whenever I do agree with John, I try to make it a point to let him know, because it isn’t all that often. Of course, whenever I don’t, I usually let him know anyhow as well… :)

  19. 19.

    Steve

    July 17, 2006 at 6:19 pm

    That’s why not having a strong disincentive to hide among civilians… disincentives like “if you do that, you get NO geneva rights when captured”… is a VERY BAD IDEA.

    Oh man. Look, they hide behind civilians because they have no other choice. They’d be stone cold dead otherwise, at the hands of Israel, the US or whoever. They’re not suddenly going to start marching in regular order complete with spiffy uniforms just because “this way, we get those awesome Geneva rights if we’re captured!”

  20. 20.

    LITBMueller

    July 17, 2006 at 6:21 pm

    …that are not jaded by the hubris written by Neocon wackjobs like Bill Kristol…

    Fixed that for ya! :) Interesting you should use the word “quagmire…”

    This is what is bothering me: Israel has already tried to occupy Lebanon, and establish a buffer zone. That effort failed while Hezbollah grew in strength, both militarily and politically. So, Israel finally cut their losses on 2000 and withdrew from Lebanon. Was no lesson learned?

    Not only that, but Israel has had a chance to watch us for the past few years deal with an insurgency in a country where none even existed before we invaded – Iraq. Did Israel not learn anything from that? Do they really want to get tangled up in a country where such an insurgency-type force already exists? Wouldn’t a “buffer zone” be meaningless if the result is guerilla warfare?

    Israel is pounding the crap out of Lebanon. The casualties on both sides have been civilians – yet, there have been no reports that I have seen of the deaths of Hezbollah fighters. Whether you call it “group punishment” or “justifiable self-defense,” you have to also call it “ineffective.” Don’t the current tactics simply create more terrorists; more people interested in supporting Hezbollah?

    So, what is the end game? How does the current conflict solve any of Israel’s problems? It doesn’t. That is why there are some, like myself, that are convinced that there is a larger goal: to goad Syria and Iran into a wider war that will settle the fight, and leave Israel as the dominant, unquestioned, Middle Eastern nation.

  21. 21.

    Pb

    July 17, 2006 at 6:22 pm

    Steve,

    I think John asked for links to overall summaries, not for your opinion in 10,000 words or more. Not that I’m actually complaining, mind you, except to note the Mac Buckets-like length, if you will. But you should really get a blog if you don’t have one already, if only to syndicate some of your better blog posts.

  22. 22.

    Pooh

    July 17, 2006 at 6:23 pm

    Nothing like coming out swinging

    But what should one expect from a proud member of the doucheosphere?

    A good point. Glad that you’ve owned up to your love of douches. I mean since you’re choosing to be here and all…

    In seriousness, if I may, there is a point lying beneath Ryan’s stylings in that given Hiz’s tactics, some civilian casualties are inevitable, where Israel’s attacks are targeted on Hizbollah strongpoints, and the blame for those is more on Hiz than Israel…that said WTF in re: airport and power grids? That is not a response reasonably calculated to do anything aside from blow stuff up and show how badass you are, really. Michael Totten seems to be talking sense:

    What should the Israelis have done instead? They should have treated Hezbollahland as a country, which it basically is, and attacked it. They should have treated Lebanon as a separate country, which it basically is, and left it alone. Mainstream Lebanese have no problem when Israel hammers Hezbollah in its little enclave. Somebody has to do it, and it cannot be them. If you want to embolden Lebanese to work with Israelis against Hezbollah, or at least move in to Hezbollah’s bombed out positions, don’t attack all of Lebanon.

    Israel should not have bombed Central Beirut, which was almost monolithically anti-Hezbollah. They should not have bombed my old neighborhood, which was almost monolithically anti-Hezbollah. They should not have bombed the Maronite city of Jounieh, which was not merely anti-Hezbollah but also somewhat pro-Israel.

    (Read the whole post, BTW)

  23. 23.

    Steve

    July 17, 2006 at 6:24 pm

    I think John asked for links to overall summaries, not for your opinion in 10,000 words or more. Not that I’m actually complaining, mind you, except to note the Mac Buckets-like length, if you will. But you should really get a blog if you don’t have one already, if only to syndicate some of your better blog posts.

    Hey, I may not be succinct, but at least I know the difference between Mac Buckets and Al Maviva.

  24. 24.

    Punchy

    July 17, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    I actually had about fifteen posts started on the mess in Lebanon, and every time I get half way through a post, I deleted it because my opinions change

    Mr. Cole a little gunshy after The Editors brushup?

  25. 25.

    Pb

    July 17, 2006 at 6:28 pm

    Steve,

    Hey, I may not be succinct, but at least I know the difference between Mac Buckets and Al Maviva.

    Argh, my mistake! Al Maviva has been gone for too long–I almost miss his useless, tangential polemics. If he were here right now, I’m sure he’d be drawing (read: making up) some amazing parallels to Sumerian infantry tactics or something.

  26. 26.

    LITBMueller

    July 17, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    WTF in re: airport and power grids?

    Clearly, Pooh, Israel doesn’t want Hezbollah to be able to leave on vacations or watch TV.

    Duh. ;)

    Same WTF goes for the “we blew up the highway to Syria to keep Hezbollah from taking our soldiers there.” Did you see how CNN reported that “reasoning,” and then went on to discuss how thousand of Lebanese are crossing the border into Syria to get away from the shelling?

    Doube duh!!!! :0

  27. 27.

    Pooh

    July 17, 2006 at 6:30 pm

    But you should really get a blog if you don’t have one already, if only to syndicate some of your better blog posts.

    Agreed (heh). Maybe we need a HoCB-like rumpus room for BJ. I nominate…here!

  28. 28.

    John Cole

    July 17, 2006 at 6:34 pm

    Mr. Cole a little gunshy after The Editors brushup?

    LOL. No. I just keep changing my mind about what should be done and what needs to be done- and those two things are not necessarily the same thing.

  29. 29.

    p.lukasiak

    July 17, 2006 at 6:34 pm

    To me, Israel’s actions don’t make much sense — bombing civilian targets, especially when those targets are outside of Hezbollah’s area of influence, is nothing short of terrorism in my book.

    So why would Israel do this? Are we to assume that Israel had no contingency plans to deal with acts of Hezbollah agression in an appropriate fashion — and that what is going on now is some sort of “panic” reaction? I have a hard time believing it.

    The only answer I can come up with is that Israel is deliberately provoking a much wider conflict, with the assumption that the US will intervene on its side. Its not a bad strategy for Israel — but a disasterous one for the USA, because our way of life is based on imported oil and international trade, and if this conflicts widen, the US (and world) economy will be driven into a depression…

  30. 30.

    jg

    July 17, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    I’m not sure we should do anything. History will judge this conflict. Maybe we should wait 20 years, see how this plays out and then make a move.

  31. 31.

    Krista

    July 17, 2006 at 6:37 pm

    No. I just keep changing my mind about what should be done and what needs to be done- and those two things are not necessarily the same thing.

    And then when you throw in the third question: “What CAN be done?”

    Well…it’s enough to make you wish for a box of wine to rest on your tummy while watching The Soup instead of the news.

  32. 32.

    Pooh

    July 17, 2006 at 6:37 pm

    I’m not sure we should do anything. History will judge this conflict. Maybe we should wait 20 years, see how this plays out and then make a move.

    Tom Friedman has joined us. Apparently instead of writing 40 “wait 6 months” pieces, he decided to get a head start…

    (I kid, jg, I kid.)

  33. 33.

    jg

    July 17, 2006 at 6:37 pm

    but a disasterous one for the USA, because our way of life is based on imported oil and international trade, and if this conflicts widen, the US (and world) economy will be driven into a depression…

    But in the short run the republicans will win many elections.

  34. 34.

    Pb

    July 17, 2006 at 6:39 pm

    jg,

    I’m not sure we should do anything. History will judge this conflict. Maybe we should wait 20 years, see how this plays out and then make a move.

    I’ll go one better–we should bide our time, all the while plotting historical strategies, and *secretly building a time machine*! Then we’ll show history who’s boss!

  35. 35.

    jg

    July 17, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    Pooh Says:

    I’m not sure we should do anything. History will judge this conflict. Maybe we should wait 20 years, see how this plays out and then make a move.

    Tom Friedman has joined us. Apparently instead of writing 40 “wait 6 months” pieces, he decided to get a head start…

    (I kid, jg, I kid.)

    I set it on the tee and you drive it right down the farway. Useful shot, that.

  36. 36.

    jg

    July 17, 2006 at 6:42 pm

    *fairway*

  37. 37.

    Steve

    July 17, 2006 at 6:44 pm

    Maybe we need a HoCB-like rumpus room for BJ. I nominate…here!

    Blogging at Scrutator would probably give my posts the amount of serious attention they deserve.

    The only answer I can come up with is that Israel is deliberately provoking a much wider conflict, with the assumption that the US will intervene on its side. Its not a bad strategy for Israel—- but a disasterous one for the USA, because our way of life is based on imported oil and international trade, and if this conflicts widen, the US (and world) economy will be driven into a depression…

    It seems like Israel is more or less thumbing their nose at us, making a lot of noise to the effect that they are going their own way on this one.

    Although I do not have independent confirmation, I heard the rumor from a well-placed source that Secretary of State Rice attempted to increase pressure on Israel to stand down and to demonstrate “restraint”. The rumor is that she was told flatly by the Prime Minister’s office to “back off”.

    It seems like Israel would tread a little more careful if their endgame were to get us involved on their behalf. As others have suggested, it frankly seems to me like their plan is to make Lebanon suffer and hope the people blame it all on Hezbollah… which seems like a nutty approach to me, when you’re talking about a full-blown assault.

  38. 38.

    Pooh

    July 17, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    First fairway I’ve hit all summer…

  39. 39.

    Steve

    July 17, 2006 at 6:47 pm

    I’ll go one better—we should bide our time, all the while plotting historical strategies, and secretly building a time machine! Then we’ll show history who’s boss!

    Ask and ye shall receive.

  40. 40.

    Krista

    July 17, 2006 at 6:50 pm

    We have a shouter, kids.
    I don’t know why he shouts. Maybe he has too much waxx in his ears…

  41. 41.

    Pooh

    July 17, 2006 at 6:54 pm

    Steve, it’s entirely possible Israeli thinks they can tell us to piss off right now, and we’ll still come in with the calvary if the shit hits the fan and Iran and Syria get frisky. Given the polemicists at work, it’s not a crazy thought (other than the fact that it’s you know fucking crazy)

  42. 42.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 6:54 pm

    In seriousness, if I may, there is a point lying beneath Ryan’s stylings in that given Hiz’s tactics, some civilian casualties are inevitable, where Israel’s attacks are targeted on Hizbollah strongpoints, and the blame for those is more on Hiz than Israel…that said WTF in re: airport and power grids?

    I’ll try to give you a serious answer.

    1. The Isrealis have already said that they shut down the airport to prevent weapons from being shipped in that way.

    2. Killing power grids doesn’t usually kill civilans (directly). You may remember that the ‘terrorist’ Bill Clinton used some power-grid weapons in the Bosnian war. War crimes tribunals, anyone?

    You have to remember that some areas of Lebanon are controlled by Hezbollah more than by the government. In that light, shutting down government services where Hezbollah *is* the de facto government makes some sense.

    I hope that helped answer the question.

  43. 43.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 6:57 pm

    Krista:

    That was due to a mistake while scrolling with the mousewheel and hitting the bold button. I misplaced a tag. Note that the entire post isn’t bolded.

    But I can see why you assumed I did that on purpose. After all, everyone with worldviews other than your own must be evil, right?

  44. 44.

    Krista

    July 17, 2006 at 7:00 pm

    That’s right, Ryan.

    I obviously think you’re evil. Evil, I say.

  45. 45.

    LITBMueller

    July 17, 2006 at 7:01 pm

    Ryan Waxx, Bill Kristol is on the phone for ya. He wants to offer you a job. He knows a good Neocon Nutbag when he sees one.

  46. 46.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 7:02 pm

    Let me direct your attention to the now 645+

    Now THAT was some serious head-noddin’!

    Actually, one of the better threads we’ve ever had around here.

    Good job to all. And especially to Darrell “Alfalfa” the Decider!

  47. 47.

    Krista

    July 17, 2006 at 7:04 pm

    That’s Senator Alfalfa, isn’t it?

  48. 48.

    Professor Chaos

    July 17, 2006 at 7:04 pm

    Not sure about summaries, but there is some pretty good analysis coming from Stratfor though you need a subscription.

    Here’s the latest:

    There is increasing discussion of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon. French Prime Minister Dominic de Villepin is in Beirut to discuss it. The Israelis say they are talking to the Italians about it, and even the Iranians have said that they favor a cease-fire. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said today, “A reasonable and just solution must be found to end this crisis. A cease-fire and then a swap is achievable.” That is quite a distance for the Iranians to have gone.

    Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert listed three demands for a cease-fire: first, the release of captured soldiers; second, an end to rocket attacks on Israel; and third, the deployment of Lebanese Army troops along the Israeli-Lebanese border. Other diplomats have been talking about an international force along the border.

    The first two demands can easily be met. It is the third one that will be the sticking point because it goes to the heart of the issue. When Israel talks of the Lebanese Army being deployed there, it is saying two things. The first is that it doesn’t trust an international force containing troops from countries like Russia and France. It does not believe they will be neutral. Second, if a Lebanese force is deployed, it must be able to impose its will on Hezbollah, through military action if possible.

    The problem is that the Lebanese Army is not in a position, politically or militarily, to control Hezbollah. If it could do so, it would have. Moreover, if the army were able to impose its will, Hezbollah would cease to be an effective group. Hezbollah’s power comes from its military capabilities and autonomy. Israel’s demand would represent the end of Hezbollah in its current form. Israel does not trust a suspension of Hezbollah attacks; they believe the militants will strike again unless someone can guarantee otherwise. Israel’s call for a Lebanese force that can impose its will on Hezbollah is a contradiction in terms. It is an offer of a cease-fire that can’t be delivered. [emphasis added]

    Israel is, however, interested in continuing the diplomatic process. Its reasoning can be seen from reports Stratfor has received from sources close to Hezbollah. They have said that Hezbollah is maintaining its attacks on Israel because the militants want Israel to attack them on the ground sooner rather than later. Over time, they fear, Hezbollah’s ability to resist Israeli attack will be undermined by airstrikes. [emphasis added] The militants’ command and control, communications, weapons stockpiles and morale will be undermined. On the other hand, if Israel were to attack now, Hezbollah’s leadership is confident that it could impose losses on Israeli troops that would be unacceptable. That is what the militants want to achieve—they want to engage Israel as the first Arab force that, even if it can’t win in the end, can severely damage the Israel Defense Forces.

    If that is actually Hezbollah’s thinking—and that would explain their behavior—then we can also better understand Israeli thinking. If the airstrikes are hurting Hezbollah’s morale and infrastructure, there is no reason to hurry in on the ground. It makes more sense to let the current situation continue even if it means further attacks on Israeli targets. In the meantime, Tel Aviv can engage in diplomatic initiatives that will reposition Israel in the international system. Rather than resisting diplomatic efforts, Israel is participating, setting demands that appear extremely reasonable while being unattainable. While that game goes on, so does the air war and the undermining of Hezbollah’s core strength.

    The problem is that Hezbollah can see this happening. That means it must try to increase its attacks to create a political crisis in Israel. Olmert is under a microscope. There is suspicion that he will be sucked into a diplomatic solution that will not only not deal with the Hezbollah threat, but also make it impossible to attack the militants later if they resume attacks. In this scenario, an international presence is forced on Israel, Hezbollah resumes attacks without the international force taking decisive action, and Israel is forced to either do nothing or attack through the international force.

    In other words, there is a trap for Israel in all of this. If it gets too clever on the diplomatic side, it can wind up in trouble. On the other hand, a diplomatic process gives Israel time to do what Hezbollah wants least: an air war designed to impose attrition on them.

    We have not expected the Israelis to accept bombardment for as long as they have. However, if Hezbollah’s view is correct, it is good military strategy and the Israeli public will accept that. It may force Hezbollah to make serious concessions under pressure to preserve the cohesiveness of its force. But if the diplomatic game results in extended attacks on Israel without action, or results in a cease-fire that does not preclude a resumption of attacks, then Olmert will come under dramatic pressure and will lose his room for maneuver.

    Olmert knows this, of course. He has managed the internal politics skillfully to this point. He can probably play diplomatic games for another 48 hours by implying military necessity to his Cabinet. But then it starts to become very dicey politically. And by then, Hezbollah’s attacks will have become intolerable, and attacking—whatever the condition of Hezbollah—will become essential.

    Neither an international force nor the Lebanese Army (with its current capabilities) protecting Israel from Hezbollah attacks will fly in Israel.

  49. 49.

    Krista

    July 17, 2006 at 7:05 pm

    Ryan Waxx, Bill Kristol is on the phone for ya. He wants to offer you a job. He knows a good Neocon Nutbag when he sees one.

    What’s that sign I see there?

    /squints

    Oh! It says “Beware of Dog Doug.”

    How odd…

  50. 50.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 7:07 pm

    LITBMueller, you are obviously an individual of piercing intellect. To be able to identifty someone as a “Neocon Nutbag” based on their position on one issue(well maybe 2 if you consider the greenwald comment), is truly a feat of surpassing discernment and sensitivity.

    Thank you for alleviating any guilt I may have had about labelling the commenters here.

  51. 51.

    Steve

    July 17, 2006 at 7:09 pm

    How can we defeat al-Qaeda, when we can’t even fight the evil that is unclosed italics and bold tags? Please work on this.

    Is Lebanon a “free and sovereign nation”, as the Vatican calls them, if they don’t have a monopoly on the use of military-level force? Isn’t that at least part of the definition of being a sovereign nation?

    Well, I’m told that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. I’m not sure that a not-so-well-regulated militia means that you aren’t even a state at all. I don’t think we have the right to go around deciding who is a sovereign nation and who isn’t, no matter how logical the argument sounds – but if you can get an international consensus that Lebanon is not a sovereign nation because they have an out-of-control militia, hey, there’s a lot we could do with that doctrine.

    Please understand that no one wants to punish Lebanon, or harm innocents in that country

    I’ll give you the latter half, but I’m not so sanguine about the first part. It sure does seem like Israel’s choice of targets has the calculated goal to make even the non-Hezbollah parts of Lebanon suffer. There’s not a lot of plausible alternative explanations. That’s not to say that Israel is bad people. I’m a fan.

    Hopefully, Lebonese civilians will get the message that having these terrorists in their midst is a real danger… which may provide enough backlash to allow their government to take control of their country.

    Well, right. I understand that’s the agenda. My fear is that an attack which goes too far may have the opposite effect. At this point we have no choice but to wait and see how it plays out.

    As for the civilian casualties, I could apply the same standard that some odious leftists apply to Isreal and ask how the war casualties compare with Lebanon’s traffic fatalities… but I’m not that heartless.

    It kinda seems like you did make that “odious” comparison, because you didn’t actually make any other point regarding the number of civilian casualties besides what I just quoted. If you want to make the argument that the number of dead is not a big deal in light of the big picture, hey, at least be honest enough to just say it like that.

    The U.S. cannot do this – the ‘loyal opposition’ over Iraq has ensured that no major land operation linked to the war on terror can happen at least until the next president, possibly even as long as a generation. (Which is why Iran will get its nukes, thank you very much. Remember your brave resistance over Iraq when Iran funds and trains terrorists under a nuclear umbrella).

    Nope, it couldn’t be the case that Bush made a bad call about going into Iraq, or that he waged the war incompetently, right? Nope, the Iraq operation was pure gold, and it’s all the fault of those odious Democrats – who, after all, are just SO well-organized and SO politically savvy – for somehow convincing the American people that this wonderful, 24-karat war was somehow misguided. Amazing how Democrats are able to persuade wide segments of the American public of something that is flatly untrue, and yet they can’t get any of their candidates elected. It’s like a paradox, the omnipotence of the Democrats juxtaposed with their incompetence.

    Anyway, that’s all the snark I have patience for. Let me give it to you straight. Bush had overwhelming, bi-partisan support for the invasion of Afghanistan. Even after he decided to get partisan and use the creation of the Department of Homeland Security to win the 2002 midterms, most of the American public was still behind him on Iraq, and took the decision on faith. As I argued above, if Bush had made a better call and gone after a real threat like Hezbollah, it probably would have turned out for the best and he could have gone down as a hero. But he made a seriously wrong call, and even if you don’t agree, you have to accept that that’s the judgment of the American people. They’ve soured on Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war because they didn’t like the results he delivered, plain and simple.

    We can’t stop Iran’s nuclear program because of the Democrats? Oh, please. We can’t stop Iran’s nuclear program because this administration was so focused on Iraq that they failed to keep their priorities in order. We can’t stop Iran’s nuclear program because our military has been overextended and are stuck trying to make sure Iraq doesn’t descend into even worse chaos, and because we got ourselves into a bad situation that exposed the limitations of our military power. Republicans are supposed to be the party of personal responsibility. Take some fucking responsibility for this war you started.

  52. 52.

    Pooh

    July 17, 2006 at 7:10 pm

    I’ll try to give you a serious answer.

    1. The Isrealis have already said that they shut down the airport to prevent weapons from being shipped in that way.

    Yeah, they said that, but I think it’s pretty thin gruel – Hez seems to have all that they really need at the moment, and it’s not like such groups don’t have experience smuggling stuff. It’s not an illegitimate goal, but in the cost benefit calculus I don’t think it adds up, that’s all.

    2. Killing power grids doesn’t usually kill civilans (directly). You may remember that the ‘terrorist’ Bill Clinton used some power-grid weapons in the Bosnian war. War crimes tribunals, anyone?

    You have to remember that some areas of Lebanon are controlled by Hezbollah more than by the government. In that light, shutting down government services where Hezbollah is the de facto government makes some sense.

    Sure, but the problem is not what was done to what Totten called “Hezbollahland” but what was done to the rest of Lebanon. You’re also right that it probably doesn’t directly kill many civilians, but it probably doesn’t help either (plus if you’re trying to piss people off, shutting of the lights is a good start.)

  53. 53.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 7:11 pm

    Confused about the Israel-Hezbollah situation? Well, at least you are doing better than Rep. Boehner when asked about the difference between …. uh, well, read it yourself (from Cincinnatti Enquirer):

    Questioned by reporters on what the difference was, Boehner seemed tongue-tied. “These were American citizens killed by terrorists. That is a very different policy issue than American soldiers dying on the battlefield protecting the rights and freedoms of American people.”

    “How so?” a reporter asked.

    “How so? You want me to describe the difference between men and women of the military out there defending the American people, and victims – victims – of terrorist activities?” Boehner asked.

    “They were both killed by opponents, right? Terrorists or Islamic insurgents?” a reporter pressed.

    An exasperated Boehner said: “The World Trade Center victims were victims of a terrorist act here on our shore and I think all Americans were appalled that this did in fact happen. But I think the differences, in terms of the images, are as clear as night and day.”

    Need some clear thinking? Grab a Republican!

    Via DKos.

  54. 54.

    LITBMueller

    July 17, 2006 at 7:27 pm

    Sorry, Ryan, but your obvious faith in the projection of military force as the solver of all problems in this situation sparked that comment.

    Seriously, though: I would think our own misadventure in Iraq (and the growing problems in Afghanistan) would be enough to show you that Military Might does not necessarily Make Right. Its hard to identify the concerns and arguments, right or wrong, of neighboring nation while they are raining down artillery shells, bombs and rockets upon you and destroying your infrastructure.

    Do you honestly think that the Lebanese people, in the face of such mass destruction, will simply say, “You know what, Israel? Yer right. We’re sorry about Hezbollah. We’ll put them on the next plan for Iran right away…”

    You might also want to consider the fact that, even if the majority of the Lebanese people, or the Lebanese government, wanted to physically stop Hezbollah from harming Israel, they simply cannot.

    You might also want to consider that it was the invasion of Lebanon by Israel that lead to the creation of Hezbollah in the first place. Why would another invasion, years later, have the absolute opposite result??? That makes no sense.

    Frankly, the sort of action you are calling for only makes Lebanon less and less stable, does little to actually harm Hezbollah (see the Iraq insurgency for an examply of how guerrilla forces are hard to stamp out), and invites a wider war with Syria and Iran which would send oil prices into the stratosphere and cripple our own economy. All in the name of a supporting our allies.

    You know, the “ally” that has been the largest recipient of US foreign aid since 1976 while they sell weapons systems to China, and with which we have no formal mutual defense agreement.

  55. 55.

    Richard 23

    July 17, 2006 at 7:35 pm

    Ryan, why are you being such an asshole? I don’t come into your house and poop on the carpet. So why are you squeezing out your turds in here?

    Grow up. Comments are fine. Differing viewpoints are great. Pooping on the carpet…not so much.

  56. 56.

    Zifnab

    July 17, 2006 at 7:36 pm

    An exasperated Boehner said: “The World Trade Center victims were victims of a terrorist act here on our shore and I think all Americans were appalled that this did in fact happen. But I think the differences, in terms of the images, are as clear as night and day.”

    It’s clear as night and day. The WTC victims were in a Republican television ad. Republicans are defenders of truth, liberty, and American safety. The Iraq soldier pictures were in a Democratic television ad. We all know that Democrats are largely responsible for those dead soldiers by leaking bad war news to the press, and that their end goal is to turn this country over to the terrorists.

    How can you guys even be asking these questions? Clearly, you’re just a bunch of liberal media sycophants. I’m not saying another word unless its to Brit Hume or Sean Hannity over a scotch in a poorly lit interviewing room at the Watergate. With strippers. Good day sir.

  57. 57.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 7:39 pm

    Pooping on the carpet…not so much.

    I think we’ve found the guy who has been writing Par R.

  58. 58.

    VidaLoca

    July 17, 2006 at 7:42 pm

    The Greenwald article that Pb links to above makes a useful distinction between 2 discussions:

    1. figuring out what’s going on in the mideast and coming to conclusions as to where we stand on it. Others among us have tackled that question in the 645 (and counting) comments in the thread from Friday. The ObWings article(s) by Hilzoy that Greenwald links to seemed useful too.

    2. figuring out what’s in our intests as a country to do about the situation in (1).

    An article that advances the discussion in (2) is Mearsheimer and Walt, “The Israel Lobby”. Since it came out (January?) there have been numerous critiques, one of the better ones is here.

    FWIW it seems to me the policy of following Israel into war(as advocated by Bill Kristol per Greenwald, and others) is the road to madness: it invites an exponential expansion of the crisis. Furthermore we don’t have a leadership group with the skill set to handle a medium war over there, never mind a much larger one.

    I just keep changing my mind about what should be done and what needs to be done- and those two things are not necessarily the same thing.

    I think this time they are: “Keep hands f*cking off”. Push for a peace settlement (temporary one, granted, but that’s the best we can hope for) that’ll end the air strikes and the missile attacks; above all don’t get involved militarily.

  59. 59.

    DougJ

    July 17, 2006 at 7:43 pm

    I think it’s pretty clear that the invasion is a gift to the world, that it marks the beginning of World War III, and that we should attack Syria ASAP.

  60. 60.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    How can we defeat al-Qaeda, when we can’t even fight the evil that is unclosed italics and bold tags?

    Touché.

    don’t think we have the right to go around deciding who is a sovereign nation and who isn’t

    Um, that was a rhetorical question. A monopoly on the use of force is indeed part of the definition of a nation (indeed, some libertarians even claim it’s the ONLY requirement and that everything else can be dumped overboard).

    …but if you can get an international consensus…

    Hey, THERE’S a great way to determine who’s a country. After all, the ‘international consensus’ did such a great job in creating borders during WWII that… well… nevermind.

    “It kinda seems like you did make that “odious” (traffic fatalities/war deaths) comparison…”

    Actually, no I didn’t. I simply wanted anyone who’s made that cited argument in the past to feel some pain as the shoe is forcefully shoved onto the other foot, but all you have is my word on that. I don’t actually think the dead are a small part of it, no matter how few they are… and anyone who thinks they aren’t part of the ‘big picture’ hasn’t carefully considered the effect on world opinion.

    Nope, it couldn’t be the case that Bush made a bad call about going into Iraq…

    Obviously, you and I feel differently on this.

    …or that he waged the war incompetently,

    20/20 hindsight and second-guessing being the only way that the democrats could ‘contribute’ to the war effort, I’m not suprised at the prevelance of this attitude.

    They’ve soured on Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war because they didn’t like the results he delivered, plain and simple.

    They soured on the doctorine because of the years-long propaganda war waged by liberal elites who own a great deal of the mass media. And I guarantee that the American public WON’T like the result when Iran gets its nukes.

    Meanwhile, I have a prediction for you: The very people who would at this moment raise hell if we even look at Iran cross-eyed (MSM editors, leftists, internationalists) will blame Bush come the day that Iran gets its nukes. It will be known as a “Bush legacy”.

    Do you care to dispute even one word of the above paragraph?

  61. 61.

    DougJ

    July 17, 2006 at 7:46 pm

    You’ve got to check out Blogs For Bush about this. They’re applauding Bush for saying (with his mouthful) “What they need to do it to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit” as if that were some sort of cowboy wisdom.

    And they’ve got the most pathetic fundraiser going I’ve ever seen: they’re trying to raise $2000 for the GOP. So far they’re at $374.

    Maybe they really are a spoof.

  62. 62.

    DougJ

    July 17, 2006 at 7:47 pm

    They soured on the doctorine because of the years-long propaganda war waged by liberal elites who own a great deal of the mass media.

    Speaking of spoofs.

  63. 63.

    Professor Chaos

    July 17, 2006 at 7:51 pm

    Also, some great backround and analysis re: Hizbollah here,

    Some quotes:

    Hizbullah may apply two modes of operational choices separately or jointly. The militant mode advocates the resort to armed jihad (struggle) as a means to establishing [sic] an Islamic order. Put hypothetically, the more favorable the circumstances – in particular the power equation – the more likely that Hizbullah will resort to militancy and armed struggle to achieve its goals. The gradualist-pragmatist mode, or what might be termed political pragmatism employs nonmilitant means to build an Islamic order. In this mode, Hizbullah operates in some measure within the confines of legality, as defined by the [Lebanese] government. Thus, the less favorable the circumstances, the more likely that Hizbullah will abandon militant tactics in favor of more peaceful methods, such as seeking seats in the legislature or investing in other elected bodies as a way to seize power in the long term. Whatever its operational choice, however, Hizbullah’s ultimate goal is the same: to seize political power and establish an Islamic order. (pp. 3-4)

    Finally, the situation as we see it today was not created the day that Hizbullah abducted Israeli troops, nor was it instigated when Hamas beat them to the punch. Rather, this crisis as we see it today originated with Nasrallah saying back in January that Hizbullah would do it. For the party had given up working within the Lebanese government long ago. In March 2005, Hizbullah decided that it would not continue to seek to augment its position through accommodation via the Lebanese government. Rather, it would take over Lebanon the same way the Iranian Revolution took over Iran – by waiting until the state was weakest, shaking it up violently from the inside, picking a fight with a brutal outsider (in Iran’s case, with Iraq in 1980), and then sacrificing its own population while simultaneously shoring up its power from within. Hamzeh had it right from the beginning, and this is how we arrive at where we are today. Hizbullah had busied itself for decades trying to break down the core features of the Lebanese state – its multifaceted, consensual, democratic features – and replace them with a facade of stability backed up by raw, ugly militancy. The blasted remains of Lebanon’s infrastructure can ultimately be refurbished; a state and a people, once hollowed out by purposeless revolution, cannot.

    Israel has the absolute right to defend herself and I’m supportive of her actions thus far. Nonetheless, it is an enormous tragedy that the Lebanese people have to endure what they are enduring. It is beyond unfair. At the end of the day, they, like the Israeli soldiers, have been taken hostage by that lunatic Nasrallah and his masters in Tehran and Syria.

  64. 64.

    Pooh

    July 17, 2006 at 7:52 pm

    I think we’ve found the guy who has been writing Par R.

    Poop.

  65. 65.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 7:58 pm

    I’m not suprised at the prevelance of this attitude.

    What a wanker. The attitude is based first on the shocking absence of any apparent actual threat by direct comparison to the huge threat that was supposed to have been there … followed by a complete disconnect between rhetoric and reality, for the last three and a half years.

    Now it’s clear, whatever these idiots in the White House or Pentagon say about Iraq, the opposite is absolutely more likely to be true. That’s been demonstrated over and over again.

    Classic example, Iraq and Baghdad are basically in violent chaos. Bush visits there three weeks ago and reports on his return as if everything is just going fine there.

    The people are not quite as stupid as his delusions would require them to be in order believe his bullshit.

    But please, pull up a chair and take over the Chairmanship of the Apologistocracy here. The guys who have been doing it are pretty much winded.

  66. 66.

    The Other Steve

    July 17, 2006 at 8:03 pm

    I just realized what really bothers me about what Bush said today. It wasn’t the swearing, it wasn’t even that the journalists focused on that swear word than on the content of the message.

    No it was this one word…

    The irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over

    Notice how I didn’t bold shit?

    WHO THE FUCK IS THEY!?

    Here’s the President of the United States of America at a G8 conference with leaders of the most powerful nations in the world.

    AND HE’S REFERRING TO SOME GROUP WHO IS GOING TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP AS THEY!?

  67. 67.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 8:03 pm

    The people are not quite as stupid as his delusions would require them to be in order believe his bullshit.

    Sorry. Didn’t know that you were the spokeman of “The People”.

    Meanwhile, I’m not suprised that you’re earnestly ignoring my little prediction. Could it be that disputing it would be rather difficult, while acknowleding it would be an admission of bad faith on the part of the 3 groups mentioned?

  68. 68.

    VidaLoca

    July 17, 2006 at 8:05 pm

    DougJ,

    I think it’s pretty clear that the invasion is a gift to the world, that it marks the beginning of World War III…

    and, LBNL, don’t forget the Rapture. RaptureIndex, “the prophetic speedometer of end-time activity” is up two points today. Kind of like the Dow Jones average for Armageddon.

  69. 69.

    Steve

    July 17, 2006 at 8:08 pm

    They soured on the doctorine because of the years-long propaganda war waged by liberal elites who own a great deal of the mass media.

    This goes back to my earlier comment about personal responsibility. You launched a war, people don’t like the way it’s gone, take some responsibility for your decision. It’s always the fault of liberals, courts, the media, the UN, whatever. Very tiresome.

    Meanwhile, I have a prediction for you: The very people who would at this moment raise hell if we even look at Iran cross-eyed (MSM editors, leftists, internationalists) will blame Bush come the day that Iran gets its nukes. It will be known as a “Bush legacy”.

    Do you care to dispute even one word of the above paragraph?

    Are you saying that many people who are against an invasion of Iran will blame Bush when Iran gets the bomb? I certainly agree with that. They will argue that Iran should have been more of a priority all along. I’ll grant you that perhaps it was an inevitability in any event.

    Are you really saying, though, that Bush would take military action against Iran, but he’s afraid of incurring the scorn of the “MSM editors, leftists, and internationalists”? Is that really how you think Bush runs the country?

    I truly can’t comprehend the mindset that believes Bush is worried about what the leftists think of his foreign policy.

  70. 70.

    VidaLoca

    July 17, 2006 at 8:08 pm

    They soured on the doctorine because of the years-long propaganda war waged by liberal elites who own a great deal of the mass media. And I guarantee that the American public WON’T like the result when Iran gets its nukes.

    Sorry. Didn’t know that you were the spokeman of “The People” the American public

  71. 71.

    The Other Steve

    July 17, 2006 at 8:10 pm

    Well, genius, that’s what happens when terrorists hide behind civilians… behind their own families and inside apartment buildings and mosques.

    Isreal would be overjoyed to hit the terrorists’ military bases… except they don’t HAVE military bases. Hence all fighting back is by definition a war crime.

    That’s why not having a strong disincentive to hide among civilians… disincentives like “if you do that, you get NO geneva rights when captured”… is a VERY BAD IDEA.

    Well, uhh, technically, uhh, you don’t really understand the Geneva conventions. you sound like some sort of moonbat spouting this nonsense.

  72. 72.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 8:12 pm

    The other steve:

    If you would stop hyperventilating for a minute (or is it drooling because you think you found a nice shiny mistake thingy that you can trade for a bananna?), you’d realize that he’s obviously talking about the other members of the G8.

    Last I checked, they qualified as a ‘they’.

    I know, being provided with examples of Bush thinking multilaterally can be traumatic to people who read this blog, but once your body gets used to being exposed to Clue™, it’s really quite good for you.

  73. 73.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 8:16 pm

    Are you saying that many people who are against an invasion of Iran will blame Bush when Iran gets the bomb? I certainly agree with that. They will argue that Iran should have been more of a priority all along.

    Marvellous. And you don’t see any inconsistency in people blaming Bush for not doing things they oppose? None? C’mon, work with me here…

  74. 74.

    Sirkowski

    July 17, 2006 at 8:17 pm

    Lotsa people gonna get killed, nothing’s gonna change.
    The History of the Middle-East.

  75. 75.

    DougJ

    July 17, 2006 at 8:23 pm

    Ryan is Par R.

  76. 76.

    VidaLoca

    July 17, 2006 at 8:24 pm

    Ryan,

    you’d realize that he’s obviously talking about the other members of the G8.

    From the transcript, it’s not obvious at all who he’s talking about. It could be the G8, it could be the UN, it could be Israel — it could be the meta-they, as in “anyone else but me”.

  77. 77.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 8:30 pm

    VidaLoca:

    Correct that it *could* be the U.N., although my statement works just as well with U.N. substituted for the G8.

    Probably not Isreal, though, if you pay attention to the actors he’s referring to (not once does he refer to Isreal doing something).

  78. 78.

    VidaLoca

    July 17, 2006 at 8:31 pm

    Ryan,

    And you don’t see any inconsistency in people blaming Bush for not doing things they oppose?

    This is only a contradiction under the assumption that the only thing Bush could theoretically do to prevent/postpone Iran getting the bomb is to invade them.

    In other words, I’m opposed to invading Iran. I also blame Bush for developing a policy under which all options short of invasion are severly limited if not completely off the table.

  79. 79.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 8:33 pm

    Do you care to dispute even one word of the above paragraph?

    Why? Any sane person would already realize that a middle east fucked up for the next twenty years is going to be a direct consequence of the confused and pathetic dabbling by this alocoholic little prick.

    So you’re right, but for all the wrong reasons.

  80. 80.

    CaseyL

    July 17, 2006 at 8:41 pm

    Southern Lebanon is known to be “Hezbollahland,” isn’t it? It’s Southern Lebanon where Hezbollah is strongest and most deeply embedded in the power structure. Unfortunately, that also happens to be where the international airport and major highways are.

    I’ve checked the news, but I don’t see any reports of Israel bombing areas outside Southern Lebanon; that is, outside Hezbollah’s sphere of interest. Israel’s aim seems to be to split Lebanon in two, in order to isolate Hezbollah, to prevent more arms shipments coming to Hezbollah, and to prevent Hezbollah fighters from escaping into Northern Lebanon. And, if that’s the idea, then Israel would have to strike fast, and repeatedly.

    Hezbollah has spent the last however many years stockpiling arms. Missiles, esp., missiles with range sufficient to reach Haifa. I don’t know if they’ve also been spending the last however many years planning exactly what to do with those missiles, but they damned well weren’t saving them up for a New Year’s celebration. It seems safe to assume they intended to lob the missiles into Israel.

    I’m amazed at how people seem to think Israel should have left Hezbollah alone, and just ‘let’ them launch missiles into Israel – what, once in a while? Just kill a few Israelis at a time? That’s OK, now? Is that what people are thinking?

    It’s very true that Lebanon lacks the ability to drive Hezbollah out. It’s also true that ordinary, civilian Lebanese don’t deserve to suffer for their government’s lack of authority. But what would the alternative have been? Invade Lebanon outright and install a friendly government? How would that have been any better?

    It’s an ugly situation. It’s a horror for the Lebanese. But it’s also a situation that’s been festering for some time – and, unlike the problems with Hamas, it’s not one the Israelis made arguably stupid decisions about (I say ‘arguably’ because Hamas is a terrorist organization, and does have as its central tenet the destruction of Israel.)

    Once the fighting started, once the missiles started flying, I’m not sure what else Israel could have done other than take the initiative. Comparisons to Bush’s foreign policy are absurd. A better comparison would be if a terrorist organization had established a de facto state on the US-Canadian border, had gotten itself elected to the provincial government, had refused Canada’s requests to leave, and was both making raids across the border and stockpiling arms that could reach major American cities.

  81. 81.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 8:45 pm

    It’s clear that the way to get rid of Hezbollah is the same way that Hank Hill went to get rid of the fire ants in his new St. Augustine lawn: Flies.

    The flies Hank’s wife found for him were ones that would lay their eggs on the heads of the ants. The eggs would hatch into larvae that eat the brains of the fire ants and then cause their heads to fall off.

    We know that this approach can work on humans, it’s the same way that the Republicans took over the South.

  82. 82.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 8:49 pm

    A better comparison would be if a terrorist organization had established a de facto state on the US-Canadian border, had gotten itself elected to the provincial government, had refused Canada’s requests to leave, and was both making raids across the border and stockpiling arms that could reach major American cities.

    Well, I think the difference is that if we started bombing and shelling civilians in Toronto, Canadians would come down here and pull off George Bush’s legs and shove one up his ass and the other down his throat. At least, that’s what I would do.

    Your analogy is lacking. And besides, in order to act like Israel is acting, you have to be God’s chosen people.

    Once you have that status, then you can get away with anything.

  83. 83.

    Pb

    July 17, 2006 at 8:52 pm

    CaseyL,

    I’ve checked the news, but I don’t see any reports of Israel bombing areas outside Southern Lebanon

    I’ve heard otherwise; maybe you’re looking at the wrong news. Check out Juan Cole, Michael Totten, etc., both linked upthread.

  84. 84.

    Kirk Spencer

    July 17, 2006 at 8:54 pm

    I’ve long thought the basic problem of the whole situation boils down to this:

    The UN said to Israel, “This land is yours, take it and own it in perpetuity.”
    Then the UN turned around and said, “But all the folk you kicked out to take this land? The land is theirs, and you have to give it back eventually.”

    And that constant conflict is the core of it all. The Palestinians KNOW the land is theirs – the UN has said so, and all it takes is making Israel recognize the authority of the UN. Israel also KNOWS the land is its own – the UN has said so, and said that the ‘right of return’ can be delayed till they’re safe and secure.

    It’s not the only place in the world where the dispossessed want their land back and are fighting (physically or politically or legally) to make it so. It’s just that this is pretty much the only place where the referees have said both sides are right even though it means both sides are wrong.

  85. 85.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 8:57 pm

    This is only a contradiction under the assumption that the only thing Bush could theoretically do to prevent/postpone Iran getting the bomb is to invade them.

    That is truly the most incredible bit of spin-mongering I have seen in a long time. Tell me, do those contortions hurt?

    Fine… tell me one of these hypothetical non-invasion things that Bush would be blamed for not doing. Because if you can’t, then you are dodging the question, not answering it.

  86. 86.

    Steve

    July 17, 2006 at 8:59 pm

    Marvellous. And you don’t see any inconsistency in people blaming Bush for not doing things they oppose? None? C’mon, work with me here…

    As someone else said, I’m pretty sure the people who will blame Bush will be of the belief that it wouldn’t have taken an invasion to stop the nuclear program.

    Now, maybe you disagree with them, and that’s fair. But if you really believe that it’s critical to stop Iran from having a nuke, and that there’s no way to stop that from happening short of an invasion, then it was absolutely inexcusable not to make Iran the top priority in the first place.

  87. 87.

    VidaLoca

    July 17, 2006 at 9:03 pm

    Ryan,

    It’s called diplomacy. We used to have some diplomatic options, even options that the Iranians were willing to give us. Now, the choices are military, and the military choices aren’t promising.

    This is not a good state to be in.

  88. 88.

    SeesThroughIt

    July 17, 2006 at 9:03 pm

    You’ve got to check out Blogs For Bush about this. They’re applauding Bush for saying (with his mouthful) “What they need to do it to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit” as if that were some sort of cowboy wisdom.

    And they’ve got the most pathetic fundraiser going I’ve ever seen: they’re trying to raise $2000 for the GOP. So far they’re at $374.

    Maybe they really are a spoof.

    Yeah, I’ve been checking out that thread since it went up–just classic b4b stuff there.

    But I don’t think the site is a spoof. Mark Noonan, for example, strikes me as totally sincere. With his head completely stuck up his ass, granted, but sincere. Now, some of the commentariat over there, on the other hand…muy spoofy!

  89. 89.

    Krista

    July 17, 2006 at 9:03 pm

    Well, I think the difference is that if we started bombing and shelling civilians in Toronto, Canadians would come down here and pull off George Bush’s legs and shove one up his ass and the other down his throat.

    But then we’d apologize for it.

  90. 90.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 9:04 pm

    Well actually Nutcrutter you are right, the analogy IS imperfect… but not in the way you think it is (leaving aside your Jew-bashing which speaks for itself).

    The part of the analogy that’s missing is that the Canadian government would ALSO have to be unwilling (or unable) to even attempt to police itself, because it feared that the faction of the people who wanted to kill Americans would win the ensuing civil war. Oh, and Russia and China would have to be shipping arms and cash to the ‘militants’.

    And you still think we wouldn’t do anything about that, or that we should be condemned by his high Kofiness if we did?

    Do you?

  91. 91.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 9:23 pm

    you still think we wouldn’t do anything about that

    I didn’t say we wouldn’t do anything about it. Your entire rant is void.

    If you are going to make up what I said, then go bother somenody else.

  92. 92.

    The Other Steve

    July 17, 2006 at 9:30 pm

    If you would stop hyperventilating for a minute (or is it drooling because you think you found a nice shiny mistake thingy that you can trade for a bananna?), you’d realize that he’s obviously talking about the other members of the G8.

    Last I checked, they qualified as a ‘they’.

    So Bush was only there on the ethereal plane?

  93. 93.

    The Other Steve

    July 17, 2006 at 9:39 pm

    Fine… tell me one of these hypothetical non-invasion things that Bush would be blamed for not doing. Because if you can’t, then you are dodging the question, not answering it.

    Honestly, I think Ryan might be a aid sent here by the Whitehouse trying to figure out what they should do.

    It’s the only plausible explanation for someone being so obtuse that they don’t understand the word compromise or negotiation.

  94. 94.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 9:57 pm

    It’s the only plausible explanation for someone being so obtuse that they don’t understand the word compromise or negotiation

    I don’t think I heard Bush use either of those words as he was spitting his way through a dinner roll and ignoring Tony Blair over the weekend. I’ll recheck the video ….

  95. 95.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 10:00 pm

    Nutcrutter: What exactly is the point of cutting out the “…or that we should be condemned by his high Kofiness if we did?” part of my statement when it’s only one post above? Selective quoting for the purposes of deception only works when the original statement is not readily accessible.

    Vidaloca: There has to be some word for the disease of being infinitely (or infantile-ly, as the case may be) gullible when one desparetely wants to believe something.

    You want to believe that there MUST be some way to blame Bush for Iranian nukes, so you assume that Iran’s offer of ‘dialogue’ meant that they were ready to accept a deal that they mysteriously won’t accept today… not from Bush, not from Russia, not from the U.N.

    When the next president’s elected and they STILL won’t accept the deal you are gullibly assuming would have been made, will you keep scratching your head and wondering why? Bush-cooties, maybe?

    Of course, you’d also have to conviently ignore the fact that what Iran wanted was:

    full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its “legitimate security interests”.

    Which is their chosen diplo-speak for nuclear weapons.

    Idiot.

    Or should I say: Useful Idiot.

  96. 96.

    Kimmitt

    July 17, 2006 at 10:10 pm

    John Cole’s ambivalence obviously stems from anti-Semitism; anyone who didn’t hate Jews would support Israeli foreign policy whole-heartedly, whatever it is this month.

  97. 97.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 10:11 pm

    Why of course Kimmitt. And that’s why everyone in this comment section is calling John Cole an anti-semite.

    /sarcasm off

  98. 98.

    Andrew

    July 17, 2006 at 10:16 pm

    I think that “Ryan Waxx” is a really lame name — like an 80’s hair band lead singer, his wailing is high pitched and painful to sit through.

  99. 99.

    Andrew

    July 17, 2006 at 10:21 pm

    Hey, I got an idea! We could glue embryos on everyone in the Middle East. The culture of life would stop the killing.

  100. 100.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 10:23 pm

    Andrew:

    Thank you for your… umm… contributions.

  101. 101.

    skip

    July 17, 2006 at 10:28 pm

    Stop being so hard on Ryan Waxx, He is the best best MEMRI and AIPAC could come up with on short notice. Wolf Blitzer, former AIPAC exec, has been outed.

    Next will be the neo-Nazi who agrees with everything Israel’s critics have said. “As the Syrians told me time and again, “kill them, hopefully in a schoolbus. It makes so much tactical sense.”

  102. 102.

    Zifnab

    July 17, 2006 at 10:36 pm

    Because breaking out is hard to do.

    When you’re blowing billions a month in the deserts of Iraq, you have to understand that the US Government doesn’t just have money to through around willy nilly because you want to escape a war zone.

    The Department of State reminds American citizens that the U.S. government does not provide no-cost transportation but does have the authority to provide repatriation loans to those in financial need [emphasis mine]. For the portion of your trip directly handled by the U.S. Government we will ask you to sign a promissory note and we will bill you at a later date. In a subsequent message, when we have specific details about the transporation arrangments, we will inform you about the costs you will incur. We will also work with commercial aircraft to ensure that they have adequate flights to help you depart Cyprus and connect to your final destination.

  103. 103.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 10:38 pm

    Well, to tell you the truth skippy boy mocking my screen name and likening me to a Nazi doesn’t really qualify as ‘being hard’. Heck, even the 9, 10-on-one monkey pile doesn’t especially bother me. I *expect* people here to act like monkeys, screeching and flinging feces, so I’m not all that perturbed when the residents act as nature intended.

  104. 104.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 10:39 pm

    Okay, apparently Ryan is some guy John brought in here to clear the place out so that he can introduce some kind of home based business website like this.

    Political hot air has lost its charm, and it’s pickling cucumber seeds from now on.

  105. 105.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 10:40 pm

    … see what I mean?

  106. 106.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 10:41 pm

    Homemade Pickles Cucumber (AKA. Southern Pickles Cucumber)
    Origin: United States
    Item #: CUCUMBER007
    The Homemade Pickles Cucumber, also known as the Southern Homemade Pickles Cucumber, is one of the most popular pickling cucumbers raised by home gardeners and pickle lovers in the United States today. Very vigorous bush type plants are very resistant to common cucumber diseases and produce a large abundance of wonderful little, medium green colored cucumbers with small white spines that feature very solid and very crisp flesh. Best picked at 1.5 inches in length or at 4 to 6 inches in length for dill pickles.

    Produces over a long season and is ideal for container gardening or growing where space is very limited! One of our best pickling cucumbers! Matures in about 55 days.

    { Add to Cart }

  107. 107.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 10:42 pm

    See what I mean?

  108. 108.

    Andrew

    July 17, 2006 at 10:43 pm

    { Add to Cart }

    you fucker. I spit red gatorade on my white t-shirt.

  109. 109.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 10:44 pm

    Israeli (Old Original) Melon Seeds
    The Israeli Old Original Melon is a very old heirloom melon that originated in Israel. Little to nothing is known of its origin.
    This large, slightly oval melon features a cream colored to yellow-orange rind and weighs from 7 to 8 pounds.

    The melons are very aromatic and yield a wonderful tasting cream colored that is packed with a super-sweet flavor.

    Matures in 90 to 95 days.

    Perfect for the Israel theme.

  110. 110.

    Steve

    July 17, 2006 at 10:45 pm

    I expect people here to act like monkeys, screeching and flinging feces, so I’m not all that perturbed when the residents act as nature intended.

    Wow, well, I’m glad we were able to have a nice discussion for a while. Take care.

  111. 111.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 10:45 pm

    Yes, I do. Do you?

  112. 112.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 10:47 pm

    Golden Wax Bean Seed, good flavor, heavy producer, rich yellow pods are gardeners favorite. Pods are round slightly curved and 5-6″ when mature. Good variety for canning. 7 gram.

    Buyers! This is NOT the Ryan Waxx bean. Order with confidence.

    { Add to Cart }

  113. 113.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 10:52 pm

    They say the world is going to heck in a handbasket.
    Announcing: The Balloon-Juice Handbasket collection, a worthy addition to our vegetable seed line:

    We are homesteading 5 acres of land in Southern Delaware. Sharon started growing basket willows and always dreamed of making wild natural baskets.Our winter baskets are made from basket willows and wild vines.In the summer, we also use herbs,roots and fragrant grasses. Sales of our baskets finance the sustainable work at our biodynamic gardens. Making the baskets preserves this ancient heritage of handwork. Each basket is one of a kind. The framework creates a strong basket that can be used for many things.

    All of our seed offerings were grown here. We have been seed savers for 20 years .

    { Add to Cart }

  114. 114.

    The Other Steve

    July 17, 2006 at 10:53 pm

    I expect people here to act like monkeys, screeching and flinging feces, so I’m not all that perturbed when the residents act as nature intended.

    That would have had impact, if you hadn’t started flinging feces first.

  115. 115.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 10:58 pm

    That would have had impact, if you hadn’t started flinging feces first.

    That would have impact, if you were claiming that the idiots here wouldn’t have been flinging feces anyway.

  116. 116.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 11:01 pm

    Monkey Poo? We’ve got it!

    Exclusive: South American Spider Monkey Guano … certified to be the best fertilizer in the world, or your money back in full!

    Shipped to you in sterilized, odor-free 25 lb bags.

    Feed your seeds the best! Order today.

    { Add to Cart }

  117. 117.

    srv

    July 17, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    ppGaz,

    I know you’ll appreciate this picture (no gore):

    Children at play

  118. 118.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 11:10 pm

    you’ll appreciate this picture

    Oh lord.

    That’s truly depressing.

  119. 119.

    srv

    July 17, 2006 at 11:23 pm

    Of course, you’d also have to conviently ignore the fact that what Iran wanted was:

    full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of its “legitimate security interests”.

    Which is their chosen diplo-speak for nuclear weapons.

    Idiot.

    Or should I say: Useful Idiot.

    The Ayatollahs have been in power since the late 70’s. Suddenly, completely independently of “Axis-of-Evil” and Iraq, Iran is furiously working on nukes (see satellite photos of their nuke sites).

    There is, of course, NO WAY there could be a connection. Because they’re just evil terrorists.

    Any “idiot” would realize that from the Ayatollahs perspective post-SOTU 2002, that “security interests” = we better have some nukes, PDQ.

    That isn’t to say they wouldn’t have eventually developed nukes, but I guarantee they’re going to get ALOT earlier now, and you can’t do jack-shit about it. Just another war your kind lost for us.

  120. 120.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 11:36 pm

    Srv:

    Thank you for acknowledging that the ‘deal’ Vidaloca was referring to was explicitly for the purpose of allowing them to go nuclear, showing his statement:

    This is only a contradiction under the assumption that the only thing Bush could theoretically do to prevent/postpone Iran getting the bomb is to invade them.

    In other words, I’m opposed to invading Iran. I also blame Bush for developing a policy under which all options short of invasion are severly limited if not completely off the table.

    As the utter lie that it is.

    So: Bush is to blame for allowing Iran to get the bomb because he refused to enter negotiations proposed for the purpose of allowing Iran to get the bomb?

    Um, riiight. Nice doggie… (looks for a big stick)

  121. 121.

    Nutcutter

    July 17, 2006 at 11:47 pm

    Tendersweet Carrot

    Rave Reviews for Flavor

    Gurney’s Choice Sweetest carrot on the market! Tapered 7-inch coreless roots. Easy to grow. 75 DAYS.

    You don’t have to be a rabbit to love sweet and crunchy carrots. Fresh from the garden, carrots are packed with flavor and nutrients.

    { Add to Cart }

  122. 122.

    Ryan Waxx

    July 17, 2006 at 11:55 pm

    So Nutmeg, I have a question:

    D’ya think I could get away with spamming John Cole’s site with multiple posts that haven’t the slightest thing to do with the topic?

    Or is that a priveledge only the local zombies get?

    Oh, and you haven’t posted any prices for tin foil hats. Please correct this oversight soonest.

  123. 123.

    the real Ryan

    July 18, 2006 at 12:00 am

    Wow. Amazed at who had the free time to dominate a whole thread like this, a quick search of the Ryan Waxx nom de plume was most entertaining.

    Admittedly not spending much time on this, but clicking on six random links showed him arguing in bad faith and acting like a dick in each one of them, for three years — against enemies, in the general directiion of fellow travelers, but mostly at the straw men in his head.

    Not much of a chance of this, from the history, but dude, you need to unclench.

  124. 124.

    Steve

    July 18, 2006 at 12:04 am

    Let’s summarize what we’ve learned, friends:

    1. Preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is absolutely critical to our national interest.

    2. The only way we can stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is through direct military action against Iran.

    3. Bush won’t take military action against Iran because the “MSM editors, leftists, and internationalists” will criticize him if he does.

    What a terrible, terrible President we have, according to this version of events, refusing to take action he knows is critical to our national interest because he’s afraid to be criticized.

    The people who voted for Bush did so because they believed he would do what he wanted to do, rather than what liberals wanted him to do. What fools those voters were.

  125. 125.

    lard lad

    July 18, 2006 at 12:08 am

    You want to believe that there MUST be some way to blame Bush for Iranian nukes, so you assume that Iran’s offer of ‘dialogue’ meant that they were ready to accept a deal that they mysteriously won’t accept today… not from Bush, not from Russia, not from the U.N.

    For God’s sake, Waxx… the offer of “dialogue” came when they had a different, far more moderate government in power. But Bush needed Iran as part of his Axis of Evil trifecta, so their attempts at negotiation with the U.S. fell on some very deaf ears. Try getting your info from someone a little more balanced than Little Green Footballs.

    Oh, wait… the regular media is riddled through with those liberal traitors, never mind. You may remain clueless.

    And please, please elucidate more on what a great idea the Iraq war was, and how our current difficulties there can all be blamed on that nasty old liberal media. I need a good chuckle right now.

  126. 126.

    srv

    July 18, 2006 at 12:11 am

    So: Bush is to blame for allowing Iran to get the bomb because he refused to enter negotiations proposed for the purpose of allowing Iran to get the bomb?

    No, mini-waxx, he’s to blame for his hysterical foreign-policies which have done EVERYTHING possible to further radicalize Iran, giving the clerics every tool they needed to throw out more ‘moderate’ politicians and domestic media. Iran’s foreign and domestic policy isn’t operating in some vacuum vis-a-vis us, it’s operating in response to THREATS. And we are mostly definitely a threat to the Ayatollahs.

    And now Bush can’t do jack shit about it. He’s screwed Iraq, alienated the world, hog-tied to whatever Ohmert decides to do (or Likud if Ohmert whimps out), and twisting in the wind while Lebanon could well fall back into a civil war.

    And the Ayatollahs are laughing. They’re laughing at how stupid you are. There’s no trick they can’t get you to do.

  127. 127.

    Andrew

    July 18, 2006 at 12:11 am

    I suggest that we pre-emptively surrender Mississippi, Kansas, and North Dakota to Iran in return for their disarming. Seems like a fair trade.

  128. 128.

    Nutcutter

    July 18, 2006 at 12:20 am

    D’ya think I could get away with spamming John Cole’s site with multiple posts that haven’t the slightest thing to do with the topic?

    No idea. Do you think the shit you post is better than a seed catalog because it has “something to do with the topic?”

    Because I don’t, and I imagine many here would agree with me. I’ll bet you that if we take a vote, seed catalog wins hands down.

  129. 129.

    Pb

    July 18, 2006 at 12:53 am

    Definitely the seed catalog. I always thought that the posting of recipes as a response to trolls over on Daily Kos was a bit odd, but I didn’t complain, because I like recipes. However, the seed catalog bit was pure genius, Nutcutter.

  130. 130.

    Pb

    July 18, 2006 at 12:56 am

    Steve,

    Don’t forget:

    4. Someone else is always to blame.

    (and the corollary, IOKIYAR…)

  131. 131.

    Pb

    July 18, 2006 at 12:59 am

    Ryan Waxx,

    Tinfoil hats are available on eBay, only $2.50 shipping! For you, I’d recommend THE FEZ:

    The Fez boasts a mideastern flare popular with lounge lizards. Don your tin foil fez and smoking jacket, have a drink, and kick back to contemplate the government’s betrayal of the nation’s trust. Be careful – they might hear your thoughts through the transmitters in your fillings.

  132. 132.

    kl

    July 18, 2006 at 1:01 am

    If you are going to make up what I said, then go bother somenody else.

    Now you know how John Cole feels.

  133. 133.

    Nutcutter

    July 18, 2006 at 1:09 am

    However, the seed catalog bit was pure genius, Nutcutter.

    { blush } ‘kew

    But seriously, I loved the way he did that “Would John Cole let me …” schtick, and stepped right into my open manhole cover.

    Priceless.

  134. 134.

    Nutcutter

    July 18, 2006 at 1:12 am

    And you know, I’m a whore for applause.

    Did you catch my “Ryan Waxx Bean” thing?

    I made myself laugh so hard on that one, I thought I broke a rib.

    I am easily entertained, though. So you have to factor that in.

  135. 135.

    Pb

    July 18, 2006 at 1:15 am

    Nutcutter,

    And you know, I’m a whore for applause.

    Never would have guessed it.

    Did you catch my “Ryan Waxx Bean” thing?

    Yes, that made it all worthwhile–particularly hilarious, that. Nice touch.

    I made myself laugh so hard on that one, I thought I broke a rib.

    Although it’s somehow slightly less funny now that you said that…

    I am easily entertained, though. So you have to factor that in.

    Me too, actually. :)

  136. 136.

    Slide.

    July 18, 2006 at 6:03 am

    Neocon Nuts

    One would have thought that the neocons would have learned their lesson with the utter failure of their little experiement in Iraq. Their basic assumption – that the USA could/should dominate the Middle East with our superior military power has proven to be a false dream much as it has been for prior imperialistic attempts. And remember, Iraq was going to be the easy FIRST step. First, but certainly not the last in these war mongers delusional world plan. Syria and Iran were always in their sights but we needed first to demonstrate US power by toppling Saddam, installing a puppet government, constructing huge military bases, controlling the vast oil fields of Iraq and in general impressing the neighborhood with American’s might. Didn’t quite work out that way did it? As a matter of fact, Iraq, if anything, sharply demonstrated the limits of American military power. But does that deter these very naive neocons? Not in the least. Woolsey just said we should invade Syria. Newt says this is World War III. And Bill Krystol is so excited I’m sure he is walking around with a hardon because the crisis presents such a wonderful “opportunity” for us to rejoin the neocon plan of Middle East military dominance. Scary ain’t it?

  137. 137.

    fwiffo

    July 18, 2006 at 6:37 am

    Are you sure you didn’t want to ask me about the pig?

  138. 138.

    LITBMueller

    July 18, 2006 at 7:18 am

    Right on, Slide. The irony, though, is that instead of the US dominating the ME, the Neocons have only help set the conditions for Israel to do so.

  139. 139.

    skip

    July 18, 2006 at 7:27 am

    “The Israeli Old Original Melon is a very old heirloom melon that originated in Israel. Little to nothing is known of its origin.
    Matures in 90 to 95 days.”

    You forgot the part about defining garden bed borders, given that “Israeli melons can prove invasive, displacing native cultivars.”

  140. 140.

    skip

    July 18, 2006 at 7:32 am

    “John Cole’s ambivalence obviously stems from anti-Semitism; anyone who didn’t hate Jews would support Israeli foreign policy whole-heartedly, whatever it is this month.”

    Indeed, John has been bitter ever since he was sewered by the Yalie Hillel. Did he really think “Juan” would be an effective disguise.

  141. 141.

    Marty

    July 18, 2006 at 7:48 am

    LITB Mueller

    Are the ‘neocons’ just a euphamism for American Jews in the media?

    Are Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld neocons, even though they aren’t Jewish?

    What exactly is a neocon and how does one become a neocon?

    I am a big Bush supporter… but disillusioned. What I believed was a good idea, Iraq, has turned out to be the biggest mistake since Vietnam. It is easy in hindsight.

    The ME would be a more stable place with Saddam still in power.

    I cannot believe I said that. It hurts to be wrong, and I was sooo wrong, but there it is.

    Please answer my neocon question and I will go away.

    Thanks

  142. 142.

    Sherard

    July 18, 2006 at 8:10 am

    Hey, way to go out on a limb and stake out a position, John.

    How god awfully pathetic is that. “Geez, that war thing is a mess. I’m not sure how I feel and what they should do”

    Wow. Thanks for the wisdom.

  143. 143.

    lard lad

    July 18, 2006 at 8:16 am

    Ryan Yellow Waxxy Buildup appears to have departed this plane. A pity… this thread could easily have gone another hundred posts or so with his help.

    Quick, someone! Page Senator Darrell pronto!

  144. 144.

    lard lad

    July 18, 2006 at 8:27 am

    Hey, way to go out on a limb and stake out a position, John.

    How god awfully pathetic is that. “Geez, that war thing is a mess. I’m not sure how I feel and what they should do”

    Wow. Thanks for the wisdom.

    Speaking — cough cough — of wisdom…
    Go away, little man. Save your fertilizer for the garden.

  145. 145.

    rjudel

    July 18, 2006 at 8:28 am

    Go read George Will in the WPost (find it all by yourselves) today for the last word on Neocons. This article will be the gold standard for internecine conflict among the right-wing.

    As for the main topic- the Israeli intervention appears to be a long-planned for campaign that was enabled by the kidnappings. You have to wonder, given that it was an established war plan, if the IDF had updated it since the ‘Cedar Revolution’, because what might have been defensible before that event looks like a dangerous miscalculation now. Destabilizing an increasingly independent (and still mostly secular, despite Lebanon’s curiously contrived confessionally-based representation system) government can’t be in Israel’s best interests in the long run. It’s certainly bizarre that while Olmert is demanding that the Lebanese government use their army to secure the southern border against Hezbollah, the IDF are bombing Lebanese army barracks and killing soldiers. Readers familiar with the Al-Qaeda strategy document “Management of Savagery” are probably getting the same sinking feeling as I am, because there is nothing that works better for Jihadists than a savage fratricidal conflict, such as is created by foreign military intervention that exacerbates tribal or sectarian tensions and creates a humanitarian crisis.

  146. 146.

    LITBMueller

    July 18, 2006 at 8:34 am

    Marty, it would take up a whole new blog to get into that discussion. But, here is a good summary of Neoconservativism at Wikipedia. Also, check out the writings at antiwar.com for more discussions of why the Neocons are bat shit crazy.

  147. 147.

    VidaLoca

    July 18, 2006 at 8:55 am

    Ryan,

    You want to believe that there MUST be some way to blame Bush for Iranian nukes, so you assume that Iran’s offer of ‘dialogue’ meant that they were ready to accept a deal that they mysteriously won’t accept today… not from Bush, not from Russia, not from the U.N.

    If you bothered to read it, the article that I linked states that in 2003 the Iranians made a proposal

    for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table — including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.

    [/snip]

    …Iran agreed to put a series of U.S. aims on the agenda, including full cooperation on nuclear safeguards, “decisive action” against terrorists, coordination in Iraq, ending “material support” for Palestinian militias and accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The document also laid out an agenda for negotiations, with possible steps to be achieved at a first meeting and the development of negotiating road maps on disarmament, terrorism and economic cooperation.

    A “proposal” is not a “deal”. A “proposal” is something that is offered to begin a negotiating process. A “deal” on the other hand is the end result of that process. Between governments that negotiating process is called “diplomacy”.

    Why were the Iranians willing to negotiate with us in 2003?

    Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he obtained it from Iranian sources. The Washington Post confirmed its authenticity with Iranian and former U.S. officials.

    Parsi said the U.S. victory in Iraq frightened the Iranians because U.S. forces had routed in three weeks an army that Iran had failed to defeat during a bloody eight-year war.

    Why did the US refuse?

    But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative.

    [/snip]

    Richard N. Haass, head of policy planning at the State Department at the time and now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the Iranian approach was swiftly rejected because in the administration “the bias was toward a policy of regime change.” He said it is difficult to know whether the proposal was fully supported by the “multiple governments” that run Iran, but he felt it was worth exploring.

    “To use an oil analogy, we could have drilled a dry hole,” he said. “But I didn’t see what we had to lose. I did not share the assessment of many in the administration that the Iranian regime was on the brink.”

    So, in 2003 the Iranians were willing to negotiate with us because they thought they were in a weak position vis-a-vis a country that defeated in three weeks an army they couldn’t handle in eight years. Now in 2006 they’re seeing things differently.

    I’ll type this slowly so you can understand: Iran was more willing to negotiate then than they are now because their perception of the situation changed.

    Meanwhile, because we thought we could bully them and go for the “regime change” option we pissed away an opportunity to have some small element of good come out of the sorry mess we’ve created over there — and the hugely ironic thing about it is this was supposedly the kind of result we were looking for in the mideast when we went into Iraq in the first place.

    When the next president’s elected and they STILL won’t accept the deal you are gullibly assuming would have been made, will you keep scratching your head and wondering why?

    Isn’t it obvious? Then they thought we looked strong, and it was in their interest to bargain. Now they know better.

  148. 148.

    Zifnab

    July 18, 2006 at 9:00 am

    Hey, way to go out on a limb and stake out a position, John.

    How god awfully pathetic is that. “Geez, that war thing is a mess. I’m not sure how I feel and what they should do”

    Wow. Thanks for the wisdom.

    Yeah, and what’s up with that “Open Thread” bullshit. If you’ve got something to say, say it. I don’t want you just recklessly opening threads for… discussion or shit. If I want to have a discussion, I’ll turn on talk radio where I can sit back and be told everything I want to talk about.

    Damn you John Cole!

  149. 149.

    fwiffo

    July 18, 2006 at 9:13 am

    I think TOS gets it right when it comes to Bush-said-shit-gate. Quite frankly, I think there needs to be more swearing about the Middle East by more people. I personally think it’s worth at least two ‘cunts’, six ‘fucks’ and fourteen and a half ‘goddamnits’.

    So, now that the President of the United States has shown the steadfast resolve to swear about it and put the moves on the Chancellor of Germany, can we get a coherent policy statement? Pretty please?

  150. 150.

    Tim F.

    July 18, 2006 at 9:15 am

    D’ya think I could get away with spamming John Cole’s site with multiple posts that haven’t the slightest thing to do with the topic?

    This is the FAQ speaking – commenters here can post anything they like as long as they avoid vulgar sexism/racism and commercial spam. Relentless bad-faith shitting on the blogger falls under the category of mod-baiting and is as stupid here as anywhere else on the internet but won’t result in a permanent ban.

    As far as what I prefer, it would send me to a very happy place if everybody stayed civil, intelligible and on-topic. And a magical pony that poops dollar bills.

  151. 151.

    Tim F.

    July 18, 2006 at 9:17 am

    “…And I want a magical pony…”

  152. 152.

    Krista

    July 18, 2006 at 9:20 am

    And in the meantime, Mr. Restore-Integrity-to-the-White-House has been caught on tape giving what looks like a very unwelcome shoulder massage to Chancellor Merkel.

    So…I guess that all of those holdouts who still support Bush, who were comforting themselves by saying, “At least he’s not a perv like Clinton”, are quickly trying to explain away this one.

  153. 153.

    Krista

    July 18, 2006 at 9:27 am

    Just dollar bills, Tim? You’re easy to please. If we’re talking magic ponies, it might as well be pooping out Benjamins.

  154. 154.

    neil

    July 18, 2006 at 9:36 am

    Here’s a ‘summary’ that I found while combing through Flickr.

    http://flickr.com/photos/12011945@N00/191624375/in/set-72157594202020048/
    http://flickr.com/photos/reutc/190652939/

    That was the only picture of Haifa under attack that I could find; there might be more now.

  155. 155.

    Jcricket

    July 18, 2006 at 9:40 am

    John – To answer your original call, I think Gregory at Belgravia Dispatch has been doing some good, level-headed blogging on the subject of the recent. For some more fact based commentary, I’ve also been heading to Defense Tech – who regularly posts the analyses from Stratfor.

    You have to be careful to read what Stratfor writes not as what they would like to happen, but what they believe will happen, given current events.

    I’m a totally staunch supporter of Israel, a member of the left, and I still fundamentally agree with your initial thoughts. Israel felt forced to respond, and I understand exactly where they’re coming from. Some military response was inevitable and appropriate. I’m not sure the level of force their using is productive. This doesn’t mean it’s immoral, imho, just that while it might be “allowable” under the rules of engagement, it might also back-fire in the long run. This is one of the few circumstances where Israel’s not getting pounded by the Arab press and other Arab governments. I hope Israel doesn’t overplay her hand, and instead uses that teensy amount of sympathy to her advantage.

  156. 156.

    Jill

    July 18, 2006 at 9:40 am

    Why is it ok for Israel to defend herself but not ok for the rest of the Middle East? Wasn’t it Israel who started this recent spat of violence when they sent air missiles into the Palestinian territory and killed a family of 8 who were having a picnic on a beach?

  157. 157.

    The Other Steve

    July 18, 2006 at 9:40 am

    Are the ‘neocons’ just a euphamism for American Jews in the media?

    No.

    Are Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld neocons, even though they aren’t Jewish?

    Powell is not, the others yes.

    What exactly is a neocon and how does one become a neocon?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

    The summarization is probably best with this line:

    Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite.

    The problem with the neocons really isn’t their policy ideas. I mean, I actually think there are good arguments in there that are worth consideration.

    The problem is, they are whiney ass wanker babies, and they behave like cowards when confronted and questioned.

    Case in point David Horowitz who wants to impose a Maoist-like cultural regime on the United States, so that he doesn’t have to ever listen to dissenting points of view.

    It’s got nothing to do with Jews. It has to do with attitude.

  158. 158.

    The Other Steve

    July 18, 2006 at 9:47 am

    Wasn’t it Israel who started this recent spat of violence when they sent air missiles into the Palestinian territory and killed a family of 8 who were having a picnic on a beach?

    I thought it was a nuculear bomb?

  159. 159.

    Pb

    July 18, 2006 at 9:49 am

    So, Think Progress has dug up and dusted off some old neocon plans, and it looks like the neocons did too:

    In 1996, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser (all later senior officials in the Bush administration) had a plan for how to destroy Hezbollah: Invade Iraq. They wrote a report to the newly elected Likud government in Israel calling for “a clean break” with the policies of negotiating with the Palestinians and trading land for peace.

    The problem could be solved “if Israel seized the strategic initiative along it northern borders by engaging Hizballah (sic), Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon.” The key, they said, was to “focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” They called for “reestablishing the principle of preemption.” They promised that the successes of these wars could be used to launch campaigns against Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, reshaping “the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly.”

    I think it’s clear that the neo-cons are still pursuing this, and are thrilled with the way recent events have turned out…

    Re-establish principle of preemption – check.
    Invade Iraq – check.
    Remove Saddam – check.
    Israel fighting Hezbollah – check.
    Successes of these wars – ???
    Launch campaigns against Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt – !!!

  160. 160.

    VidaLoca

    July 18, 2006 at 9:56 am

    Pb,

    Don’t forget:

    Pre-election timing — check.

  161. 161.

    The Other Steve

    July 18, 2006 at 10:00 am

    Pb,

    You forgot the last line…

    PROFIT!

  162. 162.

    Punchy

    July 18, 2006 at 10:02 am

    We have a shouter, kids.
    I don’t know why he shouts. Maybe he has too much waxx in his ears…

    Nomination for the most random post ever. Unless, of course, I’m missing something…and I’m usually missing something.

  163. 163.

    Bob In Pacifica

    July 18, 2006 at 10:02 am

    Heard someone say that the Lebanese blamed the first five Israeli bombs on the Hezbollah, the rest on the Israelis. You blow up bridges and airports and hospitals and kill innocent civilians, eventually someone is going to connect the bombs that kill their relatives to the bomb-droppers and the bomb-suppliers.

    More generations of hatred.

    Hezbollah was created to fight Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Maybe right now some toddlers are getting educated as to why they should fire the next generation of katyushas into Tel Aviv.

    “The eastern world, it is exploding, violence flarin’, bullets loadin’…” – P.F. Sloan

  164. 164.

    Pb

    July 18, 2006 at 10:15 am

    The Other Steve,

    You forgot the last line…
    PROFIT!

    So did they. :(

    I’m sure that was part of the original plan–I think it’s had to be revised a bit, though.

    First, Invade Iraq,

    Then, Squander Goodwill,

    Take Saddam’s Underpants,

    Continue to Destabilize the Middle East,

    Finish Pissing off the rest of the world,

    ???

    PROFIT!!

  165. 165.

    The Other Steve

    July 18, 2006 at 10:17 am

    We really ought to answer the question of whether this is WWIII or WWIV. I mean the most pressing issue right now, certainly for Republicans, is what do we call this war and selecting a theme song and slogan.

    How about Operation Renewed Beginnings? We’ll get
    Toby Keith to write us a sappy theme song.

  166. 166.

    Pb

    July 18, 2006 at 10:18 am

    Punchy,

    Nomination for the most random post ever. Unless, of course, I’m missing something…

    You missed Ryan Waxx’s unclosed *bold* tag, which made almost his entire (lengthy) post bold, adding to the utter nuttitude of it all. Maybe that got fixed… :)

  167. 167.

    The Other Steve

    July 18, 2006 at 10:20 am

    Damnit! another one of those retired military officers has turned on America!

    Col Mike Turner says US should leave Iraq

  168. 168.

    Punchy

    July 18, 2006 at 10:25 am

    I suggest that we pre-emptively surrender Mississippi, Kansas, and North Dakota to Iran in return for their disarming. Seems like a fair trade.

    I’m not sure our republic can survive without the meth, double-wides, intelligent design, and…what the fuck does ND offer us?…hockey?

  169. 169.

    Andrew

    July 18, 2006 at 10:26 am

    Hezbollah was created to fight Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Maybe right now some toddlers are getting educated as to why they should fire the next generation of katyushas into Tel Aviv.

    Unfortunately, it never seems possible to “de-educate” people about hatred. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon and the result seems to be that Hizbullah has spent the past six years importing missiles and rockets. So much for peace.

  170. 170.

    Jim Allen

    July 18, 2006 at 10:27 am

    you fucker. I spit red gatorade on my white t-shirt.

    You drink that red stuff? Yuck.

  171. 171.

    Pb

    July 18, 2006 at 10:28 am

    The Other Steve,

    what do we call this war and selecting a theme song and slogan

    First, you need a good acronym. Like *O*peration *I*ncinerate *L*ebanon or something. Then we can go on to talk about *I*srael’s *R*ight to *A*ttack *N*ations, or *S*topping *Y*ouths *R*ocketing the *I*sraeli *A*rmy, or something.

    Slogans:

    Don’t Blame US, We’re Sitting This One Out!
    Spreading Democracy, Freedom, and Liberty, One Conflict At A Time.
    Israel’s Doing It, So We Don’t Have To!
    I Thought You Were Going To Ask Me About The Pig!

    As for a theme song, I propose Endless Love, or possibly Gay Bar.

  172. 172.

    Jill

    July 18, 2006 at 10:29 am

    Republicans are delusional if they think branding this ww3 or 4 is a good thing politcally. A majority of Americans are sick of the Iraq war and will be equally or more sick with any widening of US involvement in other wars. Why is the so called “Party of Life” is so interested in wars that kill walking and talking humans but they are absolutely horrified at using discarded embryos (that will never walk or talk) to help already alive and suffering humans?

  173. 173.

    skip

    July 18, 2006 at 10:33 am

    Before invading Iraq, Rupert Murdoch said the war would result in oil being fixed at $20 a barrell. Given how well that worked out, maybe Stormy can tell us how low the prices will go after this lastest Israeli mechanized exercise in “amazing restraint.”

  174. 174.

    Krista

    July 18, 2006 at 10:36 am

    Punchy – it was because his entire post was in boldface type, and his name is Ryan Waxx.

    Don’t worry about it. It was a pretty pathetic attempt on my part to be amusing.

  175. 175.

    Andrew

    July 18, 2006 at 10:38 am

    You drink that red stuff? Yuck.

    It’s really gross, but it’s the third flavor in the monster costco multi-packs.

  176. 176.

    Jim Allen

    July 18, 2006 at 10:49 am

    It’s really gross, but it’s the third flavor in the monster costco multi-packs.

    So it’s more “waste not” than by choice? Well, OK, then.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Balloon Juice says:
    July 18, 2006 at 10:49 am

    […] From a helpful comment in the previous thread and recent news accounts, here is a summary of the basic motivations driving this conflict. In picking and choosing what to listen to and what to ignore the most important feature for me is the basic assumption that all of the major players are fundamentally rational people acting for understandable reasons. Any appeal to one side or the other being some shade of evil (e.g. demented, blinded by religious hysteria, etc; See Tim F’s Law) strikes me as unserious and not worth listening to. […]

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Omnes Omnibus on Contrition Kitchen (Open Thread) (Sep 22, 2023 @ 5:50pm)
  • Geminid on Bibi & Bone Saw (Sep 22, 2023 @ 5:48pm)
  • NotMax on Contrition Kitchen (Open Thread) (Sep 22, 2023 @ 5:48pm)
  • narya on Contrition Kitchen (Open Thread) (Sep 22, 2023 @ 5:47pm)
  • Jay on Contrition Kitchen (Open Thread) (Sep 22, 2023 @ 5:44pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
What Has Biden Done for You Lately?

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Cole & Friends Learn Español

Introductory Post
Cole & Friends Learn Español

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!