It's diplo-talk and fairly mild at that. I don't believe we want the Lebanese govt thrown out and that's what the real message was.
If you want to be mad at somebody be mad at the P-Eww EU. They're the ones moaning that Israel has already responded too harshly.
Morons.
There ought to be a dictionary of diplospeak for the peanut gallery. I realize that they have a number of words to describe certain things because if they didn't and everybody interpreted everything fresh each time nothing would get done. It's like email -- it's SO easy to insult someone when you had no intention of doing so because you aren't in their frame of reference when you write it and words mean different things to different people.
For example, one of the problems with the Iraq war was that the final resolution warned of "serious consequences" if Saddam didn't come clean. Now, to you and me that sounds pretty bad, and the Admin spins it that way. But really, in diplo, "serious" is pretty mild. "Grave" would be the word one would expect to precede a full scale invasion.
For the record I support the war 100% and I hate diplo, just so we don't get sidetracked. Oh, and I support Israel first to last, right or wrong.
I understand diplo-talk, which essentially involves delivering contradictory public and private messages. It's what governments do.
Note the contradictory statements from the White House and State yesterday. They appear to have resolved their disagreement. But that's not diplo-talk, it's public infighting. That demonstrates weakness. Sort out the issues before hand and present a unified public message.
IMO, State should follow the President's lead. They're not a separate branch. A defiant State Dept, contravening the WH and leaking, has been a problem throughout the Bush years.