Replies

To: samadams2000

Bush is incoherent if he helped push this.

More resolution [Rich Lowry]

Was just talking to a friend who was noting that there is intense anger toward Israel within the administration for botching the war. He thinks the attitude was, "What's the point of giving them more time when they do nothing with it?" He thinks it's the worst defeat for Israel since 1948. He also guesses that the reason that the French flipped against the first resolution wasn't so much the Lebanese reaction as the realization of how poorly Israel was faring militarily. His general rule when it comes to U.N. resolutions in the Middle East is that they either simply reflect the facts on the ground, or make the victor give away a little bit of his victory; they never let someone pull victory out of a hat from defeat. So Israel will utlimately get from this resoltuon what they won on the ground, which is to say not much.

Sounds to me that Bush is angry at the Isaeli's for botching the war. He got them all the time they needed and they tried to run a PC war.

NRO

1,636 posted on 08/11/2006 2:41:01 PM PDT by Republican Red (Everyone is super stoked on Gore, even if they don't know it)

To: Republican Red

1,640 posted on 08/11/2006 2:42:04 PM PDT by Dog

Bookmark til after dinner.

1,642 posted on 08/11/2006 2:42:11 PM PDT by GOP_Proud (The price of gas is proportional to how badly I need a fill-up.)

To: Republican Red

Another interesting post at NRO:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

A Quick Parsing of the Resolution [John Podhoretz]

It's not a disaster, for this reason: The language of Paragraph 10, point 1, reads "Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations." This is not parallel language. Hezbollah must cease all attacks. Israel must only cease "offensive military operations." Since Israel itself defines its own action in South Lebanon as by definition defensive, not offensive, there's a lot of give here. Besides which, will Hezbollah really cease "all attacks"?

1,662 posted on 08/11/2006 2:49:35 PM PDT by Republican Red (Everyone is super stoked on Gore, even if they don't know it)

To: Republican Red

Sounds to me that Bush is angry at the Isaeli's for botching the war. He got them all the time they needed and they tried to run a PC war.

This would be my educated guess, too. And, it makes sense.

1,671 posted on 08/11/2006 2:51:32 PM PDT by Right_in_Virginia

To: Republican Red

Yes but Bush should as a leader state that he is for the defeat of Hezbollah at all costs or the bigger fight against islamoterror is a farce.

1,681 posted on 08/11/2006 2:54:12 PM PDT by samadams2000

To: Republican Red

WOW....and John Gibson just said that Bush talked for the FIRST TIME since the war started to Olmert a few minutes ago...

Bush must be mad...he even talks to Putin more often than that.

1,701 posted on 08/11/2006 2:59:06 PM PDT by Txsleuth ((((((((ISRAEL)))))))))

To: Republican Red; Txsleuth

WOW.

God help Israel.

1,728 posted on 08/11/2006 3:06:57 PM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet-pray for Israel))

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794