Replies

dmd25:
Thank you for posting the blurb from Newsweek (?) concerning the President's experiences at the G-8 . . . fascinating!

MUST READS:

BUSH MAKES PROMISE TO DEAD SOLDIER'S MOM
Says He'll Get Her Reports on How Son Died

CLINTONVILLE, Wis. (Aug. 12) - Nearly three years ago, Beth Karlson's son died in Iraq. Barely a day after meeting with President Bush, the mother said Friday that she's much closer to getting some answers about the incident that killed her son.

Beth Karlson, who met privately with Bush on Friday, said the president told her that he would look into her son's death in Iraq and get her the report.

"We just got off the phone with the White House. It is in the process," she said Friday. "I am not bashful. When you got his ear, you might as well do something."

Karlson said she was among some families of soldiers killed in Iraq who had private meetings with Bush at an Oneida police station Thursday during his trip to Green Bay that included a fundraiser for Republican U.S. House candidate John Gard.

Her son, Army Staff Sgt. Warren S. Hansen, 36, was one of 17 soldiers killed when two Blackhawk helicopters collided above Mosul on Nov. 15, 2003.

Karlson, 63, said that during her and her husband's "very personal" meeting with the president, she brought up her frustration in obtaining the official Army report about the crash.

Karlson said Bush promised that he would look into the matter and get her the reports.

"IT WAS A VERY PRIVATE MEETING AND THAT IS THE WAY WE WANT TO KEEP IT," she said Friday. "HE IS A WONDERFUL MAN. HOW MANY OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE SAT DOWN WITH THE FAMILIES? NONE THAT I KNOW OF."

[Read the AWESOME article and ignore the bogus poll (or vote, whichever makes you feel better); just remember, small groups of leftist computer geeks 'hit' these on-line polls and 'cast' thousands of leftist votes, individual 'voters' don't have a chance!]
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/bush-makes-promise-to-dead-soldiers-mom/20060811120509990011

THE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT ON THE UN RESOLUTION BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL -- FROM CAPTAIN'S QUARTERS

Israel made clear what they wanted from their war from its beginning. It wanted their soldiers returned and the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah and move them out of the sub-Litani region. The Israelis want an end to Hezbollah's capability to shower rockets down on their cities. Those goals fit within Israeli political reality, which will abolutely reject another long occupation of Lebanon, considered by many as their Viet Nam. These limited goals may have made some of their international supporters despair, but the Olmert government does not want to fight the combined armies of Arabia again unless absolutely necessary, and that time has not yet come.

In this context, George Bush delivered the best deal he could to meet those goals. He fought the UN to a stalemate while allowing Israel a free hand to conduct military missions against Hezbollah positions and leadership, creating some diplomatic backlash against the US as a result. When France tried to weasel its way into the good graces of the Arab states supporting Hezbollah, Bush made sure they did so by themselves, and then forced them back. In the end, the resolution calls for the solution that Israel wanted all along, and it commits the UN to provide enough forces to at least have a chance of successful implementation. Bush also made sure that the Israelis did not have to leave Lebanon until that force replaced them despite loud calls for immediate withdrawal, allowing Israel to protect its retreat.

My point, therefore, was that George Bush could hardly be blamed for delivering almost everything Israel wanted out of this war, and doing so with unanimous UN Security Council approval. In fact, the result should be seen as something of a diplomatic accomplishment. Israel set the goals, and we delivered. If the result is unsatisfactory, then I believe it is unfair to blame George Bush for demanding a war that Israel did not want to wage.

Posted by Captain Ed at August 12, 2006
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007781.php#trackbacks

BUSH'S FORTITUDE ON THE MIDDLE EAST
By Ed Koch

The war now raging in Lebanon should not surprise anyone. For many years, Hezbollah, which is funded, equipped and ideologically supported by Iran and Syria, has made it crystal clear that its goal is to conquer Israel, expel its Jewish inhabitants, and place the entire land under Islamic rule.

. . . According to The New York Times, President Bush made the U.S. position clear, "Speaking to reporters from his ranch in Crawford, Tex., President Bush called for the resolution's speedy adoption, but made clear that the main sticking point -- Lebanese insistence that the draft be altered to require Israel to withdraw troops immediately -- was nonnegotiable."

In my judgment, when history evaluates George W. Bush's position in the pantheon of presidents, he will be compared with Harry S. Truman. Bush's fortitude in recognizing the danger of Islamic fundamentalism to the U.S. and, indeed, the Western world, and his awareness of the need to win this war of civilizations is remarkable. He deserves the applause of all Americans and in time he will receive it.

You can read the entire article at
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/bushs_fortitude_on_the_middle.html

BUSH 'BELIEVES CONFLICT IS A US-IRAN PROXY WAR'
By Edward Luce in Washington

Washington's foreign policy elite is engaged in a bitter tussle between "neoconservatives" and "realists" seeking to influence George W. Bush's stance on the Israel-Lebanon crisis. The neocons increasingly have the upper hand.

Former and current administration officials say that George W. Bush feels more strongly and is more engaged in support of Israel's military assault on Hizbollah than on any other question. They say Mr Bush feels passionately that the US should support Israel in what he sees as the frontline in the global battle between democracy and terrorism.

You can read the entire article at
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14305782/

THE CEASE FIRE RESOLUTION
By Mark Noonan at 09:07 AM

. . . Some are upset with this - I'm not.

It pegs guilt for the war right where it belongs: on Hezbollah. It demands the release of captured Israelis unconditionally, but does not address, other than in very general terms, any release of captives held by Israel. Hezbollah is unlikely to accept it - Hezbollah is called upon to immediately cease hostilities and undergo disarmament; Israel is merely called upon to cease offensive military actions. If Hezbollah fires a single rocket, or gives any indication that they won't disarm, then Israel can "defensively" take whatever measures are necessary.

All in all, its an excellent agreement: some sort of cease fire resolutuion had to come out of the UN; there was just no way to avoid it, unless the United States was prepared to veto. As that would be politically as well as morally wrong - we must never forget that any chance at peace must be grasped, and let the men of violence and hatred show by their actions who wishes to continue the war - we had to sign on to something. This resolution essentially boxes Hezbollah in, puts the Lebanese government on the spot and allows Israel sufficient flexibility to continue destroying Hezbollah.

This is what we get when we have clear-headed adults running our foreign policy - put the Democrats in charge, and we would have had a deal to provide Hezbollah with new missiles to replace the old on the understanding that they promise to never use them against Israel...

http://blogsforbush.com/