Posted on 08/14/2006 10:58:29 AM PDT by Sabramerican
“We do not want escalations.” in a war against terrorists.
Hezbollah may be fearsome, but they are not particularly skilled. No more so than some thug who keeps firing off a sawed-off shotgun from the hip.
"We dont really mean this is a war against terrorists and those states that sponsor them","We were just trying to gin you sheeple up a little ", "We are just a placeholder presidency and are quite clueless on how to win this WOT", "Now we have imposed the scrotum check at all airports, "we will do whatever it takes to keep our people safe, untill the next batch of our citizens are killed""....
Firing years old katyusha rockets from behind women and children is considered fearsome and skilled? ...only from the Helzbolla friendly NYTimes.
I don't bother getting a password for the New York Slimes but any time they are praising your diplomacy you know you screwed up. Caroline Glick wrote that she was told the Bush people got tired of waiting for the Israelis to get their act together and decided to stop taking the beating they were taking diplomatically supporting the Israeli war effort. That sounds like a reasonable analysis.
In a larger context, that's probably the correct approach. If Israel gets bogged down in Lebanon, it makes the whole region much more unstable -- which is not only to Israel's detriment, but also to ours.
If Olmert didn't want to fight all out, Bush's hands were tied...
That shift, recounted by [anonymous] senior administration officials, led to one of the most dramatic bouts of diplomacy that the United Nations Security Council has witnessed in years.
So I'll placemark the article in the event I have time to go look at it on their website later...
Their skill lies in being able to convince women to sacrifice themselves and their children as human shields.
Actually, I am cautiously hopeful of the resolution. With 30,000 new troops in there they may be able to slowly weed out the scum. We'll see.
"allege" => alleging
May answer some of the questions you've been asking about the cease fire.
In my opinion, the Bush Administration, not getting immediate gratification, cut off Israel at the knees.
It will come back to cripple the US too.
I still believe that Olmert talked the President into this, not the other way around.
Sounds reasonable to me too.
We will all end up paying for this some day.
An unnamed senior administration official said this...
... and I'm supposed to believe what, that all it takes to "force through" a unanimously approved U.N. Resolution is for the Secretary of State to "sit there until it gets done"?
Beam me up Scotty.
Agreed. Everyone thought the Israelis would be able to clean up. Krauthammer saying, "we need to wait while the Israelis do what has to be done."
So then Olmert didn't follow through.
So when Bush/Rice realized that Olmert wasn't up to the task, what else could they do?
I think what happened was that Bush gave the Israelis a window and told them to use it. When Olmert tripped over his dick trying to pursue the war the Bush people looked at the diplomatic beating they were taking and decided that it would take the Israelis forever to get this accomplished and they could not wait that long. I blame Olmert more than Bush.
If you are talking about the 30,000 Israeli troops - maybe they will weed out the scum, but if you mean the 30,000 peace keepers, I wonder if we will ever see all of them. The Lebanese Army deployment is on hold and they loyalty suspect anyway. The UN troops are still only partially identified and won't deploy while the shooting continues.
Anyone who expects the UN or Lebanese, or French to protect Israel is a fool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.