President Bush Live From the State Department

When the conflict first began, Condi went to Israel, and the left was all over her because she couldn't possibly be a broker of peace because "We know what side she's on."

There has never been any question that this administration has stood solidly behind Israel, and was allowing them to do what they needed to do to disarm Hizb'ALLAH.

Condi didn't 'interfere' with what the President wanted, and he has wanted from the beginning to eradicate Hizb'ALLAH.

The fact that it didn't get done is not his fault.

Pay closer attention, and you won't get it backwards.

The fact that it didn't get done is not his fault.

The Buck Stops Here.

I'm a loyal Bush supporter so don't get me wrong. But you shouldn't ignore the fact that Bush, Condi and the State Department were not on the same page in the early going. Bush was much more hawkish. Condi supported the President's position publicly after about day 3 or 4 when the Administration finally got the policy lined up. But in the end it was Condi's and the State Department policy that prevailed. And it was the policy they pursued hot and heavy for a month which finally succeeded in generating another UN Pretty Piece of Paper that, like it's predecessors, will not be enforced.

So Bush may have given Israel all the support that he was able to but someone screwed up in their evaluation of what was possible for Israel to achieve in Lebanon and, as I said above, the Buck Does Stop on the President's Desk.

BTW, have you heard a peep out of the Administration about the disarming of Hezbollah? Ping me when you do. I'm still waiting.

Here is a little evidence for your side of the argument.

Have a look at this David Frum article.

Frum thinks it turned out a little better for our side than I do. He is more in line with your thinking. I do, however, absolutely agree with his comments about the strategic value of the rockets in Southern Lebanon.

Here is a key excerpt from the article:

" I think Iran wanted to use the capabilities of Hezbollah that you see on display now, the rockets and the guerrilla fighters, at a later time, and a mega-crisis over Iran's nuclear capabilities."

That's exactly the way I see it and the reason that I feel so strongly that we needed to get Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon. We need to weaken Iran as we work our way up to that fateful day when the West has to decide to either let Iran go nuclear and learn to live with it or go to war. That day will come I assure you and I would like to have Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon when it does.

BTW, have you heard a peep out of the Administration about the disarming of Hezbollah? Ping me when you do. I'm still waiting.

Well now, we've come full circle, now haven't we?

Because you were given a direct quote by Hal, which you dismissed, and now you're saying hasn't been said. (I'll refrain from calling you a liar, and just assume you have a very short memory).

If you want to blame the President for not being dictator of the world, feel free. And if you want to imagine that the President and his Secretary of State, who happens to be a close friend, aren't 'on the same page'..........well it's tough to argue with that, since it doesn't make a lick of sense.

In this particular case, the buck stops with the leaders of Israel. Since the President doesn't lead their armed forces, you have to contort to make this his fault.

But you're not alone. The left does it too.

You must be referring to:

"... And the leaders of these armed groups must make a choice: If they want to participate in the political life of their countries, they must disarm. Elected leaders cannot have one foot in the camp of democracy and one foot in the camp of terror."

I didn't dismiss it. It didn't address the issue I was talking about: namely UN Resolutions 1559 and 1701 both of which require that Hezbollah be disarmed. Nobody, and certainly not the President of the United States, can believe that Hezbollah, a terrorist organization of the highest rank, will disarm willingly and on their own. Bush's remark does not address the issue of who will disarm Hezbollah and when that might happen. He has avoided any comment on the subject as has Olmert.

I'm a big George Bush fan but this is not his shining hour nor is it Israel's. You will look long and hard for any praise from the Right for the Administration's handling of their end of this deal. It will not be there. The Left will of course see weakness and will exploit it with the help of the MSM in their normal fashion. Wait and see.

Yesterday's resolution aims to end Hizballah's attacks on Israel and bring a halt to Israel's offensive military operations. It also calls for an embargo on the supply of arms to militias in Lebanon, for a robust international force to deploy to southern Lebanon in conjunction with Lebanon's legitimate armed forces, and for the disarming of Hizballah and all other militia groups operating in Lebanon. These steps are designed to stop Hizballah from acting as a state within a state, and put an end to Iran and Syria's efforts to hold the Lebanese people hostage to their own extremist agenda. This in turn will help to restore the sovereignty of Lebanon's democratic government and help ensure security for the people of Lebanon and Israel.

From his statement, August 12th.

You made a statement that the President has not said a word about disarming Hizb'ALLAH.

You were wrong.

That is my point.

It would be good if you didn't continue to mistate the truth in the future.

That is my request.

For some reason, I don't think that deliberately mistating the truth of what the President has said is appropriate just because you disagree with his policy of allowing the Israelis to run their own country and military. It's unbecoming for a conservative to deliberately deny what has actually occurred.

Please try to be more honest in the future.

Thanks.

"so re-arming the Hezzies is helpful for Israel?"

Let me put it this way. Iran is trying to re-arm the Hezzies, but we and others have worked to prevent that. One plane that Iran sent to re-arm the hezzies with rockets was returned to Iran with the help (escort) of our fighter jets.

There have been other Iranian planes that have attempted to help the hezzies and had to turn back also.

"
Yes, I've been thinking a lot about this in the last year or so. The voice of the people in the Middle East right now is for Islamic fundamentalists, and these tend to be our most deadly enemies. So when we foster ME democracies, who then are we serving? Probably not ourselves. Then why exactly are we spending all this money and blood?

The president sure is not making this very clear, given the events and trends in the last several years, how our strategy ultimately works. Is it good cop/bad cop with Condi as the "good" cop? I don't agree with what Condi is up to, but if she's the administration's representative, they should be supporting her more than they are."

Good question.
It ultimately 'works' by getting the people fully responsible for their own Governments and reigning them in when they do stupid things like fire rockets into Israel and start wars .... *NOW*, if hezbollah really does 'win' in the hearts and minds of lebanese, those same lebanese who got the s**t bombed out of them in this war that hezbollah started ... *THEN*, we can consider them mentally deranged and unfit for democracy. But i have some small hope that the people will start learning to weed out the worst players here, and that democracy will force compromises that marginalize extremists and move countries in the right direction. This can work as long as ballots and not bullets are the ways govts are formed in Arab countries, and the #1 threat are these 'democracies with militias' that now seem to be Lebanon and Iraq....

I dont quite see how an armed Hezbollah, running around with inpunity like a mafi crime family, makes for a 'democracy'.

"Methinks your anger is misdirected: 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."

Good comment.

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.