[ml/nj]

important article self ping

[Rocko]

Bumpitttt.

[Dark Skies]

Although a great blow to Bush's vision of democracy in the Middle East

I think that vision needs revision. It appears that islam is not a fertile soil for democracy.

[Bahbah]

Such a strategy...will change the emphasis of US operations in Iraq in a manner than weakens, rather than strengthens Iran and Syria.

Very good, but what is that strategy and in what way should the emphasis of Iraq operations be changed?

[melancholy]

"Fighters for the Unity and Liberty of Greater Syria." They said that they killed Gemayel because he was "one of those who unceasingly spouted their venom against Syria and against [Hizbullah], shamelessly and without any trepidation." Gemayel, they threatened, would be the first of many victims. As they put it, "Sooner or later we will pay the rest of the agents their due..."

A typical result of the Nov. 7 RAT's win and not dealing decisively with Iran / Sadr.

None of our enemies has any fear of or even "respect" for us especially after the change of guard in Congress and the intended cut-and-run policy.

Implementing the "realists" BH study recommendations of one immediate, efficient action is to bomb Iranian military and nuke sites. Taking Iran out will cause Syria to fold and cut off Hizbollah from its protectors. Another benefit is conveying an unambiguous message to Russia, China, and the world that we're still the only superpower.

One immediate, efficient action is to bomb Iranian military and nuke sites. This will cause Syria to fold and Hizbollah to be cut off from its protectors. Another benifit is conveying an unambigeous message to Russia, China, and the world that we're still the only superpower.

I say immediate because of the impending Russian delivery of a mobile, sophisticated air defense system will cost us planes, casualties or worse, POWs in Iranian hands. Do we believe in the Geneva Convention?

[EternalHope]

Very important and insightful article.

Thanks for posting.

[Pride in the USA]

America, you can't give up on this war. At stake is the future of the entire world, the question is really only this . . . what do we want that world to look like? Do we want a future free from terrorism and the cancerous spread of radical Islam? If we do, we have to continue the fight for what is right and good and that means taking the war against terror right to the door of Syria, Iran and North Korea. Wherever the enemy springs up, we have to mow them down. I have lost confidence that this will happen until we get hit enough times by 911 type attacks. Even then, will America have the will to do whatever it takes to win the war against Islamofascism? The terrorists, emboldened by our recent election results, are convinced that the answer is, "No."

[johnny7]

“If Bush sees this murder as the warning sign it is of what awaits Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq and indeed the entire world if the US removes its forces from Iraq or is perceived as moving in that direction; if he finally recognizes that Iraq is not a separate war, but a great battle in a larger struggle, then Bush will be able to formulate a new strategy for victory.”

I believe Bush does... but a majority of Americans, the Democrat Party and the DBM surely does not. What terrifies me is that they WON'T see it... until it's too late.

[kalee]

bump

[gotribe]

All this politicking and negotiating and hair-splitting just so we don't have to kill hordes of middle eastern muslims to protect oil supplies. I don't get it.

[Sabramerican]

Your thoughts?

[carton253]

I will continue to read this article because I like Glick, but (and I know it makes no difference because perception is everything) the President did not fire Rumsfeld. He resigned. I believe he resigned and am not spinning the situation. He had tried to do so two other times, but the President would not let him. So, while I know that Glick is not that fond of the President (at least in the articles she writes), let's not accuse him of things he did not do.

[carton253]

Continuing with the article. Glick's resentment toward Baker is absolutely justified. This man is not a friend to Israel and has never been. I wish he would just go away. I am very worried to have him in the mix.

[carton253]

I agree that Europe has abandoned Israel, but this is not a recent development. Official abandoment happened in 1922.

[carton253]

I am reminded of what Robert E. Lee said when speaking of journalists of his time. That the first mistake the army made was not putting the journalists in charge because they see so clearly all the mistakes that happened before they occured.

I'm not saying that Glick is wrong. I think she writes very well and is very knowledgeable on the subject. But, I have a tendency to stop listening when she thinks that the President does not see the same things she does.

I am a strong supporter of the President, but not in his Israeli policy. I think he follows the State Department's Arabists too much, and they follow Europe.

But, if the President pulls out of Iraq before that govenrment is fully established and able to stand on its own against its enemies (both internal and external), then he will lose my respect. I do not believe he is doing that, nor do I believe he will do so.

I think his understanding of the region and its politics is a lot deeper and more fully realized than Glick and some will give him credit for.