Replies

Absolutely, the President has supported a Pal State, and the Leb government, even with their elections of terrorist fractions.

Isn't that what the terrorists, the press, Europe, the UN, have said would solve terrorism?

Haven't all of the above used this rationalizations for suicide and murder all these decades, ie, the fact that they had no influence on policy? No seat at the table? that they were occupied? That they killed civilians because they wanted changes in US and Israeli policy?

Well, this President has given them exactly that, a test, can they govern? Can they run a civilized nation? Can they provide good economic means for their people as they claimed?

It seems they have failed that test, for now.

After 9/11 the US decided to give the moderates a chance too, and so far the Leb gov has refused to remove Hez, and Hamas has refused to govern. Iraq is a little better, but that remains to be seen, can they control their terrorists?

Thanks, r o s. I had directed #325 to Jameison specifically because of the "cheerleading" and a dispute about the president being perceived as infallable by some. The fact that Hizb and Hamas are involved in this conflict causes many of us (myself included!) to react in support of whoever is taking them to the woodshed. This is why the "war on terror" is an abject failure, like the "war on drugs".

Absent a clear definition of the enemy state, it is impossible to wage and decisively win a war. This may become a moot point if Syria and Iran jump in. Is Israel at war with Lebanon or Hizb? Should Syria jump in, must Israel declare war on the Ba'ath party and not the government of Syria? I say it is bone stupid to fail in identifying the state government that one is at war with.

Saudi Arabia got away with making a direct threat against the USA and the UN. Since the UN does not have an armed force, why are we backing down from a Saudi threat? If we are letting KSA threaten us so that Israel will not have an additional front to deal with, that is wrong.