CT: It's not just for bloggers anymore
 

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

CT: It's not just for bloggers anymore
 

Could you post the text of the article?

CT: It's not just for bloggers anymore
 

I rather enjoyed that. Although the Seargent also had a major part.

No more patience for bozos.
 

Its time for both of these Jokers to go. Time for the CIA to do some wet work.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/30/D8J6NURG0.html

Iran awarded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez its highest state medal on Sunday for supporting Tehran in its nuclear standoff with the international community, while Chavez urged the world to rise up and defeat the U.S., state-run media in both countries reported.

The leftist Venezuelan leader also condemned Israel for what he called the "terrorism" and "madness" of its attacks in Lebanon, Venezuelan state television reported.

"Let's save the human race, let's finish off the U.S. empire," Chavez said. "This (task) must be assumed with strength by the majority of the peoples of the world."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presented Chavez with the Islamic Republic Medal in a ceremony at Tehran University. The award was to show Iran's gratitude for his "support for Iran's stance on the international scene, especially its opposition to a resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency," Iranian state-run television said.

"He is the one who has resisted imperialism for years and has defended the interests of his and other Latin American countries," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

In February, Venezuela opposed an IAEA decision to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its disputed nuclear program.

A draft proposal Friday by permanent members of the U.N. Security Council gives Iran until the end of August to suspend uranium enrichment or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

The U.S. accuses Iran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran maintains its program is purely peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.

CT: It's not just for bloggers anymore
 

Most of the piece, from the link:

• Mr. Lieberman is now in a tough Democratic primary against a little-known challenger, Ned Lamont. The race has taken on a national character. Mr. Lieberman’s friends see it as an attempt by hysterical antiwar bloggers to oust a giant of the Senate for the crime of bipartisanship. Lamont backers — most of whom seem more passionate about being Lieberman opponents — say that as one of the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war, Mr. Lieberman has betrayed his party by cozying up to President Bush.
  
  This primary would never have happened absent Iraq. It’s true that Mr. Lieberman has fallen in love with his image as the nation’s moral compass. But if pomposity were a disqualification, the Senate would never be able to call a quorum. He has voted with his party in opposing the destructive Bush tax cuts, and despite some unappealing rhetoric in the Terri Schiavo case, he has strongly supported a woman’s right to choose. He has been one of the Senate’s most creative thinkers about the environment and energy conservation.
  
  But this race is not about résumés. The United States is at a critical point in its history, and Mr. Lieberman has chosen a controversial role to play. The voters in Connecticut will have to judge whether it is the right one.
  
  As Mr. Lieberman sees it, this is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party — his moderate fair-mindedness against a partisan radicalism that alienates most Americans. “What kind of Democratic Party are we going to have?” he asked in an interview with New York magazine. “You’ve got to agree 100 percent, or you’re not a good Democrat?”
  
  That’s far from the issue. Mr. Lieberman is not just a senator who works well with members of the other party. And there is a reason that while other Democrats supported the war, he has become the only target. In his effort to appear above the partisan fray, he has become one of the Bush administration’s most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates.
  
  Citing national security, Mr. Bush continually tries to undermine restraints on the executive branch: the system of checks and balances, international accords on the treatment of prisoners, the nation’s longtime principles of justice. His administration has depicted any questions or criticism of his policies as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. And Mr. Lieberman has helped that effort. He once denounced Democrats who were “more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq” than on supporting the war’s progress.
  
  At this moment, with a Republican president intent on drastically expanding his powers with the support of the Republican House and Senate, it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman’s ability to command Republicans’ attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president’s defender.
  
  On the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Lieberman has left it to Republicans like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to investigate the administration’s actions. In 2004, Mr. Lieberman praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for expressing regret about Abu Ghraib, then added: “I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized.” To suggest even rhetorically that the American military could be held to the same standard of behavior as terrorists is outrageous, and a good example of how avidly the senator has adopted the Bush spin and helped the administration avoid accounting for Abu Ghraib.
  
  Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration’s policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales’s sneering reference to the “quaint” provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.
  
  If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.
  
  Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent’s grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.

CT: It's not just for bloggers anymore
 

At first glance Lamont seems like a political dilettante. I will be voting for Lieberman.

CT: It's not just for bloggers anymore
 

do you have socks that reside in Connecticut?

CT: It's not just for bloggers anymore
 

I retired from socking.

The CIA Finally Got Him
 

The CIA Finally Got Him
 

So we should expect to see some Iraqi WMD in another 40 years?


(Should be right around the time the occupation ends)

Die Castro, Die!
 

Hallelujah!

Finally, as we approach the day He was plucked from the sea by the saintly Donato, the fisherman, appropriately on Thanksgiving Day 1999, with his mamma, may she rest in peace, lashing Him to an raggedy tire innertube to sail to freedom in the US of A, we are coming up on the day of (re)liberation for the child political prisoner Elian.

For those of us who value freedom and the natural rights of all humans and who fought so hard to preserve the freedom for Elian that his madre gave her life for, this will be a joyous day. Thank G-d.

But, we should never forget or forgive the crimes against humanity, G-d and freedom of Shake n Bake Reno, Billybud Clinton and Castro. The subjugation of this innocent child is the tragedy of our generation (other than the Schiavo murder). It is so sad.

Of course, on the positve tip, the betrayal of liberty is and will remain one of the lasting legacies of Bill Clinton's criminal hijacking of the office of the CinC.

Victory! Amen!

Die Castro, Die!
 

Oops, sorry. :blush:

In an effort to repair what Penske broke, a few thoughts from John Quiggin:

• The terrible war in Lebanon has been discussed from all sorts of ethical and legal perspectives, but the simplest way of judging war is to look at its consequences.
  
  After weeks of bloodshed, with the vast majority of victims being ordinary people (mostly in Lebanon thanks to the use of airstrikes as a weapon of terror, but with many killed and wounded in Israel as well) whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, it’s hard to believe that anyone could claim that any good consequences are going to come out of this for the people of either Israel or Lebanon (though of course this is precisely the claim being made not only by the belligerents but by their outside backers, from Bush on one side to the Iranians on the other). But as we’ve seen time and again, the logic of war, once started, is remorseless. However obviously wrong the initial decision to go to war, the consequences of ending it always seem almost worse, at least to those who have to admit that the death and destruction they have wrought has been pointless.
  
  And all this was not only predictable, but predicted by nearly everyone who looked at the situation objectively.
  
  Whether all this is put in terms of just war, consequentialism or some other way of thinking about things, a central problem is that the parties act as judges in their own cases, and, at times when war is brewing, are bad judges even of their own interests, let alone of the justice of their claims or the effect on others.
  
  At best, war is doing evil that good may come, and most of the time the indirect consequences are also evil. The great majority of wars, revolutions and insurgencies have done more harm than good, and in most cases, everyone involved has been worse off than if they had made peace on the basis of the status quo ante at the earliest opportunity. This is obvious as a general proposition (the fact that the same handful of exceptions is quoted over and over again only goes to sharpen the point). But everyone thinking of making war sees themselves as one of the exceptions.

eta: I'd add that there are people who stand to gain from conflict, and they often play a crucial role in spurring the fighting on. E.g., the head of Hezbollah has seen his stature increase around the Arab world, even while the war has been a disaster for Lebanon.

eatft

I lose this rationale there. A lot of these people, as sad as it may be, are not at the wrong place at the wrong time. They are not innocent. Anymore than the mass of Germans who supported Hitler into office and during the 30s were innocent. The mass of citizenry in Lebanon and Syria and a good portion of the ME, hate the Jews, Hate Israel and support its destruction, in word or deed. they let their countries be used as harbors for terrorists and launching pads for the military apparatus that is intended to bring israel's destruction. they give aid and support to the terrorists. allow them to intermingle in their population so that they can have the "innocent citizen" shields.

assumption of the risk, you reap what you sow etc.

If Israel has the nuts to prosecute this thing as need be, it will be the winner and more secure.

Go Israel!

ps: I didn't break it, the liberals are all preparing to be mourning as one of the last failed commie revolutionaries of the last century gets ready to bite it. A sad time for the leftist ideal.

My condolences.

That's repellent. There's an argument to be made about whether the killing of innocents is a troubling but necessary requirement to root out militants attempting to hide in civilian populations.

Trying to rationalize it by saying that the populace deserved it is simply fucked.

Do you really believe all that or are you stirring things up for the hell of it?

In some ways I don't care if its repellent. The institutional anti-semitism in the ME is more repellent and the measure approach of dealing wiht it doesn't work. So I am about black and white solutions. If we are going to continue to invest billions of dollars supporting Israel and to attempt to realize the benefit of 30 years of foreign policy which has been predicated on the continued existence of Israel being of immense strategic importance, then we have to stop pretending that measured approaches and co-existence is going to work anytime before Israel completely puts the smack down. I don't see it as any different than what we did in Germany or Japan at the end of WWII to fully win the war and I don't second guess what we did there.

Otherwise let's pull up stakes, invest the billions in education in the US and let Iran do what it will with Greater Palestine.

And I am not saying they all deserve to die but there has to be a realization that there are consequences to one's behaviors and actions and in the present situation in the ME, civilian populations, while not active combatants, both actively and passively do a lot to facilitate the terrorists ability to function. You can't pretend on the one hand that you are part of the effourt and support and then claim an exemption from responsibility when you get caught up in the repercussions.

Confidential to Ty: a little of both.

This much is clear.

In other words, Israelis should fight anti-Semitism by using overwhelming military power to kill a lot of non-combatants. That should work.

was this guy on Clinton's NSA staff?

he misses the point that w/o the action the Israeli citizens would still be getting killed, maybe in smaller numbers, but just as certainly getting killed day by day.

yes - better that than another Aushuwitz (sp)

2.


As for the original post, I think it's too early to tell what the end result will be here. Depends on how far and how successful Israel is, and how the situation is ultimately resolved. Hezbollah's leader already had ample stature; a two-week gain of some more is not particularly important in the scheme of things.

I don't think he does, but if the best you can do by way of response is to knock down straw men, you go right ahead.

Because those are the only two choices. Right.

No, not anti-semitism itself. I have scant hope that mass anti-semitism in the ME will go away anytime soon. I would doubt it's not the prevailing sentiment for the rest of our lives (assuming standard acturarials tables), but the Jordanian or Egyptian breed, is probably tolerable for Israel. However, when you sizable portions of the civilian population sheltering paramilitary terrorist groups, allowing their country (or the terrority under their control, see Gaza) to be a base for launching of military operations, then I think the Israel has to do whatever is necessary to defend itself and create appropriate zones of defence. In the present case that will include destroying civilian population centers. Perhaps the "innocent" citizens of these areas, who support coexistence and do not give aid and support to the terrorists or their use of their country as launching pads, should take it up with the leaders of their countries or politcal groups who are so perverting the will of the people of that region.

If the supermajority of the populaces of these countries/regions did not support (actively and passively) the continued state of war towards the end of destroying Israel) then the issue could have been solved at least several times over the last almost 60 years. Certainly Israel has indicated (and we have no reason to doubt) that they could live in a peaceful state of coexistence. If their neighbours could behave. Civilians and military alike.

You/that guy "war is something one should almost always avoid"

Deep shit Ty. do you think he rested up after coming up with it?

Me "but if your people are getting blown up anyway are you in a war?"

You "strawman"

or are you two looking at it from the perspective of, say god? you know overall, putting aside one might be on one side or another, it would be better if Israel stopped trying to defend itself.

Maybe Israel can start doing outreach, taking elderly Lenaese people meals on wheels or some such- win their hearts and minds!!!! you keep saying there are lots of other options- lets go girl tell us what you all would do!

I'll reiterate that I don't wasn't saying certain parts of the civilian population deserve to die. Certainly children are fully innocent. But I stand by that there has to be consequences to actions and responsibility on the part of civilian populations for the actions they take or allow to be taken in their name. The reason children are dying or being displaced is not because the Israelis are genocidal or indiscriminate killers or military aggressors. It is because, at least in some material part, the civilian populations of Israels neighbours (and that part of the population that is in part made up of the parents of the innocent children) have chosen to allow their countries/territories to be used by terrorists to seek and further the destruction of Israel. Their motivation for creating or allowing their nation-states or autonomous territories to used as platforms for such purpose is, quite simply, because they are in favour of the destruction of Israel. Essentially its a non-electoral referendum.

After almost 60 years, seemingly so. How many generations of Arab populaces have had the chance to seriously adopt and effect a plan of coexistence? Why is so hard? Where are the masses of moderates who decry the hate and truly want to live in peace? Did that dream die with Nobel Peace Prize winner Arafat?

Support for the Bush foreign policy involves thinking that we need to launch a war to bring democracy to the Middle East, except when it means that we need to support a war in the Middle East because of all the bad things caused because the people there think the wrong things.

Most of the people supporting Israel are arguing that Hezbollah is victimizing Lebanese civilians by hiding among them to launch rockets. Obviously, they're all wrong then.

I don't see any point in (again) saying what I think Israel should be doing because you don't see any point in reading or responding to those posts. When you decide to leave the straw men alone, you just say so. At least Penske is half serious.

I find it truly odd that you think most Lebanese have a choice about what Hezbollah does, and that you think many of them ought to die because they did not do more to stop Hezbollah. You sound like Ward Churchill.

The Lebanese moderates are on the road to Syria or hiding in their basements.

Did I pretend that most Arabs love their Israeli neighbors? I don't think so. In fact, I recall pointing out that this was a problem with our newfound love of democracy in the Middle East. But that doesn't mean they deserve what has happened in Lebanon, or that it leaves Israel better off.

I have no idea what you might have said in the past- this board has been rather unreadable for awhile- so I may well have missed some really bright suggestion from you- thus i will say "so"

There is a degree of accuracy to this analogy.

I am not sure what this means, but over the long haul, I don't think the Bush foreign policy or war in Iraq is the driver for what is going on here. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for almost 60 years. It would be going on regardless of Bush. St. Clinton couldn't solve it, even when he got Israel to agree to a future death sentence. The future potential was too grey for Nobel Peace Prize Winner Arafat.

Hiding? How do they get there? How do they stay there over a 20 plus year period? They are part of the population and they have a shared goal in mind. The destruction of Israel.

And I suppose Hamas is hiding amongst all the moderate peace loving Palestinians?

2.

that is so fucking unfair. Penske never said they should die because they allow Hezbollah to stick around. he pointed out they are all mixed in- and pointed out that Civilians who are the collateral damage are not exactly innocents. To make Penske equal Ward we'd have to have the military all hidden between stock brokers and coffee salesmen in the WTC.

I think its impossible to look at any one part of the larger conflictr here in a vaccuum. I think that the combined populaces of the Arab world have had multiple choices and chances over 60 years to come to grips with Israel and they chose to stay the course with the desired goal of destruction of the same. I think Lebanon and the Lebanese people have ceded their country to Syria and Hezbollah and pretending that there is some independent Lebanese government that is caught in the cross fire here and wants peace is not reality.

Offer a peace plan, short of Israel militarily destroying Hezbollah (which reality tells us will likely involve civilian casualties), that could work. I don't think you or anyone else can because the only plan that works for the mass of the greater ME is one that doesnt' include Israel, which I think that we agree, is not a tenable solution.