Has Kerry or any other Dems spoken about the Israel-Lebanon crisis?

[Mass]

I have not seen anything anywhere.

[wisteria]

1. I have not heard anyone speak out. n/t

[TayTay]

2. No one has spoken on it.

The transcript that Whome pointed to shows that Bush barely spoke about it. (He was more interested in a pig roast he was having at night. Odd friggin duck that guy.)

There was a report on the news tonight that the US told Israel to be 'careful' in what they were doing. The ABC report specifically said that the Admin didn't tell Israel to stop, just to be careful. ABC implied that this meant coded approval for what they are doing.

The Middle East is such a mess. If only we had people in power who knew what they were doing. Instead we are cursed with these madmen.

[ginnyinWI]

3. CBS showed a clip of *

He was saying that "any country has a right to defend itself"--without sensing the irony. He seemed to be gung-ho pro-Israel and pro-war.

Then they said Condi made a statement urging restraint from Israel. (I'd like her to urge the restraint of a certain chimp. Like with a straight jacket.)

[Island Blue]

4. I think irony is totally lost on these people.

He probably didn't see any irony in speaking about the situation while attending a pig roast of all things either, did he?

[ProSense]

5. Repercussions of a

failed and arrogant policy:

Letting Gaza Burn
Chris Toensing
July 13, 2006

Snip...

This tiptoeing around the facts, while it sounds unusually absurd on this occasion, is in line with Bush (and Clinton) administration practice of long standing: Blame the Palestinians for starting the fight, exonerate Israel of any culpability, place the onus on the Palestinian leadership for Palestinian suffering at Israeli hands and hint at behind-the-scenes pressure on Israel to stand down. These last hints have grown steadily more delicate in the post-9/11 years. When the Bush administration decided that they, too, wanted to order missile strikes against Islamist militants on foreign soil, they stopped complaining about Israel’s extrajudicial executions in Gaza and the West Bank. When President George W. Bush called for Israel’s “immediate” withdrawal from reinvaded West Bank towns in April 2002, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice clarified that “now” did not mean “right away.” The withdrawal, she said, should be “orderly,” and not “helter-skelter.”

Still, decorum required the White House to insist that Israel not “remove” Yasser Arafat and, eventually, to prevail upon Israel to provisionally accept Bush’s “road map” to peace. In the name of that document, the State Department objected when Israel wanted to withdraw from Gaza without any coordination with the Palestinians, and Rice set about polishing her diplomatic rock-star image with an arduous parlay to open a Gazan border crossing that Israel kept closing even after withdrawing.

In the wake of the Hamas victory in January’s Palestinian elections, however, the daylight between U.S. and Israeli positions disappeared. That border crossing has been closed for nearly half of 2006, to the predictable detriment of Gazan exports and incomes. The U.S. discontinued financial aid to the Palestinian Authority, and stayed quiet as Israel withheld millions in customs revenue that belong to the Palestinians by treaty. So it seems superfluous to ask “Where is the U.S.?” as Gaza feels the squeeze.

Rather, the questions ought to be: Will the U.S. demand that Israel not unleash similar collective punishment on Lebanon? Meanwhile, how can Bush believe that the U.S. can help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by unequivocally backing one side? And when will Americans demand that their presidents act as truly honest brokers?

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/13/letting_gaza_burn.php

Anybody seen that roadmap to peace, anywhere??

Is there any area of foreign policy this moronic Administration hasn’t totally failed in??? George W. Bush has to be the biggest failure in the history of this planet…

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_07/009161.php#918786

[wisteria]

6. Boxer and Hagel are on Larry King! Hagel is scaring me-honest!

He is suggesting we need someone like Powell to take over for Rice and exercise some diplomacy. "Not to undermine Rice, but....

[TayTay]

7. We had Powell and Cheney undercut him

That came out in the recent 'The One Percent Doctrine" book and the Frontline documentary, "The Dark Side." Powell wasn't strong enough to head off the neocons and Cheney specifically undercut the State Dept in order to pump up Rummy at DoD.

Hagel has to understand that the entire neocon agenda has to go. It is flawed from the get-go. Bush has dramatically failed in his foreign policy and has made the world less safe and America more vulnerable to terrorism.

Everyone who let this happen must go. They are dismal failures who have hurt America.

[wisteria]

8. I feel the same way! I am so angry at Bush.

All we need are more missiles fired at us from North Korea again because Bush is preoccupied and not up to the job of being a world leader. World bully yes, but not a leader.

[ginnyinWI]

9. We definitely need somebody who can act like a leader,

That much is obvious.

But it seems like the Bushies are still hiding behind their smoke and mirrors and given a pass by the media. Good thing is that *'s ratings are back down to 36. Maybe the people are aware of the incompetence despite not hearing all of it. All but the koolaid drinkers have no trust left.

[JanusAscending]

10. I wish they would keep him over there!!!

It is much closer to the Hague!! DON"T BOTHER TO COME BACK SHRUB! WE DON"T NEED YOU ANY MORE!!!