A few big questions on the Hezbollah situation...

[Joe Fields]

Why was George caught with his pants down on this one?

If he is the "terror president," and is waging a war on terror, then how has he managed to ignore Hamas and Hezbollah for so long, until they became a problem he couldn't ignore anymore? Or terrorist groups elsewhere around the world? Or does he think that al-qaeda is the only one that amounts to anything dangerous?

And how could he not know about Hezbollah's build-up of arms, or the connection between Syria, Iran and Hezbollah?

And why is our leadership waiting a week, before jumping into the fray?

Is it because they have no earthly idea as to what to do?

Shouldn't our leaders have advisors who are expert in determining possible scenarios, with solutions to go along with them?

Is it just me who feels that any other president either would have made a beeline over to Israel, or would have immediately dispatched their SOS, instead of creating their own "buffer zone," by having Condi at his side during a speech at the NAACP convention?

Bush's actions are beyond accurate description. At the very least he is a disgusting human being and the worst leader we have ever had. Someone needs to invent some new words and phrases that can capture how most people feel about him.

[TomInTib]

1. Because they are either incompetent or criminal. Or both.

If I didn't have to run down the hill to the store, I could go on and on.

Great post.

[Joe Fields]

2. I damned sure don't hear anyone in the MSM asking these questions.

[lyonn]

3. Where are our Democratic voices in Congress explaining

this very truth. The pres that says stupid things each day and no one seems to notice. Has his bunch Every caught a real terrorist? How they love wars tho, so, guess he is our War Pres., doesn't care who or why he just needs to be bold and full of ideas, which is wars and big guns! It's his own personal video game. Sheesh

Thanks for post, none of our lazy media even hint of this truth.

[Strelnikov_]

4. The Current Situation Is Exactly What Was Planned, Just A Little Early

IMHO, the current hostilities are the opening act in the action against Iran.

Yes, Hezbollah attacked a patrol, killed some soldiers, fired some rockets. A significant response was called for.

That said, the scope of the current operation was baffling to me earlier this week. Knocking out bridges, the major airport, extensive bombing of infrastructure. It was becoming apparent that the goal of this operation was to severely degrade or eliminate Hezbollah as a fighting force.

But why undertake an operation of this scope so suddenly? Would not a more limited response, followed by a demand that Hezbollah be disarmed, been a more politically expedient course prior to an operation of this scale?

Every report I have read regarding military action against Iran notes Hezbollah actions against Israel as one of the major retaliatory threats.

In my opinion, this operation has been planned for a while as a necessary precursor to an attack on Iran. Any other approach to dealing with Hezbollah would have taken too long, with uncertain results. If you know an 'enemy' is going to attack, as Hezbollah would surely do after a massive aerial attack on Iran, military doctrine is to strike first.

The attack on the Israeli soldiers enraged Olmert and he simply moved up the schedule.

Following is an article that states that the plan unfolding before us was finalized over a year ago. About the time the Neocons started sabre rattling again over Iran.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/21/MIDEAST.TMP

By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we're seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it's been simulated and rehearsed across the board."

In his talks, the officer described a three-week campaign: The first week concentrated on destroying Hezbollah's heavier long-range missiles, bombing its command-and-control centers, and disrupting transportation and communication arteries. In the second week, the focus shifted to attacks on individual sites of rocket launchers or weapons stores. In the third week, ground forces in large numbers would be introduced, but only in order to knock out targets discovered during reconnaissance missions as the campaign unfolded. There was no plan, according to this scenario, to reoccupy southern Lebanon on a long-term basis.


Consider the Reich propaganda outlets rapid rolling out of the 'WWIII' and 'Iran/Syria at fault' memes even before the smoke from the first rockets cleared.

Consider the Chimp administrations non-response to Israel severely damaging their big win from last year, the 'Cedar Revolution'.

Consider the extra week they are giving Israel. Don't want a 'quaint' cease fire too soon. There is work yet to be done.

[Strelnikov_]

6. Just One More Piece Of The Puzzle

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG21Ak01.html

The fact that the Bush administration and the Olmert government in tandem blame both Syria and Iran follows the Clean Break plan to the letter. And the plan could have been fine-tuned very recently. Former Likudnik Olmert went to the US in May and Likud chairman Netanyahu followed him in June - and landed in neo-con heaven, participating in a meeting with US Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a conference organized by the American Enterprise Institute in Colorado.

[Emit]

7. Your post makes an important point -- thanks for posting

On a related note:

Grant Smith, IRmep: Well, Kofi Annan and various other people have declared that it is certain that some of these attacks against civilian infrastructure are completely unacceptable. Other groups have declared they are certainly war crimes. I think it is interesting that the current dynamic has neither Condoleezza Rice nor the Bush administration condemning the attacks. Previous administrations have always put together a diplomatic envoys to get a ceasefire after a conflict of this magnitude. That's not happening, and it doesn't look like it will happen.

~snip~

The conflict in Gaza started on June 8 when the Israelis assassinated a Hamas military officer. Then on June 9, there was the terrible Israeli attack on a family picnicking on the Gaza beach in which eight people died. The entire Arab world watched video of a little girl running along the beach looking at the bodies of her family. Hamas started launching rockets in response, with their home-made rockets against Israel in reaction to this violence. Never the less there were thirty more deaths on the Gaza side due to Israeli artillery. Then on the 24th of June we have Israel crossing into Gaza and taking two Palestinian prisoners, names unknown, who have never been heard from again. Finally on June 25 we have the Hamas attack and capture of corporal Shalit who everyone knows from the extensive news coverage.

So there were many events, much more complex than the simple capture of prisoners, on both sides. There is also a much larger story in Lebanon. In June, in the south of Lebanon the Lebanese Army captured a Mossad operative group of Abu Rafeh who had assassinated various people in Hezbollah in 2004 and 1999. So if one is only focusing on isolated events, you might think this is all about kidnapping. But really the conflict has been building on both borders.

Adriana Amat, Voice of America: There's been talk about the diplomatic response of the US saying that it is too slow. There are accusations that the US is waiting for Israel to attack Hezbollah as much as it can for the US to act later. Do you agree?

Grant Smith, IRmep: The policy, for those who follow all the administration's announcements and key position papers, are very consistent.

Since 1996 a group of later advisors to the Bush administration wanted to realize regime change in Iraq, now done; get Syria out of Lebanon, which is also now done; and number three confront Hezbollah in the south of Lebanon. All of this appears in a document called "A Clean Break" written by various people who later entered the administration.

So it is perfectly consistent that they don't want to move until there is a bigger conflict with Hezbollah...

http://irmep.org/voa5.htm

[Webster Green]

5. Cheney is doing World War Three....

The chimp is just the main PR guy.

They thrive on chaos.

[Pierogi_Pincher]

8. To reference any accurate descriptions of actions/non-actions by

XXXX would mean having to go outside of this earthly world. After considering everything I have read or heard, what is going down in the ME is according to plan. (Their plan.) Those who have received wisdom and those who will receive wisdom to see what is unfolding still have the high road on their side to fight an 'honorable fight'--DUers et al.

P_P

:dem:

[Joe Fields]

9. As always with this administration, thing are never what they appear

to be. Although I put these questions to DUers, they were more rhetorical, in nature than inquisitory. I had not been aware of a collusion with top Israeli officials back in May and June, but I suspected something was up, due to the Bush administration's inaction concerning Israel's response to the kidnapping of their soldiers. As always, their percieved ineptness hides ulterior hidden agendas. It seems as though both sides have played right into each other's hands, with only the innocent's fate predetermined.