Why did Bush sell missiles to Israel last week, yet Condi supports Lebanon

[electron_blue]

How does this make any sense? Whose side are we "on"?

Of course, it makes perfect sense if $ is all 'we' care about - Bush sells the missiles to make money from Israel, and Condi is there to secure Haliburton contracts for rebuilding.

Simple enough, I suppose. Is it correct?

[oberliner]

1. Wes Clark on Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah

This interview excerpt with Wes Clark I think helps to clarify things.

Jay Marvin: I, well, I agree with you 100%. We'll all be a lot safer. Jay's a great man. Let me get a thumbnail sketch from you on what you believe is happening in the Middle East right now with Israel and Hizbullah.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Essentially, Hizbullah took advantage of Israel's distraction to attack. They did it to gain credibility, gain more (drop-out) funding, and, and raise their prestige. They probably did it in coordination with Iran to distract the attention of the world from the Iranian nuclear programs. And so, Israel was attacked. Israel's not occupying any of Lebanon. There's no cause for this. It's simply a unprovoked attack. So, Israel's fighting back, and Israel has a right to defend itself. It's running an air campaign, going after Hizbullah. It's going to try to take a significant bite out of Hizbullah and try to get the Lebanese government and the international community to force Hizbullah out of Southern Lebanon. That's what's happening.

Jay Marvin: And, and how much, how satisfied are you with the US response?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the United States doesn't have the, the, the basis for, for an adequate response, because over the last four or five years we have cut off relations and refused to (drop-out) people that we should have been talking to, like Syria and Iran. The result of that is that now when we could go back and try to bring all this together, we can't talk to Syria. Also, we haven't been effective really in assisting the government of Lebanon. You know, the Bush administration took a lot of credit for Democracy in Lebanon, but they never followed through after the UN Security Council resolution was passed saying that Hizbullah had to disarm and, and so forth. They didn't help the government of Lebanon, and right now this administration should be streaming supplies in there, not just to get our people out, but to help the government of Lebanon.

source: http://securingamerica.com/node/1243

[ixion]

4. Wes Clark takes the hawkish position

no suprise there.

[electron_blue]

6. So is Clark saying Condi & Bush are against Hezbollah, yet "for"

Israel and Lebanon? I don't see how continuing to supply Israel with weapons is going to help Lebanon at all. If you're trying to get rid of Hezbollah, bombing the hell out of Lebanon is about as effective as burning down a house to get rid of termites.

I don't mean to imply that Hezbollah is a relatively minor pest like termites, but what's the point in obliterating Lebanon? Hezbollah leaders are already likely out of the country and safe, ready to take revenge down the road.

[GeorgeGist]

8. I could be confused...

Wes Clark 7/19/2006:
Essentially, Hizbullah took advantage of Israel's distraction to attack. They did it to gain credibility, gain more (drop-out) funding, and, and raise their prestige. They probably did it in coordination with Iran to distract the attention of the world from the Iranian nuclear programs. And so, Israel was attacked.Israel's not occupying any of Lebanon. There's no cause for this. It's simply a unprovoked attack. So, Israel's fighting back, and Israel has a right to defend itself. It's running an air campaign, going after Hizbullah. It's going to try to take a significant bite out of Hizbullah and try to get the Lebanese government and the international community to force Hizbullah out of Southern Lebanon. That's what's happening.


Washington Post and others 7/14/2006:
The fighting began after Hezbollah members crossed the heavily fortified Israeli border Wednesday. In an ambush, they killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two, whom they spirited away to Lebanese territory.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Ha! Condi supports Lebanon! That's so rich it should be fattening.

Sheesh!

PB

[electron_blue]

5. Yeah, I should have put 'supports' in quotes. Nonetheless she is

there now, claiming to show support. Why is she there? really?

[Poll_Blind]

7. Let me tell you something about Middle East politics:

There is lots of talk on both sides, but often little action. When one sees political posturing but no actual adressing of the issue you can safely assume it is what it appears to be: stalling. If Condi gave a shit, if anyone in the Bush administration gave a shit, she'd've been there weeks ago. But the Israelis said "Give us more time" and they did.

Condi is another stalling tactic to give the Israeli military more time to drop bombs and fire missiles.

No doubt, at some point when Israel is tired of this misadventure, she'll be instrumental in brokering whatever peace deal will come out of this. But right now she's just spinning the wheels so it looks like the U.S. is doing soemthing.

PB

[bigtree]

3. That's a major nub in all of this

you hit it on the head. It's an incredible double standard to excoriate Syria and Iran for 'supplying' the Hizbollah (no concrete proof of this presented), and at the same time, directly supply Israel themselves with missiles to fire into Lebanon.

[Solo_in_MD]

9. The missile deal was done last year, the IDF asked for accelerated

delivery vs that which was in the original contract. Note that some deliveries had most likely already occurred. Nothing magic, new or novel here. US normally delivers out of stock on hand. They may be able to ship the weapons from Diego Garcia or Iraq.

Since your simplistic scenario is built on a flawed assumption it is therefore erroneous