I agree with your assessment. But I would widen it to include virtually every facet of governing. I can't see one instance in the years the Bush Administration has been in power where there have been any steps forward either domestically or in foreign affairs.

This is simply insane foreign policy on Israel's part, wholesale impotence on America's part, and an event that is tailored to breed yet another generation of people hating America and Israel.

The world's appetite for reconstructing the same territorial infrastructures must be at its absolute limit. Instead of being able to dedicate humanitarian aid to truly humanitarian causes, the world must once again throew good money after bad into a bottomless pit of hatred and stupidity.

And now that a real crisis exists, Condi Rice can't devide which pair of shoes to wear.

Back in 2000, when it became glaringly apparent just how utterly unqualified Bush was to hold the office of President, I worried that no one seemed to understand that it was important to have a competent person in that office.  When I would mention this to people they seemed to believe that Bush had all of the same qualifications and more that Clinton had.  I really expected a disaster if Bush got elected.

Well, now we see that I was correct.  Competence doesn't just mean the ability to get tax cuts passed.  It also means the ability to appoint capable people to the many federal jobs the President controls, especially the cabinet officers.  We don't have those capable people in those offices.

Yes, Condi is an embarassment, at best, but a looming disaster at worst.  She fumbled her first job so badly 9/11 was a successful attack on us.  How anyone could dream she could handle her current job amazes me.

What ever our country could do to defuse the Middle East situation can't be done with this crew in charge.  They really have no idea, nor any obvious interest in how to do that.  Beyond plotting to rake in some more billions of dollars for Halliburton and other favored corporations, they seem unable to figure out any way to do any major job.  I have yet to see them show any interest in even trying.

We are in for a rough three years ahead. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I'm not hearing deafening silence from Bush. I'm hearing him excuse Irael's assault on Lebanon. There is something particularly morally repugnant about high tech air power brutally killing anonymous, defenseless civilians on the ground - whether those civiilians are deliberate targets or "collateral damage". That hi tech weaponry is our gift to Israel, which means we bear a lot of responsibility for this tragedy, especially when BushCo and the world's superpower do nothing to stop it.

I think that it’s always politics and self-interest with this administration. While the country was in 9/11 shock and on a never-ending terror alert, Bush could play the cowboy. But war and terror fatigue has set in. Iraq blew the image of Cowboy George in a white hat riding into the sunset. If cowboy diplomacy is out, what’s left for these guys?

The administration is quiet but still defending Israel’s every action as witnessed by the veto of the U.N. resolution condemning Israel’s collective punishment strategy. Eight of the last nine Security Council vetoes have been by the U.S. covering Israeli actions. The article from the Jeruselum Post is interesting, as is the one next to it: "'Lebanon can be shut down for years'." I’m not saying that if Israel is attacked, they shouldn’t act. They just need to act like grownups. Without U.S. involvement, Israel is the only real power here and they need to wield it carefully. And, frankly, I don’t know that direct involvement by the WH would lead to any kind of resolution, peaceful or not.

For a good analysis of where Israel is dragging an impotent US adminstration and Lobby conditioned public, Joshua Landis (SyriaComment.com)

At the most basic level, the present conflagration in Israel and Lebanon is all about gaining "respect" in the tough and nasty street wars of the Middle East. The region's leaders, many of whom are new and untested, are seeking to demonstrate where true authority and might lies now that the tide of American power that swept over the region following 9-11 is draining away. A tectonic shift is taking place as local actors who have had their ears pinned back for several years are beginning to assert themselves anew....

Clearly the Defense Department is running with this and is prepared to use Israel as its stalking horse in the Middle East. How far Washington is willing to go in this game or how far Israel is willing to go is anyone's guess. My guess is that cooler heads in Washington will not allow Israel to drag the US into strikes against Syria or Iran. Both Muqtada al-Sadr and Iranian authorities have said that US soldiers will be targeted if Syria is hit. This is an election year. The US is trying to get itself out of the Middle East quagmire, not into it. The US was led down the garden path by Rumsfeld and Cheney once, it will not allow itself to be so easily led by the nose again. This time there is no believing that western bombs will be met by Arabs with flowers or eager democrats. I don't buy the Defense Department's bluster.

There are plenty of tough talkers in the US. The New Republic has come out swinging in its editorials, calling for the US to get tough with Syria. The Weekly Standard has done the same in an article by Jeffrey Azarva of the Enterprise Institute, entitled, "Getting Serious About Syria."

If Washington and Israel do have to settle this by going to Damascus, then Bashar will have sent his message loud and clear: I am here. I demand respect. Cut out all the silliness about isolation and the blind eye doctor. Syria is an important player. Anyone who wants to do business in the region will have to address me politely and be ready to trade in kind. Syria is not a charitable organization.

Once again, an example of how the Israel Lobby has hijacked US foreign policy. This is, as I've said, all about "Securing the Realm", the last gasp of some very desperate leaders in Israel and the US.

I don't agree that Iran "greenlighted" this - not unless somebody such as Amadinejad went behind the mullahs back to do so.

Look at the situation. Iran is under pressure from the UN and the IAEA to freeze its nuclear energy program. They are trying to stall the negotiations and come up with a way to continue negotiations on their terms.

One might suggest they would do something like this to take the nuclear program off the table, but exactly how does that work when Israel is loudly blaming Iran for every detail of this situation - including accusing Iran of supplying hundreds of Iranian troops and weapons into Lebanon and directly attacking Israel? Do you think the Iranians wouldn't have known that was coming?

Iran had no reason to start this - but Israel certainly did. Israel - or at least the Israeli military - has been impatient with the slow progress of the US's attempts to stop the Iranian program - enough to threaten bombing Iran itself several times. Israel could easily see that the path of UN sanctions and the like could take years and wouldn't be effective anyway.

One of the reasons people keep telling me Bush would never attack Iran is because Iran could retaliate against Israel and the US by using Hizballah and Hamas to conduct "asymmetric warfare" in the region.

Well, Israel has already set that in motion. By widening the ME conflict, they get to use Hamas and Hizballah as reasons to attack Syria and perhaps Iran. They get to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities - facilities not set up for atomic bombs, but for Iran's economic future. Israel gets to seriously damage the Syrian and Iranian economies, at the very least. The best outcome from their standpoint would be if Syria and/or Iran engage Israel militarily as well. Then they can drag the US into the war, and sit back, knock out Lebanon and Hizballah, crush Hamas, all the while letting the US destroy Syria and Iran.

Nice. All their enemies done up in one neat bloodstained bundle.

Why would Iran trigger this at this time? It makes no sense to me, either in timing or reasoning. Iran knows it cannot defeat Israel with Hizballah in any real military sense. Iran knows Israel will blame Iran for starting something like this. Iran knows the US will use that against it.

Iran has no motives to start a wider ME war at this time - unless Iran KNEW it was going to be attacked anyway in the very near future. Then I might buy it.

No actually. I like Fred Barnes.

 Syria's not a charitable organization....

 The Nation points to the illogic of the Bush administration in having pushed Syria out of Lebanon and now demanding that it rein in Hizbullah. If Syria has been reduced to having almost no influence in Lebanon, how exactly would it do that?

{Cole}

"Relations between the United States and Israel are crucial to stability in the Middle East, where the road to peace and prosperity continues to be fraught with many obstacles."

DiFi

Israel's actions are moving Lebanese society squarely behind Hezbollah

Im not so sure thats so true. Many seem to still blame Hizballah for this mess. I actually just read this Lebanese blogger which i thought was intersting: http://lebanonheartblogs.blogspot.com/2006/07/peace-now.html

Also interesting is the response from Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan - while denouncing Israel have also insisted on putting blame on Hizballah for this mess.

A necessary consequence of creating a "majority rule" Shia government in Iraq is the need to talk with the Shia. Instead, the temporal (not spiritual) homeland of the Shia, Iran, is confronted with the harshest possible rhetoric.

It seems to me that we took careful aim and shot off our foot. The internal contradictions of our foreign-policy-by-soundbite have had a significant impact on the current mess in the Middle East and rendered us incredible as any sort of mediating influence.

The countries and organizations confronting Israel regard us now as an overt belligerent. I can see their point. These policies have put the US exactly where we haven't wanted to be for more than 50 years: a lukewarm but unamibiguous and unconditional ally of Israel.

A few years from now, we will be having a "Who lost the Middle East?" discussion.

so what do you suggest? Israel should sit back let hizballah fire rockets into its cities, infiltrate its borders, kill soldiers, kidnap more and then say ok we cant wipe you out so lets give up and negotiate? What western nation in the world would act differently than Israel if its cities were attacked by rockets, there territory infilitrated , there soldiers killed and kidnapped?

What western nation in the world would act differently than Israel if its cities were attacked by rockets, there territory infilitrated , there soldiers killed and kidnapped?

Nearly all western nations in the world would have acted differently than Israel, lh25. There is such a thing as a proportionate reaction, and Israel's reaction has been anything but that.

The Bible tells Christians that Israel is God's chosen nation and to favor it. No matter what. No matter the details of the conflict. No matter who's right and who's wrong. Favor it like a Judge favors the homeowner over the tenant. The Bible teaches when you favor Israel you will be blessed in return.

If you read through Judges and Kings, whenever God is angry with the Israelites he allows their enemies to defeat them in battle. So, if you're going for an overly literal interpretation of the Bible, that would suggest that in a successful Hizbollah attack on Israel, Hizbollah would be an agent of God's wrath.

"This is silence born of over-extension and policy exhaustion.' Besides, I'm not sure Bush ever did have a policy toward Israel and the Palestinians, unless it was some vague hope that the entire world would come into line after we showed in Iraq how American power ruled the world. The "road map" was put forth in the manner of a press release, rather than as part of a policy initiative.

I certainly agree with Josh that those who deplore or defend Israeli conduct of the war flatter Bush by thinking he's up to something. And that's a shame. All past presidents starting with Nixon showed that the one potential escape from the cycle of violence was a sympathetic but not necessarily approving partner in the United States to all parties. (Well, I have to except Reagan, whose status is wildly overrated by most Americans.)

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

If Israel were REALLY serious about peace with Lebanon they would have done the following. After the Cedar Revolution they would have tried to strengthen the central government. Obvious direct aid would have been counter productive but as a good will gesture they could have given up the Sheba farms. This has been a sticking point in Lebanon amoung all factions.

Jumblatt is the only prominent Lebanese who believe it belongs to Syria. However, even he says that if Syria renounces the territory(which it has) then even Jumblatt says the U.N should revise the Blue Line.

Hezbollah has used this to their great advantage to portray themselves as a "resistence" movement that resonates with Lebanese of different stripes. Of course it is B.S. and Israel is technically correct that it is part of the Golan Heights but that is irrelevent in Mideast politics.

Israel kept the Sheba Farms not out of strategic or military interests but just to stick it in Lebanon's eye and show them "who is boss". It is my belief that had Israel really been interested in peace on their northern border they would have gone out of their way to see that the Cedar Revolution would have flourished. They could have used France as the proxy in this effort.

In summary, what Israel really wants is just to be "left alone" and segregated from the rest of the Mideast. That is impossible and if they really want peace they are going to have to work their ass off in helping their neighbors. It does no good for property values or crime to have the nicest house in the neighborhood when evrything else is going to Hell in a Handbasket.

OTOH, Bush and the Repos are being blamed for the rising gasoline prices, and will be blamed for the concomitant slowdown in the U.S. economy as they continue to rise.

Consequently, inaction is not cost-free in political terms.

Rhetoric buster,

Nearly all western nations in the world would have acted differently than Israel....

Any examples?

When did the US decide this?

Today's WaPo Headline

Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy

It seems that Israel's actions are supported by the US and are part of a larger 'strategery' between Israel and the US in support of UN Resolution 1559, which calls for Hezbollah to disarm and the Lebanon military to take control of its southern area.

Other reasons include:

For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.

For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.

The US says it has the support of conservative Arab states.

Click here for the Users Help Forum.