Unlike his predecessors, Bush sees war as opportunity

WP
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13961120/

In Mideast strife, Bush sees opportunity
White House views Israel as central to campaign against terrorists

By Michael Abramowitz

Updated: 2:27 a.m. ET July 21, 2006

President Bush's unwillingness to pressure Israel to halt its military campaign in Lebanon is rooted in a view of the Middle East conflict that is sharply different from that of his predecessors.

When hostilities have broken out in the past, the usual U.S. response has been an immediate and public bout of diplomacy aimed at a cease-fire, in the hopes of ensuring that the crisis would not escalate. This week, however, even in the face of growing international demands, the White House has studiously avoided any hint of impatience with Israel. While making it plain it wants civilian casualties limited, the administration is also content to see the Israelis inflict the maximum damage possible on Hezbollah.

<<snip>>

The U.S. position also reflects Bush's deepening belief that Israel is central to the broader campaign against terrorists and represents a shift away from a more traditional view that the United States plays an "honest broker's" role in the Middle East.

In the administration's view, the new conflict is not just a crisis to be managed. It is also an opportunity to seriously degrade a big threat in the region, just as Bush believes he is doing in Iraq. Israel's crippling of Hezbollah, officials also hope, would complete the work of building a functioning democracy in Lebanon and send a strong message to the Syrian and Iranian backers of Hezbollah.

<<snip>>

Many Mideast experts warn that there is a dangerous consequence to this worldview. They believe that Israel, and the United States by extension, is risking serious trouble if it continues with the punishing airstrikes that are producing mounting casualties. The history of the Middle East is replete with examples of the limits of military power, they say, noting how the Israeli campaign in Lebanon in the early 1980s helped create the conditions for the rise of Hezbollah.

They warned that the military campaign is turning mainstream Lebanese public opinion against Israel rather than against Hezbollah, which instigated the violence. The attacks also make it more difficult for the Lebanese government to regain normalcy. And what seems now to be a political winner for the president -- the House overwhelmingly approved a resolution yesterday backing Israel's position -- could become a liability if the fighting expands to Syria or if the United States adds Lebanon to Iraq and Afghanistan as a country to which U.S. troops are deployed.

"There needs to be a signal that the Bush administration is prepared to do something," said Larry Garber, the executive director the New Israel Fund, which pushes for civil rights and justice in Israel. "Taking a complete hands-off, casual-observer position undermines our credibility. . . . There is a danger that we will be seen as simply doing Israel's bidding."

But, but, but that's exactly what we are doing, unfortunately, Bush for all his swagger is
not one to think on the spot in a crisis, see Katrina.

go into a swoon about their fearless and infallible leader. We seemed to have turned into a blood thirsty and greedy country.

Bush's biblical obstinacy flies in the face or reality and it will get us all killed.

You realize, of course, that had we voted Rove out in 2004, the world's view of the US would have recovered immediately. If we can somehow defeat Diebold, the media, and Whitewell this November, and re-take the Congress, and state unequivocally that Smirk's unfettered reign is over, the world will begin to come back into alignment/sanity in a very short amount of time.

The damage done is so great that it'll take years, and perhaps a recognition of past errors, for the US to even begin to recover some of its old reputation.

This goes a long way towards explaining it:



One of the effects of the mistakes of the PNAC crowd is that it has made much of the world look back at the previous times that the b&w hawks have gotten the US into hot water. By this I don't merely mean Vietnam, Grenada, Panama... but back to the Cold War support of dictatorships, the overthrowing of democracies such as Iran's, and a long etc.. The "war on terra" is widely seen as the result of the West's (in general) and the US' (in particular) abuse and manipulation, and globalization has come to the forefront as a cause celebre.

Kerry and Gore were popular outside the US, not so much because they were particularly "good", but because they were at least marginally "not as bad" as the Dubya misadmin. The world has come to learn that the difference between the parties is tiny and that the political spectrum in the US is between radical/extremist far right and the far right.

you say he marginally not as bad as Il Dunce', in the eyes of the world. You couldn't be more wrong about this. He would have been an extension of Clinton, the most beloved leader we have ever had. None of the (man-made) disasters that have consumed the world the last six years would have happened if Gore had been allowed to move into the WH.

I'm starting to believe that the corruption of the 2000 elections probably changed the course of history, to the tremendous detriment of the USA. Had Al Gore won in 2000, we very well might have detected and thwarted the 9/11 attacks rather than blundering as Bush did, and in any case we would have never blundered into the quagmire of Iraq, since there would not have been those idiotic neocons pushing us into it-- we likely would have focused on taking down Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, with broad international support.

We would have had a sensible tax and budget policy to draw down the US debt. We would have had a greater focus on renewable energies and environmentally-sound policies, to further the US status as a world leader in crucial areas.

In short, with Al Gore, the US would probably be extending its status as the world's unquestionable leader but in a way that's respected and seen as (on balance) beneficent to the rest of the world, fair-minded, disciplined. American English would be the world's unquestioned global standard language (Mandarin Chinese is in fact already displacing it in Asia and French and German are making comebacks in Europe, as disgust with the United States and Britain exacerbates and people seek alternatives). The United States would be admired as the world's most technologically advanced but also most progressive nation, a caretaker for the poor and the environment. The US would even be pushing for space travel, and some remarkable advances in the health care field unforeseen before.

I wouldn't be surprised if a Republican Congress would have thwarted some of Gore's agenda, but enough would have gone through by executive orders, logrolling and the Gore team being in power, that the US would be a much, much more powerful and respected nation today. We would be flourishing even more than before.

Instead, we got that idiot George W. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and the neoconservatives like Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle in power. We failed to detect 9/11, and then afterward, we let Osama bin Laden get away with it, while diverting ourselves into a costly and disastrous quagmire in Iraq which is shaping up to be the worst and most humiliating US military defeat since Vietnam. In the meantime, the Iraq diversion is also causing us to lose the Afghanistan war, bringing down our allies like Britain and Australia in the process. We're falling massively into further debt, in hock to China and Japan, while our educational and scientific infrastructure falls apart, and our increasingly polluted environment threatens our health.

This if anything should serve as a reminder that in a democracy, the people's decisions have real and often massive historical consequences. In electing George W. Bush instead of Al Gore, the American people may well have doomed the United States to third-rate power status as a consequence.

I agree with everything except the 'probably' in your first sentence.

The 2000 election appears to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, nexus point in history.

I can see the glide path we are on now ending only in the Big Smash.

War, Extreme Climate Change, Resource Depletion (primarily energy), Bankruptcy



It didn't have to be this way.

the American Experiment. We'll be on the losing side in WWIII and you can chalk it all up to the death of democracy in Dec 2000.

Maybe (s)he is a Naderite who thinks "there's no difference between the two big parties". It's true that lots of progress would have been aborted by Hate Radio and the rest of Big Media, but our standing in the world would have been as it had been for more than 60 years - the beacon of hope, progress, and morality. Now we are looked on as voracious, malignant criminals.

Thank Sandra Day O'Connor and the other 4 who shredded the Constitution on 12/7/2000

What of Gore? While he was DLC he promised to be something of another Bubba... yet what was Bubba? A pro neolib center-rightist. If he was popular outside the US it was because he was far better than Reagan and Bush Sr., and his fellatiogate problems elicited a lot of mirthful support.

But was he popular abroad? Or better said, if it wasn't for the Reagan precedent, would have he been popular? Sitting as I am on the other side of the pond, I can pretty confidently answer that he was somewhat popular, and only because Reagan was so much worse.

Personally regarding Gore, I remember his wife's "work" on rock music lyrics and his own DLC roots. I am also familiar with a relatively new Dem trait - wishful thinking. We desire good candidates so much that we're willing to see more in candidates than what is really there. We WANT to see liberal or progressive traits so when we hear liberal or progressive rhetoric we're willing to overlook the conservative and neolib reality of their policies. Until Gore went green he was as liberal as Nixon.

Yet of course he would have been far better than Dubya, at least as far as foreign policy is concerned.

Bush like Hitler only knows war. That is his only response to every problem. Launch a military offensive.

That is what Bush did during Katrina. Instead of launching a humanitarian effort, he launched a military crack down. They closed off access to NOLA and purposely denied the people access to food and water. Fortunately, we have the Internet, to be the eyes and ears of the world, and word spreads like wildfire now, so BushCo did not get away with that particular assault. Same with the current conflict. It is much harder for them to sell their bill of goods anymore, because that bill is torn to shreds within 5 minutes of it hitting the waves. I still have hope that we might actually have a chance this time.

One long steady decline, interrupted only by some spikes which correspond to lots and lots of deaths. Sadly, the spikes keep getting smaller, which means that eventually he will have to go thermo.

Too bad our boy king couldn't think of hurricanes as "opportunities" about a year ago down in New Orleans!

-85% Jimmy

contain it.

it's mostly our own doing.

WHO supported the creation of artificial countries out of the ruins of colonies and empires? WHO alternately proclaimed "self-determination" within the 14 Points and then elected a government that was against internationalism and self-determination? WHO supported quasi-fascist dictators wherever the profits of corporations were in danger, purportedly out of fear of communism? WHO supported these dictators as they quashed any semblance of Western liberalism? Who supported Islamic fundamentalism as a tool against communism and Western-style reform for over 50 years?

And they hate OUR freedoms?

Sheesh.

(sorry about the rant)

Are any Bush cronies making money off the war? Of course, we know about the profiteering in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the other bidness with Lebanon and Israel. Any profiteering opportunities there for Bushco?

Bill Bennett has been saying this repeatedly on his radio show, and repeated it on CNN.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/20/sitroom.01.html

<snip>

BLITZER: Did you support the statement, the unanimous statement, that the G8 put out that blamed Hezbollah for the start of this warfare, but, at the same time, called on Israel to exercise restraint in responding?

BENNETT: Yes, exercise restraint, absolutely, but I think continue the military actions. Otherwise, the minute they stop, it will start again from the other side.

It's an amazing situation. And your last guest said, you know, here, people go for Israel's throat again. They take, kidnap two of its soldiers, two of its citizens. When Israel responds, we have to have an immediate cease-fire. Not to be flip, but give war a chance. Let the Israelis try to defense themselves, push back Hezbollah, so they won't be facing this constant threat.

I hate it when they do that. They should just report what he says, not what they perceive him to believe. The cake walk in Iraq says all we need to know about Bush's vision. Now, no matter what happens, the Administration will portray it as a consequence of their "different approach" -- as if they had an approach. When things go wrong, they are opportunities. When things go right, time to take credit.

And by reporting on Bush's perceived beliefs instead of just reporting what Bush actually says, the media fails. It is not their job to report what Bush believes. They can know what he says, but they have no way of knowing whether he actually believes it.

the Israelis started their "defensive" bombing?

Human Rights and the UN believe Israel has gone too far. Now the Bush administration is fast-tracking more weapons to Israel for them to murder more innocent people. Would this be murder by Bush by proxy? How does that "man" sleep at night?

It seems now that even Britain is jumping ship. They have witnessed first hand the atrocities being committed in the name of "defense" and are very measured in their statements. Sniveler Howard is still supporting Bush though, which isn't surprising.

Bush, Howard and the Israeli government all have blood on their hands. I wonder if they have ever heard of the saying "What goes around, comes around".