Right Wing Nut House

Although the US and France have agreed on the outline of a “cessation of hostilities” between Israel and Hizbullah, the terrorist group has indicated it will not abide by its provisions:

The United States and France agreed Saturday on a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that calls for a halt to the fighting between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, but would allow Israel to defend itself if attacked.

The draft, sent to the entire Security Council for consideration, “calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations.”

Israel, backed by the U.S., has insisted it must have the right to respond if Hezbollah launches missiles against it. France and many other nations had demanded an immediate halt to the fighting without conditions as a way to push the region back toward stability.

[snip]

Illustrating the difficulty ahead in getting the sides to agree to a cease-fire, Mohammed Fneish, a Hezbollah member of the Lebanese Cabinet, said after the announcement that his group would stop fighting, but only if Israel removed all its troops from Lebanon. The draft resolution makes no such demand.

“If they stay, we will not abide by it,” he told reporters.

Israel has said it wants to continue fighting for up to two more weeks to seriously diminish Hezbollah’s military capability.

Two points to keep in mind. First, apparently Nasrallah is not much of a gambler. He doesn’t know when to quit while he’s ahead (at least in the eyes of the Arab street). The fact that his fighters are now trapped behind the barrier of the Litani River facing 10,000 Israeli soldiers means that if he wants to keep fighting, his men will keep dying.

Second, this will put the onus for the fighting even more on Hizbullah. No more nonsense from Siniora about his noble “resistance” fighting the invader. Nasrallah could have taken the deal and Israel would have quit. Instead, if the Hiz start throwing more rockets into Israel, the IAF will have a green light to continue their own destruction of Hizbullah infrastructure.

Don’t expect that second resolution anytime soon. In fact, if Nasrallah keeps fighting and Israel keeps bombing, there’s no reason to believe the international force will materialize in the near future. No one wants their soldiers walking into a free fire zone.

One other interesting provision of the resolution is an arms embargo against Lebanon which prevents Syria and Iran from resupplying their Hizbullah stooges. Not that it will matter much as far as Hizbullah’s rockets are concerned since it is estimated they still have about half of the 10,000 they started the war with. But in small arms like anti-tank weapons and the like? If the war goes much longer with no way to resupply the Hiz fighters trapped in the south, it may mean that this last phase of the war will go much more swiftly for the IDF.

The rest of the resolution is a rehash of 1559:

Other principles spelled out in the resolution include the disarmament of Hezbollah; the creation of a buffer zone from the U.N.-demarcated border between Israel and Lebanon up to the Litani River, which is about 20 miles north of the frontier; and the delineation of Lebanon’s borders, especially in the disputed Chebaa Farms area.

The resolution would call for the current U.N. force in Lebanon, known by its acronym UNIFIL, to monitor the cessation in fighting. Once Israel and Lebanon have agreed to the series of principles, the Security Council would then authorize a new peacekeeping force for the region.

Does the UN believe that the more times it passes the same resolution, the greater the chance that the thugs of the world will finally abide by it?

How many similar resolutions did this useless collection of testosteroneless diplomats pass telling Saddam to disarm, to obey other resolutions, to stop firing on our planes, to act like a responsible member of the world community?

What good does it do to continue to tell these thugs the same thing over and over and then watch as they thumb their nose at you and continue on their merry way? It is not just an exercise in futility, it is an exercise in fantasy. The diplomats at the UN and those who actually believe they have any relevance whatsoever in the real world are not serious people. They are fantasists. Only when the great powers put their might and prestige behind anything the UN decides does the rest of the world actually take what that body does with any seriousness at all.

The war will go on. And before it’s over, Nasrallah will be wishing he took what the UN is offering today.

ROUNDUP

Ed Morrissey agrees that the onus for the fighting now devolves to Hizbullah if the war continues.

Pamela is not optimistic in the slightest and is mad as a hornet.

Richard Fernandez points out the nuance that I did yesterday; the difference between a “full cessation of hostilities” and “immediate cessation ” of the fighting. We win. France loses.

Mac points out that Bolton triumphed at the UN and makes his critics look silly.

Dave Shuler gives us a tour d’horizon of the Middle East.

Dan Riehl:

Pardon me if I don’t watch it, I believe I’ve seen this movie before. The UN couldn’t stop arms sales into Iraq and there was even more support for those resolutions. All this is is a simple re-hash of previously passed resolutions. If the UN had enforced those in the first place, this war would never have taken place.

James Joyner:

It’s far from clear how meaningful this will be, presuming it passes the full Council. Hezbollah will certainly continue to continue firing rockets into Israel and allow Israel to continue to kill Lebanese civilians so long as it is to their operational advantage.

There are times when my pessimism about what is happening in the world gets the better of me and I sink into one of two states of consciousness; blissful ignorance as I just ignore what is really going on until my curiosity gets the better of me or a simmering anger that usually explodes in some towering rant against those who would lead us (the West) to disaster because of the deliberate self delusion or ignorance of a large and influential segment of our political class.

As for the latter, while emotionally satisfying on one level, there are many times that I wish I had not hit that “publish” button. This is an occupational hazard for any blogger who becomes a slave to content and feels it necessary at times to let loose an ill favored rhetorical barrage at whatever current object of scorn, or derision, or humor that wanders into my gunsights. I realize that is part of the appeal of this site to many of you but there really are times when such writing is ill advised. Better the reasoned riposte than a heaping of calumny directed toward the wayward, the clueless, or the downright dumb.

However, there is something to be said for the former. Existing in one’s own little cocoon of information and opinion is certainly comforting. Reading only people and ideas that you agree with is not only good for one’s blood pressure, but also allows for a smug, self satisfaction to settle over one’s writing. The idea of the Revealed Truth From Rick is reinforced by many of you who leave nice comments and verbally pat me on the back for my perspicacity.

All goes swimmingly until I happen to read what I’ve written after a few weeks time and realize the trap I’ve fallen into. That’s when you must force yourself once again to examine the issues and events of the day from every possible angle so that even in disagreement, you find nuggets of truth, shades of meaning that can alter your perceptions and give a sense of wholeness to your beliefs.

In the end, that’s what this blog is all about; my beliefs. And the sooner you find out that it is silly and dangerous to believe that you have a corner on what is right or what is true, the more intellectually satisfying your search for knowledge will become.

Aristotle wrote:

“The search for truth is in one way hard and in another way easy, for it is evident that no one can master it fully or miss it wholly. But each adds a little to our knowledge of nature, and from all the facts assembled there arises a certain grandeur.”

“All the facts assembled” means that you must humble yourself in order to achieve that “grandeur” by searching out contrary interpretations of the facts. It isn’t just a matter of buttressing your own opinions by finding flaws in another’s arguments. It sometimes comes down to actually trying to wear the shoes of those with whom you disagree, seeing the issue from their perspective. Only then can you truly embrace your own conceits with the confidence that you’ve done all that is required to satisfy those pesky muses who bedevil your unconscious, whispering in your ear that “thou art but mortal” and must work like the dickens to overcome your own arrogance.

But in the face of this kind of evil, this monstrous darkness that is descending over the west largely as a result of our own stupidity and reckless disregard for our own safety, I’m tempted to gather all the Juan Coles, the Billmons, the Kossacks, and the whole lot of morally timid, incredibly myopic liberals who cannot see the horrific danger we are in from the scourge if Islamic fundamentalism and send them packing to Iran so that they can glimpse our future. It is mindboggling. And for someone brought up in a western, liberal, democratic, (small “d”) tradition, really quite perplexing.

Is there nothing in the west worth defending? Are there no values, no artistic or cultural traditions worth standing up for? Is the warm and comfortable embrace of western freedoms to be given up so cavalierly, without a fight and in some cases, even willingly?

On Thursday, the President of Iran said for the umpteenth time that the State of Israel should be eliminated. Previous incarnations of this rhetoric has been the disputed phrase about wiping Israel “off the map” and variations on the theme that the Jewish state will disappear in fire and smoke. Ahmadinejad has also suggested that the Europeans carve out some of their own territory and uproot more than 6 million Jews in order to move them “back” to Europe (the overwhelming majority of Israelis having been born in their own land, given to them by the United Nations and fought for by their fathers and grandfathers).

And yet, despite the clearly stated goals of the Islamic regime in Iran now growing bolder and more open about its intent to use proxies like Hizbullah to carry the fight to all “infidels,” all we hear from most of the left is a combination of nauseating anti-Semitism and a curious moral indistinctness between the Israelis and Hizbullah.

Hizbullah launches hundreds of rockets into Israel with the expressed intent of killing as many non-combatants as possible and the reaction on the left is, after (perhaps) a desultory condemnation of these purely terror tactics, gleeful commentary on how Israel is losing the war. On the other hand, when Israel mistakenly targets a house in Qana, apologizes profusely, and actually alters their targeting regime to try and prevent further mistakes, the moral outrage is without limit. Juan Cole:

There had been some question about whether Hizbullah’s ability to hit Israel with rockets had been degraded, or whether it was just observing the 48 hour air cease fire. On Wednesday it cleared the mystery up. The indiscriminate firing of rockets on civilian targets wounded 21 persons and one hit the Palestinian West Bank. Among the rockets fired was a long-distance Khaybar II. Targeting civilians or unnecessarily endangering them is a war crime.

Please note Professor Cole’s pro-forma recognition that Hizbullah has committed an atrocity is disconnected, unemotional, and matter of fact. He doesn’t even directly accuse Hizbullah of a war crime despite the fact that Hizbullah has now launched thousands of rockets into northern Israel trying desperately to kill as many civilians as they can.

What kind of mind can make that disconnect? The kind that can write this about Qana:

Note how by calling it a “tragedy,” Blair takes the onus off Israel for launching a total war on the Lebanese infrastructure and population. A hurricane is a tragedy, Mr. Prime Minister. This is a war. It is a war launched by specific persons, including especially Ehud Olmert and Gen. Halutz. It isn’t something that can be put into the passive voice.

Even most of the Arab world agrees that Hizbullah “launched” this war, not Prime Minister Olmert. And Cole’s blindness, comforting as it might be for him, extends to his swallowing hook, line, and sinker, this kind of Arab propaganda:

The Israelis appear to be engaged in a concerted campaign of ethnic cleansing in the Shiite towns and villages of southern Lebanon, and are indiscriminately bombing all buildings in the area south of the Litani River. They have chased hundreds of thousands of residents out, and are destroying the property they left behind in a systematic way, rather as they destroy the houses belonging to the family members related to suicide bombers. In other words, the Israelis are engaged in collective punishment on a vast scale. They maintain that rocket launching sites are embedded in these villages. But since Hizbullah keeps firing large numbers of rockets, it does not actually appear to be the case that the Israelis are hitting the rocket launchers. They are demonstrably hitting civilian houses and apartment buildings in a methodical way.

“Ethnic cleansing?” “Collective punishment?” Cole and I share a passion for reading the Daily Star of Lebanon and the individuals making claims such as he is reprinting here are Hizbullah spokesmen. There is no talk from Prime Minister Siniora of “ethnic cleansing” nor of any “methodical” razing of buildings. Cole regurgitates Hizbullah propaganda without batting an eyelash.

And herein lies the cause of my pessimism. Cole is an intelligent man, a font of information on the Middle East and its history (if you can stomach his biases). But last May, he wrote this regarding any confrontation between the west and Iran:

So sit down and shut up, American Enterprise Institute, and Hudson Institute, and Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and American Heritage Foundation, and this institute and that institute, and cable “news”, and government “spokesmen”, and all the pundit-ferrets you pay millions to make business for the American military-industrial complex and Big Oil.

We don’t give a rat’s ass what Ahmadinejad thinks about European history or what pissant speech the little shit gives.

Despite his hatred for the Iranian regime, Cole believes that we should not take Ahmadinejad at his word. If the Iranian President says that Israel will be eliminated, it is rhetoric that we can safely ignore. And when Ahmadinejad uses proxies like Hizbullah to make war on Israel and the west, I suppose we should bury our heads in the ground and pretend we shouldn’t do anything about it because the entire rationale for looking at Iran as an enemy has to do with the military industrial complex in America and has nothing to do with our own survival.

Cole, of course, is not alone. Not by a long shot. And it is legitimate to ask if Cole and his ilk would do anything to defend themselves against this kind of threat. Time and time again over the last 27 years Islamic fundamentalists have attacked us, eliciting a “proportional” response - a bombing run or lobbing a few cruise missiles at targets of opportunity. All this has gotten us is more attacks.

And Israel, trying to play by the rules laid out by the international community for the last 60 years that prevent it from removing threats to its existence so that the sensibilities of those who refuse to recognize the Jewish state as a legitimate national entity won’t be ruffled, finds itself on the frontline of this most recent war against the west. And once again, an international community more in love with “process” than with actually solving Israel’s dilemma is calling for the Jewish state to halt before it feels the job is done. No wonder the United States wants to change the failed diplomatic framework of the past that did nothing to make Israel safe and only made western politicians look good to the homefolks.

The world is becoming too dangerous to play these kinds of games anymore. Hizbullah must be disarmed. Syria must be be held to account for their meddling in Lebanon which included the brazen assassination of the beloved Hariri. And Iran must be isolated from the community of nations until they rid themselves of those who seek to lead a wordlwide crusade whose goal is the subjugation or destruction of everything we in the west find worth living for.

It is getting very late in the day not to have the left on board for this fight. And perhaps it will take a liberal leader somewhere else to explain it to them. They seem to have turned a deaf ear to anything coming from the United States and especially George Bush.

But wherever the wake-up call comes from - and it will come - the only question is will it come too late so that the west can face this latest challenge to its existence reasonably united.

The alternative is simply unthinkable.

There are so many “plans” to stop the violence in the Israeli-Islamist War that I thought I’d lay them out in one post so that you can see how hard it is going to be to achieve a halt anytime soon.

The major players at the UN - France vs. Britain and the US - and the Middle East - US/Israel vs. Lebanon/Hizbullah - all have their own ideas on how to stop the war. And the differences are not insignificant, not by any means. Let’s look at the US-Israeli positions first.

US/ISRAEL

1. No “cease fire” (an important word choice) until an international force is “in place.”

2. International force would occupy a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon (size to be determined)

3. International force must have rules of engagement that allow it to shoot back in order to keep Hizbullah from re-occupying the south.

4. Hizbullah must be disarmed - either by the Lebanese themselves or by the International force.

5. Immediate release of Israeli prisoners.

6. Lebanese Army will take over from the International force once they are trained and deployed.

7. Lebanese government will have sovereignty over all of Lebanon.

Now here’s the Lebanese government/Hizbullah formulation:

LEBANON/HIZBULLAH

1. Immediate cease fire along with an immediate withdrawal of IDF forces.

2. No international force - only an augment to the UNIFIL force already there.

3. No buffer zone and Hizbullah gets to re-occupy positions in the south.

4. Lebanese government will disarm Hizbullah following discussions carried out in the context of the National Dialogue.

5. Release of all Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails in return for the two captured IDF soldiers.

6. Resolution of the Shebaa Farms issue with the UN turning over the tiny slice of land to Lebanon.

Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah (who is temporarily calling the negotiating shots) has made it clear that any international force not connected to UNIFIL will be considered invaders. And the Israelis have agreed to release 3 Lebanese prisoners in exchange for their two captured soldiers.

Now, what’s going on at the UN?

UNITED NATIONS

Roughly speaking, France has taken the Lebanese positions while Condi Rice has modified the American position marginally in order to come a little closer to what the French are asking:

Efforts are under way at the United Nations to set up a mechanism that would facilitate “direct or indirect” Israeli-Lebanese discussions, senior Israeli diplomatic officials said Thursday.

According to the officials, under this proposal “everything would be discussed: a cease-fire, the Shaba Farms issue, the prisoner exchange, and deployment of the multinational force.”

According to UN and American officials, an arrangement of this kind, which would include a pair of Security Council resolutions, is now within reach.

Here is the French proposal:

FRANCE

1. Immediate cease fire.

2. No discussion of other issues until the guns stop.

3. All “political issues” like the disarming of Hizbullah and deployment of the Lebanese army to be worked out before France or any international troops occupy the buffer zone.

4. Weak rules of engagement for the international force.

How close can Condi come to that position? Here’s what she and the Brits have come up with:

The solution to these divergent positions has come in the form of two resolutions. The first, to be voted on in the coming days, will establish a “cessation of hostilities” and articulate a political framework for the future.

Israeli officials said that this document would likely be similar to a statement issued by the G-8 soon after the crisis began last moth, and include a call to release the captive Israeli soldiers, for a cessation of hostilities, and for beefing up the Lebanese army.

The first resolution would be window dressing. It would call for “a cessation of hostilities” rather than a “cease fire.” In the cuckoo land of diplomacy, this makes everyone happy. It is immediate which pleases the French but it doesn’t use the words “cease fire” which pleases us and the Israelis.

We also want to append a call for sanctions against any nation that resupply’s Hizbullah. France is frowning on that because they want to engage the Syrians to help rein in Hizbullah. But as we’ve seen with sanctions elsewhere, there are ways around them so in the end, France will probably give in.

This resolution will be trumpeted by the media but will mean little. It is the second resolution that will have teeth (if any) and that will tell the tale as to whether or not any cease fire will mean a pause of a couple of weeks or a genuine solution:

The second resolution, which would follow after an as yet determined amount of time, would set the composition and mandate of a multinational force and the contours of a new buffer zone in southern Lebanon. It would also assert the authority of the Lebanese government and propose help to the Lebanese Army to gain control of its borders.

Israel’s position is that the IDF first needs to clear the buffer zone, one currently being carved out by the IDF, in order for the multinational force to move in. Israel wants this force to be “an international army,” not an observer force like UNIFIL, but rather one strong enough that it can impose its will.

The real sticking point here is what happens to the buffer zone in the meantime? France wants Israel to withdraw and the UNIFIL force occupy the buffer zone until the International force can be constituted. Israel and the US naturally are balking at that idea.

The solution may involve a token international “rapid response” force that could be flown in immediately and buttress UNIFIL’s efforts. Israel quite naturally is very wary of this and may put the kibosh on the entire idea - unless Washington insists:

There are two possibilities for solving this remaining problem. The IDF could maintain its position until the arrival of an international force, a position clearly favored by the Israeli government and opposed by Lebanon, among other countries. The other option is for the current UNIFIL mission to be beefed up. Its troops could then be integrated into whatever larger, more robust force arrives. Israel, considering UNIFIL to be weak, opposes this solution.

This remains a major point of contention between the American and French. As French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told France-Inter radio on Thursday, “We are working well with the Americans, working night and day. We are advancing toward a common resolution, but we’re not yet there. There is still work to do.”

That actually sounds more hopeful than is realistic. After spilling all that blood (and having Washington stick its neck out in support of Israel’s offensive) it is doubtful that we will compromise when it comes to Israeli forces in the buffer zone leaving until a sizable force of International soldiers who can enforce their will by having “robust” rules of engagement is in place. This will probably be a sticking point that takes another 10 days to 2 weeks to resolve.

In the meantime, here’s my speculation.

The first resolution calling for a “cessation of hostilities” will pass easily. Israel will probably stop bombing outside the buffer zone in Lebanon (or perhaps stop bombing all together). This will put pressure on Nasrallah to make good on his promise to stop launching rockets into northern Israel. It will not stop the IDF from carrying out “mop-up” operations in whatever buffer zone they can carve out between now and the passage of that first resolution.

The Security Council will have a devil of a time coming to an agreement on the second resolution. In the end, Hizbullah will probably be kicked out of southern Lebanon but still get to keep their guns. The Lebanese government will be just as weak as it was before the conflict started but will perhaps have assistance from the international community in training its army (which I predict will include Hizbullah as an independent command thus making them part of the army rather than a militia that needs to be disarmed) and rebuilding its devastated infrastructure.

And then both sides will lick their wounds, re-arm, and get ready for the next go around.

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

Today we’ll examine the possible diplomatic settlement in the works that could be voted on in the UN Security Council as early as today. We’ll also take apart some critiques of US policy by a former Clinton official and a former Israeli negotiator. And I’ll have two columns from the masters - Hanson and Krauthammer.

WE HAVE INSTALLED A NEW SCRIPT FOR THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN HOPES THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

It appears that whatever demons were bedeviling Jeff Goldstein have been exorcised and he has returned to blogging. Let’s hope all is well and that Eugene, Oregon has been cleared of all moonbat droppings.

I think…Yes, I really believe the little guy needs to be trotted out and given some space because if this isn’t cause for a celebratory reel I don’t know what is…

How about a solo there, Tex?

Welcome back, Jeff.

Watching as Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake gets raked over the coals by conservatives for her jaw dropping portrayal of Senator Lieberman in blackface over at HuffPo, I couldn’t help but have a twinge of sympathy for her.

Not because I care that conservatives are being really, really nasty towards the bitch. She deserves every mean thing said about her and then some. She’s a female version of Glenn Greenwald, Dave Niewert, and Billmon all rolled up into a disgusting Rouladen of snark, snippiness, and snobbishness so disturbingly vile that after reading her hysterical rants against righties, you feel compelled to decontaminate your laptop in order to prevent the spread of some flesh crawling contagion.

My sympathy for Mrs. Hamster lies with the fact that being a liberal is such a challenge to rational thought that only a select breed of human is capable of the feat. Think about it for a minute. How many aggrieved races, classes, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, oppressed minorities, mentally challenged, physically challenged,, weight challenged, sexually repressed, sexually aberrant people does a liberal have to keep track of so that when trying to be funny they don’t step on anyone’s toes?

It must be like living life in a minefield. One misstep and BOOM! All of a sudden, you’re an internet verb.

Can you imagine the thought processes a liberal has to go through in order to try and be funny? I mean, do you think they have a list of forbidden words tattooed on the inside of their thighs so that they remember not to use gay” when talking about people who are simply happy? Or “niggardly” to describe miserly behavior?

Perhaps this is why most liberal bloggers are so deadly serious. It’s the only way they can be truly amusing. When Glenn Greenwald accuses conservatives of being incipient authoritarians or when Dave Niewert posits prestidigitation as a reason that conservatives sound like neo-Nazis, we should remember that these are considered real knee slappers by liberals and not to take either these gentlemen or their ideas with any seriousness whatsoever.

Of course, there are other things that makes a liberals life a living hell. Keeping up with the latest in grievance group news must be a pain in the butt. Scouring the papers daily for that telltale whine from some newly oppressed sub-sub group of an already oppressed minority can be a real chore. But Gaia’s chosen ones must put their all into the effort to bring the sub-sub group’s grievance to light. There are meetings to organize, T-Shirts to be printed, editorials to be written, blogbursts, blegs, and blab-fests to be highlighted.

And then there’s that trip to the tattoo parlor to get another word etched on the inside of their thigh, one more sub-sub group they can’t afford to injure by using some offending nomenclature while trying to be amusing.

The picture of Lieberman in blackface will not injure the reputation of Mrs. Hamster. After all, no one seriously believes that she has a racist bone in her body. But what truly might become a cause celebre is her candidate’s eyebrow raising response to the imbroglio:

“I don’t know anything about the blogs, I’m not responsible for those, I have no comment on ‘em…Independent blogs, I can’t say anything about it.”

Huh? Malkin explains:

As I pointed out yesterday, Jane Hamsher is more than a mere “independent” blogger sitting on the Lamont campaign sidelines. She filmed Lamont’s first videoblog. She chauffeured Lamont and his staff. She raised money for him. She’s still on his blogroll. And despite Lamont’s claim that he doesn’t control blogs and Hamsher’s claim that she “answers to nobody,” he told her to pull the blackface Photoshop yesterday–and she dutifully complied.

And this was Hamster’s statement from yesterday:

I sincerely apologize to anyone who was genuinely offended by the choice of images accompanying my blog post today on the Huffington Post. It’s also important to note that I do not, nor have I ever worked for Ned Lamont’s campaign. However, at their request, I removed the image earlier today.

“Pay no attention to that girl behind the curtain…”

Ned Lamont was cruising to a huge victory in the Democratic primary next Tuesday over Lieberman. He may yet win. But his disingenuous response when asked about his…what is Mrs. Hamster to Lamont’s campaign? Personal confidante? Blog Guru? Lapdog? Whatever role she fills in actuality, it is clear that in her own mind, Mrs. Hamster was a mover and shaker inside Little Neddy’s campaign. And for Lamont to disavow any knowledge of or connection to Jane Hamsher is a shocking mistake that almost surely will cost him some votes - but probably not the election. That said, Lieberman’s independent campaign for the seat got a huge boost with this idiocy.

And who knows? We’re only on day two of this little kerfluffle. If the local media latches on and starts to chew, anything is possible. And if it costs Lamont the primary, it will be a blow to the already non-credible netnuts whose track record in elections is surpassed in futility only by that of the Cubs and their efforts to get to the World Series.

Makes me glad I’m not a liberal. It’s just too much work to prove how ignorant and stupid you are.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker.

Stubborn or courageous? Calculating or clueless? Smart or dumb?

My, but historians will have a tough time trying to define George Bush. At least the honest historians will. And by honest, I mean those who will make an effort to glean the truth from the avalanche of contemporary reports portraying the 43rd President as (take your pick) 1) a captive of a neoconservative conspiracy; 2) a doltish, two dimensional clod who sees all the problems of the world in black and white; or 3) an unsophisticated lout in thrall to a religious fanaticism that sees conflict in the Middle East as proof that the End Times are upon us.

Indeed, it may be the President’s critics who are the simpletons. Blinded by their own hubris and in love with their fey conceits, most of the President’s detractors are in a snit because George Bush thinks there’s something of a war on and they don’t much like the way he’s fighting it.

First and foremost, he’s neglecting the nuance involved in warmaking. Silly George! He can’t go around lumping Hamas, Hizbullah, and al-Qaeda together as if there was anything similar about them. That just isn’t done. What those three fundamentalist Islamic terror groups could possibly have in common seems to escape those who insist that the world is a complicated place with many shades of gray. They believe that “good” and “evil” are meaningless terms that may in fact be neo-colonial racist constructs not descriptives aimed at morally differentiating between those who see slaughtering innocents as a path to heaven and those who seek to stop them.

And doesn’t our President know that their are gradations of evil? Hamas is not as evil as Hizbullah because they were, well, elected sort of. And Hizbullah builds day care centers and has seats in the Lebanese parliament. This makes them less evil than al-Qaeda who we’re not fighting the right way because we’re not getting to the root causes of what upsets them so. Better that we try and understand why they want to conquer the world and convert every living soul to Islam than seek them out and destroy them.

But what has the President’s critics howling with full throated cries of outrage is that dumb old George has gone and upset the Middle East apple cart. He’s standing firmly on the side of Israel rather than practicing the traditional American balancing act of tying ourselves into pretzel like contortions in order to please the Arab supporters of the Palestinians by decreeing a pox on both their houses.

In other words, Bush is getting raked over the coals by both domestic critics and the international community because during this go around with their terrorist tormentors, he is standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel and letting the devil take Hamas and Hizbullah. This has thrown the calculations of both the terrorists and their patrons in Syria and Iran into a cocked hat. Who would have thought that the United States would actually allow Israel a “green light” to so weaken Hamas and Hizbullah that their ability to harm the Jewish state would be seriously hampered? It’s unprecedented in the sorry annals of Middle East diplomacy.

And therein lies a clue to the President’s thinking. While the current war is a serious crisis still with the possibility of an escalation that could include other state actors in the conflict, what is happening in the Middle East is revolutionary and in the end, necessary. The diplomatic framework that has been employed dozens of times since the birth of the Jewish state in 1948 to keep the lid on the Palestinian/Israel question has been revealed to be obsolete.

Born in a bi-polar world where it was vitally necessary to prevent war from breaking out between Israel and its Arab neighbors lest the conflict escalate to a superpower showdown, the tried and true rigmarole that saw Arab defeat snatched from the jaws of a complete Israeli victory was an unsatisfying yet necessary adjunct to the diplomatic dance which saw the United States playing the part of “honest broker” to Palestinian aspirations.

What exactly did that achieve? Lasting peace? A safe and secure Israel? For nearly 60 years the world community has worked the same diplomatic levers and pulleys to no avail. Not when support for the murderous fedayeen in Hamas and Hizbullah as well as other terror groups like Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood continues from sources all over the Arab world and threatens destruction of the Jewish state.

While the President’s naysayers in Europe and America are almost apoplectic with rage and calls for a cease fire resonate from the United Nations to the Hague, Bush remains stoic in his belief that Israel’s fight against Hizbullah actually has something to do with the War on Terror and thus deserves America’s full and unqualified support. Since many of the President’s critics don’t believe we’re at war in the first place, this lack of American “balance” in dealing with the terrorist aggressors of Hamas and Hizbullah is all the more shocking. It is chalked up to either Bush’s simple minded view of terrorism or his animus toward Muslims in general.

More conspiratorially, hints of the Vast Jewish Conspiracy haunt the thoughts of the borderline anti-Semites who dreamily wonder aloud if Israel has a “right to exist” in the first place. In the past, this kind of filth would have been confined to the poorly mimeographed rants of neo-Nazi mouthbreathers. Now, these thoughts appear on the slick website of the most popular and powerful liberal blog in the world.

Most on the left (and the paleo-right) seem content not to voice their hopes for the destruction of the Jewish state out loud and settle for accusing Bush of being a puppet of the Zionists. Of course, this is a free floating kind of critique in that a few short years ago, the roles of the United States and Israel were transposed in this relationship and it was Israel having its strings pulled by evil capitalists. One would hope that the some day, the inveterate Jew haters of the world would make up their minds and decide once and for all who is Sherri Lewis and who is Lambchop in this relationship.

It doesn’t seem to matter to our George. While expressing the proper amount of regret at civilian casualties, he firmly makes the point that the moral onus for the death of civilians lies heavily on the shoulders of those who use the innocents to shield their military activities and then employ their dead bodies in a macabre propaganda side show, not to mention glorying in the death of civilians they deliberately target themselves. This moral distinction, so brilliantly exposited by James Lewis on these pages last Sunday, is lost on those either too blinded by their hatred of the President (or the United States) or those whose moral cowardice in the face of such evil has made them unable to confront the consequences of their ambivalence.

Perhaps what makes the President’s opponents the most uncomfortable is this uncompromising stance against evil. While it certainly has biblical overtones, it seems to be based more on a faith in something beyond religious conviction - a steadfast belief in the goodness of man. Those whose cynicism towards humanity blinds them to people’s potential to do great and good things as well as savage and terrible things will not ever understand this aspect of the Bush presidency. It goes to Bush’s core beliefs in freedom and the natural rights of man - that all people everywhere are born into liberty.

This belief plays into Bush’s stubborn support of Israel in the face of opposition that perhaps would have cowed a lesser man. He sees Israel much as he sees America. Speaking at the American Jewish Committee’s Centennial Dinner last May, the President spoke of our similarities:

We have so much in common. We’re both young countries born of struggle and sacrifice. We’re both founded by immigrants escaping religious persecution. We have both established vibrant democracies built on the rule of law and open markets. We’re both founded on certain basic beliefs, that God watches over the affairs of men, and that freedom is the Almighty God’s gift to every man and woman on the face of this earth. These ties have made us natural allies, and these ties will never be broken.

Simple but not simple minded. And the unstated ties between Israel and the United States are perhaps the most binding. We are joined at the hip as the result of the unspeakable atrocity of the holocaust. There is only one nation on earth with the ability and yes, the moral authority to see that the Jewish people never suffer such a blow again. The world community has proved itself fickle in its support for a Jewish state. And while the nation of Israel is perfectly capable of defending itself, the steadfast support of the United States in its times of trial over the last 60 years has benefited both countries.

We are morally committed to the survival of the Jewish state, a commitment unlike any other we have made to any other country. Unlike his critics, the President understands this and sees Israel’s war against Hizbullah for what it is; a fight for the tiny state’s right to exist. The terrorists and their sponsors in Damascus and Tehran have made no secret of their desire to see Israel destroyed. One wonders why the President’s numerous critics both here and abroad pretend that such hatred doesn’t exist or that it can be reasoned with or bargained away.

Perhaps seeing the world the way George sees it might not be such a bad thing after all.

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

Today we’ll look at the worldwide Jihad and how the west may be sleepwalking its way to disaster. We’ll also examine the final report by the IDF on the Qana tragedy. And I’ll have the skinny on the Jane Hamsher/Lieberman blackface kerfluffle and how it might impact next Tuesday’s Connecticut primary.

WE HAVE INSTALLED A NEW SCRIPT FOR THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN HOPES THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

Thinking of ice cream cones today - two scoops of double chocolate fudge brownie on a chocolate cone with hot chocolate, nuts, and a cherry on top.

Not that my waistline can afford it but…

Rather, here’s a double scoop of Watchers Councils results for your eating pleasure…

RESULTS FROM W/E 7/21

COUNCIL

1st Place: When History Bites Back by Joshuapundit.

2nd Place: Blogging for Dummies Like Me by The Sundries Shack

NON-COUNCIL

1st Place: Wither the ‘Democratization Strategy’? by Tigerhawk.

2nd Place: Beheading Nations — The Islamization of Europe’s Cities by Dhimmi Watch

RESULTS FROM W/E 7/28

COUNCIL

1st Place: A Perspective on Tribes and Anti-Semitism by Shrinkwrapped

2nd Place: As Old as the Garden of Eden by Gates of Vienna

NON-COUNCIL

1st Place: Mayhem at the Defend Hizballah Rally! by Solomonia

2nd Place: Worst Case Scenario: Hezbollah’s Conventional Forces by Counterterrorism Blog

If you’d like to enter the Watcher’s Council weekly contest, go here and follow instructions.

And, due to the resignation of AJ Strata, a spot has opened up on the Council. If you’re interested in serving, go here and read carefully.

Sad to see AJ go -a great blogger with great insight into several national security issues. He will be sorely missed. And I hope he still finds time to blog about issues he has informed all of us on over these many months.

Alright, I’m being flip and disrespectful about this, but C’mon Mr. Talabani! We’ve had enough pie in the sky pronouncements from our own people. We don’t need it from someone ostensibly charged with the responsibility of working to improve the dire security situation of his people:

President Jalal Talabani said Wednesday that Iraqi forces will assume security duties for the whole country by the end of the year, taking over responsibility from U.S. and other foreign troops now policing all but one of the 18 provinces. The optimistic forecast came during a relative lull in the violence wracking Iraq. Police said nine people were slain Wednesday, a day after a wave of bombings and shootings killed more than 70.

Iraqi leaders had said previously that their goal was to be fully in control of security by the end of 2006, but Talabani’s statement was the most specific.

The president, a Kurd from northern Iraq, said the government is confident it will vanquish extremist groups, calling the recent surge in violence as “the last arrows in their pockets.”

“We are highly optimistic that we will terminate terrorism in this year,” he said.

Nearly a quarter million Iraqis have been displaced by the sectarian violence that rages on a daily basis. Death squads are running rampant in Baghdad and its environs killing more than 100 a day. You still have a Sunni insurgency with upwards of 20,000 hardened fighters setting off car bombs and IED’s. The loyalty of many of your police (not so much the army) is still suspect. And Mookie al-Sadr and his merry band of torturing thugs flips the bird at you and your government every single day.

On top of that, you have forces at work that are tearing the country apart with Kurdish separatism in the north a growing menace and Shia nationalism asserting itself in the south.

The Turks are mad as hornets at Kurdish terrorism and may invade in order to stop it while Iran and Syria laugh in the face of the United States and your government while supplying everyone who is raising a hand against you with arms.

Shall I go on?

Corruption, an inability to compromise, infrastructure problems, an intelligentsia and middle class fleeing for their lives (estimated 500,000 have left the country in the last 2 years), and an economy that is swirling down the proverbial toilet.

And you want to police all of this with what American commanders are telling us is perhaps as few as 6 or 7 brigades of competently trained soldiers?

Gimme whatever you’re smoking, Mr. President ’cause its better’n what I got ’shyear.

Seriously, this statement by the President doesn’t mean diddly. He has very little power, constitutionally speaking although he is a well respected man. He may just be reiterating the mantra chanted by other Iraqi politicians who need to get the Americans out of the country as soon as possible.

And don’t worry. We’re not going anywhere. In fact, in the next couple of weeks, we’re going to start wiping the smile off Mookie al-Sadr’s face - and there will be no one to save him this time. Ditto for the Badr Brigades in the south as well as the Sunni militias not associated with the insurgency who have sprung up in Baghdad in answer to the Shia militia’s death squads.

The kidnappers, the gangs, and other criminals will be a matter for the Iraqi forces to deal with. If Prime Minister Maliki is serious about cracking down - and in many ways his life depends on him being serious - what we are about to witness in the next fortnight is what we should have done two years ago but were prevented by the Ayatollah al-Sistani - kill al-Sadr and destroy his Iranian-loving militia.

My guess is that by the end of the year, the security situation will have improved noticeably but will be no where near what it should be. It will take a long time to rid Iraq of the devils that torment her. But given time and the skills of the United States military, it will be possible.

As long as her leaders don’t act like a bunch of Pollyannas in pigtails, that is…