Where are the Libs ?

[dilloduck]

I've noticed that we don't have our usual onslaught of liberal bashing regarding the events in Israel. Do they think this is not our war or are they having a hard time confessing where they stand? Their silence is deafening.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Define liberal.

Am I a liberal?

 

[Redhots]

I'm confused too.

Give an example of "liberal bashing regarding the events in Israel".

 

[dilloduck]

I'm confused too.

Give an example of "liberal bashing regarding the events in Israel".

heck---I'll even settle for a liberal comment on the mideast situation. whatcha think?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Define liberal.

Who here is a liberal?

Am I a liberal?

 

[ErikViking]

I've noticed that we don't have our usual onslaught of liberal bashing regarding the events in Israel. Do they think this is not our war or are they having a hard time confessing where they stand? Their silence is deafening.

Hey, I'm worse than a liberal but since asked of where I stand:

I think Isreal is conducting badly, both military, politically and morally. Thay are however putting the light on a very serious problem: Lebanon can't handle hezbollah alone. The offensive action Israel has taken must thus be considered as being justified.

Also it is clear that UN can't function as intended anymore. UN is a product of its members and if those members can't agree - UN can't act.

Well, something like that.

 

[red states rule]

Hey, I'm worse than a liberal but since asked of where I stand:

I think Isreal is conducting badly, both military, politically and morally. Thay are however putting the light on a very serious problem: Lebanon can't handle hezbollah alone. The offensive action Israel has taken must thus be considered as being justified.

Also it is clear that UN can't function as intended anymore. UN is a product of its members and if those members can't agree - UN can't act.

Well, something like that.

Israel is doing the correct thing. They are killing terrorists who have attacked them. Libs are still libs. They run around telling Israel to "talk" to the terrorists. to sit down and reason with them, to change their policy toward the terrorists.

The liberal media has shown they suport the terrorists against Israel. Their one sided and biased "reporting" is there for all to see.

 

[dilloduck]

Israel is doing the correct thing. They are killing terrorists who have attacked them. Libs are still libs. They run around telling Israel to "talk" to the terrorists. to sit down and reason with them, to change their policy toward the terrorists.

The liberal media has shown they suport the terrorists against Israel. Their one sided and biased "reporting" is there for all to see.

More importantly I think Bush is doing the right thing by standing firm for a sustainable peace as opposed to a cease fire ( which in the middle east means to give the Arabs time to lick thier wounds and rearm ). He again is supporting engaging terrorism militarily when they attack and as they prepare to build up to nuclear weapons. At the same time he and Condi are holding rcok solid in negotiations to expose the motives and financiers of terrorism and leaving them very little wiggle room. The Hizbullys can declare victory all they want but when this is over and people see the rubble that was Lebanon they will remember who was hiding in thier schools, homes and hospitals.

 

[ErikViking]

Israel is doing the correct thing. They are killing terrorists who have attacked them. Libs are still libs. They run around telling Israel to "talk" to the terrorists. to sit down and reason with them, to change their policy toward the terrorists.

The liberal media has shown they suport the terrorists against Israel. Their one sided and biased "reporting" is there for all to see.

I don't know. That seemed a bit stereotype and I don't recognize liberals running around like you describe it. The media however is biased. I usually buy two newspapers to put together a more balanced view.

What would in your mind be the perfect move right now? If it was up to you?

 

[red states rule]

Tim Touts Mid-Terms as Time for Change
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on August 1, 2006 - 07:55.
Tim Russert used his Today show appearance this morning to paint a bleak tour d'horizon of Bush foreign policy, expressing the fond-wish-in-guise-of-a-question that the American people might come to their senses and throw the bums out at the mid-terms.

Interviewed by co-host Campbell Brown, Russert first asked: "What's the end game? The concern among Republicans I've talked to is how are the American people viewing this? Is this blind allegiance to Israel or is this standing by the only ally we have in the region? They don't know how much longer there will be patience with the American people."

Russert later made the electoral connection, after casting matters in their darkest light. Rather than speaking of nascent democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the current opportunity to defang Hezbollah, Russert portrayed things this way:

"In Palestine it was Hamas who won the election. In Iraq, we have a Shi'ite regime in Iraq right now that refuses to say the Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. This is a regime that is in power because of us toppling Saddam Hussein. What will we get in Lebanon? Will the new government be more extreme than the old government?"

He then put in his not-so-subtle boost for the blues at the ballot box: "And what does that mean to the American people when they look at the world? Does that mean they say, 'this is George Bush taking on the war on terror', or do they say 'this is a chaotic world we need to change something, we need to send a message'? The mid-term elections could really be quite interesting, based on this."

We get it, Tim. Send a message - Vote Democrat!
http://newsbusters.org/node/6681


Globe: Restrain Israel, Cease-Fire at Any Price
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on August 1, 2006 - 07:00.
When the Allies faced fascist foes in WWII, they called for unconditional surrender. Confronted today by the new face of facism, the Boston Globe calls for 'unconditional, immediate cease-fire.'

By its editorial of this morning, the Globe would reward Hezbollah for its barbarous use of human shields. On the one hand, it acknowledges that the terror group 'has placed its rocket-launchers . . . unconscionably close to settled areas.' But since the result are the very civilian casualties that Hezbollah was looking to provoke, the Globe criticizes the Bush administration for its 'failure to restrain Israel.'

Oh, to be sure, the Globe piously calls for 'a strong stabilization force of UN troops who could assist the Lebanese government in neutralizing Hezbollah and in ensuring that it does not once again pose a threat to Israel.'

The IDF - the world's premier terror-neutralizers - has been unable to put Hezbollah back in its box yet. How can the Globe possibly imagine that the forces of Kofi Annan - they of the impotent observers who watched Hezbollah move 13,000 rockets into the area - would possibly succeed?

No matter. Peace at any price. Somewhere, even Neville Chamberlain is grimacing.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't know. That seemed a bit stereotype and I don't recognize liberals running around like you describe it. The media however is biased. I usually buy two newspapers to put together a more balanced view.

What would in your mind be the perfect move right now? If it was up to you?

Liberals are doing nothing but sitting on thier asses right now except I did see Kerry finally take a stand against the Hizbullys. They know Bush is doing the right thing and if they attack him they will suffer severe consequences. They can't afford to make him look competant by supporting him. They need the focus to shift back to Iran where they already have all thier talking points worked out.
In my mind Bush is doing the perfect thing--allowing Israel to fight, confronting the ineffectiveness of the UN and refusing to play into some game of pretend peace.

 

[ErikViking]

Liberals are doing nothing but sitting on thier asses right now except I did see Kerry finally take a stand against the Hizbullys. They know Bush is doing the right thing and if they attack him they will suffer severe consequences. They can't afford to make him look competant by supporting him. They need the focus to shift back to Iran where they already have all thier talking points worked out.
In my mind Bush is doing the perfect thing--allowing Israel to fight, confronting the ineffectiveness of the UN and refusing to play into some game of pretend peace.

Okay, everyting is going well in your opinion then. The conflict will end when we have a winner, likley Israel. If other countries don't get involved. (Would it still be fit to let things run its course?) But which ever side wins we can at least cheer the fact that UN couldn't do any good?

I can't say I have a perfect plan for a lasting peace, but I can't say doing nothing is a good plan either. What do you think is a good outcome of the conflict?

 

[dilloduck]

Okay, everyting is going well in your opinion then. The conflict will end when we have a winner, likley Israel. If other countries don't get involved. (Would it still be fit to let things run its course?) But which ever side wins we can at least cheer the fact that UN couldn't do any good?

I can't say I have a perfect plan for a lasting peace, but I can't say doing nothing is a good plan either. What do you think is a good outcome of the conflict?

Short term---containment of state sponsored terrorism, preferrably though isolation. Keep pressuring Iran with "a nukes are unacceptable stand". Show the UN and world opinion is meaningless and terrorism can be fought without thier approval.
Ultimately---prove Islam as practiced by radicals to be disastrous to its own population.

 

[theHawk]

Dillo is correct, the Dems will fully support Israel in the end. But right now they are silent on the issue because they cannot publically side with Bush on any issue at all. They also know that supporting Israel's war will further alienate their rabid anti-war base. They are probably afraid that even these idiot libs will figure out the Democrats are sell-outs and hypocrits for supporting this war after opposing the Iraq war for so long. Winning the election is number 1 priority for the Dems, not taking a stand on issues.

 

[ErikViking]

Short term---containment of state sponsored terrorism, preferrably though isolation. Keep pressuring Iran with "a nukes are unacceptable stand".

Show the UN and world opinion is meaningless and terrorism can be fought without thier approval.


Ultimately---prove Islam as practiced by radicals to be disastrous to its own population.

Okay. I think point one and three is quite in the line of what I think (Which to me proves that the Middle East is not a left/right issue att all) As Hawk mentions too.

The second paragraph though, UN is just the sum of combined efforts of its members. UN cease to have any effect as soon as a veto is cast. That has proved UN to be unable to handle many conflicts on a global scale. Why it is a goal itself to show that terrorism can be fought without UN? I don't understand. Is it important at all? USA is a (the) superpower and if USA don't wan't UN in the middle east UN won't be there. USA doesn't need approval of anyone to carry out its policy.

The world opinion you speak of, is there such? You make descisions and creates freinds and enemies as you go along. I don't think the world has a unified oppinion you can ignore approval from in this case. But saying the rest of the world is meaningless is arrogant, don't you think?

 

[theHawk]

It might be considered meaningless if the rest of the world is against your view.
Not sure why US is the only one that gets the bum rap of being 'arrogant' when we defy 'world opinion', yet Iran and other such countries are never called 'arrogant'.

 

[ErikViking]

It might be considered meaningless if the rest of the world is against your view.
Not sure why US is the only one that gets the bum rap of being 'arrogant' when we defy 'world opinion', yet Iran and other such countries are never called 'arrogant'.

That would seem fair, but look: The rest of the world isn't against your views. The world works on compromise. You want something that someone else doesn't like the effect of = Discussion. The war against terrorism has clearly shown that many nations go a long way in changing laws and supporting you. The fact that everything isn't going your way is reality to many others too. I bet Iran thinks the rest of the world is meaningless.

Is the critique USA recieve unjust? Yes maybe sometimes. But then again, you are "one of us" so to say. You can be reasoned with. Not Iran. Diplomacy with Iran doesn't work well. I think that is why everyone wants something to be done on an unpersonal level, like economical resolutions and such. Reasoning does not work. Reasoning with USA does work. Calling Iran 'arrogant' wouldn't do the word justice. It is like an understatement.

 

[cgd75]

Hagel breaks ranks with Bush on cease-fire

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush's approach to a cease-fire in the Middle East has been condemned by fellow Republican, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

In a Senate floor speech, the second-term senator said Bush should be acting for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, rather than offering the U.N. Security Council a more complex plan.

"The sickening slaughter on both sides must end now," Hagel said. "This madness must stop."

The conflict, now in its third week, is before the Security Council, which is reviewing the U.S. resolution, as well as one from France that calls for an immediate cease-fire and the deployment of international peacekeeping forces along the Israel-Lebanon border.

Hagel is the first Republican to challenge the Bush administration's approach, the Lincoln (Neb.) Journal Star reported.

Hagel said he doesn't disagree with Bush's ultimate goal of lasting peace, only his strategy of not pressuring Israel to stop its military attacks immediately.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060801-082028-9094r
____________________________________

It's only a matter of time AIPAC goes ballistic on Sen. Hagel for saying such things.

That's why your "libs" or your "liberals" won't speak out...

the constituents of Nebraska must be sorry they elected a senator into office with voting machines from the company he was CEO of.. or is that point moot?

 

[red states rule]

Hagel breaks ranks with Bush on cease-fire

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush's approach to a cease-fire in the Middle East has been condemned by fellow Republican, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

In a Senate floor speech, the second-term senator said Bush should be acting for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, rather than offering the U.N. Security Council a more complex plan.

"The sickening slaughter on both sides must end now," Hagel said. "This madness must stop."

The conflict, now in its third week, is before the Security Council, which is reviewing the U.S. resolution, as well as one from France that calls for an immediate cease-fire and the deployment of international peacekeeping forces along the Israel-Lebanon border.

Hagel is the first Republican to challenge the Bush administration's approach, the Lincoln (Neb.) Journal Star reported.

Hagel said he doesn't disagree with Bush's ultimate goal of lasting peace, only his strategy of not pressuring Israel to stop its military attacks immediately.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060801-082028-9094r
____________________________________

It's only a matter of time AIPAC goes ballistic on Sen. Hagel for saying such things.

That's why your "libs" or your "liberals" won't speak out...

the constituents of Nebraska must be sorry they elected a senator into office with voting machines from the company he was CEO of.. or is that point moot?

Hagel is more interested in what the NY Times and Washington Post write about him. He has this fantasy he can become President

There will be peace in the Middle Eeast, as soon as one side was destroyed the other.

I wonder if the libs, who are bashing Israel, would want to be restrained if the US were taking incoming rockets and US citiznes were being killed.

Oh, we did have 9-11 and libs are opposed to gioing after them. Sorry.

 

[cgd75]

I wonder if the libs, who are bashing Israel,...

sorry, they can't. They'll get kicked out of office so fast...in fact, anyone who says peep that is not 100% supportive of Israel and it's intentions and speak to the contrary can kiss thier political career GOOD-BYE. Simple as that.

The only lib who has spoken out, was Howard Dean, and he was put into his place quickly and nicely by AIPAC and similar groups.

I thought it was only Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore that do things for political gain, not republicans like Sen. "man-on-dog" Santorum and Sen. Hagel....hmmmm, interesting...