Neo-Con swoon over Bush's blind support of Israel

Well it looks like neo-cons are falling for their old sweetheart George Bush again. This cabal of warhawks that pushed this country into the war in Iraq have once again fallen for Bush. Yet at the same time:
" 'What we are seeing are precisely the same divisions as we saw over Iraq with the neo-conservatives rallying behind Mr Bush and almost everyone else feeling rising panic at the direction of American diplomacy,' said Francis Fukuyama, a former neo-conservative."

This is indicated by the fact that the "American public opinion is evenly divided on the merits of Israel's response to Hizbollah's raid. But almost two-thirds say that the US should play a neutral broker role between Israel and Lebanon, according to a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll."

America can't be a moderator for peace in the Middle East if we stand too close to one side, it just ruins our credibility. The article mentions an excerpt from a speech from Republican Senator Chuck Hagel which I think is very profound and true:
" 'The war against Hizbollah and Hamas will not be won on the battlefield.' " The US and Israel must engage these groups before resorting to military punishment. It will only make things worse. In the end, those who really get punished are innocent civilians which we have seen in both the Gaza Strip (where nearly half the citizens have gone without water and electricity when Israel bombed their main power station) and Lebanon (especially in the recent Qana incident). Thus, as I showed in an earlier post, these actions are isolating America and turning Arab opinion against Israel in its conflict against Lebanon.

Whats pathetic though is that again Democrats won't show the same spine to defy Bush in his foreign policy like Hagel is:
"Mr Bush is largely insulated from a political backlash by the muted stance of the opposition Democrats, who are nervous of being painted as weak on national security in the build-up to mid-term elections in November."
Which makes me continually pessimistic about the Democratic Party because they refuse to stand for anything in foreign policy that much different than the Republican Party.

The article illustrated Hillary Clinton as the classic example. She is an opportunist like her husband who is moving increasingly to the right by wooing the DLC for her eventual run as a presidential candidate. Hilary condemned the Iraqi Prime Minister with "tough talk" for condemning Israel and not Hezbollah in this conflict. al-Maliki would never condemn Hezbollah, a Shiite terrorist group, since his own party the Islamic Dawa Party is a shiite group.

OH YEA:

Our stance in this Lebanese-Israeli crisis is also hurting our position among the Shia majority in Iraq.