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.
Monday, July 31, 2006
California and the Governator leading the way towards dealing with Global Warming in the US
The Bush administration's apathy towards taking action against global warming is forcing California, who had the "12th largest source of greenhouse gases in the world last year, bigger than most nations," to handle the problem on its own by working with the UK to create "a new trans-Atlantic market in carbon dioxide emissions."
If I was the president, I'd be extremely embarassed by such an event since no one from the Bush administration is even participating in this collaboration and that one of the people involved, the governator, is from his own political party. There were "about 25 chief executive officers of major corporations around the world" in attendance including Dupont and Goldman Sachs. Bush's environmental advisor, James Connaughton (the architect of the pro-industry "Clear Skies Initiative") couldn't be there because of a "scheduling conflict." With so many important figures attending this meeting, you would think that the Bush administration would have one representative there. Well it seems that the Bush administration just doesn't care about global warming. Which is pretty obvious.
Thinkprogress writes that "Barry Rabe, a University of Michigan professor and an expert on U.S. climate policy at the state level, said the administration’s failure to attend sends the wrong message. 'It suggests certainly in this instance the federal government is really conspicuous by its absence,' he said.'"
Global warming is a real threat with an international consensus among scientists of its causes. The Bush administration must get its priorities straight in terms of taking action against global warming!
If I was the president, I'd be extremely embarassed by such an event since no one from the Bush administration is even participating in this collaboration and that one of the people involved, the governator, is from his own political party. There were "about 25 chief executive officers of major corporations around the world" in attendance including Dupont and Goldman Sachs. Bush's environmental advisor, James Connaughton (the architect of the pro-industry "Clear Skies Initiative") couldn't be there because of a "scheduling conflict." With so many important figures attending this meeting, you would think that the Bush administration would have one representative there. Well it seems that the Bush administration just doesn't care about global warming. Which is pretty obvious.
Thinkprogress writes that "Barry Rabe, a University of Michigan professor and an expert on U.S. climate policy at the state level, said the administration’s failure to attend sends the wrong message. 'It suggests certainly in this instance the federal government is really conspicuous by its absence,' he said.'"
Global warming is a real threat with an international consensus among scientists of its causes. The Bush administration must get its priorities straight in terms of taking action against global warming!
The Israel-Lebanese conflict and the massacre at Qana
Check out Professor Juan Cole's (who teaches at my school) blog for some of the best insight and information about the current crisis in the Middle East. I get alot of Middle East news sources from his blog. I myself am disgusted with the Israeli military's actions in Lebanon to systematically destroy the country. Not only have they attacked infrastructure but they've bombed food factories, Lebanese army bases, and social service centers. As a Jew, I support Israel but I don't support this. It won't make Israel any safer nor will it destroy Hezbollah. Instead Israel has killed over 750 civilians (many of them children) and created a humanitarian crisis of 700,000 displaced people. Hezbollah, as Professor Juan Cole points out, can't be destroyed by force very easily. They are not the same as Al-Qaeda, rather they are a sub-nationalist group akin to Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland. Also, the claim that Israel claims that Hezbollah militants hide among civilians is completely false, and couldn't be further from the truth.
I hope that the massacre at Qana that occurred yesterday really is a turning point in this crisis as Rami G. Khouri, an editor at the Beirut-based "Daily Star" newspaper, writes. Israel needs to work more on diplomacy especially when these conflicts usually mean civilian casualities.
Furthermore, the US' do-nothing stance is making things worse for our image across the world. According to the a Washington Post article: "if the war [in Lebanon] drags on, as appears likely, it could leave the United States more isolated than at any time since the Iraq invasion three years ago and hindered in its foreign policy goals such as shutting down Iran's nuclear program and spreading democracy around the world." The Bush administration sees this crisis as fighting against Iran, who sponsors Hezbollah, but the article provides no evidence that Iran actually orchestrated Hezbollah's initial attack and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.
I hope that the massacre at Qana that occurred yesterday really is a turning point in this crisis as Rami G. Khouri, an editor at the Beirut-based "Daily Star" newspaper, writes. Israel needs to work more on diplomacy especially when these conflicts usually mean civilian casualities.
Furthermore, the US' do-nothing stance is making things worse for our image across the world. According to the a Washington Post article: "if the war [in Lebanon] drags on, as appears likely, it could leave the United States more isolated than at any time since the Iraq invasion three years ago and hindered in its foreign policy goals such as shutting down Iran's nuclear program and spreading democracy around the world." The Bush administration sees this crisis as fighting against Iran, who sponsors Hezbollah, but the article provides no evidence that Iran actually orchestrated Hezbollah's initial attack and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
