Civilianess

Due to constraints on accessing the Internets these days, I'm not on top of the news here - plus the fact that I can't watch more than a couple minutes of CNN without wanting to throw a brick through the TV, and, well, we're still paying on the damn thing so it's easier just to not watch.

Consequently I'm not on top of the new developments in the Mideast C-Section (like birth pangs only bloodier), and I only learned of the bombing in Qana last night.

(BTW, the comments that "Israeli officials called the attack a tragic mistake" makes me think of the "Mr. Neutron" episode of Monty Python:

Voice Over: And so the Great Powers and the people of Shanklin, Isle of Wight, drew their net in ever-tightening circles around the most dangerous threat to peace the world has ever faced. They bombed Cairo, Bangkok, Cape Town, Buenos Aires, Harrow, Hammersmith, Stepney, Wandsworth and Enfield... But always it was the wrong place.
[Cut to an area of smoking rubble. A van with the words 'US Air Force' on the side trundles through the rubble. It has a loudspeaker on the top of it.]
Loudspeaker: Sorry Enfield!... We apologize for any inconvenience caused by our bombing... sorry...

Life imitates art, I guess.)

Anyway, Qana... Qana... hmm, I seem to recall that name from somewhere:

The Shelling of Qana took place on April 18, 1996 in Qana, a village located southeast of Tyre, Lebanon. Amid heavy fighting between the Israeli Defense Forces and Hezbollah during "Operation Grapes of Wrath", a Fijian UNIFIL compound in the village was shelled by Israeli artillery. Around 800 Lebanese civilians had taken refuge there to escape the fighting, of whom 106 were killed and around 116 others injured. Four UNIFIL soldiers were also seriously injured.

And, suprise of suprises, the claim is made in both cases that Hezbollah was next door:

1996: Following the attack, Lt.-Gen. Amnon Shahak, Israel's chief of staff, at a press conference in Tel Aviv on April 18 defended the shelling: "I don't see any mistake in judgment… We fought Hezbollah there [in Qana], and when they fire on us, we will fire at them to defend ourselves… I don't know any other rules of the game, either for the army or for civilians..."

2006:Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed regret over the incident and said that residents have been warned to leave the area. Olmert said that Hezbollah used Qana to store and fire Katyusha rockets, and used the villagers as human shields.

Only problem with this, is that this article in Salon points out that Hezbollah, the military wing, anyway, stays as far away from civilians as possible:

So the analysts talking on cable news about Hezbollah "hiding within the civilian population" clearly have spent little time if any in the south Lebanon war zone and don't know what they're talking about. Hezbollah doesn't trust the civilian population and has worked very hard to evacuate as much of it as possible from the battlefield. And this is why they fight so well -- with no one to spy on them, they have lots of chances to take the Israel Defense Forces by surprise, as they have by continuing to fire rockets and punish every Israeli ground incursion.

The article makes the point that Hezbollah's POLITICAL wing is the one that is most often seen, and is what has infiltrated Lebanon's culture so deeply:

But this claim is almost always false. My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians. Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been.

And the ever-informative Juan Cole points out the difficulty of using military might exclusively to address the problem:

Hizbullah is a mass expression of subnationalism that has the loyalty of some 1.3 million highly connected and politically mobilized peasants and slum dwellers. Over a relatively compact area.

[snip]

Where subnationalisms are organized by party-militias willing to use carbombings and other asymmetrical forms of warfare, they are extremely difficult, if not impossible to defeat militarily. It would take a World War II style crushing military defeat of these populations, with the willingness of the conqueror to suffer tens of thousands dead in troop casualties. Israel is not even in a position to risk such a thing, given its small population.

In other words, Hezbollah, unlike al-Qaeda, has a massive popular backing in Lebanon, and political negotiation is the only route to deal with the situation, failing resort to wholesale slaughter (though that hasn't stopped some from suggesting it as a solution).

Democracy in the Middle East?

Well, not so much:

WASHINGTON - The United States is using authoritarian Arab leaders, who fear that Iran could export its revolutionary political model to their disgruntled populations and are concerned about Washington's reprisal against them a la Saddam Hussein in Iraq, as a buffer between the Iran-backed Hezbollah and Israel, Washington's protégé in the Middle East, analysts here say.

And Condi Kissinger's grand idea for the New Middle East seems to be "let's you and him fight":

Analysts here agree that the basic theory that Secretary Rice is taking to the Middle East, where she arrived Sunday, is to get Arab regimes that are hugely unpopular with those they rule to work as guard dogs on the Israeli borders against rocket attacks from deeply rooted organisations like Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in Palestinian territories.

So, while radical terrorist groups like Hezbollah and al-Qaeda oppose those same dictatorial governments, we'll be seen by those on the side of the radicals as supporting the dictatorial governments. Yay! AMAZING tactics there, folks.

Thank god that could NEVER backfire on us, even though one of bin Laden's stated reasons for attacking the United States was not only our unquestioning support for Israel, but our support for countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt:

According to the 1998 fatwa cosigned by Osama bin Laden, his main grievances against the West, and especially the United States, include their support for Israel, their support for several secular dictatorships in the Middle East, and the presence of United States military bases in Saudi Arabia.

(Admittedly SA is not a secular dictatorship, given the influence of the Wahabists, but bin Laden has some long-standing issues with the monarchy and is willing to use them as a convenient reason to justify his actions, regardless.)

We NEED to support REAL democracies, no matter what they look like, not fakie things like the Potemkin government we've set up in Iraq. We NEED REAL leadership and negotiation right now, not just the "we'll see if we can agree to do it my way" crap coming from the squatters in the White House. We NEED a REAL commitment to peaceful, non-violent resistance to human rights abuses ANYWHERE.

Problem is, so many in power right now have a vested interest in the hatred and violence continuing. Someone needs to back down and stop this kindergarten playground "HE HIT ME FIRST" garbage before it escalates. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen given the collection of idiot fanatics we're looking at on all sides.

Dubya - making us safer every day

You might want to go shopping this weekend and stock up on bottled water, canned food, flashlight batteries, duct tape, plastic sheeting, and other essentials for when the Red Alert gets announced:

WASHINGTON - - The Bush administration's tacit support for Israeli military strikes on Lebanon may have increased the danger of militant retaliation against the United States and U.S. interests abroad, some experts say.

[snip]

"There will be revenge attacks," said one former U.S. official, who remains up to date on counterterrorism strategy.

"The concern now is that there's rising animosity that will be exploited, not just by Hizbollah," said the former official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, adding: "Then there are people being driven over the edge by what's happening, who aren't necessarily members of any group, but who might strike."

Thanks, George! Thanks ever so much for making us a safer nation.

And don't forget to set the TiVo so you can watch it all happen in the comfort of your own home! 'Cause you might very well not be allowed to leave your house in the first place.

And make sure you stay away from popcorn factories & petting zoos.

Okay, it's official

FAUX News Channel is insane:

On the July 20 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto turned to right-wing pundit Ann Coulter and private investigator Richard "Bo" Dietl, chairman and founder of private investigation firm Beau Dietl & Associates and a former detective with the New York City Police Department, for insight into the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

Exsqueeze me? WTF?

Next up on FAUX - Michelle Malkin and Buzz Lightyear discuss the housing market, then our special panel of Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity and the Layfaette, Indiana High School Marching Band on military trials at Guantanamo Bay.

An honest broker for peace?

While Condoleeza "I had no idea the job of the National Security Advisor was national security" Rice trots off to the Middle East in a "show of support for Lebanon", the United States expidites bomb shipments to Israel:

WASHINGTON, July 21 — The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.

The munitions that the United States is sending to Israel are part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed, the officials said. But Israel’s request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs was described as unusual by some military officers, and as an indication that Israel still had a long list of targets in Lebanon to strike.

Words fail me yet again. Crap like this is supposed to HELP?

And the stage is being set for a repeat of 1914:

As Israel tightened its grip on a strategic border village seized in south Lebanon, Syria fuelled fears the fighting could spread by issuing a warning that it would intervene if Israel dared launch a full-out invasion of Lebanon.

And if Israel attacks Syria, Iran has already pledged to weigh in on the side of Syria.

Maybe that "World War 3" talk ISN'T so funny, after all.

Archiduke Ferdinand, meet Gilad Shalit.

Slap me silly and call me Hester

Oh, look. CNN reporting that Iranian observers showed up in North Korea for that missle test the other day:

Asked at a U.S. Senate hearing about reports that Iranians witnessed the July 4 tests, Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator with Pyongyang, replied: "Yes, that is my understanding" and it is "absolutely correct" that the relationship is worrisome.

Well, then, that's great. No more complaints from you whining peaceniks about how Iran, by our own government's assesments, is at least 5-10 years away from a nuclear weapon. Now they can just buy them from North Korea! Time to shut up and get on board bombing the crap out of Iran so's we can have another great regime change there too, if you aren't onea them whiny-ass pussies who WANTS to lose an American city or two! And don't worry - they'll welcome us with flowers as liberators!

World War N+1

James Wolcott (whom I have not been reading recently, my loss!) weighs in on The Newt's fatuous assertion of The War Against Terror being "World War 3":

"There is a public relations value, too. Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language of World War III. The message then, he said, is 'OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?'"

So Gingrich wants to roll out World War III as a bugle call to give Republicans a Viagra injection and force Democrats to slink behind the cavalry in mealy-mouthed agreement, for fear of being called appeasers and peaceniks by useful fools like Michael Goodwin.

Well, yeah, only given that they're doing that ALREADY, why bother? I mean, it sure has hell hasn't taken any official designation of George's Excellent Adventure In Iraq to roll out the accusations of "treason" and "sedition" and "giving AID and COMFORT to the ENEMY, you know, wink wink, THAT KINDA THING".

Of course, as Wolcott points out, the "World War 3" label would also enable Newt and company to argue for even greater, more unrestrained military spending and action, using the precedent of the last two World Wars. Newt basically argued for this kind of thing in "his" book 1946, and ever since I read that load of tripe I've been waiting for him to try to apply the idea to the real world.

And to top the crap sundae with a rotten maraschino cherry, Wolcott includes this nugget of idiocy from The Doughy Pantload himself:

The post also provides a helpful glimpse of Goldberg's thought processes at work, which resemble Horton trying to hatch an egg:

"Domino theory and public diplomacy had fairly minor roles in World War II. But such considerations are central to our understanding of today's challenges. . . "

"Domino theory"... hmm... you mean, the stupid incorrect load of crap that got us involved in the LAST pinheaded quagmire is to be floated again this time around?

This is what we get for not teaching history, folks.

Oops!

As usual with these idiot bullies on something they weren't really dedicated to in the first place, offer some resistance and they fold like cheap cameras:

In addition to frustrations at the pace of U.S. evacuations, others, especially Democratic lawmakers, expressed outrage that evacuees initially were going to have to pay to leave.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ended the controversy Tuesday night, using her authority under the law to waive the fees people would have paid to the government.

But the DEFECIT! We need to save MONEY!

And to top it all off (hat tip to Blah3 for this one), according to Garance Franke-Ruta over at the American Prospect, the reason for the lesiurely evacuation (though more than obessively covered by CNN - there ARE other stories to cover in the area, guys!) is that

Individuals within the State Department, I am told, have been reluctant to create an impression that the Israeli assault on Lebanon is as bad as it is or that civilian U.S. citizens are being threatened by U.S. ally Israel.

The article also answers the question I had about using cruise ships for the evacuation when it's known Hezbollah has anti-ship missles:

On Monday, Steve Clemons raised concerns about "sending a cruise ship, a slow moving huge target, into a war zone" to evacuate Americans. However, it seems to me that such a move would be perfectly consistent with attempting to downplay the severity of the conflict and the nature of the Israeli threat to American citizens in Lebanon.

Again, as usual for the idiots, perception is everything. Pretend your citizens aren't at risk, and they aren't! How simple.

Now if I could only get some idea of Israel's grand strategic wisdom in pursuing Hezbollah by bombing the Lebanese army, as well as grain silos, aid convoys, pharmaceutical factories, and a milk factory.

Them that pays gets evacuated

Many already have commented on the wonderful BushCo™ policy of charging those we're evacuating from Lebanon for safe passage out of the country.

Welp, come to find out that suprise suprise, this has been government policy for the last three years:

Reimbursements for Emergency Overseas Evacuation. H.R. 1646 would allow the State Department to seek reimbursements for the emergency evacuation of employees of the U.S. government, their dependents, private U.S. citizens, and foreign nationals. According to the Department of State, this section of the bill codifies existing practice and would have no impact on the budget.

I'm so sure the folks leaving Lebanon would be happy that they're not, you know, impacting the budget or anything. 'Cause that would be BAD.

(By the way - when Lil' Mr. Preznit Pottymouth signed this bill, guess what - he made one of those "you ain't the boss of me" signing statements at the time:

Regrettably, the Act contains a number of provisions that impermissibly interfere with the constitutional functions of the presidency in foreign affairs. . .Such provisions, if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, would impermissibly interfere with the President's constitutional authorities. . .in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information. . . shall construe these requirements in a manner consistent with my constitutional responsibilities for the conduct of foreign affairs. . . The executive branch shall implement this provision in a manner consistent with the President's authority to supervise the unitary executive branch. . .My approval of the Act does not constitute my adoption of the various statements of policy in the Act as U.S. foreign policy. . .

Seems the "pay to play" aspect of the bill was one of the few things he DID feel didn't impose on his kingly powers.)

Pardon me, but...

...if Israel expects the Lebanese Army to take over security duties in southern Lebanon, wouldn't it be a good idea to, maybe, kinda, STOP BOMBING THE LEBANESE ARMY?

Is it just me, or does that seem, oh, maybe just a fricking tad COUNTERPRODUCTIVE?

The Elder Statesman

Oh, god, I'm SO glad the adults are in charge:

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (CNN) -- U.S. President George W. Bush expressed frustration Monday at attempts to get U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to do more to end the conflict in Lebanon.
[snip]
Bush: See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this sh*t and it's over.[edited]

What's he going to be like when he gets OUT of office?

And WTF do we need to be going to Syria for, anyway? Oh, THAT'S right. Lebanon's government isn't powerful enough to stop Hezbollah. Boy, isn't it a good thing we got those Syrian troops out of Lebanon...

And as far as the whole Mideast thing goes, if CNN shows one more goddamn context-free picture of some bomb damage, I'm going to throttle Wolf Spritzer with Daryn Caveman's intestines. That's really constructive there, folks - who's been bombed? What's this I'm looking at? Aw, who cares? Time to get another pasty white guy on to bloviate about fighting terrorism.

More "Do as I Say, Not as I Do"

Bush concerned by Russia freedoms

which makes it sound kind of like Bush is concerned they're being too free, but maybe that's just me. Of course, Bush, lover of freeance peeance that he is, is all concerned about the LACK of freedom in Russia, particularly in the media:

"I've expressed my opinion to President Putin," Bush said. "You might remember my visit with him in Slovakia, where I was quite pointed in my concerns about whether or not there is a free and vibrant press in Russia.

"We share concerns about the ability for people to go to the town square and express their opinion and whether or not dissent is tolerated, whether or not there's active political opposition."

Wow, George. How nice of you. If only you'd have that kind of wonderful aspiration for YOUR OWN GODDAMN COUNTRY, you jackass, where we have to listen to your amen chorus whine about NYT treason and Vietnam veterans get arrested for wearing the wrong T-shirt.

The forgotten war, yet again

Clueless George, Sept. 27, 2004:

That's why I said to the Taliban in Afghanistan: Get rid of al Qaeda; see, you're harboring al Qaeda. Remember this is a place where they trained -- al Qaeda trained thousands of people in Afghanistan. And the Taliban, I guess, just didn't believe me. And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence.

The Guardian (UK), July 8, 2006:

Des Browne, the [British] defence secretary, conceded yesterday that the deployment of 3,300 British forces into the Taliban heartland of southern Helmand has "energised" the Taliban.

But you're neither, so...

From the Idiot-in-Chief's birthday interview with Larry "Most Irrelevant Man in Media" King:

"When history looks back, I'd rather be judged as solving problems and being correct, rather than being popular," Bush said.

No comment.

Whatever you do... DON'T mention the war!

According to this article in the notably moonbat lefty rag known as Foreign Policy (hat tip to Rising Hegemon for doing my journalisming for me) things are much worse in Iraq than we're being allowed to be told:

It is certainly hard to hide the fact that in the third year of this war, Iraqis are only getting electricity for about 5 to 10 percent of the day. Living conditions have gotten so much worse, violence is at an even higher tempo, and the country is on the verge of civil war. The administration has been successful to the extent that most Americans are not aware of just how dire it is and how little progress has been made. They keep talking about how the Iraqi army is doing much better and taking over responsibilities, but for the most part that’s not true.

Think about it - could YOU manage on about 1 1/2 - 3 hours of electricity a day, especially in the summer? (I've done this myself and let me tell you - thank god for battery-powered fans and airconditioned workplaces!)

And the military is controlling the reporting that does come out of the country:

But the military has started censoring many [embedded reporting] arrangements. Before a journalist is allowed to go on an embed now, [the military] check[s] the work you have done previously. They want to know your slant on a story—they use the word slant—what you intend to write, and what you have written from embed trips before. If they don’t like what you have done before, they refuse to take you. There are cases where individual reporters have been blacklisted because the military wasn’t happy with the work they had done on embed.

Sounds kind of Stalinist to me, though in a kind of particularly incompetent way. If you have to break some eggs to make an omlette, the Bush crowd is the sort who'd screw up breaking the eggs and end up with a burnt omlette full of eggshell bits.

Happy Fourth of Julie

230 years to go from a country under the rule of an insane autocrat who supposedly recieved his authority from God... to a country under the rule of an insane autocrat who supposedly recieves his authority from God. Whee!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [ . . . ] But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

And what were their objections that drove them to what, for the time, was a massive unprecedented political innovation?

• He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  
• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
  
• He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
  
• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
  
• For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
  
• For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

Sounds kinda familiar, somehow.