No it was not tw's exact words and it misrepresents - big time - the Israel / American relationship. You did not read carefully and you still do not yet understand that relationship. If not careful with such details, then Brianna could easily arrive at obviously erroneous conclusions such as: You see, Brianna, Israel did the reverse- traded kidnapped soldiers for prisoners. You apparently did not know basic details. Even the most militaristic Sharon authorized such trades. You assumed without first grasping details. What I said is also significantly different from what you summarized: Your mistake implies insufficient grasp of numerous details in this Middle East conflict and relationships. Had you a grasp of the relationships, then you would have better comprehended what was posted, not reposted what I wrote in such gross error - AND why Israel is proxy for a Cheney doctrine.

Somehow you know better and yet don't even understand basic details of a US / Israeli relationship? Credibility? Insufficient grasp of history and facts? Your post implies, at minimum, naivety. Not an insult. Just straight technical analysis. Somehow you know what I have posted is wrong, and yet don't even know basic and obvious facts of this American / Israeli relationship.

What's this, then? You said WORD CAME FROM WASHINGTON TO ISRAEL, did you not? look up there, between those quotes and tell me what you said.

And what is not to get about the simple (grasp it, now, tw) concept that one military force can NEVER know or predict and should never ASSUME what another military force is going to do. That's not even a controversial point.

Oh, and tw?

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck...


Shame you're not right there to solve this complex problem that only you understand. Ya jerk.

That he made those claims bluntly in English and let reporters know who he was talking too: Condi Rice is opposing any ceasefire.

OK UT. I put up facts. Your response is denial after denial without facts and without apparently knowledge of what Fouad Siniora said and intended. You know better than reporters on site? Fine. Then prove that Condi Rice wants a ceasefire. Prove to everyone that Fouad Siniora is wrong - that Condi Rice opposes a ceasefire. Prove to all that Fouad Siniora spoke in a foreign language - only to be cute?

It was not riddles then. You apparently did not learn what was common knowledge.

But you know something more? Let's hear it. Show us how the Cheney doctrine is not again showing its ugly head. Show me, UT. UT, you don’t even deny this previous post. According to your replies, then you must have facts. Show us these facts that somehow no one possesses. Show us how and why the US even tried to stop this war - and yet somehow bluntly refused to call for a ceasefire?

Somehow you know the George Jr administration wants to stop the annihilation of Hezbollah - in direct contradiction to a Cheney doctrine. Show us. Numerous examples already posted say otherwise. OK. Show us.

We had a computer that would do this. Before crashing, it would type reams of jibberish on the teletype. I wonder if Brianna was an attempt to win the Turing Test - and was so humanized as to break down in a human emotional equivalent of a computer crash? Interesting strategy to win the prize.

The Bush administration didn't move for a cease-fire. I never suggested that they did.

Denial after denial - are you insane?

Again, how is this proof this entire action is directed from Washington?

If we are so confused as to not understand, simply explain how you have deduced this.

Premise, premise, conclusion. Think in a straight line. You can do this.

Must have made you feel right at home. :-)

Whilst there is no proof that the action is directed by Washington, even the ostriches acknowledge that it has more than tacit approval from the self-same.

The USA see's no advantage in a cease-fire when the dead are mostly towel-heads (give Hezbollah some *really* effective rockets and then watch the US scream for a cease-fire).... at the mo, they can see the best of both worlds....


sell the IDF more smart bombs to knock down more buildings....


then sell the reconstruction rights....


America, doing what it does best...

protecting and promoting American interests...

Now take Israel's perspective. What the hell is wrong with Israeli leadership? Having gotten into this mess, Israel should have been overloading the conflict with division after division. Ground troops as fast as delivered to the border. Who in Israel is so misguided as to think this conflict would be solved with airpower, limited forays, and time? Israel's own leadership acts as if someone else (Lebanon Army, US diplomacy, or an international peace force) will do hard work for them; as if airpower will cause a solution.

Indecision or stalling by Israeli leadership completely confuses me. It makes no sense for Israel to not attack with everything as fast as possible. Every day that Israel does not consolidate its position only works against Israel. And yet Israel just sits there without troops on the ground in mass numbers.

There must be more to this Israeli indecisiveness. And yet, that is what Israel is doing. Israel acts as if air power would solve their problems. That is either misguided leadership or wishful prayers. Every day this conflict progresses makes life for both Israel and its sponsor more difficult. Why is Israel not invading with everything ASAP? Only reason that makes sense is a leadership that thought airstrikes would somehow cause a solution to happen maybe because they tried to minimize Israeli casualties, or maybe due to promises made by Washington, or maybe because Israel's current leadership has not yet asked itself some damning questions.

Israel must say, "As many Israeli casualties as is necessary to purge the land of Hezbollah". Israel has not yet admitted that was necessary more than a week ago. Either move everything or do nothing. Currently, Israel is even recruiting for Hezbollah because Israeli military actions are that indecisive. Currently, Israel's ineffectiveness is also making both Israel and America look bad and making Hezbollah look good.

What country does not put their interests first? :eyebrow:

There's no particular reason to disapprove of it. Why shouldn't Israel defend itself? What other country would not under the same circumstances?

This is such bullshit..."you're being attacked by an army of terrorists but it's immoral for you to fight back". By giving Hizbulla special untouchable status since they claim to be b "a legitimate part of Lebanon" but when it comes to me to be accountable for thier military action suddenly all people in the war zone north of the border are magically "innocent civilians"...and that's somehow *Israel's* fault.

Youd better check the law by which you're claiming "war crimes"...hiding combatants amoing civilian populations is a war crime. It's exactly the same tactic as when Saddam put a civilian shelter on the floors above his command and control center in Baghdad during the first Gulf War.

TW, maybe be Jay, along who knows how many others, are confused because you misled them.

You said in post 124First a damning statement of the US, then a slightly modified, but still damning, statement that the US ordered or gave permission, for this war.

When Brianna asked for proof, you, in post 128, tried to shift the burden of proof to others, then said Hmm..obvious...that implies anyone that asks for proof of your statement, isn't as smart as you and your sources....doesn't see the big picture....doesn't understand how the middle east works. But that's evading the fact you have no proof.

In post 134, UT said in response to your trying to shift the burden of proof;And Brianna in post 135 again asked;Fair questions, I think. But then you respond in post 136 Still no proof, just a tap dance worthy of the Apollo Theater, attacking the questioner and trying to direct the discourse to other issues.

Might I suggest, when asked for proof of your indictment of the US, if you had just said,..... OK, I misspoke in that first comment by saying, "But this time, word came from Washington to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved." but, it's a reasonable assumption because, blah, blah, blah.
I think that, by explaining the statement was not a fact, but was a logical conclusion on your part from the information available, would have been a better solution.

Sure, I'm nit picking. Because damning statements like that stick in people's minds as fact. That's misleading the great unwashed that look up to you as the definitive trusted source of what's right and wrong in the universe. You owe it to your disciples, to lead them unerringly to the ultimate truth. :notworthy

I'm actually impressed with -- nay, in awe of -- tw's ability to dance this mess around (I mean, uh, dance around this mess) like that.

I have followed this story and it appears to be a mistake on the part of the post's author, who misunderstood which timestamps are transmitted by the wire agencies.

Following that post, in another story, there was a suggestion that the building did not collapse at midnight, when it was bombed, but at 8am. I read the whole story very carefully and figured out that it was most likely an error on behalf of an Israeli Brig. Gen'l. (yay me)

Sadly this did not prevent a series of righty blogs from running with the theory that it was a setup by Hezbollah all along. Hamas is known to perpetrate such things. But the rumor got generated by the wings of the butterfly, and a bit more reality went down the truth hole.

@bruce....


the USA is unique in that its foreign policy is derived from its written constitution, and literally does say 'to protect and promote American Interests'.

It's the mindset behind that concept that I take issue with.....

It implies that American interests must come first over all other considerations ( eg selling arms to Israel and then rebuilding Lebanon by US companies is a good deal..... the several hundred Lebanonese deaths are neither here nor there)

...and oif course, it is in oppostion the foreign policy of most European nations, which is
'to protect their citizens abroad, and promote business interests abroad'

Well then all you need to know is, that's a view of foreign affairs and the Constitution that is not shared anywhere I've ever seen in American government or society. And I've been watching carefully.

Whether the Constitution is actually followed is more or less whether it's actively looked at and interpreted during a particular era. Nobody cares about that wording, nobody.

It may be roughly the same as what US foreign policy IS, but that's because during most of our history we were very isolationist and there is still isolationist blood in many of our veins. It takes a lot to get us interested and then our interest lasts about 2 minutes.

Don't make up reasons to hate us. There are plenty of real reasons. Use the real ones.