Home > RINO Circus > Will the last real Republican to leave this administration please turn off the lights?

Will the last real Republican to leave this administration please turn off the lights?

August 16th, 2006

Oh, crap, here we go; all aboard for one more looong, pointless ride on the UN Train to Nowhere:

For the past month the United States has worked urgently to end the violence that Hezbollah and its sponsors have imposed on the people of Lebanon and Israel. At the same time, we have insisted that a truly effective cease-fire requires a decisive change from the status quo that produced this war. Last Friday we took an important step toward that goal with the unanimous passage of U.N. Resolution 1701. Now the difficult, critical task of implementation begins.

No word on what the fripping frack ever happened to Meaningless UN Resolution 1701’s predecessor, Meaningless UN Resolution 1559, which “demanded” the disarming of Hezbollah a couple years ago, and which had no more teeth or practical utility than any of the other ones. But then, these One-World asshelmets prefer not to fritter any of their oh-so-precious time away trying to learn from their past failures — or, for that matter, in any way acknowledging them. They just blunder on, attempting the same stupid nonsense over and over and over, blindly asserting that this time — THIS TIME! — things will be different.

The agreement we reached has three essential components:

First, it puts in place a full cessation of hostilities. We also insisted on the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers.

Uh-huh. And how’s that working out for ya so far? Any small sign of even the slightest whiff of a hint of a ghost of a chance of cooperation from the terrorists? No? Why, by golly, we’re just gonna have to get tough with them, then. Somebody draft up another resolution, stat!

Idiots. No point in continuing with a fisking of this barren blather; for anyone who has even a nodding acquaintance with ME history, it sort of fisks itself anyway.

Update! Via Bryan, a sharp reminder of who really won this whole scrap, in case you needed one beyond Israel’s obvious surrender to UN fecklessness at RINO George’s behest:

SYRIA has warned Israel that the occupation of the Golan Heights “cannot last forever” and said Syrians will emulate Hizbollah to recover their land.

“We say to the forces occupying our land that our people warn you that they will not allow our land to be occupied forever,” the government’s daily Ath-Thawra said.

“You must understand that our people will fight the way the Lebanese resistance (Hizbollah) fought you,” it added.

Syria has repeatedly demanded the return of the Golan Heights which Israel conquered in the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war and annexed in 1981.

Which war, just like the recent one, was initiated (and lost) by the self-same tyrannical pan-Arabist assholes that are complaining about Israeli “expansionism” now. Which, according to liberal dunderheads, somehow makes it all Israel’s fault. Bryan says it well:

That last part is just a cynical play to the Israeli left which, like the American left, is mostly full of narcisstic dolts who don’t believe the world is dangerous as long their own country keeps its sword in the sheath. And it’s likely to work to some extent. You can’t overestimate the weakness and gullibility of the left. You just can’t.

Ain’t it the truth. Too bad there’s no way to cut the dimwit Left loose and let it steer the runaway train of their own droolcase strategy to its inevitable derailment, but I don’t see how we can manage it without going along for the ride ourselves. Bryan follows up with some good — if bleak — analysis, but meanwhile these self-contradictory, nonsensical cretins are starting to make my head hurt.

  • Share/Bookmark
Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site, and may be deleted, edited, ridiculed, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. Thank you.
  1. Randy Rager
    August 16th, 2006 at 14:56 | #1
    We should kick the U.N. out of New York. Then start issuing Resolutions of our own.

    For instance:

    Resolution 1: Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran have exactly 24 hours to offer their unconditional surrender, or we will level Damascus, Tehran, and Mecca with some of that Fine American Sunshine.

    Resolution 2: Any nation, even current allies, that offer any criticism whatever of Resolution 1 shall get their own dose of Fine American Sunshine first.

    Resolution 3: Democracy! Whiskey! Sexy!

  2. curtis kreutzberg
    August 16th, 2006 at 15:13 | #2
    Kinda like forcing the dems to vote on the Iraq war.Really seemed like a waste of time, looking back though, without that nonsense, President Kerry would have surrendered by now.
  3. Randy Rager
    August 16th, 2006 at 15:42 | #3
    The Left makes me long for the days of Genghis Khan.
  4. Zorro
    August 16th, 2006 at 19:04 | #4
    There eventually will be peace...but it will take a body-blow to the rightwing Zionists, which they justly deserve. Because the world will not stand by why the neocons play dungeons and dragons with the middleeast, eventually...eventually, veryone will have land and will together cast out the hardcores on both sides.

    Josh Marshall sums up my own feelings nicely:

    "Here's what I mean. I believe in the project of building a democratic and secular Jewish state in Palestine.

    Some of Israel's enemies and too many of her friends and advocates use the word to mean in a Jewish state in all of historic Palestine or even, as used to be the Revisionist credo, a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River.

    That's not what I believe.

    I believe there should be a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza. Not a collection of autonomous cantons but a full state, with the border being the Green Line or some very near approximation of it. As Ben-Gurion saw from the beginning and others like Moshe Dayan realized not that long after, trying to settle the West Bank and Gaza was a terrible mistake, one born of Israeli triumphalism, fed by coalitional politics in Israel and constantly enabled by the intransigence of the Arab states."

    It'll happen...but only after both sides cast out the mullahs and the neocons.

  5. Pofarmer
    August 16th, 2006 at 20:09 | #5
    Mullah's first.
  6. Randy Rager
    August 16th, 2006 at 21:05 | #6
    Because the world will not stand by why the neocons play dungeons and dragons with the middleeast, eventually…eventually, veryone will have land and will together cast out the hardcores on both sides.

    "And then everyone will have a chicken in their pot every Sunday! And all the pot they can smoke! And, and, and, a flying Unicorn to ride down to the Community Center where we'll all join hands and sing Kumbayah!"

    Dream on.

  7. Randy Rager
    August 16th, 2006 at 21:09 | #7
    In all seriousness, given the tenor of editorials in Isreali publications, Isreal is about to undergo a substantial shift to the Right. Olmert and friends are about to get a nice No Confidence vote, just as the Dems have been getting here for the past decade, and the adults are about to take charge again, just as they did here in 2000.

    This is going to be good.

  8. Sithmonkey
    August 17th, 2006 at 09:54 | #8
    Because the world will not stand by why the neocons play dungeons and dragons with the middleeast, eventually…

    As opposed to the leftists way of dealing with the middle east...kinda like a game of Magic-- Stack the deck completely against the US and Israel with rules of engagement so convoluted that it defies logic, then tap an endless supply mana (tax dollars) to bribe and pamper the islamo-fascists.

  9. Randy Rager
    August 17th, 2006 at 10:07 | #9
    Shit, Sithmonkey, you don't Zorro actually understands the nerdly arts, do you? From the contempt he's expressed in the past, I doubt he'd know a mana tap from a d4.
  10. Sithmonkey
    August 17th, 2006 at 10:35 | #10
    Randy:

    I'd imagine that in his DnD games, he probably doesn't actually fight dragons or orcs...he sits down with them and dialogues until an agreement can be met. Any j00ish elves in the group are to be killed...then everyone rolls their save vs. common sense...scratch that, no one rolls...that would entail competition...everyone AUTOMATICALLY makes their save!

  11. Zorro
    August 17th, 2006 at 10:41 | #11
    "Randy:
    I’d imagine that in his DnD games, he probably doesn’t actually fight dragons or orcs…he sits down with them and dialogues until an agreement can be met. Any j00ish elves in the group are to be killed…then everyone rolls their save vs. common sense…scratch that, no one rolls…that would entail competition…everyone AUTOMATICALLY makes their save!"

    ...doesn't this place have a kiddie section where the gamers can play, and quit annoying the adults?

  12. Zorro
    August 17th, 2006 at 12:37 | #12
    112 years ago, Mark Twain saw what we're blind to today:

    "Huck Finn, do you mean to tell me you don't know what a crusade is?"
    "No," says I, "I don't.
    "A crusade is a war to recover the Holy Land from the paynim."
    "Which Holy Land?"
    "Why, the Holy Land -- there ain't but one."
    "What do we want of it?"
    "Why, can't you understand? It's in the hands of the paynim, and it's our duty to take it away from them."
    "How did we come to let them git hold of it?"
    "We didn't come to let them git hold of it. They always had it."
    "Why, Tom, then it must belong to them, don't it?"
    "Why of course it does. Who said it didn't?"
    I studied over it, but couldn't seem to git at the right of it, no way. I says:
    "It's too many for me, Tom Sawyer. If I had a farm and it was mine, and another person wanted it, would it be right for him to --"
    "Oh, shucks! you don't know enough to come in when it rains, Huck Finn. It ain't a farm, it's entirely different. You see, it's like this. They own the land, just the mere land, and that's all they DO own; but it was our folks, our Jews and Christians, that made it holy, and so they haven't any business to be there defiling it. It's a shame, and we ought not to stand it a minute. We ought to march against them and take it away from them."
    "Why, it does seem to me it's the most mixed-up thing I ever see! Now, if I had a farm and another person --"
    "Don't I tell you it hasn't got anything to do with farming? Farming is business, just common low-down business: that's all it is, it's all you can say for it; but this is higher, this is religious, and totally different."
    "Religious to go and take the land away from people that owns it?"
    "Certainly; it's always been considered so."

  13. Zorro
    August 17th, 2006 at 12:41 | #13
    Get ready for 3 more years of insanity:

    More to the point is the fact that Bush's presidency--a complete and utter failure by virtually any empirical measurement--is also deemed irrelevant. It's Israel alone that matters, according to these anti-American conservatives. (And woe unto American Jews when Christian America starts paying attention to their unpatriotic perfidy.)

    What's most immediately worrisome about the neocons' long march through our institutions of government is the possibility that they may succeed a second time. According to Sidney Blumenthal's reporting in Salon, neocon staffers for Dick Cheney and the NSC's point man on the Middle East, Elliott Abrams (Norman Podhoretz's son-in-law), "have discussed Syrian and Iranian supply activities as a potential pretext for Israeli bombing of both countries." They are looking, according to this NSC source, "to widen the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah and Israel and Hamas into a four-front war."

    Four wars simultaneously? Led by this crew? After what we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it me, or are the people who run this country dangerously out of their minds?

  14. Jack_Crow
    August 17th, 2006 at 13:16 | #14
    It’s a shame, and we ought not to stand it a minute. We ought to march against them and take it away from them.”

    Funny, you seem to have left out the part about the Holocaust and the Jews being driven out of every Arab country. I mean, the nerve of those people to want to, you know, live. Who the hell do they think they are? Why don't they make all our lives easier by just dropping dead already?

    I swear Zorro, some days I can't decide if you're a raving anti-Semite, soul-crushingly stupid, or both.

  15. August 17th, 2006 at 13:39 | #15
    Zorro is looking more and more like he's at the very least suffering from a severe case of your first assertion, Jack, and as such is on borrowed time here.

    Z, I actually enjoy the back-and-forth between you and some of the regulars here, but the kind of ludicrous antisemitic smears you've been tossing off lately are simply unacceptable. Mossad responsible for, as you asserted yesterday, repeated terrorist attacks against the US? Even after Osama and al Q cheerfully and willingly admitted to perpetrating them all, and Muslims across the ME danced in the streets in grateful acknowledgment? What's next, a claim that Osama is in reality a *choke* dirty, greedy Jew posing as a noble, downtrodden jihadist hero?

    I'm simply not going to tolerate any more of that. You're entitled to your opinion, foolish and misinformed though it is; what you're not entitled to is to turn my site into some kind of platform for bigoted hate speech. Lighten up on the antisemitism, or go find someplace else to hang out.

    Being objectively pro-jihadi is one thing (and, whether you're in denial over it or not, your own recent statements make it disgustingly clear that that's precisely what you are); regrettably, plenty of your Lefty brethren are partners with you in that particular self-destructive folly. But I'm not going to allow this site to be used to disseminate a bunch of thinly-masked, unreconstructed Aryan Nation bilge. You can consider this your invitation to take that Jew-hate stuff someplace else. I am not in the least interested in wasting the bandwidth required to post it, nor the disk space required to host it.

  16. August 17th, 2006 at 13:59 | #16
    I can't believe anyone reads The Nation anymore, much less takes it seriously.
  17. Zorro
    August 17th, 2006 at 14:05 | #17
    "It is not anti-semitic to criticise the actions of the government of Israel"
    -- Colin Powell

    Mike, you have swallowed the anti-American neoconservative ploy hook-line-and-sinker.

    I am most certainly NOT anti-semitic. I am opposed to the actions of the government of Israel. Strongly opposed. I support the idea of the state of Israel as a democratic and secular nation with it's borders being the Green Line.

    Just like I believe has happened in this country, the ultra-rightwing has hijacked the political process and wishes to take as much of the middleeast by force as they can get away with. I believe they will stop at nothing and no action is too outrageous, if it succeeds in achieving the ultimate goal.

    The short answer to you is: I am most certainly NOT anti-semitic.

  18. Zorro
    August 17th, 2006 at 14:17 | #18
    ...and to continue with that thought: the world is too small- the human population has become so great that the world cannot bear these kinds of imperialistic land grabs.

    There's nowhere for displaced people to go. The only land on Earth left uninhabited, or sparcely inhabited is hostile to human life...or at the very least extremely difficult to live in.

    If the people in the ME cannot find a way to live peacefully, the only alternative is the total destruction of either Israel, or all of it's Arab neighbors. If it comes to that, sheer numbers doom Israel...as King Shef noted, "paper covers rock".

    The only way out is for the people of Israel to throw their hard-core revisionist/expansionist leaders out...as we should do here as well.

  19. Sithmonkey
    August 17th, 2006 at 14:18 | #19
    The short answer to you is: I am most certainly NOT anti-semitic.

    Of course not...cuz, you see...leftists are allowed to say vile and degrading things about women, asians, blacks, and especially da j00s who don't toe the kostard party line. You're not considered racists because being a leftard means never having to actually follow the same standards you demand of everyone else...

  20. August 17th, 2006 at 14:21 | #20
    I'm not going to argue whether you are or are not; your outrageous slanders speak for themselves. The very idea that Mossad is running around plotting terrorist attacks against their closest ally is, as I said, ludicrous, the product of diseased and hate-filled minds with agendas of their own, agendas that don't include confronting the real perpetrators of terrorist attacks against us. The only person around here drinking tainted Kool-Ade is you. And as I've said, I'm not going to hear much more of that sort of lunacy. This is most assuredly not some whackjob conspiracy-theory website, and is not about to become one. Rein in your more paranoid delusions, or take them someplace else, like I said.
  21. Sithmonkey
    August 17th, 2006 at 14:21 | #21
    If it comes to that, sheer numbers doom Israel…as King Shef noted, “paper covers rock”.

    Well...there you go folks...if it comes down to it, we know what side Zorro is on...

    Don't let this situation with Jizzballah fool you, Zorro...if Israel decided to open up on the Middle East, your muslim masters would be scattering like cockroaches...hiding behind the nearest woman or child they could find.

  22. Zorro
    August 17th, 2006 at 14:31 | #22
    "Rein in your more paranoid delusions, or take them someplace else, like I said."

    See ya...

    ...for a while. But, if you please, don't delete my user-account. I'll pop back in to discuss events when something interesting happens.

    Remember two quotes:

    "Oil is too valuable to be left to the Arabs."
    -- Henry Kissinger

    "Only the impossible always happens."
    -- R. Buckminster Fuller

  23. Zorro
    August 17th, 2006 at 14:56 | #23
    OOOPS!

    I spoke too soon...seems a note I fired off to AS a couple days ago got him thinking:

    "Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy. Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect, but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy," - a "military affairs expert" who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month.

    I have long wondered whether Cheney and Rumsfeld ever believed that their job was to build a new democracy in Iraq. Rumsfeld had dealt with and supported Saddam in the past; Cheney was extremely suspicious of occupying Iraq in 1990. One subversive theory - which I'm not endorsing, just airing - is that both merely wanted to turn the Saddam regime to rubble, and then play along with neocon democracy supporters, while making sure that the military was never given enough resources to do nation-building. Then Cheney and Rumsfeld could prove their point about the impossibility of reforming the Muslim world, and promote the view that we need merely to pummel enemies, project military fear across the region, and deter Islamo-fascism by "shock and awe." The Likud strategy, in other words.

    Under this interpretation, Bush was too trusting or dumb to understand the deviousness of their plan to fail in Iraq; Wolfowitz saw it too late and got out; Rice is stuck managing the debris that a democracy-promoting president and a democracy-hostile Pentagon created. The troops were just pawns in Cheney's and Rumsfeld's strategy. This interpretation would mean that incompetence is not the issue. Cheney and Rumsfeld have succeeded: they have turned Iraq into a failed state, removed its capacity to make WMDs, and detonated a regional Sunni-Shi'a war. Now they want to use the same brutalist strategy against Iran. This theory is probably too complex and subtle to be true. The screw-up theory of history is more often the most plausible. But it does make some internal sense - if you assume that Cheney and Rumsfeld are not complete incompetents.

    ...nice to get some air time...even if I'm not directly quoted.

    OK- now, I'm outta here for a while!

  24. August 17th, 2006 at 16:14 | #24
    You know, what is emerging from the failures of this war (of which Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon are different campaigns) is that the enemy has not been pummelled hard enough.

    The Arab way of fighting is tribal: long-term blood feuds that end only if one side is wiped out. That means anything short of utter material destruction and near-extermination is not seen as defeat, but only as demonstration that Allah saved their asses so that they can rearm and try again.

    Yeah, this is a disturbing conclusion, but one that must be incorporated in any future discussion of strategy, I think.

  25. Randy Rager
    August 17th, 2006 at 21:51 | #25
    …doesn’t this place have a kiddie section where the gamers can play, and quit annoying the adults?

    You are the idiotic cocksucker that brought up D&D without knowing what the fuck you were talking about, now live with it, you stupid fuckstain.

  26. Randy Rager
    August 17th, 2006 at 22:25 | #26
    OK- now, I’m outta here for a while!

    I ain't holding my breath.

Comments are closed.