^ it’s all been hashed out many, many times.  As long as we remain non-critical sponges; blindly following some mindless moron, we will fail to see the world is turning away from our “leadership”.  The world; especially the Middle-East, snubbed Bush on this visit.  There is no respect for his failed version of leadership.  High tech weapons diplomacy has failed.  Rhetoric is ridiculed as weakness.  We have effectively been led over the abyss and in our freefall we fail to recognize that the world knows we can blow anybody to shit; but we can’t sit down and talk.  The world wants to talk, not kill.  We have aged in our brief history; but we have failed to mature.

What?!

You know I had to laugh Paolo.

But, I wanted to add to your excellent post…just as a tidbit.

While it’s true that Iran is not making ANY DEMANDS, they actually HAVE attempted to initiate discourse with the DC thugs in the past, if only to establish or other normalize things. (and maybe presumed that some logic or reason would get the clowns off their backs). And, they’ve gone through considerable effort to do that, one time even using a Swiss Embassary.

But…all to no avail of course. Each time they’ve been summarily dismissed or ignored, and for the most part, the American public is never even aware of it. I mean, we’ve gotta make sure that everybody on the planet ‘knows’ what demons they are, right?

You’ll observe that on this very same website, there is an article discussing Israel’s new negotiations with Syria.

What?! You mean those cowardly Israelis are engaging in APPEASEMENT?! Without “preconditions”?!!

This whole “appeasement” feint is so obvious. Any time anyone wants to talk (TALK!) with a foreign power, the Republican whine goes up about “appeasement.”

This is true, even with countries like Iran that are MAKING NO DEMANDS! Question: How can you “appease” someone who is making no demands? (Unless you consider their pursuit of nuclear power—something they have a one hundred percent guaranteed right to do as signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty—a “demand”.)

purplewolf, It’s actually shit and sugar on a shingle.

But yeah, sugar is so costly now, that he’ll just have settle for his own shit sandwich.

Thanks for the expansion omop. It’s very helpful.

Now, I don’t know why Sharon is still in a coma. (How long has it been now?...at least 3 years)

Or, is Sharon’s coma the reason why the Iran attack hasn’t taken place yet? It’s certainly not for lack of trying on the part of the Dick Bush gang. Cheney has been chompin’ at the bit so long he’s probably chewed through several by now, and time’s running out. Then again, I don’t expect his program to be interrupted just by a staff change in the oval office. He’s always got his personal CIA army to do whatever is required.

Headlines on several news web sites….Israel in talks with Syria….Israel in talks with Hamas…Isreal with over 200 nuclear missiles according to the Bush logic is in the process of doing what Chamberlain done did with Hitler…. appeasement!!!.

The sole benefit that one can adduce to the worst Presidency of the USA 2000/2008 is hopefully that the 300 million citizens have survived, learned as well as matured in judging and deciding as to the character and integrity of its public servants.

Hopefully Americans have done a lot of growing up since 2000 and are able to tell who is blowing smoke up the chimney and who is not.

Thank you for revealing the truth.

«We famously dredge up British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s flight to Munich to meet with Adolf Hitler, in the forlorn hope of deterring him from his aggressive course in Czechoslovakia.» Why shouldn’t those who profit from using this analogy continue to do so, as long as those as they can get away with it ? Whose «forlorn hope» was it that Hitler would be «deterred» from his «aggressive course in Czechoslovakia» - Mr Chamberlain’s ? Allow me to suggest that neither Mr Chamberlain nor M Daladier nor Signor Mussolini (the latter two, for some strange reason, are usually left out of the equation, as if the conference in München in September 1938 took place between two men, Herr Hitler and Mr Chamberlain, alone) were particularly interested in protecting Czechoslovakia (which enjoyed a mutual defence treaty with France at the time). Nor were Messrs Chamberlain and Daladier prevented from coming to the aid of the Czechoslovak state by an excessive fear of war - it should be remembered that both men were still in power in their respective countries when Germany attacked Poland, less than a year later, on 1 September 1939, two days after which their respecive governments both declared war on Germany. What then, was the difference between 30 September 1938 amd 3 September 1939 ? Another date provides the answer - 25 August 1939, i e, that of the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), a bombshell which rendered the Franco-British dream of sitting on the sidelines while instigating a German-Soviet war and picking up the pieces afterward null and void. A war between Germany and her allies on the one hand, and the Soviet Union on the other, there was to be, but the Western European Powers could not escape being burned in the conflagration for which they were largely responsible. To add insult to injury, we now see a man like George Walker Bush, whose paternal grandfather Prescott Sheldon Bush had close ties to the German industrial establishment, lecturing us all on the dangers of «appeasement». It is, of course, to guarantee that other Powers will continue to follow the six-decades-old course of appeasement towards the adventures carried out by the US government that that government spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined….

Henri

If we cannot afford to take care of our veterans, then we had better NOT send any more over there or anywhere else in the world and bring back ALL OF OUR VETERANS NOW.

An event that expands and adds to Cyrena’s comments;

  From The Times of London

  Headline.

  Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel

  From Stephen Farrell, Robert Thomson and Danielle Haas

ISRAEL’S Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called on the international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with Iraq is complete.
In an interview with The Times , Mr Sharon insisted that Tehran — one of the “axis of evil” powers identified by President Bush — should be put under pressure “the day after” action against Baghdad ends because of its role as a “centre of world terror”. He also issued his clearest warning yet that Israel would strike back if attacked by Iraqi chemical or biological weapons, no matter how much Washington sought to keep its controversial Middle Eastern ally out of any war in Iraq.

He made clear that western Iraq would be one of the first areas targeted by the US in any invasion, saying that lessons had been learnt from strategic mistakes of the 1991 Gulf War when Iraq successfully fired 39 Scud missiles into Israel.

Could that be the reason Ariel is still in a coma? Maybe Kutler has a tke on that.

Thank you Thomas Billis for reminding me about Prescott Bush. It reveals the unmitigated gall George Bush has to talk like he knows something about history.

Well Ivan, at first glance, I would say that makes sense.

But in a much wiser mode, I think that ignoring him has been exactly the problem, and his destruction isn’t over…not by a long shot.

I agree that it’s mindless, because that’s always the appearance of what comes from Fascist dictators. Hitler never made any rational sense either.

You see what he did, and we see what bush has done as well.

Yes, I was tempted to ignore him myself, and that was a very dangerous mistake in judgment on my part.

You NEVER turn your back on a snake.

I do not know the reason purplewolf, but yes it has been running incredibly slow, and I am using the Mozilla Firefox 3 Beta 5 browser on the Ubuntu operating system. Do you know about Ubuntu? It is the world’s most popular, community based, Linux operating system.

Thanks, purplewolf.  You’d think that after the very extended Wolin thread on totalitarianism I would have recognized this as yet more Bush tampering with the media.  He’s been doing quite a bit of that lately, i.e., sending NBC his disapproval of the way Williams portrayed Engle’s Bush interview on Nightly News.  Thanks for reminding me.

Yes Dr. in fact last night and today Internet Explorer kept popping up that TD could not be viewed for whatever. Probably too much criticism of boy George is upsetting him more, just like he now claims that he was edited. To bad, but it might be the reason this site is having problems the last few days.

Hey Sam, a better choice for a sandwich for this moron is the famous “Shit on a shingle.” It’s more befitting him.

•  “What a guy! His international cowboy act toppled Saddam Hussein, our onetime friend, who for more than 20 years stood as a surrogate counterweight to the ambitions of Iran. Now Israel, Bush’s newfound friend, is left naked and vulnerable to Iran, and with a new threat of nuclear war in the region. For all our trouble, Saddam is dead and Iraq is nothing more than an oil well (when it is being pumped), hardly serving our interests—or Israel’s. Except, perhaps, as another military base.

Then he goes on with this…

•  “Bush’s constant posture as the great friend of the Israelis is absurd. Who destroyed Iraq—that buffer state for Israel against the threat from Iran, the 1991 Scuds notwithstanding?”

I like Kutler, and he always makes clear points, so this isn’t a criticism as much as it is just a question or curiosity on my part. Specifically about Iraq being a ‘buffer state’ for Israel against the threat from Iran.

If my own research is correct, Iraq was hardly a ‘buffer state’ for Israel, seeing as how Israel attacked Iraq back in 1981, (and maybe since, I don’t know). Here’s a quote from an unrelated text, (and I say unrelated only because it’s offered in terms of an international community consensus on War Law)..

“On 7 June 1981, eight Israeli air force pilots conducted a bold and dangerous raid deep into hostile territory. Hugging the ground to avoid detection, the flew more than 600 miles before dropping their bombs on a nuclear reactor under construction at Osirak, on the outskirts of Baghdad. The reactor was badly damaged, Iraq’s nuclear programme was severely impaired, and none of the attack planes were lost…”*

(continues…which is really the purpose of this particular discussion anyway)

“Israel claimed pre-emptive self-defense for the strike on the basis that a nuclear-armed Iraq would constitute an unacceptable threat, especially given Saddam’s overt hostility towards the Jewish state..”*

Humm…does any of THAT sound familiar? And, this was 27 years ago!! So, just based on what I can see over the past several decades, I don’t see Iraq as ever having been a ‘buffer’ for Israel. The wars between Iran and Iraq, (as generally instigated by Saddam) have little or nothing to do with ‘protecting’ Israel, and ISRAEL REMAINS the ONLY nation in the region to have a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons!

Needless to say, I just can’t envision how ISRAEL needs a ‘buffer’ against ANYBODY. The rest of the region needs a ‘buffer’ against Israel! (I mean, that’s what the reality of the facts seems to dictate).

*The text is: “War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict” by Michael Byers.

And yes…I’ve noticed myself that TD is running slowly. Not sure why.

Yes TD has been running slow

Are you finding TD running slow the past couple days or is my computer sick?

Finally someone else with a real view of history.If America had not been neutral Chamberlain might have had some cards to play in Munich.He had no choice they were not prepared to go to war with Hitler and subsequent events have shown without Americas entrance into ww2 England would have certainly lost its confrontation with Germany.Which by the way would have been fine with George Bush’s grandfather Prescott"the appeaser” Bush.
To your other point of constant warfare.It is the goal.It allows theivery on a massive scale.When a premise of no negotiation is floated as policy what is the alternative.Is George W suggesting that these rogue nations will discover the error of their ways on their own.Two words that have never been been used in the same sentence are ingenious and George W Bush.We negotiated with Japan till the day before Pearl Harbor.Negotition can never be discarded as a tool because the alternative is so frightening.

when you see one.  Obama’s stated willingness to practice the ancient art of diplomacy with Iran, or probably any other foreign government has become appeasement.  What a crock.

Diplomacy’s not a crock.  It’s the straw man built by the right that’s the crock.  Take an issue, in this case simple diplomacy, interpret it to mean appeasement, then knock appeasement.  Brilliant.  The only problem is appeasement has nothing to do with diplomacy.

In fact, appeasement is closer to doing nothing when an aggressor rattles his sword than diplomacy.

So, I’m looking for straw men.  Lord knows they’re popping up all over the place these days.

When trying to access an ignorant, arrogant president such as George W. Bush, it all begins with a series of “never minds”. Never mind that nuclear weapon equipped Israel is perfectly capable of minding their own affairs without our multi-billion dollar welfare program. Never mind that Hamas, the entity that our cowboy president calls terrorist, and will not negotiate with, was in fact supported by Israel as a counterweight to Fatah. Never mind that all of the “might makes right” violence has not enhanced the security of anyone in the region. Never mind that the occupied territories are by any definition of international law, stolen property that does not belong to Israel. Never mind this never mind. Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of the Middle East? Only the cowboy angel knows! Faster than a stop loss order. More powerful than a B-1 bomber full of cluster bombs.

the Izzies are the mouse that roared . . .

The USA is in Iraq for control of her oil, and Bush himself is no more than a puppet who has no say in any matter beyond what kind of sandwich he wants for lunch.

Peanut butter and jelly, anyone?

He swaggers, smirks and rattles on like a total moron that he is. His mother should have taught him some manners and maybe a shred of morality as well.
He should indeed be dropped off in Baghdad to face the rage of the country he has destroyed.

Shame on anyone who voted for this dunce, not once, but twice???