| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Israeli Leaders Fault Bush on War |
| 2006-08-13 |
| A hit piece from a pro. Amid the political and diplomatic fallout from Israel's faltering invasion of Lebanon, some Israeli officials are privately blaming President George W. Bush for egging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into the ill-conceived military adventure against the Hezbollah militia in south Lebanon. Bush conveyed his strong personal support for the military offensive during a White House meeting with Olmert on May 23, according to sources familiar with the thinking of senior Israeli leaders. Olmert, who like Bush lacks direct wartime experience, agreed that a dose of military force against Hezbollah might damage the guerrilla group's influence in Lebanon and intimidate its allies, Iran and Syria, countries that Bush has identified as the chief obstacles to U.S. interests in the Middle East. As part of Bush's determination to create a "new Middle East" – one that is more amenable to U.S. policies and desires – Bush even urged Israel to attack Syria, but the Olmert government refused to go that far, according to Israeli sources. |
| Posted by:Slenter Hupavins5895 |
| #10 Sorry, Reagan was no good in a real fight. It pained him when the boys got hurt, and he went wobbly. This piece takes all the tired memes used against the Bush administration and repackages them for Israel. They had better lay in a supply of ear plugs. Disgusting. |
| Posted by: KBK 2006-08-13 23:23 |
| #9 The Reagan that pulled out of Lebanon, OS? That one? Just askin' .... I admire the man in general, but his response to the deaths of our Marines was shameful IMO. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-08-13 22:08 |
| #8 I dsagree. We need a new Reagan. Bush hasn't fixed the borders, hasnt take any backbone actions against congress over taxes and spending, has taken a soft edge with our enemies in foreign policy as of late. Bush is better than the alternatives we have, but not nearly as good as a Reagan, or even a Truman woudl be. Unfortunately, we are likely to have a battle between a mediocre Republican and a lefty looney Democrat in '08 |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-08-13 21:43 |
| #7 An alternate reality heard from. If ever there were a man for his times, it is George W. Bush. If it weren't for the 22nd amendment, he would be the best man for 2008. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-08-13 19:01 |
| #6 Not one on the record 'insider" named. Ya mean there's two Seymour Hersh articles in one weekend? |
| Posted by: Raj 2006-08-13 18:42 |
| #5 Not one on the record 'insider" named. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-08-13 17:35 |
| #4 Oh, and that includes "Armistices", "Treaties", "Resolutions" and "Cease-fires". |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-08-13 15:57 |
| #3 "In war there is no substitute for victory." --Douglas MacArthur |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-08-13 15:56 |
| #2 Trying to take heat off of Olmert and put it on Bush. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-08-13 15:19 |
| #1 The fallacy for Bush is that he talks tough which is good, but makes the military fight weak which is a disaster. Unfortunately, Bush has the correct instincts, but he has no miltary history like Powell, who learned that striking rapidly and applying maximum damage is absolutely necessary. And Bush needs to realize that having reporters in battle zones is disasterous. This needs to be stopped. A few unfortunate casualties of reporters would end it. There is nothing pretty about combat. Do it and get it over with. Until Bush grasps this, he will continue to make messes. |
| Posted by: SOP35/Rat 2006-08-13 11:50 |