Post #90

Subject: ... will we never learn?

… from “Hamas in Gaza: Trouble All Around,” by Charles Krauthammer, Friday, June 22, 2007:

“WASHINGTON -- Gaza is now run not by a conventional political party, but by a movement that is revolutionary, Islamist and terrorist. Worse, Hamas is a client of Iran. Gaza now constitutes the farthest reach of the archipelago of Iranian proxies: Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Mahdi Army (among others) in Iraq, and the Alawite regime of Syria.”

I admit, I’m not obsessed with Israel, but, really, a “revolutionary, Islamist and terrorist” group – what does that have to do with us? “Hamas is a client of Iran.” So? Um, wasn’t East Germany a client of the Soviet Union? But Iran is arming the insurgents in Iraq, killing our troops – I hear neo-cons say. Just like we armed the Afghan rebels who killed Soviet occupiers?

Maybe we should invade Iran. But, if we invade because they are arming rebels, let’s be consistent – think about how such a change in policy may effect us down the road. Consider the consequences.

But back to Hamas….

“The policy implications are obvious. There is nothing to do with the self-proclaimed radical Islamist entity that is Gaza but to isolate it. No recognition, no aid (except humanitarian necessities through the U.N.), no diplomatic commerce. “

And this will help how? Didn’t “isolation” get us an atomic bomb in North Korea? What is that quote about insanity being trying the same approach over and over and expecting a different result?

Speaking of insanity,… :p

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR, INDIANA: In my judgment, our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Get our soldiers out of there. That’ll make them safer. Get our presence out of there. That’ll make us safer as a nation. America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stop the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUGAR: In my judgment, the current surge strategy is not an effective means of protecting these interests. Our security interests call for a downsizing and redeployment of United States military forces to more sustainable positions in Iraq or the Middle East. In 2003, we witnessed the costs that come with insufficient planning for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. It is absolutely essential that we not repeat the same mistake.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

In other words, it’s time for Plan B… from a crowd who obviously had no Plan A! :p

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I said earlier that it’s going to be a long, hot summer. It’s going to be tough. But on the other hand, it is absolutely vital, and this is one of the things Dick Lugar agrees on; in succeeding in Iraq. The question is, how best to do it. We think it’s important to give this plan a chance to succeed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Success in Iraq IS protecting America’s interests. America’s interests (for those not paying attention) = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stop the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan. It is not in America’s interests to send more soldiers to their death so that George W. Bush can try to duck blame for his war.