I defy anyone on the Left to come up with...

[Nbadan]

Quite simply, Islam is not in need of a reformation, but of a civil war in the Middle East, since the jihadists cannot be reasoned with, only defeated. Only with their humiliation, will come a climate of tolerance and reform, when berated and beaten-down moderates can come out of the shadows.

So this writer feels that the way to moderate the Middle East is by militarily hunting down young, beaten-down, always ignored and often confused Muslims?

[Nbadan]

Iraq has inadvertently become the battleground of a long overdue reckoning, a bellwether of the future of the Middle East. If the cons utionalists win, then the jihadists will be in retreat and there will be at last a third way between radical Islam and dictatorship

What cons utionalists? Prime Minister Al-Jaafri and Dawa Party majority that currently control Iraq? They are Shiite Islamists who will have Islamic law play a much greater role in Iraq society than it ever did under Saddam. Much worse, the Sunni Muslims in Iraq that are financing much of the insurgency no longer trust the elected Shiite majority. Sunni's now hate Shiite more than they do Americans. Meanwhile, Iraq and Iran are cozing up - forging new trade and defense agreements. Iran even offered to train Iraqi troops in Iran to help fight the insurgency, until Washington nixed that idea.

[The Ressurrected One]

So this writer feels that the way to moderate the Middle East is by militarily hunting down young, beaten-down, always ignored and often confused Muslims?

No, what the paragraph says is that until the berated and beaten-down moderate Muslims, that have been cowering in the shadows, are embolded to come forward and take part in the humiliation of the Islamo-fascists will it be defeated in the Middle-East.

That's what is happening. We're doing the emboldening.

[cecil collins]

Religious fanatics? We don't have any of those do we? Just because the religion seems fanatical to you doesn't mean it is. Perhaps your religion seems fanatical to me. I'm tired of hearing about the religious fanatics. Yes some do cause problems, but I believe people in a position of poverty and despair with a particular enemy to blame(USA) will attempt to put an end to it, if it gets bad enough. You don't think peoples of other areas are mad. They just don't have the same kind of weaponry and rich, radical funding to cause damage on the same scale. If the same weaponry was prevalent in South America, it would likely be a similar story.
No on giving up more civil liberties.
I didn't read the article because 1 it seemed boring as , and 2 conservative writers tend to make absolutely no sense to me. If this makes me an ass, so be it. If anyone wants to read a progressive writer, I recommend Michael Parenti.

[ChumpDumper]

No, what the paragraph says is that until the berated and beaten-down moderate Muslims, that have been cowering in the shadows, are embolded to come forward and take part in the humiliation of the Islamo-fascists will it be defeated in the Middle-East.

That's what is happening. We're doing the emboldening.

Are those moderates the majority? And are those moderates able to put aside able to put aside the other differences -- federalism vs. centralism, ethnic distrust -- that are adding to the wide gulfs in Iraq's cons utional debate?

So this emboldening will lead to a desirable civil war according to this author -- what will a civil war in Iraq mean for us? Will we stay in or go back to Iraq to make sure whomever we decide the good guys are this time win? If the moderates can't maintain all of Iraq, would par ion be a good thing? The author wants more instability in the short term in the middle east, but how can he guarantee a beneficial long-term outcome without even more massive US intervention?

[The Ressurrected One]

Are those moderates the majority? And are those moderates able to put aside able to put aside the other differences -- federalism vs. centralism, ethnic distrust -- that are adding to the wide gulfs in Iraq's cons utional debate?

So this emboldening will lead to a desirable civil war according to this author -- what will a civil war in Iraq mean for us? Will we stay in or go back to Iraq to make sure whomever we decide the good guys are this time win? If the moderates can't maintain all of Iraq, would par ion be a good thing? The author wants more instability in the short term in the middle east, but how can he guarantee a beneficial long-term outcome without even more massive US intervention?

Civil war in the sense that Moderate Muslims will fight their own Islamo-fascists, yes.

There are no guarantees...but doing nothing would only lead to a worse scenario.

[ChumpDumper]

Civil war in the sense that Moderate Muslims will fight their own Islamo-fascists, yes.

There are no guarantees...but doing nothing would only lead to a worse scenario.

But in the first sentence, you are indeed saying we would do nothing.

Vietnamization is a nice theory, but not all that great in practice.

[JoeChalupa]

Civil war in the sense that Moderate Muslims will fight their own Islamo-fascists, yes.

There are no guarantees...but doing nothing would only lead to a worse scenario.

That can be said of many other places in the world.

[gtownspur]

Religious fanatics? We don't have any of those do we? Just because the religion seems fanatical to you doesn't mean it is. Perhaps your religion seems fanatical to me. I'm tired of hearing about the religious fanatics. Yes some do cause problems, but I believe people in a position of poverty and despair with a particular enemy to blame(USA) will attempt to put an end to it, if it gets bad enough. You don't think peoples of other areas are mad. They just don't have the same kind of weaponry and rich, radical funding to cause damage on the same scale. If the same weaponry was prevalent in South America, it would likely be a similar story.
No on giving up more civil liberties.
I didn't read the article because 1 it seemed boring as , and 2 conservative writers tend to make absolutely no sense to me. If this makes me an ass, so be it. If anyone wants to read a progressive writer, I recommend Michael Parenti.

Dude we're not calling them fanatics because they worship allah or eat pita bread with hummus. their fanatics Cecil because they are willing to murder us for their cause. we do have fanatics in our country and they are berated and humiliated when they step out of line. (Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh..etc). That doesnt mean we have to bend over and take it like you want. So please find another reason (doesnt have to be lame) to discredit Bush's successful policies.

THe last sentence speaks volumes about your reasoning and lazy thinking. Your not an ass because your liberal, your an ass becuase you assumed the writer of the peice was conservative and your closed minded.

[DarkReign]

I think the solution is for US citizens to give up more civil liberties in exchange for the promise that we'll be kept safe.

Not on my ing watch.

What specific civil liberties as laid out by American forefather's do you volunteer on behalf of all Americans?

Please....if youre a coward and fear violence, dont take my civil liberties away.

The Patriot Act is one thing (and has been severly newtered), but the removal of liberties is a sure-fire way to ignite a revolution.

Wow...and youre from Texas? Where the is your gun-rack?

[DarkReign]

BTW, I am not a bleeding heart liberal wishing for national health care. Nor am I a neo-con with hopes of owning the world.

But it was a good article. I hope its true (hard to tell really. Articles, by their nature, are written by humans. Humans have agendas. Everything written or seen must be taken with a large grain of salt).

[cecil collins]

That's why I suggested that I might be an ass. I don't read everything there is to read, because every asshole has an opinion, even you. Just because some has an idea, doesn't mean I have to read it. I am fairly closed minded, but so is everyone. It's like a BS filter. I'm not gonna go out and read a book by Ann Coulter, but I know she will make no sense to me.

[190 Octane]

Funny how this post begins as "stoopid liberulz" rather than "interesting article, read it over, broaden your horizons."

I don't see how Bush's Middle East policy has bee successful. The underlining theme of this article is the moderate Muslim world needs to rise up against the fanatics. OK. But they weren't, and guess what? Still aren't! The Iraqi national police force is horribly under-manned. Afghanistan is in a state of Wild Wild West, which is pretty much the same as it was six years ago. Meanwhile, other nations aren't battling the Fundamentalists within. In fact, Iran voted democratically to go for more of a hardline in its leadership.

Think of the American Revolution. Colonists fought for freedom because they wanted to. It's not as if the French said, "you know what? The British government is bad, we're giving you freedom." AMERICANS chose to fight for their freedom, that's why it worked. Democracy isn't democratic if it's forced upon you. And the Bush "doctrine" has made Iran go to a hardline, Fundamentalist stance. The Bush doctrine hasn't caught Osama bin Laden. The Bush doctrine has spent $360 billion on a nation that posed no threat to the U.S. Why all of America didn't realize the White House was lying when Hussein's army wasn't firing off WMDs at the first invasion, I'll never know. I thought he had the capable to strike across the Atlantic Ocean in less than a hour's notice?

Anyway, I digress. If the Bush doctrine is about spreading democracy, why has the Bush administration made no efforts to work with the global community against North Korea? If the doctrine is about democracy, why don't we help in the dire situation in Sudan? There are people who are fighting for their freedom, yet we do nothing. Our government won't even declare what is going on there a genocide. If it's all about "spreading democracy," why are our president and his administration's actions so hypocritical?

[gtownspur]

Funny how this post begins as "stoopid liberulz" rather than "interesting article, read it over, broaden your horizons."

I don't see how Bush's Middle East policy has bee successful. The underlining theme of this article is the moderate Muslim world needs to rise up against the fanatics. OK. But they weren't, and guess what? Still aren't! The Iraqi national police force is horribly under-manned. Afghanistan is in a state of Wild Wild West, which is pretty much the same as it was six years ago. Meanwhile, other nations aren't battling the Fundamentalists within. In fact, Iran voted democratically to go for more of a hardline in its leadership.

Think of the American Revolution. Colonists fought for freedom because they wanted to. It's not as if the French said, "you know what? The British government is bad, we're giving you freedom." AMERICANS chose to fight for their freedom, that's why it worked. Democracy isn't democratic if it's forced upon you. And the Bush "doctrine" has made Iran go to a hardline,
Fundamentalist stance. The Bush doctrine hasn't caught Osama bin Laden. The Bush doctrine has spent $360 billion on a nation that posed no threat to the U.S. Why all of America didn't realize the White House was lying when Hussein's army wasn't firing off WMDs at the first invasion, I'll never know. I thought he had the capable to strike across the Atlantic Ocean in less than a hour's notice?

Anyway, I digress. If the Bush doctrine is about spreading democracy, why has the Bush administration made no efforts to work with the global community against North Korea? If the doctrine is about democracy, why don't we help in the dire situation in Sudan? There are people who are fighting for their freedom, yet we do nothing. Our government won't even declare what is going on there a genocide. If it's all about "spreading democracy," why are our president and his administration's actions so hypocritical?

We are working with N Korea. WE held summits with CHina, Japan and russia to pressure N korea.

another thing, by your standards no one can ever bring worthwhile change to the Mid East. you have to remember that all democracies start out rough. Even we had a rough start. WE even had a civil war that killed many young men for crying out loud! Funny thing is, is that Bush has passed every test the opposition has put ahead. No one thought there were going to be an election in Iraq. Afghanistan is no Luxemberg.. no one is comparing the two. But it is safer than most of the Latin american countries in our hemisphere. The mid east is changing. THere has been a democratization of lebanon and syria is moving slowly towards reform. The palestinians are getting the gaza strip. There is tremendous progress going on. you just want to deny it becuase you cant afford to be wrong.

another thing i'd like to point out is that no one forced democracy to the iraqi's. They all went to the ballot box even though there were suicide bombings in the voting lines. None of them flinched. the Iraqis want democracy. They are like everyone if given the right to be free or be oppressed they will choose freedom.

[gtownspur]

That's why I suggested that I might be an ass. I don't read everything there is to read, because every asshole has an opinion, even you. Just because some has an idea, doesn't mean I have to read it. I am fairly closed minded, but so is everyone. It's like a BS filter. I'm not gonna go out and read a book by Ann Coulter, but I know she will make no sense to me.

Not everyone is closed minded.. alot of people's views change over time liberals and conservatives alike,so stop generalizing.
again everyone has an oppinion, i dont deny that. But having one out of blindness is not noble. again this guy who wrote it is liberal like yourself. he happens to not follow the democrat talking points or the trendy views of his leftist freinds. He has his own mind. It would help you to read other oppinions and retain the good and discard the bad. But admitting your an ass and deciding not to challenge your own views makes you the not everyone else... GOsh your Just like the Christian Fundys you hate only with leftist veiws. i dont have an oppinion out of cynicism, spite, or anything that is not based on rational ways to come to those thoughts. i have principles and they dont change. But other than that everything else is fair game and i take delight in challenging my own views because the truth shall set me free.. and you..

[190 Octane]

OK, well, see here's the thing, gtown...you're wrong.

First of all, these summits you mention weren't held by the US as you imply. Russia, South Korea, Japan, and China were meeting with or without the U.S. Bush's initial stance was he wasn't negotiating with North Korea, but waffled when South Korean President Roo Moo-hyun urged him to, and relations between our nation and South Korea started to go sour.

Second, by my standards? So you can read my mind? I clearly said it's up to the Middle Eastern people to take their nation back from dictators and religious zealots (it helps to read the posts and not just make inferences), and by all means, if they choose to, then I would support the U.S. helping. But the fact of the matter is, this is an American-imposed change. Like I said, look at Sudan. If it's about democracy, then where's the assistance there?

Third, yes, we had a Civil War. Yes, South Carolina threatened to walk out of the Cons utional Congress. But here's what it boils down to, like I said before: Americans sought out their freedom! Of course there are growing pains, but those were growing pains we as a nation took on. And where is this "no one thought there would be Iraqi elections?" EVERYONE thought there would be Iraqi elections, people were just concerned that Iraqis would vote for a Fundamentalist government...which they did. See, our government started this process, and as soon as one of their democratically elected officials gets out of line, I guarantee we'll be there to oust him. It happens all the time: our government imposes its idea of how a nation should be run, then ends up either fighting who they implemented in power (See: Manuel Noriega, Panama) or creating a national wasteland and enemy (See: Batista, Cuba).

Next, I ask you what tests these are Bush has passed? Afghanistan is in a state of disarray. You say it's safer than X number of nations. Tell that to the Afghani people who live in fear of the mobilized militia, which our military estimates ranks about 100,000+ in membership. Compare that to the Afghan army: 15,000 volunteers. Tell the 100+ deceased soldiers who gave their lives there, particularly the 40 who died in 2004, the most since we invaded. Tell that to the 94% of the nation who have no electricity, the 70% who are considered malnurished, or the 87% who don't have access to clean water. We went in there with a mission to accomplish, and after a year-and-a-half, diverted so much money and military attention, that the country is in dire straits and Osama bin Laden is still on the lam.

Furthermore, you mention Lebanon and Libya as areas of Bush's success. Lebanon? How can you give Bush credit for Lebanon? That's absurd. They began the civil war decades ago, and put the plans in motion of a cons ution in 1991. Israel pulled out in 2000, which is the same year the Lebanese government and Syrian government met to begin a Syrian pullout from that region. Seriously, how does any of that have anything to do with the "Bush doctrine?"

[gtownspur]

Because the lebanese credited change in Iraq for demonstrating for pullouts. Btw negotiating with NKorea was waffled by the chineese non commitment to pressure the Nkoreans. we were going to go nowhere with Nkorea since Bill clinton already tried it ant the NKoreans trashed that anyway. North korea should have been dealt with in 95.
And if you consider a 90% turnout in an election as the iraqi's not wanting democracy then i cant argue with you anyfurther. the Iraqi people of today were not armed enough to take on sadaam. we were armed enough in the days of the revoutionary war. In those days it was mainly musket to musket. In iraq to ask the same of those people would be assinine. youd have domestic gun to soviet weoponry. it is almost impossible to fight any state with the states now the ones who control more armory than the public.

[190 Octane]

The Lebanese credit Bush and Iraq for the pullouts? THEY BEGAN THE PULLOUT PROCESS IN 2000. One more time: THEY BEGAN THE PULLOUT NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL AND SYRIA IN 2000. Period. One year before Bush was President, three years before Iraq. Whoever is spinning that to be the heroics of the great crusader Bush isn't giving the people of Lebanon enough credit for three decades of civil war and years of negotiations.

Next, it's great the Iraqi people voted. Good for them. I didn't say they weren't happy to have democracy, but you completely dodged the point. What happens when the U.S. isn't happy with who they chose to lead? It's happened many times before (Cuba, Panama), and to some degree it happened in Iraq. Our government gave Hussein increased power by arming him in the 1980s, then less than a decade later, we were fighting him. In that scenario, it's just more money and more resources pumped into a nation that NEVER SOUGHT OUR HELP.

Next, "Soviet weaponry." Nice. Too bad Hussein was armed with American weaponry. The U.S. supplied him with his weaponry in the 1980s. The USSR never had anything to do with Iraq. Nice try to completely mis-spin it, though.

[190 Octane]

Btw negotiating with NKorea was waffled by the chineese non commitment to pressure the Nkoreans. we were going to go nowhere with Nkorea since Bill clinton already tried it ant the NKoreans trashed that anyway. North korea should have been dealt with in 95.
.

Sorry to double post, but one more thing - "we were going to go nowhere with NKorea" - wow. Just wow. First of all, you're completely wrong about the U.S. changing its stance on Korean negotiations. South Korea's president urged Bush to get involved, and that's when the U.S. got involved. Before it was "no negotiations with this enemy," but the threat of losing South Korean support brought the U.S. to the table.

Second, you basically brush North Korea aside as saying it's going nowhere, then blaming Clinton. Well guess what? They were entered into a nuclear proliferation agreement under Clinton, which they dishonored after he was out of office. Now, whether or not they honored the agreement prior to Bush can be debated. Who knows? But they didn't flaunt the fact they dishonored the agreement until after Bush became president and declared Kim Jong-Il a member of his "Axis."

[gtownspur]

about the lebanese and syrian situation i give you the NYT.
"ABSTRACT - Editorial suggests there may be room for cautious optimism about Middle East politics; cites dissolution of pro-Syrian government in Lebanon, announcement of presidential elections in Egypt and new peace dynamic between Israel and Palestinian Authority; says that while brutal insurgency rages in Iraq, year has thus far brought heartening surprises for which Bush administration is en led to claim share of credit"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AA0894DD404482

as with North Korea,. October 29, 1999 The North Korea Advisory group which included a bipartisan panel held talks in the congress that North Korea had been secretely violating the Non proliferation Treaty of clintons under his watch.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB87/nk21.pdf

Nkorea is not to be trusted with and if any progress was to be made, China and Russia would have to put the pressure since they have more leverage.

[190 Octane]

OK, but what you cite for Lebanon is an EDITORIAL, meaning an opinion piece. The fact of the matter - a civil war 30 years prior to the Bush presidency, and pullout negotiations 1 year prior - are much more solid evidence than an editorial.

I can agree with you that North Korea should be dealt with, but to simply brush the problem off to Russia and China isn't going to get the job done. This is a matter that concerns the United States - the United States' leader shouldn't be refusing to addressing it.

[gtownspur]

your right except for the fact that Kim Jong is not someone you can trust and will do as all communist leaders do,..break their treaty. you can have talks and all you want but you wont get Nkorea to halt production. we are not respected by them or ever will be.

now on to the Lebanese.
you want proof.. youll here it out of the horses mouth the Lebanese press..
http://beirut.usembassy.gov/lebanon/...27-990236.html
INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT BY LEBANESE BROADCASTING CORPORATION

The Map Room
3:56 P.M. EDT

QUESTION: Thank you for your time, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: My honor, thank you.

Q: Recently there isn't a day that passes by without you mentioning Lebanon. Why now, this country that was under occupation for almost 30 years, became so important for the United States?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there's a movement toward freedom around the world. And the Lebanese people have made it clear that they want to be free of Syrian influence, they want there to be free elections. And the United States of America stands squarely with the people of Lebanon.

Q: Are you concerned, Mr. President, that your calls for freedom in Lebanon, for free elections and for the Syrians to be out of Lebanon could be seen as interfering in Lebanon's internal affairs?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't think so. I think people will see that the United States is consistent in working with the people so that they can have a free voice, and so they get to decide the government. The people of Lebanon will decide who is in their government, not the United States. But the United States can join with the rest of the world, like we've done, and say to Syria, get out -- not only get out with your military forces, but get out with your intelligence services, too; get completely out of Lebanon, so Lebanon can be free and the people can be free.

Q: Do you have any doubts that Syria will be out by end of April?

THE PRESIDENT: I am pleased that they're beginning to get out. And we expect them to be completely out. And I mean not only the troops, but the people that have had -- that have been embedded in parts of government, some of the intelligence services that have been imbedded in government and others. They need to get completely out of Lebanon so the people of Lebanon can decide the fate of the country -- not another government, not agents of another government, but the people.

And Lebanon is a great country, and Lebanon has had a fantastic history. It's also had some difficult days. But I think there is a better day ahead for the people of Lebanon, and I think people, no matter what their politics may be, really want Lebanon to succeed.

Q: Mr. President, I'm sure you saw the pictures of the demonstrations in Lebanon. Beirut was packed with maybe a million people in the street, calling for freedom and democracy in Lebanon. What was your -- what did you feel when you saw it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I wasn't surprised, because I think everybody wants to be free. I think people long to be free, and I think people are tired of living under a government which, in essence, was a foreign occupation.

The other thing is, in our great country, there's a lot of Lebanese Americans that love Lebanon. And everywhere I go in my country, people are saying, now, listen, as the President, you must work there to be a free Lebanon. And so I'm not surprised. If the spirit of those Lebanese Americans is strong here, imagine what the spirit will be of their relatives and friends in Beirut. People live in a free society here, and not one there, but there will be one soon.

Q: You worked closely with the French on resolution 1559. And this resolution calls Hezbollah to disarm. How will the United States ensure this happens?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first things first, and that is to make sure that there are free elections. Secondly, listen, we put Hezbollah on the terrorist list for a reason; they've killed Americans in the past. And we will continue to work with the international community to keep the pressure on this group of people. And we'll work with the international community to fully implement 1559. But ultimately, the people of Lebanon are going to decide the fate of the country. And you can't have a free country if a group of people are like an armed militia. In other words, there needs to be police organized by the state, a military organized by the state. But citizens groups that are armed, trying to impose their will on a free society is just not the definition of a free society.

Q: But, Mr. President, what if Lebanon is not capable of implementing this element of the resolution 1559?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the international community is going to have to work to help them achieve that capability. Listen, not every free society is capable of internal security right off the bat. And there's ways for the international community to come together to reassure the people that there will be help to secure the country.

Q: I'm sure, Mr. President, you heard what I want to say maybe thousands of times, and maybe from Presidents and Kings that come and see you here in the White House -- some people think that it's not in the best interest of America to have democratic Arab countries --

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: -- because democracy and free elections may help anti-American groups, radical groups to come to power. What do you respond to that?

THE PRESIDENT: I respond to them and say, well, I guess they don't really understand me, and they don't understand my view of freedom, because I think freedom is embedded in everybody's soul. I do believe there is an Almighty God, and I believe that freedom is that Almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world. I believe that a true free society, one that self-governs, one that listens to the people, will be a peaceful society -- not an angry society, but a peaceful society.

And the reason I believe that is because I believe, for example, most mothers want to raise their children in a peaceful world, and they want their little children to be able to go to school and to grow up in peace. And if that's the ultimate feeling of the people, the government -- if it's a true democracy -- will reflect that.

Q: Well, Mr. President, I'm sure you know that Lebanon is also facing severe economic problems.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q: Would the U.S. be willing to rally the world community to help Lebanon's economy?

THE PRESIDENT: Of course. The United States, as well as European finance ministers, would want to work closely with international organizations, like the IMF or the World Bank, to help this country get back on its feet after occupation; help this new democracy succeed. Yes, there will be plenty of help. The Lebanese people are going to have to, though, however, have elections. In my judgment, they ought to be as scheduled. And the elections need to be free and fair, without interference.

There will be monitors, hopefully, international monitors, to make sure they're free and fair. The people of that good country ought to feel comfortable about going out and voting and expressing their opinion. And when a democracy is up and running, I believe the international community will want to help this new democracy.

Q: Mr. President, we all know that Syrian-American relations are at their lowest now. Is there a road map for Syria to improve its relationship with the United States?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Syria has heard from us before. We have made it very clear that -- what we expect, in order to be able to have relations with us. First on the agenda, right now, there's two things immediately that come to mind. One is to stop supporting Baathists in Iraq -- stop those people in Syria who are funneling money and helping smuggle people and arms into Iraq. They've heard that message directly from me. And secondly, of course, is to completely withdraw from Lebanon. Syria must shut down Hezbollah offices. Hezbollah not only is trying to destabilize the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, but Hezbollah, as you know, is a dangerous organization.

Q: But those offices are in Lebanon, they're not in Syria.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, they're in Syria, too. And Syria has got to do its part about making sure that Hezbollah doesn't receive support from Syria.

Q: What if the diplomatic effort and the sanctions fail in changing Syrian at udes? Is there another option?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the government will feel the international pressure. We're just beginning. And, obviously, diplomacy is the first course of action. And we hope -- I think diplomacy will work.

[190 Octane]

But this is just Bush taking credit for the Syrian pullout of Lebanon. Like I said in a previous post, I don't feel that's giving due credit to the people there who fought for three decades prior to the Bush administration.

This international coalition meant to see the treaty enforced is a good thing, definitely. But it wouldn't even be necessary had the Lebanese people and government not handled this situation internally over the course of many years.

I think this is what the initial article in this thread implied, and I agree with - it's up to the people of the Middle East to take their nations from the fundamentalist wackos. It's proof it can be done. Credit should go to the Lebanese people, not Bush, nor any other American political figure, Dem or Repub.

[gtownspur]

Dude, again you selectively read over the part where the journalist credited Bush for helping put pressure.

"Q: You worked closely with the French on resolution 1559. And this resolution calls Hezbollah to disarm. How will the United States ensure this happens?
Q: Are you concerned, Mr. President, that your calls for freedom in Lebanon, for free elections and for the Syrians to be out of Lebanon could be seen as interfering in Lebanon's internal affairs?

the fact is is that bush should be credited for the peace not entirely but in goodwill. WHether you credit him or not. The Lebanese press and people have given thanks to GW.

[190 Octane]

"again you selectively read..." Um, how is that selective reading, and how have I ever selectively read? If you're going to make an accusation, make one with some basis to it, not to just throw out insults.

Let's see - the reporter (who I apparently need to point out is one reporter and not the entire Lebanese public or press as you say) ask how Bush expects the U.S. to ensure the treaty is honored. Now, I applaud the effort of an international watchdog over the region. That's a good move. But that still doesn't take away the fact that this process began long before Bush was president. Please please please give credit where credit is due.

Second question: "your calls..." Every president makes calls for peace. Peace talks in Gaza began many many years before Bush was president. Just like Lebanese fought to remove Syrian and Israeli influence before Bush was president. Because someone "calls" for peace in a region, doesn't mean they are the reason it happened. It should be to the credit of the people who did the fighting, and did the negotiating.