"Frankly, Hagel and other Senators like Lincoln Chafee have been articulating smarter moves in the Middle East over the last couple of years than what we have seen coming from the White House. "

"FRANKLY"?!?!? like this is some kind of unexpected admission on your part?

Frankly, my dogs have been taking dumps for the last three years that are are wiser on middle east policy than what we have seen coming from the White House.

But given some of Hagel's statements like this one ("For almost four years, America has helped the Iraqi people build their own destiny. "), my dogs' droppings are competitive with his intellect...

As for his overall speech, Hagel is merely repeating the obvious -- or something that has been obvious to progressives from well before the beginning of this war.

So, big props to GOP hack Chuck Hagel for realizing after four years, the lives of 2900 dead American soldiers, 600 dead American contractors, and a couple of hundred thousands of dead Iraqis what progressives have been saying all along.

Think Tanks My Ass!

Hagel sounds good to me.

If the dems screw up as much as the repubs did on our ME policy, and I fully expect them to....then we will be in such bad shape by 2008 that the public may be ready to elect someone who just tells it like it is.....that could be Hagel.

But then I read somewhere that 30% of the American public has I.Q.'s hovering under 90...so who knows...they may pursue their paranoia and tunnel vision to the very end...and take the rest of us with them.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at December 7, 2006 06:08 PM
>>>>>>>>>
Good point.

To Hagel's credit, though, at least he's addressing Iraqi violence while Hillary and Lieberman focus on video game violence............
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Clinton_Lieberman_target_video_game_violence_1207.html

Dems lose with Hillary in '08.

p.lukusiak -- disagree with you on hagel and chafee. they have been pushing a new course on the middle east for some time...and i admire them for doing so because they've had to buck their own party leader. it may not satisfy you -- and our expectations from elected leaders should be higher than we generally set. But Hagel has it right -- and has had -- for some time. I respect your disagreement with me on this -- but i will stand with the nebraska senator and hope that the senator from rhode island manages to stay involved with commentary on the middle east as well. they are certainly more sensible and articulate than senator schumer, lieberman, and a number of others who see changes in the middle east from a perspective than any new equilibrium will be a net zero sum loss for israel.

just getting beyond that view gets points for the isg, hagel, chafee, and others who cross that line.

best regards,

steve clemons

Steve: here's a humble suggestion. Instead of defining the end-game in ME negotiations, let's start with some basic rules. If America would commit to punishing both sides, Palestinians for firing rockets, Israel for land confiscations, we might see progress and renewed credibility in the Muslim world. I doubt that we have lost credibility because we criticized people who blew up commuter buses. I am certain that we lost credibility when we turned a blind eye to settlements, road closures, and, frankly para-military terrorism ("targeted killings"). Maybe our domestic politics makes it impossible for our politicians to really address grievances on both sides because that would require that we actually take action against the Israelis, not just the Palestinians. Since our politicians can't do that, then it is best we stop trying to work as a broker.

Seems like Bush still thinks he holds some cards with Iran -- his way or the highway. Must be a fatal lizard brain trait.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/bush-says-iran-and-syria-shouldnt.html

Anthony Cordesman weighs in on the ISG:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL08Ak04.html

"The most important single sentence in the ISG's executive summary is its introductory caveat, 'if the Iraqi government moves forward with national reconciliation'."

"The Iraqi government is weak as much because of US action as because of Iraq's inherent problems."

"Relying on 'Iraq's neighbors and key states inside and outside the region to form a support group to reinforce security and reconciliation within Iraq' does, however, come close to a pious hope. The neighbors that are going to try have tried." [But not as a group.]

"The executive summary does not come to grips with incentive options [for the Iraqi factions]. It is possible that some kind of US or international consortium that offered a major aid package tied to conciliation could have an impact."

"There is no meaningful plan for creating a mix of effective Iraqi military forces, police forces, governance and criminal-justice system at any point in the near future, much less by 2008."

"There is no 'Plan B'."

Apparently Baker/Hamilton have few ideas on facilitating negotiations among Iraqi factions. Can an honest broker be found to negotiate a truce and find a formula to share power and distribute of oil wealth fairly and transparently? If so, can Bush/Cheney be convinced to do the unspeakable --negotiate in good faith? If not, prospects of regional war and major oil supply disruptions are rising.

Posted by Steve Clemons at December 7, 2006 06:30 PM
>>>>>>>>>

Ditto Clemons x's 1000.

Posted by John at December 7, 2006 06:39 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>

One thing being overlooked about what the Baker report mostly says is that ..."the militant groups WILL NOT listen to America"...period.

America has NO influence in Iraq, hardly even with the goverment, that is only using us as a last stop gap buffer against the fighting fractions.

The surrounding countries have a very good reason to want to help Iraq as they are being overrun by a million and a half refugees fleeing Iraq...and while they have seperately talked to Iraq, they haven't gone as a group in concert to Iraq with a offer or plan....which might make a difference to the various fractions when they see a united group.

Anyway the ISG is a dud in some respects but it's right now the only game plan besides the same old "victory", "success" crapola.....so if both the dems and repubs don't accept it they aren't serious about doing 1)what is best for Iraq and 2)getting us out of there and are just going to coninute to use it for political fodder.

Hagel is not 1% the man Howard Dean has been when it comes to telling the truth about Iraq, nor 1% as correct---and Dean has not even said any difficult truths.
Hagel, at best, has been far too cautious to be of use.
Now, with the bus off the cliff, heading towards a fatal crash, he's willing to say that we're on the wrong course.
Thanks a lot.

Hagel and the ISG are peas in a pod, because they won't think big. They have to come up with cautious baby steps that are always reactive rather than planning something truly different.
And of course, Bush is still President, still the decider.
2004 was the last best chance for the mushy moderates to pay their dues to the country by repudiating Bush. Today the best they can do is get the airbags to inflate as the bus falls hundreds of feet to the crash.

besides being used for toilet paper over in bush's private quarters in the white house, my opinion is that the isg essentially counts for absolutely nothing... it's been clear from the outset that the isg was intended to be nothing but smoke and mirrors, to buy time and provide cover for the bush administration to keep on doing exactly what it pleases, and i disagree with aj on americablog that the group "caved..." i think they were quite well "caved" before they ever started, and we americans, endlessly hopeful that the wise ones sitting on the dais really do know best, ate it up, hook, line, and sinker... we've been hoodwinked and bamboozled yet again... everyone's aflutter - over nothing... all you need to know about what bush will really do with the isg is contained in this squib from isg member lawrence eagleburger...
-----
Eagleburger said after the event that when the group met with Bush, "I don't recall, seriously, that he asked any questions." Even the loyal Baker had to advise his friend's son that "it is time to find a new way forward."
-----
and there ya have it...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

I think very little of Islam cult/religion. It is a dangerouse, aggressive religion that lends itself to totalitarianism. It must be opposed. Islam is the opposite of everything the USA stands for. We are already in a war with Islam. Chuck Hagel is deluding himself if he thinks we can appease the Muslims.
Hagel's engagement is just another form of surrender. We have too many Muslims in the USA. I wish most of them would go away, especially the orthodox Muslims, which is like saying orthodox totalitarians. We need to quit letting orthodox Muslims in the USA. They are a 3rd column.
Hagel is a fool. We are already in a 3rd world war with Islam. Either we win it or democracy dies in the world. The Islamofascists are ready to eat the American liberal and the American internationist with hummus on a cracker. Just like they are about to do in Europe as those societies are falling to the Muslim hordes.
It won't happen in the USA if I have anything to say about it. God Bless America!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/7/17173/4604

Suggests that the ISG report is aimed at Bush directly, and that you analyze its content through this lens. Partly, the purpose is to isolate Bush. The other part is that the proposals are quite moderate, as a test for Bush: if he can't adopt even a few milquetoast proposals, then he really is mentally unbalanced.

"I think very little of Islam cult/religion. It is a dangerouse, aggressive religion that lends itself to totalitarianism. It must be opposed. Islam is the opposite of everything the USA stands for."

AH!!!! So thats why assholes like you aren't bothered by the fact that we have just MURDERED a few hundred thousand of them in Iraq. Fuck you Morrow, why don't you shag your ignorant ass over to Iraq and pick up an M-16?

Who the fuck are you to talk about "everything the USA stands for"? Have you sodomized or tortured anyone for Cheney lately, Morrow?

Is this really Robert Morrow or is this an industry of hate using the name Robert Morrow for publications? The language is distinctly idiosyncratic.

The whole situation in Washington is reminiscent of recriminations over "who lost China" which led the US into Korea and ultimately motivated Lyndon Johnson to go into Vietnam to avoid losing another Asian country. Bush will be damned if he loses Iraq. Democrats will be damned if they allow themselves to be scapegoated for losing Iraq, even if it means never having a plan of their own. Baker/Hamilton could have broken the impasse, but Bush seems determined to pursue the fantasy of a military solution. After all, he only has to tough it out for another 25 months. Hawks and neo-cons will lionize him as Churchillian. If Baker/Hamilton goes south, it's unlikely that there will be another chance to break the impasse, unless Hagel can convince an awful lot of Republican lawmakers to brave the neocons and openly rebel against the President. Alternatively, a stalemate arising from refusal to take the blame could end up costing the US the Middle East and access to most of the world's oil and natural gas reserves. Of course, no one will be to blame for that, either, except for your partisan opponents.

Morrow, you sound like Lieberman and all the rest of the AIPAC coopted Israel "firsters" running this country's foreign policy. When awareness of the importance of the Isarel/Palestine conflict and its relationship to the Iraqi fiasco is finally made manifest in the American psyche, I start to worry about what the real significance of those five Israeli nationals, seen dancing for joy on a roof in New Jersey, as they watched and photographed the twin towers crumbling down to the ground.

I guess it is watching the movie clip over and over again, of WTC bldg 7 smoothly crumbling to the ground in its own foot print that I can't get out of my mind. That and of course, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty has made me paranoid as to who are enemys really may be.

Well I just have to make one more comment on the ISG since so many don't think much of it.

We have only three options:

Stay, with more troops or not
Leave
Try the ISG suggestions.

Personally I think embedding trainers with the Iraq troops is a very risky deal so I would perfer not to have to do that.

That leaves us basically with trying to talk to Iran and neighboring countries to see "if" there is anything they "can" do and if they will help. I would go straight to that suggestion forthwith if it was up to me.

Baker is right when he talks about the big picture and "comprehensive" plan for the ME because it all is, or about to become, interconnecting for all ME countries who have both similar and opposing interest in what happens in Iraq. It seems to me to be the perfect time to put Iran, Saudi,and all the friends and enemies involved at a table and see what happens, not only for Iraq, but what could be worked out in the region at large.

Ask yourself this...could it hurt? No. Could it help...maybe. We don't know till we try and if we don't try, take names...they will the same people talking later on about "mistakes made and what could have been done differently". Well I am sick of the "made mistakes" routine, "now let's all move on" yuck,yuck. After three mistakes they should be given the same treatment as the farmer's mule.

And please make note that the usual media suspects are talking up WWII and "shared sacrifices" and the "good old days of rallying the country for a noble cause and gaint war"...I think you know what that means. Don't fall for it. I am not "unitfying" behind a drumed up WWIII.

Well, there are a few people who had it right from the git-go, like Ike Skelton, and Russ Feingold, and a whole bunch of others. But, of course, they are not serious so there is no need to listen to them, and we do have to puff up Chuck Hagel.

Posted by Eli Rabett at December 8, 2006 12:20 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes they did have it right...but I have not heard either one of them articulate what they think the over all US foreign policy should be based on..at least Hagel is coming closer in doing that.

Iraq won't be the end of our problems in the ME no matter how it turns out...there are other problems...namely and mainly our own policies and they have to be changed because the ME is changing.

Turkey is an interesting case. It turns out that Turkey is on the forefront of the movement to replace the teaching of evolutionary science with creationism. This has reached up to the university level now, with many professors in biology afraid to discuss evolution in the classroom. Turkey is so advanced in this area that cutting edge creation scientists in the US, such as those at the Discovery institute, have had the bold and interesting idea of seeking advice from the mavericks in the Turkish academic community who have led the crusade to open Turkish classrooms to alternative ideas in science---for instance in cases such as the recent Dover trial. While many in the US, especially those of an atheistic or secular bent, may find these developments disturbing, I am excited by the prospect of Turkish and American scientists united in a project aimed at bringing out educational systems more closely in line.
I can think of many benefits for future US-Turkish relations if this trend is expanded to other areas of learning.

Dana Rohrbacher was another risk-taker who saw the benefit to borrowing ideas from a movement that was conducting a very cutting-edge social experiment several years ago---the Taliban.
Dana's dynamic vision was that the similarities between the Islamic fundamentalists and the Christian conservatives in the US were greater than their differences. Their ideas about women, male authority, the lure and menace of male homosexuality, as well as their ideas about political authoritarianism were all in tune; the last aspect, not so obvious in the 90's, has come to full flourish under Bush's powerful stewardship.

Tragically, 9/11 has blinded many people to the possibilities of developing cooperation between like minded values-driven men in the Middle East and the US. Let us salute the forward vision of brilliant men such as Rohrbacher and the creation scientists of Turkey, not letting the aberrant acts of Bin Laden blind us to the what might be the best method of fomenting strong, peaceful ties between the Muslim and Christian worlds.

Neil Maydom
ISG & Bliar turn up the heat on the Parasite State.

The Iraq study group, having exposed the Iraq Mock War as a lie and a fraud, has turned its attention to that other infamous ME fraud masquerading as a Mock War - Israel. Naturally, Airhead's response has been, "Who, me?" But it's not easy to forget that Israel supplied most of the fake intelligence on Iraq, which neocons and miscellaneous traitors in the US Office of Special Plans used to justify what Arundhati Roy once described as "the most cowardly attack in the history of warfare." Nor is it sensible to ignore the fact that Israel is directly responsible for 80% of the fake intelligence and other lies about Iran's nuclear program, and the call for a "military solution," by America, of course.

It's interesting that Tony Bliar, seems to think he can redeem himself by pretending to attempt a resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. But by picking up the issue, and agreeing that justice for the Palestinians is at least worthy of comment, he's let the genie out of the bottle and even Airhead's PR stunt men won't be able to coax it back inside. Whether Bliar's publicity stunt draws a line in the unjustifiable blood and misery of Palestine remains to be seen. But it's a start.

Didja know that Tom Friedman now says to Get Out of Iraq Now? That he's been saying this for some time now?

And Friedman said the Bush Admin was guilty of "foreign policy malpractice."

Crooks & Liars has a clip of Friedman claiming to be right-minded all along. (on Imus)

And the very end he murmurs 'and be gone in 8 to 12 months.' Friedman, ever disingenuous--that's at least a couple of "Friedmans." (A "Friedman" being the 6-month unit of time that you stay in Iraq, after which you'll have WON or KNOW you've lost.)

I don't understand why the GOP is not pushing Hagel to run in 2008. This is a good indicator of how hopeless the GOP really is. Instead, the belligerent fathead McCain will run on a platform of expanding the Iraq mess.

Morrow, you sound like Lieberman and all the rest of the AIPAC coopted Israel "firsters" running this country's foreign policy. When awareness of the importance of the Isarel/Palestine conflict and its relationship to the Iraqi fiasco is finally made manifest in the American psyche, I start to worry about what the real significance of those five Israeli nationals, seen dancing for joy on a roof in New Jersey, as they watched and photographed the twin towers crumbling down to the ground.

I guess it is watching the movie clip over and over again, of WTC bldg 7 smoothly crumbling to the ground in its own foot print that I can't get out of my mind. That and of course, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty has made me paranoid as to who are enemys really may be.
Posted by: Frank at December 7, 2006 10:53 PM

here we go again... and again... and again... and again...

the dancing israelis, huh? haven't we already been through this before?! the leap that some make about these "dancing israelis" is pure anti-semitic inuendo. in other words, it's crap

please don't "dumb down" the important conversations taking place here.

Hagel 2008...And to Mr. Morrow: Your post demonstrates that your emotion has gotten the better of you. Sit down, take a deep breath and rethink such phrases as, "We are already in a 3rd world war with Islam. Either we win it or democracy dies in the world."

I'm quite certain that we're not in a world war with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey (to name a few). Moreover, I would have a bit more faith in the United States ability to fend off these threats to our homeland (which does not, consequently, include the rest of the world).

"disagree with you on hagel and chafee. they have been pushing a new course on the middle east for some time...and i admire them for doing so because they've had to buck their own party leader. it may not satisfy you -- and our expectations from elected leaders should be higher than we generally set. But Hagel has it right -- and has had -- for some time. I respect your disagreement with me on this -- but i will stand with the nebraska senator and hope that the senator from rhode island manages to stay involved with commentary on the middle east as well. they are certainly more sensible and articulate than senator schumer, lieberman, and a number of others who see changes in the middle east from a perspective than any new equilibrium will be a net zero sum loss for israel. "

In the Senate, Hagel voted for the so-called "AUMF" -- Chafee was alone among Republicans to vote against it, along with 22 Democrats (plus Jeffords). Hagel doesn't get a lot of credit for (to adapt another commenter's analogy) pointing out that the bus is headed for a cliff when that bus is already in free fall.

As for Chafee -- our ONLY disagreement on him is with regard to your decision to endorse the guy at a time when control of the Senate was in the balance. It was the wrong move at the wrong time --- and because Chafee was defeated, we are seeing things like the resignation of John Bolton. (If Chafee had the cujones to switch parties and run as a Democrat, I'd have been happy to support him).

Re: Schumer -- I no more blame him for pandering to the significant "Jewish vote" in New York than I blame Ross-Lehitan for managing the rather extraordinary feat of pandering to both the virulently anti-Castro crowd and her districts' large gay population. Its politics. (as for Lieberman -- well, I've already used a dog dropping metaphor once in this thread.... so I'll simply say nothing about him.)

Your praise of Hagel is symptomatic of the corrupting influence of the think tank/coctail circuit of Washington DC. Being right isn't really important -- timing your pronouncements and making them inoffensive enough to make sure that DC hostesses don't have to worry about inviting you to the next cocktail weenie-fest lest another guest be offended seems to be a higher priority, as is praising people who you want to be "honored guests" at your next foundation fundraiser.

Of course, I doubt I'm saying anything you don't already know -- I can say it because I don't have to worry about being excluded from the next party where I might have a chance to flatter someone into giving money/support to my think tank. You, on the other hand, can't say it. But that doesn't mean its shouldn't (or doesn't need to) be said.

Justin Raimondo opines this morning --

"In spite of its flaws, however, the Baker commission report is a giant leap forward in more ways than one: to begin with, it breaks the long-standing taboo against talking to the Iranians and the Syrians. Secondly, it links the question of Palestine to the broader issue of maintaining peace in the Middle East, and, not only that, it also acknowledges the centrality of the Palestinian problem. Our Israel-centric policy in the region has ruled out dealing with either of these aged sore spots: the great value of the Baker-Hamilton report is that it reasserts the necessity of pursuing American interests, as opposed to purely Israeli interests. As such, what John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt call "the Lobby" is already screaming bloody murder at this aspect of the report -- and it's music to my ears."

"The significance of this report goes far beyond the issue of how we get out of Iraq: Baker-Hamilton marks the beginning of resistance by some in the elite to our seriously distorted and dysfunctional foreign policy, which puts narrow ideological interests above the national interest."

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10129

As we discuss, parse and otherwise rearrange the deckchairs on the Titanic events are moving out of control in Iraq. The fall of Iraq is closer than we think. Bush's attempts to appear he's taking the ISG report into consideration are nothing more than deliberate political posturing. As events on the ground accelerate he'll position himself by suggesting Iraqi's couldn't/wouldn't fight for their own freedom and that this was aided by traiterous elements in the US, thus neatly blaming the Iraqis and domestic opposition for the mess. There will be no examination of the flawed decision to go into Iraq. After the last American soldier has been shot there will be no questioning of "why did we invade?" The media will be complicit in this.

Oh, so what? The President may not be talking to Iran or Syria, but he does talk to the First Dog. Yep, Barney sits at the desk, opposite our Commander in Chief, conferring about important matters. Other key players include:

Miss Beazley
Mrs. Laura Bush
MSgt John Abbracciamento
Dolly Parton
Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury
Rob Portman, OMB Director
Karl Rove
Emmitt Smith
Tony Snow, Press Secretary
Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education
Willie (AKA “Kitty”)

The Barney Holiday video is a must-see:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/holiday/2006/barneycam.html#

Strictly speaking, US policy in the last 50 or so has never tried to better the lives of Arabs. Why are we surprised that the victims know who their enemies are?

"the dancing israelis, huh? haven't we already been through this before?! the leap that some make about these "dancing israelis" is pure anti-semitic inuendo. in other words, it's crap"

Oh, really? It's anti-semitic inuendo? Try googling "60 page DEA report" or "fox new israeli spy ring".

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring.

The plate number was traced to a van owned by a company called Urban Moving. Around 4 p.m. on Sept. 11, the van was spotted on a service road off Route 3, near New Jersey's Giants Stadium. A police officer pulled the van over, finding five men, between 22 and 27 years old, in the vehicle. The men were taken out of the van at gunpoint and handcuffed by police.

The arresting officers said they saw a lot that aroused their suspicion about the men. One of the passengers had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock. Another was carrying two foreign passports. A box cutter was found in the van. But perhaps the biggest surprise for the officers came when the five men identified themselves as Israeli citizens.

According to the police report, one of the passengers told the officers they had been on the West Side Highway in Manhattan "during the incident" — referring to the World Trade Center attack. The driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers, "We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem." The other passengers were his brother Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari.

The FBI searched Urban Moving's offices for several hours, removing boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives. The FBI also questioned Urban Moving's owner. His attorney insists that his client answered all of the FBI's questions. But when FBI agents tried to interview him again a few days later, he was gone.

Three months later 2020's cameras photographed the inside of Urban Moving, and it looked as if the business had been shut down in a big hurry. Cell phones were lying around; office phones were still connected; and the property of dozens of clients remained in the warehouse.

The owner had also cleared out of his New Jersey home, put it up for sale and returned with his family to Israel.

Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."

Posted by: ET at December 8, 2006 12:10 PM

Strictly speaking, US policy in the last 50 or so has never tried to better the lives of Arabs. Why are we surprised that the victims know who their enemies are?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And the enemy is?

a) U.S. Military Industrial Complex
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Military-industrial_complex

b) U.S. Congress
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home

c) The Lobby
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060515/weiss

d) AIPAC
http://www.aipac.org/issues/

e) JINSA
http://www.jinsa.org/home/home.html

f) None of the above

g) All of the above

from winnipeger:

the dancing israelis, huh? haven't we already been through this before?! the leap that some make about these "dancing israelis" is pure anti-semitic inuendo. in other words, it's crap

please don't "dumb down" the important conversations taking place here.

Winnepago, is it "crap" that there were dancing Israelis on a roof in New Jersey which were caught and held in custody for awhile? All I ask is a yes or no.

There are only 191,000 google hits on the subject you call "crap". I suggest you peruse some of that "crap" before you scream "ouh vei ist meir"!

I know that there are many Jewish citizens who agree with Walt and Miersheimer and with Jimmy Carter. But many of them are as afraid of the lobby as many Christians are.

It is critical that many US Christians follow the leads of Walt, Meirsheimer, and Carter and speak out on this issue. It's self-interest. Its existentially critical. It's not anti-semitic.

I don't know if it was planned, but it seems significant to me that there were no Jewish folks on the Baker-Hamilton committee. They certainly could have found a Jewish expert who would have agreed with the final consensus; but they would have had to pass over quite a few. Christians are going to have to go against many of their Jewish friends. (Many Jews will applaud this action.) We've got to pull up our socks and do it. And it will result in peace for Israel. But the settlements have to go.

".......They certainly could have found a Jewish expert who would have agreed with the final consensus; but they would have had to pass over quite a few. Christians are going to have to go against many of their Jewish friends. (Many Jews will applaud this action.) We've got to pull up our socks and do it. And it will result in peace for Israel. But the settlements have to go."

Posted by Robert Hume

"We've"????? Just who would "we" be, Robert? Fact is, Pelosi and her crew are no way gonna buck the Israeli agenda. It simply ain't going to happen. Her comment, made even before the book was published, that "Carter does not speak for all Dems" on the Israeli issue, telegraphs an unwillingness to approach the Isr/Pal issue with humantarian concern or policy suggestions that aren't stacked against the Pals. "We" have been sold a bill of goods here, and although the election results implied an angry and disillusioned citizenry, Pelosi seems to be spouting more of the same old stale garbage. And her statement that "impeachment is off the table" did it for me. She went from being a ray of hope to being just another lyin' scheming piece of posturing shit. If we can't impeach Bush and Cheney for their actions of the last six years, than this whole business of a "representative government" is just a pathetic charade.

The hope in the war, the seed in the old grudge, exhausted in the evil monster world!game

Here's hoping Chuck Hagel runs for President and gets the Republican nomination!