Crossing the Line

The veterans at They Gave Us A Republic call our attention to Israel's use of white phosphorous in Gaza.

For the iron-stomached, Elmo has the horrific details of what white phosphorous does.

Still not sold on the fact that this is an atrocious act? Well, put your little brain in the grunt's boots who has to walk up on a mother with her three or four children cuddled in a torturous tangle. The Grunt- he has a wife and three kiddos (13,8 and 3) of his own. Do you know what the first thought that comes into his head is as he looks at their bodies, charred to the bone in spots, with faces frozen in demonic horror?

He pictures that being HIS family. Congratulations Mr. Grunt and thank you for serving! You win a mind-fuck for life!!!

There is not a good excuse for decimating a neighborhood with Willie Pete. And spare me the using it as concealment crap. Liars.

Hearts and minds, baby. Hearts and minds.

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Crossing the Line" >>

Bush smokes crack on Palestine

The president claims there will be a Palestine-Israel peace treaty before the end of the year.

Three comments.

1. Do you really expect such a thing to happen overnight, when you’ve done no lifting for seven years?

2. On whose/what terms?

3. Aren’t you suddenly even more concerned about your “legacy” than Bill Clinton?

There's more: "Bush smokes crack on Palestine" >>

Annapolis: The 1 1/2 state solution

Let’s be honest. Even if Annapolis did propose to solve anything, the “solution” it offered would be from the U.S.-Israeli point of view. And that point of view is, bluntly, the 1 1/2 state solution.

Now, that phrase, “1 1/2 state solution,” can be understood in one of two ways. The first way would be that Israel doesn’t want a fully independent Palestine for quite some time. That may or may not be the case, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

No, the U.S.-Israeli 1 1/2 state solution is the solution of only recognizing Mahmoud Abbas’ rump Fatah Palestinian government in the West Bank. That’s been the “solution” both countries jumped on ever since Palestinian Hamas won a free parliamentary election in January by a smashing margin.

For years, Likud-based governments in Israel have deliberately puffed up Hamas’ psychological profile in order to make it easier to demonize Palestinians in general. Labor, the times it’s been in coalition, has basically gone along for the ride.

Well, guess what, Likud? That’s now blown up in your face.

George W. Bush has been all about democracy promotion in the Middle East, ignoring clear evidence, such as Algeria’s late 1990s election, that free elections in the Middle East are most likely to elect Islamicist parties.

Well, guess what, W.? That happened in Palestine and it’s now blown up in your face.

But, it’s not just W. Way too many Democrats, let alone Republicans enthralled by end-time prophecies of the Christian Religious Right involving red heifers, temple rebuildings and Jewish conversions, are under thrall of Zionist strains in Israeli politics and Zionist-grounded Jewish-American political action groups such as AIPAC.

Until these shackles are shaken off, Middle East peace conferences are going nowhere.

I’m not excusing past terrorist acts by Hamas, as wingers are wont to claim left-liberal dialogue about Palestine and Israel does. Nor am I excusing Yassir Arafat’s post-Oslo lack of statesmanship. I’m simply stating the fact that anything short of a full two-state solution is bound to fail.

There's more: "Annapolis: The 1 1/2 state solution" >>

If I were the Platonic philosopher-king at Annapolis

Here’s my solution to the Palestine-Israel section, in several points.

First, a sidebar. Let’s not forget that Jordan, for 19 years, and not Israel, was the first occupier of the West Bank. Problem is, Jordan didn’t want actual Palestinian people after 1948 a whole lot more than Israel did after 1967; it too wanted land first, people second. Anyway, keep that fact of Jordanian occupation tabbed away in a corner of your mind, as it will tie in with one of my talking points.

That said, let’s get down to brass tacks.

A Palestine-Israel peace treaty would be crafted, which would explicitly include all the following to be done:

1. Eliminate the Gaza Strip; it would be a legitimate way of meeting Israeli security concerns. Arab residents would be given five years to decide whether to move to the West Bank, rather, the newly-created country of Palestine, with Israeli compensation, or stay. Obviously, the former Gaza Strip would become part of Israel.

2. Most of the West Bank would be made into the nation of Palestine. Israelis would be given five years to move out freely, without visa restrictions, etc. Where possible and achievable, direct land swaps between Israeli families now in the West Bank and Palestinian families now in Gaza might be done. Palestinian Arabs who wished to remain part of Israel would have that same five-year chance of moving; those who did would be guaranteed a path to Israeli citizenship should they so desire.

3. While most of the West Bank would become Palestine, some adjustment of the border for the best defensive line per geographic and other considerations, especially in the southwest corner of the West Bank, would be done.

4. Re the “right of return,” Palestinian families who lost land in 1947 would be compensated by a pool derived from the following resources: Israel, the United Nations, and all Arab countries who attacked Israel at the time of its birth. (That’s why I said remember Jordanian occupation of the West Bank.) At least half of the cost would fall on the aggressor Arab nations. A U.N. tribunal of representatives of nations who have not participated in the peace process or armed nations involved in Middle East wars would be convened to assess land values of former Palestinian holdings. The physical right of return would be considered to be waived as part of the Israel-Palestine peace treaty; Palestinian refugees could either accept the monetary compensation or reject it, but the physical right of return would be waived no matter what.

5. With minor modifications, Jerusalem would go back to its pre-1967 boundaries. I believe internationalization is impractical.

6. All of the Arab aggressors of 1947 and beyond (see point four) would also be required to be signatories to the treaty, which would include their express recognition of Israel and its right to exist.

7. Regarding nuclear issues, Israel would be required to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would be a de facto admission of its having nuclear weapons.

There's more: "If I were the Platonic philosopher-king at Annapolis" >>

Democracies in the Middle East — Big Schmuck McCain flubs it

The Schmuck Talk Express™, John McCain, claimed today that Israel is the only freely elected democracy in the Middle East.

Ignoring our puppet state in Iraq, and ignoring the fact that he’s dissing such beloved allies as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Big John is making just a little mistake or two.

Mistake one: Lebanon. (Nice to know all his Senate years got him a lot of foreign policy knowledge.)

Mistake two, which both Republicans and most Democrats keep trying to shove under the rug: Palestine. Hate Hamas all you want, they won an election. Oops.

What is all boils down to is that the Bipartisan Foreign Policy Establishment in the U.S. is all in favor of free elections when it elections the people we think it should.

There's more: "Democracies in the Middle East — Big Schmuck McCain flubs it" >>

Annapolis

After seven years of diplomatic neglect, George Bush has set aside a day - yes, one day - tomorrow - to try to work out the intractable six-decades-long Israel/Palestine problem.

What, pray tell, do they think they can accomplish in one day? Ask the people in the Middle East and you discover that Arabs and Jews can indeed agree on at least one thing: When asked that question, they all answer "Not much."

Oy vey. Even the choice of location is damning: The United States Naval Academy is the setting, and the motto of the Navy is "Don't give up the Ship" - invoking tenacity and determination, not diplomatic acumen and compromise. In Arabic, "Ana" means "I" and people the world over know the word "police." A Saudi humorist joked that the choice of location was an arrogant message from Bush to the Middle East "I am the police."

[Keep reading...]

The question of borders has plagued both Israel and the neighbors for over 40 years, since June 4, 1967; and the implementation of the Six Day War armistice. Since then, conservative, some would say fundamentalist whack-job, settlers have made the occupied territories their home. Kicking them out of the West Bank will not be as easily achieved as the same feat was two years ago, when the settlers were evicted from Gaza. The Gaza Strip is not biblically significant. Jews do not have deep emotional or historical attachments to Gaza. Not so the West Bank, which is historically, theologically and emotionally significant to most Jews worldwide - let alone the "fundamentalist whack jobs" I just referenced. I can't see removing them without violence. The issue of borders certainly isn't going to be achieved in a day.

And you can't talk about the borders without acknowledging the 800-pound-gorilla playing the zither in the sitting room: Jerusalem.

On paper, the equation balances. The Arab neighborhoods would fall under Palestinian control, and the Jewish neighborhoods would be controlled by Israel. Except it gets dicey real quick - the neighborhoods are intertwined.

Ask any chemist - when you are working with volatile compounds, the slightest variation from the recipe and it will blow up in your face. And what cocktail could be more volatile than the 35 acres of the walled city of Old Jerusalem? All three of the major monotheistic religions consider Old Jerusalem and the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount to be sacred ground.

The problems are exacerbated by Christianist Zionists (who should make with the butting out already) who stick their noses where they don't belong and urge their constituencies to pressure the Israeli government to take Jerusalem off the negotiating table. Fortunately, we are making headway, and even the occasional Zionist Rabbi Is waking up and smelling the coffee. But before any Jew throws in with that lot, remember they are mentally ill. They want to precipitate Armageddon and damn us all to their hell. Those Jews who wake up pissed every morning that the Messiah didn't come last night find natural allies in them. The rest of us find ulcers, migraines and anxiety. Again we have a problem that's going to take more than a day to sort out.

And then you have nearly four and a half million Palestinians living in limbo, many still in refugee camps. And everyone, Jew and Arab alike, needs to be scolded by my grandmother for being obstinate jackasses and using the Palestinian people as pawns, especially the Arab world. They really screwed the Palestinians in 1948, the bastards. All of the Arab neighboring states should be held accountable. They are every bit as culpable as Israel in contributing to the suffering of the Palestinian people and need to be called out on that publicly. There is plenty of sin and blame to go around. Everyone has behaved abominably and nobody gets a pass. This can't even be mentioned at Annapolis. Hell, it would take a good 6 months of Arabs storming the door every time that little bit of reality comes up and is said aloud. I shake my head in disbelief. They offer a day? Oh, the humanity...

And how the hell do they even bring up security in the time allowed?

This is why I don't often write about Israel and Palestine. It's damned infuriating. No one is asking me, but if anyone did, I would say Frost was employing irony; good fences do NOT make good neighbors. The first order of business should be to tear down that damned fence and fill in the trenches, and restore the 10% of the territory that it's construction seized.

Then I would say let Gaza go to Egypt. Give the West Bank to Jordan. Give the Golan Heights to Syria, and let a disinterested third party settle the border with Lebanon, and nobody would get to whine about it. And suck it up. Learn to live with a divided Jerusalem.Until everyone concerned learns how to act, I would make Old Jerusalem a U.N. protectorate. Don't like it? Learn how to act.

But no one is asking me. Probably because they are afraid I would tell them.

UPDATE FROM COMMENTS @ Blue Girl, Red State: Pale Rider is spot on as usual.

You can't make this shit up:

[Indeed! You gotta get this...BG]

"Annapolis" was named after Queen Anne of England:

Queen Anne was the last of the Stuarts, the second daughter of James II and his first wife Ann Hyde.

She was shy, conscientious, stout, gouty, shortsighted and very small.

Anne was 'homely', and she did not have a particularly happy married life. Her husband, Prince George of Denmark, was a drunk and a crashing bore!

Prince George was a gross, rather ridiculous figure, even King James, Anne's father, remarked "I have tried him drunk and I've tried him sober, but there is nothing in him".

And:

Alex Haley, the late author of the world-famous account of his family entitled Roots, was able to trace back the arrival of his ancestors, who had been kidnapped from Africa, to the Annapolis City Dock. Although Maryland was formally a slave state, many of its citizens opposed the institution. Archaeologists have found that there was a large, free African American population in the area before the Civil War.

There's more: "Annapolis" >>

Neocons take note

A new survey show younger Jews are less attached to the state of Israel than their parents:

The study found only 48 percent of U.S. Jews under age 35 believe that Israel’s destruction would be a personal tragedy for them, compared to 77 percent of those 65 and older.

In addition, only 54 percent of those under the age of 35 are “comfortable with the idea of a Jewish State” as opposed to 81 percent of those 65 and older.

Very interesting.

There's more: "Neocons take note" >>

The Middle East: just waiting out the ineffectual and counterproductive Bush administration

Throughout the Middle East, there seems to be a degree of resignation in the air – a sense that Gaza will suffer for the remainder of the Bush administration, and once he is out of the way, the dialogue will commence. The next administration will talk to Hamas, and so will the Israelis. "They'll have to," said Dr. Eyad Sarraj, a Palestinian human rights activist "because they'll have seen that Hamas can deliver."

The looming end of the Bush regime underpins the political thought throughout the region. The political leaders of the region are looking forward to the end, preparing for change, and readying themselves for the coming dialogue.

Throughout the region, the disdain is virtually palpable, even among people like Dr. Sarraj, who consider themselves friends of the United States. The aura of just waiting it out does not bode well for any future Bush administration initiatives where the Israel/Palestine dilemma is concerned.

This sense of resignation and time-biding offers context for Condi’s recent embarrassingly inept trip to the region. (We know it was a failure because we didn’t hear anything about it.) The trip was such a flop that the tepid response by the Saudis that they might consider attending a U.S. sponsored summit was hailed as a significant development.

One Egyptian diplomat put it about as bluntly as possible "No one likes American policy."

The Israeli’s are equally critical:

A senior Israeli official sat silently for several seconds after he was asked which negotiating approach was most likely to lead to progress in peace talks with Israel's Arab neighbors. Then he laughed and, in flawless English, suggested to a colleague that he must not have understood the question. "I don't see any promising pathway," he said. "There is a huge gap between the rhetoric and what people believe."

The Israeli government understands that to have peace with Syria "means giving back the Golan Heights," the strategic high ground that Israel seized in 1967, and "we're willing to discuss it," he said. But with Bush insisting "from the Oval Office" that the U.S. won't talk to Syria, nothing can be expected. "The Syrians really want to talk to the United States," the official said. Even among government officials in Iraq there's little embrace of Bush policy, and surprising expressions of distrust.

Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, with three decades in clandestine service, sworn to protect the Jewish state from enemies such as Hamas, now speaks aloud what was unthinkable until recently. “It is time to negotiate with the movements leaders.” (The leaders he now advocates dialogue with are the same leaders Mossad has made a policy of targeting for assassination.)

The Hamas takeover of Gaza in June effectively split the Palestinians into Gaza, controlled by Hamas, and the West Bank, politically dominated by the more secular Fatah party and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his appointed prime minister, Salam Fayad.

In response, the White House has rolled out what it calls a "West-Bank-first" strategy. (Without batting an eyelash that the strategy was “Gaza First” right up to the moment it blew up in their faces.)

The “new” approach envisions financial, political and diplomatic support for Mr. Abbas and Fatah. The thinking is that life can be improved in the West Bank to such a degree that support for Hamas will evaporate in both the West Bank and Gaza. Simultaneously, Washington maneuvers to work with Israel to isolate Hamas further, while refusing to talk to the leaders.

"I don't say we should talk to Hamas out of sympathy to them. I have no sympathy whatsoever for Hamas. I think they are a ghastly crowd," Mr. Halevy says. "But I have not seen anybody who says the Abbas-Fayad tandem is going to do the job."

Mr. Halevy says defeating Hamas politically is unrealistic, given its enduring popularity among Palestinians. Hamas defeated Fatah in Palestinian parliamentary elections last year.

"The danger is that they will not be defeated, that they will become more despairing...and they will no longer feel constrained by anything, because there is nothing left for them to hope for," he says.

Then he said something that truly gives me hope. When the former Mossad chief finally “gets it” there is reason to rejoice. "We don't need their recognition," he says. "We are a sovereign state...They need us to recognize them. The shoe is on the wrong foot." (Really, who cares whether Hamas recognizes Israel or not?) We're dealing in issues which are existential to free society," Mr. Halevy says. "When you look around for potential allies in this war, sometimes you have to settle for strange bedfellows."

There's more: "The Middle East: just waiting out the ineffectual and counterproductive Bush administration" >>

Rice and Gates are off to the Middle East on a Salvage Operation

On Monday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will leave on a highly unusual joint mission to the Middle East. They leave with three objectives, and low expectations.

They need to persuade Iraq’s neighboring states to do more to help stabilize the country, they need to counter the growing influence of Iran in the region, and they hope to get some significant motion going on the development of a peace plan between the Palestinians and Israelis.

Lofty goals, but not likely to be very successful. The United States has little or no credibility in the region. The U.S. has caused massive death and instability in Iraq, and strengthened al Qaeda; they have also failed to calm the strife in Lebanon, bolster the Palestinian Authority, or bring pressure to bear on Syria.

Quite the contrary – U.S. policies have fanned the flames of Sunni extremism, and strengthened Iran. Those are the two things that cause the greatest consternation among the moderate Arab countries, because those are the two entities that threaten their grip on power.

Also not playing well to the locals is U.S. support for the ill-fated Israeli war against Hezbollah last summer. Continued attempts to undermine the popularly-elected Hamas in the Gaza strip. "The strategy is based on the assumption that you could isolate, weaken ... Hamas," while strengthening Abbas and his Fatah faction, said Shibley Telhami, a Middle East expert at the University of Maryland. "It cannot succeed. ... Everybody agrees that you can't simply isolate Hamas." Couple that failed strategy with United States’ continued support for Mubarak in Egypt, it pretty much puts the lie to claims that the United States “fosters Muslim democracy.”

The leaders of friendly states have lost faith in the Bush administration and do not believe he will deliver on his promises. Therefore, they are reluctant to risk anything for Bush. “Our credibility is in tatters. They are not going to commit because they don’t trust us. That doesn’t mean they are not concerned about Iran. It just means they just don’t know what we are going to do,” said one senior State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to reporters.

One needn’t read Runes to see other signs of discord in the administration.

On the eve of the trip, unnamed U.S. officials told The New York Times that Washington believes Saudi Arabia has been unhelpful in Iraq by not supporting Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's government. The administration publicly disavowed the report, but said that Saudi Arabia could do more to help. The leaked complaint seems unlikely to make life easier for Rice and Gates when they arrive in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, early in the trip.

Pentagon and State Department officials said the trip is intended to reassure Arab leaders that the U.S. will uphold its security commitments in the region, and meanwhile, Arab diplomats in Washington resolutely maintain that they need more than reassurances. They have heard a lot of proposals and reassurances, but they have not seen a clear plan for peace or security in the region. The U.S. promises a more active role, but consistently fails to deliver. Arab diplomats in Washington voiced skepticism – anonymously – that the trip would be fruitful.

More than what Rice and Gates say on the trip, “[P]eople will be monitoring the debate in Washington. Everybody is watching that very closely and then will draw their own conclusions.” said one anonymous diplomat.

“There is no clarity,” another diplomat said on condition of anonymity, because he didn't want to disagree publicly with the administration. “The trip in and of itself is not important. What’s important is that the administration commit to dealing with the substantive issues.”

Rice and Gates have their work cut out for them. With 18 months left in office, it will be difficult to reshape the way the region sees the United States, said William Quandt, a professor of international relations at the University of Virginia, who as an aide to President Jimmy Carter helped craft the 1978 Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt.

“I don’t think they have a real strategy that has much chance of working,” Quandt said. Gates, who joined the administration in December, “may be able to calm things down a little. But that won’t change the course.”

The two Secretaries will attend meetings together in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, then they will part company. Gates will visit “other gulf states” and Rice will head for Israel and the Palestinain territories to meet with Mahmood Abbas and Israeli leaders. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other U.S. allies in the region want the United States to reach out to the popularly-elected Hamas, which now controls Gaza, but Rice has steadfastly maintained that there will be no dealing with the Hamas, which is the U.S. classifies as a terrorist organization.

There's more: "Rice and Gates are off to the Middle East on a Salvage Operation" >>

Bush: Iraq needs to be like Israel

Just when you think the man CANNOT get any dumber, he does:

President Bush held up Israel as a model for defining success in Iraq, saying Thursday the U.S. goal there is not to eliminate attacks but to enable a democracy that can function despite violence.

Why would you use that as an example for ANY Arab country???

Cross posted at SocraticGadfly.

There's more: "Bush: Iraq needs to be like Israel" >>

Civil War in Gaza

Oh where to even start. I have been trying all day to write something about the pressure-cooker in Palestine that has blown apart in the last few days.

Five years ago this month, the President of the United States made a Rose Garden speech, wherein he laid out a bold, vivid two-state vision for the Middle East. Israel and Palestine, coexisting side by side, their peoples living in peace and prospering together. "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror." he declared back then.

That vision was a mirage.

I certainly do not have the answers to this dilemma but I do know one thing beyond all doubt – a lot of it can be directly traced to the horrid policies of the Bush (mal)administration and the State Department that wasn’t.

United States policy overtly encouraged Israel to withdraw from the Gaza strip – not in and of itself a bad thing. But they also pressed for elections in both the Palestenian territory and Israel. Abbas won the election to replace Arafat as the President of the Palestinian Authority after Arafat’s passing in late 2004. He arrogantly allowed Hamas to run candidates to stand for legitimate election to parliament, thinking that he could defeat them at the polls.

He thought wrong.

So the Bush administration – on the heels of moving the goalposts in Iraq from WMD’s to fostering Democracy – decided that they didn’t much care for Democracy the way the Palestinians exercised it, because gosh-darnit, they picked the wrong leaders. Money and aid was cut off – a situation choreographed by Washington D.C. – in an attempt to strangle Hamas out of the political process.

This blew up in their faces most spectacularly. The attempt to make Hamas unpopular engendered hatred and pure, unadulterated resolve toward the west and by extension, the man they perceived as a marionette of western masters, Abbas. This week, the seething cauldron boiled over. Hamas and Fatah turned their guns on one another, and as it stands now, Hamas is in control in Gaza.

"The two-state vision is dead. It really is," said Edward G. Abington Jr., a former State Department official who was once an adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Abbas, whose bouts of vacillation have irritated U.S. officials, yesterday dissolved the Palestinian government in response to Hamas's takeover of Gaza. U.S. officials signaled that they will move quickly to persuade an international peace monitoring group -- known as the Quartet -- to lift aid restrictions on the Palestinian government, allowing direct aid to flow to the West Bank-based emergency government that Abbas will lead.

"There is no more Hamas-led government. It is gone," said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the administration must still consult with other members of the Quartet. He said that humanitarian aid will continue to Gaza, but that the dissolution of the Palestinian government is a singular moment that will allow the United States and its allies to create a "new model of engagement."

The evolving U.S. strategy would let the Hamas-run Gaza Strip fend for itself while attempting to bolster Abbas as a moderate leader who can actually govern and deliver peace with Israel. The senior administration official noted that Gaza has no territorial issues with Israel, since there are no Israelis in Gaza, so the Hamas entity there would have no stake in potential peace talks concerning the border on the West Bank.

Referring to Abbas, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters yesterday that "we fully support him in his decision to try and end this crisis for the Palestinian people and to give them an opportunity to return to peace and a better future."

But analysts said yesterday that this strategy of dividing the moderates from the extremists -- which was the core of Bush's 2002 speech -- proved ineffective and may have led to the dilemma facing the administration.

So now, the government has been dissolved, and the Gaza Strip is under Hamas control. Fatah has retreated to the West Bank, and the Bush administration is still supporting Abbas. And a radical Islamic state, committed to the destruction of the Jewish state, exists literally on Israel’s doorstep.

No one has asked me, but if they did, I would say that it looks to my eyes like we should probably bow out. Every damned thing we have done has turned around and bit us on the ass. Beyond encouraging the “Quartet” to get aid and assistance flowing, and maybe send a check.

I am the least religious person you are likely to ever encounter, but I close with a prayer for peace. Besides, it certainly can't hurt. Oseh Shalom, Gaza.

There's more: "Civil War in Gaza" >>

Senator Joe Lieberman (L-Conn) to Bob Sheiffer, We Have To Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran; Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran

If you haven't heard, Joe Lieberman made news this morning by calling for a bombing attack on Iran. No sane president would pay any attention to his Likud inspired drivel. Given the leadership our President has displayed over the last 6+ years I wonder when people will start dying by the thousands?

You can pick up links to the video all over the web. This link takes you to Think Progress' video. You can also find video and a John Amato comment at Crooks and Liars.

If Cheney and Lieberman have their way we are going to be in another shooting war within weeks. Anybody who thinks about it realizes that the war will be far worse than Iraq. Worst American foreign policy in history. It's not even good Israeli foreign policy.

The reference in the headline isn't a mistake. In my opinion Joe isn't an Independent. He has a party--Likud. Sorry Connecticut, you might think Joe is your senator, but I don't think he gives a crap about you or America. He simply represents the interests of Likud.

update: Here is a link to a video that probably explains Bush Administration foreign policy on Iran better than the Bush Administration.

There's more: "Senator Joe Lieberman (L-Conn) to Bob Sheiffer, We Have To Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran; Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" >>

Cluster****

If you thought the unexpurgated title was "clusterbomb," give yourself a point.

It turns out that a significant part of those Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (a/k/a cluster****s) the Mandarin wrote about recently were made in the good old U S of A and sold to Israel on the condition they not do exactly what they ended up doing after all: firing them into civilian areas.

Leaving a lot of unexploded bomblets that look like the photo - the kind of
brightly-colored thing that a kid might pick up. With allies like these, who needs enemies?

Yes, Yogi, its déjà vu all over again.

Crossposted from here.

There's more: "Cluster****" >>