http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/31/romney.racialremark.ap/index.html

Secondly, what the fuck are you going on about war crimes? I swear to god, get a new record. If you are going to start out with premise that all this shit is a war crime, there really isn’t any point in talking about this.

As far a foreign policy let’s try this on for size:
1) Cut off all funding from Iran to Hezbollah. That means no bank tranfers or sending cash across the borders which leads to
2) Control of borders/ports of Lebanon to curtial the influx of weapons and cash for hezbollah from Iran via Syria.
3)Hold the Lebonese people responsilble for the decisions they make. You want to vote in Hezbollah, fine. But don’t expect any international aid (other than humaniatarian) until the Hezbollah’s political wing accepts the existence of Israel and secondly completely disconnects it self from the military wing.
4) Demand as matter of continuing aid once it has been established that Lebonese government control their southern border and police Hezbollah themselves.

Unfortunately none this is going to happen. The best we can hope for is an international force (non UN) taking control of southern lebanon and not allowing Hezbollah run unchecked. It cant be made of US troops, and Nato/EU countries aren’t going to send any troops in while Hezbollah was as strong as it was. The only country that will be willing to do the clean up job is israel, and that’s what they are doing now, with the hope of a real international force coming in when they are done.

Now, why don’t you give me your ideas for world peace, because I would love to hear a democrat give a plan that could actually produce verifable results, or maybe we continue with democratic talks and agreements like the one we had with NK, cause they worked out sooo great.

Where in my comments did I “talk tough” about slaughtering innocents.

I’m perfectly content to amend it to “talking nonsense,” if you’d prefer.

But this is ugly business that has ugly consequences. It doesn’t make it any less neccessary.

There. There’s some nonsense right there. As a Republican Man of Action, you seem to think that there are only two choices in foreign policy: doing something, or doing nothing, and “doing something” always means killing people. If a country is not killing people, it is doing nothing. If a country is even refusing to commit war crimes in the course of killing people, it is doing nothing.

Please, enlighten me as to how your shallow, brutal, myopic, sloppy foreign policy recommendations are actually the only conclusions to which a clear-eyed realist could come. No, really. I’m fuckin’ fascinated.

Where in my comments did I “talk tough” about slaughtering innocents. I am not happy about innocents dying, who the hell is? But this is ugly business that has ugly consequences. It doesn’t make it any less neccessary. Again, I ask you for a solution that works. You seem to think that you can reason with people who’s goals are your destruction. Israel left Lebabon 6 years ago. Yes they control the airspace there, but what have the Lebanese done with southern lebanon for the last 6 years? they let hezbollah do whatever it want in exchange for being left alone, and now they are paying a sad price now for it. When do you hold these groups responsible for their actions? How do you hold them responsible? Merely condemning them has done nothing.

Why because I don’t ring my hands and stand there paralyzed over the consequences of actions that others set in motion? You seem to think death and carnage alowed by inaction is somehow any less immoral than death and carnange caused by action.

I…see. Seriously, how can you say shit like this and not expect to be ridiculed?

No, no, of course I kid. I admire your courage. While I and my liberal cohort stand immobilized in the face of evil, flapping our hands and making effete mewling noises, you are unafraid to take action. It takes no small measure of character to talk tough about slaughtering innocents, while others are content to stand timidly by. Would that more of our citizens could emulate the Republican Man of Action, perhaps we might heal this country, and make her great once more.

Israel and the US never has insisted on the irradication of Hezbollah. Asking them to disarm and acknowledge Israel’s right to EXIST is not the same thing as asking for their irradication.

As far as your arguement about the next group of radicals lining up, who cares. We don’t stop arresting mob bosses because another one will take their place.

Finally your MAD /War Games analogy does hold up either. It’s not assured destruction for us or Israel, and its assured that Hezbollah won’t be destroyed because Israel and US show restraint. Restraint that Hezbollah would never show.

Of course the Lebanese government could do more. They’d then have a civil war on their hands, a civil war they might not win. Then what? Because the US and Isreal insisted upon the irradication of Hezbollah, Hezbollah now RUNS THE NATION OF LEBANON?

If nothing else, it’s clear that an Israeli/Hezbollah war is unwinnable and all unwinnable wars should not be fought. If you clean Hezbollah’s clock, there’s a line of radicals out the door waiting to take potshots at Israel, and Israel can’t keep it in their pants long enough for the region to stabilize.

Professor Falken, the only winning move is not to play!

I am sorry that innocents die.

You got a funny way of expressing it.

You are going to say that there is no difference between firing missiles in the direction of a country, with no direct target, and collatoral damaged that happens from targeting a specific military target? The lose of civilian life is unfortunate in any case, but there is a huge difference.

Now, I am sure you are going to say, well the lebonese government aren’t responsible for the acts of Hezbollah. That is also bull shit. They allow them to run around doing whatever they want and they are either unable to stop them (and in that case need help) or unwilling to get rid of them (which in that case means that you can’t give them a pass). Either way something needs to change permanently. There is no purpouse in having a ceasefire that ceases nothing.

A couple of points….

Steve.
I think I understand enough to figure out what Dog Whistle Politics are. I simply agree somethimes people try to look for more than is actually there, especially when the come with the baggage that people mean more than they are saying. Sometimes a Cigar is just a Cigar That being said, that doesnt’ mean it doesn’t happen, and happen on both sides, but I don’t think Dog Whistle Politics the Karl Rove play book. I agree with Tom that they are much more obvious about. Also don’t act like the left doesn’t do the same damn thing.

Of course you would enjoy any Republican disagreeing. Just like I enjoy Joe Lieberman disagreeing with the pull out of Democrats and the netroots or moonbats or whatver Kos and co. are calling themselves. The thing is you don’t seem to think that any one can share any opinions with this administration with out being some kind of adminstration lackey. Case in point, Bill Maher, who carries no water for W believes that Bush is right on how he is dealing with Israel.

Tom,
Why the smart card costs so much is odd. You are probably being ripped off. Maybe the technology that actually does the recording costs many. Maybe if you took the C-PAC away from people when they aren’t using it as recommended, then it could be worth it. But that is an aside.

Asking for a cease fire is stupid because it doesn’t do anything. It would ba another half ass operation that didn’t significantly diminish Hezbollah or cause them to change their position towards the EXISTENCE of Israel. Asking for a cease fire upon agreeing to suitable terms would not be stupid. But the terms would have to be enforced, which probably means a non UN peace keeping force in Southern Lebanon to keep the Hezbollah in line, since the Lebanese army is incapable. That won’t happen unless Hezbollah 1) Voluntarily disarms (yeah right) or 2) has their clock cleaned.

If they were disagreeing you would be complaining that the adminstration can’t even get their own people to tow the line.

1. It’s toe the line.
2. I would enjoy any Republican, including one in Congress, publically disagreeing with the administration. You seem to think that I am just looking for excuses to hate Bush. I don’t need excuses; I have plenty of observational data upon which to base my hatred. Do you deny that I have honest motives? Why?
3. More on the definition of “dog-whistle” politics and why it being bizarre or known to Ananth is actually the opposite of what we’re looking for here later, for it is late.