I think ^(link) therefore I err

Tuesday, July 25, 2006


Read the Nasrallah interview. It's interesting and rather amazing. He started this war without really thinking this through.

"I Told Them [Lebanese Political Leaders] That We Must Resolve the Issue of the Prisoners, and That the Only Way to Resolve it is by Abducting Israeli Soldiers"

Interviewer: "Did you inform them that you were about to abduct Israeli soldiers?"

Hassan Nasrallah: "I told them that we must resolve the issue of the prisoners, and that the only way to resolve it is by abducting Israeli soldiers."

Interviewer: "Did you say this clearly?"

Hassan Nasrallah: "Yes, and nobody said to me: 'No, you are not allowed to abduct Israeli soldiers.' Even if they had told me not to... I'm not defending myself here. I said that we would abduct Israeli soldiers, in meetings with some of the main political leaders in the country. I don't want to mention names now, but when the time comes to settle accounts, I will. They asked: 'If this happens, will the issue of the prisoners be over and done with?' I said that it was logical that it would. And I'm telling you, our estimation was not mistaken. I'm not exaggerating. Anywhere in the world - show me a country, show me an army, show me a war, in which two soldiers, or even civilian hostages, were abducted, and a war was waged against a country - and all for two soldiers. This has never happened throughout history, and even Israel has never done such a thing."

Show me a country, any country, throughout history who has opted to use kidnapping as a means to have their citizen prisoners returned to them. That is a path of terrorists or outcasts, not governments. Read the whole thing, it's not that long. It's a bit hard to follow and again makes you want to be the interviewer so you can say "Say what?" after hearing something like
If you examine the rhetoric of Hizbullah... Maybe the rhetoric of our Palestinian brothers is different, and this is their right, because their circumstances are much harsher than ours. They always attack, accuse, and denounce the regimes and the rulers. This is not part of our rhetoric or writings. Why? Because we have forgotten about them. There is no need for it. If you assume someone exists, you can attack him, but if you feel that he does not exist, by attacking him, you would be aggravating yourself for nothing.

In the meantime can someone tell me why a difference of opinion leads so many to believe that our President has no plan at all and is just a dummy? Eugene Robinson has a piece about "disproportionate" use of force by Israel. Ok, whatever, I disagree. But others do agree with him. Sounds like a difference in opinion, right? Do you use equal amounts of force so fewer civilians get killed, or do you use extra force so that you clearly win? I say, go with the extra. Eugene wants to keep civilians alive at all costs.
I felt better when I thought the Decider didn't have a worldview, just a set of instincts about freedom and democracy. But even if you set aside the president's embarrassing open-mike performance at the Group of Eight summit, which is hard to do, events of the past week show that this administration actually thinks it knows what it's doing. Bush and his folks haven't just blundered around and created this dangerous mess, they've done it on purpose. And they intend to make it worse.

Bush's endorsement of the violence that Israel is inflicting on Lebanon -- a sustained bombing campaign that has killed hundreds of civilians and can only be seen as collective punishment -- is truly astonishing.

So because Bush disagrees with Robinson, he (Bush) is a blunderer and an idiot. I guess that makes a lot of people blunderers and idiots and hind sight will be the tell all. May we all be around in 10 years to discuss this rationally.