FORUMS »»
GALLERY »»
RESOURCES »»
HOME »»
AP
While Bush rubs elbows with other world leaders at the G8 summit in Russia, the middle east is burning. He seems to be keeping a distance from the current conflict. In fact, he mentioned nothing about the crisis in his 7/15 radio address. It wasn't until today that he finally took some questions about this Israel/Lebanon situation. He's not quite ready to call on Israel to end the violence:
Q Israel's offensive in Lebanon appears to have no end in sight at this point. Are you willing to go along with Lebanon's call for a ceasefire?
PRESIDENT BUSH: One of the interesting things about this recent flare-up is that it helps clarify a root cause of instability in the Middle East -- and that's Hezbollah and Hezbollah's relationship with Syria, and Hezbollah's relationship to Iran, and Syria's relationship to Iran. Therefore, in order to solve this problem it's really important for the world to address the root cause.
We, of course, are in continued discussions with Israel. All sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves against terrorist attacks. However, we hope that there is restraint as people respond. And one of our concerns, of course, is the fragile democracy in Lebanon. So in order to solve this problem, the international community must address the root causes, otherwise there may be apparent calm and then all of a sudden there will be more conflict.
Remember, Hezbollah started this by capturing two Israeli soldiers and firing rockets into Israel. And as we talk about Hezbollah, we must always remember that there is an issue in Gaza, as well. And we've discussed this issue and we will continue to work with the parties involved to solve that issue, as well.
Interestingly, there was a joint statement at the summit:G-8 leaders demand halt to Mideast attacks
These recent events are certainly a tough thing to deal with. Any response can have far-reaching implications. As expected, there are opinions flying around everywhere about what should be done. What will Bush do? If anyone outside the administration could give us insight on the way these neo-cons view the role of America's foreign policy, it would be William Kristol. Yes, the PNAC chairman, editor of The Weekly Standard , frequent Fox News 'contributor', and tireless Iraq war promoter.
In the 7/24 edition of The Weekly Standard, Bill pens an piece titled "It's Our War: Bush should go to Jerusalem--and the U.S. should confront Iran. " You see, Iraq and Afganistan aren't gonna be enough for the neo-cons:
The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.
The unwavering support for Isreal and the call for America to help defeat the enemies of the Zionists wouldn't have anything to with the fact that Bill is Jewish, would it? Nothing against those of the Jewish faith, but I think he may be a little biased.
There seems to be a growing sentiment among prominent conservatives that America is involved in World War III right now, and we need to take the proverbial gloves off. Others think that it was Kristol's precious Iraq invasion that made all these problems in the mideast worse.
Who's right? Are the Israelis using the kidnapping of 2 soldiers as an excuse to destroy Hezbollah? Do the Isrealis hope this will force the US to confront Iran and Syria? Is Iran fighting Israel through a proxy (Hezbollah)? Should we care? It's quite complicated, and that's why we're here.
