Home » Users » listener » Blog » LEAHY ON LEBANON
You must be logged in to complete this action
Democracy for America personal blog for listener
LEAHY ON LEBANON
Here's a clip from Senator Patrick Leahy's statement August 1st on the Senate floor:We are committed to protecting Israel’s security and we support Israel’s right of self defense, including going after Hezbollah fighters who often launch their attacks from civilian areas.
But for Israel’s sake, for ours and especially – especially -- for the sake of innocent lives on both sides of these battle lines, it is vitally important to ask whether destroying Lebanon – not Hezbollah, but destroying Lebanon -- will make Israel more secure or instead rally Muslims behind Hezbollah and give rise to further hatred and insecurity. I believe that continued bombing of civilian areas in Lebanon will not destroy Hezbollah, but in a perverse way, it may strengthen it.
The fact that these attacks are being carried out with such intensity and are yielding so much death and destruction, with weapons supplied by the United States, and at a time when we are trying to repair our already frayed relations with Muslims around the world, is all the more reason for the United States and the people of Israel to consider and answer this question frankly and honestly. I am concerned, as others have also warned, that a short-term tactical victory – even if possible – could prove to be a hollow victory at great human cost.
The Statement is worth reading in full:
leahy.senate.gov/press/200608/08...
by * cChalfonte* on Wednesday, 08/02/06 @ 05:14 PM ..
Glad Leahy speaks for you.
Now you to can say that you are like Neville Chamberlain. You can tell people in other countries how to deal with their own security. In your case from the safety of an internet link.
Peace at any price cChalfonte
Robert
Glad Leahy speaks for you.
Now you to can say that you are like Neville Chamberlain. You can tell people in other countries how to deal with their own security. In your case from the safety of an internet link.
Peace at any price cChalfonte
Robert
On the last thread I posted about Russert's appearance on Hardball. Russert thinks Lamont may win on Tuesday because he has the momentum. Also, Russert believes Hillary will be hurt by a Lamont win (since she hasn't disavowed her vote). Guess we know why Bill went to CT.
Robert, are you actually saying you believe that when the USA gives $3 billion each year to Israel (1.8 for military and 1.2 for all else), that our representatives have no say whatsoever in how it gets spent?
IMHO Israel should reimburse the USA for at least a good chunk of the cost of evacuating our citizens during Israel's bombardments. $46 million so far.
IMHO Israel should reimburse the USA for at least a good chunk of the cost of evacuating our citizens during Israel's bombardments. $46 million so far.
Russert thinks Lamont may win on Tuesday because he has the momentum. .
by mary vb on Wednesday, 08/02/06 @ 05:20 PM ..
sorry. that is not exactly what he said. He seemed to think Lamont had the Mo now, but there is apoll today here but tomorrow there.
Robert
by mary vb on Wednesday, 08/02/06 @ 05:20 PM ..
sorry. that is not exactly what he said. He seemed to think Lamont had the Mo now, but there is apoll today here but tomorrow there.
Robert
Robert, are you actually saying you believe that when the USA gives $3 billion each year to Israel (1.8 for military and 1.2 for all else), that our representatives have no say whatsoever in how it gets spent?
by listener on Wednesday, 08/02/06 @ 05:27 PM..
none whatsoever UNLESS they put that stipulation in a vote of the appropriations and then the country in question accepts that stipulation with the goal.
IE if the Senate and house had voted the MOney with the POTUS signature putting restricctions on how the weapons or money was used or spent, then you might have a complaint.
Leahy is, as JC is hopefully discovering, one vote in 100 thats all.
His opinion outside of a vote, is valuless.
As for reimbursing for the withdrawl of our citizens. Actually I think Syria and Hezbollah ought to do that if we are being picky. It wasnt that much money. The military was "mostly" going to spend it anyway.
Robert
by listener on Wednesday, 08/02/06 @ 05:27 PM..
none whatsoever UNLESS they put that stipulation in a vote of the appropriations and then the country in question accepts that stipulation with the goal.
IE if the Senate and house had voted the MOney with the POTUS signature putting restricctions on how the weapons or money was used or spent, then you might have a complaint.
Leahy is, as JC is hopefully discovering, one vote in 100 thats all.
His opinion outside of a vote, is valuless.
As for reimbursing for the withdrawl of our citizens. Actually I think Syria and Hezbollah ought to do that if we are being picky. It wasnt that much money. The military was "mostly" going to spend it anyway.
Robert
The Q Poll comes out tomorrow and he seemed to think Lamont would win based on momentum. Russert also talked about what would happen if Lamont wins - pressure for Lieberman to drop out? You can spin what Russert said anyway you want because you want Lieberman to win. Time to face facts, Robert.
Lieberman is selfish. It's not about CT - it's about him.
Lieberman is selfish. It's not about CT - it's about him.
The U.S. role in the ME is always to broker a peace....that's how we keep things from boiling over as they are doing now.
bad sentence. Q Poll comes out tomorrow. Russert seemed...
The U.S. role in the ME is always to broker a peace.....
by * cChalfonte* on Wednesday, 08/02/06 @ 05:29 PM ..
well maybe in your mind. But our role in the ME has been 1) to preserve the State of Israel and 2) to bring long term stability.
Not peace at any price...until the next bomb goes off which could be a special.
Thats ok with you isnt it?
Robert
by * cChalfonte* on Wednesday, 08/02/06 @ 05:29 PM ..
well maybe in your mind. But our role in the ME has been 1) to preserve the State of Israel and 2) to bring long term stability.
Not peace at any price...until the next bomb goes off which could be a special.
Thats ok with you isnt it?
Robert
by mary vb on Wednesday, 08/02/06 @ 05:29 PM ..
those are not the facts but I assume you need to believe that...thats fine.
The poll is soon and the election is well a week away.
Then we will see. When Lieberman wins (as I believe) be sure and be gracious. not all about your pain! If the results are the opposite I certianly will.
Robert
those are not the facts but I assume you need to believe that...thats fine.
The poll is soon and the election is well a week away.
Then we will see. When Lieberman wins (as I believe) be sure and be gracious. not all about your pain! If the results are the opposite I certianly will.
Robert
Robert, I believe you may have overlooked my post to you at 5:27pm.
I'll be in and out for a bit, as it's hard to blog and quilt with the same two hands. Grandbaby due mid-August! :)
I'll be in and out for a bit, as it's hard to blog and quilt with the same two hands. Grandbaby due mid-August! :)
Then we will see. When Lieberman wins (as I believe) be sure and be gracious. not all about your pain! If the results are the opposite I certianly will.
Robert
by Rocky Jones on Wednesday, 08/02/06 @ 05:34 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -
-------------
And will you be gracious when Ned Lamont wins?
Robert
by Rocky Jones on Wednesday, 08/02/06 @ 05:34 PM | Rate this | Avg Rating: -
-------------
And will you be gracious when Ned Lamont wins?
until the next bomb goes off which could be a special.
Thats ok with you isnt it?
Robert------
Robert, even if Hezbollah hadn't kidnapped Israeli soldiers, even if they hadn't launched rockets into Israel, there is always the possibility of a *next bomb* in the ME and given that Pakistan has nukes and Iran is on its way the next one could always be a special.
Our intervention and peace-brokering even if not perfect, even if not lasting has always been the only thing that keeps things at a simmer.....otherwise they just boil over....like right now.
Thats ok with you isnt it?
Robert------
Robert, even if Hezbollah hadn't kidnapped Israeli soldiers, even if they hadn't launched rockets into Israel, there is always the possibility of a *next bomb* in the ME and given that Pakistan has nukes and Iran is on its way the next one could always be a special.
Our intervention and peace-brokering even if not perfect, even if not lasting has always been the only thing that keeps things at a simmer.....otherwise they just boil over....like right now.
"My friend" has been on more combat night patrols in the last year then ---
yes, "your friend" has desperately tried to convince of that...even tried to convince us that he was blogging WHILE on night patrol recently, lol.
multi-tasking, I believe "your friend" called it.
btw, I get a big kick out of "your friend's" contrived conversations between "your friend's dad" and "others".
yes, "your friend" has desperately tried to convince of that...even tried to convince us that he was blogging WHILE on night patrol recently, lol.
multi-tasking, I believe "your friend" called it.
btw, I get a big kick out of "your friend's" contrived conversations between "your friend's dad" and "others".
But our role in the ME has been 1) to preserve the State of Israel and 2) to bring long term stability.----
from 1948 until right now there has never been such a thing as long-term stability in the ME. We try, we hope, but we've never achieved it.
If other Arab countries get involved in this I've no doubt that we would get involved as well....we would fight with Israel, of course, and who knows how long that would last or what it would lead to.
I'd hate to see it come to that. Our military is already overstretched.
I support Israel's right to exist and I support a 2-state solution.
Let's move forward on that.
from 1948 until right now there has never been such a thing as long-term stability in the ME. We try, we hope, but we've never achieved it.
If other Arab countries get involved in this I've no doubt that we would get involved as well....we would fight with Israel, of course, and who knows how long that would last or what it would lead to.
I'd hate to see it come to that. Our military is already overstretched.
I support Israel's right to exist and I support a 2-state solution.
Let's move forward on that.
Interesting, but as one who gets daily reports from
US, British, French, German, Italian, Chinese, Middle Eastern, and South Asian media sources, it is not at all surprising to see this self-perpetuating divide in our monolingual society.
We are not at all well served by our newscasters. A brief stay outside the US (not in a military bunker) will show one that much. The TV news shown in the States verges very much on propagranda.
====================
It's like watching two different wars
The US and British media's wildly divergent takes on the Middle East's latest crisis serve to further deepen entrenched points of view.
Julian Borger
August 2, 2006 01:18 PM
The US and European media have always covered the Middle East from different perspectives, but flying back to Washington from a stay in London at the height of the Lebanese conflict made it clear to me how wide the gulf has become. Britons and Americans are watching two different wars.
The overwhelming emphasis of television and press coverage in the UK was the civilian casualties in Lebanon. Day after day, those were the "splash" stories. The smaller number of civilian casualties from Hizbullah rockets in northern Israel was also covered but rarely made the top headlines or front pages.
Back in DC, watching Lebanon through American camera lenses, the centre of the action seemed to be Haifa. CNN, for example, sent two of its top anchors, Miles O'Brien and Wolf Blitzer, to the Israeli port city. Much of the morning news was devoted to showing O'Brien scurrying in and out of shelters when the air raid sirens sounded. Another correspondent was sent on patrol with a Haifa ambulance crew to look for casualties. On the morning I was watching, the crew only came across a man who had a fatal heart attack as a result of the rockets. The paramedics' attempts to save him were shown.
This emphasis on Israeli casualties relative to Lebanese was taken to its breathtaking extreme by Charles Krauthammer, a conservative columnist on the Washington Post, who described the Hizbullah rocket attacks as "perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the London blitz."
[...]
There is a circular relationship between media coverage of the Middle East and public opinion. Correspondents and editors are often fearful of the avalanches of hate mail that can descend in a heartbeat on matters Middle Eastern, and their reports consequently serve to deepen entrenched points of view.
The difference between British and US polls on the current conflict are striking. Just over a fifth of Britons polled pre-Qana, compared with nearly half of the Americans questioned at about the same time, said they thought the Israeli use of force was proportionate; and another 9% of American respondents thought the Israelis were not being tough enough.
Some of that extraordinary divide must be attributable to the very different realities on British and American television screens.
[...]
commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jul...
*********************
And it's PillowTime for me.
ttfn
US, British, French, German, Italian, Chinese, Middle Eastern, and South Asian media sources, it is not at all surprising to see this self-perpetuating divide in our monolingual society.
We are not at all well served by our newscasters. A brief stay outside the US (not in a military bunker) will show one that much. The TV news shown in the States verges very much on propagranda.
====================
It's like watching two different wars
The US and British media's wildly divergent takes on the Middle East's latest crisis serve to further deepen entrenched points of view.
Julian Borger
August 2, 2006 01:18 PM
The US and European media have always covered the Middle East from different perspectives, but flying back to Washington from a stay in London at the height of the Lebanese conflict made it clear to me how wide the gulf has become. Britons and Americans are watching two different wars.
The overwhelming emphasis of television and press coverage in the UK was the civilian casualties in Lebanon. Day after day, those were the "splash" stories. The smaller number of civilian casualties from Hizbullah rockets in northern Israel was also covered but rarely made the top headlines or front pages.
Back in DC, watching Lebanon through American camera lenses, the centre of the action seemed to be Haifa. CNN, for example, sent two of its top anchors, Miles O'Brien and Wolf Blitzer, to the Israeli port city. Much of the morning news was devoted to showing O'Brien scurrying in and out of shelters when the air raid sirens sounded. Another correspondent was sent on patrol with a Haifa ambulance crew to look for casualties. On the morning I was watching, the crew only came across a man who had a fatal heart attack as a result of the rockets. The paramedics' attempts to save him were shown.
This emphasis on Israeli casualties relative to Lebanese was taken to its breathtaking extreme by Charles Krauthammer, a conservative columnist on the Washington Post, who described the Hizbullah rocket attacks as "perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the London blitz."
[...]
There is a circular relationship between media coverage of the Middle East and public opinion. Correspondents and editors are often fearful of the avalanches of hate mail that can descend in a heartbeat on matters Middle Eastern, and their reports consequently serve to deepen entrenched points of view.
The difference between British and US polls on the current conflict are striking. Just over a fifth of Britons polled pre-Qana, compared with nearly half of the Americans questioned at about the same time, said they thought the Israeli use of force was proportionate; and another 9% of American respondents thought the Israelis were not being tough enough.
Some of that extraordinary divide must be attributable to the very different realities on British and American television screens.
[...]
commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jul...
*********************
And it's PillowTime for me.
ttfn
by * cChalfonte* on Wednesday, 08/02/06 @ 05:43 PM ..
LOL
listen. You are about the 100th plus person here (or maybe more I dont keep track) who has tried desperatly to say what I claim to be I am not. I've had people say I didnt live in Houston, didnt work on the Dean campaign, didnt fly airplanes, didnt (insert claim here).
I am probably one of the few people here whose "full name" is known by a vast majority of the people here. I dont use some "cChalfonte"...I pretty much am what I am.
I realize that it is important for you the stay at home to make that claim. But there are people who know me here, who know I am where I am. I wish I could post pictures and the like, but the rules are the rules, and I follow my employeers rules pretty carefully. That is how I do what I do very well.
YOu can twist all you want and make up all you need and thats fine. It doesnt bother me. And as I Note you are not the first here, nor the first on any ofthe other blogs.
The extremes have a big problem with that. I dont know why (I do love living under an underpass!)
Robert
LOL
listen. You are about the 100th plus person here (or maybe more I dont keep track) who has tried desperatly to say what I claim to be I am not. I've had people say I didnt live in Houston, didnt work on the Dean campaign, didnt fly airplanes, didnt (insert claim here).
I am probably one of the few people here whose "full name" is known by a vast majority of the people here. I dont use some "cChalfonte"...I pretty much am what I am.
I realize that it is important for you the stay at home to make that claim. But there are people who know me here, who know I am where I am. I wish I could post pictures and the like, but the rules are the rules, and I follow my employeers rules pretty carefully. That is how I do what I do very well.
YOu can twist all you want and make up all you need and thats fine. It doesnt bother me. And as I Note you are not the first here, nor the first on any ofthe other blogs.
The extremes have a big problem with that. I dont know why (I do love living under an underpass!)
Robert
JudyForDean, I've always seen the British as predisposed against Israel....am I wrong on this?
Would value your opinion, if you get a chance to respond.
Would value your opinion, if you get a chance to respond.
I do love living under an underpass!----
I wasn't there but I don't think they meant that literally?
I believe they were calling you a troll.
troll...bridge.
I wasn't there but I don't think they meant that literally?
I believe they were calling you a troll.
troll...bridge.
Israel lives in a world, in a neighborhood where the bad guys come very frequently, kill a lot of civilians that dont make the paper at home, and are at risk constantly.
They have the right to have a lower "pain" threshold----
I agree.
I believe, as many ME experts do, that the pain threshhold may very well increase if things go on for much longer.
re. losing control...anything I've said here has been with full control of my faculties:)
not really the melt-down type.
They have the right to have a lower "pain" threshold----
I agree.
I believe, as many ME experts do, that the pain threshhold may very well increase if things go on for much longer.
re. losing control...anything I've said here has been with full control of my faculties:)
not really the melt-down type.
by * cChalfonte* on Wednesday, 08/02/06 @ 05:50 PM
LOL
there is no Arab country that is going to get involved with troops. And the IDF could dispatch on their own anyone that does.
Robert
LOL
there is no Arab country that is going to get involved with troops. And the IDF could dispatch on their own anyone that does.
Robert
by Rocky Jones on Wednesday, 08/02/06 @ 05:36 PM
Nope. Simple statement. No idea why you got confused by it.
Nope. Simple statement. No idea why you got confused by it.
Just saw your ?, cChal, as I was getting ready to turn
off the monitor.
IMHO, I do not see the British as predisposed against Israel. I do see them with a less "romantic" and more even-handedly realistic view than one generally finds in the US, however. That may be because of their long colonial experience in the ME, the fact that there are many well-respected British scholars who are Arabists, the School for Islamic and Oriental Studies is located in London and many Arab nationals also hold dual British citizenship.
I remember during the 1967 War, when I happened to be living in an Arab country, reports over the Beeb ... the only English-speaking source I could find (plenty of Arabic, of course, and Radio Algiers was blasting some of the most vitriolic of French-speaking reports), always seemed to be prefaced ... before the solemn striking of Big Ben ... by the theme from "Exodus" and then, after the reports, the theme would play again.
It was quite effective, I must say. And certainly NOT predisposed against Israel.
What is a shame in the US is that all too often one cannot even state something reasonable, as Howard Dean did, about the US stand on Israel without immediately being called an anti-Semitic bigot. It is also a fact that a book ("A Little Piece of Ground") by an internationally reknowned children's author written from the perspective of a Palestinian youth is practically unfindable in the US. I had to purchase copies in the UK for my grandchildren.
It is also a fact that a play about the life ... and death ... of Rachel Corrie was not allowed to be performed in NYC.
That is censorship. It is wearing blinders. It is a one-sided bias that ultimately hurts us ... and it also hurts Israel.
Most of all, it hurts humanity.
****************
And now, I am gone.
off the monitor.
IMHO, I do not see the British as predisposed against Israel. I do see them with a less "romantic" and more even-handedly realistic view than one generally finds in the US, however. That may be because of their long colonial experience in the ME, the fact that there are many well-respected British scholars who are Arabists, the School for Islamic and Oriental Studies is located in London and many Arab nationals also hold dual British citizenship.
I remember during the 1967 War, when I happened to be living in an Arab country, reports over the Beeb ... the only English-speaking source I could find (plenty of Arabic, of course, and Radio Algiers was blasting some of the most vitriolic of French-speaking reports), always seemed to be prefaced ... before the solemn striking of Big Ben ... by the theme from "Exodus" and then, after the reports, the theme would play again.
It was quite effective, I must say. And certainly NOT predisposed against Israel.
What is a shame in the US is that all too often one cannot even state something reasonable, as Howard Dean did, about the US stand on Israel without immediately being called an anti-Semitic bigot. It is also a fact that a book ("A Little Piece of Ground") by an internationally reknowned children's author written from the perspective of a Palestinian youth is practically unfindable in the US. I had to purchase copies in the UK for my grandchildren.
It is also a fact that a play about the life ... and death ... of Rachel Corrie was not allowed to be performed in NYC.
That is censorship. It is wearing blinders. It is a one-sided bias that ultimately hurts us ... and it also hurts Israel.
Most of all, it hurts humanity.
****************
And now, I am gone.
Well, it appears I have been overlooked twice.
Must go get ready for the evening news.
Take care, all. ♥
Must go get ready for the evening news.
Take care, all. ♥
JudyForDean...
When you have a minute, please clarify
whether you were referring to Howard Dean's balance view on the ME during his campaign
or his more Israel-oriented view as stated a few days ago, August 25th...?
Thanks.
The views seem quite different
so I feel it would assist comprehension of your statement
to have that clarified.
Thanks. ♥
When you have a minute, please clarify
whether you were referring to Howard Dean's balance view on the ME during his campaign
or his more Israel-oriented view as stated a few days ago, August 25th...?
Thanks.
The views seem quite different
so I feel it would assist comprehension of your statement
to have that clarified.
Thanks. ♥
jc ~ I couldn't have done it without you!
(L I T E R A L L Y !) ♥ :)
(L I T E R A L L Y !) ♥ :)
new thread
Add your comment
(to reply directly to a comment, click the reply icon for that comment)Post closed to commenting
Videos of some of the 64 House Healthcare Heroes standing strong for a public health insurance option
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver
Congressman Lloyd Dogget
Congressman Keith Ellison
Congressman Bob Filner
Congressman Phil Hare
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
Congresswoman Maxine Waters
Blog for America
-
1 Turncoat Senator vs. 410,649 Americans
By Mary R on Nov 19, 2009 3:06 PM EST -
Send a message they can't miss
By Mary R on Nov 17, 2009 12:00 PM EST -
Will the real Democrat please stand up?
By Mary R on Nov 11, 2009 2:03 PM EST -
3 Million and Counting
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:47 PM EST -
Is Sen. Nelson listening to Nebraska?
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:31 PM EST
Recent Blog Posts
-
Sunday items
By Gerry Lykins on Nov 22, 2009 8:25 AM EST -
Friday finds
By Gerry Lykins on Nov 20, 2009 7:48 AM EST -
1 Turncoat Senator vs. 410,649 Americans
By Mary R on Nov 19, 2009 3:06 PM EST -
Nationalize all Health Insurance companies
By Carl B on Nov 19, 2009 3:05 PM EST -
Hanover Township 2010 Primary Election Candidates
By Trudy Zaja on Nov 19, 2009 2:26 AM EST
-
By jc on Aug 2, 2006 5:15 PM EDTand listener rocks!