Neocons v. Moderates

Chuck Hagel has a plan for peace in the Middle East.

It's really quite simple. He explained it during a speech on the floor of the Senate.

The Hagel plan:

"This madness must stop."

Oh. OK.

That'll do it.

Sen. Chuck Hagel called upon President Bush Monday to seek an immediate cease fire in Lebanon.

..."How do we realistically believe that a continuation of the systematic destruction of an American friend, the country and people of Lebanon, is going to enhance America’s image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East?" the Nebraska Republican asked.

"The sickening slaughter on both sides must end now," Hagel declared.

Hagel doesn't get it.

Is he so naive that he believes an immediate ceasefire will stop the madness?

It won't.

Hagel is clueless.

There has never been a compromise, a concession, or a ceasefire from Israel that stopped the madness in the Middle East.

The militant Muslim factions, whether they be citizen terrorist militias or nations led by radical nuts, have no intention of stopping the madness.

The slaughter of Israelis and the destruction of the Israeli state is the goal of these twisted groups and deranged leaders.

Nothing will change until these enemies of freedon realize their goal. There won't be peace.

There are only two scenarios:

1) Israel survives and the terrorists are destroyed.

2) The terrorists win and Israel is no more.

So, when Hagel calls for an immediate ceasefire, he isn't suggesting a solution. He's merely suggesting a TEMPORARY cessation of hostilities.

The madness won't stop. Perhaps it will take a brief pause, but it won't end.

Hagel should know better, but he doesn't.

Of course, the lib media are jumping on the division among Republicans like they always do.

Edward Luce is thrilled by these varied opinions among Republicans and the criticism that is being directed at Bush.

He writes:

A growing number of moderate Republicans and former Bush administration officials are alarmed by what they call Condoleezza Rice's "uneven-handed diplomacy" in the Middle East. Critics include Richard Haass, head of policy and planning at the State Department during the first Bush term and Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state.

However, after months of disillusionment, America's neo-conservatives have fallen in love again with the Bush administration because of its support for Israel's bombardment of Lebanon.

Neo-conservative criticism reached a peak after Ms Rice, secretary of state, offered conditional talks to Iran in late May on its nuclear programme. But their attacks on Mr Bush ceased after 12 July, when Israel launched its military campaign against Hizbollah.

..."What we are seeing are precisely the same divisions as we saw over Iraq with the neo-conservatives rallying behind Mr Bush and almost everyone else feeling rising panic at the direction of American diplomacy," said Francis Fukuyama, a former neo-conservative.

"A former neo-conservative" comments on the pervasive "panic" at "Mr. Bush's" policies.

What a surprise! What a joke!

American public opinion is evenly divided on the merits of Israel's response to Hizbollah's raid. But almost two-thirds say that the US should play a neutral broker role between Israel and Lebanon, according to a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll. This has found an echo among some Republicans.

"The United States and Israel must understand that it is not in their long-term interests to allow themselves to be isolated," said Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator, in a speech at the weekend. "The war against Hizbollah and Hamas will not be won on the battlefield."

Where will this war be won, Chuck?

In the mosques, where death to Israel is preached?

In the schools, where children are taught to admire and become suicide bombers?

That's exactly where the next generation of warriors is coming from.

And what does Chuckie mean by the U.S. and Israel being isolated?

Isolated from the terrorist-appeasers at the UN?

Is that what he means?

I think Hagel is speaking out, albeit in a very lame fashion, because he wants some face time on TV.

Hagel was far from the only one to lash out at Bush.

"It is absolutely baffling to me and almost everyone I know – Republican or Democrat – how Ms Rice and Mr Bush think this strategy will achieve their objectives," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former head of the National Security Council. "The Bush administration is allowing itself to be suckered into believing it can achieve political goals through military means. They seem to have learned nothing from Iraq."

In my opinion, the Big Zig should zip it.

Are we supposed to take someone from Carter's administration seriously?

His comments reveal that he's learned nothing from thousands of years of recorded history.

Mr [Richard] Armitage, the last senior US official to talk to the government of Syria in 2004, said he "completely disagreed" with Ms Rice's description of the conflict as the "birth pangs of a new Middle East". He said: "The administration has an irrational fear that talking is a sign of weakness. It is the best way of gathering information and influencing events."

The Bush administration doesn't have an irrational fear of diplomacy.

That's silly. Armitage obviously has an axe to grind.

This neocon v. moderates face-off is just manufactured rubbish, typical lib media stuff.