Why am I having a difficult time giving any credence to this story, which is headlined "Bush and Blair Push Plan to End Mideast Fighting"? Could it have anything to do with the complete cognitive dissonance (to say nothing of logical incompatibility) of the following two paragraphs from the middle of the story? You be the judge:
"Our top priorities in Lebanon are providing immediate humanitarian relief, achieving an end to the violence, ensuring the return of displaced persons, and assisting with reconstruction," Mr. Bush said.
But both reiterated their position that any cease-fire resolution must include a long-term plan to disarm Hezbollah and evict it from southern Lebanon. The Israelis, and the Arab world as well, have taken the United States position as a tacit go-ahead to Israel to continue its campaign.
I hate to have to say it, but I think the Israelis and most of the Arab world are probably right on this. Because as any sensible (or even reasonably sane) individual knows, when two countries are in the midst of a shooting war and you want to get them to stop shooting, the first fucking item on the agenda is that. To get them to stop shooting. You worry about long-term plans and other irrelevancies after the fucking shooting has fucking stopped, OK? I shouldn't think you'd need a postgraduate degree to figure that out, but apparently nobody in the Shrubbery has been able to. Maybe this is what comes of "legacy" admissions to Ivy League schools and the "gentleman's C"?
In any event, it is painful to me to watch the bumbling of the Bushoviki on this matter. If he keeps this shite up for much longer, the few pitiful dregs of credibility we have left are going to evaporate in the fire of a thousand American flags being burned all across the Arab world--and not entirely without reason, I have to add. This is hardly the time to go hunting for a legacy that doesn't involve some colossal Bush fuck-up, or for our secretary of state to polish her chamber music skills.
I am not naive. I am not claiming that all the right (or all the wrong) is on one side in this dispute--that is clearly not the case. There is blame aplenty to go around, and some of it must deservedly fall upon the Shrubbery for dithering (if not actively colluding) while a shooting war erupted. There is also at least some amount of right, and a just grievance or two, on both sides of this question.
Ultimately, however, none of that matters. All anybody with three brain cells to rub together wants is for the fighting to stop. Get everybody to go back to their neutral corners or behind their own borders, and stop lobbing bombs and rockets and artillery shells back and forth at each other's citizens. Then we can sit down like ordinary, civilized human beings and try to come up with a long-term solution to the grievances that will piss off everybody by the exact same amount.
But until then, for the love of God, people, there are people killing each other who shouldn't be. Just stop it!