Sunday Slaughter –updated–

The Lebanese are breaking the U.S. embassy windows in Beirut. They are marching in the
streets. The bodies amass, mostly children and women. Yet on “Meet the
Press” Ambassador Dan Gillerman said no cease fire, no cease fire, no cease
fire. (h/t reader John)

The only reaction can be disgust.

Dropping leaflets on the poorest of villages Qana, and expecting these poor
people to leave a village, though they have nowhere to go and no means to take
them there, is hard to comprehend.

Saniora said Lebanon would be open only to an immediate cease-fire. “There is no place at this sad moment for any discussions other than an immediate and unconditional cease-fire as well as international investigation of the Israeli massacres in Lebanon now,” he told reporters Sunday. More than 5,000 people protested in central Beirut, denouncing Israel and the United States, some chanting, “Destroy Tel Aviv, destroy Tel Aviv.” A few broke car windows and tried briefly to break into the main U.N. building until political leaders called for a halt to damage. Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr questioned Israel's claim that Hezbollah fired rockets from the village. “What do you expect Israel to say? Will it say that it killed 40 children and women?” he told Al-Jazeera television. Qana, in the hills east of the southern port city of Tyre, has a bloody history. In 1996, Israeli artillery killed more than 100 civilians who had taken refuge at a U.N. base in the village. That attack sparked an international outcry that helped end an Israeli offensive. 34 youths among 56 dead in Israeli strike

Israel made matters worse with this bombing, but watching Gillerman was an
insult.

Ambassador Nouhad Mahmoud the Special Envoy for Lebanon still hopes Condeleezza
Rice will come to Lebanon and negotiate a cease fire. But according to Gillerman there will be none. UPDATE: CNN just reported Rice is returning to Washington to work on a U.N. resolution. She looked positively shaken this morning when talking about the slaughter in Qana. Prime Minister Olmert saying he needs 10 more days. That's just not tenable.

The airport, seaport, electrical grid, water supply was hit by Israel from the beginning, focusing
on the civilian infrastructure.

Now Israel has spent their righteousness on dead children and women. Their
military campaign has collapsed, which has been made worse with the bombing of the building in Qana. The only winner today
is Nasrallah and Hezbollah. What did Israel gain by this bombing?

WATCH THE VIDEO Israel's Ambassador Gillerman, then Lebanon's Special Envoy Nouhad Mahmoud on “Meet the Press”. Also, Hamas promises new attacks.

GUEST POST: What Goes On In Harry Reid's Backyard
Guest post by Myrna the Minx at Reno and Its Discontents

As a Nevada resident and loyal Democrat, I keep trying to find reasons not to be frustrated with Harry Reid. The problem is, my beloved Senator has become like a dictatorial host at a staid cocktail party who keeps serving me up annoyances like smelly, cold hors d'oeuvres and then insists on watching me uncomfortably gulp them down and smile in gratitude for the privledge. I know many of you can't relate–Reid has a 70% approval rating over at Daily Kos for christ's sake–not exactly a group known for being easy to please.

Maybe tennis makes a better analogy? Its like I'm watching a tennis match with the Reid I cheer for on one side, and the Reid I groan about on the other. Reid convinces the National Democratic Party to add Nevada to the caucus schedule, “Way to go!” Reid votes for the Child Custody Protection Act, “#%$%?!” Look, I know Reid is personally anti-abortion, but he's said he would support legislation that protects reproductive rights, and with this vote he simply did not do that. “But,” you say, “The Democrats were going to lose on the vote no matter what, and Reid's making up for his yes vote by dispatching Dick Durbin to stall the legislation in the House.” Sorry, that's just not good enough, and its more evidence that the “big tent” philosophy doesn't work for all Democrats all the time.

And this leads me to the most frustrating position Reid takes–his non-aggression pact with Republican Senator John Ensign, or the “Kissy, Kissy by Reid, Ensign” as Hugh Jackson of the Las Vegas Gleaner eloquently described their Senatorial cuddle way back in 2005. And Ensign's manly charms are certainly hard to resist. Escaping notice on the national electoral scene, Reid's luke warm support of Ensign's Democratic opponent, Jack Carter, is a point of failure in Reid's Democrative leadership, and Democrats on the state and national level should be calling Reid out for it. Not only does Reid's position fly directly in the face of the Democratic National Committee's 50 State Strategy, it leaves Nevada citizens little choice but to believe that Reid would have us be represented by a Senator gleefully running in a three-legged race with the Bush Administration to hand the country over to the forces of the corporatocracy and religious conservatives who think that being pro-choice and for raising the minimum wage makes you an ungodly communist.

And why has Reid entered into such an odious agreement with Ensign? Self preservation of course. As an astute commenter on my last post on Ensign's membership in the ultra conservative religious Fellowship asked, “maybe Harry's loyalty to the “Incumbent Party” is stronger than that to the Democratic Party?” You think? Reid thinks his secure position as the senior Senator from Nevada and Senate Minority Leader is worth more than taking a risk on the Ensign/Carter race and the possibility of becoming the Senate Majority Leader. The Democrats of Nevada deserve better from Senator Reid. And because he is your Senate Minority Leader, all Democrats deserve better from Senator Reid.

I couldn't help but scoff while reading Reid's New Direction communiqué on The Huffington Post:

These Nevadans – and the millions of Americans just like them – are who Democrats are standing with today. They've been ignored by the Do Nothing Republican Congress, which has put special interests and a special few first. They've suffered through weeks of debates over non-issues such as marriage, flag desecration, the estate tax, and medical malpractice. Meanwhile, their real problems have only grown worse. We need a New Direction for America, and that is what Democrats offer. By changing course in Iraq, providing affordable health care, strengthening the middle-class, and embracing science and medical research, the Democratic agenda will unite America and turn away from the divisive politics of the last six years. We won't pit Big Oil against working families when it's clear we're all better off pursuing a bold new future of energy independence. We won't force workers to choose between getting by and saving for the future, because we'll protect Social Security, cut taxes for the middle-class, and build an economy where work pays. And we won't go to war based on trumped up threats; we'll be tough and smart with a foreign policy that concentrates on our real threats, Iran, North Korea, and Osama bin Laden.

How am I, as a Nevadan represented by Ensign, who comes down on the opposite side of every issue mentioned in Reid's missive, supposed to take his call to action seriously? He isn't even serious about taking on the Republicans in his own state. Sure, he's given money to the Jack Carter campaign, but has he actively stumped for him? No. And you won't catch Carter complaining about the lack of Reid's active support because his campaign needs all the help it can get–they can't afford to say the wrong thing about Harry Reid. What can we do to communicate to Reid that his partnership with Ensign is not acceptable? Help Jack Carter win Nevada's second Senate seat. As Sarah Carter noted during a recent interview:

Politics is full of self-fulfilling prophesies. If we can get enough people to say that Jack Carter is a real contender, then he’s a real contender. If we can get enough people to say that Jack Carter will win, then he’ll win. We’re just starting our bandwagon, and we want everyone on board.

You heard her folks!

Support Jack Carter

Bush Caught Babbling While Bombs Keep Falling –updated–

Breaking news, so to speak. Hezbollah has finally unveiled one of their “surprises.”
They've got a new missile that just hit Israel. I talked about the Zilzal missile
earlier. According to CNN, the new missile — I can't even
find the correct spelling right now — is “100 kiligrams or 220 pounds
of explosives,” which is 4-5 times as powerful as the Kaytusha that is
only 20 kiligrams. However, that comes from CNN and I can't get confirmation
anywhere. I'll save you time, because there's no information on the web about
it yet. Military help out there, please. Note (2:10 p.m.): CNN got it wrong. It's not a missile. It's a rocket. It's also a higher echelon rocket of one already in use, both of which come from Iran, which I'm sure doesn't surprise anyone. UPDATE (3:03 p.m.): It's called a Fajr-5 rocket, a bigger version of the Fajr-3 rocket.

Now, excuse me while I yawn at the
inevitable, which is now masquerading as “leadership.” They wasted
precious days deciding, that's for sure. There's talk of a 72-hour ceasefire
so relief efforts can get into the area, meanwhile the LA Times reports the
blockade could soon throw Lebanon
into darkness. I know it's said with caveats, but really, if you want to
make Lebanon into the image of Iraq, just get it over with, then Iran's Shia
crescent will be complete.

But honest to God, if you handed Bush a map of the Middle East, without the
names of the countries marked, I doubt if he could name them. Neither could
many other Americans but he's our president.

David
Gregory asked the question today and the president punted. No, he didn't
even do that much. He let Blair answer it, which wasn't much better, except
the man can speak.

I watched it live and referred to it earlier. Think
Progress caught it on
tape. Here's the transcript:

QUESTION: Mr. President, both of you, I’d like to ask you about the big picture that you’re discussing. Mr. President, three years ago, you argued that an invasion of Iraq would create a new stage of Arab-Israeli peace. And yet today there is an Iraqi prime minister who has been sharply critical of Israel. Arab governments, despite your arguments, who first criticized Hezbollah, have now changed their tune. Now they’re sharply critical of Israel. And despite from both of you warnings to Syria and Iran to back off support from Hezbollah, effectively, Mr. President, your words are being ignored. So what has happened to America’s clout in this region that you’ve committed yourself to transform? BUSH: It’s an interesting period because, instead of having foreign policies based upon trying to create a sense of stability, we have a foreign policy that addresses the root causes of violence and instability. For a while, American foreign policy was just, Let’s hope everything is calm — manage calm. But beneath the surface brewed a lot of resentment and anger that was manifested on September the 11th. And so we’ve taken a foreign policy that says: On the one hand, we will protect ourselves from further attack in the short run by being aggressive in chasing down the killers and bringing them to justice. And make no mistake: They’re still out there, and they would like to harm our respective peoples because of what we stand for. In the long term, to defeat this ideology — and they’re bound by an ideology — you defeat it with a more hopeful ideology called freedom.

UPDATE (2:15 p.m.): What did Bush do after the press briefing with Blair? Think Progress has the pictures. …oh, and I almost forgot, don't forget Christy's take on Bush-Blair, which is right on.

Making Allies Out of Thugs –updated–

It's not exactly what President Bush and his administration do best. In fact, they ostracize our enemies as if we are in this world alone. Evidently, the conservatives haven't been paying much attention to Iraq, or what happens when you leave potential allies, no matter how smarmy, on the outside dodging bombs, U.S. made bombs, that is, while their country is being destroyed.

When Bush and Franks, et al let Osama go at Tora Bora, they created a mythic folk hero out of
him, even though he was on the rise after 9/11. But now we still haven't caught
him. The fact is that even if and when we do it will only be a postscript, especially considering the chapters that have come after Osama.

When I read David
Frum yesterday, I wasn't exactly surprised, but wondered if Fukuyama would
be happy to have a new friend. Glenn
and Billmon are talking
about it today too. Frum is looking for a “second best” option in
Iraq these days because he's given up on the first. We talked about it yesterday,
new troops amassing on the streets when 30,000 haven't done the job yet.

David Frum has joined with Tom Ricks, whose education from 2003 to now has been
a fantastic, yet fatal, journey to watch, though he's still saying we have to
stay in Iraq for another 10-15 years. Ricks knows more about Iraq than most
people because he's chronicled the insanity and been caught up in every wrong
turn we made, to come out with his new book FIASCO. I give him credit
for finally making the journey to this book, but that said, he
still has to answer the questions and take the heat, which he brought on
himself by not questioning what he was being told. However, Ricks is certainly
not alone and to make him out the only one in the pitiful press pack who got
it wrong misses the point. The reality is, the entire U.S. press corps did the
same thing, so Ricks has a lot of company. I don't think any of the corporate
press did their jobs on Iraq, which I've said time and time again, as have others.

But David “axis of evil” Frum is a different case. He's Richard Perle's
sidekick, the man who wrote many of the words that had Bush believing the stuff
Rummy and Cheney were telling him. Now Mr. Frum has had a change of heart. As
far as Iraq goes, we're screwed, unfortunately, we're not in this position because
the neocons blew the planning, or shouldn't have concocted preemption, let alone the “war on terror” deadliness, in the first place. We're screwed because the war we waged wasn't
large enough.

This is not, as some American commentators argue, because the Iraqis refuse to fight for their country. Thousands of brave Iraqis, civil and military, have laid down their lives fighting or working for a secure and democratic Iraq. But Iraq has powerful enemies, inside and out. To date, the US has fought only a limited war against those enemies. Iran understands that the war in Iraq is a regional war. Syria understands it too. Only the US has tried to pretend that the war zone stops at the international border. In some horrible rerun of Vietnam, the US has let the enemy establish safe havens just on the other side of the line, from which it draws supplies and reinforcements with impunity. It's like some baby boomer nightmare: after decades of swearing that we would never repeat the mistakes of our parents, we are re-enacting the errors committed in Indochina in the 1960s and 1970s, every single one. Iraq: New Plan Wanted

Somebody slap this man.

WWIII is their answer. If we'd just bomb Iran, take on Syria, and encourage Israel
to push on through Lebanon, death be damned, we'd be set. But Bush just won't
commit to more muscle. I mean, really, to use Madeleine Albright's line, what's
all this military power for if we're not going to use it?

Note to Frum: our carnage is traveling and the news isn't good for anyone,
least of all us.

Now, with hundreds of Lebanese dead and Hezbollah holding out against the vaunted Israeli military for more than two weeks, the tide of public opinion across the Arab world is surging behind the organization, transforming the Shiite group’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, into a folk hero and forcing a change in official statements. The Saudi royal family and King Abdullah II of Jordan, who were initially more worried about the rising power of Shiite Iran, Hezbollah’s main sponsor, are scrambling to distance themselves from Washington. (snip) But perhaps not since President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt made his emotional outpourings about Arab unity in the 1960′s, before the Arab defeat in the 1967 war, has the public been so electrified by a confrontation with Israel, played out repeatedly on satellite television stations with horrific images from Lebanon of wounded children and distraught women fleeing their homes. Egypt’s opposition press has had a field day comparing Sheik Nasrallah to Nasser, while demonstrators waved pictures of both. … Tide of Arab Opinion Turns to Support for Hezbollah

There are a lot of people sounding like they're reading the progressive blogs
today, at least the ones who focus on war and foreign policy. When I read Michael
Hirsch a couple of days ago, I thought I was reading
my own copy. Unfortunately, Hirsch is just drawing his conclusions now. Again, some of us have
been saying this all along.

So here we sit in the middle of a Middle East pit, with Nasralla being made
out to be the next Nasser. I could give you a summary, but read about him here
and his 1956 speech here,
which gives you a real view into the man. Suffice it to say that Nasser symbolizes
Arab freedom, dignity and the power of pan-Arabism or Arab nationalism, regardless
of the fact that many of Nasser's policies for the Egyptian people failed.

Since the Israeli bombing of Lebanon began, Israel has been losing steam and
Hezbollah's strength has gained. Nasralla is now a hero, the second thug we've
made into superman. But unlike bin Laden, if we had a real leader in the White House,
Nasrallah is someone with whom we might be able to deal. Why are Asian tyrants and thugs given respect and meetings, while people like Nasrallah are not? After all, Nixon went to China. Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are now parts of state governments. Do we not deal with them because they're Arabs and Muslims? When are we going to offer dignity to people who have a chance of making the Middle East whole? Yes, they hate Israel, but we can't change that, however, what we can do is give Arabs and Muslims a place to live in dignity and peace. A lack of bloodshed may not stem their hatred of Israel, but it could make it less important once life seems worth living. Or are we afraid to talk with Arab leaders because of what our Israeli ally might say? It's time to ask, what is in America's best interest? Can't we keep one very close, while reaching out to another who can help us all survive alive?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, is how the legend goes. We don't have to agree or even negotiate, at least not yet, but can't we agree to at least talk?

It's important to understand a distinction, which is that Nasrallah doesn't just represent
terrorism, but a whole structure on which the Lebanese people depend, which
became more apparent with Siniora's inability to maintain any control over Lebanon,
as his government weakens. Even the Lebanese army is more loyal to Hezbollah than Siniora, with Nasrallah having the power, which grows with every passing American made bomb that Israel lets fly.

You can't deal with al Qaeda and bin Laden or Zawahiri.

You can deal with Nasrallah and Hezbollah, even the Muslim Brotherhood, let me add. There are moderate Arabs throughout the region, or at least there were before this latest escalation began.

Unfortunately, we won't deal with Hezbollah, any more than Bush has been willing to deal with Syria.
But make no mistake about it, that day is coming, at least for Syria, trust me. But will we ever deal with our Arab enemies, if only in a
practical manner, understanding that there is a larger goal than war? Not as long as conservatives hold the foreign policy strings,
with people like Bush in the White House, who believe you degrade the support
for people like Nasrallah by siding with Israel even when they're wrong.

UPDATE (10:20 a.m.): The press conference with Blair and Bush was incredible to watch. David Gregory asked Bush a question about the violence and how Bush promised 3 years ago that Iraq would bring about a new reality in the region, but instead American's influence has collapsed. Bush could not answer the question. He was paralyzed. It was frightening to watch. Blair finally tried to tackle it, but by then it was too late. Remarkable. Also, Bush seems to be backing down and moving towards a ceasefire, which will give Hezbollah more power, even make it look like they won the war. Why would Israel agree? Bush's policies get more incomprehensible by the minute. This just came in from Billmon. Amen.

Joe Lieberman's idea of foreign policy. SUPPORT NED LAMONT

Don't look now, but former President Bill Clinton just pushed back.

Meanwhile, Israel
just blinked. It's bad, but we told you so. This
article in Haaretz says it brilliantly.

But after showing
up for Joe, Clinton just threw a significant challenge to the
Lieberman line. Seriously, what is Joe's
position on the Middle East? I've asked this question before. Does Senator
Lieberman believe in a cease fire and reasserting America's honest broker
status in the Middle East? Or is Senator Lieberman for allowing the bombing to continue until Hezbollah is obliterated, which will claim hundreds more civilian lives, as well as Israeli soldiers? Someone needs to start asking this question.

Does Joe Lieberman agree with Bill Clinton? A cease fire between Israel and
Hezbollah is important and it should come now.

Bill Clinton speaking out on the importance of a cease fire is not a small
thing. In addition, his criticism of Israel bombing the airport is significant
for the reason he stated, not to mention the fact that if Hezbollah gets stronger
and the Siniora government weaker, Israel will pay the price.

The United States and other western countries should be pushing hard for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, along with the insertion of an international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, former U.S. president Bill Clinton said Wednesday. The Islamic group Hezbollah's tactics are at the root of the latest bloody conflict in the region, but Clinton also questioned the length to which Israel has gone to defend itself. “It's important for us to get some kind of ceasefire now,” Clinton said. (snip) “The danger in this Israeli strategy is that Hezbollah attacks with rockets, then hides among civilians,” he told 5,000 people at a sold-out event at the Halifax Metro Centre. “No matter how measured the response is, if you go after them, you're going to kill innocent people.” Hezbollah has tried to do what Hamas has done in the Palestinian territories and said, “when it suits us we'll be a political party and when it suits us we'll go to war,” Clinton told former Canadian ambassador to Washington Frank McKenna in a question-answer session following the speech. Clinton also said Israel went too far in bombing the airport in Beirut. “I understand why (Israel) wanted to degrade their military capacity, but I question whether it was worth it to wreck the airport because the airport was the symbol of the new Lebanon.” Clinton calls on western leaders to broker Lebanese ceasefire

Then Lieberman
should be asked about Iraq. Frankly, Congress, minus Murtha, Kerry, Feingold
and a few other Democratic leaders, seems to be asleep, while our troops wonder
why they fight.

… “The first time somebody you know dies, the first thing you ask yourself is, 'Well, what did he die for?' “ “At this point, it seems like the war on drugs in America,” added Spec. David Fulcher, 22, a medic from Lynchburg, Va., who sat alongside Steffey. “It's like this never-ending battle, like, we find one IED, if we do find it before it hits us, so what? You know it's just like if the cops make a big bust, next week the next higher-up puts more back out there.” “My personal opinion, I don't speak for the rest of anybody, I just speak for me personally, I think civil war is going to happen regardless,” Steffey responded. “Maybe this country needs it: One side has to win. Be it Sunni, be it Shiite, one side has to win. It's apparent, these people have made it obvious they can't live in unity.” It was dark now save for one fluorescent light and the cigarette tips glowing red. “I mean, if you compare the casualty count from this war to, say, World War II, you know obviously it doesn't even compare,” Fulcher said. “But World War II, the big picture was clear — you know you're fighting because somebody was trying to take over the world, basically. This is like, what did we invade here for?” “How did it become, 'Well, now we have to rebuild this place from the ground up'?” Fulcher asked. … 'Waiting to Get Blown Up' Some Troops in Baghdad Express Frustration With the War and Their Mission

If you want to stay the course in Iraq, Lieberman is your man, however, we don't, so he's not. If you believe in progress here at home and changing the course in Iraq and the entire Middle East, start beating the drum for
Ned Lamont. There's not much time left and the home stretch is always the hardest. Email your friends, offer to campaign for Lamont, do whatever you can. …by the way, just found out that Michael Schiavo will campaign for Lamont on Friday.

Here's one
soldier's view on Lieberman v. Lamont. The soldier is serving in Afghanistan
and casting an absentee ballot for Ned Lamont.

I am a registered Democrat and a soldier currently serving in Afghanistan with the 1-102 Infantry Battalion of the Connecticut National Guard. Last week I received some newspaper clippings in the mail that sparked my interest: Senator Joseph I. Lieberman has been successfully challenged and forced into a primary that will take place in August. As some readers may have heard, in January my battalion was issued substandard equipment for our deployment to Afghanistan. Originally, we were issued M-16s rather than M-4 carbines, rifles with shorter barrels and collapsible butt stocks. As a politcally active member of the battalion, I began to get in touch with Representative DeLauro and Representative Simmons, who both responded quickly and enthusiastically. Senator Dodd also responded quickly and gave me prompts on how to further validate my request for weapns. However, I did not receive a response from Senator Lieberman’s office. I continued to leave messages for both him and his military aide, now senior counselor, Fred Downey, who reprsented Sen. Lieberman at the Battalion’s send off ceremony on Jan. 4. After several messages, I finally received a return phone call. However, I was not met with the same enthusiams expressed by other legislators; I was immediately confronted with an inquisition that seemed to have the purpose of dispelling the belief that the battalion was ill equipped. Rather than listen to our specific concerns, the “benefits” of the M16 were highlighted and teh advantages of the M4 were downplayed. Lieberman’s office left the impression that they believed we had the equipment we needed, despite the contrasting beliefs of soldiers in my battalion, some who have been on as many as five deployments. The others in Washington were not so quick to abandon us… Lieberman has never hesitated to voice his support for the war, and recently voted against pulling troops out of Iraq, so where was he when over 500 of his own constituents were being sent overseas to fight on behalf of his great country? It appears the senator was so concerned with climbing the political ladder, he forget what his job is really about: the people… When my absentee ballot returns to the States next month, Lamont’s name, not Lieberman’s, will bear the check. when August 8 arrives, will you stand for the hypocrisy? Sincerely, Colin D. Halloran

I'd also like to know if Lieberman will back John Bolton. Steve Clemons has more on the Bolton hearings.