why a cease-fire would be dumb
Diplomats from the United States, Europe, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia who were meeting in Rome have announced they will not call for a cease-fire. Apparently, Condi, as usual, saved the day, by refusing to allow their statement to call for an “immediate cease-fire.” Instead, Condi insisted the statement announce the diplomats “work immediately to bring a ceasefire.” And thank God. Because a cease-fire would be so dumb.
As Bush explained: "So Condi goes [to the Middle East] with the following messages: We support the [Lebanese] government; we care about the people; we will help to get aid to the people; and that we want a sustainable cease-fire. We don't want something that's short-term in duration. We want to address the root causes of the violence in the area, and therefore, our mission and our goal is to have a lasting peace -- not a temporary peace, but something that lasts." We should wait until there is a sustainable and lasting peace before we call for a cease-fire. It’s that kind of logic that has always informed my steadfast opposition to food aid programs. We must not give out food aid until we have ended world hunger. Duh
And say what you will about our administration, I think we can all agree that "[they] don’t want something that’s short-term in duration." Whether it’s the war in Iraq, or national debt, Bush is in it for the long hall.
The administration has to be right about a cease-fire. They’ve thought about it really long and hard. They were so painstaking in their deliberations, they had to wait almost two weeks before sending Condi on her surprise visit to Beirut.
A cease-fire would be “simplistic.” In the words of John Bolton "The notion that you just declare a cease fire and act as if that is going to solve the problem, I think is simplistic…" And John Bolton knows about simplicity. The ambassador to the UN is a man of such nuance and subtlety, he was able to see that "If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference..."
Of course, this doesn’t mean that the administration doesn’t care about murder or the destruction of life. I think we all know the president "things murder is wrong." Surely, if 406 frozen embryos had been "murdered", the president would call for an immediate cease-fire, and stop funding Israel. If 406 people in a permanently vegetated state connected to feeding tubes, had been murdered, the president would have flown all the way from Crawford to D.C. to sign a bill protecting the sanctity of their lives. Luckily, we haven't crossed this "moral boundary" yet. Luckily, this is just collateral damage.
As Bush explained: "So Condi goes [to the Middle East] with the following messages: We support the [Lebanese] government; we care about the people; we will help to get aid to the people; and that we want a sustainable cease-fire. We don't want something that's short-term in duration. We want to address the root causes of the violence in the area, and therefore, our mission and our goal is to have a lasting peace -- not a temporary peace, but something that lasts." We should wait until there is a sustainable and lasting peace before we call for a cease-fire. It’s that kind of logic that has always informed my steadfast opposition to food aid programs. We must not give out food aid until we have ended world hunger. Duh
And say what you will about our administration, I think we can all agree that "[they] don’t want something that’s short-term in duration." Whether it’s the war in Iraq, or national debt, Bush is in it for the long hall.
The administration has to be right about a cease-fire. They’ve thought about it really long and hard. They were so painstaking in their deliberations, they had to wait almost two weeks before sending Condi on her surprise visit to Beirut.
A cease-fire would be “simplistic.” In the words of John Bolton "The notion that you just declare a cease fire and act as if that is going to solve the problem, I think is simplistic…" And John Bolton knows about simplicity. The ambassador to the UN is a man of such nuance and subtlety, he was able to see that "If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference..."
Of course, this doesn’t mean that the administration doesn’t care about murder or the destruction of life. I think we all know the president "things murder is wrong." Surely, if 406 frozen embryos had been "murdered", the president would call for an immediate cease-fire, and stop funding Israel. If 406 people in a permanently vegetated state connected to feeding tubes, had been murdered, the president would have flown all the way from Crawford to D.C. to sign a bill protecting the sanctity of their lives. Luckily, we haven't crossed this "moral boundary" yet. Luckily, this is just collateral damage.
posted by Katie Halper at 1:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home