Laura Ingraham vs. Juan Williams - In the end, there can be only one!
This clip characterizes my frustration with the Left on the Israel vs. Hezbollah issue.
I'm a centrist non-partisan, and I listen to both the "right" and "left". I'm disappointed though, lately, in the left's inability to articulate a better, different strategy to pursue. "Immediate diplomatic action" is not a "plan". It's weak and shows an obvious lack of thinking. Diplomatic efforts have failed for years and years now. That in itself is not a reason to simply call them off, but there clearly would need to be a different and unique approach in order to successfully continue them - a fresh incentive, a new stick to wield, something.
Ingraham is being intellectually dishonest (ie. putting words in his mouth), and I'm not in support of her approach to Williams; she could have coaxed a real discussion from him. However, Williams loses, badly: his absolute inability to express any kind of thinking at all is ridiculous. He wants to involve the Arab nations - great, how?
I'm listening and I want to hear tactics to close the conflict without more killing - but I'm not interested in no-thought-involved plans.
Anyone got a better idea than what Williams could come up with?
posted by Jacques Beau Vert at 8:33 PM
13 Comments:
So if peaceful discussion fails, start attacking then the enemy will be eliminated and who cares about those innocent people who die in the process. they were probably too old or young to run anyways.
Joanne, I'm not sure that's the best way to move towards peace, but thanks for your input.
Jason, do you know what being sarcastic means???
Joanne, I'm not sure sarcasm is the best way to move towards peace, but thanks for your input.
Now, if you have any ideas for how to actually create negotiations, because I don't, it'd be great to get back on-topic.
Yes, I do but my ideas are childish and I am naive. Since you asked I will tell you some of my childish ideas.
First step towards peace is a ceasefire agreement from both sides. Second, Hamas and hezbollah release the kidnapped soldiers. Third,UN peackeepers in southern lebanon. Fourth, Israel pay for the costs of the damages caused to lebanon. While all this is happening, hezbollah should be forced to disarm with talk not physical force.
First step towards peace is a ceasefire agreement from both sides.
First off, I could be very wrong here in my understanding of the situation.... Hasn't there been a ceasefire on and off for what seems like my whole life? What would be different and uniquely new about this ceasefire that would make it attractive to the parties?
Second, Hamas and hezbollah release the kidnapped soldiers.
I think that would be an excellent step towards achieving a ceasefire for some form of talks.
Third,UN peackeepers in southern lebanon.
I may be wrong here, but - haven't there already been UN peacekeepers there for awhile now??
Fourth, Israel pay for the costs of the damages caused to lebanon.
I don't know this as pure fact, but I'm fairly certain Israel is already going to, if not completely pay, then contribute significantly to rebuilding southern Lebanon.
While all this is happening, hezbollah should be forced to disarm with talk not physical force.
Okay, now I have to say, I admit I do find this a bit poorly thought out, Joanne. How do you "force" someone to do something with talk, not physical force? And how, exactly, do you "force" a terrorist organization to disarm with talk? How would one go about forcing Al-Quaeda, for example, to disarm itself, through talk? How would one have gone about forcing the IRA to disarm through talk? I don't understand what you're trying to express here, please clear me up.
It seems to me like we've trying to persuade Hamas and Hezbollah to disarm for as long as I can remember: it very obviously hasn't worked enough to get rid of even one pistol. So without some new carrot or stick you can invent to add to the process, I don't regard this as a "plan", but rather whimsical thinking.
Of course, if you feel I'm not grasping any of your ideas, then you should absolutely feel free to try and clarify me.
Just a note:
UNIFIL has been in S. Lebanon for many years, and in 2002 Hezbollah used UN disguises to attack and kill Israeli soldiers and kidnap another. (if memory serves me correctly)
The UN Resolution requiring Hezbollah to disarm has been flaunted for many years. The only resolution is either a show of force or direct force.
The only way for negotiations to begin would be for the unilateral release of Hezbollahs hostages. WHich isn't going to happen.
the unilateral release of Hezbollahs hostages
My personal (so-far) read on this is that the cards are all in Hezbollah's hands - disarming and releasing hostages and such.
jason,
awesome clip.
personally, I don't see anything wrong with Inghram's approach. she has every right to be frustrated by the delusional talk coming out of that fellow.
i congratulate you on your challenge to lefties. because delusion talk is all you hear.
but three cheers to Inghram, i dsy.
Hey Chucker,
I'm actually equally frustrated, but I think that, as the host and not the guest (she was the guest host), she should be asking better questions, and NOT misleading.
The ONE thing I'll say about Williams is that he *does* say, "It's Hezbollah who started it," and then she starts in on him about why he thinks it's Israel's fault - she's not being honest.
But believe me, she wins the exchange hands down - he comes across deluded and clueless, to me. He's a disappointment.
oh, see, I'm all for low-brow news-formericals.
Well in that case....
Good clip, thanks. While Ingraham made some stunning leaps of logic, Williams (who, as a politician, should have this sh*t down pat) totally bombed.
What's the solution? Well, that is the $6.0 million dollar question, isn't it?
Post a Comment
<< Home