Shlonkom Bakazay?

Robert Parry notes quite clearly,

For a government that wraps its actions in moral absolutes about good versus evil, while deriding liberal relativism, the Bush administration may rank as the most committed in modern American history to an ends-justify-the-means ethos.

Indeed, to understand the administration’s neoconservative foreign policy, one must recognize how this moral framework works: First, it sets out worthy-sounding goals – freedom, democracy, security – and then it applies whatever tactics are deemed necessary – torture, murder, unprovoked invasions – along with an aggressive propaganda strategy at home.

Next, when events take a positive turn, the neoconservatives claim credit, even if they had only a minor role or the events were largely coincidental. Criticism of the bloody means is washed away by celebration of the virtuous ends. Mainstream commentators join in, cheering the neocons’ farsightedness. Those who opposed the original actions are pushed to the political margins.

After two years of bloody war in Iraq and 1,500 U.S. soldiers dead, the neocons have reached such a moment. They are claiming vindication because of several developments in the Middle East, including the Iraqi election, tentative progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and Lebanese demands for a full Syrian withdrawal.

Read rest here. Moment of vindication? I think not. No wonder the mention of Bin Laden. He grew the balls to say it again because suddenly (even though more and more people die), he's vindicated because of the Lebanese will? And of course he won't come out and say it, because it would undermine and injure Lebanese national pride in a time where he could gain political points off of this exact pride...although he has nothing whatsoever to do with events taking place in Lebanon. And I only wish Lebanon to succeed on its path to wrangle free of Syrian controls. But to score political points off of the emotions of Lebanon is just sickening to me.

Politics. What a sick game.