This question, shortly following my previous quote from the same post by Juan Cole, identifies a scary thought:

Informed Comment
And, why was Condi Rice’s reaction to the capture of two Israeli soldiers and Israel’s wholesale destruction of little Lebanon that these were the “birth pangs” of the “New Middle East”? How did she know so early on that this war would be so wideranging?

Is this some sort of “bring it on” that the U.S. is encouraging Israel to intensify? This absolute double-talk (deceptive, nonsense talk) about wanting a “sustainable ceasefire” instead of an “immediate ceasefire” is infuriating. If people thought about this, the idiocy of this would be clear. Jon Stewart noticed it (I can’t find the clip I saw where he took this logic and laid bare it’s nonsense. later addition: Here’s the quote:

Political Humor – Jokes Satire and Political Cartoons
“President Bush, has rejected calls for an immediate cease-fire on the grounds that he’d prefer a ‘sustainable cease-fire.’ It makes sense. He doesn’t want the killing to stop until he’s sure it will stop. So, there will be more killing until the president’s convinced that there will be no more killing. Or everyone else runs out of people.” –Jon Stewart on Comedy Central (just found it: here it is)

This angle on Rice’s “birthpangs” statement (suggesting that she knows of plans to take advanatage of this situation) rings somewhat true, given the level of deception of this administration (and from recent history of other ….ahem….efforts to ride the waves of something,  anything,  even “manyfactured” connections. In other words,  LIARS. Proven Liars.  And lies which are aimed not at some future good,  but ends which are entirely to the benefit of a corrupt and evil elite.  More on this “evil” designation to come.