Lets first take a look at where we are today. To paraphrase President Reagan "Are we better off today than we were four years ago?". Are we? Iran is closer than ever to acquiring nuclear weapons, Syria is breaking out of its international isolation, Hezbollah is stronger and Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise.
Could the US have done better over the past 8 years on these issues? Just think about what the world was like after 9-11. What were world leaders willing to do after they saw the twin towers destroyed, the Pentagon hit and another plane go down in PA, all at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists? Even France- a European antagonist towards the US, trying to counterbalance the US's power- was behind the US and willing to do whatever was asked of it to go after the terrorists.
However, some people in the White House's brain trust decided to go after Sadaam, who presented no imminent threat, instead of the other real terrorist threats in the Middle East like Iran or Syria.This in turn has kept other countries from committing themselves to the same cause that the US and Israel share. The simple fact is that McCain wants to continue Bush's policies that have hurt America's standing and by extension Israel's security.
While Bush certainly has had the best of intentions regarding Israel (as opposed to Bush 41 who was one of the worst vis-a-vis Israel) his actions/policies have NO DOUBT left Israel in more existential danger, in a more precarious state since 1948!
What Bush has done, and what McCain wants to continue, are those policies that made the US weaker both nationally with an overstretched military and worldwide. It is what has kept the US from taking on the biggest local threat to Israel, Iran and their nukes. Those policies that took the US's resources away from terrorism and instead go after Sadaam are the policies that are at fault for allowing Iran to go full steam ahead on acquiring nukes. Those are the policies that are at fault for Russia's new assertiveness.
Right now we NEED someone who can rally the US's standing. McCain simply is not that person. If McCain were to win then his policies would be viewed as an extension of the "neocon agenda" of the past eight years. The world will say "there go the neocons again" and the US would be forced to go it alone.
If Obama wins the presidency, the world would be more likely to renew their allegiance with the US. If they decide to take out Iran's nuclear facilities and claim that it is a "clear and present danger", the world will not say "there go the neocons again". They will fight with the US side by side.
And make no mistake. Even the strongest military on earth does not have the manpower to go after Afghanistan, Iraq AND Iran at the same time!!
When we look back at Nixon going to China we understand that, at the time, only a Republican could have done that . Today, only a Democrat can actually take on Islamic fundamentalism and hope to have the rest of the world united behind it.
Many are going to vote for Obama, NOT in spite of their support for Israel.
Many are going to vote for Obama BECAUSE of their support for Israel!
Johnathan,
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of problems with your analysis. The first starts here:
However, some people in the White House's brain trust decided to go after Sadaam, who presented no imminent threat, instead of the other real terrorist threats in the Middle East like Iran or Syria.This in turn has kept other countries from committing themselves to the same cause that the US and Israel share. The simple fact is that McCain wants to continue Bush's policies that have hurt America's standing and by extension Israel's security.
The US had no reason at the time to go after Iran or Syria and doing so would have undermined US credibility far more than any mistakes made in Iraq. Just because these were more of a threat to Israel at the time was not a reason to go after them.
The assumption that a McCain administration is an extension of Bush is a false one as they are not the same man. And the assumption that the US has lost allegiances because of Bushes actions are also false. There are many countries that are working very closely with us now and many that would never have done so no matter what the situation. Many who currently "support" our efforts in Afghanistan don't have their heart in it and are unwilling to commit their troops to true threats as we do with our own in order to accomplish the mission.
Here is another false assumption:
While Bush certainly has had the best of intentions regarding Israel (as opposed to Bush 41 who was one of the worst vis-a-vis Israel) his actions/policies have NO DOUBT left Israel in more existential danger, in a more precarious state since 1948!
Israel is at a greater threat because of Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. Short of wishful thinking, there is no reason to believe that this wouldn't have happened if we hadn't invaded Iran. If anything, our unwillingness to confront Saddam would have been more likely to embolden Iran. Further, Saddam never relinquished his desire for nuclear weapons, had 500 tons of yellow cake and tons of specialized explosives required for the development of nuclear weapons. The sanctions could not continue indefinitely and without overthrowing him the end result would be that both Iran and Iraq would be developing nukes. That is not a situation that is safer for Israel.
You might believe that other nations would have been more willing to side with us in opposing Iranian development of nukes, but I don't see how you can believe this. Those who oppose (or simply don't support) our current actions against Iran are no more likely to have supported us in this alternate view where we didn't invade Iran.
The problem with these countries isn't that we've alienated them, it's that they see no reason to side with us in such situations since they don't feel threatened.
Another assumption is that our military is too overstretched to be able to deal with Iran. This isn't true. Our ground forces are stretched, but I don't see anyone contemplating any form of invasion of Iran. The likely method of dealing with them is through aerial actions via Navy or Air Forces which are not highly utilized at all at the moment.
Finally, there is one very large assumption that your argument rests. You believe that Obama will make the right choices for Israel or regarding Iran and Syria. He may and he may not. There is little concrete evidence one way or the other which leaves any such assumption as merely being a "Hope" that he will do so.
This is not surprising as Obama has been quite successful in helping people believe that he will do what they want even as they those things are contradictory. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ahmedinejad believe he will be easier for them to deal with while you believe the same thing. Both sides can't be right.
So before you seeing in Obama what you want to see ask yourself what actions would need to be taken in different circumstances and which man is most willing to make those choices. Also ask yourself what other things have to happen for those actions to work and how likely are they to happen.
My own personal opinion is that there are few other countries willing to take on the hardships of punishing Iran even if only on a sanctions basis. I certainly don't think that whether they do or not depends on who is in the Whitehouse. Any beliefs that they are is wishful thinking unsupported by the evidence.
That means that the next president may have to have the courage to take unilateral actions to close Iranian ports or strike at Iranian targets. I don't think Obama has such courage and certainly his background doesn't show that he does. I also don't think that he views Iran as being as much of a threat as Israelis or Jews do. Certainly his VP running mate doesn't view Iranian as such given his long history of consistently misjudging Iran and taking a soft approach to them.
My main caution is to look very carefully at why you believe that Obama might be the better choice and ask yourself how much of your conclusions are based on concrete evidence and how much is based on your personal desires.
Boaz Bezborodko
Hi Boaz,
ReplyDeleteI'll take your argument point by point.
On your first point, I recall President Bush declaring that anyone who aids or abets terrorists would be considered an enemy. Iran and Syria were and are supporters of Hezbollah and Hamas and are considered states that support terrorism. Iraq on the other hand had nothing to do with 9-11. They were not supporters of either Hamas or Hezbollah. The fact that we had no reason to go into Iraq is now undeniable.
When I say that McCain is an extension of Bush's policies, I do not claim that they are the same person but I do believe that they hold the same beliefs. The fact that we have lost much standing in the world is not an assumption. It is a matter of fact. Can you honestly say that the world looks at us the same today as they did on Sept. 12, 2001?
I know that you don't still believe in the "yellow cake" story. It has been roundly debunked for some time now (Do a search on Iraq and "yellow cake" in Google) and even the White House had to retract the Niger uranium claim. There is no competition between Iraq and Iran in terms of who was the real threat.
You state that sanctions could not have remained for much longer. Why? That's a pretty big assumption. South Africa had sanctions imposed on them for decades. Iran has now been under embargo by the US for since 1995. Was the world clamoring to accept Saddam back in our good graces? I disagree. Everyone would have been more than willing to use Iraq the same way that we did for ages; as the counterweight to an increasingly assertive Iran.
You say that our military isn't overstretched but the near universal agreement among the generals is that it is. It is why everyone is now familiar with the term “stop lossed”. You are correct that an Iranian operation would predominantly use our air force and navy but ground forces are ALWAYS required in operations of this magnitude.
You are absolutely correct when you state that I am making an assumption regarding Obama making the right choices vis-à-vis Israel. That would be the same, regardless of who ends up in the Oval Office. Would McCain still want to send Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jim Baker, Brent Scowcroft as his representatives to try and solve the conflict? That’s what he said in 1998. For something more recent I would point out that TWO years ago he said that he "would send "the smartest guy I know" to the Middle East .... "Brent Scowcroft, or Jim Baker though I know that you in Israel don't like Baker.”
My main belief is that when it comes to the next president neither of them will pay anything more than lip service to the Arab/Israeli conflict. Bush has shown beyond a doubt that this conflict is NOT central to the problems of the Middle East. Furthermore both candidates have expressed such large agendas and the economic problems in this country are so great right now that neither of them will be able to waste any political capital on anything other than their central issues.
On your first point, I recall President Bush declaring that anyone who aids or abets terrorists would be considered an enemy. Iran and Syria were and are supporters of Hezbollah and Hamas and are considered states that support terrorism. Iraq on the other hand had nothing to do with 9-11.
ReplyDeleteNeither did Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria or Iran. Saddam did initiate a number of hostile actions against the US including failing to abide by the cease fire agreements, attacking US aircraft, attempting the assassination of a former US president, and failing to prove that he eliminated his programs to develop weapons forbidden to him by UN resolutions and agreements.
Going into Iraq was part of a much wider strategy to change the character of the Middle East. If terrorists can be compared to mosquitoes then regime change in Iraq is the equivalent of draining the swamp. It is a long term strategy and it is still too early to tell if it will work. It hasn't failed yet and is doing quite well at the moment, but it can surely fail at any time if we quit.
he fact that we have lost much standing in the world is not an assumption.
What standing have we lost? The people who complain about us are the ones who always complain about us unless we do what they want. So far the Germans, French and Canadians have replaced their previous Leftist, mostly anti-American leadership with more Conservative, pro-American leadership.
If the UN is angry with us, well, I consider that a badge of courage.
I know that you don't still believe in the "yellow cake" story. It has been roundly debunked for some time now (Do a search on Iraq and "yellow cake" in Google)
Here's a news piece from CNN this past July that you may have missed:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States secretly shipped out of Iraq more than 500 tons of low-grade uranium dating back to the Saddam Hussein era, the Pentagon said Monday.
...
The "yellowcake" uranium transfer was requested by the Iraqi government at the encouragement of the U.S. government, Whitman said.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/index.html
However, what is missing in your analysis is that the Duelfer report looking into the state of WMDs and programs in Iraq under Saddam found that while some of the programs we though he was working on were temporarily sidelined, he was working on other programs that we didn't know anything about at all. In addition he was doing whatever he could to maintain effectiveness of his sidelined programs anticipating that he could get back to them when sanctions were removed.
Remember that there was very strong pressure to eliminate the sanctions at the time.
Those programs included long-range drones with chemical and biological disbursement capabilities including some with the range to get to Israel.
You state that sanctions could not have remained for much longer. Why? That's a pretty big assumption.
First, there was an awful lot of pressure to remove them. The story was that 500,000 Iraqi children had already died because of them and that pressure from the UN would eventually lead to their being abolished. We no know that massive holes in the sanctions system were already in place suing the Oil-for-Food system and that Saddam was systematically bribing key individuals to set the stage for their removal.
South Africa had sanctions imposed on them for decades. Iran has now been under embargo by the US for since 1995. Was the world clamoring to accept Saddam back in our good graces?
South Africa wasn't a major source of oil. South Africa didn't owe the Russians some $35 billion from weapons sales and South Africa didn't have multi-billion dollar oil contracts with French oil firms. That's two permanent members of the security council. Add in China and only the US and Britain were standing against them.
So, yes, there were a lot of people who were clamoring for this.
Everyone would have been more than willing to use Iraq the same way that we did for ages; as the counterweight to an increasingly assertive Iran.
Except that this would have meant that both Iran and Iraq would be working on nukes. That doesn't make Israel safer.
BTW, removing $25K/suicide bomber sure helped in de-incentivizing suicide bombers in Israel.
You say that our military isn't overstretched but the near universal agreement among the generals is that it is.
Again, read what I said. The army is stretched, but there is no one suggesting that the army be used against Iran. The Air Force and Navy aren't stretched at all.
The only place we currently feel the stretch is in Afghanistan. But from my reading a big part of that was that we were depending on our allies to help out there and aside for the Brits and Canadians, they are unwilling to risk their troops' lives of their troops in doing the kind of COIN strategy that we did so effectively in Iraq.
BTW, here are some videos that take a careful look at Obama's advisers and associates with regards to Israel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOQdlzBNosU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odIkj78IYEw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTrUYQCQceQ
Boaz
Ever see SNL’s Weekend Update where Seth Meyers and Amy Poeler have a skit called “Really”?
ReplyDelete“Going into Iraq was part of a much wider strategy to change the character of the Middle East.”
Really?! I think that was the third or fourth reason that was used after they finally admitted that they were wrong about the MWD’s – the stated purpose of going into Iraq to begin with. I don’t recall Colin Powell going to the UN and saying anything at all about changing the character of the Middle East. Additionally, it should be noted that terrorists did not exist in Iraq until after we went in. That’s a fact. Really.
“What standing have we lost?”
Really?! So what do you think McCain is talking about when he says that he “wants to restore U.S. standing abroad with an approach to foreign policy that breaks with George W. Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" and contrasts with Democratic rival Barack Obama's weakness.”
Here’s the link from McCain’s own website: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/NewsReleases/Read.aspx?guid=3aa1978e-0173-412f-8c41-4c602a2706c7
Yellowcake…
Really?!
You know what I was talking about. When someone talks about yellowcake regarding Iraq they are talking about when Bush stated in his State Of The Union address that Iraq was attempting to acquire more from Niger. This was even AFTER the story was known by our own intelligence community that the claim was a forgery.
Did you miss the story about CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellowcake from Niger? I think Scooter Libby remembers.
“The only place we currently feel the stretch is in Afghanistan.”
Really?!
I believe that it is well established by now that we are stretched in Iraq as well and that is where most of the stop-losses have taken place. Besides, everyone knows that you cannot only use naval and air power to do all of what needs to be done in Iran. If you recall, however, my original point was that because of our current standing in the world, we are not getting the international assistance that we would like in sharing the burden of going after Iran.
Lastly, those youtube videos.
Really?! Anyone that still tries to tie Obama to Farrakhan, which that video does, simply isn’t thinking seriously and is just trying to run a smear campaign.
BTW you once implied that how could terrorists and I both be right vis-à-vis Obama. I think you should check out why Al-Qaida supporters are supporting McCain. http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=213&sid=1501665
Also while I NEVER claimed that McCain was anything other than pro-Israel, I still have issues with him regarding his positions regarding Israel. For instance, why would he say that he would send “the smartest guys I know” to the Middle East “"Brent Scowcroft, or Jim Baker, though I know that you in Israel don't like Baker."
Just food for thought.
Ever see SNL’s Weekend Update where Seth Meyers and Amy Poeler have a skit called “Really”?
ReplyDelete“Going into Iraq was part of a much wider strategy to change the character of the Middle East.”
Really?! I think that was the third or fourth reason that was used after they finally admitted that they were wrong about the MWD’s – the stated purpose of going into Iraq to begin with.
The arguments were definitely made and were the reasons I supported the actions. Here is an article I read when it first came out. Notice the date?
Our World-Historical Gamble
http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/our_world_historical_gamble.htm
It is a long article that examines the underlying dynamics of the cultural struggle we were and are facing. I encourage you to read it.
And, while WMDs were not the only reason to go in (read the resolution passed by Congress if you want to see everything that was stated) it is important to understand that a) many world leaders and governments all thought the same thing about Saddam and WMDs, b) while it is impossible to prove the non-existence of them, it was Saddam's obligation to prove that they were destroyed--something he failed to do, c) Saddam had already established that he was perfectly willing to lie about their destruction as was proven in 1996 when we did find WMD stashes that were supposed to have been destroyed, d) the risks of accepting his word for it this time was too risky, (while the risks themselves did not change, our acceptance of them in a post 9/11 era did) e) while we were wrong in what we though he had, we were also wrong in what we thought he didn't have.
If you've studied either the history of Stalin or that of Hitler in depth in regards to their approach to dealing with democratic Western governments you would have recognized every action of Saddam's. His was an attempt to both intimidate and undermine the reputation of Western world governments and leaders after which he hoped to further advance his goals of removing sanctions. My guess is that had we backed down we likely would have had to make at least some concessions on the sanctions. Given the amount he was already able to get out of them it is quite likely that he could get what he needed from any loosening.
So what do you think McCain is talking about when he says that he “wants to restore U.S. standing abroad with an approach to foreign policy that breaks with George W. Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" and contrasts with Democratic rival Barack Obama's weakness.”
Hey, I never said that McCain was my ideal. In fact I could hope for a lot better. But that is not the same as what Obama will cause. Obama's approach to the matter, as Joe Biden so helpfully pointed out to many who haven't realized it yet, invites threats to us and to our allies (including Israel). Obama's hopelessly naive statement about wanting to meet with world leaders like Kennedy did with Kruschev only highlights this. (I don't know if you're familiar with this bit of history, but within months of the meeting Kruschev started building the Berlin Wall and preparing nuclear missiles in Cuba. It has been documented that it was Kennedy's meeting with him that convinced him that he could get away with it.)
In electing Obama you are inviting such crises and then hoping that he will do the right thing. Of course, as Biden again pointed out, he'll likely to the wrong thing at first and may only make up for it later.
Is that the kind of thing you want?
Really?!? ;-)
You know what I was talking about. When someone talks about yellowcake regarding Iraq they are talking about when Bush stated in his State Of The Union address that Iraq was attempting to acquire more from Niger. This was even AFTER the story was known by our own intelligence community that the claim was a forgery.
Did you miss the story about CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellowcake from Niger? I think Scooter Libby remembers.
No. And I especially didn't miss the part in the Senate investigation into the lead-up to the war where it states that Wilson's comments actually reinforced the CIA's belief that Iraq was attempting to get yellowcake from Niger.
After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium. The review panel was headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, who had been a cabinet secretary under five different Prime Ministers and who is currently master of University College, Oxford.
The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:
...
The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.
Wilson: Bush's Words "The Lie"
(From a web chat sponsored by Kerry for President Oct. 29, 2003)
*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:24:53 AM)
I would remind you that had Mr. Cheney taken into consideration my report as well as 2 others submitted on this subject, rather than the forgeries
*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:06 AM)
the lie would never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address
*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:14 AM)
so when they ask, "Who betrayed the President?"
*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:30 AM)
They need to point the finger at the person who inserted the 16 words, not at the person who found the truth of the matter.
The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.
Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html
Now you won't get an argument from me that the CIA is massively screwed up. One of my many beefs with Bush is that he did not completely dismantle and reorganize, the CIA, the FBI, and the massively pro-Arab State Department. But the facts are what they are. The CIA came to believe the information at the time.
Again, from Factcheck.org
The final word on the 16 words may have to await history's judgment. The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.
You continue:
I believe that it is well established by now that we are stretched in Iraq as well and that is where most of the stop-losses have taken place. Besides, everyone knows that you cannot only use naval and air power to do all of what needs to be done in Iran. If you recall, however, my original point was that because of our current standing in the world, we are not getting the international assistance that we would like in sharing the burden of going after Iran.
What assistance? Who's going to assist you more than they have? I mean "Really?!?" most of those who are willing to assist in Afghanistan (an easier choice to make) aren't willing to put their troops at risk and want to keep their troops in FOBs 95% of the time, and then, when threatened call in air strikes which only the US has the capability of doing. That is completely contrary to successful COIN strategy.
This also ignores that there is currently a very successful anti-monetary campaign being prosecuted by the US against Iran. They are starving for capital because they can't get enough and they can't get enough because all those countries you say aren't supporting us are working with us against them.
Here's where it started:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1186554,00.html?promoid=rss_top
Really?! Anyone that still tries to tie Obama to Farrakhan, which that video does, simply isn’t thinking seriously and is just trying to run a smear campaign.
Farrakhan is a key to understanding just how anti-Semitic was Jeremiah Wright. And if the only retort to all the videos is this, then you are simply willfully blinding yourself in order to maintain your belief in Obama as you want to see him rather than how he was prior to running on a national ticket.
Which is the real Obama? The one who spent 20 years in Trinity United Church, hung out with Rashid Khalidi, and takes advice from Samantha Powers? OF the one you wish to see based on things he said on the campaign when finally running and telling you what you wanted to hear?
You need to ask yourself some tough questions about you believe one side of Obama as opposed to the other. How much of it is simply because you want to believe?
BTW you once implied that how could terrorists and I both be right vis-à-vis Obama. I think you should check out why Al-Qaida supporters are supporting McCain.
Sorry, but one post on an Al Qaida website doesn't make an endorsement. It could easily be a smokescreen to make people think that so that they could get Obama elected. Do you really think that Al Qaida would be more threatened by an Obama presidency? Why?
And it's not like it was as explicit an endorsement as what Hamas gave to Obama back in April. They specifically said that they would prefer an Obama presidency.
On the eve of a planned meeting with former President Jimmy Carter, the isolated Hamas terrorist organization has expressed "hope" Sen. Barack Obama will win the presidential elections and "change" America's foreign policy.
"We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections," Ahmed Yousuf, Hamas' top political adviser in the Gaza Strip, said in an exclusive interview with WND and with the John Batchelor Show on WABC Radio in New York.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=61631
Also while I NEVER claimed that McCain was anything other than pro-Israel, I still have issues with him regarding his positions regarding Israel. For instance, why would he say that he would send “the smartest guys I know” to the Middle East “"Brent Scowcroft, or Jim Baker, though I know that you in Israel don't like Baker."
Just food for thought.
You have to compare one statement regarding the possibility of using one individual with what seems like quite a long track-record of associating with known anti-Semites and being acknowledged as being preferred by them.
Again, you chose to believe one way as opposed to the other despite overwhelming evidence that suggests you have no basis for doing so. This, as I said before, is simply wishful thinking. It is based on emotions and not rationality.
Boaz
One other point...
ReplyDeleteJesse Jackson interprets Obama's position about Israel as being the opposite of yours...
Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.
"Obama is about change," Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. "And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it."
Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter." But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_o_jesse_knows_133450.htm?page=0
Now it may be that you are correct and not Jackson. But why is it that so many people are willing to see Obama as supporting their position even when those positions are totally contradictory?
It's obvious that Obama is trying to fool the rubes. Now you only have to figure out if you are the rube or it's the other guy.
Boaz
Jesse Jackson?!! Give me a break!! Did it even take a second for the Obama camp to immediately respond by saying that Jackson has NO place within the campaign whatsoever? Even Republicans were admitting that it was simply a maneuver by Jackson to keep himself relevant since he obviously is no longer the leader within the black community. That’s a joke. Please tell me you’re not really serious with that one!!
ReplyDelete“Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.”
Oh, well then it must be true…. What is this? Six degrees of Kevin Bacon?!
Since I'm sure that no argument of mine will be persuasive, lets just use Republican's themselves or other staunch supporters of Israel:
**Bill Kristol said that Obama and McCain do not differ on their Israel and Iran policies.
"Obama and McCain don't actually differ, at least on paper, even on Iran, where they're arguing about whether they would talk to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or not -- and I think that's an important dispute. Still, at the end of the day, Obama doesn't say he would rule out the use of force. McCain certainly is committed as he said this morning to trying to increase economic pressure on Iran, which Obama has also talked about."
On May 9th, on CNN Wolf Blizter: “Do you have any doubt about Senator Obama's commitment to maintain a very supportive role of the United States, as far as Israel is concerned?”
JOE LIEBERMAN: "I have no doubt about that."
To be fair though, Lieberman then goes on to talk about why he thinks that McCain's experience gives him the knowledge of when to be tough, soft....than Obama.
We (by that I mean all supporters of Israel) used to measure a candidates support for Israel by looking at their voting record first and, especially if the voting record is short – which admittedly Obama’s is -, their public statements second. On those counts both McCain and Obama are going to be good for Israel. For anyone who chooses to be intellectually honest, this point is irrefutable. Both Democrat and Republican policy experts agree on that. (We should both be thankful that this vote is between McCain and Obama and not Bush 41 and Carter.)
I simply refuse to ignore Obama’s own actions and his statements in favor of judging him by a select few associations which are tenuous at best. I have never been politically naive and to assume so is just plain wrong (and yes, insulting). You and I simply will have to agree to disagree on how we vet our candidates regarding their support for Israel. I will never play the guilt by association game. Almost every argument you have made has been based either on fear or smear.
I personally believe that the debate going on within the Orthodox Jewish community is HIGHLY destructive to our cause. By trying to turn Israel into a partisan issue as opposed to a universally American bi-partisan consensus, we are doing great harm to Israel.
While I agree that there is certainly an element within the Democratic Party at the moment which is increasingly anti-Israel, the Republicans have the same issue with their extreme right cohorts with people like D. Duke, B. Novak and P. Buchanan.
I believe much of the current Democratic move is a knee jerk reaction associated with many moronic Dems who view anything that Bush was in favor of as inherently wrong or bad for America. While those sentiments are moronic, as I’ve said, it’s also a testament to just how divisive Bush and the Republicans have become. Ahh, remember when Bush was called “A unit’er, not a divider”?
I have always been right wing when it comes to Israel. Shit, I worked for/in Likud. I will shed no tears if Iran is turned into a parking lot if they go nuclear. However, our current doctrine of “our way or the highway” has made Russia an antagonist of ours instead of helping us vis-à-vis Iran. Do I care one iota about issues between Russia & Georgia – or the rest of South Ossetia? Not if it means we lose any assistance from Russia in dealing with Iran! Do I care about accepting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO and putting them under our future nuclear shield RIGHT ON RUSSIA’S BORDER? Not for one second if it inhibits our ability to get Russia to stop supplying Iran with material and other support! I heard Al D’Amato the other night say “what the hell were we thinking? What did you think the Russians were going to do?! What would WE do if that happened in our hemisphere?! We have the Monroe Doctrine and so do they!”
We need to be MUCH smarter than we’ve been. We need to prioritize and actually use our heads, unlike what we’ve been doing so far. We need to make more allies or at the very least, not antagonize those who might be in a position to help. If we don’t do that then we are all in for a world of shit in the coming years – no matter who is president.
Jesse Jackson?!! Give me a break!!
ReplyDeleteNote that I did not say that Jackson speaks for Obama, that he advises him, or that he is any way associated with his policies. My point was that Jackson looks at the same candidate as you and sees a candidate who he believes will follow a completely different policy than you do. Obviously there is something about Obama that allows people to see diametrically opposed viewpoints in the same candidate.
As for Obama's true intentions I'm not sure that even he knows what they'll be. He has a history of saying to people what they want to hear. So he told Jews in AIPAC that Jerusalem would be undivided and he hangs out with Rashid Khalidi who believes that Obama would be a good friend for the Palestinians.
My own hesitancy comes from reading things like this:
Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years.
And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story
BTW, the LA Times has a video from this meeting, but they refuse to release it until after the elections. Do you think they would be so courteous were it a video of McCain meeting with David Duke?
With regards to Russia...Don't kid yourself that Russia isn't helping us with Iran because of an "our way or the highway" policy. They benefit massively from high oil prices. Both egging on Iran and moving into Georgia and threatening its pipeline help with that. Finally, Putin would very much like to see Russia as a great power. The best way it can do that is to regain influence and control in the "near abroad"--The surrounding former satellites of the Soviet Union.
Your comments regarding not "antagonizing" Russia are remarkably reminiscent of appeasement tactics throughout recent history. They didn't work then and they won't work now because it isn't "antagonization" that is causing the problem. The Russians want to flex their muscles and are counting on us not to do anything against them.
Another point. Russia makes a lot of money dealing with Iran and is pretty protective of their customer. One theory behind the Georgia attack was that it was to deny Israel the use of Georgian air-bases in an attack against Iranian targets. Israel does not have the range to attack Iran without going through Iraqi air space. Getting US permission to fly through would be extremely dicey. Their only hope is to skirt Iraq from the north, but this would involve at least aerial refueling over either Turkey or Georgia. Using ground bases in Georgia would be the ideal. Either way a Russian presence in Georgia makes things extremely difficult.
I get the impression tha tyou believe that Russia's actions are somehow dependent on our behavior. Be careful there. That kind of thinking was what caused many a mistake in the lead up to many wars.
Boaz
Be less Partisan and More of an Ideologue
ReplyDelete“Obviously there is something about Obama that allows people to see diametrically opposed viewpoints in the same candidate.” “Obviously”? Unfortunately your arguments use people who simply project there own views without having ANY actions or statements to back them up. I, on the other hand, use his votes in the US Senate, State Senate (yes, there’s more info there too showing his support for Israel), statements on Israel, Iran (he introduced an Iran divestment bill in Congress), Hamas (cosponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006), Hezbollah (joined a letter calling on the European Union to add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist groups)…. The list goes on.
You are correct that it does not go on as long as McCain’s and if that were your argument then I would have to simply concede the point. However, instead of simply admitting, like other Republicans have, that Obama will be good for Israel, you smear him via weak associations and an incredulous argument that some Arabs support him and therefore they must know something that we don’t. How paranoid can you be that you actually believe that Arabs know something about Obama that we don’t?!
“hangs out with Rashid Khalidi”? Careful. You’re beginning to sound like Palin. You just need to say “pallin’ around” instead and BOOM, you’re Sarah Palin…or Tina Fey if you like.
“Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago…”. How convenient that there is no quote and no source. Nothing. It says nothing! What am I supposed to be afraid of? Again, this only works when you are trying to scare people with nebulous statements and “Palestinian” thrown in for good measure.
My point regarding the Russians is simple. It is clear that the Russians could help vis-à-vis Iran. But if you crap in their backyard do you really think they are going to be receptive to our call for their assistance? Like I said, I don’t care if we expand NATO and the Russians don’t care if the former Soviet republics stay neutral. They do care, however, if we move the lines against them in their own backyard. As Al D’Amato said, “What would WE do if that happened in our hemisphere?!” Do you think D’Amato is just being naïve or is he an appeaser too?
We need to engage the Russians and make it clear that our priority is a nuke free Iran and we are willing to use any and all force to ensure that. If they help us then we can talk, not about some kind of Chamberlain surrender of Georgia to Russia, but instead agreeing to keep Georgia and the others as buffers between NATO and Russia.
The Russians are still smarting over the Soviet collapse and our complete failure to assist in ’98 when the Russian Ruble collapsed. They are reveling in our ineptitude these past few years. Yes, they want to flex some muscle again and using the oil weapon certainly helps. However, the last thing that Russia needs is a crazy Muslim population in their neighborhood with nukes. Remember that they have serious issues with their own Muslims.
BTW, to even USE the word “appeasement” regarding my argument is WAY over the line and insulting. Do you even remember who the hell you’re talking to?! If you don’t realize that you are not talking to some fucking pacifist then you should just stop writing now. Comments like “don’t kid yourself” are patronizing enough. But to compare my argument to Chamberlain/appeasement is something else entirely!! Have you ever had to negotiate anything or did you simply feel that would be seen as appeasing someone? You might have more credibility if you were to concede something when someone else has made a good point. I fail to understand why some people feel the need to debate in a “zero/sum” manner. Allow me to suggest an article from the JPost that I think you should read; http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017601870&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Not talking to our adversaries, which, correct me if I’m wrong, seems like what you believe if you agree with McCain and Palin, is reminiscent of the Arab’s policy vis-à-vis Israel - the three “No’s”. How do you think it’s working out for them? Just because you wish things would be different, won’t make it so. Carl von Clausewitz famously stated that “War is a continuation of politics by other means”. Since when have we stopped using the ‘political’ side of that equation?
http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/ECHEVAR/ECHJFQ.htm
When you don't talk to your adversaries, you leave yourself with only the military option. That sounds like a fairly stupid policy when you stop and think about it doesn't it?
If you think that Obama is so naive and dangerous for us strategically then why do you think military people with credentials like Powell (you think he's an appeaser?), a Republican, are endorsing Obama? Please don’t tell me you’re like Limbaugh and think that its just b/c he’s black.
Colin Powell – Four Star General, National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, US Secretary of State – endorses Obama
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD93U5PGG1
R. Nicholas Burns - Former George HW Bush, Clinton, W Bush official – endorses Obama
http://www.newsweek.com/id/165650
Charles Fried - One of McCain's own advisors!! (oh he was also United States Solicitor General from 1985 to 1989) – endorses Obama
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/24/reagan-appointee-and-recent-mccain-adviser-charles-fried-supports-obama.aspx
William Weld - governor of Massachusetts – endorses Obama
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1142584/republican_william_weld_endorses_obama.html
Christopher Buckley - Son of William F Buckley – endorses Obama
Julie Nixon Eisenhower - Daughter of Richard Nixon – endorses Obama
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/22/former-president-nixons-daughter-backs-obama/
Susan Eisenhower - Daughter of Ike – endorses Obama
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102621.html
Funny but it seems to me that the people who were considered the brains behind the conservative movement have been endorsing Obama.
Don't feel too bad. At least you still have Limbaugh, Hannity and Novak!!!
We'll all see how it turns out soon enough. May the best candidate win.
P.S. I have read about the Israel/Georgia/Iran plan and quite frankly I am still angry that Bush apparently didn’t give the IDF permission to fly over Iraq. Yes you are correct that it would be politically difficult but do you think it would be easier for Georgia or Turkey to say yes? I say “apparently” b/c I’m not sure I believe any of this. I mean, since when do we publicize these things?
PPS I noticed that you didn’t have any comment to McCain, a seasoned politician, saying that he would send Baker, who famously said “fuck the Jews”, Brent Scowcroft or/and Zbigniew Brzezinski as part of his Middle East team. Personally, I am VERY afraid of McCain suggesting recently – not 10 or 20 years ago- to use people like these for the specific purpose of trying to attain peace between Israel and the Arabs. Aren’t you the least bit worried about McCain?!?! Seriously!!
I, on the other hand, use his votes in the US Senate, State Senate (yes, there’s more info there too showing his support for Israel), statements on Israel, Iran (he introduced an Iran divestment bill in Congress), Hamas (cosponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006), Hezbollah (joined a letter calling on the European Union to add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist groups)…. The list goes on.
ReplyDeleteFirst, anyone can make a statement especially if they have someone go through back channels and tell the other party that they don't really mean it. Just ask Austan Goolsbee who was reported as going to the Canadians and telling them not to worry about Obama's statments on NAFTA. Goolsbee denies that he said it, but the Canadians have a memo about it. So did he send someone to Hamas or other Palestinian allies of theirs and we just didn't find out about this time?
As for his claim to propose a bill to divest from Iran, BS!
Here is what Obama said:
"Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon."
Barack Obama
Sderot, Israel
July 23, 2008
Except that the Senate Banking Committe isn't his committee. Hell, he wasn't even on it.
He is on the record opposing another measure against Iran.
Senator Obama did not appear in the Senate to vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment calling on the government to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist entity and thus suffer the imposition of sanctions. On the day of the vote on the amendment, however, Obama issued a statement announcing that he would have voted against it. In the statement, the closest he came to addressing the merits of the amendment was his assertion that "he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran." The amendment passed the Senate 76-22 on September 26, 2007, with many Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, and Chuck Schumer voting in its favor.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/07/021072.php
Obama is saying porkies and you're buying it because you want to believe it's true.
...you smear him via weak associations and an incredulous argument that some Arabs support him and therefore they must know something that we don’t.
Two points...First, those associations are not exactly weak if the guy sat down to for dinner on a number of occasions at the table of a former mouthpiece for the PLO and made tens of thousands of dollars available for the man's wife's activities. Second, I'm not saying that they know something you don't, (although they just might) but that they see the same thing and come to a completely different interpretation.
How paranoid can you be that you actually believe that Arabs know something about Obama that we don’t?!
Why are you asking me? I see these things in Obama. You don't.
Here's another you might want to ask yourself about:
PA daily reports that Gaza residents are randomly calling American homes trying to convince Americans to support Barack Obama for president.
The following is the story in the PA daily:
"23 year old [Palestinian] Ibrahim Abu Jayyab sits by the computer in the Nusairat refugee camp [in the Gaza Strip] trying to call American citizens, in order to convince them to vote for the Democratic candidate for president, Barack Obama...
http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_oct2008.html#b271008
My point regarding the Russians is simple. It is clear that the Russians could help vis-à-vis Iran.
You're making the very big assumption that they want to help us. I don't share that assumption and think, given Russia's history and the apparent intentions of Putin, that doing so is foolish.
BTW, to even USE the word “appeasement” regarding my argument is WAY over the line and insulting.
Why? You just got through telling me that it is OK to give up the Georgians in exchange for Russian cooperation against Iran. Substitute Czechoslovakia for Georgia and you're not that far off from what the French and Brits did in 1938. If you don't recognize the similarities then maybe you should brush up on your history.
Do you even remember who the hell you’re talking to?! If you don’t realize that you are not talking to some fucking pacifist then you should just stop writing now. Comments like “don’t kid yourself” are patronizing enough. But to compare my argument to Chamberlain/appeasement is something else entirely!!
It seems I've touched a nerve. I do know what I'm talking about. What you advocate is appeasement. It is very similar to what some very intelligent and well-intentioned people did in the past and made some major mistakes.
Have you ever had to negotiate anything or did you simply feel that would be seen as appeasing someone?
You make the assumption that you know what the other person wants. Chamberlain was sure that he felt the same way and did it with all the best of intentions. However, that is not how Hitler or Stalin viewed it. (If you want to better understand this my suggestion is to read "Hitler and Stalin" by Alan Bullock. A very long book, but enlightening.)
I fail to understand why some people feel the need to debate in a “zero/sum” manner.
You make a false assumption. I have not said what you should do, nor have I said that McCain is implicitly better. I have told you that your conclusions are loaded with premises that are not proven by the data and that, in fact, much of the data contradicts this.
You show me some of Obama's statements and tell me that this is who he is. I compare them with some of his actions from the past and suggest that he is trying to appear to you as you want him to appear. It's not like he doesn't do this on a regular basis.
Just today we get a new example of this. Obama has repeated constantly that he is not a Marxist/Socialist and that he loves his country. But a new audio has surfaced of an interview of his on NPR from 2001. In it he specifically talks about redistribution and that the Constitution must be massively reinterpreted from what was the original intent of document.
Here are his words:
…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”
And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
I don't know about you, but I think the Constitution is one of the most brilliant documents ever written and established one of the best forms of government ever created. But Obama not only admits that he wants wealth redistribution, he also says that he wants to change our government from the "limits" of the Constitution.
Now which is the real Obama? The one from 2001 or the one we hear now in 2008 who denies everything he said then? The one who tells Jews what they want to hear (even lying to them to do so) or the one that hung out with anarchists, Marxists, anti-American, and anti-Semites.
You're getting angry at me, but I'm not the one lying to you. I'm trying to point out the massive inconsistencies in Obama.
When you don't talk to your adversaries, you leave yourself with only the military option.
No one ever said that we don't talk to them...But with enemies like Iran you do it through back-channels. You don't give them a face-to-face. That is a sure loser as Kennedy found out after his meeting with Kruschev.
If you think that Obama is so naive and dangerous for us strategically then why do you think military people with credentials like Powell (you think he's an appeaser?), a Republican, are endorsing Obama? Please don’t tell me you’re like Limbaugh and think that its just b/c he’s black.
I'll come to my own conclusions. Powell is not exactly known for his could choices. (Stopping our forces before we destroyed the Republican Guard is one.) Evaluate the facts and come to your own conclusion. Just make sure you recognize what are the facts and what is merely perception of the facts.
Funny but it seems to me that the people who were considered the brains behind the conservative movement have been endorsing Obama.
You mean like Krauthammer, Sowell, Hanson, Steyn, Prager, etc.?
If you don't recognize all those names then you should do a bit more reading...Especially Hanson, Sowell and Prager.
Boaz
On your first point, yes, it's called a gaffe and there are entire web sites dedicated to them. If you think that he's lying then you must apply the same standards to McCain who is also appears severely sleep deprived in this campaign and can't seem to get the difference between Shiite and Sunni right.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that he should have voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. I understand that Obama simply doesn't want to give Bush any more rope than he's already gotten but I still think he was wrong. I agreed more with Hillary in voting for the bill. I don't view Obama as the Messiah and I'm not afraid to criticize him where I think he is wrong.
Obama is saying "porkies"? Huh? Whatever. I get your point.
PA Daily?! Yeah, I think they also say that we gas their babies. Not exactly a bastion of journalistic integrity.
You clearly don't understand the point I made regarding Georgia. I am not talking about letting Russia take over Georgia. Read what I wrote again. I said that we don't care about Georgia being part of NATO and I don't believe that Russia wants the lines of NATO encroaching on them. Russia would rather have Georgia as a buffer between them and NATO. That's not appeasing anyone since no one is going to take over Georgia. They will remain what they have been. An independent country. So you see, you cannot compare this case to Czechoslovakia.
I don't assume to KNOW Obama through what I have read about him but I will always put more stock in what a candidate does over who he had dinner with a few times. If Obama wants to eat with Khalidi while voting for every pro-Israel resolution that makes it's way to his desk then I'll even buy the falafel balls myself.
Just one little knit-pick on something you said.
Powell didn't stop the war. Read Schwarzkopf's book. Bush wanted to finally exorcising the "Vietnam Syndrome" so even though both Schwarzkopf and Powell didn't see the need to go in at all after the air war, Powell succumbed to the pressure on him from Bush, Baker and Scowcroft and we then had our "100 Hour" war.
BTW I'm NO big fan of Powell for other reasons. Just FYI - no need to get into it hear.
I like Krauthammer & Prager. I generally consider them well thought out and erudite.
You said that I was getting angry at you and that you touched a nerve. You're damn right. I have actually been enjoying this the entire debate right until you basically said I was an appeaser. If you don't understand why I got pissed then you need to brush up on your history and get a real grasp of what it means to call someone an appeaser. Comparing me in any way to those who allowed the rise of Hitler and Nazism is so over the line that it's just beyond belief!!!
You were wrong. You were out of line. Period.
Apologize.
And when this is all over we'll go out have a drink, hug it out bitch, and toast whoever wins the election and hope that they don't fuck things up more than it's already fucked up.
Jonathan,
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to whether you feel that Obama is moving things along in the direction you anticipated or do you feel that things aren't quite going the way you expected?
As for me, unfortunately the administration is moving in a direction almost exactly as I feared they would.
Shanah Tovah and a Gmar Chatimah Tovah to you and the family.
Best Regards,
Boaz