When will the Democrats learn? We are in an unpopular and failed war, and what a successful presidential candidate has to do is openly and uncompromisingly slam this unjust travesty and the incompetents who initiated it, yet Clinton and Edwards are enabling war fever, if not directly feeding it. Face it, war with Iran is off the table. It is not an option, unless we want to ruin our military and our economy; and the nuclear option is evil and unconscionable, and would utterly destroy our fast-fading moral standing. I wish we had a candidate who would just come out and say that.
I hate to say it, but Barack Obama seems to be one of the rare candidates thinking about doing something against the war. He could still win me over, especially if he continues to make specific proposals like that, but I'm still worried that any presidential race with him in it would turn into a "Who's Holier?" piety contest, and we simply do not need more religiosity in American politics.
I might be willing to overlook that (for now) if we can just get a candidate who shows some real awareness and concern about policy, is unambiguously against war and torture, doesn't use the prospect of terrorism to terrify the populace, and is pro-science and pro-education. An anti-George W. Bush, in other words.
- Log in to post comments
What moral standing?
Some people are saying that Edwards and Clinton are not really as hawkish as they seem.
I really think that the opposite is the case: historically, when they are in power Democrats are at least as hawkish as they seemed to be during the election. Once they're in office, the conventional wisdon and the dynamic of government push them towards militarism.
I really think that voters should follow this rule: if a Democrat seems like a hawk, he is one.
And so now that it's unpopular, we need to renounce it?
No. What we needed to do, and what any potential Democratic candidate needed to do, was renounce it back when it was a popular and and failed war.
That would have required ethical backbone, a trait which no candidate (of any party) possesses.
Hmmm. Does being "unambiguously against war" mean that we should not have conquered the Taliban regime in Afghanistan?
My own view is that the Bush administration has indeed made a mess of foreign policy, failing to put the resources and attention necessary into the reconstruction of Afghanistan, jumping instead to a reckless pursuit of regime change in Iraq, using deceit to justify that invasion, failing to plan for the inevitable aftermath of that, putting off nations that should be our friends, making friends with nations that we should treat more guardedly, and generally making a mess of foreign policy. But that doesn't make me a pacifist. I think the US had to conquer the Taliban. And I can well imagine other cases in the near future where the application of military power is important, despite the way Bush has bollixed Iraq.
Yes, we need an anti-Bush. But does that mean a president who is more thoughtful in making such decisions? Or one who is simply anti-war? This is an important distinction, and has electoral consequences as well. A candidate who parrots ANSWER will lose. And will deserve to lose.
Check Ezra Klein's interview with Edwards and you will change your mind.
His name was Howard Dean. The media and the Democratic leadership co-operated to remove him from the field. They have also been unhelpful to the other anti-war candidates. Why? The reactionary Republicans have manipulated the Democratic leadership into believing that any stance the Republicans portray as icky, immoral, unpatriotic, expensive, or insufficiently protective, must be avoided at all cost.
The continuing grievous errors of Clinton and Edwards show that many of our leaders continue to swallow reactionary Republican propaganda, hook, line and sinker.
You don't have to tell me -- I'm a big fan of Dean.
Well, since Gore isn't running (sigh--no "re-elect Gore" Bumper stickers for me), I'm also having trouble picking. I don't trust Hillary to stick to her principles, and I don't know nearly enough about Obama yet. As for Edwards, I agree with coturnix: I feel much better about his war stance after reading the interview. He's obviously thinking seriously about the best way to approach Iran, which is way more than our fearless leader can say.
Obama better quit smoking. He also drives an SUV. Obviously doesn't give a shit about the environment.
I think about all the plane trips he will be taking across the country, with all his troops, and I think about global warming, and it makes me ill.
It's time to stop pretending we can just go on like nothing is happening. Is any candidate going to go green in this presidential campaign?
You forgot "pro-environment."
You're looking for a candidate who is unambiguously against torture, and for someone who won't use their mandate to do things that a majority of the electorate oppose, like nuke another country?
This is why I've given up on electoral politics altogether. I only vote any more out of self-defense.
Russ Feingold, please reconsider not running. You're the only politician who I actually respect.
The thing is, PZ, I think they do want to ruin our military: all the better for private armies a la Blackwater and KBR. There's always been tons of dough to be made in war. If we don't have civilian governmental oversight of our fighting forces, we don't have to worry about all that pansy-ass crap like the Geneva conventions or the UCMJ.
I don't think we can forget that these are the Norquist-style corporate profiteers who want to paralyze the government and render it irrelevant.
I dunno. If the argument against the Iraq war is that it was unjustified and then horribly botched and mismanaged, I'm not sure how that translates into "war with Iran is off the table" in anything other than the most peacenik "all war is bad" or Chomskite "all war is the fault of American imperialism" senses.
In my opinion, it would be grossly irresponsible to announce that war with Iran is off the table. Iran is not a benign power whose acquisition of nuclear weapons is no big deal. Unlike Iraq it is both plausible that they will aggressively push for nuclear weapons AND a very big deal if they do so, especially given how Israel would likely respond. I'm with Russel on this one.
Exactly. Remember JFK's book, Profiles in Courage? The thing about this war war that saddens me the most, right after the massive loss of life, waste of money and destruction of priceless archeological artifacts, is the number of people, some of whom I used to respect, who have totally wimped out. Someone should write a book called Profiles in Cowardice about the monumental failure of conscience that has enabled this national nightmare.
I used to have a lot of respect for Colin Powell. I even thought for a while that might have voted for him in 2000, depending on who had run against him. But he was one person who could have stopped this whole disaster from happening, but he failed! I can't remember when I've been more disappointed in a human being.
I never had a lot of respect for George H.W. Bush, but I never thought of him as being as evil as Reagan or Nixon. Now I'm reading Bob Woodward's State of Denial, and he talks about how Bush senior knew that going into Iraq would be a huge mistake, for exactly the reasons that it has, in fact, turned out to be so, but that he didn't want to confront Dubya about it because he wanted to "let him be his own man."
Jesus H. Christ! It's like H.W. sees this whole thing as some kind of developmental learning exercise for little Georgie. Never mind that it has cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars that our grandchildren will have to pay. Let's let little Georgie make his own mistakes.
I'm with you, Caledonian. I have no patience for anybody who has so much as equivocated about this illegal, immoral, idiotic calamity from the get-go!
Well, Wes Clark fits the bill, plus he has actual executive and diplomatic experience. But he's just not interesting to the chattering classes, so you never hear about him.
Actually, I do. And that's what worries me.
I don't know where she has gotten this reputation for liberalism, but it is undeserved. She's still a Goldwater Girl at heart. She has moderated some of her positions in response to her political involvement with her husband--also not a liberal, Bill Clinton is the epitome of a moderate by any reasonable interpretation--but her inner conservative still comes out from time to time.
I think people have forgotten what real liberals and conservatives look like, because the Liberal and Conservative parties got engulfed by the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively, and then the Republican party got hijacked by the religious right and neocons while the Democrats held an ideological garage sale to pick up whatever scraps the Republicans left for them.
Let me add that I don't believe that Iran is somehow an inherent enemy of the US. In many ways, Iran is one of the better states in the mideast, and one that we should be engaging in direct diplomacy. Bush's refusal to do this is foolish, increases the risk of all the bad possibilities that plunge describes, and directly hurts the US. Just to be clear, it is quite consistent and practical to say both that we should engage in direct diplomacy and seek friendlier relationship with Iran, and that we should leave the possibility of military action on the table for now. Or make its removal from the table conditioned on the results of the diplomacy.
The big problem is that we have to suffer with the current administration for two more years, barring the possibility of impeachment. The Democratic Congress should put Bush on a short leash. But they should do so in a way that reflects on Bush, not the general possibilities with regard to foreign policy going forward. Rather than any of the resolutions that attempts to tackle strategy, I'd prefer to see one that expresses a general non-confidence in the president.
While he has made clear that he would consider military force only as a last resort, Barack Obama has made some sober statements about Iran. (Of course, these statements were made before Ahmadinejad taking office and his subsequent collapse in popularity. Given the levels of the Iranian polity's dissatisfaction with their regime, it is possible - though hardly guaranteed - that internal Iranian reform will occur before they possess a functional nuclear arsenal.)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0409250111sep…
Barack Obama, quoted in the Chicago Tribune, 9/25/04:
"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" ...
"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in."
"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point." ...
"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain. I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations."
"... I think there are elements within Pakistan right now--if Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I don't think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks."
toasters writes:
One of the thing I like about Clark is that he is consistently liberal on social issues. He takes frequent opportunity to express the importance of liberal democracy, and to stand up for civil rights from free expression to privacy. On these issues, he tends to show, by contrast, the conservative tendencies of Clinton and many of the other "moderates." It would be wonderful to have a president who is forthright on these issues. (Bill Clinton was fairly mediocre when it came to civil liberty. Remember the battle over the DMCA?)
Re Edwards
1. Actually, Edwards is being responsible in saying that military force is not off the table in confronting Iran. It would be totally irresponsible to publically state that, under no circumstances would military force be used. The threat of military force is the ultimate hammer to cause the whackjobs who run Iran to rethink their position.
2. The claim that we should acquiesce to Irans' determination to acquire nuclear weapons is a very dangerous position. Attached is a link to an interview with Bernard Lewis, one of the worlds' experts on Islam in which he expresses a considerable doubt over whether a nuclear armed Iran would be deterred from a first strike by the US and Israeli nuclear arsenals.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467860507&pagename=JPost…
I'm in agreement with those who say we shouldn't treat Iran as lovely-peace-wonder central and swear off force entirely. We should treat them as a sovereign nation with interests of its own, and diplomatically try to nudge them in ways we want them to go (just like any other nation).
What we shouldn't do, and apparently already are doing, is faking evidence and using fascist saber-rattling rhetoric to push ourselves into war with Iran, just like we did with Iraq.
Arrogant bastards.
D Livesay: I used to have a lot of respect for Colin Powell. I even thought for a while that might have voted for him in 2000, depending on who had run against him. But he was one person who could have stopped this whole disaster from happening, but he failed! I can't remember when I've been more disappointed in a human being.
How naive. Powell first came to prominance when he tried to cover-up My Lai and his jobs since then have included running interference for all sorts of nefarious actions. He only saved his worst for GWB. He seems to have modeled his career on "I was only following orders".
...Bush senior knew that going into Iraq would be a huge mistake, for exactly the reasons that it has, in fact, turned out to be so, but that he didn't want to confront Dubya about it because he wanted to "let him be his own man."
Let me add a [sort of] excuse for HW. A lot has been written about the dynamic between the two Bushes and it seems that GWB has a serious oedipal problem with his dad and probably would never listen to the old man. See how he treated HW's proxy Baker. The problem with the older generation is that it always seems to enable to GWB's wishes - like Baker now wanting to give the escalation a chance. The same could be said about Ford, who could only come out against the Iraq mess after he died. So many of the Republican "grown-ups" have turned out to be gutless wonders.
The same could be said about so many Democrats about Iraq and Iran: Clinton, Edwards, Biden etc. The only ones that are left are the mostly unknown governors [Vilsak & Richardson], Obama and Kucinich. From the recent records of governors versus senators in presidential politics, shifting support to a governor who has less foreign policy experience and hope for the best in foreign policy might be the best alternative.
Sorry, my first comment (#5 up there, I love this new numbering system here!) was on the run, on a computer away from home, so I did not provide the relevant links - I have assebled them here.
For SLC:
1) Anybody who quotes Bernard Lewis can safely be written off as an ideologue, which is what Lewis himself is- he gets very, very little respect anymore among the real professionals in his field.
2) The question is not "acquiescing" but whether as a practical matter there is anything, short of a disastrous war, that can be done about it. The fact is that in Iran, as in India, the nuclear program is enormously popular for the usual nationalist reasons. Because of that, it's plain ignorant to imagine, for examle, that even replacement of the mullahs by a legitimately elected government would automatically result in its termination. In fact, appearing to kowtow to international pressure would likey topple any freely elected Iranian government.
3) Iran is as troublesome as it is because Bushco rashly removed its principal enemies without thinking through the consequences. On the other hand, the commonality of interests revealed by this turn of events gives an opening for genuine diplomacy, as opposed to pathetic attempts at bluster and bullying (which is Bushco's idea of "diplomacy").
Enough of foreign policy based on wishful thinking. It's way past time for reality. It's also way past time to put a stop to the control of our foreign policy by the Israeli right wing.
I think that preemptive nuclear attack should be off the table. I believe that that was what's really in question, not just war.
Saying that stuff at AIPAC is bad in itself; it adds an expra level of intensity to his words, because it's being interpreted in the audience's uberhawk language.
The thing about how the mullahs are so crazy that is a standard rightwing lead-in to explanations why we can do things that would otherwise be wrong, and I was sorry to hear him say it. i don't think that the mullahs are especially crazy.
I had forgotten about CP's involvement in My Lai.
I forgot to mention Ford. I've never forgiven him for pardoning Nixon, and now this. It isn't just that he remained silent about his reservations; he actively campaigned and fundraised.
I think there is a mentality in the Republican party that makes people construe loyalty only in terms of their party and their cronies, not their country or principles. Even the most decent people in the party have lent their support to some really atrocious policies. It's no wonder they have been taken over by authoritarians.
Steve LaBonne: "it's plain ignorant to imagine, for examle, that even replacement of the mullahs by a legitimately elected government would automatically result in its termination."
Correct. The issue is not so much nuclear weapons themselves but the type of regime that possesses them. Nuclear France and UK: not a problem; nuclear North Korea and Pakistan: problem. Democratic reformist nuclear Iran: not nearly as much of a problem as Khomeinist nuclear Iran.
LaBonne: "It's also way past time to put a stop to the control of our foreign policy by the Israeli right wing."
Not "convergence of interests," not "alliance," not "influence," but "control of our foreign policy." Do you want to rephrase that, or are you satisfied with that particular formulation?
Ralph Nader, 2004: "The Israeli puppeteer travels so Washington, meets with the puppet in the White House and goes down Pennsylvania Avenue and meets with the puppets in congress."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/07/1354230
What else is under Israeli right wing "control"?
The 'Stop genocide in Darfur' movement?
http://ww4report.com/node/2582
Convincing policymakers that Hezbollah (and its military commander Imad Mugniyah) is a threat to the United States?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imad_Mugniyah
Re Steve LaBonne
1. Writing off Bernard Lewis in preference to whom? Juan Cole? Unfortunately, the academics who write off Bernard Lewis are the extreme left wing apologists for Islamic extremeists who think that the solution to all the Wests' problems in the Middle East is to force the State of Israel to go out of business.
2. The claim that American foreigh policy is run by the Israeli Right Wing (i.e. the Likud party) is a smear out of the Pat Buchanan playbook. Unfortunately, the LaBonnes of the world never learn that appeasment does not pay. One would think that the example of Neville Chamberlain would be a sufficient lesson but, unfortunately, as Santayana said, they who fail to heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.
If Howard Dean won't do it, Al Gore must run.
Man, this dithering would have had me almost willing to vote for Russ Feingold and that's a bridge too far for this Badger. Thank goodness he was unequivocal about not running
SLC didn't do himself or Lewis any good. La Bonne was claiming that Lewis is an ideologue, and SLC gives us an ideological rant.
Obama is as good as they come.
And PZ doesn't like him just cause he has some religious expression?
PZ is a fucking fool.
Apropos of nothing, but did you know the LDS religion believes Jesus Christ played the role of God during the Old Testament, and explains many of the horrors of the Old Testament and the Book Of Mormon as developmental learning exercises for Jesus Christ, allowed by God so that Jesus could make his own mistakes?
That's ridiculously false and simply proof that you're a right-wing moron with no interest in the truth. Fortunately the Bushco disasters mean that fewer and fewer people are listening such nonsense anymore.
Do you want to rephrase that, or are you satisfied with that particular formulation?It's the simple truth. Read the Mearsheimer and Walt article. Also read the hysterical reactions to it which only confirm its truth. No serious candidate in either party, under current conditions, can win without pledging fealty- not to the real national interests of Israel- but to the, even in Israeli terms, partisan rightwing positions of AIPAC. Read the following, for example: http://tinyurl.com/2natmq
This is a hell of a serious problem and needs a lot more open discussion and a lot less pussyfooting.
The blogysteria about John Edwards trying to bring the diplomacy and working together with other countries option back onto the table seems to work like this:
* When Bush says all options are on the table, it means that empty rhetoric, bombing, and invasion are on the table ... in other words, he's lying
* Therefore, if anyone else thinks that all options should be on the table when working against nuclear proliferation, what they really mean is that empty rhetoric, bombing and invasion are the only options on the table
* And this applies no matter how consistently they have called for diplomatic engagement with the country in question ... in this case Iran, where John Edwards has been calling for the administration to drop its "diplomacy of non-diplomacy" for more than a year
John Edwards has been saying for more than a year now, to essentially any coffee clatch that would listen, that America needs to restore its moral authority, both by abandoning the habit of acting like a brutal bully and by doing things that will be seen abroad as the right thing to do, whether or not they are always in our immediate and narrowly defined self interest.
Common Response? *crickets*
In critizing the consequence of President Bush self-imposed disaster in Iraq in terms of not having the time or the diplomatic capital abroad to tackle problems of nuclear proliferation, Edwards says that all options really ought to be on the table, and that the Bush regime is grossly iresponsible for preferring domestic political grandstanding to direct diplomatic engagement with Iran.
Common Response? Edwards wants to bomb Iran! !! !!!
Obama finally comes out with a position on Iraq in line with what Edwards has been calling for since late 2005.
Common Response? Obama is against the War ... Why Can't Edwards and Clinton be more like him?
And meanwhile in the long haul, the Cheney doctrine is that America must have substantial military occupation of strategic oil-producing nations in the Middle East and South-West Asia for the next 60 to 80 years. Edwards can counter that with the strongest commitment to a policy of Sustainable energy independence of any declared candidate ... second only to Gore among the potential field ...
Common Response? *crickets*
What if Al Gore wins both the Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize? Would he then be finally immune to the petty carpings of the media? I guess not. Never mind.
yeah, winning the peace prize didn't do much for Jimmy Carter in the eyes of the US media.
go figure.
Steve LaBonne: "Read the Mearsheimer and Walt article."
I have. Do they actually argue that there has been an assumption of "control of our foreign policy by the Israeli right wing"? For that matter, would Glenn Greenwald endorse such a statement? I doubt it.
Such a claim sounds more in line with the views of Norman Finkelstein, Ralph Nader, and Gore Vidal.
Just watch what happens to any candidate who tries to buck the party line. And let's not forget that actual power in this country right now is held by Dear Leader, who is inching us ever closer to a war with Iran that's desired by the Israeli right, their neocon cohorts in his administration- and nobody else. "Control" is the only word that fits when a policy is being pursued that is diametrically opposite to the best interests of the United States (and Israel too, by the way)as well as to the wishes of most Americans.
BruceMcF, your long rant might have been persuasive to an ignorant person.
His statement was made to AIPAC, and in that context has to be interpreted as hard-line. If the option Edwards had been trying to put back on the table had been diplomacy, AIPAC would have been unfriendly.
Here's what he said:
"Iran must know that the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate -- ALL options must remain on the table."
It looks to be that Edwards is trying to play both sides of the street, and I'd prefer a candidate not playing the AIPAC side. If Obama agrees with Edwards, then I'll look elsewhere.
Hi PZ,
I always like to ask people these questions for clarification. I think it is important.
1. After 9/11, did you support the invasion of Afghanistan?
2. Would you support military intervention in Darfur to stop genocide?
Not making any judgements, I just like to know from what position people are starting, before I discuss Iraq (big mistake), Iran (a danger, but an avoidable one), and al Qaeda (waited 8 years between first World Trade Center attack and second).
"the control of our foreign policy by the Israeli right wing."
"the Israeli right, their neocon cohorts ... "Control" is the only word that fits when a policy is being pursued that is diametrically opposite to the best interests of the United States (and Israel too"
I find it highly improbable that an organized foreign-based movement could assume control over the foreign policy of the United States of America without the detection, exposure, and challenge by the Democratic Party leadership (not just a statesman who has been retired for decades and some relatively minor figures) or major news media outlets. So improbable so as to be extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
And when did this assumption of control occur anyway? With the inauguration of George W. Bush? 9/11? Earlier, such as 1967? (AIPAC was founded in 1953.)
Re LeBonne & Emerson
1. In message 34, Mr. LaBonne refered to me as a "right wing moron." It is my policy not to respond in kind to these types of personal attacks.
2. In message 35, Mr. LaBonne referred to a totally discredited article written by Walt and Mearsheimer. These folks are a part of the lets bash Israel brigade, along with Juan Cole, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Pat Buchanan, James Earl Carter, the worst president in American history, and the good folks at counterpunch and have no credibility.
3. In message 31, Mr. Emerson accuses me of engaging in an idealogical rant which is ineffective. Apparently, he doesn't think that name calling by Mr. LeBonne is likewise ineffective.
Carter the worst President in American history?
Worse than William Harrison, Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, or Dubya? Speaking of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence...
I'd just like to point out that Lewis's interview is a lot more dovish than SLC says it is. Lewis spends a large portion of the interview talking about the democratic movement in Iran and the need for Israel and the US to help it grow by not engaging in any military action, and instead restricting themselves to general claims about freedom and democracy.
Correct. The issue is not so much nuclear weapons themselves but the type of regime that possesses them. Nuclear France and UK: not a problem; nuclear North Korea and Pakistan: problem. Democratic reformist nuclear Iran: not nearly as much of a problem as Khomeinist nuclear Iran.
Nonsense. The regime is not your problem, their problem is that weak or non-existent nuclear arsenals fail to deter attacks when they are surrounded by nuclear armed powers. That is the problem with out selective and hypocritical policy on non-proliferation. We've essentially green lighted India to develop nukes, and haven't touched the issue of Israeli nukes and haven't done much better with Pakistan and North Korea. This makes it imperative for the countries we don't like to pursue nukes, and hence the policy causes the very proliferation it aims to stop.
Not surprising, considering SLC's manifest lack of contact with both reality and truth. He should really go comment at Little Green Footballs where he find plenty of like"mind"ed fellow loons.
The reason you find it difficult is that you're leaving out the crucial term of the equation- the fact that this very Democdatic Party leadership is deeply beholden to AIPAC.
And by the way, it needs to be pointed out that these crazy policies on Iraq and now Iran are just as opposed to Israel's real interests as to ours. The problem is not Israel per se, but the fact that the alliance of hawks in both countries- which is dragging both into the abyss- presumes to speak exclusively for Israel in the US. The Israeli left has done a piss-poor job of countering their propaganda and I wish- for their sake and their country's, as well as ours- that they would get their act together. Of course, I realize that they have a steep hill to climb, since their viewpoint is essentially taboo in all the mass media in the US. Just ask Jimmy Carter.
Re Steve LeBonne
Mr. LeBonne is hardly in a position to accuse others of being untruthful, considering his quoting liars like Mearsheimer and Walt. Birds of a feather flock together.
"The claim that American foreigh policy is run by the Israeli Right Wing (i.e. the Likud party) is a smear out of the Pat Buchanan playbook."
Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from the late great Molly Ivins. Re a 1992 Buchanan address, she said, "Many people did not care for Pat Buchanan's speech; it probably sounded better in the original German."
Nice example of AIPAC-style smear tactics there, Jud.
Some more required reading: http://tinyurl.com/2tsq6l
Well said, Russell. And that is the limit of what I will say on the subject. I am real tired of the endless arguments from, "If we didn't do bad stuff, they wouldn't do bad stuff!", standpoint. Its bullshit and everyone that has ever held that stance in history has found wolves sitting on the other side of the fence slathering to eat them, precisely because it only #$$@#$@$ works if *everyone* agrees to abide by those rules. They won't, we can't unless they do *period*. That's not a whole hearted endorsement of the idiocy of this administration, its just basic reality.
"this very Democdatic Party leadership is deeply beholden to AIPAC" ...
AIPAC being an arm of
"the Israeli right, their neocon cohorts."
Because Democratic officials give talks at AIPAC functions? Politicians and other public officials make speeches in front of a lot of organizations representing different demographic groups and Americans of various national origins - Jewish, African-American, Christian churches, Mexican-American, Muslim... That doesn't mean that anything insidious is necessarily going on.
And what about the news media? The "control" of the foreign policy of the US by a foreign-based elite movement - and making the opposition party's leadership "deeply beholden" to it, thus securing domination of both major parties - would be the story of the century. Bigger than 9/11, Afghanistan, Katrina, and the Iraq War. What big-name journalists or news outlets wouldn't want in on that?
It's not at all clear what your terms mean.
Who do you mean by "The Israeli left"? The Labour Party? Peace Now? Ehud Barak? Rabin?
And what does "the Israeli right" include? Likud and Kadima? Labour too?
Re Levy
Mr. Levy is correct in that Lewis does not favor military action against Iran at this time. However, Prof. Lewis is in at least substantial agreement with me that the current leadership in Iran are, shall we say, somewhat lacking in an appreciation of how much damage a nuclear strike on Iran could do and hence will not be deterred by the US and Israel nuclear arsenals. His approach is to support the opposition to the mullahs, hoping that they can be ousted. Unfortunately, unless the opposition is able to inflitrate the army, it is my position that such an outcome is unlikely.
Re LaBonne
Mr. LaBonne is hardly in a position to accuse AIPAC of smears, considering his personal attacks on me. People in glass houses should avoid throwing rocks.
Colugo- I would like to hear much more presence in this country from groups like Peace Now and the left wing of the Labor Party, yes. I'd like to be able to read speeches by, say, David Grossman in the Washington Post, not just the New York Review of Books. And after the disastrous Lebanon adventure it became a little hard to distinguish the supposed "moderation" of Kadima from Likud, wouldn't you say?
I just read the Yglesias piece.
A "nexus of hawkishness" is a very different thing than "control" over the foreign policy of America - and having the Democratic "deeply beholden" - by the current political elite of another country and their agents in the US.
On Israel-Hezbollah: Few would argue that James Carroll is a neocon.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/17/opinion/edcarroll.php
37
"What if Al Gore wins both the Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize? Would he then be finally immune to the petty carpings of the media? I guess not. Never mind."
Al needs just one more big award to be set up for a hat trick! What other big award would qualify? Pulitzer? MacArthur?
Coturnix, the interview actually made me think of Edwards even less. Now I think he's an opportunist who can't be trusted on anything rather than just a war hawk.
Posted by: John Emerson | February 3, 2007 05:49 PM
Meaningful economic and political sanctions are precisely what is off the table so long as we follow Bush's lead ... just as he pushed them off the table in the rush to war in Iraq.
And there are certain evident factors involved in organizing meaningful economic and political sanctions. Now, I know that we are out of practice on this kind of reasoning ... after all, we have had six years experience an administration that will doggedly insist that what is obvious to everyone simply is not so.
But just for the sake of argument, suppose that it means what it says? What would be required for that?
This from his interview with Ezra Klein:
Is that compatible with pursuing a military strike with Iran? Well, no, if you were serious about pursuing meaningful economic and political sanctions against Iran, that is an alternative to military action ... precisely as it was presented in the quote above. But, again, we have the six years experience of just because something is blatantly obvious does not mean that the current tenants of the White House will admit it.
What are the implications of going to war?
So, yes, I see the conflict between what many people elected to read into the speech and what John Edwards has said since. But there is no conflict between what John Edwards said in the speech and what he has said since. Its the same position.
Don't forget Mark Twain's observation that anyone who wants to be President shouldn't be. Or that once elected the only serious policy mandate for a politician is to get re-elected. Any belief that your particular favorite among these minnows will turn out to be a whale is naive.
Russ Feingold, please reconsider not running.
Hey! The quality of our nation's cheese is at stake here!
(It's a joke, I'm not bashing the guy...)
Dumbya once said he listened to his generals on war. That was before they started disagreeing with him. The disagreement continues.
"Three former high-ranking American military officers have warned against any military attack on Iran.
They said such action would have "disastrous consequences" for security in the Middle East and also for coalition forces in Iraq.
They said the crisis over Tehran's nuclear programme must be resolved through diplomacy, urging Washington to start direct talks with Iran.
The letter was published in Britain's Sunday Times newspaper."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6328801.stm
I wonder why it was published in Britain rather than in the U.S.?
I was wondering, Dr. Myers, if you've ever considered the possibility that the Democratic party has moved so far to the right over the last forty years or so that they no longer, on the whole, represent your political views?
I'm wondering if we are using terms too loosely. There is a difference between "anti-all war" and anti-Pre-emptive wart and anti-Iraq war and anti Iran War." Plus we've got the the real war; the globalization war. Antonia Juhasz' book "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One economy at a time.
In this respect, I'll side with Edwards who has a growing understanding of the way through this mire is to pick democracy over empire. "Flashes of hawk" are needed still, unfortunately as we try to push back from the brink. Clinton and Obama are uncategorially in favor of the march of American economic empire which requires the military to aid it's advance. Edwards is going in the other direction and I'll stay on that train.
On the "control" issue, I wonder who is really controlling whom. For example, the Lebanon war looks like a Bushevik enterprise, silly as it was. Remember the direction in which the money and the weapons flow.
Steve LaBonne said: "Nice example of AIPAC-style smear tactics there, Jud."
Don't take offense, Steve - none meant. I sincerely was just meaning to quote something very funny from the late, great Molly Ivins about Pat Buchanan. It wasn't intended as any sort of remark about you or your political positions.
Actually I was thinking much the same at the time, as in "have the Israelis completely lost their minds and started taking military advice from Rumsfeld and Cheney?"
Jud- thanks for the clarification and apologies for the overreaction.
On the "control" issue, I wonder who is really controlling whom. For example, the Lebanon war looks like a Bushevik enterprise, silly as it was. Remember the direction in which the money and the weapons flow.