Letters to the Editor
-
I can't parse this sentence
In the paragraph:
Why do Giuliani and Krauthammer and friends feel so free to advocate a plainly fringe position of Endless War on behalf of Israel? Usually, political advocates, and particularly presidential candidates, avoid such positions like the plague. Here, it is because no political figure can possibly oppose this view, at least not explicitly. Is it even possible to imagine a presidential candidate object to the view that the U.S. should consider Israel's enemies to be enemies of the U.S., even though vast majorities of Americans share that view?
I can't follow the meaning of this sentence:
Is it even possible to imagine a presidential candidate object to the view that the U.S. should consider Israel's enemies to be enemies of the U.S., even though vast majorities of Americans share that view?
Could you please explicate?
-
Changed
Thank you.
-
farnsworth:
I can't follow the meaning of this sentence:
Being such an early bird, you read the pre-edited version of the post. That sentence has been edited as follows:
"Is it even possible to imagine a presidential candidate objecting to the view that the U.S. should consider Israel's enemies to be enemies of the U.S., even though vast majorities of Americans share that objection?"
-
But why state this "policy" so openly?
Glenn, I am puzzled by the need to make this proposal so public. Acceptance of the contributions implies support. This has always worked. So why announce this policy in a campaign wherre it could cause unwanted attention?
-
Mike Sulzer
Glenn, I am puzzled by the need to make this proposal so public. Acceptance of the contributions implies support. This has always worked. So why announce this policy in a campaign wherre it could cause unwanted attention?
That's a good question. I think there are two reasons, at least:
(1) Giuliani is a true neocon believer. Well before 9/11, when he was Mayor, he loved railing against Yasser Arafat and Arabs, and was extremely hard-line in support of militant Israeli policies. That (along with the fact that he sided with them in New York's ugly ethnic wars of the 1980s) i's why right-wing Jews in New York -- such as the Podhoretz family -- love Giuliani.
Giuliani is like Bush in many ways - probably more similar to Bush than any other candidate. One thing they share is an absolute conviction in the Rightness of their views, which means they tend to be more blunt and candid about what they think than the average politician. They think they are so Right that there is no need to hide what they think. I think Giuliani is saying this about Israel and NATO largely because he believes it - he thinks it's Right that the U.S. wage war against Israel's enemies.
(2) The GOP primary field is a competetion to show who can be the most hawkish against Arabs and Muslims. That, by far, is Giuliani's strength. And going further than all the other candidates like he did here -- including with the most explicit threats yet of war with Iran -- distinguishes him and endears him to the hard-core warmongers who are his real base.
-
This man is Insane
I'm starting to think a nuclear armed Iran would be a GOOD thing. At least it might make the Pro-Israel war mongers think twice about the consequences of their rhetoric and actions.
-
The "Giuliani Doctrine"
A Giuliani presidency would mean that we would be almost immediately deemed to be at war with Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
But in the minds of Rudy’s neo-con advisors we are already at war with them and have been for a long time.
As Matt Yglesias put it in his post on the “Giuliani Doctrine” although neo-con policies are vastly unpopular with the American public, Rudy has decided to “double down on neoconservative foreign policy.”
He concludes:
The result is a chilling vision of a world where peace can only be achieved through American military domination….
The result of this policy is going to be an endless series of wars, a bankrupt country accounting for way more than fifty percent of world defense expenditures, fewer and fewer countries willing to cooperate with us on key priorities and, perhaps worst of all, more and more nuclear proliferation as countries decide its not safe to live in a world where the Rudy-led USA is the big kid on the block.
During Bush’s press conference yesterday, I was asking myself, “could we possibly have a worse president?”
The answer, sadly, is “yes.”
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_giuliani_doctrine.php
-
The 30%
It's always the same with these poll numbers. 30% think the Iraq war was worth it. 30% think Bush is doing a good job. 30% think we should go to war with Iran. 30% think Israel's problems are our problems. It's obviously that we're being held hostage by the 30%-ers. Why do Repubs cater to these people and why do Dems fear them and refuse to change? Because the 30%-ers are the ones with all the money and are willing to spend it to ensure continuing war. Why? Because they make money from it. That's what all of this is about. Money and power. Until we're willing to stand up to the 30%-ers and do what's right nothing will change. You can rail all you want about why the majority of Americans are being ignored but the majority is the middle class and poor and our opinion don't mean squat.
-
Trying to equate two different propositions... you know, liberal innuendo
Is it even possible to imagine a presidential candidate objecting to the view that the U.S. should consider Israel's enemies to be enemies of the U.S., even though vast majorities of Americans share that objection?
Perhaps you've forgotten that we went to war on the behalf of Kuwait? And you don't think Israel should have the same consideration? How anti-Israel are you?????
"But", you would say. That involved an invasion by Iraq across a border, yes? Aren't rocket bombs flown into Israel attacks across a border? Of course they are.
Then I imagine you'd slide in the assertion by Inglesias, Israel has no borders (good luck with that one) -- or troops were involved by Iraq. To which I'd reply "soldiers" from outside Israel invade the borders (determined by the UN) all the time.Then you'd move the old goal posts one more time to the number of troops being significant, to which I'd reply, this is why your post is BS. You are equating the skirmishes along Israel's border with an all out assault (nuclear or otherwise). There is no need to get involved with the small stuff as evidenced by the Hezbollah poll. But get another state involved, public opinion would turn around so fast it would make your head spin.
And that, is why this post is complete and utter nonsense.