Letters to the Editor
-
Candy from a baby ...
Either Obama or HRC could wipe the floor with this old creep.
Please let it be over soon - I dread the thought of actually catching this old coot singing on the tv.
Thanks for some good investigative journalism salon.
-
As Usual the Cheese Stands Alone
It amazes me how politicians twist words to promote their own agendas. If I recall Obama answered a question at a debate (one of the typically dumb scenario questions) of whether if the US had actionable intelligence that Bid Laden was in Pakistan, and Pakistan wasn't going to go after him, then would he act, to which he said yes. And presumable we'd be bombing the desert - unless Pakistan is putting OBL up at the Four Seasons. Everyone jumped all over Obama, including McCain. Yet candidates in both parties previously for the most part concurred they would do anything to catch Bid Laden. So how exactly does that work? McCain has said he'd chase Bid Laden to the gates of hell and kill him - apparently except if he's in the country of an alleged ally to whom we give millions of dollars to do nothing for our benefit(that we can tell) and just to seal the deal give Pakistan a few nuclear missiles. This is why Obama is beating the competition - at least there's a certain logic to his thinking. McCain et al. won't go after Bid Laden - the Holy Grail of terrorists on which we've spent billions of dollars directly or indirectly related to his actions - but we'll attack a sovereign nation, like Iraq, with no relation to 9-11 or the US (except by threatening us with mostly words) -- and that's OK. So we'll stay in Iraq 100 years, spend trillions of dollars, leave our own borders vulnerable and ill-prepared, even though we have no reason to be in Iraq except for the disarray we caused by going in - but McCain won't go after Bid Laden if he's given shelter by a questionable ally with nuclear capabilities giving Bid Laden close access to WMD's. If that's 40 years of experience I'll go with a rookie any day. . .
-
Glenn -- I have a bone to pick with the post
Let me preface by saying that I think McCain is a dangerous, trigger-happy prevaricator. And I'll add that you, Glenn, hit my priorities out of the park more than any other blogger.
In this post, you contrast McCain's argument to keep on the table the bombing of nations the U.S. opposes (rightly or wrongly) with Obama's claim that he would bomb a nation with which the U.S. is allied. Those are two different things.
Personally, I think the distinctions are meaningless, but if you're making charges of hypocrisy then what matters is whether McCain thinks those distinctions have meaning.
I think you let your partisan emotions chip away at the logical consistency you usually deploy, Glenn. If McCain is a hypocrite here, you haven't provided the evidence. And McCain is big fucking hypocrite in a million other ways.
I am also a little disappointed about your calling anyone "the 9/11 attackers" in the context of extrajudicial killings. As a lawyer, you shouldn't gloss over the murder of people George Bush claims are guilty without a trial, regardless of whose political interests the bloodlust serves.
-
@Reality-based liberal
In this post, you contrast McCain's argument to keep on the table the bombing of nations the U.S. opposes (rightly or wrongly) with Obama's claim that he would bomb a nation with which the U.S. is allied. Those are two different things.
How do you square this view of McCain's intent with his flippant and enthusiastic endorsement of an Iran invasion? He's not "keeping that on the table", he's telling us we have to go do it right this second.
-
@ prunes
Please cite in Glenn's post where McCain says we should bomb Iran now.
I don't trust McCain, and he may want to bomb Iran now, but he consistently uses language that leaves him the out -- e.g. bombing Iran should be "left on the table"; is "better than Iran having the bomb" (which it doesn't); etc.
-
@Reality-based liberal
Please cite in Glenn's post where McCain says we should bomb Iran now.
Not in Glenn's post, but his "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" attitude does not inspire any degree of confidence in his foreign policy perspective.
He has also called the Iranian leadership "deranged", and explains that he will not "allow them to destroy Israel".
Now, you can parse those sentences out as fine as you want, and claim he's merely "keeping options open", but the message is loud and clear to me.
-
@ prunes
I'll add that McCain's criticism seems to be that you don't say you "will" do something -- you do whatever the fuck you please with no warning. In that vein, McCain's throwing out the possibility that we could bomb Iran is consistent.
Again, McCain = psycho freak. Just want us to be careful.
-
@Reality-based liberal
I'll add that McCain's criticism seems to be that you don't say you "will" do something -- you do whatever the fuck you please with no warning.
Oh, I see what you're saying. Sort of the same attitude as "we can't tell you about any of our illegal programs because that would tip off terrorists."
Man, I hope that's not what he's saying, I don't like him at all anymore, but that's just plain stupid. I always thought he was smart at least.
-
@ prunes
We're having two different debates. I agree McCain is insane. I think our saber-rattling against Iran is dangerous imperialism. All I'm saying is that Glenn's implication that McCain is a hypocrite on the Obama point is not substantiated in this post.
-
New York Sun on Obama's foreign policy
The "Sun", despite its editorial stance, has some decent reporters.
Today, they demolish the myth that Obama is anti-Israel or dove-ish on Israel.
http://nysun.com/article/71651
Obama's Inner Circle
By Staff Reporter of the Sun
February 21, 2008 updated 10:50 am ESTGregory Craig [...]
Richard Danzig [...]
Scott Gration [...]
Anthony Lake [...]
Denis McDonough [...]
Samantha Power [...]
Ben Rhodes [...]
Susan Rice [...]
Daniel Shapiro [...]- - NYSun 02/21/2008
http://nysun.com/article/71580
Obama's Brain Trust Taking Shape
By ELI LAKE
February 21, 2008[...] the national security team that emerges around Mr. Obama is one that is in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. The senator's advisers favor a withdrawal from Iraq and see it as a distraction from the wider war on Al Qaeda; they have developed a detailed policy on how to exit the country. The campaign favors high-level diplomatic engagement with Syria and Iran, but in the context of changing the behavior of these regimes. And the foreign policy team, like the candidate, does not support pressuring Israel into negotiations with Hamas.
The nine-member team funnels input to Denis McDonough, an Obama campaign staff member who briefs the candidate. A broader group of 250 advisers are divided into groups dealing with the
- Middle East,
- Latin America,
- Africa,
- South Asia,
- East Asia,
- Russia-Europe,
- defense,
- veterans,
- counterterrorism,
- democracy and development, and
- multilateral institutions.
On average each of these groups has 20 people.
[...] The lead American negotiator during the Oslo peace process, Ambassador Dennis Ross, who has provided advice to Mr. Obama's campaign but does not consider himself to be an adviser, said he saw no difference on Israel policy between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.
[...] Mr. Obama has not pledged to move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem as soon as he takes office, a promise made by every major candidate for president since Ronald Reagan in 1980, and a promise broken by every president since the Reagan administration.
[...] the campaign's wider circle includes Zbigniew Brzezinski [...] The campaign says the candidate has not spoken in the past four months with Mr. Brzezinski.
[...] The rabbi of a synagogue across the street from the Obama family residence in Hyde Park, Chicago, Arnold Jacob Wolf, said that the senator was in fact too hawkish on Israel. "In my opinion he has been too strong. I belong to the Peace Now group and he doesn't. He is defensive of Israel in ways I wouldn't be, mostly the occupation," the rabbi, who says he has known Mr. Obama for 10 years, said.
- - Eli Lake