Is this look-tough posturing, or does he mean what he says?
He's been consistent on Israel, so I don't think this is just rhetoric.
Hamas may be a terrorist organisation, but if people vote for it, people vote for it.
This speech is scary because he's really saying that he supports DemocracyTM, where anything goes as long as it's in US and Israeli interests and the other side doesn't get democratic parity.
This is The Reason I cannot support Obama. I can't answer that question & neither can anybody else. With no track record, all answers wind-up being based on his cadre of advisers - he may not follow - or projection - from his supporter's position(s.)
But he has been consistently pro-Israel with no hint that he might put be willing to try to push for more Carter-ish diplomacy in the ME.
My guess is he'll be too busy dealing with Iraq and domestic issues to spend much time on the ME.
Besides - don't we already have Blair for that?
If only we hadn't destroyed his plans with our pesky petition.
Vote Obama! He's not completely ga-ga crackers!
doesn't comfort.
Maybe. There's a strong message, being pushed by all the campaigns, that the 'World is waiting for US leadership.'
And if you ask a lot of people about Obama's Iraq vote, I'll be surprised if they don't make the same mistake I just did until I double checked the facts.
Which is kind of creepy too.
Obama's record shows caution, nuance on Iraq - The Boston Globe
Campaigning for the Illinois Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama scolded Bush for invading Iraq and vowed he would "unequivocally" vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for it. Yet since taking office in January 2005, he has voted for four separate war appropriations, totaling more than $300 billion.Last June, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry's proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an "arbitrary deadline" could "compound" the Bush administration's mistake. And last week, he voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq.
Campaigning for the Illinois Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama scolded Bush for invading Iraq and vowed he would "unequivocally" vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for it. Yet since taking office in January 2005, he has voted for four separate war appropriations, totaling more than $300 billion.
Last June, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry's proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an "arbitrary deadline" could "compound" the Bush administration's mistake. And last week, he voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq.
Not quite the dedicated opposition you'd expect from a passionate anti-war candidate.
FWIW, I do distinguish between opposing the war and voting for appropriations, esp. when your consituents are calling you asking why their sons in Iraq don't have any body armour.
It's probably not a winnable argument with the electorate, but I think there's also a reasonable argument that says voting for the appropriations is simply keeping the soldiers in harm's way while shoveling money to Bush's corporate buddies. Cut the funding, and he might have to end it.
The problem, of course, is that Bush may then simply tear Iraq money out of the rest of the Pentagon budget and say, "Nope, you lose again. Hehehehehehehe." Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Really, my read of it is that he just doesn't care. Why should he? It's his war, and he can't run for reelection, so fuck everybody else. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
I suspect mainly the former. A lot of the press since Bush's speech has centered on Obama and Jewish voters, and so it's probably a lot of needless bullshitting.
The problem, as I see it, is that he hasn't been very consistent on Israel, though, which is what the Reps are trying to capitalize on. (It's not going to pay off for them, because most people don't have strong feelings about Israel. And Obama's winning 2-to-1 among Jews anyway.) As I understand it, Obama and most of his political allies back in Chicago are not wild about Israeli policy, along the lines of Carter (recall Wright and the Hamas/Hezbollah stuff).
The part that I think you're talking about, where he goes into how Bush policy led Hamas ruling Palestine, strikes me as being potentially a worrying bit, but also as probably being just bad writing on his speech-writer's part. I think he was trying to point out the irony of the Bushies hating Hamas but having brought them to power.
Not slamming the "Iran is developing nukes" meme is what I found worrying. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Good coverage this evening, thanks! Barak Obama at a certain point morphed into Tony Blair in my head, and I thought, "Yes, but Tony Blair needed George Bush to push him into a war. Who's Barak Obama's George Bush?"
But England is smaller than the U.S. The U.S. is equal biggest, at least, with China and Russia and India and the EU.
So I thought, "Would Tony Blair have gone to war if he had been president of the United States?"
The U.S. had it's 2004, so I'll make the analogy: as Bush's second term is to John Major's....no no. But a healthy rate of say and do, about 50/50 is good--but keeping the doing to 50, but the doing is winning the election...I remember the Bill Hick's sketch.
Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
But it does mean there are people in positions of power and various interest groups within and outside the US government who see no point to sitting down with the Iranians.
So far, they've won.
Talking also involves listening; and that is possibly the hardest part for such people. Finally I'd ask any w*stern poltician,"OK, what are the 5 pillars of Islam?" You can't be me, I'm taken
I'm all for talking, but diplomacy with the Iranians is exceedingly complex and requires regular exercising, with experts on the ground who can follow every nuance of the power shifts between all the different elements from bazaari to the sprirtual police.
But wouldn't you agree that's true of diplomacy in general? It's undoubtedly easier to understand, from the perspective of an American politician or diplomat, the dynamics of Britain or Canada or Australia, but I think it goes to more of a willful ignorance -- the Culture of Emboldened Stupidity, to use Matt Taibbi's brilliant description -- than to specifics about Iran.
Ironically, I'll bet you $5 (€0.20) the only big-name American politician who can name the five pillars of Islam is Rudy Mussolini. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Only when this process leads to mutual agreement can progress be announced publicly. The photo-op is a spin-off of diplomacy, not an instrument. You can't be me, I'm taken
