Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn Monday's debate, and with the benefit of having time to think through her response, Hillary Clinton posed as the foreign policy sophisticate to Barack Obama the bold leader who did not hesitate to say that he would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela. My colleague David Corn argues that Obama has committed a major blunder reflecting his lack of foreign policy experience.
(My colleague Ari Berman posted his smart and sharp counter to David's argument on behalf of those like Hillary Clinton who are "steeped in the nuances, language and minefields of foreign policy." But I feel strongly enough to weigh in on this debate.)
Those "nuances and minefields" can also be traps. Witness how far Clinton's nuanced experience got her when confronted with the 2002 Iraq war resolution.
David may well be right that Obama's opponents will try to exploit his response. But from a foreign policy point of view was Obama's response so wrong and Clinton's so right? Her husband's administration generally followed Hillary's approach; during his two terms President Clinton did not meet with Fidel Castro or with Hugo Chavez or with the leaders of Iran, Syria, and North Korea --while generally pursuing a policy of trying to isolate these countries. But what did the Clinton approach actually accomplish? The respective regimes of Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela have only grown stronger, and more influential in Latin America. Although Syria was forced to withdraw its military forces from Lebanon last year, the regime of Bashar Assad is as firmly entrenched in power as was his father's. And in spite of the odious politics and qualities of Ahmadinejad, Iran carries more weight in the Middle East than it did doing the early 1990s while American power and standing has declined considerably.
Indeed, both Clinton and Bush may have missed a historic opportunity to open a new chapter with Iran when reformer Mohamed Khatemi was elected in 1997. Had President Clinton taken the bold step Obama suggested and had met without precondition with President Khatemi in 1998 or '99 instead of pursuing sanctions, might not the democratic reformers be in power in Iran? Might we not have a healthy and growing trading relationship with an economically reformed Iran? Might Iran have capped its nuclear program and cooperated with us in managing regional relations including the peaceful downfall of Saddam Hussein? We do not know because the foreign policy sophisticates thought it was too politically risky for President Clinton to make such a bold move.
Above all, foreign policy is a matter of simultaneously projecting American confidence and American humility. In signaling that he was willing to meet with the leaders of these countries, Obama was signaling that the United States has the confidence in its values to meet with anyone. But he also signaled a certain humility that reflects the understanding that the next president must reach out to the rest of the world and not merely issue conditions from the White House and threaten military force if it does not get its way.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
1st---"Those "nuances and minefields" can also be traps. Witness how far Clinton's nuanced experience got her when confronted with the 2002 Iraq war resolution."
here comes Sir FRANK of GRITS to rescue his Queen...heheh.
2nd---We're engaging Omar al-Bashir of Sudan; we being the United Nations, Europe, US. How's THAT paying off for the folks in Darfur? And there, the Left takes the HAWKISH, dare I say "neo-con'ish" stance that, in the end, diplomacy has failed and we need to start "no fly zones" and sanctions (sound familiar?)...to invade Sudan (and don't let semantics throw you, "sending in peacekeepers"...to the Sudanese...is an "invasion").
Apparently this striking example escapes Ms vanden Heuvel's eye.
I wonder what she would say if Barack Obama said he wanted to "talk with Omar al-Bashir"..."not isolate him"...and "show America's HUMILITY" to the ruler of Sudan?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 10:44pm
Give me a leader who is humble and smart over one who is "tough" and stupid … any day! Ignorance is NOT strength.
As I have suggested before and will suggest again, we need once again to use tools whose severity ranges somewhere between empty words and total war. Economic sanctions, generally and judiciously imposed upon governments with appalling disrespect for human rights, should take the place of war as often as possible. Every trade agreement should be determined in large part by considerations of human rights. The well-being of human beings is, after all, one of the two main pillars of economic health. The other is the health of the environment, which should also play a role in international trade negotiations.
The foreign policy that we and our allies forge together will succeed to the degree that we can make human rights more important than the profits of multinational corporations.
I associate the name of Clinton much too closely with the NAFTA regime and with numerous other capitulations to plutocracy (the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, etc.) and to popular ignorance (the "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy, etc.) to be enthusiastic about the candidacy of HRC. Every time you kow-tow to the plutocracy, it gets stronger. Every time you pander to popular ignorance, stupidity becomes more widespread.
With a few honorable exceptions (above all Dennis Kucinich), most of the Democrats have "triangulated" themselves into a corner; they no longer seem to stand for anything except "moderate" Republicanism. Small consolation it must be to them now that campaign finance money smoothed their journey every step of the way that led them into this trap.
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/24/2007 @ 11:18pm
(..........I wonder what she would say if Barack Obama said he wanted to "talk with Omar al-Bashir"..."not isolate him"...and "show America's HUMILITY" to the ruler of Sudan?!?!?)..........)
Mask,
The president must even talk to the leader of the Hutus if he felt it would prevent the slaughter of mpre Tutsis.
The ego of a particular president must give wat to national and global interest if diplomacy is to mean anything at all!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 11:43pm
Lest anyone suppose that I am dodging the Darfur question:
At the risk of sounding cynical, I believe the less we have directly to do with the Sudan, the better. Shore up the economic sanctions with my blessing, but I believe sending in US troops would likely do more harm than good.
Perhaps we could help to finance UN peacekeepers from neighboring African countries who have some chance of succeeding because they speak the local languages. At most, I might consider it reasonable to contribute the protection of our air force in the enforcement of "no-fly" zones -- and I say this with great reservations, since I understand full well how much "collateral damage" air strikes are likely to inflict, even with the best of intentions.
The problems of the countries of the developing world run much deeper than the problems of fully industrialized countries, such as Germany and Japan were 70 years ago. It is not only "rogue regimes" (such as Nazi Germany and Hirohito's Japan) that we face in the developing world, but ethnic groups antagonized against each other from the grassroots upwards in a bitter struggle for partly undeveloped, partly mis-developed, and partly wasted natural resources.
(Yes, I admit that this is the legacy of arrogant and rapacious European and Euro-American colonialism, but read on.)
We can defeat a rogue regime militarily, but we certainly cannot solve the problems of economic mis-development militarily, and -- if our experience in Iraq means anything -- we cannot always by military means force people to get along with each other.
It will be objected that Bosnia qualifies as a counter-example. I say: Maybe.
Such crises as Darfur indicate to me that human rights need to factor more strongly in the way we do business throughout the world. In any event, these crises can be much more easily prevented than "managed" after they have erupted.
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/24/2007 @ 11:47pm
At the end of Round 3, The Nation's count IS now 2 to 1 in favor of ObamaRama.
On an Inconvenient Truth basis, the more the liberals applaud ObamaRama's naivette, the more certain he ISn't winning the moderates and Blue Dogs. Someone please poll Hugo, Fido, Kimbo, Ahmadinnerjack and Basher, should be 5 more rounds for their MFAN (Most Favored American Negro) :))))))))
Posted by is is IS at 07/25/2007 @ 12:04am
Well why doesn't Katrina put her editorial pen where her mouth is and re-write some headlines? The right-wingers have jumped all over the headline "An Obama Flub at You Tube Debate" and made it the Most Viewed opinion piece on Yahoo News. Do we have to feed the Limbaugh/Fox News Machine for them? Does nobody at The Nation THINK about these things before they post them? I swear their headline editor must have come from AP or the NY Post...
Think one step ahead, Nation - maybe some chess lessons would help.
Posted by sjduskin at 07/25/2007 @ 12:56am
The Democratic party is as dead as their rivals, the country just doesn't seem to realize this yet.
Posted by MADLIB 07/25/2007 @ 01:07am
I hate to agree with that statement, but in large part I think you're correct my slightly baked friend!
And I think it's no secret that much of the country feels similarly. Just look at the polls, or simply observe the spineless behavior of the Democratic party leadership. It's almost too painful to pay too close attention to. Kinda like watching a movie where the Good keeps getting crushed by pure Evil from the bad guys and sickening sycophancy on the part of the supposed good guys.
Anyhow, I'm glad to see a fair minded response by Katrina to the ridiculous Corn conjecture about Obama's "blunder".
Thank you Katrina.
Now please come out with a strong pro-impeachment stance. The time is running out as we speak, but the continually unraveling collapse of this tragic farce of a Presidency along with strong pro-impeachment polling numbers is making the case easier to support everyday.
Let's do it!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/25/2007 @ 01:30am
Every time you kow-tow to the plutocracy, it gets stronger. Every time you pander to popular ignorance, stupidity becomes more widespread.
~Jakob Fabian
Exactly bro.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/25/2007 @ 01:43am
MadLib,
You may be right, and I may be crazy......but it just may be a luna.....
just kidding.
Anyhow, I have my own skepticism about the possibility of impeachment, yet I consider it so imperative that I refuse to give its possibility short shrift. That's bad karma dude.
Conditions can change in a very short time.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/25/2007 @ 01:48am
That's a bit harsh seeing as we're ultimately products of our genes and our environment, and the environment is saturated with capitalist propaganda scientifically designed to cater to our selfish natures.
Yeah, we're all in a bind man.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/25/2007 @ 02:08am
Dear Katrina, It would be informative for any judge of the candidate's response to listen to the exact question, word for word, asked by the YouTube creator. It's not correct to judge the response based on words from a candidate's post-debate spinners. Obama said he would personally meet with all those international figures, without condition and within one year of taking office. Naive at the least.
Posted by edaboy51 at 07/25/2007 @ 02:47am
Katrina, Arianna, progressive commentators galore, just love Obama...he can do no wrong...well, unfortunately that is NOT true...despite all the lefty ink spilled saying how wonderful he is on this and that, reality has a way of slapping one in the face. His stand on coal: unacceptable. His unwillingness to commit to gay marriage: untenable. His foreign policy rhetoric is naive at best, disingenuous at worst. Hillary in the debate was right to say she would not get used for propaganda purposes by enemies. Obama has yet to win one debate...it's been all Hillary. His inexperience has shown up repeatedly, which means '08 is not his time. Now, if he is the Dem nominee, I would vote for him (reluctantly), since I will never vote for a Republican or an Independent billionaire (Bloomberg). .
Posted by MCE337 at 07/25/2007 @ 04:26am
EDABOY51:
You are right...shame on Katrina, who I usually find is on the money, to rely on Obama's spinners. He IS naive, green, you name the cliche...come back in '16, Obama...we will take you seriously then, if you have schooled yourself a bit. Now, NO.
Posted by MCE337 at 07/25/2007 @ 04:28am
IS IS IS: Although I am not crazy about Obama, resorting to slanderous racism is out of line...America's Favorite Negro...very nice...shows you that there are still plenty of ignorant fools like yourself in the country...
Posted by MCE337 at 07/25/2007 @ 04:32am
The key word in the article is humility. One of the many virtuous qualities the Bush administration lacks. ccroke
Posted by ccroke at 07/25/2007 @ 08:50am
"The respective regimes of Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela have only grown stronger, and more influential in Latin America. "
Not for the first time, I'm confused as to what The Nation's politics are. Those of us on the left want leaders who stand against Latin America's exploitation by American multinationals, and for Latin American unity, to be stronger. Which side are YOU on, Katrina? Why not talk about a real shift in US foreign policy, one that recognizes that presently governments are often pilloried by the US foreign policy establishment (not to mention the right) precisely because they stand for the aspirations of poor or marginalized people in their countries.
Posted by threehegemons at 07/25/2007 @ 09:34am
Ms. Vanden Heuvel:
A well reasoned and thoughtful article. I support your assessment, and I find the "nuance is better" crowd too much like George "Bring it on" W. Bush - full of bluster and empty on insightful thinking.
Having said the above, I wish to point out that only Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich have stated they would withdraw all American troops from Iraq; the other Democratic Presidential candidates have hedged their bets with various nuanced positions.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/25/2007 @ 09:37am
Well, well, well. Apparently eloquence, like good humor, is infectious and encourages more, especially yours JakobFab! Regarding accusations of racism, however, I'm choosing to think his is-ness is at least open to the idea of a non-racist becoming-ness in his/our futures. And, the "golden gnome" moniker for Kucinich is precious, even if he and all other's got a vote wrong on a recent appropriations bill due to the agreed waste and ignorance imbedded in failed and failing "abstinence only" edumocational propaganda perpetrated upon youth who've generally the insight to see through the hypocrisy (it's the poor instructors stuck with that papish curricular shite who lose credibility/integrity), according to Ms. Katha Pollitt.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 09:42am
I'd love to see a debate between Ms vanden Heuvel and Senator Clinton---
Quad-City Times--
TODAY: (Updated 2:16 p.m.) In separate interviews with the Quad-City Times today, Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tangled over Obama's statement at the YouTube debate Monday that he would be willing to meet in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of countries antagonistic to the United States.
Clinton called Obama's comments "irresponsible" and "naive."
Obama countered by accusing the Clinton campaign of hatching a "fabricated controversy" and suggested that her position put her on the same track as the Bush administration."
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 09:57am
precisely because they stand for the aspirations of poor or marginalized people in their countries.
Posted by THREEHEGEMONS 07/25/2007 @ 09:34am
Asked before...what part of expelling foreigners who criticize the Chavez government is "standing for the aspirations of poor or marginalized people in their countries"!?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 09:59am
Obama said he would personally meet with all those international figures, without condition and within one year of taking office. Naive at the least.
Posted by EDABOY51 07/25/2007 @ 02:47am | ignore this person
why? to meet and talk? sounds scary. we are not at war with any of those folks. handing them a propaganda victory? it would be a propaganda victory for us too, to have a pres who does not see everything through ideological blinders. it would signal a reversal from Bush"s my way or the highway stance, one that would be applauded by friend and foe alike.
the big three dem candidates will have to turn on each other sooner or later.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 10:03am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/25/2007 @ 10:03am
Okay, wasn't sure before, but that convinced me...
now, I KNOW Obama was being naive, if JR thinks it's a good idea!
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 10:20am
The problem the Democrats and Liberals have IS these back-biters, who are ONLY satisfied with Ron Paul, Cindy Sheehan, Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader (Kucinich is at least a Democrat). It's frustrating, I'm talking to intelligent people who just won't listen, this is about strategy. The Democrats have a majority only if you count Joe Lieberman. When you are low on time, you must use the time wisely. I am sad to see the Democrats agenda endangered - not by centrists - not by AIPAC - but by backbiters who identify as opposed to Bush and his disaster Iraq.
Bush, AIPAC, Lieberman all want to invade Iran. They're hell-bent, they can't wait to invade Iran. "Please please please please please let me bomb Iran", C'mon, we got to, its for national security, we have classified evidence.
You can not attack Iran, you can't just bomb Iran and then not invade either. You have troops in Iraq!!!! The govt in Iraq we are supposedly training is tied with Iran!!!!
Neo-Cons are getting ready with the next step of PNAC, which is to bomb Iran - lure in and force Americans into another invasion and occupation of Iran.
I have watched my emails to my senators change, when I wrote "DO NOT ATTACK IRAN" every week over these last almost 2 years, their responses used to say they'll be tough on Iran even though they're Democrats, now their responses also say they will stand up to Bush and not let him jumpstart a war.
There is no evidence that Iran is doing anything wrong in Iran - except for Bush and Cheney's secret evidence that doesnt exist until it's cooked up. Democrats must stop falling for it! Do not accept as "fact" any so-called evidence that Bush says he has about Iran!!!!
Posted by conshame at 07/25/2007 @ 10:31am
Don't worry about moi, Conshame. I give this corrupt and impeachment-deserving executive branch not one whit, not one iota of credence.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 10:46am
KVH,
Is there a reason that The Nation has a gag order on discussing the Democrat controlled Congress's option of Inherent Contempt?
Posted by freedomplease at 07/25/2007 @ 10:56am
If there's anything Democrats need pressure on, it's Iran!!!! Do not let Bush jumpstart an invasion and occupation of Iran!!!! Do not allow George Bush, which is what the media is currently doing, to start telling his lies!!!! Americans still resent Iranians because of the hostages, back in 199 - America shot down a full loaded civillian transport jumbo jet!!!! They been paid back for the hostages already!!!! Americans irrational fear and irrational hatred of Iranians, seeing them as flag burning radicals, inflamed by these supposed facts. We have secret information, we have "proof" that Iran is killing Americans in Iraq. "Nobody disputes" that weapons are coming into Iraq from Iran. The back-biters of the Left are being mis-directed, and you just assume that the media has not manipulated you as a mass into that position. The average American who votes isnt fully awake yet. They're doing the investigations, Bush is obstructing, and the inevitable result will be impeachment - it takes time. Whats the problem? Not being truthful, filtering facts that dont support the one-party-system model that you "know" America has. Saying Bush=Gore, Bush=Pelosi, it isnt true - untruthfulness is what got America in the mess it is now. If there is anything Democrats need pressure on it is Iran!
Posted by conshame at 07/25/2007 @ 10:58am
This is a terrible mistake on the part of Obama. It highlights his nascent view of the role of the Presidency in a complex world, as well as his tendency to dismiss important details while indulging his preference for the broad and ambiguous.
The question, while complex, was clear: As President, would you be willing to meet, individually, with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela within a year of taking office and without preconditions.
Obama: "Sure!". Clinton: "Not so fast!".
This would be a second time where Obama didn't pay attention to the details of a question.
In the first debate, when asked about how, as President, he would respond to a double-attack by Al Quaeda, Obama rambled on about first responders and determining who was behind the attack.
It's not Clinton's fault that Obama failed to grasp the pertinent details of thoughtful questions. And, she has every right to point out his lack of understanding and attention to detail in his answers.
You have to get up pretty early to beat Clintons. Obama, it seems, is still sleeping in.
Posted by JoeCHI at 07/25/2007 @ 11:14am
Obama has guts, smarts and is principled-- 'believes' in the American way and our Constitution. VS. adopting new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy: 1. fear -- flight or fight policy, 2. it's about the profits, bottomline corporate policy, 3. incompetence, crony buds that's all we know how to do policy.
The only other dem that has more principles, smarts and guts, currently, is Al Gore.
(And before Maskerina pulls the ever increasing straw out of her ass, she better try again to explain how she's for impeachment, does nothing to make it happen, and only advocates against it. It's all so dishonest I'm gonna start calling her Frita.)
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 11:21am
We all could be smoking cuban cigars... A great, but very long article about negotiating with 'enemies' and 'nuance':
Home > Magazine Archives > Sep/Oct '99 > JFK and Castro
Published September/October 1999
JFK & Castro: The Secret Quest For Accommodation
Recently Declassified U.S. government Documents Reveal That, at the Height of the Cold War, John F. Kennedy and Fidel Castro Were Exploring Ways To Normalize U.S.-Cuba Relations
by Peter Kornbluh
In February 1996, Robert Kennedy Jr. and his brother, Michael, traveled to Havana to meet with Fidel Castro. As a gesture of goodwill, they brought a file of formerly top secret U.S. documents on the Kennedy administration's covert exploration of an accommodation with Cuba--a record of what might have been had not Lee Harvey Oswald, seemingly believing the president to be an implacable foe of Castro's Cuba, fired his fateful shots in Dallas. Castro thanked them for the file and shared his "impression that it was [President Kennedy's] intention after the missile crisis to change the framework" of relations between the United States and Cuba. "It's unfortunate," said Castro, that "things happened as they did, and he could not do what he wanted to do."
Would John F. Kennedy, had he lived, have been able to establish a modus vivendi with Fidel Castro? The question haunts almost 40 years of acrimonious U.S.-Cuba relations. In a Top Secret--Eyes Only memorandum written three days after the president's death, one of his White House aides, Gordon Chase, noted that "President Kennedy could have accommodated with Castro and gotten away with it with a minimum of domestic heat"--because of his track record "of being successfully nasty to Castro and the Communists" during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Castro and his advisers believed the same. A CIA intelligence report, based on
a high-level Cuban source and written for National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy in 1964, noted that "Fidel Castro felt that it was possible that President Kennedy would have gone on ultimately to negotiate with Cuba...[as an] acceptance of a fait accompli for practical reasons."
The file on the Kennedy administration's "Cuban contacts" that Robert Jr. and Michael took to Cuba (declassified at the request of the author) sheds significant light on a story that has never been fully told--John Kennedy's secret pursuit of a rapprochement with Fidel Castro. Along with papers recently released pursuant to the Kennedy Assassination Records Act of 1992, the documents reveal the escalating efforts toward negotiations in 1963 that, if successful, might have changed the ensuing decades of perpetual hostility between Washington and Havana. Given the continuing state of tension with Castro's regime, this history carries an immediate relevance for present policy makers. Indeed, with the Clinton administration buffeted between increasingly vocal critics of U.S. policy toward Cuba and powerful proponents of the status quo, reconstructing the hitherto secret record of Kennedy's efforts in the fall of 1963 to advance "the rapprochement track" with Castro is more relevant than ever.
John F. Kennedy would seem the most unlikely of presidents to seek an accommodation with Fidel Castro. His tragically abbreviated administration bore responsibility for some of the most infamous U.S. efforts to roll back the Cuban revolution: the Bay of Pigs invasion, the trade embargo, Operation Mongoose (a U.S. plan to destabilize the Castro government) and a series of CIA-Mafia assassination attempts against the Cuban leader. Castro's demise, Seymour M. Hersh argues in his book, The Dark Side of Camelot, "became a presidential obsession" until the end. "The top priority in the United States government--all else is secondary--no time, money, effort, or manpower is to be spared" is to find a "solution" to the Cuba problem, Attorney General Robert Kennedy told a high-level group of CIA and Pentagon officials in early 1962. The president's opinion, according to CIA minutes of the meeting, was that "the final chapter [on Cuba] has not been written."
Unbeknownst to all but his brother and a handful of advisers, however, in 1963 John Kennedy began pursuing an alternative script on Cuba: a secret dialogue toward an actual rapprochement with Castro. To a policy built upon "overt and covert nastiness," as Top Secret White House memoranda characterized U.S. operations against Cuba, was added "the sweet approach," meaning the possibility of "quietly enticing Castro over to us." National Security Council officials referred to this multitrack policy as "simil-opting"--the use of disparate methods toward the goal of moving Cuba out of the Soviet orbit.
VVVVVVvvvvvvVVVVVvvvvvvVVVVVvvvvvVVVvvvVVvv
President Clinton, however, has ignored the policy opportunities and political openings. In January, he rejected the Republican proposal for a bipartisan national dialogue on Cuba policy, as well as any notion of an international dialogue with the Cuban government. Several small modifications were made in the U.S. posture--expanded remittances and flights, restricted licenses for the sale of agricultural products to Cuba--in order, as Clinton put it, "to provide the people of Cuba with hope in their struggle." But the antagonistic framework of the policy remains entrenched and, for the most part, unchanged. The most symbolic "people-to-people" gesture that the White House can muster: allowing the Baltimore Orioles to play two exhibition games with Cuba.
With the Cold War long over and tensions with Cuba at a minimum, serious diplomacy and dialogue on mutual interests would seem not only possible, but highly preferable to continuing a long-standing policy of unmitigated hostility. Clearly, high-ranking members of the Kennedy White House, and even Kennedy himself, thought a dialogue toward coexistence was possible--in a far more dangerous world than today. "All we have to do is simply to decide to treat Cuba like any other 'socialist' country and then sit down and resolve a few unresolved issues," Ambassador Attwood observed years after the Kennedy initiative. "I think it's about time we did, in our own interest as well as Cuba's."
Peter Kornbluh writes frequently on U.S.-Cuba relations. He is a senior analyst at the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental institute and library located at George Washington University, Washington, D.C. He is the editor of Bay of Pigs Declassified: The Secret CIA Report on the Invasion of Cuba (The New Press, 1998). The documents cited in this report can be accessed at the archive's Web site: www.seas.gwu.edu/nsarchive.
http://tinyurl.com/2jhzyy
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 11:53am
David posted this Rebuttal to KVH at his blog.....
July 25, 2007
Obama Blunder or Not?
My boss didn't like what I wrote about Barack Obama's YouTube debate performance--that is, his promise to meet with the thuggish leaders of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela in his first year as president (should he be elected). But what's fortunate is that at The Nation website I get to have my say, and then editor Katrina vanden Heuvel can have hers.....
Well, my point was that this was indeed a blunder because it could be used against Obama.......Does anyone believe that promising to meet with Ahmadinejad right away will win Obama more votes than it will cost him? I doubt we will hear Obama reiterate this promise. Why? Because he knows the answer to that simple question.
By the way, after the debate, Obama's campaign disseminated a memo saying, "On issues of national security, Obama made clear that making America safer would require using tough diplomacy with countries like Iran and North Korea that have seen dramatic expansions of their nuclear programs during the seven years of the Bush presidency." During the debate, though, that's not how Obama put it. He did not call for "tough" diplomacy and did not raise the issue of Iranian and North Korea nukes. Certainly, "tough" diplomacy does not entail offering presidential meetings before the negotiating begins.
I write the above and the original piece as someone who is not rooting for Obama to fail. But it's clear to me he's going to have to be both bolder in his overall campaign strategy and more careful in his responses to questions about foreign policy, an area in which he has good instincts but not a lot of working experience....
Posted by David Corn at 11:04 AM
Posted by Happy at 07/25/2007 @ 11:56am
Having said the above, I wish to point out that only Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich have stated they would withdraw all American troops from Iraq; the other Democratic Presidential candidates have hedged their bets with various nuanced positions.
Posted by ORAIBI1952 07/25/2007 @ 09:37am | ignore this person
Kucinich and Richardson have the luxury of staking out any political position they wish, as they have zero chance to be their party's nominee.
I say, let's dump these wannabe's and have some real debates between the three frontrunners. the present format has outlived its usefulness.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 12:00pm
I say, let's dump these wannabe's and have some real debates between the three frontrunners. the present format has outlived its usefulness.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/25/2007 @ 12:00pm
Are asking for Al Gore to a dem debate as he's polling 3rd nationally and 1st and 2nd in some states?
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 12:10pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 11:21am
HSUB, WILL won't answer me (and I think I know why), but aside from his opinion, what do you base this idea that I'm female on?
It's GOT to be less substantial than your dream of impeachment.
(BTW, Steny Hoyer on the Ed Schultz Show yesterday....ain't happening and he's Majority Leader)
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 12:41pm
Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 12:41pm
Time warped to the top.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 12:10pm
Why is Al letting Kristen (his daughter) go out there and tell people he's not running, HSUB?
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 12:42pm
Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 12:42pm
Frita, already answered that one a few days ago, you have a comprehension problem?
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 12:58pm
(And before Maskerina pulls the ever increasing straw out of her ass, she better try again to explain how she's for impeachment, does nothing to make it happen, and only advocates against it. It's all so dishonest I'm gonna start calling her Frita.)
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 11:21am
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 1:00pm
You have to get up pretty early to beat Clintons. Obama, it seems, is still sleeping in.
Sorry, Joechi, but Hillary stroking doesn't hide the cheapness of this shot she took at Obama.
Simply talking about the 'process' you would engage in, when the question was not about process but 'whether' you would engage, doesn't make you more able, competent or experienced. All this does is just confirm Hillary's 'cold-caluclating' image that is turning off a lot of voters.
When you change the subject and talk about process, and then turn around and stroke your back for 'appearing' to be more experienced than your opponent, then this means you will try to score cheap points any way you can which is unbecoming of someone who wants to be President.
Do you honestly believe if the question to Obama was "what process would you use to engage these leaders", that he wouldn't have been equally if not more thoughtful in his response as Hillary?
Posted by Metteyya at 07/25/2007 @ 1:06pm
Are asking for Al Gore to a dem debate as he's polling 3rd nationally and 1st and 2nd in some states?
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 12:10pm | ignore this person
well, for that he would have to declare. he doesn't need to be introduced to the american people.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 1:08pm
I fail to see either the practical or pragmatic side of refusing to engage in conversation will willingly engaging in war. Shouldn't war be the last resort of negotiations.
Even playground bullies talk before they punch (or give atomic wedgies).
Posted by pactorj at 07/25/2007 @ 1:20pm
Obama ought to be the candidate, he is taking the lead, he has clean hands on the 2002 Quagmire Authorization.
America is a Representative Democracy, that means our Representatives represent us. Not all Americans are geniuses. Our Representatives also represent alot of slow, silly people. I really wish that all Americans were Liberal geniuses. I wish that all Americans would understand as Liberals did from the beginning, that Bush and his PNAC, Project for a New American Century, has malign intentions towards America. Bush couldnt have said it better, "They hate us because we are free".
However, not all Americans are geniuses. Not all Americans would listen to Liberals when we warned you about Bush, and about Iraq.
The backbiters on the Left, understand, that Democrats in the Legislative Branch ALSO represent the ignorant. Only when ENOUGH ignorant people wake up and are willing to support a new direction, against whatever the media tells them about "rock-solid secret evidence of Iran" that Bush supposedly has. These are the people that our Representatives represent, and sorry to say, but The Nation message board's intelligence is far above the average American. It's too bad, but let's face it, those who understand what is going on with regard to Bush and Iraq, are the "intellectual elites", they even call us that - we don't eat Brie - but we are the elite. Republicans aren't, Moderates aren't - LIBERALS understood what was going on from the beginning.
Posted by conshame at 07/25/2007 @ 1:23pm
Having said the above, I wish to point out that only Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich have stated they would withdraw all American troops from Iraq; the other Democratic Presidential candidates have hedged their bets with various nuanced positions.
Posted by ORAIBI1952 07/25/2007 @ 09:37am | ignore this person
Kucinich and Richardson have the luxury of staking out any political position they wish, as they have zero chance to be their party's nominee.
I say, let's dump these wannabe's and have some real debates between the three frontrunners. the present format has outlived its usefulness.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/25/2007 @ 12:00pm | ignore this person
Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich may or may not have a chance to win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, but that was not the point I was making.
The point I was making was that none of the "leading" candidates has made a clear declaration of withdrawing all American troops from Iraq. The fact that this point has not received full and thorough airing in the press raises critical concerns about the "leading" candidates and the mainstream press.
Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/25/2007 @ 1:35pm
Frita, already answered that one a few days ago, you have a comprehension problem?----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 12:58pm
Not as bad as not knowing that John Conyers was in his office, when he was talking to Cindy Sheehan in his office, but...okay...
refresh my memory
1. Why do you think I'm a female (based on what evidence...other than WILL's sexual problems)?
2. Why did Kristen Gore not get the memo to "play it cagily and DON'T outright deny Dad is running" at the Gore Compound?
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 1:47pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 1:00pm
I don't "advocate against it". Any more than I "advocate against" Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 1:48pm
BTW, HSUB....Howard Dean on the Rachel Maddow Show on Air America last night.
Yep, the Good Doctor said no too. [airamerica.com]. Sorry, dude.
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 1:53pm
(And before Maskerina pulls the ever increasing straw out of her ass, she better try again to explain how she's for impeachment, does nothing to make it happen, and only advocates against it. It's all so dishonest I'm gonna start calling her Frita.)
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 11:21am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 1:00pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 1:58pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 1:00pm
I don't "advocate against it". Any more than I "advocate against" Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 1:48pm
A typical Frita non-answer. Sure you're not working for Frito? His assitant maybe?
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 2:01pm
The point I was making was that none of the "leading" candidates has made a clear declaration of withdrawing all American troops from Iraq. The fact that this point has not received full and thorough airing in the press raises critical concerns about the "leading" candidates and the mainstream press.
Posted by ORAIBI1952 07/25/2007 @ 1:35pm | ignore this person
OK. that is indeed a point worth making.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 2:01pm
Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 1:47pm
All already answered before. Why not really answer my question?
(And before Maskerina pulls the ever increasing straw out of her ass, she better try again to explain how she's for impeachment, does nothing to make it happen, and only advocates against it. It's all so dishonest I'm gonna start calling her Frita.)
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 11:21am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 1:00pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 1:58pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 2:04pm
well, for that he would have to declare. he doesn't need to be introduced to the american people.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/25/2007 @ 1:08pm
How long do you think he can wait before changing his mind?
I've heard October-November but also as late as February!?!? But that's more a draft effort that's already getting signatures to put his name on ballots... 200 separate groups already acroaa the US, with a few 10-100 volunteers it may actually go a long way to persuade Gore to think about it very seriously.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 2:09pm
er, across
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 2:11pm
haa, er. 10-100 'thousand' volunteers...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 2:12pm
O.K. Johann, your suggestion that the lesser candidates somehow cooperate in drooping out of the Dem's race for the nomination leaving the "big three" to presumably gain attention/support is not only discourteous to especially Kucinich who most capably voices what most writers here desire, impeachment and the ending of the occupation, but also fails to suggest the idea of real cooperation and consolidation of power/influence before any of these people have even one bargaining chip of a delegate or twenty to deal/negotiate/influence with. What say ye friend?
Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 2:18pm
Ironicaliness--D Corn, P Kornbluh...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 2:25pm
HSUB....it's still 3 months away, but....you're losing it, dude.
Was it the Conyers thing with Cindy Sheehan? Or Feingold on Daily Kos?
This predates Dean on Air America (yesterday) coming out against impeachment, so I don't think it's that....but, man....you are going nutty on us.
Pelosi...Steny Hoyers...Conyers...Reid...Feingold (with censure as "CYA" for his next town hall in Milwaukee)....Rahm Emmanuel....George Miller.....Howard Dean....David Corn here....and Al Gore.
All "Bush lovers", huh?
Find a new outlet, HSUB...they (Congress) goes on vacation on Friday and doesn't come back until Labor Day, just in time for the fight to be over Iraq and Petreaus' report. Then Halloween is less than 8 weeks later.
It isn't going to happen, my friend.
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 3:05pm
O.K. Johann, your suggestion that the lesser candidates somehow cooperate in drooping out of the Dem's race for the nomination leaving the "big three" to presumably gain attention/support is not only discourteous to especially Kucinich who most capably voices what most writers here desire, impeachment and the ending of the occupation, but also fails to suggest the idea of real cooperation and consolidation of power/influence before any of these people have even one bargaining chip of a delegate or twenty to deal/negotiate/influence with. What say ye friend?
Posted by LEWWELGE 07/25/2007 @ 2:18pm | ignore this person
mine was not exactly a practical suggestion, and it was offered only in the context of these ridiculous "debates" there are of course other ways to fix the debates. I am always interested in what Kucinich has to say, and that Gravel fellow is a shot of unvarnished truth. but I'm even more interested in what the big three have to say, and that is the crux of my post.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 3:17pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/25/2007 @ 1:08pm
How long do you think he can wait before changing his mind?
I really don't know. RFK waited, and waited, before he declared and it did not hinder his success.
this coming election will be a doozey, and whammy. I think the country is really holding its collective breath, that there will BE elections.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 3:20pm
The fact that she's taken a page out of George W. Bush's "I'm not going to talk to you because I think you're bad and despite the fact that America bankrolled you before we decided you were bad" playbook is the official death knell for Hillary Clinton as far as I'm concerned.
I had already decided that I wasn't going to vote for her in the primaries. This cinches that I won't vote for her in the general should she win the nomination, either.
Posted by edwriter at 07/25/2007 @ 3:52pm
Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 3:05pm
All because of people like you Frita, telling them 'not' to impeach hsuB even though he's committed impeachable offences... They 'are', after all, public servants.
But investigations are still active and steps are still being taken. Your boss Frito is first.
Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 1:47pm
All already answered before. Why not really answer my question?
(And before Maskerina pulls the ever increasing straw out of her ass, she better try again to explain how she's for impeachment, does nothing to make it happen, and only advocates against it. It's all so dishonest I'm gonna start calling her Frita.)
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 11:21am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 1:00pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 1:58pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 2:04pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 4:03pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/25/2007 @ 3:20pm
If congress doesn't get rid of Frito, I'll start worrying about cancelled elections...
But as for Al, yep, considering he doesn't have to deal with all this pcikering, Al waiting, is smart.
With all the draft Gore minnions out there petitioning to put his name on ballots everywhere, wouldn't it be something if Gore won and never ran...?!?!?!
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 4:13pm
All because of people like you Frita, telling them 'not' to impeach hsuB even though he's committed impeachable offences... They 'are', after all, public servants.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 4:03pm
Wait a minute...NOW, you're saying that they're not "biding their time", but ACTUALLY AREN'T interested in impeachment?!?!??
That's a change in tune, ol' buddy. Before you DENIED everything they said, or said that they meant something different, or even the exact opposite....
now you're blaming "people like me" for them opposing impeachment, which YOU said they weren't REALLY doing?
Which is it, HSUB? Are they "secretly" for it or "biding their time until there's overwhelming evidence from the hearings?
or are they opposing impeachment because of "people like me"?
Wait...let me guess...it's BOTH...since one or the other would mean you were wrong on atlest SOMETHING!...heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 4:23pm
BTW, still holding out hope that Cindy Sheehan (or the reporter for www.democrats.com) got Conyers' statement wrong on Monday? Or have you accepted that he DID say "Our only recourse is elections"?
Careful, again....one or the other (and not "both") means you were wrong as well!
Posted by Mask at 07/25/2007 @ 4:25pm
I second the motion! Talking gets you an understanding of the other leader's viewpoints, and a better understanding of the real facts on the ground. Of course, you have to listen!
Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/25/2007 @ 4:29pm
I don't think there is a big difference here.
Obama didn't mention in his reply that his diplomats would do the heavy lifting first.
Hillary pounced on this and won the point with moderates.
They would both talk: Obama-maybe more open to listening at first; Hillary-if discussions could be pragmatic.
Both missed the more nuanced answer, that is that our foreign policy is in need of major rethinking and, for a long time, has been hostage to some powerful interests that may not coincide now with the interest of the American people.
And, if they were unwilling to go that far, then maybe they could have explained to the questioner that each of the cited nations posed unique and different challenges to our foreign policy and different approaches might be best with all of them.
Posted by Turnup at 07/25/2007 @ 4:54pm
Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 4:23pm
Still pulling that straw out of your ass as fast as possible... Bwahahahah.
Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 3:05pm
All because of people like you Frita, telling them 'not' to impeach hsuB even though he's committed impeachable offences... They 'are', after all, public servants.
But investigations are still active and steps are still being taken. Your boss Frito is first.
Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 1:47pm
All already answered before. Why not really answer my question?
(And before Maskerina pulls the ever increasing straw out of her ass, she better try again to explain how she's for impeachment, does nothing to make it happen, and only advocates against it. It's all so dishonest I'm gonna start calling her Frita.)
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 11:21am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 1:00pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 1:58pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 2:04pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 4:03pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 4:56pm
Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 4:25pm
You still can't find anything straight from Conyers' own mouth other than he needs more votes to impeach... But people like Frita don't want them to, but says she for it, but advocates against doing the right thing, because she's really for it...
Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 4:23pm
Still pulling that straw out of your ass as fast as possible... Bwahahahah.
Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 3:05pm
All because of people like you Frita, telling them 'not' to impeach hsuB even though he's committed impeachable offences... They 'are', after all, public servants.
But investigations are still active and steps are still being taken. Your boss Frito is first.
Posted by MASK 07/25/2007 @ 1:47pm
All already answered before. Why not really answer my question?
(And before Maskerina pulls the ever increasing straw out of her ass, she better try again to explain how she's for impeachment, does nothing to make it happen, and only advocates against it. It's all so dishonest I'm gonna start calling her Frita.)
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 11:21am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 1:00pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 1:58pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 2:04pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 4:03pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 4:56pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 5:01pm
As the Presidential race gains speed global poverty is an issue that needs to be critically addressed by all potential candidates. Too much time is being spent on a candidate's character and not enough on the issues. The United States has agreed to the Millennium Development Goals, plan that will put an end to global poverty by 2015. Unfortunately less than half of aid from the United States goes to the poorest countries where people earn less than $2 a day. Groups such as the Borgen Project are working to bring global attention to global poverty. For any candidate to receive recognition it is crucial that their foreign policy addresses these issues.
Posted by jsep at 07/25/2007 @ 5:09pm
Understood Johann, yet Gore's seemingly prescient waiting indicates cagey strategizing against the "big three" or the whole bunched class of erstwhile "alternatives."
Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 5:14pm
You see I went with this thread's tangent towards Big Al.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 5:16pm
One other thing....
Why is Hillary Clinton more concerned about the prospect of propaganda in North Korean newspapers or Cuban television than she is with our national or global interests?
Is what they show on TV or in their newspapers going to have ANY adverse impact on such interests?
Someone should have pressed her to explain this 'overly concerned about local propaganda' statement as it doesn't appear to be very wise.
On the other hand, she could argue that such view is based on 'experience', but I don't think such experience could possibly be worth much if it prevents you from doing what is necessary to further American interests at home and abroad!
I agree with some of the posters here that it seems that Hillary is of the opinion that presidential attention is something prestigious and some sort of reward that may embolden leaders with confidence and esteem in their respective countries. Local propaganda might make it look like "America is bending to the will of Chavez because the President wants to talk to him", and we don't want to make Chavez to 'appear' to be more powerful than he is, right?
Such thinking does sound more like George Bush, so it is unfortunate that there were not more follow ups on this 'encouraging propaganda' statement by Clinton.
Again, presidential ego must give way to our national and international interests, or diplomacy has been reduced to presidential ego-stroking!
Posted by Metteyya at 07/25/2007 @ 6:23pm
This cinches that I won't vote for her in the general should she win the nomination, either.
Posted by EDWRITER 07/25/2007 @ 3:52pm | ignore this person
so you're comfortable with the idea of pres Rudy or pres Romney?
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/25/2007 @ 6:59pm
Frita,
Here's a rope. What if you just came out and said that you are for not impeaching hsuB not matter what, rather than the rooze that you're for impeachment but just being realistic by pointing out constently how impeachment shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't happen. Those of us that feel it should are doing a lot to persuade our congresspeople in a possitive way to move in that direction or at least to not get in the way. Where you take a totally obstructive stance for what you say you are for.
I considered you female a few weeks ago when you were arguing with WillC about not being female while arguing with me that you were for impeachment but doing the opposite to have it happen. It made perfect sense you were doing the opposite of what you believe in, thus your argument that you weren't a woman was because you were and that you were reinforcing the argument against impeachment was because you were for impeachment.
I actually like you better as a woman and trying to come off as a man and lying about it than if you were a man and simply lying about your intentions...
Having just brought up two teenage daughters as a single parent, I can empathize one way and not at all the other.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 7:21pm
P.S. Frita,
Of course, I told you this several days ago. But you conveniently but on the blond wig with the mask.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 7:40pm
er, put
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 9:09pm
So Mask, whom I've had ignored for weeks now, is a woman, as you are also, Hsubfools? Interesting.
Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 9:28pm
LW, I can't remember ever saying I was a guy or a gal before. I think I've mentioned my age. I'm sure Frita saved something at some point that may have given some clue, but never based anything on gender except for Frita's adament contradictions to her beliefs. I suppose if she start claiming that she was a female I'd start thinking she was a he... simply because she's so contrary to herself.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 11:42pm
er, started
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/25/2007 @ 11:43pm
Regarding the possibility of Clinton meeting with the Iranian reformers after their 1997 ascension, that's actually been raised. Washington 'snubbed Iran offer', as the BBC can attest in their January 18th story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6274147.stm) of earlier this year. Both Bush and Clinton blew it.
It's too bad The Nation still needs to 'catch up' with me, but that's your decision and you can hardly say I haven't laid it on the table.
Posted by zebra1 at 07/25/2007 @ 11:59pm
I just wanted to reply to JOECHI. You claim that Hillary somehow showed presidential talent by showing restraint in her response to the meeting with our "enemies" and that Obama blundered somehow. What are you reading into the word "preconditions?" The YouTube questioner said he was satisfied with Obama's answer and did not like Hillary's answer. So I think if he was using the same connotations as you are with "preconditions" I'd think he'd be disappointed with Obama and happy with Clinton. Besides, the crux of the question is WOULD you be willing and not HOW WOULD you...as Obama said of course he'd have the normal diplomatic channels opened and used and the meeting set up in a way that real progress is made. He understands that the president of the U.S. can be seen as anyone's "bee-otch."
In regard to your take on the the earlier debate about if the country was attacked simultaneously...Obama was the one who basically said, "not so fast" while the others were quick to launch a counter attack without getting all the facts...kind of what Bush did post-9/11 don't you think? He was absolutely correct in taking care of the victims first, making sure another attack wasn't imminent, gathering accurate intelligence on who performed the attack and THEN kicking ass. What is wrong with that? True power comes from the judicious use of said power, not flexing its muscles for the sake of intimidation. The world knows we have the mightiest military. They don't need us to drop a phosphorous bomb to make that point. But when the leadership of the country that possesses that great power is corrupt and sick, that military might isn't just powerful, it's downright dangerous. Obama realizes that a direct discussion with our adversaries stands a much better chance at disarming a situation than not talking and doing inventory in the armory. Let Hillary attack Obama, it shows just how worried she is...
The Repugnantcans want us to elect Hillary, that is their wet dream. They know that they'll get their base out to vote with her as the opponent. You get a fresh-face with fresh ideas and a promise of hope and a pledge to change the way things are done in Washington and we can win this thing, take our country back and start on the long road back to respectability around the world and a more prosperous nation for everyone here at home.
That fresh face belongs to Barack Obama.
Like Obama has said, if we elect Clinton it would just be changing Bush-Cheney's special interests for hers. Real change starts with an outsider. It's delicious irony isn't it how an adulterer (L.A. mayor Anthony Villaraigosa) is endorsing the wife of an adulterer. How come no one in the MSM has picked up on that?.
If Edwards somehow pulls out the nomination, I will work for his campaign. If Hillary wins, I will NOT work for her and I will NOT vote for her. I'll renounce my party's affiliation and register as "DECLINED TO STATE" and Obama will be my write-in candidate. Watch what happens if Hillary is somehow the Dem's pick...watch how many write-in votes Obama gets.
If we nominate Hillary we lose again. I'm tired of losing. I can't stomach losing to any of the Repugnantcans - especially Guiliani, that rat bastard. No one has made more money off 9/11 than Rudy...well, maybe Dick Cheney, but that's a whole ‘nother post.
Posted by Markie Bee at 07/26/2007 @ 01:47am
The comment that impeachment is a dream does not begin to understand the magnitude of the damage for the present and future to our country by a corrupt administration the likes of which have not been seen since the roaring 20"s. The fact is, not whether we should censure and impeach, but when and how. Fortunately, our system moves very slowly when confronted with such issues, as it should. To say it is a pipedream or the election will happen first misses the point and our place in history. Politicians attempting to protect political gains will usually opt for said gains, and view the historical perspective in error. It also misses the point to say well the leadership does not agree. This gives leadership that is in error too much power. Censure and Impeach are dreams, however, so was our constitution in 1775.
One last point Obama got it right. Everyone, in love with Hillary, while a very sound democratic candidate, at the end of the day is a centrist just like her husband and will have centrist policies. For me, I think a ticket with either Edwards or Obama in the top position and the other as vice-president is a ticket worth fighting for and carries our country forward. I certainly would give both Clintons a prominent role in any administration.
DAN R. TAYLOR ALHAMBRA CALIFORNIA
Posted by LAWWIZARD at 07/26/2007 @ 05:13am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/25/2007 @ 7:21pm
Wait a sec....so you think I'm a female, though I "claim" I'm a man....because I "claim" I'm for impeachment, but don't think it's going to happen?
Is that your logic?
Well, that doesn't have anything to do with male or female...but the fact that ....you're nuts.
WILL thinks I'm a woman because he has "problems with women" (and other sexual identity issues, noted by his also frequent use of "prison anal rape" "jokes"). I'm a male human, have a wife and a kid.
And I would be perfectly happy to be proven wrong on impeachment...and let the Dems suffer the consequences, good or bad, if they make the move....
but they aren't. EVERY prominent Democrat, except for Kucincih and 14 others, opposes it. Even Russ Feingold, out with his new "censure" move (which you think is a "first step", but is a "stop-gap") specifically opposed it on Daily Kos last week.
And after tomorrow, they'll have a MONTH to keep "keeping it off the table." And when they get back, it'll be time for General Petreaus' report and THAT will eat up a month as (maybe) they show guts enough to end the war.
Again, notice HSUB's logic...Dems supposedly will show strength enough to impeach Bush and Cheney (something all their leaders have said they oppose)....but TWICE now haven't pushed hard for ending the war in Iraq. They caved in May to Bush on the supplement spending and Reid held a ONE-night sleep-in, then dropped it.
So they use half-measures or just GIVE UP on stopping this stupid war....yet these are the same guys who'll remove Bush and Cheney from office?!?!?!?
Oh wait, HSUB, I guess because I oppose the war, but am pointing out that Democrats are failing to do anything substantive to stop it....that means I REALLY support the war and need to buy some Tampax....right?
Posted by Mask at 07/26/2007 @ 09:16am
Yes, Obama got it right. I wonder if anyone else did. Ooops, not everyone was aked the question. This format where candidates are asked different questions is ridiculous. How can we make informed choices and compare candidates if we are not given adequate information.
Although, he was not asked I know Bill richardson would have answered yes to meeting with the leaders of Iran, Syria etc. He is a successful negotiator. He has met with Saddam Hussein and recently negotiated the return of the remains of 2 soldiers from North Korea. Bill Richardson is a well respected man in the international community.
Posted by kgreen at 07/26/2007 @ 10:25am
This cinches that I won't vote for her in the general should she win the nomination, either.
Posted by EDWRITER 07/25/2007 @ 3:52pm | ignore this person
so you're comfortable with the idea of pres Rudy or pres Romney?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/25/2007 @ 6:59pm | ignore this person
No, I'm not comfortable with either of them, but I'm also not feeling Hillary either.
Posted by edwriter at 07/26/2007 @ 1:58pm
Posted by EDWRITER 07/26/2007 @ 1:58pm | ignore this person
are you comfortable with throwing your vote away? you're not leaving yourself a lot of room here.
no matter which way you will vote, or I for that matter, there will not be a repub in the white house in 2009.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/26/2007 @ 2:16pm
And I would be perfectly happy to be proven wrong on impeachment...and let the Dems suffer the consequences, good or bad, if they make the move....
And why would the dems 'suffer' if the consequences are all 'good'?
Democrats are failing to do anything substantive to stop it....that means I REALLY support the war and need to buy some Tampax....right?
Posted by MASK 07/26/2007 @ 09:16am
If you say so.
I think you advocate for not impeaching hsuB not because you're for it but because you're really against it, you just think you're successfully decieving everyone by saying you're for it, but do nothing to make it happen, but contrarily continually suggest that there's nothing anyone can or should do to make impeachment happen and then push only info counter to making it happen while ignoring all the info sugesting that there's more and more movement in that direction. If you can't see what you're really for, which is that you're for not impeaching hsuB-- you're deluding yourself and if you're not you're simply being dishonest.
As for you being a woman, well, if you really are, I can sympathize, if you're not, then you're just a pitiful misdirector of honest debating...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/26/2007 @ 11:12pm
Posted by EDWRITER 07/26/2007 @ 1:58pm | ignore this person
are you comfortable with throwing your vote away? you're not leaving yourself a lot of room here.
no matter which way you will vote, or I for that matter, there will not be a repub in the white house in 2009.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/26/2007 @ 2:16pm | ignore this person
I admit that I'm not leaving myself a lot of room, but I'm tired of settling for the evil of two lessers.
Unless she changes her mind on a whole host of shit, Hillary is shaping up to be George W. Bush in drag to me right now...and considering how much damage the original has done to the country, a female clone just doesn't make my heart go pitter pat.
Posted by edwriter at 07/27/2007 @ 5:19pm