"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Here is the bulk of your initial post:

"Anyhow, we already have a good sense of what "their concerns are" so maybe Obama should now, before the election and his "summit", weigh in on those "concerns" and tell us if he agrees Israel should be dismantled and if he agrees the U.S. should stay out of their terrorist-breeding countries, just continue to send money and sit tight and hope we don't get attacked again."

Do you not read what you write, or just not mean it?

We're not mind readers, Hon.

S_A_M

You bolded the Israel dismantling question - there were other questions including what Obama's views were on the concerns of Muslim nations (I even listed some) and also, sending aid and/or having a presence in those countries. Thanks for showing that you know how to use the bold function, though.

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
"[O]ur first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East."

Seems like a pretty clear and simple public statement by Obama.

You had suggested that Obama needed to come out before the election and say publicly whether he supported Israel or thought it should be driven into the sea.

Sounds like Ty's post _was_ helpful.

S_A_M

Actually, per my earlier post, it sounds exactly like a election stump change in position.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
You bolded the Israel dismantling question - there were other questions including what Obama's views were on the concerns of Muslim nations (I even listed some) and also, sending aid and/or having a presence in those countries. Thanks for showing that you know how to use the bold function, though.

You apparently still don't read your damn posts. Those "other questions" remained mostly in your head.

The bolded question was the first of the TWO questions you asked.

Ty's post (and mine) directly addressed that first question you asked. You then said -- "So what, that's not what I asked. Everyone knows that." Well, bullshit.

Your second question was actually several folded into one, with likely different answers for each country. It is possible to tease out the implications, but that's not what you said.

S_A_M

P.S. I bet I can give you Obama's answer to the "should we just wait until the terrorists attack us again" part of your question. "No."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Actually, per my earlier post, it sounds exactly like a election stump change in position.

I don't understand why Rudy dropped out.

He had finally finished ahead of Ron Paul.

S_A_M

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
I don't understand why Rudy dropped out.

Because he just locked up the Vice President office from 2009-2013.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You apparently still don't read your damn posts. Those "other questions" remained mostly in your head.

The bolded question was the first of the TWO questions you asked.

Ty's post (and mine) directly addressed that first question you asked. You then said -- "So what, that's not what I asked. Everyone knows that." Well, bullshit.

Your second question was actually several folded into one, with likely different answers for each country. It is possible to tease out the implications, but that's not what you said.

S_A_M

P.S. I bet I can give you Obama's answer to the "should we just wait until the terrorists attack us again" part of your question. "No."

Dude, sorry if my post confused you but now that we've cleared that all up, the fact remains that Obama and some other candidates have not shown that they have a real command of what is happening in other countries. I think this is a very fair statement to make about Obama. It may also apply to other candidates but right now, I am making the statement about Obama. And I am right about it. Deal with it. And BTW, you know better than to post fluff like "we should be nice to our allies" and suggest that's an acceptable level of detail regarding foreign policy. Forget what you think my post said earlier. This fluff is just that -- fluff. It does not show he has an understanding of existing tensions and why. Foreign policy is not his strongest point (or if it is, he hasn't exactly shown it to be). If he was perfect, he'd be a shoo-in.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Actually, per my earlier post, it sounds exactly like a election stump change in position.

I don't have time for any kind of serious discussion here today.

But, if I remove the loony overstatement, you and your blogger are saying that Obama's prior statements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict make him seem anti-Israel. I disagree.

I read the statements you cite and I honestly don't understand why saying we need to "take an even-handed approach" in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be seen as necessarily anti-Israel.

After all, there are two sides and we want a negotiated resolution. Starting off by raising your middle finger towards the Palestinians and saying "Crawl over here and surrender, bitches!" is not likely to get a good result. That should be pretty obvious by now. Both sides will have to make concessions.

[I am not commenting directly on the efforts in the last few years, and I know the Israeli government had been prepared at one point to make many concessions. I am making a broader point about approach.]

On to the second thing he said:

[paraphrase] "Sorry, I can't say more about Palestine now because of the election" sounds to me like a shrewd analysis of political reality. Again, not necessarily "anti-Israel."

There have been injustices done to both sides, there has been evil done by both sides. Both sides have basic human rights. I would say that on the whole the Israelis have been more sinned against that sinning. However, regardless of how the degrees of blame equate, you won't reach a negotiated settlement without acknowledging the pain and suffering on both sides.

All of that said, I am not at all sure that Hamas is a reliable "partner for peace." At best you'll get something similar to what Regan and Gorbachev had -- "trust but verify' -- with the critical problem being that the Palesitnian authorities can't really control their extremists.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not sure who would hate that ticket more--the Democrats or the Republicans.

2. But it also a winning ticket. People usually end up choosing the person they dislike the least.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And yet:



From powerline

How is the support of Isreal in the Sttategic Interest of the United States?

What other assistance do they provide the United States besides our pissing of all the major oil producers by supporting them?

I understand the moral reasons for supporting them, but what strategic reasons are there?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Because he just locked up the Vice President office from 2009-2013.

Of all the people in the presidential field this year, Rudy seems the worst suited, tempermentally speaking, to be VP.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Of all the people in the presidential field this year, Rudy seems the worst suited, tempermentally speaking, to be VP.

Won't necessarily disagree, because Rudy is most assuredly a #1 my-way-or-highway guy.

But I'm not the guy making that call.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
How is the support of Isreal in the Sttategic Interest of the United States?

What other assistance do they provide the United States besides our pissing of all the major oil producers by supporting them?

I understand the moral reasons for supporting them, but what strategic reasons are there?

A bit of a non-sequitor here, but I just read this one on "Commentary"

Oama’s Muslim Summit

Reuters reports that if Barack Obama becomes President, he’ll hold a summit with all leaders of Muslim countries:

• I’m elected, I want to organize a summit in the Muslim world, with all the heads of state, to have an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows every day between Muslims and the West.”

Is he planning on doing this before or after bombing Pakistan? Because that could have an effect on that gap he’s talking about. And in what phase of their nuclear program will Iran be when Obama has this sit-down with the mullahs? And will he require Tehran to rebuild the cobwebbed American embassy first or is he through with international law altogether? And when it’s the Iraqi prime minister’s turn to speak, what will Obama do when he requests the return of the 100,000 troops he just withdrew from that country?

Obama represents a foreign policy disaster of untold proportion. With a doctrine of pre-emptive appeasement and the perfect advisory team to institute it, every gain made by the Bush administration would evaporate. The greatest overarching accomplishment of the past five years was implementing the imperative that we will not deal with hostile nations on their terms. In many Muslim countries, the “gap” Obama talks about is not a side-effect of cultural differences, but the stated goal of anti-American policies. The only course of action is to support Muslim moderates in their efforts against extremists and secular tyrants. Our president doesn’t need to sip tea with Bashar Assad or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and hear about the evils of Israel in order to work towards that goal.

For what its worth, IMHO, Bush via Condi has already taken us down this road - and its deplorable.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Won't necessarily disagree, because Rudy is most assuredly a #1 my-way-or-highway guy.

That's what I mean. Hard to see him as a #2.

If you're McCain, why pick him?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Won't necessarily disagree, because Rudy is most assuredly a #1 my-way-or-highway guy.

But I'm not the guy making that call.

I don't understand why McCain would make the pick in the first place. I'm reading about Rudy hanging out with McCain on the road, his advisors mingling with McCain's folks like it's a rock concert, so, fine - it sounds like there's something there.

But I don't get it. What does Rudy add to the ticket? Polls showed that Republicans don't like him. Democrats run in horror from him. Why the hell would McCain do this?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
That's what I mean. Hard to see him as a #2.

If you're McCain, why pick him?

Because Giuliani is similar enough to McCain that his choice keeps the Independent/moderate Republican vote in line, and could help pick up some other voters that otherwise dont generally like McCain (see, e.g., Slavenomore)

More importantly, Hucklebee sinks the ticket in California, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.