Tom Rinaldo
Tom Rinaldo's JournalAnimosity between candidate camps is IDIOTIC
There's no better way to put it without resorting to obscenities. I've been on DU since 2003, long enough to have endured repeated spin cycles during primary wars, and we've had some ugly ones here in 2003-4 and 2007-8. And I was right there in the trenches both times gaining a first hand perspective.
My nominee for the stupidest sentiment frequently repeated during candidate wars goes something like this:
"The behavior of supporters of Candidate X have made it difficult if not impossible for me to even consider voting for Candidate X". That's roughly the equivalent of someone saying "Those rowdy teens who hang out in the parking lot of the Seven Eleven in my neighborhood make me very unlikely to support free community college education."
I mean really, WTF? Sure this is much to be learned about a candidate from who s/he surrounds him or her self with - as in their closest advisers, as in their major donors who they become politically indebted to. And it might even be fair to throw in the unruly behavior of some garden variety grass roots activists: if the candidates themselves are actively and openly encouraging and condoning such behavior. But I can't think of a Democrat who is.
To the best of my knowledge none of us here on DU are seriously running for President. How sane and/or likable any of us might be has no bearing on the policies that anyone who actually is running for President will seek to advance once in office. However high profile any of us may become in our online discussion board virtual universe as an advocate for someone running for President - none of us literally represent the candidates unlit their official campaigns says otherwise.
If someone who I think is an asshole says that they support a politician who otherwise seems potentially reasonable to me I would have to be an idiot to rule that candidate out because of it.
Candidate advocates are particularly helpful in pointing those who are interested toward solid information about their candidate. And lord knows I understand from experience that candidate advocates have a legitimate role to play in debunking false information and smears hurled against the candidates we support. To make it personal though is dumb, and counter productive - except for a select few. And that select and relatively rare few intentionally play the role of provocateurs. For every real one of them there probably are a dozen or more sincere impassioned advocates for a candidate being heatedly swept up by the emotions at hand.
I don't waste my time trying to decide who is and isn't sincere since almost everyone is, and simply taking part in witch hunts trying to identify the rare exceptions to that plays right into the hands of any legitimate provocateurs, whose real purpose is to sap our moral and turn us against each other until we turn away from the political process in disgust.
Can't we all save each other some grief and cut right to the chase? Les than once in a blue moon we might get the chance to support a potentially viable candidate for President who we believe in our heart of hearts is the perfect person for that job. Ages ago I felt that way about RFK, and I still believe he was. Sometimes that person ultimately lets us down, which is the experience a number of my friends went through with John Edwards. More often though it simply doesn't play out the way we hoped for. Howard Dean for example fell short in 2004, and Al Gore decided not to run again in 2008 despite the fervent pleas of his enthusiasts.
Yes there will be exceptions, but come August 2016 over 90% of us who are active on this board will ultimately throw our support behind whoever wins the Democratic nomination for President against whoever the Republicans are running. I might guess wrong about some specific individuals, but I'm confident about that figure as a whole. Knowing that is true, can't we just skip the bitter divide theatrics that dominates DU primary wars? Satan isn't running as a Democrat this time around.
If you liked Hillary's IWR vote, you'll LOVE Schumer's Iran vote
Much like with the Iraq War Resolution, when leading Congressional Democrats gave bi-partisan political cover to Bush Administration efforts to start a war with Iraq (even while professing that they weren't actually voting to go to war with Iraq), the presumptive next leader of Democrats in the Senate is already doing the same for Republicans who hope to succeed Obama in the White House. These accounts are just the tip of the iceberg:
Cruz Calls on Schumer to Lead the Charge Against Iran Deal.
On Friday, Republican presidential hopeful and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz joined the list, applauding the No. 3 Democratic leader for his “bravery.”
“I think it is fantastic news that Sen. Schumer has come out against the Iranian deal and has done so publicly and early. For several weeks now, I have been saying that I hope we see the re-emergence of Joe Lieberman Democrats, the re-emergence of Scoop Jackson Democrats, the re-emergence of John F. Kennedy Democrats,” Cruz told reporters.
“They have been an endangered species in the United States Congress, and it is my hope that with Sen. Schumer coming out that he will take a significant role leading and encouraging his fellow Democrats to stand together.”
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/cruz-calls-on-schumer-to-lead-the-charge-against-the-iran-deal/
And this:
GOP stars go gaga over Democrat poke of Obama
"Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says he’s impressed by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and grateful for the Democrat’s rejection of President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal.
“Thank God for Sen. Schumer and his opposition to this reckless nuclear deal with Iran,” Huckabee said in a statement. “While I disagree with Sen. Schumer on most things, I applaud him for putting peace in the Middle East above partisan politics. Despite endless arm-twisting and enormous political pressure from the White House, Sen. Schumer chose statesmanship over partisanship.”
The former Arkansas governor said he hopes the decision will inspire other high-ranking Democrats to follow."
http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/huckabee-thank-god-for-chuck-schumer%E2%80%8F/?cat_orig=world
And this:
Marco Rubio says more Senate Democrats need to follow Chuck Schumer's lead and oppose the Iran deal.
During an interview Monday on "Fox & Friends," Rubio warned Democrats who support the deal will be casting a vote they "will live with" for the rest of their lives. The 2016 GOP presidential candidate added that those on the Left need to "wake up" and "realize what they're about to sign on to."
"First of all, he's doing the right thing," Rubio said of Schumer. "When someone — even though we may disagree on a lot of issues, we need to recognize that someone has taken the decision here based on statesmanship and not partisanship."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rubio-dems-need-to-wake-up-follow-schumers-lead-on-iran-deal/article/2569929
All of the Republican candidates for Presidents oppose the Iran deal, and between now and November 2018 we can count on each and every one of them to loudly praise Chuck Schumer's opposition to it, as they try use it to bloody all of the leading Democratic candidates for President.
Chuck Schumer is now the new neocon designated Democratic spokesperson for war in the Middle East, eclipsing for the moment even Joe Lieberman. Imagine how much more presidential election mileage they will get from Chuck Schumer if Democrats in the Senate are now foolish enough to install him as their leader.
Time for a Draft Durbin Movement
Dick Durbin is actually the Democratic Senator second to Harry Reid in the Senate Democratic leadership. He announced he would stick to his current post in the leadership hierarchy and allow Chuck Schumer to leapfrog past him into the top position after Reid retires. Why? I don't know but everyone knows that Schumer has been hungering to become top Democratic dog in the Senate.
Would Durbin reconsider and respond positively to a draft movement asking him to contest the Senate leadership position? I don't know but it doesn't matter. He is the logical first choice to ask, Senate Democrats have supported him for leadership positions in the past, give him first crack. Even if Durbin won't reconsider, a powerful draft movement asking him to oppose Schumer can still leave its mark and another Democratic Senator could then still step forward to challenge Schumer instead.
Anyone who lives in a State represented by at least one Democratic Senator can put direct pressure on his or her Senator(s) to withdraw support from Schumer in light of his opposing the crucial position regarding Iran backed by our Democratic President and the vast majority of Democratic Senators.
THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF ANOTHER IWR VOTE! We can't allow a Senator who will not give peace a chance to lead the Democratic Party in the Senate. If we start mobilizing now it might even send a timely message to any wavering Democratic Senators that they need to back their President on Iran or face the wrath of rank and file Democrats who will not sit back and allow America to move toward a war potentially much more deadly than the one in Iraq when a negotiated settlement may still be able to prevent it.
Yes the Iran deal really comes down to War or Peace
It really is that simple in a world where most things rarely are that simple. There is nothing short of a full scale invasion and occupation of Iran from that can stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons if that nation is dead set on acquiring them. Not even successful air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities can stop them from getting the bomb The latter could only delay that by at most a few years. Experts actually agree on that. In a nation as technologically advanced as Iran is that already has the knowledge needed to go nuclear, all that would be needed to rebuild their atomic weapons program in facilities deep enough to be invulnerable to attack would be the will to do so. And if either Israel or the U.S. launched air strikes against Iran's current facilities, sufficient will to do so would be assured.
The current Iranian nuclear freeze that this agreement will replace was extremely unstable. It rested on a foundation of wide international support for punishing sanctions that forced Iran to the bargaining table. By itself the United States quite simply lacked the economic leverage needed to force Iran there by ourselves. Iran has been living under U.S. sanctions for decades - Even continued support from our traditional European allies wouldn't be enough to checkmate Iran if Russian and/or China broke ranks. And it's not exactly like China, to say nothing of Putin's Russia, feels under any deep obligation to do United States foreign policy any favors.
If, in the eyes of the world outside of the American and Israeli Right media echo chamber, Iran agrees to a reasonable deal and the U.S. then backs out of it, international sanctions against Iran will soon be nothing but a historic footnote. Great Britain, France and Germany are fully on board with this deal. They need Iranian oil more than we do. Airbus wants to sell airliners to Iran. Our traditional allies won't sit back and let Russia and China eat their economic lunch in regards to Iran. Once the economic damn of sanctions against Iran begins to leak, its full structural failure is inevitable. So long as Iran seems willing to faithfully honor the terms of this international agreement - the era of sanctions diplomacy against Iran is over no matter what Republican presidential candidates might say to the contrary.
Frankly whether any other potential U.S. leader other than President Obama could have negotiated a better deal with Iran (and I seriously doubt that), be that Jeb Bush, Scott Walker or Donald Trump, is now totally moot. Sorry guys but you just weren't in office when the rubber finally met the road. The American people elected Barack Obama President, twice, not John McCain or Mitt Romney. And while a case can also be made that right wing, and Israeli, bluster against the historic accord with Iran had a perversely positive role to play in convincing Iran to agree to tougher American pushed terms rather than see the final agreement go down in flames in the U.S. Congress, further bluster no longer has any potentially constructive role to play. There no longer are any negotiations to influence, the deal has now been inked.
True, opposition to this deal with Iran does not equate directly with pushing for war with Iran. Rather it is one tiny and inevitable step removed from directly advocating war with Iran, a distinction that is an embarrassingly tiny fig leaf to attempt to hide behind. Without this historic arm limitation accord Iran will be free to resume work on any nuclear program of its own choosing, without external inspections, while mot of the economic sanctions against it splinter and fall away. What then? If it is unacceptable to live with the consequences of Iran being bound only to the terms of this agreement, will it become more acceptable to live with Iran being bound to no conditions whatsoever? Clearly not, and with the diplomatic initiative having now run it's full course, the "military option" will be the only one left to resort to.
Anyone who sincerely believes that "surgical air strikes", whether by Israel or the United States, can remove any Iranian nuclear threat without embroiling America in a bloody protracted conflict spilling way beyond Iranian borders, while simultaneously unleashing new waves of terrorist actions against us, is delusional. Benjamin Netanyahu for one is not in the slightest bit delusional. He seems convinced that Iran, sooner or later, will need to be confronted militarily, and given that he prefers sooner over later. He understands the full implications of what torpedoing this accord with Iran would mean, and he accepts a need for military conflict. Perhaps he hold outs slim hope that a strong show of military force against Iran would cause that regime to crumple or alternately back down. If he does than Netanyahu also is delusional.
Iran is not Syria, it is many times more populous and advanced, it has a long proud history as a nation that goes back millennia, not decades. Unlike the Syrian nuclear facilities that Israel once bombed, there is nothing hush hush domestically about their existence. They have been in the full international glare of ten thousand spotlights for years now. If Iran gets bombed because of that program AFTER making the concessions that America's closest European allies believe should be sufficient, all hell will break loose.
On tonight's final Grateful Dead Concert, and how and WHY to virtually be there...
So Janet and I decided to attend the final three Grateful Dead concerts (as in FINAL Grateful Dead concerts) through simulcast at the Bearsville Theater (near Woodstock NY). The last show is tonight and the Dead will probably be hitting the stage in less than 5 hours. Last night people were able to walk up and buy tickets for $7 (CHEAP!) - probably you can tonight also. If the idea of catching the simulcast at a public venue at all interests you, I unhesitatingly say DO IT! Yes it is on TV also with pay for view, but if other venues do what Bearsville did with a huge screen and pretty much full 360 degree sense surround quality sound - it makes all of the difference in the world to attend. Here is where to find live screening locations nation wide (I'll write a little bit about the shows in a sec) http://www.dead50.net/concert-venue-screenings/
The live video feed is Excellent and the audio feed includes a full helping of audience sound which makes it near impossible to not think the people you are hearing in Chicago aren't seated (or standing) all around you between songs - or when 65,000 can be heard singing a distant background chorus on many songs.
This show celebrates a 50 year culture altering musical career. That's equivalent to over one fifth of the entire history of the U.S.A. to put that in perspective (Yeah the Stones can claim even longer but they ain't Yanks). I avoided Garcia-less Dead shows until now but this weekend for me it's all about showing respect to the 4 surviving members of the Grateful Dead as they cap off that wonderful and intense long strange trip. But here's the thing. They are ON. Last night even the vocals usually rose to the occasion. Trey Anastasio, lead guitarist of Phish, is doing a superb job stepping into lead guitar, and he really is the right man to be there on stage with the Dead at the end. He is smiling from ear to ear doing it when he isn't lost making the acoustics of the moment. I'm not going to write a concert review or go over the set list, you can find that stuff online. There were a number of moments, last night more so than Friday, when the band ignited in spectacular form - equal to the best places they have collectively reached at any show I've ever seen them do - and I've seen a lot of them. The Grateful Dead are going out strong.
If you never had a chance to see them play in person - this comes pretty damn close to that, and really it is only seeing them in person that captures what they essentially uniquely are capable of pulling off. When a band dances on a tightrope wire non stop for 3 plus hours, not every step they take will be graceful, but collectively the experience can be dazzling. Members of The Grateful Dead are all superb musicians, so even if all or even most of their music is not right up your ally, it is remarkable to see them crafting that sound live. This is NOT an oldies show or an Oldies act. It is a vibrant band in full creative mode - and tonight is the LAST chance you will ever have of being part of that live experience. Emotions have been running high at these shows the last two nights, I can't imagine how it will be tonight for their truly final performance. Think about attending this now while you still may have time to do so. Once it is over history turns the last page of an epic volume.
The More They Attempt to Paint Bernie Sanders as a Marginal Candidate...
...the easier it gets for Bernie to beat all expectations and register an upside surprise. Some forget, but Bill Clinton, the famous "Come Back Kid", got that title for finishing second in the 1992 New Hampshire primary, when he was expected to do worse, and no one ever talks about LBJ defeating Eugene McCarthy in the 1968 NH Primary, but of course he did.
Put it another way, when a serious candidate looses an election by a margin like 55% to 35% the consensus usually is that they got trashed But if the media succeeds in painting Bernie Sanders as a "token" opponent of Hillary in the primaries, a result like that suddenly indicates surprising strength for him, and a real weakness for the favorite he was up against.
Let them talk down Bernie all they want to. The first two contests are retail politics states where the voters will get to know Sanders personally, bypassing the media filters. He will have all the money and activist support he will need to campaign effectively in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and the media is setting up the scenario he needs to emerge from those states politically strengthened .
Bernie Has My Back
That pretty much says it for me. I sometimes use an online website to create designs because it has tools intuitive enough for even me to use. I just did this one:
[center][url=http://www.zazzle.com/bernie_sanders_for_president_2016_button-145675462113707750?rf=238123555098768331][img]
I can't give away rights to this exact design since I used that website to make it but as far as I' concerned everyone should feel free to do something similar if you want.
Bernie really does have our back.
The key fallacy of sincere "Moderate" Democrats.
They confuse the status quo with the comfort zone of most Americans. They assume most Americans are more comfortable with tweaking business as usual than with attempting significant systematic changes. That may be more true some times than others, but in reality it has never been fundamentally true. It has been true only for those who come out way ahead under the existing status quo at any given time, and that has always only been true for a small minority of Americans.
Things were never better for most Americans than they were in the decades immediately after World War Two. The G.I. Bill of Rights opened up a middle class lifestyle to millions of Americans. We had the means to pay for it then without putting a squeeze on the elite because America's potential global economic rivals were still climbing out from the wreckage of a major war fought in their homelands. Good times as they say, pretty much as good as it gets without major societal changes, and still there was discomfort and unrest brewing in the so called silent majority. American minorities were severely repressed, rural poverty was rampant, seniors couldn't afford healthcare. There was a reason for massive non violent civil disobedience campaigns. There was a reason why LBJ's Great Society agenda was both badly needed and widely embraced. Mind numbing calls for conformity and obedience to authority and unrelenting sexual repression chafed at the American spirit. There was a reason for the the cultural revolution that swept America in the 60's. And that was in the so called best of times.
These are not the best of times. The status quo is not working for most Americans and moderation virtually by definition venerates the status quo and seeks to not unduly unsettle it. Americans only embrace, reluctantly, an unsatisfactory status quo if they fear the possible effects of change more than they fear the daily circumstances they now live under. Fear has propped up the American status quo ever since the late 70's, but the burden of fear is shifting now. Increasingly Americans fear the future that our current course is steering us toward more than they do potential changes that might avoid that fate.
The 2008 election was a vote for change. Rightly or wrongly in retrospect, Barack Obama represented hope and change as he seemingly ushered in a new day for our nation under new generational leadership that embraced the multi-cultural potential of modern America. The 2010 election was also a vote for change, albeit with a much lower voter turnout as many of those who (perhaps unrealistically) expected more from the change regime they ushered in than what they perceived getting from it. The Right in America positioned themselves to run against the status quo, it was not moderation they were preaching, it was regression to simpler seemingly idyllic time when big government didn't get in the way of the true aspirations of most Americans. That day never existed but it was the future they promised, coupled with constant fear mongering that the end days were near if America didn't radically change course - to the right.
Since 2010 hope for change from both ends of the political spectrum has not yet fully rebounded from the disillusionment both ends suffered over the last six years. But the pain and fear factors have continued to rise. Americans are not comfortable with the center of American politics, though many may still be resigned to it. But for how much longer?
There in NO Downside to Bernie running. NONE
Not unless you are a third way blue dog Democrat who doesn't want populist issues discussed. It doesn't matter if you support Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, or Elizabeth Warren as your first choice for the Democratic nomination. It doesn't matter if you believe Bernie Sanders has a realistic chance of winning the presidency or no chance in hell. It doesn't matter whether Sanders can raise moderate or large sums of campaign funds during the primaries. It is all good under any of those scenarios.
Bernie is fearless when it comes to talking about the issues that matter to ordinary Americans. The entire thrust of his campaign is to raise those issues. There is no upside or temptation for him to hedge his critique of the American economic and political system. He is not beholden to those with big money because they already know fully where he stands and Bernie stands with everyday voters, not fat cats. Bernie has nothing to lose by speaking truth to power. In fact it is the only thing that draws attention to him in the first place, so we can count on him doing it.
Does that make him nonviable as a candidate? That is subject to debate of course, but the truth is that it doesn't matter. Regardless of how viable or nonviable Bernie Sanders ultimately is, it is still extremely positive for him to enter the presidential race. Let's look at three possible rough scenarios. 1) Bernie enters the race but is unable to win any contests. 2) Bernie enters the race and makes it somewhat competitive but comes up short and doesn't win the Democratic nomination. 3) Bernie enters the race and actually wins the Democratic nomination. That kind of covers it.
The smart money, for whatever that is worth, for now all comes down for option one. Let's assume for a moment that's right. I would still be thrilled to have Bernie running because Bernie is about as good as anyone now on the national scene at framing issues in terms that clearly explain to 99% of Americans how 1% of Americans have the system totally rigged against them. That by itself is priceless to those of us who whose voices often are smothered out by big money and corporate control of the political system. Bernie will not only raise the issues that need to be raised, he will raise them in stark understandable terms that have the potential to re-frame the political debate along much more progressive fault lines. As a sitting U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders will be included in any Democratic Party primary debates, and he will get equal time with Hillary Clinton and any other Democratic candidates to make his case to Democratic voters and, to some extent, to the larger public also. This is all good stuff regardless of the outcome.
Because Bernie Sanders is already so marginalized and discounted by the mainstream media it won't be considered a repudiation of his beliefs if he doesn't actually win, much like it didn't set back the beliefs of the American Socialist Party when Norman Thomas failed to become a "viable candidate" for president in an earlier era. Instead major planks of the Socialist platform were incorporated virtually intact into that of the Democratic Party in subsequent years. Even in so called "defeat" Bernie Sanders can be a game hanger for the future Democratic Party.
If conventional thinking holds true and Hillary Clinton is all but certain to end up as the Democratic nominee, a challenge by Sanders won't hurt her. That is true whether or not the Democratic race ever becomes legitimately competitive. Obama wasn't hurt by the long protracted contest to wrest the 2008 nomination away from Hillary then, and most observers believe that Hillary Clinton sharpened her own campaign skills from almost sleep walking through the early stages when the nomination appeared to be hers for the taking to becoming tough as nails to claw her way back into the race after coming in third in Iowa.
That speaks to option number two above, a scenario under which Sanders makes a competitive run for the nomination but falls short. A remarkable, honorable and unfortunately rather rare thing about Bernie Sanders is that he is a very clean campaigner. Bernie doesn't throw mud, he argues the merits of an issue instead. I feel solid in saying that Bernie Sanders has never attacked President Obama fro the left for example. What he has done on occasion is pointedly disagree with the President on certain aspects of certain issues, not the man himself or his integrity or the sincerity of his basic Democratic values. Sanders will not engage in avoidable character assassination of Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat he runs against. He will fight for what he believes in, which in very large part is what the Democratic base believes in. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will need to mobilize the Democratic base in order to win the General Election. Sanders can help that person prepare her or him self for that task by illuminating what Democratic voters care about and respond too.
What about scenario number three, Sanders actually winning the Democratic nomination? While I personally think it is rather unlikely, that possibility does not seem quite as far fetched to me as it does to the usual suspect talking heads. Sanders may actually catch on fire. Because he is so very different from most other Democrats who have sought the nomination in recent years, and because the Democratic field is shaping up to be much less crowded in 2016 than it was in 2004 or 2008, the tried and true metrics by which his chances are now being appraised may end up seriously off base and lacking in accuracy. If Sanders significantly outperforms expectations early in the race that could lead to a snowball effect with him continuing to gain momentum. Again, I don't need to believe this scenario is likely in order to support Sanders running for President, but I don't completely discount it either.
What would that mean? Well for one thing it would expose Hillary Clinton as a weak candidate for the times that confront us now, and if Bernie beats her even her hard core supporters will have to admit that she had serious flaws that they didn't adequately appreciate. If Hillary can't beat Bernie, with her high stature and all that money behind her, we will be fortunate indeed that Sanders exposed her shortcomings before she became the Democratic standard bearer in 2016. And if Bernie wins the Democratic nomination it means all bets are off on the conventional wisdom of how much money a major party candidate will need to raise to win the general election in the political climate that will then prevail. If Bernie Sanders wins the nomination he will become iconic in the process. He would be riding a cultural political tsunami to have ever gotten that far to begin with.
I mentioned Martin O'Malley and Elizabeth Warren above also. Anyone hoping one of those Democrats will become our 2016 nominee have nothing to fear from a Bernie Sanders candidacy if they really believe their guy or gal has the right stuff to begin with. Let's start by stating the obvious. Warren has clearly said she has no intention or running for president in 2016. I don't see any way that can possibly change without Sanders in the race. Warren isn't going to wage an uphill fight against Hillary for the nomination, she's made that abundantly clear.For those old enough to remember it, once upon a time RFK made it pretty clear he wasn't going to run an uphill fight to depose LBJ either. Then Eugene McCarthy took on that long shot quest and exposed LBJ's weakness, and that changed all the standard calculations. If Clinton starts to sputter against Sanders possibly that could change for Warren, even if Hillary still is besting Bernie (Johnson did beat McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary - but McCarthy's strong showing ultimately convinced LBJ not to run for re-election). And as for O'Malley, for him to have any chance to defeat Clinton for the nomination he would probably need some help in taking her down, kind of like the Edwards candidacy helped Obama defeat Hillary in 2008. O'Malley himself is rather untested on the national stage, so if Sanders can overtake O'Malley's bid to be a viable alternative to Clinton, that would speak volumes about how strong a candidate he actually is, and it would be best to find that out sooner rather than later.
No matter how I look at it, I see no reason why any progressively minded Democrat shouldn't be delighted at the prospect of Bernie Sanders entering the race for the 2016 Democratic nomination. Count me firmly in the Sanders camp.
What do Netanyahu's friends in Congress think of his now opposing a Palestinian State?
After hailing him as their go to guy on security issues in the Middle East, Netanyahu is now two for two in opting for permanent wars. Are Congressional Republicans and their Democratic Israel hawk partners prepared now to abandon a two state solution for Palestine and Israel, once again following Netanyahu's lead? What do Boehner, McConnell McCain, Cruz, Paul, Rubio, Menendez and Schumer have to say now? If a path to official statehood for Palestine is blocked, is there anyone who doubts that endless war and terrorism in that region would follow? Does the U.S. Congress still believe that Netanyahu better represents U.S. Security interests than the American President? It's not enough that Netanyhu was itching for one armed conflict, now he is courting two.
No one who actually has followed the multi-national negotiations about Iran's nuclear program seriously believe that the U.S. can back away from a pending negotiated settlement, follow that up with imposing harsher economic sanctions, and have the international community (including Russia and China) continue to honor ANY economic sanctions against Iran. It's a strategy that REMOVES whatever incentives there are for Iran NOT to develop nuclear weapons. To the contrary, it gives them all the more incentive to do exactly that because they will start bracing for inevitable war.
All the experts say that bombing can not stop Iran's nuclear program, just set it back a couple of years. Iran is an advanced technological state with the full capacity to reconstruct their nuclear program, if we bomb it, in sites impervious to American bombs. Why wouldn't they? Virtually the entire Iranian population will be furious at the West if we bomb them, they will want revenge. And there is nothing like actually having nukes to deter any aggressor from continually attacking you.
So what of it, all you American political leaders - Republicans included, who have at the very least given previous lip service to a two state solution, is Bibi still your guy? Or are you too chicken shit to speak up about America's own foreign policy until after Israel forms its next government?
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Oct 20, 2003, 06:39 PMNumber of posts: 22,912
