"That said, while there is no direct justification for the unfortunate wording used by the President-Elect, "
Unfortunate wording?
Obama is Bush43 in blackface.
Posted by m at January 14, 2009 06:04 AMm:
did you read the entire post or just cherry pick to insert your blackface comment?
Posted by anthony at January 14, 2009 07:16 AManthony, I think you answered your own question.
eriposte, very nice essay, thanks. I know it's just my personal feeling, but I get the impression that Obama/Clinton are still using the "pursuing" rhetoric as another bargaining chip, a reflection of mutual distrust that could, though good-faith negotiations, be turned to cautious trust as the Iranians work diplomatically with us. Also, it's an indication that Obama won't be a pushover in the negotiation process. I hope. I may just be making shit up that I want to believe. But then, don't we all?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 14, 2009 08:07 AMAnthony,
Yes I read the rest. Sounds just like Bush43. One of their arguments was that even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the present, they might have them in the future. Different voice, same old BS.
The article I commented on says that Greenwald has a valid argument, and then it goes on to attempt to demolish it. The author demands proof that Iran will NEVER develop nuclear weapons. What happens when no such proof can be tendered? Our nation will be deeply troubled by what has to be -- war. The same tiresome justifications for death and destruction. Both Clinton and Obama have already threatened the complete obliteration of Iran. What a peace loving pair!
Obama sounds not unlike Bush43, when Bush43 claimed to be offering Iraq negotiations.
I had limited expectations for Obama. It was clear from the start that his politics were closer to that of Keyes than to Kucinich. Obama is repudiating the stances which got him the primary and the election. Obama is publicly warmongering to a greater extent than Bush43 did at this point in his pre-presidency. Obama now approves of the fruit of the poisoned tree of torture. How long will it be before he decides (or admits publicly) that torture is just dandy?
Obama is now saying that at some vague time in the future, he will close Gitmo. But first we have to find a new legal system, a new method of turning the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, US Criminal law, the UCMJ and International law on their heads, so that we can jail these terrorists for their entire lives. This, while he tries to pretend that the entire system is not poisoned by torture.
Of course, this war is just so different than any other war. Just as General Arthur McArthur said on 20 December 1902 with reference to the Philippine-American war. "Since guerrilla warfare was contrary to "the customs and usages of war," those engaged in it "divest themselves of the character of soldiers, and if captured are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war." Funny, the British said the same thing during the American Revolution.
And I hold to my allusion to blackface. Obama is an ugly caricature of a human being. One directly in the fashion of his immediate predecessor. Yes, he is Bush43 in blackface.
Posted by m at January 14, 2009 09:16 AMObama is an ugly caricature of a human being.
Ah, look, another racist pretending his hate is justified because his target isn't human. Just like Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin and the rest of the wacked out loons on the right: always wrong, yet still expecting to be taken seriously. You'll notice all the assumptions he makes have no sourcing links. Yeah, m's a real smart one, he declared that the 2008 elections would be canceled because Bush would declare martial law. We all know how that turned out, don't we?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 14, 2009 09:41 AM1) why do we expect Iran not to develop a nuclear weapon? If it were the US in their position and we were named as one of the axis of evil what would we do? Especially once we observed that the country that didn't have nuclear capabilities was invaded and the country that had nuclear capabilities was negotiated with?
2) what right do any of the countries that have nuclear weapons have to tell anyone it is ok for us to have one but not you. It didn't work with either India or Pakistan and surprise surprise they got the bomb.
3) the only real way to stop them developing a bomb is to convince Iran they don't need it because we won't attack them unprovoked and we won't support any one else who might want to. Harder to do that now because we attacked Iraq just because we could. If we let Israel bomb Iran's development sites and kill civilians we provoke consequences that we will regret for decades if not centuries. The only wise decision Bush ever made as far as I can tell.
4) When Obama answers these kinds of questions from the press he shows his stupidity. I see no reason for him to do anything except deflect such questions unless you are running for office and supposedly Baracky is not doing that at the moment. Someone ought to explain that to him but I expect they will have a tough time because that is all has ever done -used his office to run for the next office. King of the world anyone?
5) Iran has the capability and the uranium within its own borders to develop a bomb. Pretending we can stop them with anything other than convincing them to change their mind about whether it is in their interest is nonsense. If they build one anyway the only option we have is to make it clear that they are glass if they ever use it. Not in public but directly to those that count.
Fortunately Oblahblah has a great SOS and if he leaves her alone we ought to do well in the foreign policy arena. Unfortunately, I don't have the same hopes for the rest of his agenda.
Posted by bornagaindem at January 14, 2009 10:59 AMBaracky...Oblahblah
Still bitter, are we? Poor dear.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 14, 2009 11:17 AM"Oblahblah has a great SOS and if he leaves her alone we ought to do well in the foreign policy arena."
Ignoring your silliness (really, it's over, let it go, will you?), in what way is Hillary a "great SOS"? In fact, how is she different from Obama on Iran, Iraq, Israel's ongoing atrocities, etc.? In fact, how was she different from him during the campaign - not significantly, I would suggest.
So far all I am hearing from her is claims that Iran is a threat (no evidence for that - Iran has not committed an aggressive act in nearly 300 years), Iran HAS a nuclear weapons program when all the evidence is that they do not (and the NIE claims notwithstanding, there is no evidence that they had one prior to supposedly terminating it in 2003), talk about "all options" being on the table, which is a euphemistic way of threatening military violence up to and including nukes, and yeah, we'll try diplomacy first. Sounds frighteningly like a more articulate version of the Bush regime's rhetoric leading up to the Iraq debacle.
The "Iran threat" is another manufactured crisis. It ignores most of the reality in and around Iran, and in some cases is based on - well, false information. Manufactured crises are the most dangerous kind because they are manufactured for a reason, and are not amenable to resolution short of fulfillment of the goals that caused them to be manufactured in the first place.
And finally three points:
- Iran has every right and every good and rational reason to develop nuclear power. All the available evidence shows that they are doing just that.
- A nuclear armed Iraq would be no more dangerous than any other country that presently has nuclear arms, and less dangerous than some (the U.S., Israel, Pakistan, and India, probably in that order). No one should have nuclear weapons.
- It is absurdly illogical for Obama to suggest that if Iran got nuclear weapons it would trigger a nuclear arms race. Nuclear arms races are triggered either by the first country in a region getting them, or by the most aggressive and dangerous country in a region getting them. That would be Israel, which has hundreds of nuclear weapons and has a lifelong history of attacking its neighbors, not Iran.
Posted by Shirin at January 14, 2009 12:38 PMiamc: yeah i think i did...
m: name calling aside, but a comparison to 43??? really. obama has a far superior cabinet, curiosity, and apparent grasp of what is needed for this country, but i'm sure you'll cheerlead every obstruction the repubs put up and any other manufactured defense you could come up with. why pray tell does he have to be in blackface? alluding to color or just that he's colored? no substance for your arguments... hrc is far superior as an sos than condi. prepared, in touch, and willing to wow... negotiate... not just parrot a policy or whim. but i guess supporting a war criminal and his misbegotten policies are more your cuppa tea, no? can you come up with one rational similiarity between obama and the failure that is 43 besides the fact that they are presidents???
Just so you don't think I am agreeing with m:
"obama has a far superior cabinet, curiosity, and apparent grasp of what is needed for this country"
Agreed. My concern is that he clearly does not have a good grasp of Middle East realities or any real sense of balance there, and given his foreign policy "experts", including Biden, he is unlikely to get one, unless he goes well outside his administration. And the fact that these are the people he chose is cause for concern.
I am also deeply concerned about the rhetoric I am hearing about Iran in particular. His claim that they are "exporting terrorism", which has barely been noted anywhere, shows a real disconnect with that part of the reality. Will try to address that specifically in a bit.
"hrc is far superior as an sos than condi. prepared, in touch, and willing to wow... negotiate... not just parrot a policy or whim."
Oh, please! Condi is not only not even close to being in Hillary's league, she is not on the same planet! I agree that she is very prepared. In touch? Mostly, yes, but Iran is one of the causes for concern. Again, the rhetoric does not bode well.
The thing is that for the first time in eight years we have a President who is dignified, intelligent, articulate, intellectually curious, able to absorb, understand, and process information, and, I think, committed to trying to clean up the mess of the last 8 years as best he can. We can pretty much say the same for the Secretary of State. That, alone, is almost enough to rejoice over.
Now, if only they were not politicians... :o}
Posted by Shirin at January 14, 2009 01:38 PMI'd be willing to add that one thing Obama and Clinton have that the Bushies, including Condi, do not, is a conscience.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 14, 2009 01:59 PM"I'd be willing to add that one thing Obama and Clinton have that the Bushies, including Condi, do not, is a conscience."
Yes, I would have to agree, though they are still politicians, so I would not count on that conscience in every situation. It is difficult to believe, for example, that they do not know about the overwhelming evidence against their claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. That just seems so fundamental. Given their ability to gather and process information in a rational way, I also have difficulty believing that they really buy completely all the nonsense about Iran being a threat.
They are politicians, and therefore can never be trusted completely.
Posted by Shirin at January 14, 2009 02:52 PM