The Edwards, I've been told, made a handsome profit on the sale of their Georgetown townhouse and reinvested the profits in a bigger home.

There's nothing wrong with living well, as long as you don't do so courtesy of profits obtained from warmongering or slavery.

Can't fault them for having a nice house. I mean, would people be happier if the Edwards lived under a freeway overpass in a cardboard box?

Exactly Christopher.

I hadn't heard this latest attempt to paint Edwards as "elitist." But it seems like a natural progression from the non-story about the sale of property that so excited the wingnuts last week. Is that all the opposition has? More land deals? Sheesh. It appears the Wurlitzer is recycling their greatest hits to a bored crowd.

firstly, it is not the jewish lobby.

it is the israeli [zionist] lobby.

there is a difference. if you don't think so, i recommend that you tune into norman finkelstein and mark elf[jews san frontieres]. and quite often, zymphora provides the mots justes on this issue.

that edwards is "pandering" to the zionists should come as no surprise to anyone who recognizes the real puppeteers in amerika. not only is there "real" money to be obtained from that fifth column, but there is a potential "save harmless" to be gained from the "zionist" -controlled amerikan media.

and of course, there is the view that dictates that bashing islam, arabs, the enemies of israel, curries the favor of the amerikan electorate. that has been the successful methodology for electability for some decades. i think that this invasion of iraq might have altered that equation if deployed successfully for the amerikan electorate.

which means that the "pandering" is a pursuit of funds tactic.

i suppose that is why al gore selected joe lieberman. and how that duo played out continues to go unexamined. was joe a mossad torpedo? did joe know how deeply the mossad owned the bushits? did joe know what mossad false flag operations were forthcoming? and recognized that they could not become operational were al gore to become president?

never forget, what you think you know about recent history has been shaped for you by the israeli intell services. just think of the pivotal roles usg players with dual citizenship have played: yossef bodansky[who created al-quaeda], michael chertoff[who ran the blind mullah], dov zakheim[comptroller of the rumsfeld pentagon who lost how many trillions?], douglas feith. those are the israeli intell agents of whom i am aware. how many others are there?

and what do the israeli intell services have on members of the us congress? knowing what i know, i can assure you they have videotapes of amerikan congresspersons taking israeli bribes. they have videotapes of all the congresspersons that they have inveigled into their honeytraps.

let us never forget, israel does not exist without the largesse of the usa. we take away our financing of that fascist state, israel would have to give up its goal of imperial israel....would have to learn to be neighborly.

when you see a us pol "pandering" to israel, you may be seeing a victim of mossad, shin bet extortion. you may be seeing a pol who believes in conquest and empire...considering israel an avant garde of amerikan imperialism.

you got the thrust of this new contest for emperor accurately. the democratic contestants will do anything that the mossad, shin bet[and their us financiers] tell them to do.

this is the chain that must be broken. will it be? i don't see how with the control over the us media that the zionists have seized.

Steve, your analysis placing Iran in proper perspective as a foreign policy concern is completely correct, and this sort of catering to the militarist wing of America is not going to win Edwards any troops from the progressive movement.

Does he think he can't let Hillary get to his right on this issue? With comments like these, I guess we won't be hearing anything from him about requiring Israel to seriously bargain for a Palestinian state, eh?

It's also very discouraging to see a supposedly progresive candidate use the phrase "biggest challenge of our generation" in association with a supposed military threat, and a threat to Israel at that. Such foreign policy problems, including the War on Terra (gag) are certainly NOT the greatest challenge we face in 2007.

Stopping our rapid, soon to be irreversible destruction of the Earth's 11,000 year old stable climate by substantially reducing use of our most utilized energy source is without doubt the greatest and most difficult challenge we face.

If Edwards can be describing Iran(!) as such a thing, he clearly has not thought through and grasped the nature of our true generational challenges. Now he's stuck with this stupid comment. He may very well mean it.

Very alarming and dispiriting.

Edwards' comments on Iran gave me the same feeling that he is not ready for the "big one" in 2008. After I read about his comments spoken when he was on a trip to Israel about the "threat" posed by Iran, I immediately sent him an e-mail complaining about this neo-con bellicose nonsense. I reminded Edwards that I was ready to support him financially in 2004 if he would change his pro-war position. I asked him to oppose the war. He did not, and I sent him not a dime. He is almost as bad as Lieberman.

Roberto in Utah

John Edwards will suck up to anyone, anytime, anywhere just to be president.

the pandering that Edwards has done recently to the Jewish lobby,

I posted a while back that Edwards is a hawk. His record shows he's a hawk. He is rational vis-a-vis Iraq, but he is still a hawk and no one should be surprised about this. It's part of his record.

I like republi-cons and the liberal media talking about his home. They fail to mention that Edwards is a real Horatio Alger story. They also fail to mention that the chimporer got his first one from his dads cronies.

Forget all this nonsense about where the candidates stand on this or that issue. Who cares? Hillary will raise the most money. She'll get tons of cash from CEOs and corporate fatcat fundraising. Husband Bill will help ring the cash register for fundraising. The other Democrats running for the 2008 race are competing for the name on the bottom of the ticket. 2008 is not about ideas or plans, it's about raising the most money.

It's Hillary.

Look, folks: Middle East doves will not get elected anymore. The Israel lobby (AIPAC/WINEP/JINSA et al.), the defense contractors' lobby, and the petroleum lobby would just destroy a candidate who sought to educate the public on the distortions that people have come to regard as common sense.

The real issue, if we plan to implement the rest of a sane agenda is unfortunately not "dove or hawk?" but "how much of a hawk?"

Edwards's speech is disheartening, because it suggests the answer is "pretty goddamned much of a hawk." But if you think that, when push comes to shove, Obama will come out in favor of "don't worry too much about Iran, we need to worry about energy independence," you've got another think coming. And another for Hillary. And another for Gore. Not going to happen, except for Kucinich. And if you think he can get elected, I want some of what you're smoking.

So yes, I'm ticked at Edwards, since I thought I was going to be an Edwards guy. But we really do need to be realistic.

There are American agents in Iran fomenting dissent and revolt. The U.S. is engaged in very public sabre rattling towards Iran, with military strikes at least implicit. All this with no independent (U.N.?) official findings or investigations of U.S. allegations that Iran poses a threat to either Iraq, the United States or the Middle East in general. What oversight is made public indicates much of what the U.S. asserts is false or exaggerated. I wonder what the reaction would be if Iranian leadership made public, as Bush has, they'd ordered the killing of antagonists and meddlers known to be a direct threat to their government? Like say, oh, George Bush and Dick Cheney. Tit for tat. Seems fair to me.

Whw, ntl dbl chckd th RL thght hd bn rdrctd t n-Nz st.

A trial lawer that is alligned with Jews, now that IS unusual.

y is the y missing?

Agree that this isn't about any "Jewish lobby". It's about apparently presenting himself as an Iran hawk to curry to the right-wing Israel lobby.

So can we give Wes Clark some serious attention now?

TIKI Al: A trial lawer that is alligned with Jews, now that IS unusual.

Oh, for Gawd's sake!

There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With. Jews. (Or trial lawyers...)

The problem is with those who think that we (the United States) need to take it upon ourselves, through military action, to ensure the ongoing dominance of Israel--a nuclear-armed state that also happens to have the world's best conventional military (on a pound-for-pound basis)--in addition to all the aid money we give give to said Israel, in large part to pay for said military.

The people who think this are not all Jews, nor do all Jews think this.

DeanOR: So can we give Wes Clark some serious attention now?

Sure, we can. And when the Israel/defense/petroleum lobbies destroy him, we can move on to somebody who might win.

so, here we see it. if you analyze the middle east, and identify israel as a gangster state, then you are subject to being characterized as a nazi.

i recall analyzing the post ww2 world in a manner that contested the prevailing, usgovernmentally sanctioned pov and being labelled a commie.

so, the same situation persists.

let there be no mistaking my pov. israel is a gangster, genocidal state. it intends, has intended, to exterminate all the non-jews within its purview. it will do this in public. it will do this in secret.

and it does it with our financing.

but we did the same thing years ago in hitler's germany. this country is always financing the fascist gangsters. it is our nation's "crime".

let there be no mistaking my pov. israel is a gangster, genocidal state.

Israel is (like the U.S., unfortunately) a democracy that has committed war crimes. But "genocidal"?

I don't think it has committed genocide within any serious definition of that word. It has certainly done some "ethnic cleansing," and has killed lots of people incidental to that practice. But I don't see any evidence that Israel has any interest in wiping out either Arabs or Muslims, except insofar as it relates to seizing territory in the old-fashioned tradition of war.

America's practices w/r/t the Amerindian populace has far more resemblance to genocide than does Israel's w/r/t Arabs and/or Muslims.

lunar chiroptera: I didn't say it was wrong, I said it was not unusual. Please don't kill the honorary MOT messenger for pointing out reality.

Any sign of Bin Laden in the bat-cave?

albertchampion, djmoonbat,

Thank you for distinguishing between the Israeli government's actions and jewry, both diaspora and within Israel. Corporate media has been very successful filtering out the considerable disgust within Israel with the reckless fascism of the government and similar revulsion throughout the diaspora. Regretably, opposition Israelis and diaspora jews are muted and malnourished due to filtering and $3.5+ billion/yr lavished on various Israeli rightwing governments by ours.

Steve,

I appreciate you attention to this vital and neglected aspect of our domestic and international politics and look forward to regular attention to it. I would suggest regular attention to the affairs of such Israeli groups as B'tselem, Gush Shalom, Seruv, Yesh Gvul and others struggling for righteous policies in Israel; monitoring, linking and posting important stories in Ha'aretz and other left Israeli papers; and periodic postings from a new Guest Contributor for Israel/Palestine issues.

For Edwards to swallow the NeoCon Kool-Aid on Iran to prove his bona fides to the Jewish lobby only shows he isn't ready for prime time.

Right on! I scratched him off my list of possibles yesterday when I read of his statement. It is worse than pandering, it reflects in-attention to the actual nature of what's going on in Iran, and a blundering ignorance of the dynamics of the middle east and the US loss of influence world-wide. I wouldn't trust him with the keys to suitcase under any conditions.

The Daily Telegraph article that's been quoted in hundreds of newspapers (and all over Washington, D.C.) and that says Iran will have nukes within a year is by Con Coughlin.

Here's a list of some of his previous stories.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/muriel_volestrangler/136

"Edwards’ speech put to rest the idea, held by the easily flimflammed, that there is any difference between Democrats and Republicans." I am very disappointed Edwards has taken this position. Scratch his name off the list.

Presidential Selectee Hopefuls Do the Bomb Iran Conference

You might be interested to read the Edwards websites on this same topic. Opinion there is not uniformly in favor of what he said either. I am still pro-Edwards, but I am paying closer attention to the Iran issue and the pandering---which is what I think it is thusfar. When Edwards visited Israel this past summer it was mostly an under-the-radar visit in the mainstream media. However, Edwards got an ear full of people wondering why he did not also visit Palestine. His response was that he wasn't invited there; his visit to Israel was in response to an invitation of the Israeli government--routine examination of potential presidential candidates I presume. Anyway, even this did not sit well with many Edwards supporters. Fairness is an issue to them. Poverty is an issue to them. There was a moment of "cognitive dissonance", and it persists.

Suds, if you were going to "muff one", that was not the one to "muff." .

Grow up, people.

An Islamist government with terrorist ties acquiring a nuke is a horrible fucking situation.

Horrible.

Here's a little experiment for you: Go mingle with the public and ask randoms whether they think it would be ok for Iran to build nukes. I think you'll be surprised at the answers you receive.

Not ready for prime time? Because he doesn't want a terrorist supporting nation to obtain nukes? Because he understands the horrific implications if that comes to pass?

Fuck. That sounds pretty ready for prime time to me.

Grow up. NO US President present or future is going to sit back while terrorism-supporting Iran manufactures nukes.

GOW, saying Iran is the biggest threat to us kind of ignores our big hole in the ground here in NYC. edwards just lost this jew's vote.

and btw grow up yourself, iran is years away from a nuke, and if you think they'll use that nuke in a first (last) strike against israel is comic-book foreign affairs. and repaeating the phrase "terrorist-supporting" over and over makes you sound like bendito.

i'd like to know iran's relationship to al qaeda. i wonder if it's as robust and dangerous as saddam's relationship to al qaeda.

also, when was the last time iran launched military action against another country. it was in the 19th century, IIRC.

also, have they violated the NPT? actually, i know the answer to that one: No.

and how would attacking iran work with our efforts to marginalize anti-iranian sadr and embrace pro-iranian hakim?

otoh, maybe losing both of them, while aligning with iraq's sunni neighbors will help create stability in iraq. genius!

sysprog, great link. i especially like this one

UN inspectors uncover proof of Saddam's nuclear bomb plans

why do you think they call him "Con"?

and with that, i yield the floor

Whew, until I double checked the URL I thought I had been redirected to a neo-Nazi site.

No. You must have thought you were in your favorites list.

Grow up, people.

A socialist government with communist ties acquiring a nuke is a horrible fucking situation.

Horrible.

Here's a little experiment for you: Go mingle with the public and ask randoms whether they think it would be ok for communists to build nukes. I think you'll be surprised at the answers you receive.

Not ready for prime time? Because he doesn't want a socialist supporting nation to obtain nukes? Because he understands the horrific implications if that comes to pass?

Fuck. That sounds pretty ready for prime time to me.

Grow up. NO US President present or future is going to sit back while socialist -supporting communists manufacture nukes.

I've heard this speech before.

Nothing against Israel, if you like bigots. Nothing against Israel, if you like people who sell our latest military technology to the Chinese and Russians. Nothing against Israel, if you like a people who have never stood on their own. Nothing against Israel, if you like the way they treat Palestinians as the Nazis treated them.

Israelis are, without a doubt, racists. And they are enabled in their racism by the United States. You want a big change in the Middle East? Make Israel play fair and have the U.S. offer other countries in the same region the same financial and social supports we offer Israel. Primarily financial. We forgive all loans to Israel. Israel has never even attempted to repay a loan.

if you like the way they treat Palestinians as the Nazis treated them.

i didn't realize the nazis made jews cabinet ministers. i thought they tried to kill all of them.

dj has it right -- israel is guilty of war crimes, as is the US, but i don't think their final solution involves eliminating palestinians from the face of the earth. okay, maybe likud does. i kid!

and that commie thing @7:32 is great, phid. (even though you hate my people. i kid!)

this isnt new. IN 2004 he backed Israel completely vis a vis the Palestinian question.

Apparently confirming the Right Wing's extremist framing and supporting the American people's baseless misunderstandings on an enormous national issue is all a leader seeking to be president can do. Realism.

Bet that's what the Founders intended. But then, I suspect they would to a man puke if forced to view our current "democracy", especially the Repub party.

Israelis are, without a doubt, racists.

Iranians are, without a doubt, fundamentalists.

Americans are, without a doubt, mass murderers.

Brits are, without a doubt, enablers and mass murderers on a smaller scale.

Russians and Chinese are, without a doubt, authoritarians.

Saudis are, without a doubt, friends of the US.

If THIS is your litmus test for the next president, enjoy at least 4 more years of GOP dominance. No serious Dem candidate is going to shun Israel and claim to sit back and let Iran develop nukes. In addition, if Iran does develop nukes, they are going to OWN Iraq even more than already do. Plus, nobody else in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, and the rest of those Arab states are going to want Iran going nuclear.

Oh, and Iran won't nuke Israel. But Hezbollah, their little bastard terrorist brother? Well, they might. I mean it's not like they don't lob missiles into Israel or anything.

One final comment. The primary responsibility of the President is national security. Some of us here may wish that were not the case...but wishing does not make it so. If you want a President who is progressive on economic and social issues, you're going to have to vote for one who's also "tough" on national security issues. That's the way it is, has been, and will always be. Step back from the litmus, folks, and try to see the big picture. Think FDR.

Oh, and Iran won't nuke Israel. But Hezbollah, their little bastard terrorist brother?

yeah, iran is developing a nuke in order to give it away to some arabs. no one will ever suspect! those clever moolahs figure israel's/our response to a first strike will be to nuke lebanon. how devious!

I don't get all the hype. All those who think a nuclear Iran is a good idea, raise your hands?

Okay, now all those who think a nuclear al Qaeda is a good idea, raise you hands?

Okay, now all those who think because Iraq was a bad idea, al Qaeda and Iran no longer hate our guts and if we just get out of Iraq everything will be peachy - raise your hands?

The biggest disservice George Bush did to this country was making us FORGET that in fact their are people who want to fly planes into buildings to get to us, and who want to blow up nuclear bombs on our soil, etc. I personally think that economic security for the INDIVIDUAL in these regions will lead to an end of terrorism, but in the meantime, each new regime with nuclear weapons brings us a little closer to a nuclear war.

Does that make me a hawk? No, in fact given "President for a day" status, the first thing I would do is decrease our nuclear stockpile by about 90% unilaterally and do away with most of the cold war weapons programs in favor of big pay raises for the military grunt.

But, that doesn't mean I want the next plane to hit my kid's daycare center, or that i want the current nutbags in charge of Iran having a nuclear bomb. To say "well, military options are off the table" is ridiculous. What kind of negotiations are those? To actually invade Iran is another thing, but to say right off the bat - no military action no matter what you do? That's as bad as Bush IGNORING the diplomatic route.

oh, wait i forgot General Ization up there -- The iranians are fundamentalist loonies, they want us to nuke them to heaven. in that case, i guess they'll want all the credit for getting us to nuke them, so will openly nuke israel. whew, my head is spinning. i wonder if this is how scout feels.

al Qaeda and Iran

I'm wondering which is more ridiculous: the idea that al qaeda and iran are aligned, or the idea that al qaeda and saddam were aligned. thoughts? i mean saddam was a sunni arab (albeit an enemy of fundamentalists).

Let's just hope India and Pakistan never get nukes, it will be the end of the world.

Run away! Run Away!

TIKI, you forget that iranians are CRAAAAZEEEE and don't give a damn about self-preservation. not like the rational kim jong-il.

(even though you hate my people. i kid!)

They killed Jee-bus!!

Nothing against people. Everything against fascist governments and their policies.

i didn't realize the nazis made jews cabinet ministers. i thought they tried to kill all of them.

--"The appointment was mired for weeks in political infighting and charges of racism. It drew criticism from hard-liners who said the move was little more than political expediency. Even Arab lawmakers dismissed the development, saying the government has little real interest in improving the lot of Israel's Arabs."--

Might we talk about the wall Israel built? Or the Warsaw ghetto wall? Or Palestinains as second class citizens in Israel? Or torture and "disappearing" at the hands of the Israelis? Seems pretty Nazi to me.

Sorry. Wanted to post this in the same as above:

"In "Ways of War", an article published by the Israeli magazine Lahba, extremist Rabbi Falay called for annihilating all Palestinian males over the age of thirteen to eradicate the presence of the Palestinian people."

Think the Rabbi wants to use gas or bullets? What did the Nazis use? Zyclon-B? I can see the little Palestinian boys lining-up for the showers as we speak. And it will have the same effect on us as Darfur did. Ghastly pictures on TV and nothing more.

You all should read Robert P.'s post and commit it to memory.

I would hope whilst you are memorizing it, you would fix the spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

the current nutbags in charge of Iran

the current nutbags "in charge" are the same nutbags as before. the same anti-taliban nutbags who helped us in afghanistan. i realize "anti-taliban" isn't much of a distinction -- the whole world was always anti-taliban, except pakistan, saudi, UAE. but those guys are our friends, the "moderates"!

but hey, let's bomb those crazee iranians! their nuclear program, such as it is, can't have anything to do with US troops on 2 borders and a US committment to "regime change" or a nuclear-armed (pro-taliban) country on another border. no, their deep-seated anti-semitism is the only thing that drives them, to the point where it will bring about their own destruction, they are so preoccupied with the jews! yes, it's that simple. al qaeda = iran = hezbollah = syria = hamas = saddam. bush = churchill. ignorance = strength.

extremist Rabbi Falay called for annihilating all Palestinian males over the age of thirteen to eradicate the presence of the Palestinian people."

wow, and to imagine they elected him chancellor! certainly israel is the only country in the world where such a disgusting person would be given unlimited political and millitary power!

and that israeli magazine had the nerve to call him "an extremist" -- nonsense! he's the designated voice of the israeli people (having been so designated by phid.)

really, phid, you should read your godwin.

I haven't had much against Edwards to this point, but his pandering, for me, illuminates a background discomfort I've had with him all along, which is that he seems to have a very shallow understanding of the very complicated issues in the Middle East. I just don't think he gets it, and that bothers me. They don't come much more shallow than Bush and his gang, but if we are to have a president with the capability of pulling us out of this mess that Bush has made, it isn't going to be a pretty boy who does all his swimming in the shallows.

I don't want to be too hard on Robert P's post as he is a new poster, I believe (and welcome), but frankly I find it filled with strawmen ("think a nuclear Iran is a good idea, raise your hand"), gross generalizations (Iran hates us), fearmongering (obvious) and Rightist framing ("Iranian nutbags").

It also presumes that militarist America has some moral right to attack another country and attempt to change its current regime simply because we don't like what they are doing on their own soil, while characterizing it as a completely unacceptable threat. Rings a little hollow when contemplating nuclear Pakistan, North Korea and decades of the Soviet Union.

And as though successful negotiations with other countries always take place under the shadow of military attack if they won't "go along" with what we want.

Bushco threatened Iran's leaders into thinking that a robust nuclear program was necesssary to their continued rule ("Axis of Evil" including Iraq, remember). A "grand bargain" with Iran was clearly still possible as of March 2003 and there is no reason to think that it's "off the table" now IF Iran receives the appropriate security assurances from militarist, regime-changin' BushAmerica.

What do you think the all-seeing, all-knowing Jimmy Baker was getting at in the ISG report? He's just a sensible diplomat, who knows what's possible and how to do it---if one WANTED to.

good points, euzolus. i think most members of the ISG are scum, but the report is neither a peacenik manifesto nor a call to war with iran. ISG says talk to iran, specter says talk to iran, hagel says talk to iran, many dems say talk to iran. how can anyone defend this tiny belligerent minority who wants to poke around for a casus belli?

Tough crowd.

It's not like he said the first thing he'd do if elected is invade Iran.

To completely dismiss him as a candidate over this is dumb.

IOM, ee won't engage Iran because Bush and Cheney simply WON'T, benjoya. It's simply obvious that this is what needs to be done, but they are ideologically incapable of doing it, and, like spoiled childen, their personal pride is also on the line.

I blame Repub senators at this point. They need to go into Bush and read him the riot act. But they aren't a responsible party any more.

We're in a very bad situation, which I feel certain is going to result in much more violence and destruction.

It's not like he said the first thing he'd do if elected is invade Iran.

from the link:
Sen. John Edwards said that stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons "is the greatest challenge of our generation."

silly me, i thought "the greatest challenge of our generation" might be trying to keep the earth habitable (or dismantling al qaeda or national health, if i may be so provincial) This is pandering; i say feh to it. still, he's light years ahead of mcCave or giuliani, which i guess was snark's point. edwards is in favor of public campaign financing -- maybe that's reason enough to support him.

but enough of this reason -- iranians are nazis! no, israelis are nazis! they all want to get us killed! OH NO!!!!!111111

yes, the persians and the jews are getting together to destroy america. you must stop them! beware especially the persian jews!

Bwahahahahahahaha! [tents fingers]

Might we talk about the wall Israel built? Or the Warsaw ghetto wall? Or Palestinains as second class citizens in Israel? Or torture and "disappearing" at the hands of the Israelis? Seems pretty Nazi to me.

OK, that gets Israel to the level of, say, Pinochet's Chile. The Nazis, in addition to that kind of stuff—stuff which I will obviously stipulate is bad stuff indeed, rightly condemned by all—also ran death camps. You may have read about them, or seen Schindler's List.

Sen. John Edwards said that stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons "is the greatest challenge of our generation."

Personally, preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon may actually be more challanging than reversing global warming. It's certainly more of a challange than providing universal healthcare to all Americans. The medical lobby is tougher than the pro-Israel lobby any day.

good article on persian jews

I read "generation's greatest challenge" to mean most needful thing to be done, not most difficult. Many frankly impossible actions are "challenging", right? But you're certainly right about the "medical" lobby!

benjoya, did you happen to see Lt. Gen. Odom's testimony before Biden's Committee? Great stuff!

www.counterpunch.org/odom1242007.html

euzolus, link's no good!

I should add that, while I criticise Edwards for shallow thinking on Middle East issues, I can't bring to mind any of the other Dems, so far, who have demonstrated any deep thinking on the issue, either. I would think that Obama is doing so, but I haven't heard it, if he is. It would be refreshing to hear at least one of them demonstrating an ability to get the broader perspective, to show a greater grasp of the cultural, historical, geographical, and religious context, to demonstrate the willingness to listen to all sides in order to come to a more appropriate identification of the problem and hopefully a workabale solution. I'm not saying that all parties would have to be happy with the resolution, but a workable resolution is more likely if the "decider" has a broader understanding if s/he has examined all the facets.

euzoius - I've had it on Google Reader for some time, but haven't commented before now.

As to your points.
...but frankly I find it filled with strawmen ("think a nuclear Iran is a good idea, raise your hand"),
Is that anymore a strawman than saying "We can't take any options off the table" makes John Edwards a superhawk?

gross generalizations (Iran hates us)
Agreed, actually. I spent some time in the mountains of Morocco with my wife while she was in the Peace Corps. And, while every store sold Saddam Hussein key chains, the people did love us personally. That said, the theocratic leaders in Iran hate us.

fearmongering (obvious)
Listen, it isn't fearmongering to say we need to wake up and realize that Bush screwing us with Iraq has in no way changed where we were on 9/12/01. It was 8.5 years between the World Trade Center bombings and 9/11. What did we do this time? Nothing useful - same thing we did last time.

and Rightist framing ("Iranian nutbags")
Well, they've called for wiping Israel off the face of the earth, sooo....

Listen, I'm pro-middle eastern in this whole thing. I met a lot of great people in Casablanca, where I proposed to my wife, in Marrakesh, in the High Atlas mountains. I met many people that were good, good people - we still email with them occasionally. I think we've given our weight too much to one side in the Israeli/Palestinian problem.

I also never said nor support a preemptive war.

Regardless of all of that, I don't think saying "no options" are off the table makes you a super hawk. It makes you a realist.

I also never said nor support a preemptive war.

Regardless of all of that, I don't think saying "no options" are off the table makes you a super hawk. It makes you a realist.

these two statements are incompatible. if one of the "options" is a preventive (not pre-emptive) war, is it still on the table? i say a military strike against a country that doesn't threaten you is aggression, no different from iraq. ahmadinejiad, who has been repudiated recently by the voters, the religious authorities, his opponents in parliament and, yes, the jewish iranian MP, has predicted the disappearance of israel rather than threatened to bring it about (as if he had that power), but hey, gotta keep the fear going - a lunatic figurehead pandering to his base here, a genocidal rabbi there, an ignorant populace the other place, it all adds up. don't be a sucker.

and when i say "no different from iraq" i mean iraq's invasion of iran as well as our invasion of iraq. both acts of clear aggression of one side against the other.

Robert, I'm in the camp that believes the time has come for serious regional diplomacy, especially with Iran, and that demonizing their regime (as Bushco always does) is wildly counterproductive and irrational. It doesn't seem from what you wrote that you disagree with that.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is not going anywhere, our deposing of Saddam naturally and predictably elevated its influence, status and power in the region (especially in shi'ite Iraq), and we need to acknowledge that fact.

Plus, we don't have the moral right to "change" the results of a relatively recent popular revolution because it sets up a society we might not like, agreed? We tend to demonise the leadership and status of all regimes and leaders who refuse to do our bidding.

benjoya, sorry, you'll have to google "William Odom Testimony Foreign Relations Jan 18".

Ben: I didn't realize that the fundies that are a heartbeat away from taking over Pakistan were such stellar studies in stability when compared to the crazy flavored fundies in Iran.

Bomb Iran and bring the hostages home now! ...sorry, I had a flashback again. Dam that manipulating corporate media!

you bet, TIKI. we've always been at war with eurasia.

and that israeli magazine had the nerve to call him "an extremist" -- nonsense! he's the designated voice of the israeli people (having been so designated by phid.)

I designated no one. You have this idea that Israelis are an accepting open people. Largely they are not. They are the same form of rascists as the Nazis. Have you examined the history of the intersection of Zionism and modern Palestine?

OK, that gets Israel to the level of, say, Pinochet's Chile.

That makes it much much better. And that means there was no reason for the U.N. -on April 15, 2002- to "demanded the end of 'acts of mass killings perpetrated by the Israelis occupying authorities,'" They were just killing men, women and children. You know, it takes 3 or 4 palestinian children to count as 1 person. Not really human, and not really genocide because there are many yet to kill. And they weren't shot in the forests of Ponary, so it doesn't count because only Nazis killing Jews exclusively in Ponary can be the corolarry to Nazi-like activity.

really, phid, you should read your godwin.

Doesn't apply here. Read Godwin and I'll explain why this is the fact. Also, you should read your Bennis.

it's almost funny. someone ranting that the amerikan people will not stand for muslims acquiring nuclear weaponry...that we need to stand firm against iran.

is this individual brain-damaged?

let us reflect on reality for a moment...

1. the islamic state of pakistan has nuclear capabilities. and more to the point, the bushit regime has encouraged that development.

2. odd, the khan nuclear apparat[pakistani] has furnished nuclear engineering and nuclear materials to iran, north korea. and yet, pakistan remains our ally in the gwot. perhaps you can explain this to me.

3. if ever there was a muslim country that was destabilizing the world it would be pakistan. a military dictatorship financed by the bushits. hmmmmm.

4. the pakistan isi[a branch of the cia, by the way] created the taliban. financed the taliban. still support the taliban. and we know this. after all, we run pakistan. still, this war that chews up noncombatants and us troops continues. it is the unknown killing ground. why is that?

5. and then there is saudi arabia. the bushit and cheney friends. who financed/finances all these "terrorist" regimes.

the invasion of iraq has only inflated the house of saud's bank accounts.

are amerikan soldiers sacrificing their lives so that the house of saud can add another nickel to their accounts? i sure think so.

can i say some more about the mystification of the amerikan electorate?

you bet i can.

i close with john kerry. a boner. elevated to be the demtillian contestant. i knew that this had become a sham contest. as i said then, as i still say,it was boner versus boner.

NOT A CONTEST. it was an arranged defeat.

and the demtillians still refuse to discuss this sham contest. why would that be? money?

i recall a date i had with a big time LA dem contributor who cut me dead with my assessment of kerry. she did not want to learn that the campaign was notional. i suppose that investing $100,000 into kerry might make one feel that way. money down a sewer.

and i told her that.

the establishment tries to suppress reality. but the reality is that the demtillians must attack the reptillians.

winning will not be happening as reptillian lights.