oldirti

So you're saying you would vote for Edwards based on his electablity? I might have perceived this wrong, but it sounds like your says, "I like Eddie, because he's nice, and he looks good. I don't know much about his policies, but listen to the way he talks." I might be making mountains, out of mole hills here, because he is only a Vice president after all, but i think this is what is fundamentally wrong with our fickle voting society.

__________________

leejo

Interesting thoughts from The Architect in today's WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1211...n_commentaries

Only someone very green in the world of negotiations fails to understand that one does not habla "something for nothing". Everything I've ever heard about doing business in the middle east indicates that these people are tough negotiators. Maybe Obami is just selling his brand, Change, to the masses here but one has to wonder...

Word.

Delta*RandyShugart*

when jfk ran for president in the 60's no one really knew who he was, but when they had the first televised debates and people saw who he was, a large majority favored him over nixon.

Edwards could only help obama.......i am not saying i would vote for him i myself am leaning towards the republicans, but remember america likes what they see, they like their tv's and they like watching them, and also a lot of americans don't vote but if obama and edwards were a team it could strike some interest in the baby boomers and the generation below them.

__________________

AMosely

Regarding Rove's Wall Street Journal editorial: Karl Rove is a political advisor, and is a deeply experienced professional when it comes to advsersarial advice. He has no proven experience in diplomatic negotiation, however. The broken diplomatic line being towed by the President he serves as an advisor had been, according to Israeli officials, the only obstacle blocking peace talks with Syria and (by proxy) Hezbollah over the past year. Bush's own actions have contradicted his criticism of "the false comfort of appeasement" through past talk and negotiation with North Korea and Syria. 'Appeasement' and steps toward normalization of the North Korean threat may be one of the most successful things that Bush's administration accomplished in its two terms, yet it would seem he wishes to distance himself from that position.

Even if nothing comes of Israel's recently announced renewed discussions on a land-for-peace dealings with Syria, it will only add more evidence that even indirect talks between adversaries are far more hopeful than harmful. While I find merit in Rove's suggestion that Obama should identify the terms of certain negotiations (though in the case of Iran it is simply a question of connecting the dots at this point), all one can logically say about his comment about Obama being "hopelessly out of his depth on national security" is - look who's talking. Anyone who believes America's national security was increased by this administration is hopelessly out of their depth on the realities of 20th century terrorism. While no one can (or should) negotiate with Al Qaeda, there are options when it comes to terrorism born of stricly regional conflicts - Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran's involvement in Iraq. To lump them all into a blur of 'terrorism' and turn one's back is an undebatable mistake.

In the particular case of Syria and Israel, the question of the Golan Heights as a sticking point is nothing new. Syria wants it back, and will broker peace in exchange. Israel's population and elected government has always been staunchly against this, producing the stalemate condition. Sometime last year, Israel apparenty proxied a signal through Turkey that they would be willing to negotiate the land with Syria in exchange for peace at the northern border - requiring Syria to take responsibility for Hezbollah. Some seek to undermine this, claiming that Olmert is using it as a smokescreen for his legal troubles. None the less, it demonstrates Israel's near total disregard for White House opinion on the matters of negotiation and diplomacy. Seeing how Israel has 50 years of experience in dealing with terrorism at an international scale to Bush's 7.5, perhaps they should be the ones evaluating Mr. Obama's remarks on negotiation instead of an outgoing White House political advisor.

leejo

Please elaborate on your credentials that allow you to make this statement with such authority.

AMosely

While not a professional on the topic, I've been closely watching and studying middle eastern terrorism (specifically with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) since 1989 when I first visited Jordan, Lebanon, Israel and Egypt (in that order). I returned to live in Israel for half of 1991. I've written two theses on the subject and received a minor degree in middle eastern history. My study of the topic has very much shaped my views on politics, religion and war. Following Sept. 11, I made an effort to understand Al Qaeda and its roots in depth. The vast majority of terrorism and radical views directed at the U.S. traditionally stem from three specific regions of ethnicity and decent which included populations left disenfranchized and marginalized by U.S. policy : Palestine, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. After 2001, that list was expanded to Iraq, Afghanistan, and to a certain extent Iran (though it could be argued these regions were on the list to begin with, there was no doubt after 2001).

I believe that the statement I made is backed up by simple facts. When looking at the threat of terrorism against the U.S., its allies and interests, the threat today is far greater and more complex than it was in 2000. This is due to a number of factors, but at the top of the list are the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, open hostility towards Iran, and the complete rejection (and subsequent punishment) of the will of the Palestinian people. The Palenstinian case is a primary example of Bush's rhetoric regarding 'bringing democracy to the middle east' - this is only true if the U.S. approves of their choices, which by definition is not democracy. Regardless of the circumstances or legitimacy of these acts (which are certainly debatable), I do not believe that one could make a case for any one of them decreasing the growth of anti-American terrorism and its broader efforts (recruitment, propaganda, financing). In terms of physical security, the U.S. military is streched quite thin at this point in time, public support for war is extremely low and the economy backing it is facing uncertainty. Marginal improvements to the intelligence services and a new Homeland Security department are not enough, in my mind, to produce a net gain in security in light of the current global security landscape referenced above.

I will acknowledge that the future is still open to possibility. The occupation of Iraq may end soon and Iraq may stabilize. Israel may finally negotiate peace with Syria/Hezbollah and Egypt/Gaza (despite the disdain from the White House). Iran's nuclear ambitions could be controlled through negotiation or conflict avoidance. The current reality is, however, that with the possible exception of Iraq none of this will happen anytime soon.

I therefore conclude that comparitively and in a very general sense, the security situation with regard to the U.S. is far more precarious than it was in 2000.

Beatnik

Yes, because Mr. Rove's contributions to foreign policy have been so incredibly productive and insightful. America's certainly in a more secure position today than they were the day before Mr. Rove et al assumed office.

I wonder what his thoughts on negotiating with N. Korea are, and how they apply to this? I guess it's apples and oranges though right? Since N. Vietnam really aren't tough negotiators. Of course, Regan talked with Iran quite a bit too. As did Rumsfeld with Iraq.

But THOSE guys were insightful, while Obama is naive and green, right?

Riiiight.

__________________

leejo

How, exactly, will Obami's charm and charisma change Iran's behavior? What about Hamas and Hezbollah? A) Rove is a dick?

I wasn't ignorant of how some folks would respond by attaching Mr. Rove's thoughts here. It's still entertaining. And predictable. And a little sad. Fact is that the jury will be out on all of this for a number of years, until the classified information becomes public. In the meantime, the occasional "I think" is refreshing and helps keep one humble.

Another fact is that nothing any of you have said changes Mr. Rove's points.

Beatnik

Entertainment value notwithstanding, the simple fact is that the jury's been in for about 4 years now. Some of you just take a little longer coming to terms with, you know, reality. Which is understandable - I'd be invested enough to have some severe cognitive dissonance affecting my perception too if I backed a horse as clearly awful as Bush and Co. for 8 years, too.

Feel free to check out Ricardo Sanchez's brutally honest interview on Charlie Rose a couple nights ago if you think anyone but the most partisan supporters think the jury's still out on "all of this". Ricardo Sanchez was of course the commander of operations installed by Rove's boss in Iraq during 2003-2004, who was inevitably (and somewhat deservedly) scapegoated after failed political policies (like debaathification) and scandals (Abu Ghraib).

The point being that, despite the brilliant "Architecht" (and non-coincidentally an advisor to the McCain campaign) waxing intellectual on the merits of a competitors' statements about foreign policy, he's had a chance to demonstrate his version of a better foreign policy over the past 7 years, and guess what? He failed. Miserably. His insight is, to the vast majority of us, irrelevant. And contradicted by his own administration's policy to, say, N. Vietnam.

__________________

leejo

So is it your position that one must agree that Bush sucks in order to ask the question? That doesn't compute to me. For someone who has given me countless amounts of grief for ad hominem attacks, you seem unable or unwilling to hold your fire here.

I am certainly aware that Mr. Rove is a political animal and I doubt very strongly that he doesn't have an angle to play here. But simply, and repeatedly, to respond by implying that he doesn't have the right to ask the question seems a little simpleminded.

Sara

My self and others undercut bush alot..alot but I think still he needs to get his act together in the little time he has left...Question - Homeland Security? Can it affect ones campaign.

__________________
Me - I'll Just blame bush.
Disciple - Bush? Is that some sort of slang for women? - Hahaha I love disciple.

btw Bush = worst president ever.

Beatnik

I implied no such thing. He can ask whatever he wants, however much he wants, in whatever Murdoch media outlet he chooses, whether officially speaking on behalf of the McCain campaign or not.

I just don't give a ****. He's tried and failed, and like I said his own policy contradicts his central point.

What more needs to be said?

__________________

leejo

Question: how's that apology coming along? Still waiting.

leejo

OK may I ask what if anything about Obama's foreign policy plans to engage without preconditions nations like Iran and Syria and entities like Hamas do you think will likely affect their behavior?

Beatnik

They'll actually be talking? There will be some dialog, however potentially arbitrary? That's just a wild guess though.

__________________