What am I missing here?

Boortz...
THE U.S.EXAMPLE

Barack Obama finally came around on Russia, scolding the nation for invading a sovereign nation (Georgia). However, now he has thrown a new caveat into the mix: the United States should set a better example on that front, too. He says, "We've got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies ... They can't charge into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by example on that point."

So finally, Barack Obama comes out and directly compares Russia's military invasion of Georgia to our own efforts in Iraq. Way to go Big O.

Does anyone remember Georgia being a threat to Russia? Did Georgia have a weapons program? Was Georgia in violation of multiple UN Resolutions ... violations that authorized any UN member to go in and remove their leader? Just wondering.

What am I missing?

Does anyone remember Iraq being a threat to the their neighbors let alone the United States? Did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?--and weren't the U.N. weapons inspectors, as well as many allies, and anti-war activists here at home pointing to the holes in that idea? Wasn't the US in violation of UN Resolutions when it preemptively attacked with no authorization from the Security Council?--the answer is yes if you weren't aware.

The lack of awareness about the facts during the war... and the rewriting of history afterwards has been an amazing and shockingly successful feat by conservatives.

And if you were wondering how laughable the idea that Iraq was a threat... think back to Iraq I. Where Arab countries were calling for us to beat back the preemptive attack by Iraq which lacked authorization from the security council. Thats why we fought with a HUGE coalition, and the war was paid for--mostly by Saudi Arabia if my memory serves me.

Agree or disagree with how it went down... we--Republican and Democrat alike--knew how to win wars, effectively, and at as little cost to our soldiers and our citizens wallets. Republicans were taken over by the conservative wing and all of a sudden the ability to win a war becomes this great quandary. As if military strategy was back to the rock, bigger rock, spear, club... of our ancestors days in the caves.

sigh... what a waste of lives, money, and our national security...

Obama 2008. The lesser of two evils...

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

a pattern this year...

This year you are probably going to see a lot of votes going to Obama for National Security reasons... Bush/McCain Foreign Policy is undermining our global security and empowering the terrorists...

You are going to see a lot of Obama votes because of the Commander and Chief factor...

The accidental endorsement

I appear to have endorsed Barack Obama by accident. Brad DeLong - well-known blogger and economist - has a note on his weblog headlined - “Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times endorses Barack Obama”. And WCM asked yesterday - “Gideon’s endorsement of Obama for (global) Commander-in-Chief. Premature? Politically motivated? Deserved? ”

Oddly, despite the headline on my column - “Obama for commander-in-chief” - I wasn’t consciously sitting down to write an endorsement column. What I was aiming to do was to respond to the polls that show that McCain is much more trusted as future commander-in-chief. But c-in-c is not the only role performed by the president.

There are a few subjects on which I prefer McCain. Trade is the most obvious. I also think he has taken sound positions on immigration and on campaign-finance reform. And I accept that McCain was courageous to take an unpopular position on the surge - and that he has been largely vindicated. (Although he was wrong to back the war in the first place.)

But I think that Iran is shaping up as the biggest foreign-policy dilemma facing the next president. And there - as far as I’m concerned - Obama is clearly the better choice. In fact, the McCain position is downright dangerous.

Does that amount to an endorsement of Obama? Just about, I suppose. Although, come November, it’s possible that some other issue will have displaced Iran as the number one concern - or that Obama will have revealed himself as a raving lunatic. For now, however, yes - I’m backing Obama.

Two further notes on this: First, I should admit to a conflict of interest. I put £10 on Obama to win the presidency at 5-1, back in December - ie before the Iowa caucus. So my prescience has given me a small financial stake in his victory. I believe, however, that I can overcome this and maintain my habitual objectivity.

Second this is not an invitation to re-open the “bomb Iran” discussion.

--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com

Marilyn Manson In Bowling For Columbine

Quote

However, there’s a difference between the negotiations carried out with North Korea and Iran. In the case of North Korea, there is a guarantee that North Korea will not be attacked if they are doing away with their nuclear program. But there is no guarantee in the air to Iran against an attack from the outside, even under any circumstance. And on the contrary, rather, I think they feel rather threatened by the military buildup of the US in the Persian Gulf. --Hans Blix **

WTF???

So I've been reading newspapers since about 5:10 this morning... its now 6:36 and I just came across this in the Jeruselam Post: 'Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term'

I don't know anything about the Jerusalam Post. Is this just Bush PR going to Isreal? Is it legit--and if so why isn't in the Financial Times or New York Times??? My hunch is Bush PR but gee I never thought the American public would think invading Iraq was a good idea--so what do I know.

This is what brings peace... Bush might learn from it...

Whether it was petty partisanship... or just not understanding forigen policy. Bush's statement on diplomacy with enemies was unacceptable and should be vocally condemned here at home.

If you want to create peace. If you truly want to win over the Arab "street." You have to show up at the table and talk. Dictators can't undermine you as well when you are actively engaging them.
In Qatar, Muslim, Jewish clerics meet

DOHA, Qatar (AP) — More than a dozen rabbis, including two from Israel, were in attendance this week as this conservative Muslim sheikdom opened one of the Gulf's first scholarly centers dedicated to interfaith dialogue.

The rare meeting of Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars in the heartland of conservative Islam is another sign of Qatar's efforts to present a moderate image as it bids for the 2016 summer Olympic Games. It's also part of a broader push by Arab governments for interfaith dialogue, even though most still do not recognize Israel.

The talks were not entirely smooth, and politics and disputes over the Palestinian issue did inevitably intrude, said Rabbi David James Lazar, leader of a synagogue in Tel Aviv.

Yet, the benefits for him were huge, he said — especially the ability to make personal connections with Arabs and Muslims "who otherwise I would have no contact with."

"For some it's their first chance ever to hear, not only an Israeli but to hear a Jewish rabbi speak ... And so one of my responses is trying to tell them the story of the Jewish people, which often they have not heard. The Holocaust," he said.

"I hear their story as well," he said. "It's an exchange of stories."

Another attendee, Rabbi Herschel Gluck, chairman of the Muslim Jewish Forum in Britain, commended Qatar for "being brave" by holding the conference.

"We know that hosting rabbis and an interreligious forum can be controversial in the region," said Gluck, whose group is based in a part of London where Jewish and Muslim communities sit side by side.

Some Qataris did criticize the gathering.

"This openness to other faiths creates confusion among our people and jeopardizes our identity," said one preacher at the local Fanar Islamic center, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

But other Qataris consider this and other changes made by Sheik Hamad bin Jassem bin Jabr al Thani as progressive and credit him for social and economic reforms since 1995.

Two months ago, the country also allowed the opening of its first-ever Catholic church. It has had low-level ties with Israel through a trade office for 12 years although it does not recognize Israel, and recently also invited Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to speak at a conference on democracy.

Ibrahim al-Nuaimi, the director of the interfaith center sponsored by the ruling family, said the goal is to "promote joint studies of academics from three faiths to foster understanding and peace."

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, who heads Vatican's council for inter-religious dialogue and attended the conference, praised Qatar's efforts to include Jews.

"As religious leaders, let us promote a sound pedagogy of peace, which is taught in the family, mosques, synagogues and churches," Tauran said.

Efforts at interfaith dialogue got one of their biggest boosts when Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah met with Pope Benedict XVI last November at the Vatican.

In March, the Saudi king then made an impassioned plea for dialogue among Muslims, Christians and Jews — the first such proposal from a nation with no diplomatic ties to Israel and a ban on non-Muslim religious services and symbols.

The moves, however, come amid rising tensions in the region and with peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians stalled. Many also believe there is a growing gap of understanding between the Muslim Arab world and the West.

Muslims have been angered by cartoons published in European papers seen as insulting the Prophet Muhammad and by the pope's baptizing on Easter of a Muslim journalist who had converted to Catholicism.

The specifics of the Saudi king's initiative — and who would participate — still remain unclear, in particular whether Israeli religious leaders would be invited to a Saudi-brokered dialogue.

It also is unclear if the Saudi efforts would have any political component, or any eventual impact on stalled Arab-Israeli and Palestinian peace talks.

Lazar, the Tel Aviv rabbi, said he is no politician but will carry his warm impressions from the conference back to his students and synagogue — as he hopes Muslim clerics will, too.

Lazar said one Palestinian researcher at the conference confronted him about Israeli textbooks that were, in his words, promoting hatred of Palestinians among Israeli Jewish children.

"My challenge to him was, let us meet together ... and together we'll look at our textbooks, the Jewish textbooks, the Muslim textbooks and the Christian textbooks in Palestine and Israel — and together we'll find if they're educating children toward hate," he said.

Crisis in Lebanon...

Yesterday's financial times had a news article on the clashes going on in Lebanon. It was entitled Fear of Civil War as Lebanon clashes escalate.

The recent fighting between the Druze community a minority sect currently in power and Shia gunment is becoming increasingly violent. Death of 5 days of fighting is over 40 people.

The biggest threat is to the regional balance of power with Hizbollah fighters backed by Syria and Iran vs. a Government which is supported by the major Sunni states of Sadui Arabi, Egypt and Jordon. Which means we might want to reconsider our recent vocal condemnation of Iran and Syria which could add to the chaos in the reigion and more broadly may speak to the vital foreign policy questions that we in the Anti-war movement were asking--Is it wise to further destabilzie a reigion that is currently held together with wire string and glue? Is it wise to overthrow governments through external force and aggression rather than using the modal that worked for the United States of an improving market economy which raised incomes and education and created a class of merchants and business owners who desired and were able to overthrow governments the dictator (in our case a king) which uses the status quo political structure and factionalism for their own gains.

If someone invaded the United States and said--as all aggressor nations do--that they were coming to enlighten us and fix our problems. Would you and I not be on the streets attacking our liberator/occupier?

I don't have answers but it does give me pause and a need to reflect and educate myself more broadly on the issue.

This might cause to reflect on our past actions and apply what we've learned to future efforts internationally.