|
Banned
|
Yeah...._Jazz, he's sounding like he could commit illegal acts of war....
Quote:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/...n/edbrooks.php
Brooks: Obama admires Bush
By David Brooks Published: May 16, 2008
Hezbollah is one of the world's most radical terrorist organizations. Over the last week or so, it has staged an armed assault on the democratic government of Lebanon.
Barack Obama issued a statement in response. He called on "all those who have influence with Hezbollah" to "press them to stand down." Then he declared, "It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."
That sentence has the whiff of what President Bush described Thursday as appeasement. Is Obama naïve enough to think that an extremist ideological organization like Hezbollah can be mollified with a less corrupt patronage system and some electoral reform? Does he really believe that Hezbollah is a normal social welfare agency seeking more government services for its followers? Does Obama believe that even the most intractable enemies can be pacified with diplomacy? What "Lebanese consensus" can Hezbollah possibly be a part of?
If Obama believes all this, he's not just a Jimmy Carter-style liberal. He's off in Noam Chomskyland.
That didn't strike me as right....
....That didn't strike me as right, so I spoke with Obama Tuesday to ask him what he meant by all this.
Right off the bat he reaffirmed that Hezbollah is "not a legitimate political party." Instead, "It's a destabilizing organization by any common-sense standard. This wouldn't happen without the support of Iran and Syria."
I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites "to peel support away from Hezbollah" and encourage the local populace to "view them as an oppressive force." The U.S. should "find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services."
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers." Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind ally with violence that weakens their legitimate claims."
He knows these movements aren't going away anytime soon ("Those missiles aren't going to dissolve"), but "if they decide to shift, we're going to recognize that. That's an evolution that should be recognized."
Obama being Obama, he understood the broader reason I was asking about Lebanon. Everybody knows that Obama is smart (and he was quite well informed about Lebanon). The question is whether he's seasoned and tough enough to deal with implacable enemies.
"The debate we're going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake," he said. "I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder."
<h3>Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: "The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough."</h3>
I asked him if negotiating with a theocratic/ideological power like Iran is different from negotiating with a nation that's primarily pursuing material interests. He acknowledged that "If your opponents are looking for your destruction it's hard to sit across the table from them," but, he continued: "There are rarely purely ideological movements out there. We can encourage actors to think in practical and not ideological terms. We can strengthen those elements that are making practical calculations."
<h3>Obama doesn't broadcast moral disgust when talking about terror groups, but he said that in some ways he'd be tougher than the Bush administration.</h3> He said he would do more to arm the Lebanese military and would be tougher on North Korea. "This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans," he concluded. "It's an argument between ideology and foreign policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush. I don't have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don't have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall."
In the early 1990s, the Democrats and the first Bush administration had a series of arguments - about humanitarian interventions, whether to get involved in the former Yugoslavia, and so on. In his heart, Obama talks like the Democrats of that era, viewing foreign policy from the ground up. But in his head, he aligns himself with the realist dealmaking of the first Bush. Apparently, he's part Harry Hopkins and part James Baker.
|
Quote:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_s...brooks-an.html
David Brooks and "implacable enemies"
"Hezbollah is one of the world’s most radical terrorist organizations. Over the last week or so, it has staged an armed assault on the democratic government of Lebanon." Brooks
***********************************************************************
"Does Obama believe that even the most intractable enemies can be pacified with diplomacy? What “Lebanese consensus” can Hezbollah possibly be a part of?" Brooks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, actually, David, it is the consensus that the Arab League is busy negotiating today.
It is increasingly clear that David Brooks is not an editorial columnist. He is a propagandist for the hard right in this country and in Israel. "Implacable enemies?" "..an armed assault on the democratic government of Lebanon?" Brooks is not a stupid man. He knows very well that the various Lebanese factions are engaged in a struggle over re-alignment of power in the government that has been in progress for most of a year. He knows that Hizbullah, Amal, the Aounis and others all hold seats in the parliament and are for that reason, in fact, part of the "government of Lebanon" that he writes of just as members of Congress are part of the government here. He knows exceedingly well that todays's "terrorists" are often tomorrow's rulers, (Kenyatta, Begin, Shamir, etc) He knows very well that his factional allies in the Bush Administration and in Israel favor the Siniora Cabinet in Beirut because they are supremely biddable and useful tools. Siniora is so much an instrument of US and Saudi policy that he should be provided a federal judgeship to retire to when when he is finally ejected from office. (Maybe Guam would be a good place. That was suggested for Thieu long ago)
"Implacable terrorist." I suppose that is what the British called Menachem Begin and Begin's hero Michael Collins before they became heads of government.
Brooks understands all this, but he also knows it is his assigned duty to spout rubbish for his pals. pl
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/op...on&oref=slogin
|
Quote:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/136105/output/print
'We are Looking Forward'
Ehud Olmert on prospects for peace and his political future.
Lally Weymouth
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 8:25 PM ET May 8, 2008
....Do you want peace with Syria, and do you think it's obtainable with President Bashar al-Assad?
We are very unhappy with the continued intensive involvement of Syria in the affairs of Lebanon and the lack of a democratic process in electing a new president in Lebanon. We are also unhappy with the continued links between Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. [But] the relations between us and Syria have to be reexamined, [as well as] the possibility of making peace. It's not something that can be done publicly. I don't mind that President Assad made an announcement that there will be negotiations, but the actual negotiations ought to be discussed quietly. In principle, we are ready for it if they are.
In order to have a full peace with Israel, would Syria have to break with Iran? Is such a break possible?
Look, I don't know if this is a possibility or how you can describe it in terms of probabilities. But one thing I know, if I don't check it, I will never find out. I think at the end of the day, this will have to be the choice of Syria.
Have there been direct Israel-Syrian talks, or have they all been conducted via the Turks?
I prefer not to go into these details.
Hasn't the United States been apprehensive about Israel-Syria negotiations for some time?
The international and local press . . . [has left] the impression that America does not allow Israel to engage in negotiations with Syria. This is not true. I never heard from my friend George W. Bush any warning or any request not to negotiate with the Syrians. I think that if the Syrians will handle the negotiations with us in an appropriate manner, they will be surprised to see how these negotiations can improve their status with America. My personal view is that no one can be of better help to this process than President Bush. Because any new president in America, if confronted with this issue, will have to wait two years at least until he learns enough and finds the appropriate time to devote to this, while Bush knows, Bush is familiar, and Bush understands. Therefore, if one is interested in a [Syrian-Israeli] process that ultimately leads to a public endorsement by the United States of America, then he has to hurry up. I believe, for reasons that I don't want to go into, that for Syria, the road to Washington must cross Jerusalem. I know what I'm talking about.
Officials in the U.S. government are reportedly concerned that Syria's real price for peace is Lebanon. The U.S. is interested in the survival of the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora.
I know what our expectations are. I know what the Americans' expectations are. I'm not going to do anything which [is in contradiction] to what my understanding of [what] the fundamental interests of the United States are in this part of the world.
So is this a pure deal about the Golan?
I didn't say that. I said that this is an attempt to achieve peace between Israel and Syria. And at the same time, to also make sure that the interests of free, democratic Lebanon are well protected. What the ingredients of peace [are] is something that will have to be discussed. I would not limit it to only one issue. It has to be peace from both sides--no threats or attacks from both sides.
What is your assessment of Assad?
Look, Assad is the president of Syria. He enjoys fairly effective control over his country. And I'm looking forward to negotiating with him.
<h3>What will you do about the situation in Gaza? Your towns keep getting hit by missiles, and weapons keep getting smuggled in from Egypt. Is it getting to the point where you have no other choice but to take action?
I don't like this terminology that you have no choice. You always have a choice.</h3> While we were talking, two Qassam rockets landed in open areas near the regional municipality of Eshkol. Then there were a series of seven rockets shot from Gaza to [the Israeli town of] Sderot....
|
Quote:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga/
....No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others – the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm....
|
Quote:
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/pr...ments/2063.cfm
...The real point is that Britain, France and Israel had come to believe--probably correctly--that Nasser was their worst enemy in the Mid East and that until he was removed or deflated, they would have no peace. I do not quarrel with the idea that there is justification for such fears, but
I have insisted long and earnestly that you cannot resort to force in international relationships because of your fear of what might happen in the future.....
|
Whose comments seem more reasonable, and on the mark.... Obama's....or the column critical of David Brooks, writtn by Lt. Col W. Pat Lang, (Retired) Pat Lang is former US Army Special Forces, fluent in Arabic, served as DIA Director of Humint, and as DIA Middle East region DIO, in the early 1990's. Why isn't Pat Lang one of Obama's principle foreign policy advisors.
I know I live in a land with two dominant right wing political parties. The MOST liberal US senate member is running for president. He does not even talk about using military force only as a last resort....instead, he talks about using force specifically in instances not involving self defense. He demonizes the politcal wings of the dominant factions in Palestinian territory and in Lebanon. Lebanon is 35 percent shi'a... Bush backed the billionaire son, al Hariri, of the assassinated Saudi (sunni) billionaire Lebanese prime minister, and the druze leader, Jumblatt....because they are easy to manipulate.
Read the comments about retaliation IN SELF DEFENSE, spoken by Israel's Omert. Pat Lang doesn't agree with his former colleagues, the generals in the pentagon, and he doesn't agree with Obama's rhetoric about who the "terrorists" are....
I live in a land where the MOST liberal US senator positions himself to the right of republican president Eisenhower, to the rignt of retired US Special forces Lt. Col. and ME DIA intelligence chief, Pat Lang, and in his rhetoric....to the right of Israeli prime minister Olmert.
But I'm supposed to take all of your POV's seriously, and I'm supposed to post about the "decline" of the republican party, when there appear to me to be TWO of them, now!
Real "change" and a campaign to bring "unity", would have less of the same ole neocon reflexive militancy, IMO.
Last edited by host; 05-19-2008 at 02:04 PM..
|