Who will be advising the next president?

Might be the Princeton Dean whose post is right below yours.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Ah, but President Clinton II will make it all better. After all she is different, she is in line to be our savior. Guess why President Clinton II will be in that position? Because our voters will chose her, apparently believing that she deserves another chance to screw up the world.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Chalmers Johnson addresses this problem in his latest book. He concludes that the military-industrial complex is so thoroughly entrenched in both parties and the economy that the problem cannot be fixed politically without an external crises that proves to even the most thickheaded that our military is out of control.

There are two possible crisis points. Chalmers thinks that it will be financial (ie we bankrupt ourselves). Others think it could be a devastating military set back with an unacceptable loss of American lives in some stupid war that we have no business fighting.

I think we should try to make the case that Iraq already is this second possibility. Now this is why we are Democrats. Here we have a chance to change attitudes within our party. Maybe, just maybe, we can defeat the Liebermans, Hoolbrookes, Rosses etc that are the prowar center of our party. We will likely not win but it today's good fight; better to do that than wait passively for bankruptcy.

few Presidents have been adept at foreign policy. You're dealing with competing interests, ideologies, and cultures, and many governments that do not share our values at all. Europe prides themselves in the "soft power" approach, but you could argue this doesn't resolve conflicts much better than hard power, given the unrelenting violence going on in so many places in the world. Authoritarian regimes regard Europe as weak.

We would.

Sorry, but this is a complete and total mis-reading of both Yglesias and Greenwald. Neither of them are making anything like the point you're making here. I'm quite confused as to how you get from what they're talking about to "The bottom line is that Democrats are not much better than Republicans when it comes to foreign policy." Neither of them makes that point or argues such a thing, at all, in either article.

They indeed do make the point. Greenwald writes that "America is plagued by a self-anointed, highly influential, and insular so-called Foreign Policy Community which spans both political parties." Yglesias adds that not only do these guys compose a bipartisan foreign policymakers club which is noted mainly for its failures but their policy prescriptions are influenced by careerism.

Case in point: the Middle East which is why you will not hear the Democratic candidates discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict other than to mouth pieties about Israel.

It's not just the fear of offending some donors, it is also that the Dems, even more than the Republicans, are getting their advice from the crowd Greenwald and Yglesias are concerned about.

That is why the whole establishment is piling on Obama. He deviated from their script. Thank God he didn't mention the centrality of the I-P conflict or the establishment Matt and Glenn allude to would consign him to oblivion as they did Howard Dean when he used the (parental warning) dread phrase "even-handed" when discussing how he would conduct Mideast foreign policy!

J. McCutchen

Good Ole Bill - The Liberals' Hero
J Pilger

Thanks, GFW. Much obliged.

It's like never-never land here. I find it hard to believe that any rational observer, how anyone calling theirself a liberal, can equate George Bush's foreign policy with Bill Clinton's foreign policy.

First line of the equation: George Bush invaded Iraq without a clue of what to do next (except sweep up the flowers strewn). Bill Clinton invaded ... um, where was that?, oh yes he invaded Haiti in 1994.

Keep up the good work M.J. (that was ironic).

destor,

Yglesias has some great stuff going about how the careerism of elitist advisors affects their advice.
One blogger said something like: Where you stand is determined by where you sit (or want to sit, he might have added). ASM as Hillary's SecState?

It is shocking that the world pretty much stays the same

The world does NOT stay the same.  It is not 1945.  If the US doesn't start waking up to 21st century realities we're going to find we've gone the way of the British Empire but there will be no arsenal of democracy waiting in the wings to bail us out.  Neither party will admit that.  Instead they're going to rerun the 1960 election with each party competing to out tough each other and out promise grandiose military commitments and defense budgets.   It's not 1960 either, economically or militarily and oh, we collected taxes in 1960 and the baby boomers were still babies not entitled retirees.

Will do, Marcf.

PS Bill Clinton isn't running in '08. The Dems who are running all supported Bush's war with the exception of Obama and Kucinich.

FOREIGNID: 285234
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 23799
AUTHOR: BVZ
DATE: 08/09/2007 06:28:52 PM

At this time I am not an Obama supporter, but really you do need to at least come close to what a candidate said when you attack him. Obama absolutely did not suggest we attack Pakistan, not that attacking a sovereign country, such as Afghanistan, exactly horrifies Americans. Nor did he offer that we attack shadows and smoke. My complaint with him, among others, is that he wants to increase the size of the military - that at least is an accurate statement.

Hoppy in Sacramento

It would be constructive to look at US Foreign-Policy/Imperialism after Roosevelt to see how the Democrats have been the people who really started all this, and GWBush&Co is just the "perfect storm' moment.
First the Democrats :
TRUMAN - 1) Delivered the Atom Bomb and set-off the Nuclear Bomb race.
2) Cold-War was started
3) Israel created
4) The Korean War
KENNEDY :
- The Vietnam War
Of course REAGAN was the dark-one and the scandals of the 80's and the neo-con thought started. Again note that the neo-cons actually came out of the left, disgruntled Democrats.
CLINTON:
Fundamentally did not change the course which US Foreign Policy had taken. In fact the resolution for Regime Change in Iraq was done under him with full Democratic support and precisely why the Dems in Congress could not stop this insane miltarism into Iraq.
GWB: Of course 9/11 paved the way for the situation which we are in now, the great neo-con theory of world power.
What I find funny is the position taken against Pakistan. Under Clinton it was termed a rogue state after Mush had his coup and took over as military dictator. After 9/11 he suddenly became the great friend of Bush and the US. But I cannot understand the Hillary support for the present Pak dictatorship, which had been outlawed during her husband's reign. Are we really so poor on history? Or is it better to use the terminology which is popular at the moment, even if the Repubs have created it ...

Come on M.J.! Give us a break. Not even Henry Kissinger wouldn't have gotten us into the mess we're in now.

O.K. Our team's not close to perfect, but it's a long, long way from this bunch of proactive bunglers to recent Democratic practitioners our nation's foreign policy.

Kevin Russell Cook

I agree. But Kissinger was not a neocon and, for all his barbarism (i.e. Chile, India-Pak, Vietnam) pushed for Middle East peace rather than adopt the view that the Israeli Right was always right and that "if its good for Greater Israel, its good for America."

Do Democrats care? Many of the blogger types certainly don't. The only goal is getting a Democrat in there. I even question whether they will oppose continuation of the Iraq war if a Democrat is in charge

MJ Rosenberg,
After reading your post I thought you could benefit from looking at something Matt Stoller posted over at Huff Puff. His basic take is that perhaps the republicans still have an operating majority in Congress, via the blue dogs and neocon senators. Something to think about as we try and make sense of "the Democrats" and what needs to be done.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-stoller/waking-up-to-a-working-re_b_59839.html

Thanks, NO. Good post by Stoller which I hadn't seen. So thanks.
I agree with him about conservative Dems. In fact, I was glad Harold Ford lost because I think the harm a Bible-thumping homophobic reactionary brings to the Democratic party outweighs any good his additional vote brings.
But Ford was exceptionally bad. I think a Jon Tester in Montana, although a tad conservative, is better than any Republican.
It's tricky.

What "what"?

I take issue with your assertion that Democrats and their supporters -- either in the blogosphere or among likely Democratic primary voters -- will be satisfied with a copy of the Bush policy as you describe it.  

Or are you saying that you have never heard the expression "Oslo War" used to characterize the breakdown of the 2000 Camp David negotiations and the al-Aqsa intifada?  (Check this out.)

You're welcome.

So shall we all really "expect more of the same, just less stridency," from Democrats and their supporters on matters of foreign policy in general and Israel-Palestine in particular, or am I missing your point?

Really.

Help me understand.  You assert that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson or Dennis Kucinich are each as likely as George W. Bush to pull something like this...?

The President has signed the recess appointment of Daniel Pipes of Pennsylvania to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace. The President nominated Mr. Pipes on April 2, 2003.

There were many people before and after the invasion that expressed reactions ranging from mild skepticism to boiling outrage.  But the evidence seems to be that they were sidelined for a variety of reasons, one of which was careerism.  Here's quote from the Washington Post:

Lots of people predicted things would turn out this way. They are military brass and lawmakers and foreign policy intellectuals, the kind of wise ones whose counsel is routinely sought and respected. In the run-up to this war, their concerns carried no weight against a swelling of patriotism, a backdrop of fear and an administration determined to oust Saddam Hussein. Their warnings that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11 were ignored. Worse, some were shunned and scolded.

As president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, raised hard prewar questions about the looming Iraq engagement. They predicted Iraq would become a long occupation and recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and would damage U.S. relations with the Muslim world. And: No weapons of mass destruction would be found.

One day back then, one of Mathews's colleagues ran into an acquaintance on the street, and that acquaintance warned: " 'What is your boss doing? Nobody at Carnegie is ever going to get through another Senate confirmation.' " And Mathews was herself admonished by a colleague at another think tank, who told her: "You're going to make Carnegie irrelevant. The war's going to happen and you ought to have Carnegie working on the after-war rather than on 'we shouldn't go to war.' "

Amid what she calls the "seemingly inexorable roll" toward war, the clear message was "you better get on the bandwagon or you'll never be taken seriously in this town again."

But it's a bit of a stretch to go from that to saying that "both parties take their advice from masters of the CW who have not had an original thought since the Potsdam conference."  As usual, MJR is filtering everything through his failed attempts to sell his radical agenda on the Israel/Palestine issue.  Here there is indeed a bipartisan consensus, with a few dissents here and there, and that consensus is largely on the mark. 

In addition, no one who was even remotely familiar with postwar foreign policy would claim that there has been nothing but groupthink.  Indeed, the very radicalism of the Bush Administration was in part a reaction of a group of foreign policy intellectuals like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and others who dissented from the prevailing consensus.  To argue that had Al Gore been president, his reaction to 9/11 would have been the same as Bush's because he would have been advised by the same foreign policy elite that advised Bush is to take the Naderite position that no significant differences between the parties.  It's beyond absurd.  It's downright unhinged.

There's a world of difference between failing to stand up and be counted as a dissenter in a policy that you view to be wrong and being the initiator of that policy.  Kudos to those who had the moral courage to buck the prevailing winds in Washington back in 2002-2003 and stand up for their beliefs.  And shame on those who didn't, myself included.  Not all of them went along because of careerism, but certainly some of them did.  But the idea that those who didn't dissent because of craven reasons would have actively initiated those same policies is just crazy.

Here's what I still don't understand.  You have issued an assertion:

The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that Democrats are not much better than Republicans when it comes to foreign policy because both parties take their advice from masters of the CW who have not had an original thought since the Potsdam conference.

And that especially applies to the Middle East where neocon orthodoxy governs our Israel-Palestinian policy as well as our policies on Iran and Iraq.

But history and real-time evidence suggest that there is in fact a huge difference between the approach to foreign policy between the parties.  For example, President Bush appoints a demagogic promotor of the idea that the violent breakdown in the Oslo peace process be approached as a "war," and we are supposed to accept that even a close associate (at least!) of the very administration that nurtured the Oslo agreements would follow a similar if not the same approach to the dispute.

Democratic contenders for the nation's chief executive really keeping counsel with the very same foreign policy advisors as our incumbent White House?  Who are these omnipotent bi- and/or non-partisan masters of orthodox neocon common wisdom, anyway?  That is what you appear to be saying, and you really need to be specific about this.  And while I have the opportunity, I really must express some bewilderment that a pisher like me who never rose above the steering committee level in local chapters of Peace Now and the Middle East Peace Network has been compelled to deal with garbage like the "Oslo War" thrown in my face for the last seven years, while a macher from the Israel Policy Forum could remain unaware of such a popularly malignant phrase.

Well, MJ choice of his presidential candidate is determined but their view on Israel.He supports Obama only because he hopes that Obama is hidding his real view about Israel.

"where the choice is between Netanyahu and Barak"
Worse than Bush and Kerry?

Mr. Rosenberg would like all the Democratic Presidential candidates to emulate Howard Dean and proclaim their intention to be even-handed brokers between Israelis and Palestinians. I would like those of them who agree with Mr. Rosenberg to forthrightly say so. Dennis Kucinich is a jerk, but I grant him some credit for being honest. ALL OBAMA SUPPORTERS NOW HEAR THIS: If he tries to pull a Carter post-election, after professing steadfast support for Israel's security in the campaign, we will cut his fucking balls off politically just like we did to that bastard.

Emet18 was out of line. . .again. I don't understand what he or she thinks is gained by such a nasty post. To this American zionist that kind of rhetoric is embarassing and counterproductive and I reject it completely.

It saddens me just as much to read a post that takes a cue from the meanest of the right wing arsenal, by a poster who apparently thinks it's cute or funny or witty to associate a teamsters election with verbal intimidation. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters number more than 1 million proud and hard-working men and women, and those workers and their union are entitled to a bit of respect around here.

I think there are better ways to respond to Emet18.

There is much to be gained from making it clear to would-be nominees that those of us in the Democratic Party who categorically reject the notion that U.S. security is enhanced by pressuring Israel to make unwise concessions to its enemies--and who, incidentally, are a majority of Democratic voters (albeit not on this site)--will not stand for perfidy.

Careful.  You are liable to blow your image of neocon Zionist thug with comments like that.

Brad the Dad,

There's nothing wrong in theory with being even-handed.  The problem is that in this context, "even-handed" is code for "beat up on Israel to give up more because it's all their fault anyway."

There certainly is nothing wrong with an even-handed approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Howard Dean's comment to that effect was surely spun toward the "code" you mention by the conservative echo chamber.  the "scream" just made it unnecessary to dwell on it at further length.  But I have never found any reason to believe that Dean ever ascribed such meaning to the term.

I stand with those in the Democratic Party that categorically reject the notion that the interests of the US is identical with those of Israel. I also believe that when our interests diverge, it is the duty of American leaders to stand up for US interests.

There are two examples from recent history that make this point. Israel attacked, bombed and mined Southern Lebanon last summer. That is Israel's business if she felt so threatened. The US should not punish her for that act of aggression. However, it was not in America's interest to be seen as supporting Israel in that action. The second example is the invasion of Iraq. Good for Israel, not so the US.

We need leaders that place US interests first.

How was invading Iraq good for Israel?

Howard Dean's comment to that effect was surely spun toward the "code" you mention by the conservative echo chamber.

You need to consider the context.  Dean was the darling of the left due to his antiwar stance and he was trying to ride that wave.  The left takes it as axiomatic that the I-P conflict is primarily Israel's fault and that American policy is biased.  So a pander to that audience on this issue can only mean one thing: "I'm going to lean on Israel."  Not "I'm going to lean on both sides" but Israel only.

Dean is no dummy.  He knew exactly what he was saying.

http://www.forward.com/articles/9839/
Publicly, Sharon played the silent ally; he neither criticized nor supported the Iraq adventure. One reason for his relative silence was Washington’s explicit request that Israel refrain from openly backing its invasion of an Arab country or in any way intervening, lest its blessing damn the United States in Arab eyes.

But sometime prior to March 2003, Sharon told Bush privately in no uncertain terms what he thought about the Iraq plan. Sharon’s words — revealed here for the first time — constituted a friendly but pointed warning to Bush. Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an “acute threat” to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Yet according to one knowledgeable source, Sharon nevertheless advised Bush not to occupy Iraq. According to another source — Danny Ayalon, who was Israel’s ambassador to the United States at the time of the Iraq invasion, and who sat in on the Bush-Sharon meetings — Sharon told Bush that Israel would not “push one way or another” regarding the Iraq scheme.

According to both sources, Sharon warned Bush that if he insisted on occupying Iraq, he should at least abandon his plan to implant democracy in this part of the world. “In terms of culture and tradition, the Arab world is not built for democratization,” Ayalon recalls Sharon advising.

Be sure, Sharon added, not to go into Iraq without a viable exit strategy. And ready a counter-insurgency strategy if you expect to rule Iraq, which will eventually have to be partitioned into its component parts. Finally, Sharon told Bush, please remember that you will conquer, occupy and leave, but we have to remain in this part of the world. Israel, he reminded the American president, does not wish to see its vital interests hurt by regional radicalization and the spillover of violence beyond Iraq’s borders.

Sharon’s advice — reflecting a wealth of experience with Middle East issues that Bush lacked — was prescient. The American occupation of Iraq has ended up strengthening Iran, Israel’s number-one enemy, and enfranchising militant Shi’ite Islamists. A large part of Iraq is slipping into the Iranian orbit. Iraq’s western Anbar Province is increasingly dominated by militant jihadi Sunnis who could eventually threaten Syria and Jordan, the latter a strategic partner and geographic buffer for Israel.

I have great respect for our intelligence community, and their ability to produce quality information. The "intelligence" used to justify the invasion of Iraq was not a product of our intelligence community, but was a product of Cheney's own little group which was seeking to justify such an invasion by any means necessary. So, if that group of professionals were to declare that there was "actionable" intelligence that bin Laden was at a meeting at a certain location at a certain time, I would trust it. It is highly unlikely that they would do that, knowing that it would result in a possibly embarrassing attack on a herd of goats, so I consider that such an attack would be extremely unlikely.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Corvid

Nice comment, syvanen. I would also point readers to two articles in Sunday's NYT--on the front page about how Dems aren't really talking about any imminent withdrawal from Iraq and a piece on page 4 of the Week in Review about how the Dems aren't really ever likely to do anything about globalization.
.
In "What's the Matter With Kansas," Thomas Frank clobbered the Republicans with the bait-and-switch club, accusing them of campaigning on one set of issues and delivering a completely different set of policies when they won office. You could pretty much say the same for Dems on the big issues that affect the great majority of Americans' lives every day--the horribly globalizing economy and war.
.
You could throw in climate change, too. Other than Al Gore, I haven't heard one Dem talk about the kind of actions that would be necessary, according to the recent UN climate conference, to avoid the imminent tipping points of carbon and methane release that will kill off most human life. Of course, this dwarfs all other issues combined, but you don't get any sense of that from the Dems, either.
.
So maybe, at long last, it's time to think seriously about dumping the mainstream candidates of both parties and considering only the fringe-dwellers. Otherwise, nothing's ever going to change.

Ignoring ideology, if for no other reason than the reality of Scud attacks on Israel in 1991, Saddam was a direct military threat to Israel. While the Scud and its derivatives, for various technical reasons, were unlikely platforms for delivering WMD, I make no argument that Saddam certainly tried to project himself, within the region, as the counterbalance to Israel, gaining regional face from it.

Saddam also demonstrably provided support for terrorist ground operations against Israel. I make no argument that Saddam did not represent some real threat against Israel.

Bush, however, gave the impression that Iraq was a clear and present WMD and terrorism threat against the United States. Saddam, however, had no direct means, other than smuggling, to reach the US with WMD payloads. From Saddam's unquestionably cunning perspective, what advantage could he gain by supporting a terrorist attack against the US, given the high probability of major retaliation, based on existing military sanctions of no-fly zones and the occasional cruise missile attack?

Please help me out from a geopolitical standpoint. Israel certainly had reason to consider Iraq a threat. There was very little reason to believe Iraq was a threat to the US. I am forced to conclude, therefore, that a major motivator for the Bush Administration priority against Iraq was Israeli, or associated domestic support, political pressure.

Having a place to put bases does fit into the PNAC agenda, but primarily landlocked Iraq is a poor place to put bases. There's always the arguments for oil industry stability, and outright contractor benefit.

Nevertheless, I am unable to find a terribly good reason for the US getting into Iraq were there no Israeli factors. Do you consider this an unreasonable analysis?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Your analysis has reason, but I think you want to know more than whether it is unreasonable. The problem with your analysis is that you assume that Bush et al. only acted rationally and without consideration of the political advanatage they achieved by going to war against Iraq.

Howard,

excellent view.

I have never been convinced that Saddam was a threat to the United States. Saddam seems to have went from ally to enemy when George HW Bush became President and issued his "New World Order" which sounds eerily similar to "The Project for the New American Century". In my opinion, Saddam is like Hugo Chavez, neither of them dislike America or the American people, but both of them thoroughly dislike the Bush family. George Jr supported a coup against Chavez in 2002 which didn't work and Saddam's overthrow was Act ll.

Saddam + Chavez + Oil = Bush Family Evil Empire.

With that said, I think much of what we do in the middle east has a connection to our support for Israel.

I think we went to Iraq because of a convergence of interests, Oil/Israel.

Don Key,

Jews have a tragic history, as I think most peoples do, but to imply racist motives to political criticism because of that history is just a subtle way to chill that criticism.

Therefore, we must not even examine the role of antisemitism or antisemitic elements within criticism of Israel or Zionism without being accused of chilling such criticism and stifling the debate.  Heads you win, tales we lose.  That's some catch, that Catch-22.  It's the best there is....

Don:

The only thing I ask is that you read my post incredibly carefully before suggesting, as I think you are, that I would imply a racist motive to anything you have written today, or on any other day. I have not; I have generally had nothing but praise for your comments, and we rarely agree.

I respectfully reserve the right not to ignore history in explaining not only where I come from but, more importantly, from where come the multitude of Jewish Americans who spend less time than I do reading reasoned arguments on left-of-center blogs about extraordinary Jewish influence.

I also reserve the right not to automatically reject the notion that all criticism of Israel is necessarily devoid of deeply-seeded historical impressions of the Jewish People.

And, finally, I leave it to my fellow Jews to tell me, in the end, whether or not my advocacy has been a disservice to them.

Thank you.

Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York

Exactly right. 

There is no question that a desire to improve Israeli security was at least some of the motive for some of the people advising Bush.  If the people who suspect the nefarious influence of Israel left it at that, I'd say fine.  But it is telling that they are unable to leave things at that.

Surely you jest, Bruce, in assuming that I assume Bush was rational, and used anything other than considerations of political expediency. :-) Indeed, I'd even broaden the assumption about political advantages, not so much specifically about jeopardy to Israel, but to the Rovian flexibility given by being to use "terrorism" as the all-purpose justification.

Nevertheless, some of this political advantage came from a spectrum of pandering to the fears of groups concerned generally about the safety of Israel, to particular factions within those groups who believe that the iron fist in the iron glove is the best way to ensure Israeli strategic superiority.

"Strategic superiority", incidentally, is not meant in any negative way toward the State of Israel. Other than, perhaps, Costa Rica, every state seeks a strategic superiority, unless at the level of power where there can be a MAD-style stability from rough equality and general assumptions of rationality.

My concern about an unhealthy political relationship between US and Israeli factions is that a large war, with secondary effects on relations between the US and both national and non-national actors, can be triggered by no more than a potential domestic political advantage.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Why did Israel need the US to kick over Saddam? Several reasons, which were first demonstrated in the emergency US response to Saddam's Scud attacks on Israel in 1991. It was not only a Bush 41 concern that the coalition could fall apart if Israel directly counterattacked Iraq. I cannot believe that Israel considered it in its net strategic balance, as long as a coalition could engage Iraq and even draw away the Israeli focus of Arab nationalists, to have other forces deal with Iraq.

The Osirak example is not equivalent, since that was a matter of a single air mission to take out a point target. That mission did not only risk condemnation at the diplomatic level, but, unless there were secret overflight agreements, risked confrontation with Saudi Arabia and Jorday when overflying their airspace. Operation OPERA, the Osirak strike, also took advantage of a niche in time, since it was launched from Etzion Air Base in the Sinai, later turned back to Egypt. Done later, a third Arab nation might have been involved, in the eyes of anti-Israeli opinion, of permitting the attack.

Osirak is also not equivalent, in that a single strategic strike by 14 aircraft could not have "knocked over" Saddam's regime. Since Israel shared no border with Iraq, to take out Saddam with heavy ground forces, it would have been necessary to make a far less deniable penetration of other Arab states. Failing a major ground operation with huge logistics, and the low probability of an assassination, about all that would remain to Israel, without the cooperation of other nations' combat forces, would be nuclear strikes with Jericho missiles.

I don't disagree that the Bush administration played the political card for all it was worth, but I really don't see a feasible military alternative for Israel itself to have achieved the same result. Can you suggest an operation by which it could have done so?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard,
Never attribute to malice, what can easily be explained by stupidity

Let's review :
After first Iraq war the consensus was to keep Saddam in the box using WMD as an excuse. For 8 years Clinton Administration kept Saddam in the box , using WMD myth as an excuse.
Keeping Saddam in the box was not free and became harder and harder.
Bush didn’t like idea of keeping Saddam in the box given increasing cost of doing so.
He used WMD myth developed by Clinton to take care of Saddam.

That was not unreasonable idea.
Look at East Europe, where several dictators were overthrown and new democratic countries emerged. Look at Romania where Saddam like dictator Ceausescu was killed,
and Romanians lived happily after.

Bush & Co made just small one mistake, Iraq is not Romania it’s Yugoslavia but much worse...

Bruce,

In short, those who argue that the Israeli Lobby is THE reason that the United States is in Iraq, and who ignore, intentionally or otherwise, that such arguments against Jews have been made time and again and then some (this isn't the first time that Jews have been seen as less than loyal to the King, Queen, Emperor, President, Chancelor or Prime Minister), are just not seeing a complete picture.

This is a non-sequitur. If you read my comment, you'll see that I did not accuse you of accusing me of any accusations, or something like that. I know you didn't say that I had racist motives (I'm just "not seeing the complete picture"). Your reply does imply some things and my answer has about the same amount of inference. We have disagreed, but I have not questioned your motives or ethics. It's just that these arguments seem to lead to- impugning Israel=impugning Jews and impugning Jews, well....

And I originally meant that the push from pro-Israeli influences is what primarily led us into Iraq. Reasons I don't know about. Good reasons, there were none. I also think that influence works both ways and Israeli boys and girls may not have died in the Lebanon conflict last summer if not for U.S. influence. These behind the scenes machinations are not discussed, of course. I don't know about Israeli media but Elliot Abrams, for example, is not mentioned that much in our press. 

I respect and defend your right to say anything you like, too, just as I retain the right to argue that you're changing the subject if that's how I see it. Crying anti-Semitism (not accusing you here) to justify Israeli actions is just another elephant in the room. And the point I was making about a disservice to all Jews meant not every Jew would want to be equated with Israel's every deed.

If one argues that criticism of Israel is criticism of the Jewish people, then one is saying Israel's deeds, which have included terrorism and ethnic cleansing, are the deeds of the Jewish people everywhere. I do not see it that way. If you are saying I have no right to come to conclusions about Jews since I am not one, then there is little I can say. Peace.

You are right. I am willing to explain almost any Bush decision based on stupidity and opportunism, especially since the colonoscopy appears not to have demonstrated Cheney to be inhabiting Bush's body.

I wouldn't say the WMD situation was the only reason to contain Saddam after 1991. Especially if he launched a short sharp attack along with diplomatic pressures to get Coalition forces out of the area, he remained a threat to Kuwait, and an air/missile threat to Saudi economic targets.

In 1991, Iraqi chemical weapons were not a myth. They were found and decontaminated in some ammunition dumps, caused contamination when others blew, and Iraq revealed some chemical and biological weapons to UN inspectors. Nevertheless, I believe the main reason Saddam never used them was a combination of deterrence, and the practical engineering reason that he had no reliable delivery systems beyond cannon range. Adding credence to this reason is that the most advanced capabilities found by UN inspectors were missiles of prohibited range. I consider the theory that Saddam mothballed the warhead program until he had a reasonable number of reliable missiles to be quite plausible.

Romania is a bit happier than Iraq after the regime fell. Could it be that Saddam's wives got away but Ceaucescu's didn't?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Don:

This discussion would be much easier if you were a jerk or some reasonable facsimile thereof, but from all I can tell you are a true gentleman, and you are both genuine and passionate about the beliefs you hold. And I don't question your right to question anything.

Peace to you my brother.

Bruce

"In 1991, Iraqi chemical weapons were not a myth."

However, calling that weapon WMD was highly misleading.
In anyway, my point was that Bush in 2001 had several bad options about Iraq, but he chose the worst for reason that had little to do with Israel.

I totally agree. I think that both the Democrats and Republicans suck at foreign policy. The Democrats have been outright cowardly and abandoning people who live abroad to civil war, and anything that plays well as a talking point. The Republicans went from hating nation-building to being in favor of it, to support Iraq. Both parties also just do whatever Israel wants, regardless of who Israel bombs or what territory it takes.

--------------
cool world political forum

Implications in the sense of ideas or concepts that may lead to presumptions, intended or otherwise.  Israel is a country, and all countries are infected with human nature.  So, I do not believe that criticism of Israel is necessarily antisemitic.  Nevertheless, there is constructive criticism and there is bigotry, and the former may be exploited in service of the latter.

What territory has Israel taken in the last forty years, rogerspunditry?

I think you ought to give people a little credit for having a sense of hearing.

If the US attacks Russia over the Arctic or China over Taiwan or Cuba over the Cuban lobby -- it would not even occur to me to blame the Israeli lobby.

But this is just one example of what I hear: I'm driving to work at 7 am with my Air America station delivering left wing news and commentary. The station breaks for a commercial and what do I hear: The American Jewish Committee tells me that they are in fact The Amercan Jewish Committee and they want me to know even before I've had my first cup of coffee that Iran is a threat to Israel. They somehow believe I'm going to be able to do something about that right here in the middle of Minneapolis.

So, if the US attacks Iran, it just might occur to me that the Israeli lobby had some influence. People advertise to have influence.

There is no conspiracy about this. It's open, out there, in our face from FOX to Air America. You'd be a fool not to connect the dots.

Now, I'm not for one minute accusing all Jews or a majority of Jews or even a large number of Jews of staging this propaganda campaign. But the Jews who are have hijacked your lobby so blatantly that whether they are in fact the "Israeli lobby" they are going to be what average Americans think of when they think of the "Israeli lobby".

So blame the messenger, not the listener.

Sad.

I assume whoever buys the air time (though maybe I should thank them for a charitable donation to Air America, it's not like they have many sponsors) knows it's going on the air first thing in the morning. I'm just not in the mood for threats at that time (Syria and Lebanon are threats too. They told me. Several times) and it tempts me to change the channel over to a Clear Channel lite station even if I have to put up with the pop Jesus rock.

Yes, I guess I better find Garrison Keillor on MPR. He's doing a wonderful liberal column now too.

Thank you, sir, and thanks for clearing me of being a jerk! Really, I'm surprised I haven't sounded like one as I've been laid up for days in a great deal of pain and really can't think too straight (or judge my tone). I know what you mean, though, and your kind words do make it harder to argue. Pretty slick, dude. :)

This is about the touchiest subject, but it is also one of the most relevant to everyone these days. Israel may not be a religious state as such but the subject seems to bring out the same sensitivities as discussing religion. When I first waded into I-P discussions here, anti-Semite was one of the nicer things I was called. I'm not that thin-skinned, but it was so obviously being used to sidetrack or end argument or excuse Israeli behaviors that I may be hypersensitive to that "card" being played.

Anyway, it seems like politics and government policies and actions are very important in the world right now. And thanks be to the internet and sites like TPMCafe. I think many of us, older folk especially, sense a dangerous drift away from popular democracy and are rightly concerned about what America is doing in the world and why.

I'm going to respond to your last paragraph as a new post in this thread rather than as a reply, as it's too important to put into ever-narrowing margins.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I am not familiar with the ad campaign, bluebell.  Unless you can be a bit more clear about what it has revealed to you about the AJC's position regarding Iran, we cannot know what you are upset about (aside from simply being drawn into the controversy on the morning drive).  A quick and casual visit to the AJC website did not turn up anything that is to me particularly hawkish about Iran.  There are opinion pieces and press releases regarding all sorts of issues, from urging stronger CAFE standards in the energy bill recently passed in the House to protests over the British boycott of Israeli academia.

There is obviously controversy over the extent of an Iranian threat to US national security interests, if indeed there is any real threat at all.  This is discussed in a variety of media all across the political spectrum, from the militant hysteria of FoxNews to the Center for American Progress. and with various combinations of purposes to persuade, inform and propagandize.  So, we can't really be sure about the nature of the blame you would have us shift from listener to messenger in this instance.

Howard,

There are several dimensions to this, and one where I need some information you or others may give.

There obviously can be nearly infinite dimensions to this, if by "this" you mean my answer to JohnW1141's question regarding implications.  But I'm not sure what sort of information you are after.  The best answer I can offer to your haredi question, and I don't really mean to be glib about it, is that it depends upon the haredim that you would put the question to.

"Coalitions" and "factions" is perhaps more accurate than "groups". I'd have to do some searching to come back with specific cites I have read.

In all sincerity, I find it difficult to respond to a question about their generally believing in the extent of a threat from Iran. As I think I indicated with a quantitative analysis, I think their threat is irrational, disproportionate, and, if carried out, massively counterproductive. Still, let me cite one MIT analysis that, without naming the particular supporters, seems to have been motivated by enough heat that it would be worthwhile to understand what an Israeli-only attack would involve.

If you want, I can expand on their analysis to include capabilities the US has and Israel does not. I mention such capabilities because, purely in the context of the target vulnerability analysis rather than any rational strategy to attack the target system, nuclear weapons are not needed. The US EBGU-34 precision guided but conventional explosive deep penetrating bomb, delivered from high altitude from B-2 bombers, is vastly more potent than any non-nuclear weapon in the Israeli arsenal. Also, the greater US capability would allow concurrent attacks on Iranian electrical power to nuclear facilities, multiple simultaneous failures of which could cause even more catastrophic failures than direct bombing.

Look at the above, and consider how many threads at this site have argued with the issue of "nukes being on [or not on] the table." Have any actually examined why "nukes" rather than other weapons would be more appropriate if an attack were planned? If so, which ones? Why? I suspect that many of those making such arguments wouldn't know a B61-11 from a W88, or even the general type to be used. There seems a widespread assumption that a "nuke" just destroys all, and/or contaminates all.

Do I think they have arrived at their positions reasonably? Not at all. When has that stopped politicians and interest influencers? I am willing to give GWB the doubt that he read reasonably from My Pet Goat, but not much else.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Are there haredi, resident in Israel and considered citizens by the Israeli government, who will not participate in Israeli politics? Indeed, are there some that refuse to consider themselves Israeli citizens?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard,

Look at the above, and consider how many threads at this site have argued with the issue of "nukes being on [or not on] the table." Have any actually examined why "nukes" rather than other weapons would be more appropriate if an attack were planned? If so, which ones? Why? I suspect that many of those making such arguments wouldn't know a B61-11 from a W88, or even the general type to be used.

I honestly don't know a B61-11 from a W88 myself, and is largely why I tend to read those particular threads while keeping my virtual mouth shut.

So, if you believe that these coalitions and factions have not reached their conclusions reasonably, would you or could you say that they have arrived at their positions honestly?  Or are you suggesting a greater level of cynicism?

In most cases, I would say "hysterical" is more accurate than "dishonest". Dishonesty implies at least some minimal knowledge of truth.

In other cases, yes, I believe the motivation is utterly cynical. As I've seen so many times in sales campaigns to executives unfamiliar with technology, the goal of the campaign is to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). In the case of the White House political operatives, I believe that there is a desire to create sufficient FUD about "terrorism" to be able to cite that as a reason, with the details, of course, being secret.

In no way am I suggesting you've made unreasonable statements about "nukes", or indeed, that I remember offhand, any. I refer to the level of public pronouncements about things being on and off a table, when the pronouncers wouldn't recognize the thing if it rolled off the table and hit their foot.

Cynicism still may not be the right word. In a different context, I keep hearing demands for immediate military intervention in Darfur, with no apparent understanding of how forces, or even greater humanitarian efforts, could be supplied. I recognize that many politicians wouldn't know what a transportation map would be or why it is relevant, although some, such as Wesley Clark, really do know better.

It has been suggested that the IQ of a mob is equal to that of its dumbest member, divided by the number of people in the mob. Many calls for military action appear at that level.

I am utterly serious, however, when I say I hear people in the US and Israel proposing conventional or nuclear strikes against Iran, without any clear idea of the purpose other than "shaming the devil", or something equally pecise.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard,

thanks for another History lesson. When you aren't offering opinion I can always rely on you for objective and interesting reporting. As to your opinions, I never feel you're trying to sell me something, so I value them.

When you reflect on the 40s and 50s, as you do here, I find it educational to learn what was going on behind the scenes in those years as I was living them, (Sleepwalking through history?)completely oblivious to what was behind the curtain.

My interest in politics and national affairs came late, during the Reagan years. I was a Reagan Democrat until I finally got some depth.

yours truly,

old never too old to learn John :-)