Thanks, slb. I guess great minds think alike .

Posted at January 8, 2008 9:53 PM in response to Results Open Thread

Thanks, slb. I'm sure we'll hear more soon, but your response eases my mind.

Posted at January 8, 2008 9:45 PM in response to Results Open Thread

My major problem with Hillary was her Authorization for the Use of Military Force vote in October 2002 and her continued support for the Iraq invasion for a very long time. Since she still calls for a 'residual' force of 20-30,000 to remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future, I can't help but think that she has as much of a taste for Iraqi oil as Bush does. I really like Bill Clinton but now that I look back I don't see any miracles coming out of his administration. Of course part of this result was that he had a Republican Congress most of the time. But his cooperation with Repubs on his Welfare Reform bill has hurt many, many people; his push for sanctions on Iraq during the 90's when Europeans were starting to be sympathetic to the inhumane deaths of Iraqi children doesn't speak well for him. He got rid of the deficit and was generally excellent for the environment. If I'm missing any great liberal successes let me know. I admit that he was immensely likeable.

Posted at January 8, 2008 8:50 PM in response to Results Open Thread

Well, not really, whiterosebuddy. The boomer generation is made up of quite a few different political demographics. Even the anti-Vietnam War generation was only about 50% anti-war. I was painfully aware of that in the 60's and early 70's.

Posted at January 8, 2008 8:36 PM in response to Results Open Thread

My thought exactly. When I first started watching coverage tonight, EXIT polls led the media to predict a big Obama win. Guess they were just anomalous exit polls like in Ohio 2004. I know, I'm full of sour grapes. Still, I'd like this discrepancy to be discussed. Am I wrong that they were using exit polls as predictors?

Posted at January 8, 2008 8:31 PM in response to Results Open Thread

Well, I'm totally depressed. Not because I'm pro-Obama but because I'm anti-Hillary. And I'm a boomer female, one of those who apparently voted strongly for Hillary in NH. Well, tomorrow's another day...

Posted at January 8, 2008 7:38 PM in response to Results Open Thread

My two-cents worth: I'm neither a Clinton nor an Obama supporter so with any luck bias will not play a part in my comment. A large part of Obama's appeal to many Dems is his firm stand against the Iraq War, both in its inception and its currently disastrous consequences. It's only rational politics that he would take every opportunity to use Clinton's (and Edward's) war resolution vote as his best weapon in this campaign. And, quite frankly, I think he has a point in saying that had the US not been intentionally misled into a war having absolutely nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9/11 and instead had focused on Afghanistan and its reconstruction and northern Pakistan, then the threats still existent in that region would be considerably less. That's simply a realistic view on US policy. Whether such a wise policy would have 'saved' Bhutto from assassination is anyone's guess. The fact that her return to Pakistan was largely brokered by the US and Britain as a means to achieve a more aggressive anti-terrorist Pakistan should also be given
a certain amount of blame for the current crisis. US attempts at regime change, whether military or whatever you would call this move of bringing Bhutto back, almost always lead to tragedy for the people of the country involved.

As to the comment about the FBI, Scotland Yard and Mossad being asked for security help by Bhutto, I can't imagine that such a forthright foreign presence would have been appreciated by the Pakistani people and would have rather clearly shown the world what was taking place in Bhutto's return, i.e., regime change approved by Western powers. This isn't to say that Bhutto didn't want to return, just that the timing was too dangerous and should have been given higher priority.

Posted at December 29, 2007 2:39 PM in response to Al Qaeda Did It?

"The violence then (and now) stems from sectarian strife–i.e., sunnis versus shias."

This certainly has been true since the invasion, along with the Sunni insurgency waged against US occupiers. However, the times may be a'changin. A report in the Asia Times emphasizes the importance of the visit to Tehran by the leaders of the two Shia groups, al Sadr and al Hakim, where a 'truce' was agreed to between the two, putting a unified Iraq above intra-Shiite fighting. The principles of the truce included no US super-bases to remain in Iraq and no giveaway of Iraqi oil wealth to foreign interests. Another outcome of the truce was that al Hakim went to talk with Sunni leaders about a unified effort to push the US out of Iraq. So, only time will tell, but it looks like the Iraqis may be getting their act together.

Posted at October 18, 2007 11:30 AM in response to General McChrystal is Right, Al Qaeda is a Non-Factor

I had the same idea about the Holocaust Denial Conference as you. Yesterday I googled it and found that although Holocaust deniers were among the attendees it wasn't limited to just that group. At least two of the people who attended were Iranian Jews who firmly acknowledged that the Holocaust did indeed occur but disagreed with the subsequent creation of Israel (because of Palestinian dislocation) and Zionist policy in general. I can sort of guess what is happening here by my own reaction to 9/11 and my tendency to sometimes give consideration to 'conspiracy theories' about that day. Intellectually I know that I'm going out on a limb, but emotionally, because of everything that has happened since (two wars, loss of habeus corpus, surveillance, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, torture of detainees, etc., etc.) I'm sometimes tempted to look for a rationale that explains why things have taken the course they have in the last 7 years. I can imagine that Ahmadinejab and others in the ME, because of their emotional response to the plight of the Palestinians, are drawn to conspiracy theories about the Holocaust, as if there has to be more to the story than meets the eye.

Posted at September 26, 2007 11:38 PM in response to Two Presidents Make Fools of Themselves at Columbia

I'm so angry and embarrassed as an American citizen by Bollinger's insanely rude and INACCURATE remarks preceding Ahmadinejad's speech. I have nothing but contempt for Columbia's president.

As for Ahmadinejab, I listened to his speech on C-span last night and found myself agreeing with 90% of what he said. I found the 'no gays in Iran' remark to be coy, accompanied by a smile and a little joke. A. was (according to my take) saying that gays in Iran remain in the closet. Well, the same goes for gays in the more 'theocratic' parts of the US. As for his 'facts' about US interference in Iran (installing the Shah and supporting Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War, including the use of chemical weapons against Iranians) he was quite correct.

But most of all, I am just astounded and totally amazed by the anti-Iran sentiment expressed by many in the US. Ahmadinejad isn't a dictator; in reality he has very little power. I checked on his domestic policies yesterday and found that many good ones, e.g., building housing for the poor and relaxing hijab (sp?) for women were nixed by the mullahs. More women attend Iranian universities than men. And the nuclear issue? Quite simply, I believe Ahmadinejad. And beyond that, if we are to have an effective Nonproliferation Treaty then we have to abide by its rules and not show favor or disfavor to countries that are allies or 'perceived' enemies. Neither India nor Israel have signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and both have nuclear weapons, uninspected and in the case of Israel, mostly unacknowledged (although everyone knows they exist). Iran has signed NPT, abides by IAEA inspections (for the most part) and has a right to make fuel for civilian nuclear power purposes according to the terms of the treaty. But the US is intent on demonizing the country. I'm just losing it entirely. I'm so sick of this propaganda crap. Oil, oil, oil... Israel, Israel, Israel...

And, as to the Holocaust question, I can't defend Ahmadinejad's interest in 'more research' but do find his pro-Palestininan views very much on mark. Iran has a small Jewish population who are treated with respect. There are synagogues in Tehran. Even though their numbers are not great enough to qualify for a Parliament seat, a seat is given to the Iranian Jewish citizenry so that they have a voice in the government. In case any of you are interested in reading more, I found a lot of this info in the Christian Science Monitor, I think April, of 2007.

Well, enough....

PS: MJ, I think it is always interesting, and potentially enlightening, to hear from any heads of state. It allows one to make personal decisions about the veracity of what that person says and to get a 'feel' for what his/her arguments are in relation to world conflicts or world peace. There are always at least two sides to every story.

Posted at September 25, 2007 2:58 PM in response to Two Presidents Make Fools of Themselves at Columbia