2008 Presidential Election


Israeli panel:
Giuliani is ‘best’ presidential candidate for Israel

By Haaretz Staff
Haaretz.com, 2006-05-09

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani
is the “best” candidate in the 2008 race for Israel,
a panel of eight Israeli experts assembled by Haaretz has determined.

Giuliani is followed by
former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich,
Arizona Senator John McCain and
New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
Ranking [at the] bottom of the list is Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

[For current results from this poll, click here.]


Chuck Hagel for President!
By Robert Scheer
TruthDig.com, 2007-01-16

Chuck Hagel for president!
If it ever narrows down to a choice between him and some Democratic hack
who hasn’t the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq,
then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have my vote.
Yes, the war is that important, and the fact that
Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic candidate,
still can’t or won’t take a clear stand on the occupation
is insulting to the vast majority of voters who have.

The X Factor in 2008 – Iran
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Antiwar.com, 2007-01-23

Hillary Clinton and the Israel Lobby
by Joshua Frank
Antiwar.com, 2007-01-23

Chuck Hagel and the Return of the Old Right
The coming battle for the soul of the GOP
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-01-31

Hagel’s analysis of the “surge” –
and, by implication, the entire Iraqi project –
is sheer incredulity.
He’s asked if the 20,000 or so troops being sent
will be enough to “secure Baghdad,”
and you can almost hear his bitter laugh:

“It’s not ours to secure.
We have never understood that!
We have framed this in a way that never made sense:
‘Win or lose in Iraq.’
Wait a minute! There is no win or loss for us.
The Iraqis will determine how this turns out.
We can help them with our blood and our treasure and our standing,
but in the end they have to deal with the sectarian problems.
That is what’s consuming that country.
It’s not al-Qaeda. It’s not the terrorists.
That’s not the main problem over there.
It’s a civil war!”


The nation sorely needs new leadership,
and who can dispute that the GOP is dying for lack of it?
The neocons have nearly destroyed the good name of conservatism
in pursuit of a revolutionary “Jacobin“ policy,
both at home and abroad.

The Old Right is back, and in Hagel it has, perhaps,
found a formidable and eminently electable candidate.
Which means that
the smear brigade should be going into high gear pretty soon
I’d give them a week or so.
Get ready for the unfounded allegations,
the accusations of “racism” or some other forbidden “ism,”
and of course we’ll have the obligatory effort to throw doubt on his war record.

The Maverick
It’s Hagel
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-02-02

The Hagel boom continues.
[I]t is really beginning to take off now that Peggy Noonan has weighed in.


The problem for Hagel's presidential prospects is that
he has very little cash on hand:
rumors of his retirement from the Senate were due, in part,
to the paucity of money raised for his reelection campaign.

[Perhaps the most relevant comparison is that
the strongly pro-war candidate Joe Lieberman had plenty of money to run with
[2006-08-14-Cantor, 2006-11-08-NYT],
even though he was without (official) support from either party.
On the other hand, the staunchly anti-war candidate Chuck Hagel will,
it is safe to predict, be resource-starved.
What does that say about those who are funding American elections,
and their attitudes towards
a) fighting the wars that the American Jewish Committee and others
have called for, and
b) supporting Israel,
no matter how much it
oppresses Palestinians and flouts the resolutions of the world,
and that support causes ([RCIT] , [WIES]) the above-mentioned war?

It is really discouraging that those candidates who support
Israel’s aggression and oppression and the Middle East wars to enable those
seem to have almost unlimited campaign contributions at their disposal,
while those who oppose the above have to settle for peanuts.
What’s gone wrong with America?]

Hillary’s calculations add up to war
by Robert Scheer
San Francisco Chronicle, 2007-02-21

No matter how much many of us who oppose the war in Iraq
would also love to elect a female president,
Sen. Hillary Clinton is not a peace candidate.
She is an unrepentant hawk, à la Sen. Joe Lieberman.
She believed invading Iraq was a good idea,
all available evidence to the contrary,
and she has, once again, made it clear that she still does.


Congress failed to take seriously the obligation built into
its constitutionally mandated exclusive power to declare war,
and Clinton’s refusal to admit that is not a minor issue.
Paired with her strident support ever since the invasion of Iraq
for a huge increase in the standing army to fight other wars,
including a possible confrontation with Iran,
Clinton shows a fondness for war and bullying adventurism
that vastly overshadows her sensible stances on many domestic issues.
As Barry Goldwater supporters stated in kicking off the Republican revolution,
what we need is a choice, not an echo.

A Horse of a Different Color
Obama, the Lobby, and the next war
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-03-05

[Some excerpts; emphasis is added.]

Israeli lives are more important, more valuable than Palestinian lives:
that is what the occupant of the Oval Office must believe, or,
if he doesn't quite believe it,
then he must keep quiet about it and act as if he does.
Otherwise, he'll never make it to the White House.
[Obama] delivered a truly Orwellian account of the Lebanese-Israeli war...


[Obama said]
“In the end, we also know that we should never seek to dictate
what is best for the Israelis and their security interests.
No Israeli prime minister should ever feel
dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States.”
Obama went before AIPAC,
skillfully executed the ritualized gestures of obeisance
without too brazenly defying his antiwar constituency,
and in this way proved his mettle.
The Democratic candidates have all prostrated themselves before the Lobby
and pledged their undying fealty
to a foreign policy distorted by its pro-Israel bias.
This distortion was given full voice by Obama,
who declared that our interest in the region
“begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel.”
Yes, begins – and ends.
That has been the story for far too long,
and a major cause of our troubles with the Muslim world.
Obama has just signaled that this will not change under his leadership.
How his antiwar supporters will take this –
especially Obama's stated willingness to go to war with Iran –
is an open question,
but my guess is that many are bound to be sorely disappointed.

Hagel Against the War Party
Can the GOP be saved from the neocons?
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-03-11

If Elected ... Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain
New York Times, 2007-03-15

[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees
a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq,
and says that if elected president,
she would keep a reduced military force there to
fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds
and possibly support the Iraqi military.


She said in [an interview] that there were
“remaining vital national security interests in Iraq”
that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

[Her statement is undoubtedly true,
but unfortunately the nation having vital security interests in Iraq
is not America, but Israel.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

“So it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser,” Mrs. Clinton added. She declined to estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of military officers.

Obama’s Identity Crisis
by Steve Sailer
The American Conservative, 2007-03-26

Although he presents himself as a healer of differences,
the presidential candidate’s own racial struggle paints a conflicted portrait.

Hagel’s Stand
by Robert Novak
Washington Post, 2007-04-30

(also available under the title:
Conservative Hagel: Iraq’s ‘coming undone’)

Rudy Giuliani v. Ron Paul, and Reality
by John Nichols

Who’s the Real Peace Candidate? [His answer: Ron Paul]
Posted by W. James Antle III
Taki’s Top Drawer, 2007-05-17

Obama Lines Up Behind Neo-Conservative Campaign Against Iran
by Jim Lobe
LobeLog, 2007-05-18

For Those Interested in Facts:
They Hate Our Foreign Policy

by Scott Horton
Antiwar.com, 2007-05-19

The Ron Paul Effect
Antiwar Republican makes waves – and the Establishment is in shock
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-05-21

Ron Paul’s Reading List for the Farsighted
by Scott Horton
Antiwar.com Blog, 2007-06-02

[Scott Horton writes in part (emphasis is added):]

But by the look of Rudy Giuliani’s beady little eyes,
and knowing how busy he is collecting investments – er, donations –
from those who plan
to make their living off of the taxpayer
in a Giuliani administration,
it is easy to imagine that the self-described hero of 9/11 and terrorism expert
has not been able to sit down and read these books.

[Horton either doesn’t understand (unlikely) or is afraid to mention (very likely)
the real issue here:
That the people funding Giuliani
are not just out to make more money for themselves, but
want to ensure that
the United States continues to be a vassal state of Israel,

fighting its wars for it,
while its population says
“Boy, are we glad that Uncle Sam is taking the pressure off us—
better them than us.”]

Giuliani, the Likud Candidate?
by Jim Lobe
LobeLog, 2007-07-12

[See also 2006-05-09-Haaretz-Giuliani.]

Inside Track: Rudy’s New Foreign Policy Posse
by Philip Giraldi
National Interest Online, 2007-07-12

The naming of leading neoconservative Norman Podhoretz
as one of Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani’s
senior foreign policy advisers
is disconcerting to those Americans who have hoped that
the current disagreements with Iran might be resolved short of war.
Giuliani—together with Mitt Romney and John McCain—
has publicly advocated a military strike against Iran
to keep it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
He has also not ruled out the use of America’s own nuclear weapons
if that should prove necessary to deter Tehran.


Beyond terrorism,
Podhoretz also does not see any difference
between Israel’s broader security concerns
and those of the United States,

an assumption that is basically fallacious and
which ultimately benefits neither Israel nor Washington.
Of particular concern is
the possibility that Rudy Giuliani has “bought in”
to the world view expressed by Podhoretz
and that his willingness to incorporate those positions
will bring about a shift by Romney and McCain.
As Giuliani is the front-runner,
McCain and Romney might seek to outflank him in foreign policy
by embracing even more hard-line positions
that would be even less in the U.S. national interest.

What Clinton (Almost) Doesn’t Say
By Fred Hiatt
Washington Post, 2007-07-16

[Some of the emphasis is added.]

IOWA, July 10 --
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
traveled to this crucial caucus state today to assure voters that
she would keep U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future
“we cannot lose sight of
our very real strategic national interests in this region.”

You missed that news story? Me, too.
It’s not the message Clinton wanted to convey,
and it’s not the message that reporters took away from her speech.

But it would have been an accurate, if incomplete, rendition
of her long address on Iraq policy.
she wanted to go on the record with such a view,
but didn’t want voters to really hear it,

says much about the current Washington bind on Iraq policy.

Here’s what she wanted voters to take away from the speech,
judging by the top of the campaign’s press release about it:
“Today in Iowa,
Hillary Clinton announced her plan to end the war in Iraq
and urged President Bush to act immediately.”
Most of the address indeed focused on her plan to withdraw combat troops,
which she said she would accompany with increased aid and diplomacy.
She peppered the speech with criticism of Bush’s war leadership
and with phrases such as “as we are leaving Iraq.”

But toward the end, Clinton noted that
it would be “a great worry for our country”
if Iraq “becomes a breeding ground for exporting terrorists,
as it appears it already is.”
So she would “order specialized units
to engage in narrow and targeted operations
against al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.”
U.S. troops would also train and equip Iraqi forces
“to keep order and promote stability in the country,
but only to the extent we believe such training is actually working.”
And she might deploy other forces to protect the Kurdish region in the north,
she said,
“to protect the fragile but real democracy and relative peace and security
that has developed there.”


Democratic primary voters do not want to hear of adjustments, redeployments, reductions.
They want all troops out, now.
That is why Clinton will devote
one paragraph to the military defense “of
our very real strategic national interests in this region”
and more than 10 pages to troop withdrawal.

[Can’t reporters demand a clear, written definition from Hillary
of precisely what she considers
“our very real strategic national interests in this region”?
Aren’t we, the American electorate, owed that much
from a serious presidential candidate
concerning an issue so vital to the nation?

Her response will, predictably, cite
the threat of terrorism being “spawned” or “bred” in Iraq.
But can’t the reporters then follow up by asking
if there are not better, for America, solutions to that problem
other than continuing American military involvement in Iraq,
where we are so clearly not wanted by so many Iraqis?
Solutions which might involve challenging
the insane party line of the “elite” that
“they hate us for our freedoms.”
And if she refuses to deviate from that conventional wisdom
(more accurately, that conventional lie),
then refer their readers to, for example,
Michael Scheuer’s Imperial Hubris or
Stephen Walt’s Taming American Power
for worthwhile alternative solutions to the threat of terrorism,
endorsed by leading (former) CIA analysts and Harvard professors.]

Hillary’s Late Hit
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Antiwar.com, 2007-07-27

[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]

When, in the South Carolina debate,
Barack Obama said he would meet with
the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran and North Korea
in his first year as president,
he stepped into [politically dangerous territory].


Should not the United States be in constant contact
with those we see as enemies,
to prevent irreconcilable differences from leading us into war?

Here, Obama’s instincts are not wrong.

During World War II and the Cold War,
FDR and Harry Truman met with Josef Stalin.
Ike invited the “Butcher of Budapest
for a 10-day tour of the United States and tête-à-tête at Camp David.
JFK met Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna – after he declared, “We will bury you.”
Richard Nixon went to China and toasted the tyrant responsible for the deaths of thousands of GIs in Korea and greatest mass murderer of the last century,
Mao Zedong.

None of the five with whom Obama said he would meet
is in the same league with these monsters of the 20th century.


All of these rulers wish to be seen as defying the United States,
but not one of them – not North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela or Iran –
can seriously be seeking a major war with the United States
that would bring wreckage and ruin to any or all of them.

What we have in common with them is that neither of us wants a hot war.
As for a cold war,
does any one of these nations
represent a long-term strategic or ideological threat
to a United States of 300 million,
with 30 percent of the world’s economy,
and the best air force, navy and army on earth,
and a nuclear arsenal of thousands of weapons?

If Bush can bring Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi,
who was responsible for Pan Am 103,
the Lockerbie massacre of American school kids,
in from the cold,
why cannot we talk with Hamas and Hezbollah and Assad and Ahmadinejad?

What has any of them done to us compared to what Gadhafi did?

Though poorly stated, Barack Obama had a point.

Onward – Into Waziristan!
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Antiwar.com, 2007-08-03

[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]

With Hillary Clinton’s lead growing, Barack Obama appears to be overreaching to keep the spotlight and highlight their differences.

His suggestion that sex education begin in kindergarten seems a great leap forward even for a liberal Democrat. While Barack says it must be “age-appropriate” sex education, one need not be Roger Ailes to imagine what the GOP oppo-research boys can do with this one.

In the CNN-YouTube debate, Barack, asked if he would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Syria, Venezuela, Iran and North Korea in his first year as president “without precondition,” blurted yes.

Should he get the nomination, imagine an ad twinning photos of Obama and Fidel (or brother Raúl), Hugo Chávez, Kim Jong-Il and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, titled, “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner at Barack’s House?”

At the Woodrow Wilson Center on Wednesday, Barack attacked Hillary from both flanks. By giving Bush a blank check for war, said Barack, with Clinton in mind, “Congress became co-author of a catastrophic war.”

Then, Barack stepped smartly to his right and assumed the stance of tough-minded realist who opposes the Iraq war because he wants to fight the real war, against al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorists. Obama pledged to send 7,000 more U.S. troops into Afghanistan and, if Pakistan does not go after al-Qaeda in its border provinces, to slash U.S. aid and send in U.S. troops to chase down the terrorists.

“There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans,” said Barack. “They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Now a threat to intervene in a friendly country
against the will of its government
is serious business,
especially when it is a nation of 170 million Muslims,
seething with anti-Americanism, which has atom bombs.

If Barack is talking abut covert operatives and special forces slipping into Pakistan, or surgical strikes with Predator drones, that is one thing, best done quietly and with the complicity of Musharraf.

But if Barack is talking about sending U.S. ground forces into Waziristan or Baluchistan, why would this not leave us in another mess like Iraq, with the U.S. Army bleeding and no way out? Would not Osama bin Laden rejoice in a border crossing by U.S. troops into Pakistan, enraging the Pakistani nationalists as well as the border tribes?

After half a decade of fighting in the Islamic world,
has not the lesson sunk in with the hawks of both parties?
U.S. troops in an Arab or Muslim country
are more likely to create an insurgency
than quell one.

The primary reason Osama gave for declaring war was that U.S. troops were occupying soil sacred to all Muslims – Saudi Arabia, home to Mecca. After 9/11, we pulled our troops out at the request of the king. This was an admission that our vast military presence there did not make the Saudis safer, it made them more vulnerable.

[The question is,
how much military intervention in the Muslim world
can the U.S. get away with?
After 9/11,
surely even the most anti-American Muslim could see that
some response would be forthcoming, and even, in its own way, justified.
But how much of the Muslim world can be attacked,
based on that one Muslim attack on the U.S.?
So far, we have attacked Afghanistan and Iraq,
and are threating to bomb Iran and invade Pakistan.
Prominent American Jews want us to attack Syria and other Arab states also.
Israel, whose policies we support almost without question,
caused vast damage in Lebanon,
after a half-dozen or so of its soldiers were killed or captured
by the Hezbollah militia (not by the Lebanese Army).
This doesn’t just look like an attack on the Muslim world,
it is an attack on the Muslim world.

It is way past time for America to stop being such a patsy of the Zionists,
for its own good.]

Hillary, Hiroshima, and Hubris
Justifying mass murder
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-08-08

Romney Wins Iowa Straw Poll by a Sizable Margin
New York Times, 2007-08-12

What is wrong with this article from America’s “newspaper of record”?
Nowhere does it give the results, for all ten candidates.
Would that have been so hard?
How can the NYT claim to be America’s “newspaper of record”
when it won’t even give such basic numerical data,
from which its readers could draw their own conclusions,
preferring instead to inundate the reader
with spin and anecdotes of questionable significance.

For what the results were, see here.
They were:
1. Mitt Romney – 32 percent
2. Mike Huckabee – 18 percent
3. Sam Brownback – 15 percent
4. Tom Tancredo – 14 percent
5. Ron Paul – 9 percent
6. Tommy Thompson — 7 percent
7. Fred Thompson – 1 percent
8. Rudolph W. Giuliani – 1 percent
9. Duncan Hunter – 1 percent
10. John McCain (less than 1 percent)
11. John Cox (less than 1 percent)

The NYT only gave the figures, and places, for the top three.

Why was that?
The reason, I think, was quite obvious to any intelligent, unbiased observer of the media scene.
The fourth and fifth place finishers,
who each got a respectable percent of the vote,
are anathema to the (let’s not beat around the bush) Jews who run the media,
Paul because he is speaking the truth about
why America is hated by much of the world, and
Tancredo because he is trying to stop
the plan (so loved by the bulk of the Democrats)
to turn America into a minority-white nation.
Why do anything to further their electability,
such as showing their respectable performance here?

Rabbis say Clinton would be best for Israel
Israel Today, 2007-09-12

A majority of US rabbis polled in an annual pre-Rosh Hashanah survey said
Senator Hillary Clinton
is the US presidential candidate most supportive of Israel.

Two hundred rabbis from all denominations participated in the survey,
which was conducted by a Jewish leadership organization called STAR,
reported the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

STAR officials noted that
“when asked which party is more supportive of Israel,
almost half, 49 percent, say there is no difference in parties,
21 percent point to the Republican Party as more supportive...whereas
16 percent cite the Democratic Party as more supportive of Israel.”

As for which candidate would best serve Israel’s interests,
a 41 percent majority said they were still unsure.
The candidate receiving the most votes was Clinton, with 22 percent.
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani came in second place
with 16 percent of the vote.

It was Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton,
who oversaw the “Oslo” peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians,
an ongoing process that most conservatives
There seems to be a peculiar definition of conservative going around these days,
that being conservative requires supporting
Israel’s illegal, immoral, unjust, and terrorism-producing policies.]

in Israel and the US
now recognize as a monumental error.
Hillary Clinton would be expected to maintain
her husband’s course in Israeli-Arab peacemaking,
while Giuliani wrote last month that
it was “not in the interest of the United States,
at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists,
to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism.”

Clinton gets boost from rabbi poll,
calls for undivided Jerusalem

By Ron Kampeas
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 2007-09-12

[Emphasis is added.]

In her new position paper on Israel, Hillary Rodham Clinton comes
not only to praise the Jewish state
but to bury doubts that she would be any less vigilant in its protection
than the Bush administration.

The position paper, published this week, goes so far
as to outflank President Bush from the right.

It says Clinton, the U.S. senator from New York
and frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination
“believes that Israel’s right to exist in safety as a Jewish state,
with defensible borders and
an undivided Jerusalem as its capital,
secure from violence and terrorism,
must never be questioned.”

Clinton’s paper comes at a time when the Bush administration
is quietly pressing the Israelis and the Palestinians
to come up with a final-status outline ahead of a November peace conference --
one that would address, among other issues,
redrawn borders and a shared Jerusalem.

Spokesmen for Clinton denied that the language
was timed to undercut the latest initiative.

“She’s had these positions for a long time and those haven’t changed,” spokesman Jin Chon told JTA. “Her experience and strength on supporting Israel have been steadfast. The paper is just a reflection of her consistent policy.”

Perhaps, but Clinton faces challenges for Jewish support from two flanks:
Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor who is a Republican front-runner,
has moved even further to the right of Bush, saying that
now is not the time to consider Palestinian statehood.
And Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), her chief rival for the Democratic nomination,
has made considerable inroads among liberal Jewish donors.

Despite the stepped-up challenges from Obama and Giuliani,
a recent poll of 200 rabbis from all of the major denominations
named her as the presidential candidate
most supportive of Israel and Jewish causes.

According to the survey conducted by a synagogue innovation and leadership organization called STAR, Synagogues: Transformation and Renewal,
Clinton polled highest on the Israel question, at 22 percent,
followed by Giuliani at 16 percent and
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at 3 percent.

Clinton also was ranked as
most supportive of Jewish causes in America in general
with 24 percent,
followed again by Giuliani with 10 percent
and Obama with 3 percent.

Ben Chouake, who heads New Jersey-based NORPAC,
one of the most successful pro-Israel political action fund-raising committees,
gave high marks to Clinton’s paper.

“I think it’s helpful,” Choake said, but added that
he liked Giuliani’s approach of counting out Palestinian statehood for now
“the best.”

“If you want to make a deal,
you have to have someone you can make a deal with that’s credible and reliable,
that can afford to make the deal, otherwise you’re surrendering,” he said.

The paper revives the July Clinton-Obama contretemps over Iran,
widely believed to have been won -- at least among pro-Israel watchers --
by Clinton.
In a debate, Obama said he would meet with the leaders of pariah nations
within his first year as president.
Clinton said she would not.

In the new paper, Clinton does not concede ground to Obama in favoring diplomacy over military confrontation,
but implicitly derides summits with rogue leaders, at least before the time is ripe.

“Just as the U.S. government was engaged in direct talks with the Soviet Union
at the height of the Cold War,
so today should the U.S. talk to Iran
in order to gain valuable insight, intelligence and information
about how to pressure its leadership to change course,”
the paper states.
“But Hillary has said that as president
she would not commit to personal meetings with leaders of rogue states
without conditions, such as Iran.”

Chouake was concerned that Clinton
cast the potential of a nuclear Iran mostly as a threat to Israel,
not addressing the risks it would pose to the West.

“You have the possibility of a suicidal mentality
that could threaten any part of the world,” he said.

Otherwise, the paper is a compendium of Israel-related issues
Clinton has tried to make her own:
She cites her lead in successful efforts
to admit Israel’s first responder umbrella, Magen David Adom,
into the International Committee of the Red Cross,
and her adoption of the campaign to expose alleged incitement
found in Palestinian textbooks.

This week, Clinton surrogates set their sights
on an endorsement Obama received recently from Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Carter’s national security adviser.
Brzezinski rose to the defense last year
of scholars Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer
after they first published a paper charging that
the pro-Israel lobby stifles debate in the United States and
was largely responsible for the Iraq war.
That paper culminated in a book, “The Israel Lobby,” released last week.

“It is a tremendous mistake for Barack Obama
to select as a foreign policy adviser
the one person in public life who has chosen to support a bigoted book,”
Alan Dershowitz, the writer and legal superstar who is a Clinton backer,
said in an interview with the Web site Politico.
[So, the Politico seeks out super-Jewish-bigots like Dershowitz for commnetary.]

Obama distanced himself this week from the Mearsheimer-Walt book,
calling its thesis “dead wrong.”

Obama’s paper on Israel was released to Jewish supporters in June,
but made public just this week as a result of Clinton going public.

The Illinois senator notes his commitment to Israel as a strategic ally
and, like Clinton,
his commitment to keeping all options on the table when dealing with Iran.
But there are subtle differences pointing to
his willingness to keep doors open, especially with the Palestinians.

“Barack Obama supports
U.S. efforts to provide aid directly to the Palestinian people
by bypassing any Hamas-led government
that refuses to renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist,”
his papers states.
“Obama believes that a better life for Palestinian families
is good for both Israelis and Palestinians.”

Clinton, by contrast, only pledges to isolate Hamas
without considering the difficulties that aid cutoffs pose
to Palestinian civilians.

Obama’s paper notes that he “delivered the message
to Palestinian university students in Ramallah
that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.”

still smarting from a kiss-and-hug encounter with Yasser Arafat’s wife, Suha,
that nearly grounded her 2000 freshman bid for the Senate,
is less likely to boast about chats with Palestinians.

An Obama aide told JTA that
Clinton had staked out a harder line in her paper
“out of fear of diminution of her support in the Jewish community.”

Christian Conservatives Consider Third-Party Effort
By David D. Kirkpatrick
New York Times Blog, 2007-09-30

Rudy's Radicals
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-10-10

The dingbat wing of the neoconservative movement (or do I repeat myself?)
is at the core of Team Giuliani.

Mideast Hawks Help to Develop Giuliani Policy
New York Times, 2007-10-25

John Edwards Takes on the War Party
But is it too little, too late?
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-11-07

Is a Vote for Rudy a Vote for War?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Antiwar.com, 2007-11-09

Why Are They So Afraid of Ron Paul?
Neocons and sectarian leftists unite
to smear the antiwar Republican

by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-11-14

[An excerpt.]

All this [pro-Paul] buzz, however, has generated a counter-buzz,
a sinister stream of smears and jeers coming from both Right and Left.
What’s instructive is how similar these attacks are in their viciousness,
and, in the case of the “serious” mainstream critics, their juvenility.
Whether coming from
the liberal and ostensibly antiwar
Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly and
Matt Yglesias of The Atlantic,
or from some neocon hack over at the Weekly Standard,
the “Ron-is-crazy” meme is being furiously pushed upstream
against the raging current of the Paul phenomenon –
so far, to little avail.
He’s a “fruitcake,” sniffs Drum,
and the beat is taken up by Yglesias, who chimes in with charges of “extremism.”
The Weekly Standard takes it a bit further,
and, with its characteristic snark,
dubs Ron the “don’t tase me, bro!” candidate,
complete with an illustration
of Paul being hustled off the stage by uniformed thugs –
which is what they’d like to do to all of their political opponents.

[What a shame these people smear their ideological opponents.
They share that property with the politically-correct crowd,
whose arguments are so shaky that anyone who can refute them
must be smeared.
They have no other alternative.
As an example of politically-correct insanity,
consider the “there’s no such thing as race” line
so many left-wingers, many with Ph.D.s, push.
What a bunch of liars!
(Either that, or mentally ill.)]

Giuliani's Culture of Corruption
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-11-26

Why did an Israeli billionaire
hand $250,000 to Giuliani protégé Bernie Kerik?

In Debate, Romney and Giuliani Clash on Immigration Issues
By Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz
Washington Post, 2007-11-29

The interesting thing about this article,
so typical of the Graham family’s Jerusalem on the Potomac Post,
is how it avoids giving readers
any understanding of what Ron Paul’s arguments really are.
Consider, for example, this excerpt from the Post article:

McCain and Paul clashed over Iraq and foreign policy,
with McCain accusing the congressman
of the kind of isolationism
that allowed Adolf Hitler to come to power in the 1930s.
Fine, so now we know what McCain accused Paul of.
But what did Paul really say, and how did he answer the charge of McCain?
Obviously, the authors and/or editors of this article
only want to give one side of the issue,
the pro-war, pro-imperialism, pro-American involvement side.

Let’s face it, the Graham family simply does not want
for the anti-imperial argument to receive decent coverage
in the pages and on the screens of its media empire.

In comparison,
for a thorough treatment of both sides of the Paul/McCain argument,
see Justin Raimondo’s coverage.

McCain’s Mangled Metaphor
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-11-30

Has the Third Reich reappeared in the Middle East?

Ron Paul: Slings and Arrows, Left and Right
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-12-14

The Trots and the neo-Trots gang up on Ron

Bye, Bye Tora Bora;
Hello Subprime Mortgages

by Leon Hadar
Antiwar.com, 2007-12-22

Ron Paul vs. the Dirty Tricksters
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-12-24

Paul-haters on the Right and the Left unite in a common cause

[See 2007-12-28-NYT for some backpedaling from the NYT
after they picked up these allegations.]

Election '08: The Collapse of the 'Frontrunners'
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2007-12-28

A new contrarian spirit rules American politics

Editors’ Note: The Ron Paul Vid-Lash
New York Times The Medium, 2007-12-28

[An excerpt.]

A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday
about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul
and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups
contained several errors....

The original post should not have been published
with these unverified assertions
and without any response from Paul.


The War and the Elections
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-01-04

Is the antiwar wave cresting?

In the Debates, Gaza Is Verboten
by Justin Elliott
Mother Jones, 2008-01-07

This Fall,

Human Rights Watch
declared Israel’s limitation of fuel supplies to Gaza
collective punishment of a civilian population
and thus
a violation of international law.

As the area’s humanitarian crisis worsens,
grim headlines about the misery of Gazans have become all too familiar.
I was moved to search the transcripts of the past 11 presidential debates
to see if our presidential hopefuls were addressing
the situation in Gaza or
the larger issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
What I found is troubling, though not entirely surprising
given the bipartisan consensus to support Israel, right or wrong.

In nine of the 11 debates,
the terms Israel, Palestinians, and Gaza were
either never uttered or were mentioned once or twice peripherally.
For instance, Joe Biden said at the October 30 NBC debate that
Pakistan has missiles that can reach Israel.
The two exceptions were the November 15 Democratic debate in Las Vegas,
where Bill Richardson, unprompted,
briefly outlined his ideas for a two-state solution,
and the December 4 Democratic radio debate on NPR,
in which moderator Robert Siegel posed
the single question about Israel of the past 11 debates.
Unfortunately, the query was effectively avoided.
Excerpt of Edwards and Obama dodging, after the jump.
“When we do things
that policymakers in Washington may think are rational,
like very strong support of Israel,
that also upsets a lot of those 1 billion Muslims you’ve described.
How would you, Senator Edwards ... answer the complaint that
the U.S., in its support of Israel, is so pro-Israeli,
it can’t be an evenhanded, honest broker of matters
and is anti-Muslim?”

Edwards proceeds to ignore the question,
makes a point about Ahmadinejad and says
to improve relations with Muslims
we must “help make education available to fight global poverty.”

[Yes, that’s the standard cop-out of the liberal elite
when this issue comes up.
Blame anti-U.S. anger on “global poverty”,
something about which very little can ever be done.
On the other hand,
the “conservative” elite blames it on
a “radical Islamic ideology”
which for some reason has become increasingly popular.]

He makes no mention of Israel/Palestine.
Siegel then turns to Obama.
The senator says we need to close Guantanamo
and talk not just to our friends but to our enemies.
He, like Edwards, doesn’t touch the Israel issue.
To their credit, Dodd and Kucinich do a much better job at engaging.

So in the past 11 debates
the grand total of references to the Gaza Strip is zero.
Considering that Israel is our biggest ally in the Middle East
and the biggest recipient of U.S. aid in the world,
isn’t it about time the candidates were asked
what they think of our ally’s destructive policies in Gaza?
Will any moderator have the courage to pose the question?

Philip Weiss, in mentioning this Mother Jones story,
titled his remarks
“No, Virginia, There Is No Israel Lobby
(1 Question About Israel in 11 Debates)”
while Muzzlewatch titled its story
“The issue that dare not speak its name in presidential debates”.
The Muzzlewatch story adds these remarks:

Hat tip to Philip Weiss
for uncovering Mother Jones’ documentation of the obvious:
feeling subject to a settler-mentality lobby that is firmly planted in the US,
the media and politicians collude in
their own “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach
to US foreign policy in Israel-Palestine.
It’s hard not to envision candidates and major league media outlets
as the infamous can’t hear-can’t speak-can’t talk monkeys.

Remember back when Howard Dean,
running for president with a former president of AIPAC, no less,
as his campaign co-chair,
had the audacity to suggest
a more “evenhanded” policy regarding Israel and Palestine.
Within seconds, 34 Democratic members of Congress (and Abe Foxman)
rushed to admonish him a warning letter
affirming our unique, and anything but even-handed friendship with Israel.
How DARE you suggest, well, balance?

Well, now we’ve got a parade of debates between presidential hopefuls,
the perfect opportunity
to once and for all get some clarity on candidates’ positions
on the occupation, on Gaza, on Sderot, on peace negotiations.


[Concerning the question from Robert Siegal,
Muzzlewatch writes:]

What is shocking and new is that
any reporter even dared to ask a candidate about these things at all.
Even then, NPR’s Robert Siegal hedged his bets,
affirming the “rationality”
of supporting illegal settlement growth and land grabs
in a question presented first to John Edwards.

January 8, 2008
by Formerbelwaywonk [???]
Formerbeltwaywonk’s Weblog, 2008-01-15

[The beginning of this excellent first post by a new web voice.
Emphasis is added.]

How can one not think of conspiracy theories
having just observed
an improbably simultaneous media attack on Ron Paul
the day of the New Hampshire primary?

A remarkably successful attack that made him plunge from 14% in the polls
to an 8% actual vote?
After weeks where we heard little about Paul
from the mass media and beltway “libertarian” bloggers?
TNR from the left, Fox News and talk radio from the right,
and piling on from beltway “libertarians” who made a point
of loudly repeating the TNR smears
and dumping Ron Paul on the day of the primary.
Your eyes and ears did not deceive you, all this happened.
It is not the result of a criminal conspiracy,
but if one uses “conspiracy”
as a metaphor for social networks and economic incentives,
there is a strong sense in which conspiracy theories accurately,
if metaphorically, explain what happened.

The reality behind the conspiratorial metaphor is
the social networking between denizens of the Beltway,
who sport a wide variety of political labels but are,
relative to the rest of the country, a monoculture.
I lived there. I went to these parties.
These denizens range from
the journalists who report the mass media news to
various think tank and university scholars
at the Cato Institute, George Mason University, and so on.
They study Ayn Rand, then marry Andrea Mitchell and testify against tax cuts.
Vast amounts of federal money,
that stuff that is taken out of your paycheck with such automatic ease,
flow into the Beltway area.
Directly and indirectly, almost every person who lives in or near the Beltway
depends on the very income tax that Ron Paul declared he would abolish —
with no replacement!

[Formerbeltwaywonk emphasizes the economic motivations
and leaves implicit the promotion of religious/ethnic group interests.]

Ron Paul’s Appeal
Assessing a grass-roots phenomenon,
and the strange ideology behind it

Washington Post Editorial, 2008-01-11

[An excerpt; paragraph numbers and emphasis are added.]

NEW HAMPSHIRE did not produce a breakthrough for Republican presidential aspirant Ron Paul.
The libertarian congressman from Texas
got only 8 percent of the vote in the Granite State,
despite its “live free or die” tradition.
This was slightly worse than his showing in the Iowa caucuses.
Still, the enthusiasm of Mr. Paul’s supporters --
one of the more remarkable phenomena of the campaign --
seemed undiminished.
There they were Tuesday night, cheering as
he promised to continue his long-shot bid and
his demand for immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Having raised $28 million, mostly on the Internet,
Mr. Paul can afford to soldier on --
possibly on a third-party ticket in November.

[Paragraph 2 is omitted]

Though his campaign may owe its energy to 21st-century technology,
Ron Paul is no innovator.
To all the difficult questions of a complicated, interdependent world,
he offers pretty much the same prescription that
such right-wing American isolationists as Patrick J. Buchanan
have offered in the past:
The nation must disengage from international affairs
so as to concentrate on the real enemies at home.
To be sure, Mr. Paul, who would end the war on drugs,
does not seem to want a Buchanan-style culture war.
His demonology, inspired by idiosyncratic economic theories,
centers on the Federal Reserve Board, as well as “elites”
who might be plotting something he calls
“the NAFTA superhighway” across Texas.
Mr. Paul proposes a “golden rule” for foreign policy --
treat other countries as we would have them treat us.
But as Mr. Russert forced him to admit,
this bromide offers no help in such real-world scenarios as
a North Korean invasion of South Korea,
a democratic country with which we trade $72 billion worth of goods each year.
Mr. Paul implied that it would be none of our business.

Mr. Paul goes so far as to express understanding of
Osama bin Laden‘s antipathy toward U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia,
which, Mr. Paul says,
created the “incentive” for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“It’s sort of like if you step in a snake pit and you get bit,”
he told Mr. Russert. “Who caused the trouble?”
During the Cold War,
the late Jeane Kirkpatrick chided Democrats for
“blaming America first” in foreign policy.
That may or may not have been apt.
But in 2008, there is one candidate to whom her words definitely apply:
Republican Ron Paul.

[Certain words definitely apply
to this argument from the Graham/Hiatt editorial board:
A cheap, shoddy sophistry.

is not “blaming America”,
he is rather
some specific foreign policies
advocated and implemented by
the American ruling elite,

interventionistic policies that have been advocated by
none other than the Washington Post.
But rather than admitting that
Paul is criticizing policies advocated by the Post,
Graham/Hiatt wrap themselves in the flag
and assert that Paul is blaming America itself.
What shoddy demagogy,
from the hucksters of war and political correctness.

Here is a comparison that might be of interest:

The Graham/Hiatt regime has made no bones about
its opposition to the policy of the Bush administration
of supporting Pakistan’s President Musharraf.

Why is it “blaming America”
for Paul to criticize some aspects of American foreign policy,
but not blaming American
for Graham and Hiatt to criticize other aspects of American foreign policy?

The answer, of course, is that Graham and Hiatt are total hypocrites.

For the opinion of a distinguished expert on international affairs
which agrees entirely with Ron Paul’s statements,
see this statement by Stephen Walt.
But of course, according to the reporting that appears in the Post,
Walt is an “anti-Semite”,
because he dares to challenge America’s policies vis-à-vis Israel,
and because he links those polices to the Israel lobby.
Thus we see the implication:
Truth-telling American patriot implies “anti-Semite”.]

The Orange Line: anatomy of a smear campaign
by Formerbelwaywonk [???]
Formerbeltwaywonk’s Weblog, 2008-01-15

Empire, Interventionism, and the Wall Street Journal
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Future of Freedom: Hornberger’s Blog, 2008-01-16

On January 15, the Wall Street Journal carried a strange article
entitled “Ron Paul and Foreign Policy” by Bret Stephens,
a member of the Journal’s editorial board
[and also, as documented in The Israel Lobby,
a person who, while writing for the Jerusalem Post,
took upon himself to
“instruct the goyim how they should talk about Israel”]
which criticized Ron Paul’s libertarian foreign-policy views.

Why the Beltway Libertarians Are Trying to Smear Ron Paul
by Justin Raimondo
Taki’s Top Drawer, 2008-01-18

[An excerpt:]

What would the “Smearbund” do without David Duke?
No smear campaign is complete without dragging him into it.
No matter what the subject—
the Iraq war,
the Mearsheimer and Walt book,
affirmative action—
if you take the politically incorrect position, according to the neocons,
then you’re marching shoulder-to shoulder
with the former Klansman and professional nut-job.

[By the way, this piece points out the existence (in some people’s minds)
of something called the “Orange Line Mafia.” (Cf.)
Interesting. (Also, a real inside-the-Beltway reference.)
What will they think of next?]

McCain and the Militarist Mentality
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-01-21

His electoral comeback is an ill omen

Foreign Thought Police Target US Candidates
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-01-23

Caroline Glick cracks the whip:
Paul, Obama, and Huckabee smeared as “bigots”

Ha'aretz Rates the Candidates
by Philip Giraldi
Antiwar.com, 2008-01-29

It is perhaps no surprise that the media and chattering class in Israel
are following the U.S. presidential nominating process
with an intensity not to be seen anywhere else.

Presidential Pantomime
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-01-30

No words are needed to know where the candidates stand

Blowback from the GOP's holy war
By Juan Cole
Salon.com, 2008-02-01

The 2008 Republican race
has left a bitter legacy of sloganeering against Muslims.
It may well haunt the party this November.

Can Obama Save Us?
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-02-04

Messiah, or snake-oil salesman?

The Winter of Our Discontent
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-02-06

Election season, 2008

The Madness of John McCain
by Justin Raimondo
The American Conservative, 2008-02-11 (cover date; on web 02-03)

A militarist suffering from acute narcissism
and armed with the Bush Doctrine
is not fit to be commander in chief.

The War Party Targets Obama
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-02-15

They’ll never let him become president

Why Is John McCain Running Against Robert A. Taft?
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-02-20

It’s all about Ron Paul

The Year of the Insurgents
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-02-22

Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and the new politics of protest

McCain, Militarism, and the Legacy of Teddy Roosevelt
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-02-27

Will Americans embrace “the strenuous life”?

A Strategy for Peace – and Survival
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-03-10

What do Ron Paul, Barack Obama, and Adlai Stevenson have in common?

Olbermann Slams Clinton in Special Comment
by Rachel Sklar
Huffington Post, 2008-03-12

[The Olbermann remarks in question are immediately below.]

TRANSCRIPT: Olbermann Anti-Hillary Special Comment
by Keith Olbermann
MSNBC, 2008-03-12

[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]

But, in fact, senator,
you are now campaigning as if
Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican.
As Shakespeare wrote, senator, “that way madness lies.”


Senator Clinton, that is not a campaign strategy.
This is a suicide pact.

Smearing Obama
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-03-17

Every antiwar candidate has to endure the same hate campaign

McCain's Cheap Dates
by Matt Welch
Reasononline, 2008-04-01

Is his policy really less interventionist than George W. Bush's?

McCain's Foreign Policy Vision:
Style Over Substance

by Charles Pena
Antiwar.com, 2008-04-02

Clintons Earned $109 Million in 8 Years
Senator Releases Tax Returns as Part of Presidential Battle
By Matthew Mosk, James V. Grimaldi and Joe Stephens
Washington Post, 2008-04-05

The Barr Factor
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-04-07

Antiwar libertarian Republican continues the Ron Paul Revolution

Obama Meets The Lobby
by Philip Giraldi
Antiwar.com, 2008-04-08

[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]

Obama has had to run the gauntlet of the Israel-firsters,
imitating every other candidate but Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich
in swearing fealty to Tel Aviv’s politicians and policies
no matter what impact they have on the national interest of the United States.
Barack Obama has nevertheless been on the receiving end
of more vitriol from the Israel Lobby than any other candidate....
The Abe Foxmans of this world,
sensitive to even the slightest whiff of disloyalty to Greater Israel,
detect that Obama might not be completely faithful to the cause.
On March 18,
while delivering his highly praised speech on racism in America,
Obama was forced to perform the ultimate obeisance,
diverging wildly from his theme
to condemn naysayers who see
“the conflicts in the Middle East
as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel,
instead of emanating from
the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.”

Score a big one for stalwart ally Israel,
whose subjugation and occupation of Arab Palestine
apparently has nothing to do with anything.

[As I’ve said in the past,
practically all the media/political elite are stooges of Israel.
What’s good for America is secondary to what’s good for Israel.
Why else do they keep blaming the actions of the terrorists
on ideology
rather than
on the policies and actions of Israel and the United States?]

A Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain
New York Times, 2008-04-22

See also the 04-25 editorial “The Trouble With Not Being Earnest.”

In Long Profile of McCain Backer, 'Times' Suppresses His Israel Agenda
by Philip Weiss
MondoWeiss, 2008-04-22

Today’s Times has a long profile of Donald Diamond,
an Arizona developer with close ties to the McCain campaign,
raising questions about Diamond’s influence and
McCain’s role in Diamond’s real estate deals.
I’m guessing it’s 2000 words.
Not a word mentioning that Diamond, 80 (and a WW2-era veteran),
is a giant supporter of--Israel
Here’s Diamond at an AIPAC event.
Here he is leading a young men’s trip to Israel.
Here he is being honored at the American-Israel Friendship League benefit.
Once he was the local Jewish Federation’s Man of the Year.
I am told Diamond is one of AIPAC’s biggest fundraisers in Arizona,
“their man man in the Southwest.”

Can you imagine the Times covering
a big NRA guy’s support for a presidential candidate
and suppressing his love for guns,
and the policy implications of same?
Of course not.
But this is only the Middle East, which has got the world on a boil...
And of course the Times did the same thing with Sheldon Adelson...
Our journalism is broken.

The Militarist
by Matthew Yglesias
The American Prospect, 2008-04-28

Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain may protest that he hates war,
but no American leader has promoted it more avidly.
McCain is not only the most hawkish neocon on the horizon;
he genuinely sees war as America’s most ennobling enterprise.

Divert, Distract, and Demonize
The War Party's strategy to sink Barack Obama
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-05-02

Obama on Zionism and Hamas
by Jeffrey Goldberg
The Atlantic, 2008-05-12

Obama vs. The Lobby
No matter how much he grovels, it's never enough
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-05-14

Clinton Quiet About Own Radical Ties
Faulting of Obama Called Hypocritical
By James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post, 2008-05-19

On the Road: Clinton’s Very Bad Day
By Katharine Q. Seelye
New York Times “The Caucus” Blog, 2008-05-24

[Anyone reading my blog can tell, I think,
that I am no fan of Senator Clinton.
I think the apoplexy of Keith Olbermann over her remarks are way overblown.
She has every legitimate right to point out other past nomination contests
that have extended into the summer, including that of Bobby Kennedy.
The way she mentioned the assassination of Kennedy, to me,
only represented her attempt to point out chronologically when his campaign ended,
by invoking the event (tragic, for sure)
that would bring that date unquestionably to mind for all her listeners.
There is no need, nor call, to view it as anything more than
a way to point out
how late in the year he was still campaigning.]

Is Obama the 'Antiwar Candidate'?
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-07-23

Two words of advice for the antiwar voter: Caveat emptor

McCain's Foreign Policy Frustration
by Joe Klein
Time, 2008-07-23

[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]

McCain has straitjacketed himself in an ideology focused
more on enemies (real and imagined) than on opportunities.
“It is impossible to ignore the many striking parallels
between [McCain] and the so-called neoconservatives
(many of whom are vocal and visible supporters of his candidacy),”
writes the Democratic diplomat Richard Holbrooke
in a forthcoming issue of Foreign Affairs.
“I don’t know if John has become a neocon,”
says a longtime friend of the Senator’s,
“but he sure has surrounded himself with them.”

Neoconservatism in foreign policy is best described as

unilateral bellicosity
cloaked in
the utopian rhetoric of freedom and democracy.

McCain hasn’t always sided with the neocons —
he opposed torture, wants to close down Guantánamo —
but his pugnacity seems a natural fit with theirs.
He has been militant on Iran,
though even there his statements have been tactical rather than strategic:
his tactic is not to talk to the bad guys.

The strategic question here is
whether to go for regime change or diplomatic engagement.
McCain hasn’t said he was for regime change,
but he has rattled sabers noisily,
joked about bomb-bomb-bombing Iran
and surrounded himself with, and been funded by,
Jewish neoconservatives who believe Iran is a threat to Israel’s existence.
He has also taken a rather exotic line on Russia,
which he wants to drum out of the G-8 organization of major industrial powers
(a foolish proposal, since none of the other G-8 members would abide by it).
His notion of a “League of Democracies” seems
a transparent attempt to draw a with-us-or-against-us line in the sand
against Russia and China.
But that’s the point:

McCain would place a higher priority on finding new enemies
than on cultivating new friends.

McCain Considers Right Wing 'Zio-Freakazoid' for Veep Nod
by Philip Weiss
Mondoweiss, 2008-08-03

Biden Means Business As Usual
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-08-25

What 'new politics'?

Obama's Cheney
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-08-29

Is there a curse on the office of the Vice President?

Palin at AIPAC: That Didn’t Take Long
by Jim Lobe
Antiwar.com, 2008-09-02

[This is posted in
2008 Presidential Election and

Sarah Palin: The Xena of the War Party
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-09-05

The neocons embrace the politics of celebrity

[As to my own opinions, I will merely say that
I think the association of any and all policy-makers, including Mrs. Palin,
with the warmongering, Israeli aggression-supporting,
foreign policies of the neocons
is really unfortunate.]

The single-issue GOP puts conservatism last
(The War Party)
Charleston City Paper, 2008-09-10

Sarah Palin, Neocon Pod Person
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-09-15

The War Party Embraces Obama
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-10-22

Making Excuses for Obama
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com, 2008-10-31

The mythology of good intentions

Labels: , , ,