|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 1:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026624.php
| Quote: |
WHEN THE 'WATER'S EDGE' STANDARD DISAPPEARS.... If our political system made more sense, this would be an astounding scandal that would dominate the discourse.
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday during a meeting in New York that the new GOP majority in the House will "serve as a check" on the Obama administration, a statement unusual for its blunt disagreement with U.S. policy delivered directly to a foreign leader.
"Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington," read a statement from Cantor's office on the one-on-one meeting. "He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other."
This just isn't normal. Laura Rozen called the meeting itself "unusual, if not unheard of." But it's what Cantor said that's astounding.
We're talking about a powerful member of Congress engaged in foreign policy, vowing to a foreign government to oppose the administration's policies regarding that government. Ron Kampeas from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency news agency said he can't remember any U.S. official ever doing this. "[T]o have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House -- that sounds to me extraordinary," Kampeas said this week.
It is that and more. Cantor not only met in private with a foreign leader to undercut the foreign policy of the elected American president, he proceeded to brag about it.
Also keep in mind, a few years ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad. At the time, none other than Eric Cantor personally accused Pelosi of possibly violating the Logan Act, "which makes it a felony for any American 'without authority of the United States' to communicate with a foreign government to influence that government's behavior on any disputes with the United States."
As Adam Serwer noted yesterday, "Based on Cantor's own standard, he's just committed a felony."
In 2007, John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, insisted, "I would simply hope that people would understand that, under the Constitution, the president conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House."
OK, but can we apply that same standard to the House Minority Whip?
Remember, Republican standards in this area seem to vary widely based on the president's party.
This is going back a bit, but Glenn Greenwald had an item last year that seems especially relevant now.
Here's what happened in 2006 when Al Gore gave a speech at a conference in Saudi Arabia in which he criticized Bush policies towards the Muslim world -- as summarized by The New York Times' Chris Sullentrop:
"As House Democrats David Bonior and Jim McDermott may recall from their trip to Baghdad on the eve of the Iraq war, nothing sets conservative opinionmongers on edge like a speech made by a Democrat on foreign soil. Al Gore traveled to Saudi Arabia last week, and in a speech there on Sunday he criticized 'abuses' committed by the U.S. government against Arabs after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. A burst of flabbergasted conservative blogging followed the Associated Press dispatch about the speech, with the most clever remark coming from Mark Steyn, who called the former vice president 'Sheikh al-Gore.' The editorial page of Investor's Business Daily accused Gore of 'supreme disloyalty to his country'. . . ."
TigerHawk does the best job of explaining why speeches like this get some people so worked up:
"There is simply no defense for what Gore has done here, for he is deliberately undermining the United States during a time of war, in a part of the world crucial to our success in that war, in front of an audience that does not vote in American elections. Gore's speech is both destructive and disloyal, not because of its content -- which is as silly as it is subversive -- but because of its location and its intended audience."
The Wall St. Journal's James Taranto accused Gore of "denouncing his own government on foreign soil" and quoted the above accusation of "disloyality." Commentary was abundant all but accusing Gore of treason for criticizing the U.S. in a foreign land.
And that was just Gore criticizing. This week, Eric Cantor met privately with a foreign head of state to promise to undermine the foreign policy of the United States.
Remember when American officials were supposed to think foreign policy issues stopped at water's edge?
This is a legitimate scandal worthy of far more attention. When dealing with foreign policy and climate change, Republicans believe in trying to deliberately sabotage the position of the U.S. government. The same is true of U.S. policy towards Iran, and in the case of New START, possibly even U.S. policy towards Russia. Now it's true of U.S. policy towards Israel, too.
It's obviously not unreasonable for Americans to debate whether the Obama administration is pursuing the correct course on foreign policy, and I fully expect members of Congress from both parties to demand accountability of the White House. People can and should speak out when they disagree with the administration's approach to Israel, Iran, Russia, or any other country.
But Cantor's move is something altogether different. Just a few years after he suggested it was literally criminal for an American official to talk to a foreign leader and work against the sitting president. Now, Cantor has done just that.
Where's the outrage? |
Sedition? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Despite the propaganda and heated rhetoric, I believe that both the US and Iran are culturally linked to the point that neither of them would want to go to war with each other. |
No, you're a United States soldier so you'll probably fight and maybe die for Israel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70K05H20110121
| Quote: |
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a passionate plea on Friday for the West to use force if necessary against Iran over its disputed nuclear program.
Speaking at a London inquiry into the Iraq War where he was having to explain his decision to join the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, Blair said the time had now come to "get our heads out of the sand" and take action against Iran.
"I say this with all the passion I possibly can," said Blair, now an envoy for the Quartet of Middle East peacemakers -- the United States, Russia, the EU and the United Nations.
The West had to stop believing it was responsible for the actions of Iran or extremists, he said.
"The fact is they are doing it because they disagree fundamentally with our way of life and they'll carry on doing it unless they are met by the requisite determination and, if necessary, force." |
1) They hate us for our freedom
2) They have WMD's.
Where have I heard this before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm pretty sure Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons because:
A) They want to return to being the regional power that they were for much of their history.
B) They saw what happened to Iraq and want to prevent it from happening to them.
The "disagree with our way of life" meme is the epitome of intellectual laziness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70K05H20110121
| Quote: |
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a passionate plea on Friday for the West to use force if necessary against Iran over its disputed nuclear program.
Speaking at a London inquiry into the Iraq War where he was having to explain his decision to join the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, Blair said the time had now come to "get our heads out of the sand" and take action against Iran.
"I say this with all the passion I possibly can," said Blair, now an envoy for the Quartet of Middle East peacemakers -- the United States, Russia, the EU and the United Nations.
The West had to stop believing it was responsible for the actions of Iran or extremists, he said.
"The fact is they are doing it because they disagree fundamentally with our way of life and they'll carry on doing it unless they are met by the requisite determination and, if necessary, force." |
1) They hate us for our freedom
2) They have WMD's.
Where have I heard this before. |
Hey, don't knock it. It worked the first time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2011/01/19/serving-up-palestine-one-slice-at-a-time/
| Quote: |
...
I know there are readers out there who must believe that there is actually a secret, underground State Department, possibly concealed somewhere in the Department of Agriculture, that is actually going around the world and doing what is best for America and its people. Alas, it is not true and what we are seeing is what we are getting.
Consider how Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Pakistan last week to threaten its already shaky government into invading Waziristan to kill the militants who have been hiding there. Joe suggested that American soldiers might do the job if the Paks are not up to it. It is difficult to imagine what Biden thought to accomplish by his performance, but a good outcome from all the saber rattling is hard to imagine.
Much like Hillary Clinton going around last week and calling on Arab countries to liberalize their political systems. Sure Hillary, just like the Palestinians did when they elected Hamas in a free and fair election and Washington and Tel Aviv decided that the result was not quite acceptable. What happens when the Muslim Brotherhood wins an election in Egypt? What will happen if parties unacceptable to Washington rise to the top in the current unrest in Lebanon and Tunisia?
It would all amount to much ado about nothing except that the consequences are deadly serious with American soldiers and local folks dying in their thousands because the Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes find it hard to admit that they have made a mistake. Whether Obama or Palin is elected in 2012 almost seems irrelevant. Six more years of this and we will be finished as a nation, bankrupt and despised everywhere, our only legacy a network of seven hundred-plus military bases falling into ruin worldwide, meant to give us peace and prosperity but delivering on neither. |
Hyperbole? I'm not sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Completely disagree with the author's position. It is very relevant who is elected President in 2012. If McCain won back in 2008 I think the country would have been bombed by now.
If Palin is elected in 2012.............  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Giraldi's position is that even without an attack on Iran the current course is entirely unsustainable and at the same time unmovable. The continuity between Bush and Obama is strong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
H. Clinton to an audience of Arab governments and other elite:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/01/154595.htm
| Quote: |
...These young people have a hard time finding work. In many places, there are simply not enough jobs. Across the region, one in five young people is unemployed. And in some places, the percentage is far more.
While some countries have made great strides in governance, in many others people have grown tired of corrupt institutions and a stagnant political order. They are demanding reform to make their governments more effective, more responsive, and more open. And all this is taking place against a backdrop of depleting resources: water tables are dropping, oil reserves are running out, and too few countries have adopted long-term plans for addressing these problems. |
Is this a stand-up act?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address
Obama:
| Quote: |
| And so we must defeat determined enemies wherever they are, and build coalitions that cut across lines of region and race and religion. America's moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom, justice, and dignity. And because we have begun this work, tonight we can say that American leadership has been renewed and America's standing has been restored. |
Do any Americans believe this? I don't even know any Americans who much want to lead the world anymore. Surely the hypocrisy of this is apparent to everybody?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/25-tons-of-bombs-wipes-afghan-town-off-the-map/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Americans continue to rate Iran as America's Greatest Enemy
25% of Americans believe Iran is our greatest enemy.
| Quote: |
Age disparity
Younger Americans are much less likely than older Americans to regard Iran as the United States' greatest enemy and more likely to view North Korea this way.
As a result, North Korea leads Iran as the greatest enemy in the 18- to 29-year-old age group. Americans aged 30 to 49 are about equally likely to mention North Korea, Iran, and China as the greatest U.S. enemy. China generally rates behind Iran and ahead of North Korea as the greatest enemy in the eyes of Americans aged 50 and older.
Ideological differences
Political conservatives are twice as likely to name Iran as any other country as the greatest enemy of the United States. Liberals are about evenly divided as to whether Iran or North Korea is the greatest U.S. enemy. And moderates are equally likely to assign China, Iran, and North Korea this status.
These differences are not apparent by political party, though, as Iran is perceived to be the top U.S. enemy by Republicans, Democrats, and independents. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
