The New Republic

"...he said he favored engaging Iran and Syria." So, what is your point?

- jacksondyer

March 3, 2007 at 2:42pm

Thanks, Sax. Wasn't picking a fight and I didn't know what your point was. Obama may not win the nomination, but he could be a strong second on any reasonable ticket such as Gore/Obama. As to negotiating with Iran and Syria, it depends on what they will talk about. I could see the US trying to cut the ties between Syrian and Iran. I could see the US talking to Iran about stopping its renrichment of uranium or about stopping its aid to the Shia in Iraq. Don't think it'll work, but it's good to show the world that we didn't just bomb them out of the blue. Give them a chance to lay down their weapons.

- jacksondyer

March 3, 2007 at 7:33pm

- jacksondyer

March 3, 2007 at 8:44pm

- jacksondyer

March 3, 2007 at 8:44pm

Someone posted this on a website: "President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers. In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric. The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."

- jacksondyer

March 3, 2007 at 8:45pm

I can see how Jackson didn't understand your post, only by rereading the "really" did I realize what you meant, which was that he might be talking out of both sides of his mouth. Which, to be honest, is pretty much what all "serious" candidates for the Presidency do. Don't agree that negotiations in and of themselves will be quite as bad as you make them out to be. Not likely to be useful either, but on the whole I gotta agree with Jacksons take, ie. talk first before (and if need be) you bomb them out of the blue. (interesting phrase that, is that referring to bombers dropping bombs out of the clear blue sky?)

- blackton

March 3, 2007 at 8:54pm

is pressuring Israel not to. Read Ha'aretz on this.

- RaymondA

March 4, 2007 at 8:37am

Any idea who wrote this for him? Was this a particularly good speech to an AIPAC audience? On paper, it looks very good, but I'm not sure what others may look like or might have looked like? Are the "roadmap" vs. "road building"/"carrying stones" metaphors that have been used before by Democrats criticizing current policy? Do any of the Democratic candidate explicitly speak about how they would act a Commander-in-Chief?

- kyoung

March 5, 2007 at 10:43am

What does Bill Richardson have to say on the matter? He's got more hands-on experience in big-league foreign policymaking than the rest of the Dem field combined.

- teplukhin

March 5, 2007 at 5:42pm