++The Imperial Post, which has never met a war it didn't like,has an editorial that President Obama must answer the questions raised by Netanyahu about the number of centrifuges and the short time line for a nuclear bomb. They say President Obama hasn't explained any of this --maybe because the final deal hasn't been finalized.
++David Ignatius said that Bibi's speech was a zero-sum game. He thought that Bibi raised the bar to convince the American public that any deal was good.
++Jennifer Rubin got off a second column that said that Bibi destroyed all of President Obama's talking points and that Democrats and Republicans were more sensible than Obama and would stop the deal.
++Scott Ritter, an arms inspector from the Iraq days,writes in the Huffington Post that the process by which Bibi got to address the Joint Congress on the anniversary of the "Iron Curtain" speech by Winston Churchill was dubious and raised the specter of a foreign leader being given carte blanche to criticize the president of the United States.
++Trita Parsi, writes in the Huffington Post, that the whole gist of Bibi's speech was that he never ever wanted a deal with Iran.
++Chris Matthews threw a tantrum about a foreign leader trying to hijack American foreign policy behind or in front of the back of Barack Obama.
++Max Fisher at VOX says wait a minute. Only 5% of Americans now think that Iran is a mortal enemy compared to 25% three years ago. And that Bibi's words do not resonate with the American people.
++The Iranian foreign ministry said Bibi's speech was boring and repetitive.
++The United States Senate is moving to pass a bill that they must approve of any Iranian pact. Do fall for it ,Barack.
++Negative reviews in non-Beltway press and favorable reviews in the Beltway. The danger remains that Bibi will feed the neo-cons thirst for war. The line that war wasn't the only alternative was the one the Beltway bought, including the Washington Post. The problem is that the do nothing plan of Bibi's doesn't get us anywhere but on the road to war.
Showing posts with label Max Fisher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Max Fisher. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Meanwhile as the Imperial Post sleeps in their pup tents
++By the way, Dick Cheney says Obama is "weak,weak,weak".
++Fred Kaplan at Slate posts a positive article about President Obama's speech at West Point entitled "Obama Lays Siege to His Critics". Kaplan points out that Obama's point is to ween our foreign policy away from military adventurism and create a high bar for the future use of the military in overseas wars.Kaplan lays out President Obama's typology for varying American national interests from "core interests" where we will respond to issues like dictators where we find human rights violations appalling.
++Over at Ezra Klein's new shop The Vox, Max Fisher wrote "Obama just announced the most anti-war foreign policy doctrine in decades." I think that might explain the Imperial Post's horror. Fisher thinks the closest analogies may be Jimmy Carter's Notre Dame speech on the Cold War and more precisely Ike's military industrial speech.
++Of course, Morning Joe Scarborough was alarmed.
++I thought President Obama was trying to make American actions around the world coherent and rational. Good Luck with that. His explanation of American leadership on the Ukraine helped explain how various actions formed a coherent and effective response,the explanation of which escaped the media while it has been on-going.
++However,if you look at our military and intelligence budgets, you will see it will take some time before the United States can step down from its imperial pretensions.
++Meanwhile in the world of elections, there is great news--the amazing Sam Wang of Princeton Elections is back with an article in Politico to explain when real data will appear to explain the mid-terms. He tries to explain how the Imperial Post and New York Times reach different conclusions about how will take the Senate. The Post has the GOP near 80%, while the Times have the Democrats at 58%. Basically, Sam sides with the Times because they use polls,the Post doesn't. Wang says the polls will tell the story. He also says that at this stage both predictions are statistically toss-ups because there is scant data available.
++Fred Kaplan at Slate posts a positive article about President Obama's speech at West Point entitled "Obama Lays Siege to His Critics". Kaplan points out that Obama's point is to ween our foreign policy away from military adventurism and create a high bar for the future use of the military in overseas wars.Kaplan lays out President Obama's typology for varying American national interests from "core interests" where we will respond to issues like dictators where we find human rights violations appalling.
++Over at Ezra Klein's new shop The Vox, Max Fisher wrote "Obama just announced the most anti-war foreign policy doctrine in decades." I think that might explain the Imperial Post's horror. Fisher thinks the closest analogies may be Jimmy Carter's Notre Dame speech on the Cold War and more precisely Ike's military industrial speech.
++Of course, Morning Joe Scarborough was alarmed.
++I thought President Obama was trying to make American actions around the world coherent and rational. Good Luck with that. His explanation of American leadership on the Ukraine helped explain how various actions formed a coherent and effective response,the explanation of which escaped the media while it has been on-going.
++However,if you look at our military and intelligence budgets, you will see it will take some time before the United States can step down from its imperial pretensions.
++Meanwhile in the world of elections, there is great news--the amazing Sam Wang of Princeton Elections is back with an article in Politico to explain when real data will appear to explain the mid-terms. He tries to explain how the Imperial Post and New York Times reach different conclusions about how will take the Senate. The Post has the GOP near 80%, while the Times have the Democrats at 58%. Basically, Sam sides with the Times because they use polls,the Post doesn't. Wang says the polls will tell the story. He also says that at this stage both predictions are statistically toss-ups because there is scant data available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)