Smart Move

They're evil Joe, don't you understand?

Joe: Your penalty for posting on a substantive issue is a low comment count. But an interesting post, thanks.

Joe: old Sanford will be consuming all the oxygen today. But you make a good point. If the US can work diligently to keep things moving in the direction of co-existence in Lebanon; and towards a peace process between Syria and Israel this will give Iran time to reflect on their own foreign policy issues in that part of the world. They will see the price they will pay for their descent into brutality which they are visiting on their own.

Question: will Netanyahu see these opportunities? My guess is that Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak will.

Thanks so much for this report.
.
Substantial news is taking a huge hit today because of the Beltway's favorite preoccupation (sex scandals).

Th' Sanford distraction could be provin' t' be a good thing - wi' all the energy goin' t' tha', by th' time th' neocons be gettin' back t' payin' attention an' gettin' all outraged o'er us talkin' t' yet ANOTHER evil entity, th' rest o' us will've moved along an' no longer able t' whip up th' requisite amount o' outrage.
.
Come t' think o' it, let's be gettin' busy t'day!
.
Arrgh!

Smart move, indeed. As was restoring diplomatic relations with Venezuela.

Funny, because usually the GOP would howl about this, and deploy the predictable lurid rhetoric. It seems that Sanford may have actually benefited the US for once, admittedly accidentally and in a somewhat unorthodox way.

I'm not seeing the connection between Sanford and this thread?

neo (I be takin' a chance 'ere - don't make me be regrettin' it!)
.
Th' Sanford connection be tha' wi' all th' Republicans runnin' fer cover thanks t' th' good governor, they be not havin' time t' be concentratin' their usual hysterical fire on th' President an' 'is foreign policy.
.
Clear?
.
Arrgh!

I'm Republican. I have no quarrels with reinstating diplomatic relations with Syria. Nor Venezuela for that matter. As I stated above. In fact, I see it as a step in the right direction...
.
Might want to re-evaluate your narrowed view of what a Republican is. Rush does not speak for us all, I can assure you. As it is in America, the attention goes to the loudest voices, not necessarily the most rational or informed. Rush speaks for a minute, yet vocal, wing of the GOP. He does not speak for me.

Neo, that "minute, yet vocal wing of the GOP" is what the rest of us call your base. And I suggest that the Republican party has a substantial record over the last 10 years of manufactured outrage, foreign policy illiteracy, and a general incapacity for divorcing America's real interests from their need for childish chest-thumping and ludicrously bellicose rhetoric.

The Democratic "base" is just as ludicrous, obnoxious, and self-aggrandizing in their rhetoric and their policy demands. Thankfully, though they vote Democratic, the Democratic leadership generally ignore their radical, self-serving demands. The only difference, I suppose, is that the GOP is more inclined to appease its base, unfortunately. However, both the sides have their vocal wing-nuts.

Pretty weak sauce, isn't it, Neo, when you try and make out that both sides have their crazies, so the GOP should be allowed to continue with its grotesque approach to foreign policy? Let's just remember here who it was that got us into Iraq, which is the foreign policy disaster of the last 20 years. And you conceded that the GOP is basically forced to appease its base - which means you are held captive by the latest Limbaugh lunacy whenever he decides to issue a fatwa. As for your attempts to present the GOP as having constructive foreign policy thinkers, here's a simple challenge: name three current GOP foreign policy experts, explain why they are different, and how they have influenced the GOP.

Rush speaks for a minute, yet vocal, wing of the GOP.
.
Yes - they're called the Senate Republicans. ba dum!

First of all, do you remember Vietnam? I believe that would constitute the greatest foreign policy disaster of the 20th century, forget 20 years. Kennedy and Johnson were the architects of that.
.
Now two things.
...so the GOP should be allowed to continue with its grotesque approach to foreign policy? I never said any such thing, nor did I imply as much. I suggested that the GOP is the sum of its parts, not simply the base, as is the Democratic Party.
.
As for your attempts to present the GOP as having constructive foreign policy thinkers... Again, I never claimed as much. Currently the GOP has flawed leadership pandering to an irrelevant base.
.
However, there are some serious foreign policy minds within the recent/current GOP apparatus. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb), now retired unfortunately, was one of a minuscule few Senators to have not received any funding from AIPAC, served on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Select Committee for Intelligence, opposed many of the Bush Administration's foreign policy directives, and now is a distinguished professor at Georgetown University. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind), the senior-most Republican in the Senate, is decidedly centrist on foreign policy, has been a vocal supporter of Obama's foreign policy initiatives, has been a stalwart opponent of weapons proliferation, and also was a vocal critic of the Bush Administration's foreign policy. Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Robert Gates all have rational, articulate views on foreign policy and left to their own accord would reside far more in the center than to the right. Then there is also Pat Buchanan. While Buchanan is a favorite punching-bag of the left, his views on the Middle East, and especially Israel, are extremely sensible, and he is one of the few influential American politicos, Democratic or Republican, to openly call Israel to task for its oppressive, war-mongering and de-stabilizing presence in the Middle East. The sensible foreign policy experts of the GOP are there, you're simply not looking for them. Instead you listen to the daily hum-drum of loudmouths like Limbaugh.

Another news item lost in Sanford fog:
~
"... the Democratically-controlled House Armed Services Committee (on which I once served) will authorize billions of dollars MORE for the national defense budget than George W. Bush ever requested from Congress. That's right-the Democrats want MORE MILITARY SPENDING THAN GEORGE W. BUSH ever thought necessary."
~
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/24-11
~
AP adds: "Preparing for a possible showdown with Congress, the White House has threatened to veto a $680 BILLION military spending bill if it contains money for jet fighters the Pentagon doesn't want.
~
In a statement of administration policy, President Barack Obama's Office of Management and Budget said the $369 million a House committee added to the bill for 12 additional F-22 fighters runs counter to the 'collective judgment' of the military's top leaders.
~
Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants to end production of the radar-evading F-22 after 187 aircraft have been built. Last week, in a preview of the White House's veto threat, Gates called the funding boost a 'big problem.'"
~
WOW! It's a big problem to boost funding for F-22s, but overall increases in defense spending--no worries? Say they end the program--they cut what, a 1/3 of billion out of a 680$ billion dollar budget!? Well, go at it Gates and Obama--do your business, cuz that's sure some "believe in, change, yes, we can!"
~
CBO: "Including both funding provided through 2007 and projected funding under thetwo illustrative scenarios, total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghani-stan and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between$1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017"
~
PDF file: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8690/10-24-CostOfWar_Testimony.pdf
~
Can someone please explain to me how any single sensible American can look at the prospect of universal health care and say you know, 1.7 trillion is just too much, all the while seeing the above insanity as pragmatic. Or at least sensible Americans not employed by the MIC...

And Rose, if you're out there in the ether (Lily Chou Chou), NOTHING on SCO as yet. I've been trying to see if Hedges or Hudson would follow up on their Nostradamus-like prophecies and nada thus far.

JC:
Not SCO, but here is something on the BRIC meetings regarding international financial markets. This is a good website, you may want to check it from time to time for SCO related articles.
.
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=15536

Thanks N-R. A pretty straight description in the pg. you link to but their mission statement leaves me skeptical, to say the least, in terms of unfiltered news:
~
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD18Ad02.html
~
An excerpt: "AsiaNews Chinese web-site serves as a means of information. Yet it is also serves as a way to make educational tips and suggestions via news, testimonials, reflections, and the words of the pope and church personalities, all of which all bolster the Church's mission in China.
~
We wish to place the beginning of our mission on the internet under the protection of St. Francis Xavier, whose feast day we celebrate today (Dec. 3) and who died desiring to go to China. He is the patron of foreign missions and is venerated in China and throughout Asia.
~
This effectiveness -at a distance- adapts well to our brand of news service, while being far yet near to the heart of the Church in China and her people."
~
Wow! But, again, given how little this issue is discussed by the mainstream or western media, I'll take anything I can get--we're all savvy enough readers. Not sure if you surfed around the site much before linking but they're clearly approaching Asian/geopolitical affairs through a catholic perspective.
~
I did just recall this source: http://www.atimes.com/
~
A quick SCO search of Asia Times turned up a load of hits (ROSE !!!), but unfortunately I have to return to the classroom.

jcapan -
.
Aside fr'm th' F-22 boondoggle, how much o' th' increase be related t' havin' t' put all th' requests uup front into th' actual budget, instead o' usin' th' less-visible "supplemental" gambit?
.
Arrgh!

N-R, I posted the wrong link above (the first one):
~
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=127
~
Ms. Wench: I don't know, but I'll look into it.