Latest Column

What do you mean, Stuart? We've always been at war with Oceania...

"President Barack Obama had softened his language on the settlements a few weeks earlier: instead of a total freeze, he had talked about Israeli "restraint" in settlement-building. And now Clinton seemed to cement the Administration's retreat"

.
This seems to be a pattern with Obama. He comes out, gives a firery speech about something, then quickly "softens" and walks away.
.
I personally would like to know why Joe neglects to discuss or talk about the largest shipment of arms and weapons ever confiscated by the Israelis off of their coastal waters. The arms and weapons clearly marked with Iranian stamps.
.
Why is that Joe? Why do you continue to succumb to the party line talking points, and do not ask the more tough questions of our Secretary of State and get her opinion of why the Iranians continue to provoke terrorism and violence?

Joe Klein:

Further down in the profile is the news that Israel's foreign minister won't even discuss East Jerusalem with George Mitchell. This is an outrage and an embarrassment.
.
What the Israelis are proposing--in effect, more illegal settlements in East Jerusalem--would be the same as Russia proposing peace with Georgia, if it could take over Tblisi.

First, thank you so very much for responding to commentary --mine or any other of the serious, crowd-sourced, amateur analysts and fact-checkers here-- with that helpful clarification.
.
Second, I believe that analogy of yours to Tblisi is shrewdly apt. Well put. It is indeed an embarrassment for the United States to be so closely associated with such a position.
.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be the willingness (or maybe creativity?) put forward by this Administration to either sanction or counter such obvious bellicosity, and so our national reputation, moral force and goodwill reserves are stained, subverted and squandered once again for no gain.
.
I look forward to more in the way of news on these developments, accompanied by realist, objective analysis.
.
Thanks so much for this reporting, Joe Klein.

Like stuart says, thanks for responding Joe to our comments.
.
With that said, I agree that settlements in Israel are a sticking point that must be addressed and continue to be part of the negotiations between Israel and Palestinians.
.
However, with the talks that Iran is now engaging in with the US, more specifically with the DOS and Hillary Clinton, a harder line should be taken due to the actions, not their words.
.
When is Hillary going to call Iran's "dithering", and give them deadlines? Appeasement diplomacy does not work with radicals like those in Iran. We need to show support to those people in Iran who are willing to stick their necks out and risk their lives to confront their own Government. Obama is making a big mistake in not taking a harder line on Iran's recent actions.

Rustydog:

Why do you continue to succumb to the party line talking points, and do not ask the more tough questions of our Secretary of State and get her opinion of why the Iranians continue to provoke terrorism and violence?

Perhaps because we don't have enough moral authority anymore to bluster about how other nations are abetting international violence, since we're occupying two countries.
.
Can't you see that this sort of self-justifying, nonsensical victimhood drag costume worn by the United States in the international public just makes us look like ridiculous fools or liars...or both?
.
It's just not as important as the primary issue, Rustydog.
.
Imagine the leverage we would have internationally over the Iranians if we were to have successfully brokered a peaceful solution to the Palestinian question.
.
Imagine how our reputation could be restored, and so real efforts to thwart the processes of terror that require international cooperation could actually get somewhere.
.
Imagine what we could do in terms of leadership if we were recognized as a force for peace, and not the dangerous idiots who invaded the wrong country (and occupied it for ten years, alternately killing and bribing various violent extremists) after airplanes were flown into our buildings.
.
Jesus Christ, Rustydog...Don't you see that the solutions to these problems doesn't consist of more of us jumping up and down in the international arena, pointing and yelling "...But look at them! They're Bad People! Look! Violence! Terrorism!" -- that people around the world look at us like we're stupid, crazy or malignant, and calmly ask us questions right back like "Didn't you guys invade a country that didn't attack you? Didn't al-Qaeda move in after you were supposed to be guarding the place? Who are you to talk about 'provoking terror and violence'? No, really, who are you?
.
This isn't about making ourselves feel good, Rustydog, it's about realism and solutions being introduced into our foreign policy for a f-ing change.

"This isn't about making ourselves feel good, Rustydog, it's about realism and solutions being introduced into our foreign policy for a f-ing change."

.
Well maybe you can understand this analogy stuart.
.
A rather big but quiet kid on the school yard goes about the everyday pleasure of playing with the other kids on the playground.
.
Then a scrawny, but bully comes up to the big kid and intimadates him. The big kid simply cowers away, and goes inside.
.
In your world, you would want the big kid to "talk" to the scrawny bully and "ask him nicely" not to do those things anymore. Ask the scrawny kid to simply stop intimadating the other smaller kids and himself. To "rationally" think about what his actions of intimadation on the school yard is doing to the majority of the kids on the playground.
.
In that senario and in the real world of foreign diplomacy, those little kids simply want the big kid to wack the scrawny kid upside the head. To say "hey bully, stop it or I will knock your front teeth out".
.
When the big kid cowers and attempts appeasement with the scrawny bully, all he gets back is more teasing and taunting. Respect from the smaller kids watching join in on the laughter that the scrawny bully is now doing.
.
There are two distinct countries of the world today that have "scrawny bullies". Iran and North Korea. Both are intimadating the US, every chance they can get. While Obama's appeasement, and "down with the US, the bad bad country it has been in the past" rhetoric will simply elicit more laughter, snickers under the breath of the other little countries of the world.
.
The US IS the world's sole super power. We are the big kid on the playground. It's time for Obama to pitch his current foreign policy, and act like the President of the greatest, most powerful country that has ever been seen before.
.
Screw your "feel good" policy. I want my President to look them straight in the eye with a very serious affect on his face and say, "enough is enough". "Stop it now or suffer the consequences".

Rustydog:
.
Amongst all the parts of that analogy that are inapt, this one stands out the most to me:

Then a scrawny, but bully comes up to the big kid and intimadates him. The big kid simply cowers away, and goes inside.

Presumably you mean the "big kid" to be the United States of America, which has a $651 billion defense budget for 2009 (link here ) , and the "scrawny bully" is meant to be Iran, which has a $7.3 billion defense budget for 2006 ( link here ).
.
See what I mean about realism, Rustydog?
.
Who do you think is intimidated by whom, here?
.
Who is cowering?
.
You? Neo-conservatives?
.
You seem to have this bizarre outlook on who we are as a nation, Rustydog, as if you somehow believe that the United States is in Israel's situation, and really could be worried about a potentially hegemonic Iran.
.
We are "the world's sole super power", and we should act like it, which means not worrying about whether somebody else points at us and yells "Scaredy-cat! Scaredy-cat!" until we do something predictable and stupid (so they can take advantage).
.
Who the f*ck do we have to prove anything to about our might?
.
Who the f*ck are we intimidated by?
.
Nobody believes this. There is no contingent of nations in the world that rationally considers the United States to be intimidated by Iran --that's why it's so ridiculous, and we have lost so much international credibility.
.
You've got a strange fantasy going on in your head about who is perceived internationally to be dangerous, and who is really frightened. We are the ones the rest of the world thinks is an intimidating, dangerous, unpredictable, sometimes irrational destroyer.
.
You need to quit imagining that we're somehow in Israeli shoes, and get reacquainted with the fact of our power and confidence, Rustydog. We're confident. Hillary Clinton is obviously confident. Come on, we're America, for God's sake! We've probably got nuclear f-ing submarines cruising the Straight of Hormuz right this very minute! Who do you think we are?
.
It's you that doesn't sound confident in our capabilities, dude. It's you that sounds intimidated.
.
Who did this to you, Rustydog? Who turned you into such a frightened person? Who took away your rational confidence in America's power to defend itself and our interests? Dick Cheney? Giuliani? al-Qaeda? Who?

I registered just to say:

Have you lost your mind? Actually, you go girl!

Now let the games begin?