<p>I lost a lot respect for Colin Powell when he went in front of the UN to sell that bogus WMD fiasco. He is no more credible as far as I am concerned. </p>
<p>He is complicit in this Iraq war debacle, he doesn’t get absolve because he left the Bush administration four years ago.</p>
<p>tega:</p>
<p>I have to say I agree about Colin Powell, and I’m glad that he is only one in 300 foreign policy advisors. Besides his complicity in selling the Iraq invasion, I always thought that he was way too cautious. I suspect that he was trying to atone for not getting rid of Hussein in 1991 by carrying water for GWB.
McCain’s foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann positively scares me. He is the most extreme of the neocons
[Randy</a> Scheunemann: McCain Adviser Campaigned for War | The Trail | washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/17/randy_scheunemann_mccain_advis.html]Randy”>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/17/randy_scheunemann_mccain_advis.html)</p>
<p>Randy Scheunemann was on Jim Lehrer a couple of weeks ago, and he sounded very intelligent. I didn’t know he was a neocon.</p>
<p>Tega, google and look into his friendship with Chalabi, the man who led us down the garden path with regard to Iraq.</p>
<p>Marite, I think he has too much invested in Iraq and Russia to be objective. McCain has been very hawkish on Russia (Russia has a lot of issues that I don’t agree with) and I now know why. </p>
<p>I have to confess that I don’t like a lot of the sources provided for the articles, but if the stories are true, there is a cause for concern.</p>
<p>For those who don’t understand my continued references to the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK, direct, non-preconditioned negotiations and Obama here’s a good source to consider: [Kennedy</a> talked, Khrushchev triumphed - International Herald Tribune](<a href=“http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/22/opinion/edthrall.php]Kennedy”>http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/22/opinion/edthrall.php)</p>
<p>Some excerpts from this reference:</p>
<p>*They have also been a distinctive note in Obama’s campaign, and were made even more prominent last week when President George W. Bush, in a speech to Israel’s Parliament, disparaged a willingness to negotiate with America’s adversaries as appeasement. Obama defended his position by again enlisting Kennedy’s legacy: “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.”</p>
<p>But Kennedy’s one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one’s adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings - his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” - he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the Cold War, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.</p>
<p>Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”</p>
<p>But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.</p>
<p>Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated - and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.</p>
<p>Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe.</p>
<p>Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the “roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”</p>
<p>A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna - of Kennedy as ineffective - was among them.</p>
<p>If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy’s footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate.*</p>
<p>The lesson here is that the Soviets, after meeting personally with Kennedy and perceiving him weak, embarked on a campaign of international adventurism that when Kennedy moved to stop this behavior a war nearly resulted. Had Kennedy NOT been so overconfident, the Soviets likely would not have built the Berlin Wall and placed missiles in Cuba.</p>
<p>Perceived weakness of a leader by other nations is extremely dangerous. Obama looks weak and inexperienced. By contrast, President GW Bush, though vilified by the Left here in America and criticized somewhat overseas comes across as very strong - if you attack America or its allies and interests, you may be attacked. This minimizes national adventurism (of course, the US is a superpower).</p>
<p>The positive results in Libya and North Korea are examples of this perception fruit.</p>
<p>The Bay of Pigs was a weak effort by Kennedy the Soviets likely just used to reinforce this view of perceived personal weakness. Had the US invaded Cuba directly, with overwhelming force, none of the latter events would likely have resulted. The Soviets would then have perceived Kennedy a strong leader.</p>
<p>You might also want to recall that the American Left had roots in Soviet disinformation programs. The Soviets fomented dissent in the United States and elsewhere from the 1930s on to support their national objectives.</p>
<p>Another reference to consider in this area are the Venona Intercepts: [NOVA</a> Online | Secrets, Lies, and Atomic Spies | Read Venona Intercepts](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/intercepts.html]NOVA”>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/intercepts.html)</p>
<p>Tega: It’s true that most of the sources are partisan. Here is an article that provides much of the same information without the accusatory tone:</p>
<p>[National</a> Journal Magazine - Randy Scheunemann](<a href=“http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20080712_4715.php]National”>http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20080712_4715.php)</p>
<p>Excellent post, Parent.
</p>
<p>
This quote is scarey. It shows that Obama is not a student of history. Our enemies in the Middle East are giddy over the possibility of an Obama presidency. They can easily manipulate him and the consequences would be tragic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the biggest joke I’ve ever heard. Putin played Bush completely, after Bush “looked into his soul” and said he saw a good man. Do you remember that quote? That’s about as stupid a thing up there with Carter thinking he could trust Brezhnev.</p>
<p>Putin went ahead and did what he was going to do without much regard for his weird little friend who thinks he has godlike powers to peer into men’s souls.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s McCain who’s not the student of history. He thinks that after the billions of dollars we spent in Vietnam and the 50,000 lives that we failed in Vietnam because we ended the fight too early…</p>
<p>And Obama’s smart enough to know that the War in Iraq has been a huge distraction and also played right into the hands of Al Qaeda.</p>
<p>The morale of the story about Kennedy is that he was entirely misjudged, that is was Kruschev found.</p>
<p>Barack Obama is a foreign policy realist. His pronouncements, all of them, fall clearly in that camp and that encourages me that he’ll be as savvy an actor as the best of them, certainly better than chickenhawk Bush who leaves us a power diminished through his missteps.</p>
<p>
Yes he did. And now you want another rookie in the White House??? Obama will be completely out of his league in foreign negotiations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t going to get into the fray here, but your assertion that Iraq was a distraction, and we were playing into the hands of al Qaeda may be false, given that al Qaeda hasn’t been able to launch an attack on us here in the U.S. since the war started. One would think that they would assume we’re so occupied in Iraq that it would be a good time to attack us, especially if the war in Iraq has allowed them to get stranoger. </p>
<p>I think a lot of attention & resouces have been funneled into Iraq - even by al Qaeda.</p>
<p>So - which is the better scenario: 1. we focus all of our energies & resources on Afghanistan (a horrible terrain to try to stage a battle) while Saddam grows in power & wealth & helps our adversaries behind our backs; or: 2. We remove Saddam from the equation so we can then ocus on Afghanistan w/out the danger of Saddam getting involved.</p>
<p>Granted, the execution of that plan was poorly done, but perhaps it WASN’T “playing into al Qaeda’s hands”. Perhaps we did what they least expected, and perhaps - in the overall scheme - we employed the better strategy. Iraq is certainly a better place to stage a battle than the mountains & caves in Afgh. and we have taken out some al Qaeda leaders & sympathizers over the years in Iraq.</p>
<p>Maybe a “diversion” isn’t such a bad thing - you can’t always be straightforward and do just what your enemies expect. Strategically, fighting in Iraq may have been a good thing, tactically it stunk (as McCain has said all along).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Newspeak…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obama is about 10 times smarter than Bush, and his foreign policy comments suggest to me that he is 10 times more steely and not given to making the most arrogant, and eerily naive, claims about having extra-sensory abilities to peer into mens’ souls. If a Democratic president had made such a bizarre, crazy claim, he would have been pilloried. I can’t believe it never happened. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The naivete of this position is striking. When we inevitably leave Iraq, what country is the likely benefactor of our efforts there? If you are paying attention, you know it will have been Iran. Iraq was the foil to Iran when Sunni Saddam was in charge. We will have paid trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives to cast Iraq much more squarely into the sphere of another member of the axis of evil, Iran.</p>
<p>Afghanistan was the platform from which 9/11 was staged. Are you suggesting that we should not have concentrated on that fight, but instead take it to a country that wasn’t involved?</p>
<p>Anything that makes the US look like its indiscriminately attacking Arab or Muslim states fuels Al Qaeda. You probably aren’t aware that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, hundreds of thousands if not millions of them have been displaced. This enhances Al Qaeda’s recruiting operations and draws neutral folks in the Muslim world into hating us. As I said before you don’t understand how military power and softer power combine to give us our total power. Our total power is considerably diminished post-Bush and post-Iraq. I don’t see, furthermore, how you can argue that an engagement that has extended our military so thoroughly with little to show for it ultimately except for debt and death is good for our defensive posture. Black is white?</p>
<p>This isn’t a football game. Having a forward position doesn’t mean that people won’t sneak in our back door with a suitcase bomb and nuke New York. Obama has voiced a lot more concern about this very real threat and stopping it than the Bush Administration which seems intent on fighting a distant war, while it lets our guard down.</p>
<p>The adoratin of Obama is beginning to resemble a cult. I have no problem with his obvious speaking flubs being overlooked on a long campaign. 57 states, using the wrong names when speaking with politicians & reporters, getting the city or state where he is speaking wrong, stating his uncle liberated Auschwitz…that’s pretty common. I do have a problem with the nasty remarks made about McCain’s age when he flubs in a similar fashion.</p>
<p>WHen he referred to the Prime Minister of Canada as “President” I was more concerned. As I am with his terrible inability to speak well when not delivering a prepared speech.</p>
<p>What REALLY gets me worried is his habit of just making stuff up. Statements such as the number of hate crimes against Hispanics doubling since last year. Or his claim that the US spends twice as much per capita as any advanced nation. Or his story of his parents’ getting together because of what happened in Selma – despite his birth occuring four years BEFORE the famous march.</p>
<p>And very troubling to me was his grand pronouncement that Arabic translators being deployed in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan. Really? Why is that, Obama? They speak Farsi & other languages in Afghanistan, not Arabic.</p>
<p>I really don’t think he has a clue.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>And you conveniently overlook John McCain’s multiple flubs on the one position he claims to know a lot about: Iraq.</p>
<p>He confuses Sunni and Shia.
He said the Anbar Awakening was caused by the surge, which actually preceeded it.
He confuses the border of countries.</p>
<p>It’s not that Obama supporters are cultish. You’d better look at what McCain says and does and the pass you give him if you think so.</p>
<p>It’s that our country is so thoroughly on the wrong path and McCain talks about keeping it on the same path that people see an intelligent and thoughtful person who can restore some of what under Bush we have lost. McCain isn’t going to do that…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Until you cite a credible source for this, I will not believe it happened.</p>
<p>Furthermore, are you not aware that Arabic-speaking Al Qaeda used Afghanistan as a platform. Maybe there is more sense to this than you know.</p>
<p>The article in today’s Washington Post by Richard Cohen was quite good on this topic. He is a liberal columnist with questions and reservations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obama has “voiced concern” but Bush’s administration has stopped the actual attacks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just like he stopped 9/11 when his Administration had been explicitly warned? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (of putting in place a plan to nuke NYC). The Bush Administration was notoriously unconcerned about such plans – or about the ability of containers to enter with nuke materials undetected…</p>
<p>The Anbar Awakening was tiny until the surge supported them. It was the awareness of this awakening that inspired the military strategists to desgn the surge. Which McCain championed, by the way. </p>
<p>I allow for candidate flubs in exhausting campaigns. It’s just that Obama’s are not reported in the mainstream media.</p>
<p>BedHead, countless plans have been thwarted. Are you living in a cave, unaware of this? </p>
<p>It’s pointless to have any discourse with cult members.</p>