If  John Bolton, Right As Usual should I vote for Obama or McCain?

" Richard Holbrooke (the sharpest of the candidates to be Obama's secretary of state) "

He is banned from the Obama campaign for being a war manger.

It looks like that you and Bill Clinton on the same team now, the McCain team.

Thank you for the link, Mr. Peretz. I eagerly signed the petition. I never have liked John Bolton, though but far more because of his style than for his foreign policy views. By many accounts he is a bully and I detest bullies. His modus operandi seems to be sucking up to his overlings and grounding underfoot his underlings. I repect a person who takes strong stands consonant with intersubjective reason and ethics but I loathe the imperious.

Thanks for the link to UANI. Petition signed. Dr. A. & friends must be stopped, better, replaced, best, replaced and dead.

Here, I think you, Bolton, McCain, Holbrooke, Ajami and like thinking others on this issue are right!

"Here, I think you, Bolton, McCain, Holbrooke, Ajami and like thinking others on this issue are right!"

Is there any issue where Obama is right?

Jacob is, once again, right.  When Obama said "a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable", it clearly meant "Take it away, Ahmadinejad."  Typical liberal.  

I hope Democrats will the election. I also hope they put John Bolton as US ambassador to the UN. He is exactly the right man for the job.

jacobt1, why don't you tell us how great a thinker Sarah Palin is? Come on, we know you're just doing your job.

Ahmadinejad is the guest of honor tonight at a dinner given by a consortium of mainline Protestant churches at the Hyatt Regency next to Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan.  A protest outside the hotel is scheduled for 6 P.M.

We don't need no stinkin petitions. What's that gonna do? How about a bumper sticker that says "Honk if you're for a non nuclear Iran." How about a UN resolution maybe like in June 1981, when the UN Security Council's resolution 487 directed Israel to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA? Had much luck with that one? Nobody is gonna part with their nukes because having them means you get to keep your regime. It doesn't mean that you are going to start armegeddon(see examples of USSR, China, Pakistan etc.) cause you know that in doing so you definitely don't even get to have a place to have a regime. Given US actions in the area in last 50 years if you were Iran would you rather have a nuke or US assurances of your sovereignty? Of course if you're a Neocon you already know what you're going to do. But if you're an Iranian having a nuke means that tomorrow is the first day of the rest of your regime's life.

sleepyavl,

I have no clue, how great a thinker Sarah Palin is. However Obama is a   mediocre conventional thinker.

Lesserliz,

The decision whether or not to sign a treaty is the sovereign right of any independent country.  However once a country signs a treaty, it is obligated to its provisions, unless it exercises the treaty's provisions for opting out.  This is the ABC's of international relations.

Israel, like India and Pakistan never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  Hence they cannot be obligated to put their nuclear facilities under IAEA supervision.  They can if they want to, or cooperate in some other manner but there is no basis to force them to do so.  For the record Israel does cooperate in some a limited fashion with the IAEA (the head of the IAEA, al-Baradei visits Israel regularly for consultations and discussions).

Iran signed and ratified the non-proliferation treaty and hence they are obligated to fulfill its provisions.  Ditto for Libya (which had an ongoing bomb program under the nose of an oblivious  IAEA), ditto for Iraq (remember the Osirak reactor bombed by Israe?), and ditto for North Korea (although they may have opted out within the past few years).  So the track record of the IAEA isn't the greatest.

Back to Iran.  If they want they could exercise the provisions to opt out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and lose whatever benefits accrue to IAEA signatories (I think there are some).  But in the meantime they are still covered by the treaty and hence must abide by its provisions.

Also, Israel hasn't threatened to consign any country to the dustbin of history like Iran has.  Jewish history has taught Israelis that when someone threatens to kill you, he (or she) should be taken seriously.  Even if he (or she) is widely regarded as a buffoon.

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

Reading Peretz's recent writings praising Bolton's insights and prescience would make good classroom material for teaching about the concept of cognitive dissonance.

The odds of a Democratic administration sending Bolton back to the US are about that of a snowball's chance in hell.  Then again, my son the physical chemist in training claims that according to the Schrodinger's equation (and his cat) there is a finite (but admittedly small) chance for a snowball to turn up in hell.

At some point Peretz will have to choose between O&B & Bolton because the incompatibility between their respective views and approaches to the UN & foreign policy cannot be bridged.

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

Is that because he's black Jacobt?

"Reading Peretz's recent writings praising Bolton's insights and prescience would make good classroom material for teaching about the concept of cognitive dissonance."

Peretz hopes  that Obama is a secret Boltonian.

The Ignorant Populist  asked

"Is that because he's black"

Obama's record is a record of  mediocre conventional thinker and follower. He's never came with interesting ideas or shown leadership.

No wonder so many people thake Ahmadinehjad's views for granted:

Here is a depressing study in textbooks used in our schools:

Study says US textbooks misrepresent Jews and Israel

Sep. 25, 2008   Haviv Rettig , THE JERUSALEM POST

www.jpost.com/.../Satellite

"American elementary and high school textbooks contain many "gross misrepresentations" of Judaism, Christianity and Israel, according to a book-length study released this week by the San Francisco-based Institute for Jewish and Community Research.

"It is shocking to discover that history and geography textbooks widely used in America's elementary and secondary classrooms contain some of the very same inaccuracies about Christianity, Judaism and the Middle East as those [used] in Iran," the IJCR said in a summary of the findings of the five-year study.

In examining the 28 most widely-used history, geography and social studies textbooks in America, researchers Dr. Gary Tobin and Dennis Ybarra found some 500 instances of "errors, inaccuracies and even propaganda" on these issues. Tens of millions of schoolchildren in all 50 states use the textbooks, according to Tobin.

Among the "outrageous misrepresentations" the study found was "a denial of the Jewish roots of Jesus," as when the textbook The World relates that "Christianity was started by a young Palestinian named Jesus."

"Textbooks include negative stereotypes of Jews, Judaism and Israel," the authors write. "For example, textbooks tend to discredit the ties between Jews and the land of Israel."

According to Tobin, "you're much more likely to learn about Jewish terrorism before the founding of Israel [in the textbooks] than about terrorism against Israel since that time."

Among the claims made about Israel in some of the textbooks are that Arab countries never initiated wars against Israel, Arab nations desire peace while Israel does not and that it was Israel that placed Palestinians in refugee camps in Arab lands, not Arab governments. No mention whatsoever was found relating to the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were forced out after the establishment of Israel.

In their treatment of Judaism, too, the textbooks showed a negative bias, according to the study. They often expressed a view that "Jews and Judaism are legalistic," and that "Jews care only about the letter of the law and ignore its spirit," the study found. The Jewish God is presented as "stern and warlike," and not compassionate, as is highlighted in other religions. In some instances, Jews are charged with deicide in the killing of Jesus.

The study also found that 18 textbooks used "unscholarly and disparaging 'Old Testament' terminology for the Jewish scriptures when discussing the origins of Judaism."

The study compared language used in describing Jewish and Christian belief with that describing Muslim belief. "The textbooks tend to be critical of Jews and Israel, disrespectful about Christianity, and rather than represent Islam in an objective way, tend to glorify it," says Ybarra.

"Textbook publishers often defer completely to Muslim groups for their content [on Islam] because they want to be sensitive to Muslim concerns," he explained. "So they write that Mohammed is a prophet of God, without the qualifier you should have in a public school that shows you're teaching about religion, rather than teaching religion."

One example among the many cited in the study is in World History: Continuity and Change, in which a glossary entry on the Ten Commandments describes them as "Moral laws Moses claimed to have received from the Hebrew God Yahweh on Mount Sinai."

The same glossary describes the Koran as a "Holy Book of Islam containing revelations received by Muhammad from God" - without a conditional qualifier.

"Islam is treated with a devotional tone in some textbooks, less detached and analytical than it ought to be," the study finds. "Muslim beliefs are described in several instances as fact, without any clear qualifier such as 'Muslims believe... .'

"No religion should be presented in history textbooks as absolute truth, either on its own or compared to any other, or they all should be."

"All in all, there are repeated misrepresentations that cross the line into bigotry," the authors write.

The textbooks examined in the study are published by some of the largest publishers in America, including Pearson, an $8 billion dollar company which is one of America's largest textbook publishers, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, a global corporation with revenues totaling some $2.5 billion.

The publishers, however, are not bigots, Tobin emphasizes. "I learned in graduate school that you should never try to explain something with conspiracy when you can account for it with incompetence," he says. "That's what you've got here. The fact that publishers don't use scholars to write the textbooks, but amateurs," is a major source of the bias in the texts.

"If the person writing about the founding of Israel isn't an expert in the field - and he's not - he'll go to whatever sources he can find, such as Google. Any misinformation he finds can get into the textbooks."

The lack of expertise among the writers is only one of the many "systemic ills" the study found in the textbook publishing process. "Developing a textbook and getting it adopted in the major states of Texas and California is so expensive that only those competitors with the deepest pockets stand a chance of succeeding. Only three mega-publishers (down from nine in less than twenty years) control the K-12 textbook market, meaning that more and more titles are concentrated in fewer hands. Errors in one book now stand a greater chance of replicating themselves across other books because they may originate from the same source."

These structural weaknesses leave the textbook industry susceptible to pressure from certain groups. "We do not believe that textbook publishers are 'out to get' anybody or any group," the authors note in the study. Rather, "they are subject to all kinds of external pressures so that the higher pursuit of truth and accuracy can be sacrificed to narrow interests."

"Arab and Muslim interest groups... promote a pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian agenda in textbooks' lessons on the Middle East," the study finds. "For example, the Council on Islamic Education has weighed in during adoption processes to oppose the direct and unconditional use of the term 'Israel' for the Israelite monarchy in textbooks, lest anyone make the connection between modern Jews' claims to Israel and the kingdom that existed in the same location 3,000 years ago."

Says Tobin: "If the president of Iran wants to blast Israel at the UN, he can use American textbooks to do so." "

Yeah, leadership like Bush, isn't it? Or like McCain. You live his economic ideas, don't you?

McCain used to be a man. Since 2002, he morphed into Bush's poodle. He should have taken Bush's pooch as running mate, they know each other quite well by now.

sleepyavl said:   "McCain used to be a man. Since 2002, he morphed into Bush's poodle"

What the fuck are you barking about, sleepy?

Aside form thinking that you are always right what do you offer by way of debate?

You are like one of those dogs who got so used to barking that he forgot what he is barking about.

sleepyavl said

"McCain used to be a man"

Obama has never been a man.

This is the second time in last few years that our country in the serious danger. In both cases McCain put the country first while Obama  has been  betting on America fall.  Obama lost his bet on Iraq. The current failure is his best chance to win presidency of the country he doesn't care about.

Marty... sometimes the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy.

Hershel,

I was discussing a state's perception of it's survival being at stake as a basis for obtaining/keeping nukes. With such a perception what is or is not required by a treaty would be far down on the totem pole from Iran's POV given the deadly intrigues historical and ongoing such as CIA history in your country of deposing a duly elected president, continuous provocations for war, the USA having just invaded your neighbor and hung it's president under false pretenses etc.

As far as Israel is concerned I don't believe that a direct military threat was made towards Israel by Ahmadinehjad although it's been widely reported as such-he was just speaking of his perceived notion of Israel's decadence eventually leading to its own demise just as I might speak of America's destiny to follow the fate of the Roman Empire for the same reasons that it ended(overextension of empire, debased currency etc.). It doesn't mean he's right but he's not threatening a military attack.

"This is the second time in last few years that our country in the serious danger. In both cases McCain put the country first while Obama  has been  betting on America fall. "

The Republicans in Congress aren't doing much to help either McCain or the US. How do you explain that, Jacob.

As for Obama, I don't support his bid for President but the notion that he wants America to fail is a bit far fetched. It's the mirror image of the left Democrats who see Palin as an "antisemite, a racist and a fascist."  This kind of ridiculous hyperbole can't be taken seriously.

There are many reasons not to vote for Obama but his isn't one of them.

Jack, you are way, way to smart too engage jacob.  Leave that to professional jackasses like myself.

"The Republicans in Congress aren't doing much to help either McCain or the US. How do you explain that, Jacob".

I'm not defending The Republicans in Congress.

"As for Obama, I don't support his bid for President but the notion that he wants America to fail is a bit far fetched."

OK, I don't know what he wants. however, he doesn't act in America's best interests righ now.

Harry Reid on Tuesday:

"We need the Republican nominee for president to let us know where he stands and what we should do."

CBS News reports that John McCain suspended his campaign as a response to a call from Henry Paulson to rescue the bailout plan, which would have headed for defeat without his leadership. Bob Schieffer reported this morning that McCain flew back to Washington to help reach a compromise that would allow Republicans to support a form of bailout, and that without his help, efforts to resolve the crisis would have collapsed:

I am told, Maggie, that the way McCain got involved in this in the first place, the Treasury Secretary was briefing Republicans in the House yesterday, the Republican conference, asked how many were ready to support the bailout plan. Only four of them held up their hands. Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you’ve got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you’ve got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don’t do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that’s how, McCain, apparently, became involved.

He has gotten what he wants, he’s going to have this meeting, kind of a summit today with the president and Barack Obama. I’m told that the leaders of both parties are getting close to having some kind of a bill. The question, though, is whether rank-and-file Republicans, especially, are going to vote for this.

OBAMA:

Suggested injecting presidential politics into the bailout deal made things less constructive

Thanks, jackson, for the link and quote from Rettig's article. I knew that textbooks were biased but had no idea *how biased*. Scary stuff.

Marty says that Bolton is "right as usual."  Was he right when he ripped Obama's foreign policy views in the LA Times?   See www.latimes.com/.../la-oe-bolton5-2008jun05,0,5282011.story  and www.latimes.com/.../la-oe-bolton26-2008jul26,0,4549608.story