McCain slams Obama over Middle East at pro-Israel forum

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"John McCain Monday called for tougher worldwide pressure on Iran and painted his potential rival Barack Obama as naive about the Middle East.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee called for "targeted sanctions that will impose a heavy cost on the regime's leaders," such as limiting Iran's ability to import gasoline, denying travel visas to its leaders, freezing their assets and imposing financial sanctions on its Central Bank.

McCain was speaking at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the influential pro-Israel lobbying organization.

In a clear sign McCain has begun fighting the general election campaign, the speech was peppered with attacks on Obama, the Illinois senator who is the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. McCain made his target unmistakable, mentioning Obama by name in two of the three criticisms.

The Obama campaign fired back immediately, sending reporters a lengthy e-mail rebutting McCain's points one by one as McCain began speaking."

more

[LeftishBrit]

1. Anyone who accepted Hagee's support for so long...

can certainly not be trusted on the Middle East.

'Confronted with that reality, John McCain promises four more years of the same policies that have strengthened Iran, making the United States and Israel less safe," the statement said.'


He is absolutely right. I would add that these policies have strengthened many hard-line and terrorist factions in many places, and made the entire world less safe.

As well as being utterly evil in themselves.

[Old and In the Way]

2. It's been our unbalanced approach to ME geopolitics that has created

our problem. McCain, you're not running for President of Israel. There are 130 nations on this planet...why do we have such a distorted bias with one?

[Shaktimaan]

4. Why do we have such a distorted bias with one nation?

I thought we have distorted biases with every nation... and I doubt Israel is even near the top of the list. Look at our relationship with Saudi Arabia if you want to see some distortions and bias.

As to "why?" we do it, the answer is pretty obvious. In each case, whether we have a negative bias or a tendency towards unwarranted favoritism, the answer is the same every time. Because it serves our interests to do so. In general terms, the benefits of our mutually helpful relationship with Israel greatly outweigh the negatives.

Politicians will couch the relationship in aspirational language and in terms of morality and ethics. Romanticism stirs people's emotions (especially with Israel) and while it fits like a glove from the bully pulpit it has little relevance to our actual motivations (especially with Israel). And just as the Israel/USA connection exists because of shared interests rather than shared ideology, our Middle Eastern enemies usually orate with vitriol about a core-values schism between us and them that really has more to do with localized politics than international grudges. I mean, if the Saudi/US relationship can be as bulletproof as it is then there's no reason for any country to not get along with any other... unless there actually is a good reason. "Good" meaning "rational" and "reasonable."

I'll admit that I don't know what you're referring to when you mention both "our unbalanced approach to ME geopolitics" and "our problem" which it has apparently caused. Would you mind expanding on those thoughts a bit more specifically? I feel like they could refer to any one of many pressing ME policies and issues. Thanks.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. Here's the rub: does this bias toward Israel actually serve the interests of this nation?

I have yet to see us reap any benefit!

[Old and In the Way]

6. Our relationship with SA is founded on a single interest - their oil.

I believe that the House of Saud and the House of Bush have developed a mutually beneficial commercial relationship that supersedes our national interests.

Our relationship with Israel is more complex and is not founded on any financial self-interest. I agree we have bias's for/against all nations which are subject to revision when new administrations take office. But given Israel's relative size (geographically/population), Israel exerts far more influence on our politics today than any other country. The Religious Right and the Republican Party have recognized the political value to furthering their domestic agenda by promoting Israel's interests at the expense of other vested parties in the ME. Instead of continuing the efforts of Carter and Clinton to bring all parties to the table in an effort to build a long term peace in the region by being honest brokers in the process, Republicans have aligned themselves with their Israeli counterparts and have marginalized moderates on both sides of the issue.

[Scurrilous]

3. Liz Cheney rips U.S. policy

<snip>

"The daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney criticized several elements of the Bush administration’s Middle East policy.

Liz Cheney, speaking Monday before thousands of AIPAC activists, said, "I think the United States was fundamentally mistaken to push for those Palestinian elections in Gaza.”

At the time, she said, Israeli and Palestinian officials did not think those elections, which resulted in Hamas taking power, were a good idea.

"There were few in the United States who thought that they were a good idea," added Cheney, who served in the Bush administration as deputy assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs.

Two of the U.S. officials who believed the elections were a good idea were Cheney’s boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and her father’s boss, President Bush."

more

[Scurrilous]

7. Poll: Americans Support Meetings With Hostile Leaders

<snip>

"Over the past few weeks, Barack Obama and John McCain have been squabbling over whether or not a president should meet with hostile foreign leaders – and, if he does, under what conditions.

Now a Gallup poll suggests a majority of Americans believe their president should talk to the leaders of enemy countries.

Roughly two out of three of those polled say such diplomacy is a good idea – including about half of those Republicans surveyed.

When asked specifically whether or not the U.S. president should meet with the leader of Iran, nearly 60 percent of those polled said yes.

Obama has said he would meet with leaders of hostile countries without preconditions, arguing that "strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries." (It should be noted that Obama's exact position on this issue is somewhat vague – he says there still need to be "preparations" before such a meeting were to take place, even if there aren't "preconditions.")

Both McCain and Hillary Clinton have criticized Obama for his position, suggesting it implies a naiveté and dangerous inexperience. President George W. Bush has implied that it amounts to the sort of appeasement that was employed in dealing with Nazis.'

more