OxBlog |
Front page
|
Monday, August 07, 2006
# Posted 7:16 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
On This Week, she was followed by Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont. On Meet the Press, she was followed by friend-of-Joe Lanny Davis and friend-of-Ned Jim Dean. Face the Nation pretty much threw in the towel, featuring Chuck Hagel and Chris Dodd. Condi on NBC: B-. I can't recall seeing Rice so defensive and lacking confidence. She tried hard but ineffectively to make the case that diplomacy is getting us anywhere closer to a ceasefire in Lebanon.And the hosts? I've decided there isn't much point grading the hosts, since I almost never give any grade other than a B, B+ or B-. I figure that descriptive commentary would be more useful. Although I don't have anything particular to add right now, so see you next week. (4) opinions -- Add your opinion
Comments:
Why is that Democrats can sound persuasively, sincerely hawkish when talking about Israel, but not about Iraq, Iran or North Korea?
These are the kinds of things that, unfairly really, help give rise to dark speculations about "Jewish money" and "Jewish power." Just as the liberal Jewish people who defend, very reasonably and cogently, Israel's military actions against every anti-war argument, but line up on the other side when it concerns the US or another ally help give rise to the accusations about "dual loyalty." Of course, Israel faces threats to its own existence that the US does not, and it is absolutely possible to make all sorts of plausible fine distinctions. I feel unpleasant even writing the previous paragraph, since I absolutely disdain and renounce any such accusations. Still, some Democrats make worry whether I, as a supporter of Israel, should be glad that they at least support Israel or worry that they help feed the extreme left and extreme right's claims.
Lieberman and (generally) Hillary and some others manage to sound consistent, though. It's the ones like Pelosi and Boxer that really drive me crazy.
Why is that Democrats can sound persuasively, sincerely hawkish when talking about Israel, but not about Iraq, Iran or North Korea?
Perhaps because it's a really bad idea to be hawkish about Iraq, Iran or North Korea. Being hawkish is sometimes necessary. Being hawkish for the sake of being hawkish is stupid and deadly.
Why is that Democrats can sound persuasively, sincerely hawkish when talking about Israel, but not about Iraq, Iran or North Korea?
Post a Comment
Maybe it's because Israel is the only nation of the four that hasn't actively thumbed its nose at the US over the last 25 years or so. If you subscribe to the belief that Democrats have a healthy dose of anti-American feeling, their inability to sound hawkish on North Korea makes sense.
|