One of the many instances of Juan Cole's fair-minded self. In the spirit of fair mindedness, I think it fair to point out that one of the "philosophical differences with him" that Professor Cole seems to have is that Professor Cole states confirmable or disconfirmable, objective facts as the grounds for his "philosophical" positions -- Friedman seems to state fictions that he has created to support his "philosophical" positions.
This article, along with others of Juan Cole, is posted on Commondreams. I posted this response on the Commondreams website, and am sorry to only now be giving the article the credit I think it due on "home site."
###
I think that this piece is Juan Cole at his best, most insightful, and most important.
And I think that none of the factual allegations in the responses made with the intent of showing Cole’s error, if all such allegations are correct, makes an argument against Cole’s point. The fundamental importance of asking the questions Cole raises is not addressed by, let alone refuted by, any of those allegations.
"I propose that by declining immediately to refute the false alarm, Trump gave aid and comfort to North Korea, which has been attempting to play mind games with Hawaiians as part of its belligerent strategy toward the United States."
Come on, Professor Cole -- You are better than this.
A string of actions justifying at the least a vote in the House on impeachment?
Absolutely.
At the very least serious consideration by "the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" of invoking the 25th Amendment?
Absolutely.
Giving aid and comfort to those who hold up any criticism of Trump as the work of, at best, nitwits?
Please, no -- and most especially not from someone, as is Prof. Cole, rightly regarded as one of the most insightful, fact focused, reliable of the critics.
Is there something offensive about asking what qualifications, what relevant prior experience, a person described on Wikipedia thus: "an American media proprietor, talk show host, actress, producer, and philanthropist.[1] She is best known for her talk show The Oprah Winfrey Show, which was the highest-rated television program of its kind in history and was nationally syndicated from 1986 to 2011 in Chicago, Illinois.[6] Dubbed the ‘Queen of All Media’,[7] she is the richest African-American[8] and North America's first multi-billionaire black person[9]and has been ranked the greatest black philanthropist in American history.[10][11]" has for serving as president of the United States?
Perhaps the answer is, A great deal.
"The deal which was signed in July 2015 by Iran, Germany, and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council established a working agreement to ensure that Iran would not proliferate nuclear weapons. The deal has been praised by many in the international community as a positive step forward in ensuring that the Middle East remains a nuclear weapons-free zone." The Middle East might again become "a nuclear weapons-free zone;" the time is past when one can consistent with reality speak of its "remain[. . . ing]" one.
"The world continues to cast doubt on Iraq's possession of WMDs, despite repeated and unequivocal statements to the contrary from the intelligence community."
Thank you for a nuanced statement of essential truths, few of which are receiving any attention from more than a few writers with access to more than a few readers. Please keep going.
Regarding leaks and hacks -- Shortly after the e-mails appeared and the allegations, claims, and surmises of Russian hacks began, at least three people, all with well-known names in the world of leaks, were quoted more than once saying "It was a leak from the DNC. I know the leaker. He is not Russian."
The claims that it was hacking continued, increased in number of sources, and decreased in cautions that "We can't yet be sure."
And I have seen no further word from the "I know the leaker" people.
So -- Is that because they have realized that they were wrong? Or is it because they were and are quite right, and have been convinced that it is very much in their interests to shut up?
Warren and Pelosi are icons and servants of the Party old guard who share responsibility for the Trump administration.
And they either do not know the elements of perjury; know and don't care, simply liking the sound of their own voices; or know, care, but do not know English.
Professor Cole -- For many years I have found your comments a model of nuanced, deeply knowledgeable analysis offered in reliance upon cited, confirmable or disconfirmable fact. Over the years, I have thought what you write, because of what you write about and how you write it, one of the major bulwarks against the rising dark.
I regard a Trump presidency a disaster.
From the perspective of all the above -- This piece is the antithesis of what you have, invaluably, stood for. It is less than not worthy of you.
Your name attached to it will evoke agreement where many other names would have evoked its merited condemnation.
I was in a car with the radio on for Chris Thile's first Prairie Home Companion. As one who could not stand it with Keillor I regard Thile as Keillor's revenge. Others -- most of those whom I know -- share your views, not mine.
I find Keillor's voice impossible to listen to and his supposed humor intolerable. From that perspective, and with no idea in what context he uttered the words quoted in this piece, I wonder whether the words were uttered as a contribution to his idea of humor.
"Who can doubt Obama’s sincerity, or question his oft-expressed wish to turn away from war and focus instead on unattended needs here at home?" From a man to whom so much respect, on so many grounds, is owed, this is a puzzling statement / question.
And we are to believe that a Trump presidency would be worse? That Sanders should withdraw? To call such a suggestion "absurd", as Sanders generously and with admirable restraint called it, is the understatement of the campaign.
"If it’s Trump versus Clinton, what does it Mean for Iran and ISIL Policy?" -- I don't claim to know which would be worse; I expect that Clinton would be materially worse; what it means to me is that I hope Sanders is president.
I fully agree with your comments on the "civility" of the Republican candidates, and as always admire and am grateful for the clarity of your analysis. Lest one become distracted by the incivility of the Republicans -- PLEASE bring your unsurpassed knowledge of the Middle East (past and current), analytic clarity, and decency to bear on this, from the man whose "natural heir" Hillary Clinton admits (oops, sorry, claims) she is: link to independent.co.uk
Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, ''It's very good.'' Then he edited himself: ''Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.'' He predicted that the attack would ''strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we've experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.''
"And third are those who see the election itself as a distraction from the long-term work of movement building. This last group also tends to dismiss Sanders for running as a Democrat simply because in doing so they (rightly) feel that he is legitimizing a party they see as far too much like the GOP."
Long before the "long-term work of movement building" has been completed we will all be dead. In what way is Sanders "legitimizing" the Democratic Party? Why not support the "long-term work of . . . building" a New Deal within the Democratic Party, as Al Smith and F.D. Roosevelt did in the '20s and 30s? Such "work" would begin from an infinitely more advantageous starting point than "work" that dismisses Sanders for his lack of purity.
Brian, I profoundly hope that you are right. I know that there is much support in Israel for the positions Corbyn supports, as there is in the U.S. among American Jews. I hope you are right that in Israel it is not only "much" but "most".
"Jeb Bush very unwisely went after Hillary Clinton last night on the grounds that her Iraq policies gave us Daesh (ISIS, ISIL)." Well, whatever her "subsequent Iraq policies" may or may not have given us, she and 28 other Democratic senators are as responsible as any for "Iraq, the war crime", she and they having voted for the war (No, they were not "misled" by "faulty intelligence" {the intelligence was right on} or Bush / Cheney lies {the truth was public knowledge, and I don't mean the claims of those who urged against war, for sound and decent reasons but without actual knowledge of what was and was not in Iraq - I mean the public statements of those who were in Iraq, who knew what was and was not there, and were specialists at finding out what was and was not there}).
“You look at Egypt, probably the best relationship we’ve had in Israel, at least in my lifetime.” Does he think Egypt is in Israel? That “Israel” means something like “the Middle East”?
I did not listen to the debate, so I've no idea what the rhythm, breaks, stresses of speech were - I think the most probable meaning actually makes perfect sense geographically -- That is, he's naming a list of places - Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, none of which he imagines is any of the others (what else he might imagine I've no idea.
"This is not just bad with Iran, this is bad with ISIS. It is tied together, and, once and for all, we need a leader who’s gonna stand up and do something about it.”
He was asked about "the Iran deal". He responded with specificity - "terminate the deal on day one, . . . you reinstate the sanctions authorized by Congress . . ."
I think that reading the response in the context of the question, the plain meaning of the response is that US policy with Iran, epitomized by "the Iran deal", its policy toward "ISIS", all suffer from the same errors of omission and commission - And as a result, matters are "bad with" every area in the region.
I actually find what he's saying perfectly intelligible -- by which I don't mean intelligent.
So long as each of us keeps waiting for the one person who agrees with us on every issue that matters to us, the rest of the world will continue to elect Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, Trumps, . . .
I don't think the claim has anything to do with Churchill's view of Muslims. It is that "the right-wing crowd" thinks of the Kurds today as the analog of the Brits in the War. Each asked the US to give them "the tools", claiming that with US tools they (Brits in the War, the Kurds in Iraq) would "do the job".
An heir to FDR! Even for Clinton that is an extraordinary farce. She is heir to one thing only: whatever sound bite she thinks will best serve her self-interest at any given moment. Soon she will discover that she is an heir to Saint Helena.
"I mean ya gotta love this country! Where else can a bunch of old guys provide for the looting of our national wealth, engulf regions of the planet in destabilizing wars for a decade or more, kill and displace of innocent millions, totally piss-off a huge portion of the global population, pay back some old favors, ingratiate oneself with your betters and GET AWAY WITH IT!?"
They're not all old (Obama is not yet 54; BClinton is not yet 69) and they're not all guys (HClinton, CRice, MAlbright)
". . . he/she isn’t the other guy." Well, it's true, he/she would not be "the other guy". And as a double bonus, if you voted for Clinton you'd be voting for the first major party female candidate and, I think, should he/she be elected, the first US president to take office already guilty of war crimes and other crimes against humanity.
Professor Cole - Much of what you write in this "what if" would be welcome - But I suspect that the (very) odd person out is Clinton. Surely we and the world can do better. I have no more expectation of Clinton's willingness -- indeed of her ability -- to work through, grasp, and act in rational consistency with your von Moltke piece than of McCain's. Talk about a blinkered view of reality -- does Clinton grasp that there is a reality beyond her self-serving verbal eruptions?
" . . . that we don’t have to fight World War III in the Middle East."
Or, drawing on the thesis of this fine article, "World War I with nuclear weapons"
I doubt that the "hawkish politicians" or arms merchants, here or abroad, will pay attention to, could grasp if they did pay attention to, or would respond rationally to if they did grasp, the historical information and psychological analysis both so clearly put forth in this article, and both so carefully based on and informed by "wie es eigentlich gewesen". But there are smart, decent writers, widely read by smart, decent readers, neither writers nor readers having any stake in selling arms or wish for war, whose writing in the run-up to the Lausanne announcement is, in my judgment, in no way informed by "their own corruption" and yet is dangerously informed by a "blinkered view of reality" and -- iconically in this subject -- wholly uninformed by the knowledge and analysis presented here.
By what means can those writers / thinkers be made engaged in a genuine consideration, with back and forth comments, questions, and answers, aimed from the side represented by this article not to insult, not to make quick points, not to condescend, but genuinely to engage in a process that, not in all currently "blinkered" good minds, but one can hope in many, could lead to what is, in my view, one of the most essential and laudable achievements of the human self - the act of being able to see, and seeing say, "Ah! I see now that I was in error".
Super, your views are not traitorous, as that term is defined under the Constitution of the United States; See, Article III, Section 3.
Nor are the actions of "the 47". It is precisely because irresponsible use of the term can be harmful to you that it is essential not to add to the irresponsible use of the term by applying it to those whose views and actions, in your view and mine, are profoundly harmful to the interests of the United States, of peace, and of all those, whether in Iran, the United States, or anywhere else who wish for peace and suffer from assaults upon it.
I am in full agreement with Jakob Leonhard's views on the unwisdom of using the word "treason" or any of its forms in reference to "the 47 Senators".
With respect, Joe errs in saying that the use of the term is "strictly accurate", precisely because of "Treason is carefully defined in the Constitution (Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." If the conduct that Joe includes in "levying war' were to be accepted, I fear that many of those with whom Joe sympathizes would be found guilty of treason long before any of "the 47 Senators" were. Be careful what you wish for, and keep in mind the cautionary words of Sir Thomas More.
It is vitally important that this talk of "treason" and "treasonous" and "traitor" and "betray", in connection with "the letter", stop. Assuming without conceding (I think it a matter of grave doubt at best) that a violation of the Logan Act has occurred, "the letter" is very clearly not a "treasonous offense", See, Constitution of the United States of America, Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort".
There are two axes along which it is of vital importance to stop the talk of "treason". The first is that because it is so obviously a false statement, focusing criticism on talk of "treason" gives the 47 and their supporters an absolute free ride -- two free rides, actually - in responding to their critics. The first is that because all the noise is about "treason" the real issues that the 47 should be required to address are lost in the noise. The second free ride is that the critics who cry "treason" are easily portrayed as ranting in ignorance. The second fundamental reason why the talk of "treason" must stop is that if "the letter" is defined as treason then virtually any action in which critics of national policy engage is open to the same claim. Those who criticize the 47 -- as I do, for an action that is without question dangerous and either enormously ignorant or, if not ignorant, enormously cynical -- are precisely those in this country most endangered by application of the label "treason" to political dissent.
You surely have access to better information than I do, but I would need to have more information than I do, and information on the sources, to be sure on this one.
Drink some coffee -- you'll feel better, and perhaps feeling better perceive that what protects the rights of those wishing, as you see it, to live their lives under the dictates of witch doctors is precisely what protects your right to hold, and act on, that opinion.
"Obviously, rulings like this are planned out to interlock with future laws, state initiatives, and other right-wing mischief so as to give the old privileged classes, white, rich, male & Christian, the “freedom” to reduce the rest of us to poverty, servitude, imprisonment, and oppression." That's quite a plan -- actually Hobby Lobby and Conestoga simply point out that what the plaintiffs below seek can readily be provided by HHS's granting the same right to for-profit corporations as it does to non-profit corporations, with the obligation and cost of providing coverage shitted to the corporation's health insurance provider.
"These five justices . . . " Whatever else,we should count the votes correctly. Six justice supported the holding. Kennedy's concurrence is very important, and makes a contribution well beyond the contours of the two cases it directly addresses. And the six male justices did nothing to prevent women employees of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood Specialties from receiving insurance coverage for any of the contraceptives at issue in these two cases. On the contrary, the Court noted that the HHS (headed by a woman) has the same authority to grant an exemption to for-profit corporations just as it has to non-profit corporations, with the burden of providing coverage without additional charge to the employee or to the employee shifted to the insurance provider.
The Court did not say and has never said that corporations "are people"; the Court has said for well over a century that for purposes of invoking constitutional protections against government intrusion corporations are "persons". Before you criticize that principle think whether any charitable or for profit organization whose work and purpose you support is a corporation.
Juan Cole knows how much I admire both the quality and courage of his work - It's in that context that I suggest that these remarks on the "JWG" are a bit wide of the mark.
Assume, as I do in all that follows, that "the fragment" was written in the earliest centuries of Christianity.
First off, to state that "Of course, that it is ancient does not require that it be correct" -- meaning, that Jesus had a wife -- is rather an understatement. It would in fact not require that there was a Jesus, in a sense other than as a figure variously portrayed in Christian texts from the time of Augustus forward.
It's also the case that it would not require that the fragment's text was part of an "oral tradition" that predates the fragment or indeed extends beyond the fragment - forward, backward, or sideward.
Indeed, it would not "require" that anyone other than the scribe ever saw or heard of the statement.
But worse yet, without the full context of the document of which the fragment is a very small piece, there is not even any way to know that the words, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...'" and "She will be able to be my disciple." are a). referring to the same subject (i.e., what is printed in the article does not require that the "she" is the same person as "my wife".
And finally, a reference that says, "My wife" does not require that two words declare the existence of the wife - what if the words that are given after "My wife" as . . . were in fact, "in the event, contrary to fact, that I had or come to have, a wife"?
There could of course have been a Jesus.
If so, he could have had a wife.
If he did, there could have been an "oral tradition" transmitting references by Jesus to his wife.
On the other hand, to respond to her allegations against the CIA by attacking her hypocrisy (The Feinstein Syndrome) or dismissing the allegations and the CIA's riposte as kabuki theater intended by both sides as a distraction intended to change nothing seems to me a profound mistake.
The hell with the hypocrisy and the kabuki theater -- Take what's out there - US Senator, chair of Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee accuses CIA on spying on branch of US government - and run with it, for god's sake
You write that "Iran is far more aggressive that Iraq ever was under Saddam". You may be correct, but my understanding is that unlike Iraq and Israel Iran has not launched a war of aggression ("the supreme crime")in the course of modern history. Certainly they've not done so as recently as Israel (ctr. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Turkey [Mavi Marmora] and the United States [USS Liberty])or Iraq (ctr. Iran, with US support).
"The neoconservatives who have brought the world to the present perilous situation want to turn the clock back, despite the fact that their warmongering philosophy was rejected roundly by American people and has been shown as a ghastly failure by history." Yes, it was indeed "roundly rejected", but is none the less firmly ensconsed in the Obama administration and in the Democratic Party, in and out of the federal legislature.
"Biden began by defending Barack Obama on foreign policy, pointing to his withdrawal from Iraq, his plans for drawdown in AFghanistan, his killing of Usama Bin Laden, and the way his administration has raised the esteem of the United States abroad".
I beg your pardon -- we've just signed a deal with Afghanistan that the NYTimes says will have us "helping" them for years ahead, with exactly whom has Obama "raised the esteem of the United States abroad", who is helped by the increasing killings (of women, children, innocent men, American citizens) carried out by Obama's assassin drones, who exactly is being helped by Obama's much lauded sanctions on Iran, but the real laugher is Biden's calling on Romney to "tell us his plan" if he intends to go to war against Iran! Now THERE would be a change from our current president's transparency (sic!).
It's not that I think that Romney is what the country needs -- it's just that I'm quite sure that Obama is not the president the country needs either.
Obama and Clinton should suppress their addiction to "scolding" other people and spend their energies addressing and atoning for their own sins. That others sin also does not excuse one's own sins - nor does scolding others for theirs.
"Mark Halperin in their book Game Change said that 2008 McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt was appalled at [Sarah Palin's] . . . ignorance, saying:
. . . 'when her son was being sent off to Iraq, she couldn’t describe who we were fighting.’".
Well, neither can those who are now, or those who have for more than nine years in Afghanistan and more than seven years in Iraq, "been able to describe who we were fighting". Such ignorance seems to be a condition precedent for election to the job she seeks.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
One of the many instances of Juan Cole's fair-minded self. In the spirit of fair mindedness, I think it fair to point out that one of the "philosophical differences with him" that Professor Cole seems to have is that Professor Cole states confirmable or disconfirmable, objective facts as the grounds for his "philosophical" positions -- Friedman seems to state fictions that he has created to support his "philosophical" positions.
This article, along with others of Juan Cole, is posted on Commondreams. I posted this response on the Commondreams website, and am sorry to only now be giving the article the credit I think it due on "home site."
###
I think that this piece is Juan Cole at his best, most insightful, and most important.
And I think that none of the factual allegations in the responses made with the intent of showing Cole’s error, if all such allegations are correct, makes an argument against Cole’s point. The fundamental importance of asking the questions Cole raises is not addressed by, let alone refuted by, any of those allegations.
By what criteria are the “two . . . groups in the U.S.” characterized as “left-wing?”
Thank you for so clear and well-reasoned a comment.
"I propose that by declining immediately to refute the false alarm, Trump gave aid and comfort to North Korea, which has been attempting to play mind games with Hawaiians as part of its belligerent strategy toward the United States."
Come on, Professor Cole -- You are better than this.
A string of actions justifying at the least a vote in the House on impeachment?
Absolutely.
At the very least serious consideration by "the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide" of invoking the 25th Amendment?
Absolutely.
Giving aid and comfort to those who hold up any criticism of Trump as the work of, at best, nitwits?
Please, no -- and most especially not from someone, as is Prof. Cole, rightly regarded as one of the most insightful, fact focused, reliable of the critics.
As someone recently wrote, "Prof. Cole, rightly regarded as one of the most insightful, fact focused, reliable of the critics."
Thank you.
Is there something offensive about asking what qualifications, what relevant prior experience, a person described on Wikipedia thus: "an American media proprietor, talk show host, actress, producer, and philanthropist.[1] She is best known for her talk show The Oprah Winfrey Show, which was the highest-rated television program of its kind in history and was nationally syndicated from 1986 to 2011 in Chicago, Illinois.[6] Dubbed the ‘Queen of All Media’,[7] she is the richest African-American[8] and North America's first multi-billionaire black person[9]and has been ranked the greatest black philanthropist in American history.[10][11]" has for serving as president of the United States?
Perhaps the answer is, A great deal.
But couldn’t a discussion be held?
". . . open to a presidential bid and he said, 'absolutely she would.'”
Thus continuing the "no relevant prior experience needed" tradition that we see working so well.
“. . . open to presidential run.”
No relevant experience required?
"The deal which was signed in July 2015 by Iran, Germany, and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council established a working agreement to ensure that Iran would not proliferate nuclear weapons. The deal has been praised by many in the international community as a positive step forward in ensuring that the Middle East remains a nuclear weapons-free zone." The Middle East might again become "a nuclear weapons-free zone;" the time is past when one can consistent with reality speak of its "remain[. . . ing]" one.
The shadow of the moon can fall upon the sun as seen from the surface of a flat earth in the same way it can be from a round earth.
"The world continues to cast doubt on Iraq's possession of WMDs, despite repeated and unequivocal statements to the contrary from the intelligence community."
"This is disorganized crime in action."
Priceless!
A quibble -- it should be "dis is disorganized crime in action."
By whose / which words are left wordless?
Thank you for a nuanced statement of essential truths, few of which are receiving any attention from more than a few writers with access to more than a few readers. Please keep going.
Regarding leaks and hacks -- Shortly after the e-mails appeared and the allegations, claims, and surmises of Russian hacks began, at least three people, all with well-known names in the world of leaks, were quoted more than once saying "It was a leak from the DNC. I know the leaker. He is not Russian."
The claims that it was hacking continued, increased in number of sources, and decreased in cautions that "We can't yet be sure."
And I have seen no further word from the "I know the leaker" people.
So -- Is that because they have realized that they were wrong? Or is it because they were and are quite right, and have been convinced that it is very much in their interests to shut up?
Well said, especially in your second paragraph -- for which, Thanks!
Warren and Pelosi are icons and servants of the Party old guard who share responsibility for the Trump administration.
And they either do not know the elements of perjury; know and don't care, simply liking the sound of their own voices; or know, care, but do not know English.
"My father was a wandering Aramean."
And Mexico will pay for the demolition of the boundary,
Tonkin.
Professor Cole -- For many years I have found your comments a model of nuanced, deeply knowledgeable analysis offered in reliance upon cited, confirmable or disconfirmable fact. Over the years, I have thought what you write, because of what you write about and how you write it, one of the major bulwarks against the rising dark.
I regard a Trump presidency a disaster.
From the perspective of all the above -- This piece is the antithesis of what you have, invaluably, stood for. It is less than not worthy of you.
Your name attached to it will evoke agreement where many other names would have evoked its merited condemnation.
I hope that you will reconsider.
With great respect,
Dan Larkin
I was in a car with the radio on for Chris Thile's first Prairie Home Companion. As one who could not stand it with Keillor I regard Thile as Keillor's revenge. Others -- most of those whom I know -- share your views, not mine.
I find Keillor's voice impossible to listen to and his supposed humor intolerable. From that perspective, and with no idea in what context he uttered the words quoted in this piece, I wonder whether the words were uttered as a contribution to his idea of humor.
"Sarah Silverman to Bernie or Bust folks at DNC 2016: 'You are being ridiculous.'"
Actually it is Sarah Silverman, of whom I'd never heard, who is being worse than ridiculous -- she is being wrong.
I had not known that Minister Lieberman was a student of poetry. I wonder what he thinks of Yehuda Amichai.
"Who can doubt Obama’s sincerity, or question his oft-expressed wish to turn away from war and focus instead on unattended needs here at home?" From a man to whom so much respect, on so many grounds, is owed, this is a puzzling statement / question.
Bravo!
Not by any means, but by all means available to him.
Do you know Mr. Lister?
What a penetrating, sympathetic, informed commentary -- applicable not only in Belgium, not only in Europe, but in the U.S. as well.
And we are to believe that a Trump presidency would be worse? That Sanders should withdraw? To call such a suggestion "absurd", as Sanders generously and with admirable restraint called it, is the understatement of the campaign.
"If it’s Trump versus Clinton, what does it Mean for Iran and ISIL Policy?" -- I don't claim to know which would be worse; I expect that Clinton would be materially worse; what it means to me is that I hope Sanders is president.
I fully agree with your comments on the "civility" of the Republican candidates, and as always admire and am grateful for the clarity of your analysis. Lest one become distracted by the incivility of the Republicans -- PLEASE bring your unsurpassed knowledge of the Middle East (past and current), analytic clarity, and decency to bear on this, from the man whose "natural heir" Hillary Clinton admits (oops, sorry, claims) she is: link to independent.co.uk
Byline is Jerusalem, September 11, 2001
Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, ''It's very good.'' Then he edited himself: ''Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.'' He predicted that the attack would ''strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we've experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.''
I'd not known of this.
"And third are those who see the election itself as a distraction from the long-term work of movement building. This last group also tends to dismiss Sanders for running as a Democrat simply because in doing so they (rightly) feel that he is legitimizing a party they see as far too much like the GOP."
Long before the "long-term work of movement building" has been completed we will all be dead. In what way is Sanders "legitimizing" the Democratic Party? Why not support the "long-term work of . . . building" a New Deal within the Democratic Party, as Al Smith and F.D. Roosevelt did in the '20s and 30s? Such "work" would begin from an infinitely more advantageous starting point than "work" that dismisses Sanders for his lack of purity.
Thank you, Irwin, for your message.
Brian, I profoundly hope that you are right. I know that there is much support in Israel for the positions Corbyn supports, as there is in the U.S. among American Jews. I hope you are right that in Israel it is not only "much" but "most".
Clinton "has again played the entitlement card"
I would like to hear a proponent of this "card" explain to what, why, Clinton is "entitled" to something.
Ha!
67,143 at7:32 p.m. EDT, August 17, 2015
Thanks for the link - I'm not eligible to sign, but at 4:01 p.m. EDT, August 16, 2015, the count stood at 63,577 signatures.
"Jeb Bush very unwisely went after Hillary Clinton last night on the grounds that her Iraq policies gave us Daesh (ISIS, ISIL)." Well, whatever her "subsequent Iraq policies" may or may not have given us, she and 28 other Democratic senators are as responsible as any for "Iraq, the war crime", she and they having voted for the war (No, they were not "misled" by "faulty intelligence" {the intelligence was right on} or Bush / Cheney lies {the truth was public knowledge, and I don't mean the claims of those who urged against war, for sound and decent reasons but without actual knowledge of what was and was not in Iraq - I mean the public statements of those who were in Iraq, who knew what was and was not there, and were specialists at finding out what was and was not there}).
“You look at Egypt, probably the best relationship we’ve had in Israel, at least in my lifetime.” Does he think Egypt is in Israel? That “Israel” means something like “the Middle East”?
I did not listen to the debate, so I've no idea what the rhythm, breaks, stresses of speech were - I think the most probable meaning actually makes perfect sense geographically -- That is, he's naming a list of places - Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, none of which he imagines is any of the others (what else he might imagine I've no idea.
"This is not just bad with Iran, this is bad with ISIS. It is tied together, and, once and for all, we need a leader who’s gonna stand up and do something about it.”
He was asked about "the Iran deal". He responded with specificity - "terminate the deal on day one, . . . you reinstate the sanctions authorized by Congress . . ."
I think that reading the response in the context of the question, the plain meaning of the response is that US policy with Iran, epitomized by "the Iran deal", its policy toward "ISIS", all suffer from the same errors of omission and commission - And as a result, matters are "bad with" every area in the region.
I actually find what he's saying perfectly intelligible -- by which I don't mean intelligent.
So long as each of us keeps waiting for the one person who agrees with us on every issue that matters to us, the rest of the world will continue to elect Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, Trumps, . . .
"As GOP fumes . . . " Somehow I don't feel deluged by "Democratic praise . . ." If only the "GOP" were the only problem.
From Brits or others?
Sources?
Well spoken. Thank you.
I don't think the claim has anything to do with Churchill's view of Muslims. It is that "the right-wing crowd" thinks of the Kurds today as the analog of the Brits in the War. Each asked the US to give them "the tools", claiming that with US tools they (Brits in the War, the Kurds in Iraq) would "do the job".
An heir to FDR! Even for Clinton that is an extraordinary farce. She is heir to one thing only: whatever sound bite she thinks will best serve her self-interest at any given moment. Soon she will discover that she is an heir to Saint Helena.
"I mean ya gotta love this country! Where else can a bunch of old guys provide for the looting of our national wealth, engulf regions of the planet in destabilizing wars for a decade or more, kill and displace of innocent millions, totally piss-off a huge portion of the global population, pay back some old favors, ingratiate oneself with your betters and GET AWAY WITH IT!?"
They're not all old (Obama is not yet 54; BClinton is not yet 69) and they're not all guys (HClinton, CRice, MAlbright)
". . . he/she isn’t the other guy." Well, it's true, he/she would not be "the other guy". And as a double bonus, if you voted for Clinton you'd be voting for the first major party female candidate and, I think, should he/she be elected, the first US president to take office already guilty of war crimes and other crimes against humanity.
. . . but not on the Middle East and other US theaters of direct or proxy aggression, I gather. With that she's cool?
Professor Cole - Much of what you write in this "what if" would be welcome - But I suspect that the (very) odd person out is Clinton. Surely we and the world can do better. I have no more expectation of Clinton's willingness -- indeed of her ability -- to work through, grasp, and act in rational consistency with your von Moltke piece than of McCain's. Talk about a blinkered view of reality -- does Clinton grasp that there is a reality beyond her self-serving verbal eruptions?
" . . . that we don’t have to fight World War III in the Middle East."
Or, drawing on the thesis of this fine article, "World War I with nuclear weapons"
I doubt that the "hawkish politicians" or arms merchants, here or abroad, will pay attention to, could grasp if they did pay attention to, or would respond rationally to if they did grasp, the historical information and psychological analysis both so clearly put forth in this article, and both so carefully based on and informed by "wie es eigentlich gewesen". But there are smart, decent writers, widely read by smart, decent readers, neither writers nor readers having any stake in selling arms or wish for war, whose writing in the run-up to the Lausanne announcement is, in my judgment, in no way informed by "their own corruption" and yet is dangerously informed by a "blinkered view of reality" and -- iconically in this subject -- wholly uninformed by the knowledge and analysis presented here.
By what means can those writers / thinkers be made engaged in a genuine consideration, with back and forth comments, questions, and answers, aimed from the side represented by this article not to insult, not to make quick points, not to condescend, but genuinely to engage in a process that, not in all currently "blinkered" good minds, but one can hope in many, could lead to what is, in my view, one of the most essential and laudable achievements of the human self - the act of being able to see, and seeing say, "Ah! I see now that I was in error".
Last line, second paragraph -- Should read Iran, not Israel?
Where is Dwight David Eisenhower when we need him (again)?
Super, your views are not traitorous, as that term is defined under the Constitution of the United States; See, Article III, Section 3.
Nor are the actions of "the 47". It is precisely because irresponsible use of the term can be harmful to you that it is essential not to add to the irresponsible use of the term by applying it to those whose views and actions, in your view and mine, are profoundly harmful to the interests of the United States, of peace, and of all those, whether in Iran, the United States, or anywhere else who wish for peace and suffer from assaults upon it.
I am in full agreement with Jakob Leonhard's views on the unwisdom of using the word "treason" or any of its forms in reference to "the 47 Senators".
With respect, Joe errs in saying that the use of the term is "strictly accurate", precisely because of "Treason is carefully defined in the Constitution (Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." If the conduct that Joe includes in "levying war' were to be accepted, I fear that many of those with whom Joe sympathizes would be found guilty of treason long before any of "the 47 Senators" were. Be careful what you wish for, and keep in mind the cautionary words of Sir Thomas More.
It is vitally important that this talk of "treason" and "treasonous" and "traitor" and "betray", in connection with "the letter", stop. Assuming without conceding (I think it a matter of grave doubt at best) that a violation of the Logan Act has occurred, "the letter" is very clearly not a "treasonous offense", See, Constitution of the United States of America, Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort".
There are two axes along which it is of vital importance to stop the talk of "treason". The first is that because it is so obviously a false statement, focusing criticism on talk of "treason" gives the 47 and their supporters an absolute free ride -- two free rides, actually - in responding to their critics. The first is that because all the noise is about "treason" the real issues that the 47 should be required to address are lost in the noise. The second free ride is that the critics who cry "treason" are easily portrayed as ranting in ignorance. The second fundamental reason why the talk of "treason" must stop is that if "the letter" is defined as treason then virtually any action in which critics of national policy engage is open to the same claim. Those who criticize the 47 -- as I do, for an action that is without question dangerous and either enormously ignorant or, if not ignorant, enormously cynical -- are precisely those in this country most endangered by application of the label "treason" to political dissent.
“Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime.”
Aristotle, Politics, Book Two, Part VI (350 B.C.) (Benjamin Jowett translation)
"As a leaked State Department memo put it, the report 'tells a story of which no American is proud'”.
How sadly and horrifyingly wide of the mark this statement is.
I think the best response is simply, "Thank you".
You surely have access to better information than I do, but I would need to have more information than I do, and information on the sources, to be sure on this one.
Dan
Drink some coffee -- you'll feel better, and perhaps feeling better perceive that what protects the rights of those wishing, as you see it, to live their lives under the dictates of witch doctors is precisely what protects your right to hold, and act on, that opinion.
"Obviously, rulings like this are planned out to interlock with future laws, state initiatives, and other right-wing mischief so as to give the old privileged classes, white, rich, male & Christian, the “freedom” to reduce the rest of us to poverty, servitude, imprisonment, and oppression." That's quite a plan -- actually Hobby Lobby and Conestoga simply point out that what the plaintiffs below seek can readily be provided by HHS's granting the same right to for-profit corporations as it does to non-profit corporations, with the obligation and cost of providing coverage shitted to the corporation's health insurance provider.
"These five justices . . . " Whatever else,we should count the votes correctly. Six justice supported the holding. Kennedy's concurrence is very important, and makes a contribution well beyond the contours of the two cases it directly addresses. And the six male justices did nothing to prevent women employees of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood Specialties from receiving insurance coverage for any of the contraceptives at issue in these two cases. On the contrary, the Court noted that the HHS (headed by a woman) has the same authority to grant an exemption to for-profit corporations just as it has to non-profit corporations, with the burden of providing coverage without additional charge to the employee or to the employee shifted to the insurance provider.
The holding was 6-3, not 5-4.
The Court did not say and has never said that corporations "are people"; the Court has said for well over a century that for purposes of invoking constitutional protections against government intrusion corporations are "persons". Before you criticize that principle think whether any charitable or for profit organization whose work and purpose you support is a corporation.
Juan Cole knows how much I admire both the quality and courage of his work - It's in that context that I suggest that these remarks on the "JWG" are a bit wide of the mark.
Assume, as I do in all that follows, that "the fragment" was written in the earliest centuries of Christianity.
First off, to state that "Of course, that it is ancient does not require that it be correct" -- meaning, that Jesus had a wife -- is rather an understatement. It would in fact not require that there was a Jesus, in a sense other than as a figure variously portrayed in Christian texts from the time of Augustus forward.
It's also the case that it would not require that the fragment's text was part of an "oral tradition" that predates the fragment or indeed extends beyond the fragment - forward, backward, or sideward.
Indeed, it would not "require" that anyone other than the scribe ever saw or heard of the statement.
But worse yet, without the full context of the document of which the fragment is a very small piece, there is not even any way to know that the words, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...'" and "She will be able to be my disciple." are a). referring to the same subject (i.e., what is printed in the article does not require that the "she" is the same person as "my wife".
And finally, a reference that says, "My wife" does not require that two words declare the existence of the wife - what if the words that are given after "My wife" as . . . were in fact, "in the event, contrary to fact, that I had or come to have, a wife"?
There could of course have been a Jesus.
If so, he could have had a wife.
If he did, there could have been an "oral tradition" transmitting references by Jesus to his wife.
Or not.
Goodness knows I am no fan of Diane Feinstein.
On the other hand, to respond to her allegations against the CIA by attacking her hypocrisy (The Feinstein Syndrome) or dismissing the allegations and the CIA's riposte as kabuki theater intended by both sides as a distraction intended to change nothing seems to me a profound mistake.
The hell with the hypocrisy and the kabuki theater -- Take what's out there - US Senator, chair of Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee accuses CIA on spying on branch of US government - and run with it, for god's sake
" . . . suggests . . . " Doesn't it actually just "mean"?
You write that "Iran is far more aggressive that Iraq ever was under Saddam". You may be correct, but my understanding is that unlike Iraq and Israel Iran has not launched a war of aggression ("the supreme crime")in the course of modern history. Certainly they've not done so as recently as Israel (ctr. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Turkey [Mavi Marmora] and the United States [USS Liberty])or Iraq (ctr. Iran, with US support).
"The neoconservatives who have brought the world to the present perilous situation want to turn the clock back, despite the fact that their warmongering philosophy was rejected roundly by American people and has been shown as a ghastly failure by history." Yes, it was indeed "roundly rejected", but is none the less firmly ensconsed in the Obama administration and in the Democratic Party, in and out of the federal legislature.
Thank you, RoseMerry. Dan Larkin
link to nytimes.com
More evidence of the increased esteem gained for the US by Barack Obama.
"Biden began by defending Barack Obama on foreign policy, pointing to his withdrawal from Iraq, his plans for drawdown in AFghanistan, his killing of Usama Bin Laden, and the way his administration has raised the esteem of the United States abroad".
I beg your pardon -- we've just signed a deal with Afghanistan that the NYTimes says will have us "helping" them for years ahead, with exactly whom has Obama "raised the esteem of the United States abroad", who is helped by the increasing killings (of women, children, innocent men, American citizens) carried out by Obama's assassin drones, who exactly is being helped by Obama's much lauded sanctions on Iran, but the real laugher is Biden's calling on Romney to "tell us his plan" if he intends to go to war against Iran! Now THERE would be a change from our current president's transparency (sic!).
It's not that I think that Romney is what the country needs -- it's just that I'm quite sure that Obama is not the president the country needs either.
Obama and Clinton should suppress their addiction to "scolding" other people and spend their energies addressing and atoning for their own sins. That others sin also does not excuse one's own sins - nor does scolding others for theirs.
I think that this is an unusually penetrating and important piece from a thinker whose work I find consistently penetrating and important.
And yet there are those who question American exceptionalism.
"Mark Halperin in their book Game Change said that 2008 McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt was appalled at [Sarah Palin's] . . . ignorance, saying:
. . . 'when her son was being sent off to Iraq, she couldn’t describe who we were fighting.’".
Well, neither can those who are now, or those who have for more than nine years in Afghanistan and more than seven years in Iraq, "been able to describe who we were fighting". Such ignorance seems to be a condition precedent for election to the job she seeks.