Generally good piece by Professor Sachs. His statement that Iran is a "functioning democracy" may be accepted only by recognizing that every democracy on Earth is only partially functioning - including ours. There is no complete, full democracy; therefore, Iran is democratic only when compared, say, to (our ally) Saudi Arabia. But Iran's democracy is less "functional" than, say, Canada's. It's all relative. That said, I agree with the thrust of the piece.
I think each of our candidates has some very important strengths and important contributions to make to the discussion of many issues.
Neither of them, however, have been able to really speak the truth about Iran, which is that it has a great and long history of civil society, and does not really export "terrorism" - at least nowhere near as much as our beautiful (?) ally, Saudi Arabia.
Politics is complex, full of contradiction and nuance. It is pretty much impossible to be "right" when pretty much every position is to a great extent "wrong."
Obama is trying to nudge the Saudis and the Likudites to wake up and smell the coffee of the next Arab Spring ... But people are stubborn.
I think both Hillary and Bernie would continue this effort, as futile as it may seem.
I praise Sanders for coming as close as possible to speaking truth to the Israelis, and his un-delivered but prepared speech to AIPAC was excellent. Obama has been trying to speak sense to the extremist Netanyahu, with little success.
My main impression is that Sanders speaks aloud what Clinton considers quietly: That we must deal with Iran and Russia w/respect to Syria. I note that Clinton, having been in the Obama Administration, may feel more constrained in her public expression. Moreover, as a politician, she is likely thinking more about the general election than the Dem primary, and is therefore preparing a more defensive political posture against the inevitable militaristic attacks from her eventual Republican opponent. This I do not see as disingenuous, but rather cautious and strategic. Personally, I'd like to see her abandon any idea of a no-fly zone, and push collaboration with Iran much more strongly.
Shared.
Generally good piece by Professor Sachs. His statement that Iran is a "functioning democracy" may be accepted only by recognizing that every democracy on Earth is only partially functioning - including ours. There is no complete, full democracy; therefore, Iran is democratic only when compared, say, to (our ally) Saudi Arabia. But Iran's democracy is less "functional" than, say, Canada's. It's all relative. That said, I agree with the thrust of the piece.
Well, if so, I'm "sure" AG Sessions will continue his pursuit of truth.
Was Timothy McVeigh called a terrorist ? I do not recall.
I think each of our candidates has some very important strengths and important contributions to make to the discussion of many issues.
Neither of them, however, have been able to really speak the truth about Iran, which is that it has a great and long history of civil society, and does not really export "terrorism" - at least nowhere near as much as our beautiful (?) ally, Saudi Arabia.
Politics is complex, full of contradiction and nuance. It is pretty much impossible to be "right" when pretty much every position is to a great extent "wrong."
Obama is trying to nudge the Saudis and the Likudites to wake up and smell the coffee of the next Arab Spring ... But people are stubborn.
I think both Hillary and Bernie would continue this effort, as futile as it may seem.
I praise Sanders for coming as close as possible to speaking truth to the Israelis, and his un-delivered but prepared speech to AIPAC was excellent. Obama has been trying to speak sense to the extremist Netanyahu, with little success.
Yet again ? So sad 🙁
Point well taken. All politics is imperfect; all politics is compromise.
My main impression is that Sanders speaks aloud what Clinton considers quietly: That we must deal with Iran and Russia w/respect to Syria. I note that Clinton, having been in the Obama Administration, may feel more constrained in her public expression. Moreover, as a politician, she is likely thinking more about the general election than the Dem primary, and is therefore preparing a more defensive political posture against the inevitable militaristic attacks from her eventual Republican opponent. This I do not see as disingenuous, but rather cautious and strategic. Personally, I'd like to see her abandon any idea of a no-fly zone, and push collaboration with Iran much more strongly.
One small step for a woman; one giant leap for womankind.