Nice bit of hyperbole there.
Yes. The precedent is Hillary Clinton’s warm-up remarks leading up to Obama’s.
As I said, you don’t have to take his word at all. But you were trying to impugn his character and dismiss his analysis by calling him a “blogger” as though he were some kid in his mom’s basement. So now you say you don’t care who he is, but you still aren’t going to believe him because you don’t like what he says. Got it.
You seem to be the only person speaking about freedom. Care to elaborate or actually ask a question about something I said?
Oh, you wanna talk “hyberbole” now? Ahem…
Give him your “hyperbole” line.
Nice deflection, but, no.
Try not to put words in my mouth; you don’t know me that well. The reason I don’t believe him is, he’s one paid mouthpiece for the Washington Post trying to shore up an op-ed piece. Again, he’s neither a diplomat nor a potentate.
And you accuse me of deflection? 
Says you? CNN reported that “Obama became the first president to formally endorse the policy” and the New York Times calls it a “subtle, but significant shift, in American policy.”
The LA Times said “Obama became the first president to publicly announce the 1967 formula, which is the equivalent of touching the third rail in Israeli politics.”
The part that you fail to understand is the huge difference between unofficial and official US policy.
Much better. At least there was some substance in that reason. Nonetheless, did all of those other media outlets I quoted above forget about Bush’s statement or was it, maybe, “insignificant”.
I did ask and you ignored the question. You’re the one who was playing games with phrasing.
Here’s what you said:
We see what you did there. If the Iranians go to the streets it is a “Persian spring,” and we should support it.
But if the Arabs go to the streets, well, hmm, you don’t seem to be calling that the “Arab spring.” (Why not, I wonder?) And I guess we shouldn’t support the Arabs if they go to the streets to demand democracy. Instead we should (let’s see, how do you put it…) oh yes, support our “ally” (by which you presumably mean we should have stood behind the dictator Mubarak).
Please explain why Americans should support democracy in Iran, but not in Egypt.
Nice bit of hand-waving on your part. You are the only one using terms such as “freedom” and “democracy”. Revolution is not synonymous with either term. We need to be concerned with whatever outcome is best for the US. Period. I’ll take a dictator who is friendly to the US over the Muslim Brotherhood any day.
Ah, so then your use of “Persian spring” to describe the Iranian protests was just a cynical bit of emotional manipulation on your part. Ditto your use of “ally” to describe Mubarak.
Got it.
Yes.
The MB are more like Europe’s Christian Democrats, they’re not going to make Egypt like Saudi Arabia.
I hope you are right. But I am not so sure about it.
Yes.
Let’s see what else it says:
Wow. That looks like… this isn’t something Barack Obama thought of one day with his feet up in the Oval Office. It sounds like something the United States has “unofficially” “rarely stated” but “long held” as a viable solution. :eek: Why, this could go back to GW Bush… maybe even to Bush the First… who knows?
Let’s look some more:
Great Balls a’Fire Sale, the man is calling in experts!! Is there no end to his perfidy??:eek::eek:
Some people would call that “leadership.”
That’s a matter for concern, but I don’t see the MB involved anywhere.
Putting Egypt in context: The MB and their Freedom and Justice Party, which led the polls (with 36% of the vote) in the first phase of post-revolution elections, are the moderate Islamists there. The extremists are Al Nour (got 24%).
You really don’t seem to have a handle on what you are talking about. I’m not sure you realize that we have been talking about official versus unoffical US policy the whole time. The degree of naivete exhibited in your comments is…well…expected at this point. Do you really not understand the difference between offical and unofficial US policy? Haven’t you wondered why this change was reported on at all?
Do you think it would make the news if we “officially” recognized Taiwan? Why? We obviously “unofficially” recognize Taiwan. What’s the big deal?
This official change in US policy signals that we are shifting toward the Palestinian position. You may not think that is too big of a deal but the Middle East would disagree with you. The official statement was meant to be an elbow in the ribs of Netanyahu. Should you have any doubt about that just remember the way Netanyahu was treated by Obama last year when they met at the White House.
Well, that’s a good thing, at least the way you say it.
It might be a good thing if the PA, at the very least, recognized Israel’s right to exist.
[shrug] So it would, but an independent Palestine, even one that has its own army and controls its own borders with Jordan and Egypt, will never be a serious military threat to Israel.
Why the hell would Israel want to bargain at all with a people that do not even recognize her right to exist? You do realize that Israel will give up land in exchange for…well, for nothing.
Which has been the exact complaint of those who oppose “land for peace” deals since the beginning. Nothing new there. Also, didn’t the PA officially recognize Israel’s right to exist? I could be mis-remembering, and they probably didn’t mean it if they did. But Israel has negotiated with the PA in the past, and will do so again.
In what way is the US advocating a land for peace deal “appeasement”? All of the mentions of US Middle East policy - and policy shifts - in this thread have been proposed starting points for negotiations. Obama did not even mention the possibility of a reduction is US support for Israel. He’s not trying to appease anyone. The policy shift was an attempt to get people to the negotiating table and get them talking.
As many US Presidents have learned, if people don’t want to talk, you can’t make them. That’s why it was IMO a dumb attempt to restart negotiations. It still wasn’t appeasement.
Obviously, in the way that anything the U.S. is doing that isn’t diplomatically fellating Israel is “appeasement.” :rolleyes:
But don’t ask me. Apparently, I don’t have a handle on what I’m talking about.