namely the Israel/Palesine stand off to bring peace between them (peace will be good for Israel too, their economy and tourism and overall well being would be tremendously enhanced by resolving the conflict.)
That removes the #1 recruitment tactic (#2 now is invasion of Iraq. Remember who co-sponsored the invasion of Iraq?) for the terrorists. Then, aggressively remove terrorist operations around the world.
That removes Neocons' strawman argument for recruiting politicians to wage unnecessary wars like the Iraq war.
We can then focus on taking care of business on other fronts such as global warming and building a more progressive country and better interconnected and a relatively more peaceful world.
I remind you that Edwards Co-Sponsored Bush's approach by relentlessly hawking the invasion of Iraq:
Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. (CT) (introduced 10/2/2002)
Sen Allard, Wayne (CO) - 10/2/2002, Sen Baucus, Max (MT) - 10/7/2002, Sen Bayh, Evan (IN) - 10/2/2002, Sen Breaux, John B. (LA) - 10/9/2002, Sen Bunning, Jim (KY) - 10/4/2002, Sen Domenici, Pete V. (NM) - 10/2/2002
Sen Edwards, John (NC) - 10/3/2002
Sen Helms, Jesse (NC) - 10/2/2002, Sen Hutchinson, Tim (AR) - 10/2/2002, Sen Johnson, Tim (SD) - 10/7/2002, Sen Landrieu, Mary L. (LA) - 10/2/2002, Sen McCain, John (AZ) - 10/2/2002, Sen McConnell, Mitch (KY) - 10/2/2002, Sen Miller, Zell (GA) - 10/2/2002, Sen Thurmond, Strom (SC) - 10/10/2002, Sen Warner, John (VA) - 10/2/2002
The difference between Edwards-cosponsored Bush's approach and Obama's take on taking on terrorists is, the latter is talking about surgical strikes when there is actionable evidence about terrorists, not wholesale invasion of other countries.
When there is actionable and sound intelligence on terrorist (such as Bin Laden) whereabouts, we should go in to take them out.
If there are known terrorist training camps outside of civilian areas, and we have undeniable evidence, we should give warnings to the host country and if they fail to act, use surgical strikes to take out the camps.
In a private meeting, Obama boasted that he has the best foreign policy judgment of ANY candidate.
I think that he does have the best "foreign policy judgment" of the three top polling candidates.
If his all over the place positions in the recent past, including today, are any indication, then we are in big trouble.
He has taken brave stands such as calling for a two-state solution in the I/P conflict, which AFAIK, Clinton and Edwards have so far not done.
Throwing out public ultimatums are not the way to further our goals, in my view.
Perhaps he should not have named Musharraf (but instead referred to the "Pakistani government"), but other than that minor misstep, taking out known terrorist camps that are not located in populous areas, after giving host countries (such as Pakistan and Afghanistan) a couple of warnings is a direct approach to dealing with terrorists at the sources of their origin.
I don't understand the core of Obama's foreign policy views. They seem at odds sometimes, yet more focused toward greater militarism than I prefer.
They're pretty clear to me: root out terrorism at its source, and do not invade countries that don't pose an imminent threat. There is a fundamental difference between invading to occupy a country (as we have done to Iraq) and using surgical strikes to take out terrorist camps.
I do want to see Obama explain clearly why we would need to beef up the size of the military by 90-100K troops when the drawdown from Iraq would increase available troops compared to today, but otherwise, his overall approach makes sense to me.
The different rhetoric seems, to me, a form of calculation. Tack to one side, then back to the other, and make it seem there's something to cherry pick for everyone. I see this as an attempt to appeal to all sides, rather than proposing a cohesive vision.
With apologies to his supporters, who are loathe to accept criticism or find any fault in his pronouncements, this back and forth approach, to my eyes, is not an indication of the best foreign policy judgment by any means.
Foreign policy as things stand is a complex global problem. Obama has shown courage in laying out a comprehensive and I would even say daring vision to dealing with the real problems.
- The Israel/Palestine peace process must be resumed with the US playing a trustworthy arbiter.
- That cuts off one of the main straw man arguments Al Queda et al use to recruit their terrorist ranks.
- simultaneously, aggressively take out existing terrorist camps and root them out everywhere
- by doing these things, we eliminate Neocons' straw man (namely, terrorists) for waging unnecessary and deadly wars such as the invasion of Iraq, which, I remind you, was aggressively supported by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.
charges of of plagiarism in politics casually. Many people can arrive at the same POV independently.
If Edwards supporters are going to be callous in making such charges, one can easily reciprocate to make similar charges against Edwards of outright copying of Gore campaign themes, his (star and skylark) logo, his policy positions (of Gore's over the years). Heck, one can claim that Edwards and his campaign steal ideas, thoughts and words from the netroots day in and day out, including my own.