I'm sympathetic to Ron Paul and his libertarian principles.
I appreciate Romney's phenomenal record as a manager and his proven willingness to cross the aisle.
I stand with McCain regarding Iraq, possibly on immigration (don't know enough), global warming.
No one else worth commenting on. That includes the Dems, I just don't care yet.
Paul can't get elected, indeed he mustn't. But his popularity is a welcome message that fewer and fewer people will tolerate business as usual. I'm hoping he'll take all that money and make a 3rd Party bid, though of what party I don't know. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if he took a last-minute party-loyal stance and stood down at some point.
Romney would be all right except he remains as ambivalent as most of the rest on the waterboarding thing. Torture is torture and we shouldn't use it, end of story.
Which is how McCain feels.
So I'm hoping McCain lasts long enough for me to vote for him. Maybe the Governator will endorse him. That would be great.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
No Blood for No Nukes!
It's tempting to see the latest intelligence that Iran stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 as bad news for Darth Cheney and his evil oil-swallowing empire. Oh no! he growls, they'll never let me bomb Iran now, wheeze wheeze.
But it is good news, and I think you have to be pretty shortsighted not to draw connections between their halting that program in 2003, and the United States' deadly if unpredictable willingness to use force against regimes that flout UN directives also as demonstrated in 2003.
Of course, Little George keeps up the tough rhetoric. He is of the Admit No Wrong school, which has worked for many historical figures (though by no means all), so that's no surprise. But it is also no great cause for criticism that he, and us, kept up the pressure meanwhile. It would have been irresponsible not to. No one can deny Iran is currently run by very dangerous people. It was right for us to be the blue meanies so long as we weren't certain that their military nuclear program had truly been abandoned.
No doubt there's much more under the surface. Maybe we've known for years but have plausibly denied it so that we can keep that stick aloft over Iran's head. Maybe we are finally copping to the truth as part of a deal with Iran that will secure greater cooperation, or at least less interference, with our attempts to stabilize Iraq. That is of course how the game has always been played. And it's all to the good, if it means a) stability and eventual prosperity for the Iraqis and b) stability in the global oil markets. Stability is after all what businesspeople like. Not to get away with theft and all the trouble that ultimately brings, but simply the chance to increase their holdings of something reliable.
But I expect this creates a problem for certain critics of the entire enterprise. I wonder if perhaps it would be less disingenuous or at least more accurate for the old cry of No Blood For Oil to be amended as above.
But it is good news, and I think you have to be pretty shortsighted not to draw connections between their halting that program in 2003, and the United States' deadly if unpredictable willingness to use force against regimes that flout UN directives also as demonstrated in 2003.
Of course, Little George keeps up the tough rhetoric. He is of the Admit No Wrong school, which has worked for many historical figures (though by no means all), so that's no surprise. But it is also no great cause for criticism that he, and us, kept up the pressure meanwhile. It would have been irresponsible not to. No one can deny Iran is currently run by very dangerous people. It was right for us to be the blue meanies so long as we weren't certain that their military nuclear program had truly been abandoned.
No doubt there's much more under the surface. Maybe we've known for years but have plausibly denied it so that we can keep that stick aloft over Iran's head. Maybe we are finally copping to the truth as part of a deal with Iran that will secure greater cooperation, or at least less interference, with our attempts to stabilize Iraq. That is of course how the game has always been played. And it's all to the good, if it means a) stability and eventual prosperity for the Iraqis and b) stability in the global oil markets. Stability is after all what businesspeople like. Not to get away with theft and all the trouble that ultimately brings, but simply the chance to increase their holdings of something reliable.
But I expect this creates a problem for certain critics of the entire enterprise. I wonder if perhaps it would be less disingenuous or at least more accurate for the old cry of No Blood For Oil to be amended as above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
