... but there's much much more. The main headline is about the attack on the embassy in Libya. Below that, in the left column, there's "OBAMA CONVENTION BOUNCE GONE: O 46% R 45%... DEVELOPING..." and then a picture of Netanyahu, in sharp focus, staring down a blurry, lip-pursing Obama, and this series of teasers:
'WAIT FOR WHAT? WAIT UNTIL WHEN?'Also in that column, under a picture of teachers on strike in Chicago, is Bill Clinton in front of 3 American flags. Clinton was — in Drudge-world — urging Floridians "to honor 9/11 — by voting." The American flag theme is continued in the middle column, with a picture of protesters in Cairo ripping down the American flag. Above that pic is a photo of a stern Hillary Clinton. Under it is a photo, presumably from a protest somewhere in Africa, of a burning sheet printed with Obama's smiling face.
USA and Israel in open feud...
White House declines Netanyahu request to meet with Obama...
'Schedule Full'...
Announces 'Letterman' Appearance...
That's the way the day looks, for the millions of people who check Drudge for that purpose. It's an important day for the Obama campaign. We shall see how well it's handled. Some people might say the best way to handle it is not to think about the campaign at all but to knuckle down and do the work of President the way it should be done, as if there were no campaign at all. But who can imagine that... I mean other than a politico who thinks that giving that impression would be best for the campaign.
Posts
207 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 207 of 207"On the otherhand if we continue to be involved in the middle east for domestic political reasons we need to start to ask when does the cost of this involvement become to large to bear, given our weakened economy."
And our allies need to start thinking about what they'll do the next time Kuwaiti tankers need to be reflagged. Remember when that happened? Israel had squat to do with that. That was purely about seeing to it that the oil continued to flow (to the entire world, not just us). Absolutely regardless of Israel, Europe and Japan need us in the ME, and the ME needs to sell them (and us) their oil. Period. If our support for Israel was such a huge problem that it caused all of the ME members of OPEC to not do business with us, why do they do business with us? You've already supplied the answer: economic self-interest.
If Israel didn't exist, the strategic situation WRT oil would remain the same. Europe and Japan would still need it, and we would still have to guarantee its flow.
"To the extent that Israel is an ally it is not the kind of ally that is of much use to us."
Viewed in the context of the timeframe from the establishment of Israel through the end of the Cold War, they were of much use to us. Conditions have changed since then, but a reliable ally is still nice to have. You cite what great allies the British Commonwealth have been. We've done MUCH more for them over the last century than they have for us. Yet they are still our allies. Like Israel.
Crimso said...
Europe and Japan need us in the ME, and the ME needs to sell them (and us) their oil. Period.
why do they do business with us? You've already supplied the answer: economic self-interest.
Exactly my point. Which is why we don't need to be in the middle east at all, except for the narrow self interest of killing terrorists who are a credible threat to attack us.
You cite what great allies the British Commonwealth have been. We've done MUCH more for them over the last century than they have for us. Yet they are still our allies.
Incredibly, these countries don't see things quite like this.
Drudge is a pure hack for the Republican party. The only people influenced by his page are fools.
We love it because we know it's hackery. In leftist circles this sort of hackery is referred to as 'Art', and I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw recently on what was clearly an Obama-supporting art school student's car:
NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR YOU ART
Such a stern statement...and I agree 100% Skillful hackery, like Drudge's, is extremely entertaining when you've long ago reached many of the conclusions he alludes to with his juxtapositions. When you don't agree, well, the impetus to rage and/or demand apologies is pretty strong, no?
Drudge is an ever-changing, ever-delightful Republican 'piss christ'.
So, basically, 'in your face, pal!'
Tarzan said...
Drudge is a pure hack for the Republican party. The only people influenced by his page are fools.
We love it because we know it's hackery. In leftist circles this sort of hackery is referred to as 'Art', and I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw recently on what was clearly an Obama-supporting art school student's car:
NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR YOU ART
Such a stern statement...and I agree 100% Skillful hackery, like Drudge's, is extremely entertaining when you've long ago reached many of the conclusions he alludes to with his juxtapositions. When you don't agree, well, the impetus to rage and/or demand apologies is pretty strong, no?
Drudge is an ever-changing, ever-delightful Republican 'piss christ'.
I basically agree with this and I read him most days. Of course the corrollary is that you would be as stupid to form your political views based on the Drudge Report as you would be to form your religious views based on 'piss christ'.
AReasonableMan:
Again, you are arguing theory and I am arguing reality.
As for the Commonwealth countries and how they reckon the net flow of benefits in our relationship, I can't help it if they're mathematically illiterate.
Re: AReasonableMan:
Exactly my point. Which is why we don't need to be in the middle east at all, except for the narrow self interest of killing terrorists who are a credible threat to attack us.
Did . . did you even think that through? Our economic interest is in getting oil. Oil comes from the Middle East. Why would our concern with Middle Eastern terrorists be limited to those who are a credible threat to attack us?
Obviously, if our economic interest is in the oil, we need to be concerned not about terrorists who can strike us, but terrorists who can strike the oilfields or the shipping routes. Or destabilise political conditions in the countries owning the oilfields or controlling the shipping routes. The fact that there's outside buyers just gives terrorists who threaten oil supplies massive leverage (i.e. heightens the returns to terrorism), and creates an incentive for conflict and civil war as factions try to control the supply of the natural resource (cf. diamonds in Africa). I don't particularly care if the supply of diamonds gets massively disrupted because people are busy fighting over who gets to control that revenue stream, but it does matter to me -- and the US and the entire industrialised world -- that we limit the ability of terrorists or hostile powers to disrupt the flow of oil. We can disagree about the best way to do that, but no matter what, it's going to require that we -- or someone -- be pretty heavily involved in the Middle East.
Look, I can understand if our only concern with, say, Tamil terrorists is if Tamil terrorists could attack us. Same with Irishmen. That is obviously not the case with Middle Eastern terrorists.
Balfegor said...
Did . . did you even think that through? Our economic interest is in getting oil. Oil comes from the Middle East. Why would our concern with Middle Eastern terrorists be limited to those who are a credible threat to attack us?
Obviously, if our economic interest is in the oil, we need to be concerned not about terrorists who can strike us, but terrorists who can strike the oilfields or the shipping routes. Or destabilise political conditions in the countries owning the oilfields or controlling the shipping routes. The fact that there's outside buyers just gives terrorists who threaten oil supplies massive leverage (i.e. heightens the returns to terrorism), and creates an incentive for conflict and civil war as factions try to control the supply of the natural resource (cf. diamonds in Africa). I don't particularly care if the supply of diamonds gets massively disrupted because people are busy fighting over who gets to control that revenue stream, but it does matter to me -- and the US and the entire industrialised world -- that we limit the ability of terrorists or hostile powers to disrupt the flow of oil. We can disagree about the best way to do that, but no matter what, it's going to require that we -- or someone -- be pretty heavily involved in the Middle East.
I love oil, I have a boat with a V8 in it, I don't have a choice, but Pat Buchanan had it exactly right on oil. They are desparate to sell it to us to prop up their failed economies. Do we really care who they are? No one is going to block the flow of oil from the middle east in the long run. And, in the unlikely event that this does happen for some country we can always go in and beat the crap out of them, as was done for Kuwait. Our interests are best served by distancing ourselves as far as we can from this tar pit. Let someone else take the heat, hopefully their apparently endless supply of useless 'leaders'. Without the US to blame they may finally take some responsibility for their own failings and we will all be a lot better off.
Post a Comment