On Feb 19, 2008, at 12:50 PM, abu hartal wrote:
> obviously you did not read the whole website. Obama is the only
> candidate humane enough to recognize the humanitarian crisis of the
> Iraqi people and he is the only one looking for a diplomatic
> solution to the regional crisis. He has also spoken against first
> strike threats against terrorist sites. The differences are so
> massive that I am bewildered by the constant attempts to deny them.
> What's getting in the way of seeing the obvious, real differences?
> Is it fetishism of structure which reduces all candidates to a
> single puppet role--that is, really bad social theory? Let it be
> clear: Cox purposefully distorted Obama's statements to make it
> seem as if no difference in principle has beeen articulated. This
> should not be allowed.
Oh please. Carrol is just being Carrol.
As for the massive wondrousness of BHO, were you perhaps thinking of this?
> On Israel
> Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly
> supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and
> incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the
> security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the Middle East.
> Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States
> would never distance itself from Israel.
>
> Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006
> Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to
> defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring
> a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the
> war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a
> ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles.
> He believes strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.
>
> Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently
> supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the
> annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic
> assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid
> budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has
> called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the
> development of missile defense systems.
And, really, how is BHO's Iraq agenda all that different from HRC's?
<http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/>
> A New Intensive Diplomatic Initiative in the Region. In her first
> days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization
> group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the
> states bordering Iraq. The mission of this group would be to
> develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq. It would
> have three specific goals:
>
> Non-interference. Working with the U.N. representative, the group
> would work to convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting
> involved in the civil war.
>
> Mediation. The group would attempt to mediate among the different
> sectarian groups in Iraq with the goal of attaining compromises on
> fundamental points of disputes.
>
> Reconstruction funding. The members of the group would hold
> themselves and other countries to their past pledges to provide
> funding to Iraq and will encourage additional contributions to meet
> Iraq's extensive needs.
> As our forces redeploy out of Iraq, Hillary would also organize a
> multi-billion dollar international effort -- funded by a wide range
> of donor states -- under the United Nations High Commissioner for
> Refugees to address the needs of Iraqi refugees. And as we replace
> military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will
> not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region.
> She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will
> order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations
> against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.