> An election of a moderate would’ve
> allowed Obama to engage with Iran more, maybe deferred their nuclear
> ambitions and thus comparatively weaken the power of US-backed client
> regimes in the Middle-East.
Ah, the subjunctive mood. Wonderful thing, the subjunctive mood. Would it not be equally plausible to imagine that Israel and the US would have found *something* to get hysterical about with any degree of "moderation" short of downright capitulation?
Somebody should write a critique of the word "moderate". Here's Noam Chomsky with (as usual for him) a good starting point:
> Now, "moderate" is an interesting word in the techical jargon of
> diplomacy; "moderate" means you follow orders. So the "moderate" Arab
> States are the brutal Egyptian dictatorship and the most extreme,
> radical Islamic-fundamentalist state in the world – also a
> dictatorship – Saudia Arabia. Those are the "moderates", because they
> more or less do what we say and they are our natural allies.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org