This week’s L’Espresso, one the most influential weekly publications in Italy, features an exclusive interview with Syrian dictator Bashar el Assad. Even as the interviewer makes his best effort to let Assad off the hook on just about every issue, Assad still manages to dismiss the assumption, made by many Westerners, that a wedge can be driven between Iran and Syria. Asked if Syria would renounce its alliance with Iran and its support for Hezbollah and Hamas in exchange for peace with Israel, Assad said that
It would be an absurd demand and there would be no more peace. How would Israel react if we demanded it breaks its relations with the United States? Negotiations must develop with regard to full reciprocity. Syria remains firmly persuaded that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah are terrorist organizations. For the simple reason that they do not kill civilians. They are movements that defend their own land. As for Iran, the answer is even more obvious. It is our old ally, there is no reason to turn our back to them.
Assad could not be clearer. In exchange for the Golan Heights, Israel would obtain a peace treaty that would add little to the present state of relations with Syria, without reducing the weight and clout of Iran and its proxies all around it. Not a deal worth pursuing.
I don’t know whether there is a truly friendly relationship between them. I think it’s difficult to go through a heated campaign battle, spend all those months lambasting the opponent and being lambasted by him, and not come out with an enduring animosity. I think it’s rather a matter of shared interests. Obama knows that his best chance to get the “bipartisan” stamp on his legislation–and he definitely wants the cover of bipartisanship–is through McCain, and McCain knows that the best way to win back the favor of the media and the historians is to help to shape and usher through the major pieces of legislation that are coming down the pipe from the Obama administration. Both are seeking personal gain, but each knows he can use the other to further his own ends. At least, that’s my interpretation.
And McCain’s “friendly personality” has nothing to do with his being favored by Democrats. Democrats like McCain for the same reason that Republicans like Lieberman: because McCain will depart from Republican orthodoxy and even slam the members of his own party in ways that echo the Democrats. McCain allows liberals to say, “See, even John McCain, a Republican, agrees with us that…”
I heard that he totally blew off the Republicans during their meeting about the bailout. He said to them:
“I WON.”
So, this is bipartisanship? Sounds more like the words of a dictator. L’etat? C’est moi! I realize that there is precious little the Republicans can do to stop this. But every last one of them should vote NO on this bailout. And when it inevitably fails within the next year or so, the Democrats will own this. But will they? At this point, I don’t think there is a Republican out there that has the stones to stand up to this royal-reaming we are about to receive.
It is wholly ideological to insist that any particular measure, compromise or otherwise, is “ideal,” or even necessary, to address “the issues that confront us as a nation.”
Identifying, in the first place, the “issues that confront us as a nation,” is an ideological exercise. It is most definitely ideological, after identifying them, to assert that government must act to address them.
Ideology, ideology — all is ideology. A Kill-Lease Heal is ideological. Obama is ideological. The voting public is ideological.
If you oppose John Boehner, it’s not because he is ideological and you are not. It’s because you act from an ideology different from his.
@ #1 Ahithophel -
You make a good point about democrats liking McCain for the same reasons that Republicans like Lieberman. And suffice to say that you are right on money as this sentiment most likely applies to millions of liberal-minded Americans. But it doesn’t apply to me. I didn’t vote for McCain, but I genuinely like the man and if he had won – I’d feel secure in knowing that he’d be the right man for the job of defending this nation. I actually hated to have to vote against him. I don’t have much to add other than there are many of us Obama supporters who are on the opposite side of the political fence as you are, but we haven’t been fluffed over with fluffy utopian talk and we’re willing to compromise and come to amicable terms in regards to the economy, foreign policy and many social issues that people of your political persuasion find to be important. I consider myself a fiscal conservative and right of center on foreign policy. I’m no democrat – but I have some liberal tendencies on other social issues. Anyway, all the best.
I’m a New Hampshire independent and voted for HIllary and then for Obama. But I greatly respect John McCain. I voted for McCain in 2000 and feel that if he had won we wouldn’t be in this Bush mess. McCain would have made a great president in 2000, but by 2008 the Bush Republican party stinks so bad there’s no way.
I honestly thought that this comment was a parody. “Obama will certainly be taking his former rival’s words to heart – and then acting upon them.” “Therefore, pending issues on foreign policy, Gitmo, Iraq will certainly have a McCain stamp on them before being finalized by executive order.” Truly clueless. What about the Exec order about Gitmo on Thursday – McCain approved that? In each instance Kejda said that Obama would “certainly” do these things. Why is Kejda so certain? No one knows what Obama will do or who he will consult. Based on Obama’s public statements, I doubt he knows either. Kejda makes this prediction based on the idea that it’s in Obama’s interest to court McCain. Maybe superficially or on a specific issue. Besides window dressing, Obama doesn’t need McCain’s support. I bet he’ll get bipartisan support (and McCain’s) for some meaningless bill like “The Prevention of the Abuse of Kittens Act.”
Opps, I ment A Kill-Lease Heal, not Kejda in my comment. Sorry about that