Tim Fernholtz, a new American Prospect writing fellow, is becoming must-reading. Here he is with a good question about McCain's "listen to the Generals"-centric policy agenda:
But it raises this important question: If John McCain knows nothing about the economy and most domestic issues but wants to be elected based on his foreign policy, which is apparently 'do whatever David Petraeus says,' why not have McCain do a surprise endorsement of Petraeus and drop out? It would certainly be easier than crafting a coherent foreign policy.
The whole notion of listening to commanders on the ground as an alternative to listening to the Iraqi government is a bit bizarre. I mean, suppose President McCain is inaugurated in January. Then Prime Minister Maliki says, "we want US forces out within two years." People want to know how McCain will respond. And he says . . . ask General Odierno. But at this point unless General Odierno is totally unfamiliar with the constitution, he's going to have to . . . turn around and ask the White House what the administration's policy is. After all, there's a substantial difference between a military deployment in support of a foreign government and one taking place in the face of opposition from that government.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Here's a comment from a Democrat relative to Senator Obamas' phony speech before AIPAC earlier on.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/12994.htm
The following excerpt makes is clear that the senator is no friend of Israel. In refering to the speech, Dr. Fishbein writes:
"'But what was Obama hinting at? A careful parsing of the passage suggests that either he was calling for all Palestinian towns on the West Bank to be linked territorially, something that already exists, or more likely that in any final peace deal Hamas-controlled Gaza must be connected to the West Bank via a land bridge.
'In fact, the Obama statement was a sinister reformulation of a key Palestinian demand that if implemented, would erode not only the geographic continuity of the Jewish State, but could fatally undermine its security as well.
'By asserting that "The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive," Obama implicitly called for the partitioning of Israel, the break-up of a U.N. member state and U.S. democratic ally, and the sacrifice of its territorial integrity in the face of unrelenting terrorism. This is surely not what the AIPAC audience understood and certainly not what the American People expect of a possible future President. "
And then we have the list of Obama foreign policy advisers with long records of Israel bashing.
"Surely those advising Obama on foreign policy matters are aware that what their candidate is asking of Israel is nothing short of national suicide. Individuals like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lee H. Hamilton, Susan E. Rice, Lawrence J. Korb, Joseph Cirincione, W. Anthony Lake and David Bonior boast long resumes opposing Israel security interests and challenging the extent of the U.S.-Israel relationship. "
Posted by SLC | July 23, 2008 10:39 AM