Let's play a new game.

[jazzfish]

It's really simple. Here's the Republican presidential platform from 2000:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/#1

The object of this game is to find the statement that's been most contradicted by the actions of the current administration. MattS over at Daily Kos has some good contenders, of which my favorite is "The arrogance, inconsistency, and unreliability of the [Clinton] administration's diplomacy have undermined American alliances, alienated friends, and emboldened our adversaries."

The best I've found, though, is this little gem:
"We have four priorities for the Middle East. First, we seek to promote and maintain peace throughout the region. Second, we must ensure that Israel remains safe and secure. Third, we must protect our economic interests and ensure the reliable flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. And fourth, we must reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the region. Because America cannot achieve these objectives by acting alone, U.S. policy must rest on leadership that can build strong coalitions of like-minded states and hold them together to achieve common aims."

[And yes, if you remind me in a few years I'll be more than happy to play this game with the Democratic platform from 2004.]

Comments

[ndkid.livejournal.com]

There are several reasons, I think. One is that sucking out the available oil from Texas or looking for different fuel sources are both still political nightmares (mainly due to international oil company's ability to lobby), so sucking oil out of the Middle East is still basically a neccesity... and if they're too busy killing each other to suckk out oil, it's bad for business.
Two, I think it mostly centers around Israel, a situation that the US was a major factor in creating, and one that they want to see Israel come out on top of... if somebody over there is going to have their hands on dirty bombs and dirty money, we'd prefer they be in *our* pocket.

[laughin.livejournal.com]

Yes, perhaps. That is why I am all for going into ANWAR.

Israel can hold its own. It has for years.

[dasphios.livejournal.com]

Which is exactly the problem. The English empire showed what international arrogance and human rights abuses in occupied territories will get you. All the money and guns in the world won't stop Tel Aviv from becoming a sheet of radioactive glass if the regional instability and religious arrogance doesn't die down.

[ndkid.livejournal.com]

Let's not forget how long Englad managed to keep said inhumane empire up and running. ;-)

[dasphios.livejournal.com]

And let's not forget how quickly one man brought it down. :)

[jazzfish]

Israel can hold its own. It has for years.

You say that out loud, you alienate the Jewish vote. Especially if your opponent has a mideast policy that basically consists of "apologise for everything Israel does," as most if not all US presidents have since 1948.

[laughin.livejournal.com]

Preach to the choir!

That is why we are doomed as a country, because no candidate has the balls to stand up to different voting groups. They will be labeled:

Anti-semetic
Anti-Christian
Racist
Zionist
Not "for the children"
Wanting to starve old people
For the rich
Liberal
Conservative
Etc...

This is a case where the truth will set everyone free, but not put you in office.

[ndkid.livejournal.com]

Arguably, the reason we end up with parties without balls is due to our fixation on a two-party system. As soon as we move to legislatures that use proprtional representation, fringe groups will be able to develop. Unfortunuately, with so much power already concentrated in two parties, I'm not sure how we'd go about moving into a multi-party system... I can't think of an international precident for that sort of thing.

[ndkid.livejournal.com]

As long as we keep selling it hardware just a generation behind our top stuff, yeah, they can stay up. As is, I think their Air Force is better than Russia's, these days.