I will get to Surveyor’s assertions in our back and forth in a minute. I can feel your nervous anticipation. Whee.

Regarding the current approaches of the Bush administration, I disagree. I think it is more likely that they take the approaches that they take because those approaches seem like the best option at the moment. This is not me trying to say that somehow Bush has “seen the light” but instead that their actions are not as bound by political concerns as they were before. Nobody running wants their endorsement. Nobody is going to try to pivot off their policies in the next few months in a positive way. It has been the assertion of several former insiders that a disproportionate amount of policy has been guided by political considerations. Maybe this is the administration actually not caring about how it looks. I think their aversion to previous negotiations was genuine. This makes me wonder what changed behind the scenes (if anything).

Any suggestions?

I am curious what the gallery thinks.

Now back to the crap.

In response to Surveyors last missive to me:

As I understood it your assertions were as follows:

1:Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety.

3:Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

4:That diplomacy is unhelpful if weak and not backed up.

5:That I have not responded to your assertions.

So here we go.

1:Obama is uninformed on foreign policy.

If the assertion that somebody graduating with honors in international relations is not knowledgeable in international relations well then I think you need more than verbal misspeaks to prove that point. You have rehashed Bolton pieces on this and not actually given evidence that I can see. I have only seen your assertions using the assertions of others as support for yours.

2:Islam has violence and homicidal intent as a requirement of piety.

As I understand it, Islam has a component that suggests struggle in the way of God (the 25th Sura being one of the best examples–as I recall). It is not explicitly a call to violence. This has lots of interpretations. How it is preached makes a difference. It can be a Southern California Imam teach how to remain pure and pious while living in San Diego or it could be a Madrasa instructor in Waziristan discussing explosive martyrdom.
This interpretative quality is why followers of Judaism and Christianity do not regularly follow the explicit teachings of Leviticus. It is why it would be prejudiced to state that these religions are inherently against menstruating women or homosexuals.

And yes, I do think that making disdainful assertions about an entire religions and/or its followers (like being homicidal) is bigoted. That means I believe you are propagating bigotry.

3:Not widely credited authors should be widely credited and treated as widely credited by me.

Again, if you are going to make claims that contradict currently accepted common understandings, you need more than just more claims as your support. Trying to back up your claims with the claims of others is not evidence. When Galileo claimed that he had a better theory, he was backed up by good evidence. He did not just use somebody random to make a similar claim. If he had, he probably would not have been arrested. He probably would have been discounted as a nut.

4:That diplomacy is unhelpful if weak and not backed up.

This is actually correct. I agree with you. However, its intuitive. Please show me this quote about him saying he would never use force against Iran. I am curious of the context. Also, giving access to our markets as a part of normalizing relations is very different from giving away Czechoslovakia. You have proven a point that nobody disagrees with.

5:That I have not responded to your assertions.

Still not clear that you had really much in the way of assertions. You made claims that are not widely recognized and then claimed similar assertions from others as the factual backup and “proof”.