Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Barack Obama not about to appease President Bush or John McCain

Signaling he's not about to let the "appeasement" issue die, Barack Obama moments ago scored President Bush and John McCain on foreign policy. Speaking at a forum on agricultural issues in Watertown, S.D., Obama slammed the Republicans for contending that he was willing to negotiate with terrorists.

"They're trying to scare you and trying to keep you from seeing the truth," Obama told a cheering crowd packed into an agricultural arena. "And the reason is, they can't win a foreign policy argument on the merits."

Our colleague, Nicholas Riccardi, was in the arena, and reports the crowd booed as Obama described how Bush criticized him during his speech to Israel's Knesset. "That's the sort of appalling attack that divides our country and alienates us from the world," Obama said.

The audience booed again as Obama said that McCain, after a morning speech pledging bipartisanship and civility, "jumped on a call with a bunch of bloggers and said I wasn't fit to protect this country that I love.... So much for civility."

Tough talk won't be enough to push Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions, Obama said, adding that "tough" negotiations could make a difference. "I'm running for president to change course," Obama said, "not to continue George Bush's course."

Obama put the war front and center, arguing that it has left the nation at greater risk, and jabbed McCain for projecting a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq by 2013. Obama recalled an offhand remark by McCain in New Hampshire that he'd be happy to have troops in Iraq for 100 years, a line Democrats have used against him ever since.

"I think he noticed it wasn't polling well," Obama said.

UPDATE: Tucker Bounds, McCain's spokesman, responds. "It was remarkable to see Barack Obama’s hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned. These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Senator Obama. Sen. Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America’s enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Sen. Obama talk about with such a man? It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Sen. Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe."

--Scott Martelle

Comments () | Archives (62)

The comments to this entry are closed.

McCain did an interview contradicting his "CURRENT" position:

McCain for the British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that." ...

Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election. The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States.

Mc-Change at will???

It's becoming obvious that the Republicans have almost no issues that they can run on with strength. Look for McCain's civil campaign to consist almost entirely of personal attack.

To Barack Obama: "the lady doth protest too much..."

mccain never suggested that obama was supporting hamas he just raised the question what is it about barack obama or his platform which is so appealing to all of our nations enemies. this isn't just hamas who likes obama in the fall its putin, chavez, iran and north korea. obama is quick to call any criticism of his campaign "dirty politics" the guy is a joke.

McCain is a weak candidate. His arguements makes no sense and borderline sleeze. Everything he states is full of hypocracy and contradictions.

Not to mention he just a nasty guy, hot headed, stubborn and loosing his bearings.

Obama cannot win on this issue. The American people eventually will conclude they cannot trust him. He is the most left wing member of the Senate -- isn't that something? -- and he hates American nationalism -- read that patriotism -- in any form. He has to attack Bush and McCain because he must, and will, confuse the American people. And, of course, with the aid of the liberal media.

The Usa Joker #1 is living, the smart supreme court president,the impostor president, the one that bankrupt the country with his wars and company defenders like white water, but the stupid #2 want to perpetuate the army in foreing land. this crooks repus are going crazy worst than crazyreagan, crooknixon and the rest of oli company exexutive's makind profits with the poors.They forget that Jesus said that is more easy for a cammel to go the eyes of a nedle than a reach be part of the Kindom of God soon to come to us.

It's hard to keep up with the Obama position on Iran.

First he said that he would meet unconditionally with the radical terrorists running the country.

Then the position evolved to meeting them "without pre-conditions", however that differs. Now, if I'm not mistaken, he is saying he will not meet with Iran until they suspend their nuclear development program.

That, of course, is the George Bush position.

Foreign policy, by his own boasting, is Obama's strong suite. Yet he's sounding more and more like Bush. I guess for that matter, he's also looking more like George too, what with his brand new American flag lapel.

Lord help this country should we every wake up with Mr. Obama in charge.

I agree with President Bush we should not be negotiating with terrorists. Let's see, back in the 80's the Reagan-BUSH administration (His daddy.) sold arms to Iran, that helped them in there war with Iraq, and also included the release of American and European hostages held in Beirut. Then the profits of those arms sales were used to illegally fund the contras. Remember that little diddy. Selling arms to terrorists, and negotiating the release of American hostages. Where was the prodigal son then? Did he oppose such a policy? Gimme a break. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I heard the President's comment regarding not wanting to talk with terrorists or rogue governments. He didn't mention Obama. Obama has stated he would talk with our enemies without preconditions. He didn't say if he did he would appease them. Either Obama is too touchy or he is using this to pick a fight with Bush and McCain. It also shows any opinion that doesn't fit into the Democrat line of thinking is not just to be criticized but to be condemed. A simple "I don't agree with the President" would have been sufficient to make his point. I can already see during the Presidential campaign, the Democrat position will be to condemn every statement Mccain says and to insinuate any critcism of Obama as racist. The goal will be to stiffle and censor McCain's positions. In the liberal world, there is only one position and it is theirs. So much for free speech in King Obama's world.

This was clearly directed at Obama and an attack on him. Does Bush even know what appeasement is, what it means? It is not appeasement to engage in diplomacy. Appeasement is giving away things, such as territory, to appease an agressive adversary or to get them to stop hostilities. Talking to people and engaging in diplomacy works. Fearing diplomacy is weak as is only relying on the threat of brute force or war as your only platform for diplomacy.

Bush and McCain really have few bullets against Obama. They are still searching for what can wound him. Good luck because Hillary tried everything in your Republican playbook and it did not work.

I hope that Bush keeps yapping. The more Obama fights with him the more he can connect McCain to that fight. His fight is against "them". They lose big time as it ties McCain to Bush inextricably. Keep yapping Bush, better yet respond. Try to take on Obama! Come on wimp! LOL

I predict OBAMA is going to win in 08

I'm ok with politicians attacking ideas or positions, which I feel is what Bush did, and I'm even ok with politicians who are in a campagin attacking positions and ideas of their opponets which is what I feel McCain did. But when Obama says "They're trying to scare you and trying to keep you from seeing the truth," I don't think he is attacking ideas or positions, he is attacking people, which I feel is wrong.

Please tell me what I am missing, because Obama just took a nose dive in my respect for him.

Obama and Jimmy Carter in 2008!

What I wouldn't give for an unbiased source of information related to our candidates for President.

The Republicans have nothing. The Emperor has no clothes. The McEmperor has no clothes. It's going to get mighty cold for them by November.

This like most media out there are pandering to the Obama debacle. Apparently any drivel that he spews is "discussing the issues". While any attempts to point out his naivety is viewed as "slander" and "uncivil"!
Naiviety is an issue.........

LATimes is no different. Following the same media hogwash parade. Notice that News media is now simply media - a step above gossip magazines but not quite NEWS because it is filled more with opinion than facts.

Wow, why did republicans choose John McCain to run for President? LOL Apparently, Barack Obama wanted in on this discussion whether George was talking about him or not. Perhaps Sec'y of State Condoleezza Rice could talk more with Iran. Get that nation under our control.

I expect my president to communicate -- even visit -- with every leader, no matter how vile, of every country relevant to the interests of my nation.

The current policy of "maybe if I ignore them they'll just go away" isn't one of leadership, but of wishful thinking.

Perhaps when we have a president -- no matter what the party -- who takes on tough tasks instead of leaving them to his successors, we can leave some of our current crises behind us.

George W. McCain is such hypocrite. He was for talking to Hamas before he was against it. And Bush's speech was - not surprisingly for the man who convinced 70% of America that Saddam attacked us on 9/11 with his nightly innuendo campaign - utterly dishonest. Appeasement, as Chris Matthews pointed out yesterday, involves *giving* someone something (like Czechoslovakia was given to Hitler), as opposed to merely opening diplomatic discussions. This is why we are so hated in the world, why we have zero credibility, and why we are mired in Sen. McCain's Hundred Years War in Iraq. This kind of dishonest demagoguery by our leaders has serious, dire consequences. I hope Americans have grown beyond falling for this sort of thing.

But I have long since stopped expecting straightforward honesty on foreign policy issues from either of these two men.

McCain has also reversed his foreign policy on intervention as well. The rhetoric that he uses to justify a continued presence in Iraq, nation-building, doesn't mesh with what he used to say. John McCain, who recently said we might be in Iraq for “maybe 100 [years],” had this to say about U.S. intervention in Somalia in 1993:

"There’s no reason for the United States to remain [in Somalia]. The American people want them home. I believe the majority of Congress wants them home. Our continued military presence allows another situation to rise, which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that. What should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal. And if we do not do that and other Americans die then I say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution. For us to get into nation-building, law and order, etc., I think, is a tragic and terrible mistake."

How do you undertake a personal attack without mentioning the name of the person being attacked. I think someone has a gulity conscience.

The real question is what will Obama say to Iran's leaders. He said he is willing to negotiate. What is he willing to give up in these negotiations. Isreal?

Obama is only stirring the hornets nest(media) with his latest remarks. The reality is that he simply has no leg to stand on when it comes to national security. He has no experience on top of that.

Obama is a fool pandering to the masses of fools.

Sen. Obama doesn't protest too much. In fact he is doing exactly what needs to be done. Attack McBush with all he has. Point out the Republican foreign policy has been a disaster and then ask the obvious question, "Who is Bush to offer any comment on somebody else's policy?" Bush has shown himself to be a complete incompetent.

It is obvious the Obama camp intends to attack and counter any assertions of weakness from the people who gave us the Iraqi quagmire. Bless him. It's about time the Democrats called the Republicans on their lies.

Now, attack some more Sen. Obama. And if somebody says he protests too much, tell 'em they ain't seen nothing yet.

the reason why both obama and mccain can be seen to randomly change their positions like a chameleon might be observed to change its colors, is that they lack all principle and orientation. their speeches are mainly lies and hollow phrases, the only consistent, underlying message being that they'd say or do about anything to get elected, and do not care about the people, nor even about the issues. the only sincere and worthy candidate for PRESIDENT, RON PAUL consistently acts in accordance with his constitutional message, says what he means, and means what he says.

I think Obama is a leader we can beleive in. The fact that he took no corporate money during the Democratic campaign shows that he has the peoples interest's at heart. I'm glad he's not letting these scare tactics from Bush and McCain go unchallanged. I'm also glad that the triangulating, flip-flopping, pandering ways of the DLC are coming to an end.

Americans elected a moron twice
and when you think things could not get worse Bush is speaking out digging his own grave making things even worse hard to believe but it is possible he is the living proof meanwhile you have MCCain coming out of retirement...
Thats the kind of guy republicans wants us to believe will save the country
sorry America....

If this issue is so important why not open serveral polls and get public opinions.

It should be very interesting to see where people stand on this issue.

Some questions are like

Should US supports Israeli
and why or not?
Should US acts strongly to control oil resource and why or not?
Should US negotiates terrorists and radicals
and why or not?

Such issue is complicated and may not have straight and simple answer.

But that is how all live in this imperfect world.

If everyone is selfishless and
if everyone is willing to sacrifice self for others
we do not need government and
we do not need law.

So for now, make no mistake,
stand up for yourself and
stand up for America

McCain/Bush not only fail to learn from their mistakes, but also from successes. Omar Qaddafi, known to support terrorism (e.g. Lockerbie) is now almost unheard from in world affairs. Was it appeasement that brought this about? A military attack? "No" to both. It was diligent, steely diplomacy. Both would have everyone believe that no conservative administration has ever used diplomacy with our enemies, only "wimpy. appeasing liberals".

What is it about a well spoken and resonable man that causes conservatives so much anger. I am registered independent, ex USAF pilot, Ivy League grad, father of two. I don't see how anyone can argue that what the US has been doing so far with Iran, Hamas, Fatah, Al Qaeda, Korea, etc. has been working.

Korea developed nuclear weapons, Iran is well on their way, Al Qaeda successfully attacked the US and thier leader is still on the loose. What can the conservatives point to that they see as a success. Al Qaeda is bankrupting our military as successfully as if they were a superpower. Do conservatives think that is teaching them a lesson? Chest pounding is great if you are an ape,, but in the more complex human world negotiations and restraint is more likely to get you what you really want.

Until we decide that we would be justified in unleashing our full arsenal on one of the enemies, we must understand that the only alternative is a compromise. You can't make a compromise without letting the other side know what the compromise is.

I do think that we would be justified in unleashing our military on Bin Ladin, but Bush let him go in favor of some crazy stunt that only an idiot could have believed would work. Iraq was the stupidest military action that the US has ever engaged in. For some reason that I cannot fathom, McCain still believes that we can win an insurgent war in Iraq. I thought that he more than most would understand the unnacceptable cost of a confllict much more difficult than even Vietnam.

There's a difference between maintaining some diplomatic contacts, which the Bush administration is apparently doing with Iran (and leading some critics to call him a hypocrite), and indulging them with a face-to-face meeting of leaders (as Obama has suggested). Obama should defend the difference in approach instead of whining at the criticism.

Remember Senator Prescott Bush.

It's ashame Obama did not get this angry over
Rev. Wrights comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bush may find his hitler remarks backfiring on him considering his own well documented family history of appeasement and support for Hitler.

Mr. Bounds' is an intentional mistranslation of the statement of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad --- The more nearly correct translation is that the current Israel militant and racist expansionism into others' territory, and Israel's current oppressive regime, must be changed by Iran. Further, Mr. Ahmadinejad is not alone in objecting to Israel's using the European Holocaust as rationalization for landgrabbing racism and oppression against Palestinians and others in the Middle East. As to the truthful translation of the words of Ahmadinejad, see "Iran and Israel: Lost in Translation?"

Lol@ 'hysterical diatribe.' Stick a fork in the GOP, it's done.

It seems Mitt Romney didn't get the memo about how the question was asked, about American diplomats working with the Palestinian government with Hamas now in charge.

He was just on CNN saying John must have meant 'dealing with them' as is 'punishment'.

I can hear McCain singing to the Beach Boys, 'Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

Yeah...that'll work.

Don't forget, Bush dismantled all of the Clinton Era diplomacy with Iran and N Korea, labeled them part of an Axis of Evil, and sat back and did nothing while they responded. Bush has shown the world that the US will go to war whether justified or not, if you were Iran, what would you have done...

Obama isn't giving anything up, as in 'Appease.' He never said he's appease Iran. He is a staunch defender of Israel.

President Bush was in Saudi Arabia yesterday, pretty much begging for OPEC to release more oil to drive down our gas prices. He was rebuffed. Saudi Arabia is a ‘friend.’

Hmmmm…with friends like that…well, you get the picture.

Bush has morphed the role of the US from being the leader of the free world, to the MANAGER of the whole world, simply based on authoritarian control by military might. The problem with that is, it’s a short term solution in protecting the homeland, because our enemy’s response will be to match that military might. So if anything, this type of authoritarian control has made Israel less safe, as well as the US.

Now we can’t get help from our ‘friends’ in the Middle East either. I may have to quote Dr Phil. ‘ How’s that workin for ya ?

World Leaders have followers, not subordinates. Our ‘friends in the Middle east will NEVER be subordinate to the US. And following is always a voluntary activity.

If the President of the US wants to lead, he/she must not appear to fear giving up formal authoritarian control through negotiating with friends and enemies alike in a win-win mindset. When negotiating, a leader seeks to make deals that help everyone. In cases where this is not possible, it is best to have the mindset from the outset that you will walk away from the deal ("win-win or no-deal").

But how can it be possible to determine a deal is NOT possible, if the leader doesn’t seek first to understand, and THEN be understood.

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice.

If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

In other words, a win-win, or no deal.

It’s time for the US to take on foreign policy matters as proactive, rather than reactive. It’s time for the leader of the US to sell, not tell.

Israeli statesman Abba Eban once said, "Men and nations behave wisely, once they've exhausted all other alternatives."

Really gettin' tired of Obama's 3rd grader-esque rants on this. The more the little junior senator talks, the more we realize that he's in WAY over his head.

Mr. Bounds put it best...."Sen. Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America’s enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Sen. Obama talk about with such a man? It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Sen. Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe."

Again thats...."unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" .....Your words little man!!!!!

Whine and carry on all you certainly doesn't chage the fact that you're dangerously under-qualified.

More garbage from the noise making, cheer leading, lap dogs, who supported those whose policies threw our country into the sludge of international disdain, for their own monetary and political gain.

No doubt another self-righteous, self-serving, anti-constitutionalist, hoping to deny someone their god given rights to equity and fair treatment, so he may continue to feel better than someone...anyone! What's your particular issue to lean on for preferentail exclusion, mister? Abortion? Gay Rights? Education? Social Security?

Are you really sure you want this guy to be your president? Just in time to serve over another banking crisis?!

As McCain likes to say, it's "just a fact:"
1. McCain received $112,000 (a lot of money back then!) by 1987 from Keating and Keating's relatives and employees to McCain's Senate campaign, more than any of the other Senators.
2. McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators.
3. The McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental Corporation (parent of Lincoln) jet.
4. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay.
5. McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.
6. Lincoln Savings and Loan's collapse is said to have cost taxpayers $3.4 billion

Duke Cunningham was an American hero too but you don't see him running a presidential campaign from prison.


The Bush administration and John McCain are not only talking with Al Qaeda in Iraq but they are paying them off; and they backed off their pursuit of Bin Laden so that they could go to war with Iraq – isn’t that appeasement of the terrorists who attached us on 9/11. And they boast it is working. So why is it so shocking to suggest stronger diplomatic efforts with Iran? Especially since Iran offered to help us against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11. This debate on terrorism is becoming increasingly irrational and hurting our self interest. Other countries are moving on to bigger and better things.

Our strategy has been flawed, no doubt. We go into Iraq, under fabricated stories, and establish a Shiite regime packed with folks who took refuge in Iran for decades, and are now sympathetic to Iran. The biggest beneficiary of current strategy has been Iran, so much for experience/qualification. We did not even get the oil we went for, so we beg Saudis to increase output. We encouraged Palestinians to have elections, and hamas won it, then we try to isolate the winners!! We support monarchs and dictators in middle east yet vow to spread democracy by invading a small country without a plan to follow through, so much for experience.
Change in thought process is required, same old nonsense is not working. There will be a lot of talk to deflect from the failings of current strategy, lets not get fooled by that.




It's intractability that got us here, Tim

Distance gives you no venue in which to impress upon your adversary the stark nature of his impending potential demise.

Personally I'd lean across the table and with the full authority and support of the citizens of the US and the full might and power of the US military make damn sure he understood just how small he is and how big and committed we are. Let him know the stark "reality" of the situation. I'd say that would do the trick.

There's no better way to do that then looking him right in the eye, and watching him shrink, personally and diplomatically, upon the realization of the true power behind those words.

Yes, I want a "Face to Face" with Akmadinajad; personal, up close, and I want him to know that neither he nor his country, nor his family, are safe, as long as he continue to threaten the region.

Still think it's a weak argument?


This is wink-wink, nudge-nudge, of course: Quote -
"President Bush was in Saudi Arabia yesterday, pretty much begging for OPEC to release more oil to drive down our gas prices. He was rebuffed. Saudi Arabia is a ‘friend.’"
Mr. Bush and the rest of his oil friends have long-standing relationships with the House of Saud (from which Ben Ladin comes as cousin, by the way--which could account for the Ben Ladins not being held to account). And his oil friends have made obscene profits.... And of course Mr. Bush is silent.
There is a BIG difference between a friend of oil and defense countries, and a friend of the U.S. And obviously a BIG difference between friends of Mr. Bush and friends of the U.S. --- Hence all of his phoney noise about "patriotism" ---

Wait a second here. Did Obama read the speech? There's no mention of him. The quote is about Borah and that appeasement by Chamberlain and others led to a horrific war. Churchill wrote of this in the Gathering Storm and Shirer pointed out in his book on the Third Reich that 1936 was a good year to stop Hitler.

Obama's response reminds me of Carly Simon's song, "You're so Vain". There's a verse in it about the vain one thinking the song was about them.

I'm really shocked by Obama's response. The shoe must fit.

Correction to above statement: "There is a BIG difference between a friend of oil and defense COMPANIES, and a friend of the U.S. And obviously a BIG difference between friends of Mr. Bush and friends of the U.S. --- Hence all of his phoney noise about "patriotism" ---

The ultimate "PROTECTIONISM" is the use of the armed services to concentrate further power into an anti-democratic and monopolistic institution such as the oil industry. If you will look at the Cheney documents, "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil" you will see that the Iraq War is about MONOPOLY and among the evidence is that the so-called "COALITION OF THE UNWILLING" are those nations that had entered into Memoranda of Understanding or other oil contracts with Saddam Hussein.

Since when is building oil cartels, and allowing our armed forces to be used for no other reason than to gain obscene profits and power, through war aganist a country that did not attack us, in the interest of the United States?

Since when is obscene concentration of power into the hands of the oil and defense industries, democratic, or economically democratic?

The Bushies would instigate every country on Earth into war if they could. This entire thing is about the transfer of wealth from the People to the Few. Bush and Cheney are trying to bully the World into submission. When that's your plan, you create a tremendous amount of hostility in the process. Kudos to Obama for consistently pointing out the fact that Bush created the problem and deserves 99% of the blame.

The Iraq war is Mr. Bush's ultimate protectionism on behalf of his friends the oil and defense industries. And how deep is the hypocrisy: Mr. Bush says there will be no protectionism, because it will cut off American jobs!
Mr. Bush says there will be no protectionism to safeguard American offshored tech jobs..and no protectionism to retain the entire U.S. economy's manufacturing sector, but Mr. Bush is a protectionist for his friends' steel companies.... and with the war on Iraq keeping Iraqi oil off the market, Mr. Bush's oil and defense friends have made obscene profits and consolidated their economic power--- by eliminating the competition for Iraqi oil, whom Mr. Bush (or Mr. Rove) call the "coalition of the unwilling" --those countries who had, until this war, oil exploration and oil development memoranda of understanding and contracts with Saddam Hussein's government--- leaving (what a surprise!) EXXON and CHEVRON to monopolize the oil in Iraq.

1 2 | »


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: