Quote :

"The real Hollywood politics Peter Bart D.C. vibe is bubbling up Hollywood is of one mind politically -- at least, that's the long-standing myth. Well, at this moment (a rare moment) the myth may have become reality. The anti-war sentiment in the entertainment community is as pervasive as it was during Vietnam. Yet there are many other cross-currents as well -- and they are strengthening as the '08 campaign looms. One obvious area of disagreement, of course, involves personalities. Barack Obama's cameo appearances in town have created a fervent constituency, and Hollywood likes instant stars. Still, the Hillary backers have power and money and are diligently trying to disconnect her from the debacle in Iraq. The political star system has its built-in tensions, to be sure. Adam Venit, a honcho at Endeavor, hosted a reception for John Edwards at his agency the other day. Not present was Venit's partner, Ari Emanuel, who threw a hot Obama bash not long ago and whose brother, Rahm, may (or may not) remain in the Hillary camp. At the same time, Hollywood loves box office, and Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," has become Paramount's single most profitable release. Suddenly Gore is a star again. There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close. Support for Israel in the U.S. has lately become bafflingly multi-cultural, representing an alliance between diaspora Jews, traditional Zionists and evangelicals. Support from Christian zealots, who now represent about one third of Israel's tourist business, is welcomed even though, according to evangelical doctrine, Judgment Day will bring the ultimate destruction of Israel and death to most of its residents. The Economist observed this week that "knee jerk defensiveness" of Israel ultimately will erode support for that country around the world, even among Jews. Only 17% of American Jews today regard themselves as "pro-Zionist," the magazine points out, and only 57% say that "caring about Israel is a very important part of being Jewish." And Jimmy Carter only exacerbates these mixed signals with his recent perorations that Israel must "give back" territories to the Palestinians. Given that the Christian Right and neo-conservatives in this country seem more obsessed with Israel than the Jewish community, the "I" word is becoming a potentially lethal component of today's political dialogue. The Middle East crisis represents just one of the issues that could splinter the formidable anti-Bush sentiment in the entertainment community. Further, as Democratic candidates compete to propose ever bolder ways to bureaucratize health care, this issue, too, could undermine the seemingly liberal consensus. Liberals also have to figure a way to catch up with The Governator on environmental issues. Clearly, Schwarzenegger is finding consensus positions that cross party lines -- something the liberals have been unable to fashion. All this provides both an opportunity and a trap for Obama as he mounts his presidential campaign. His platform has the purity of a fresh screenplay that's about to be submitted to the Hollywood studios. And Hollywood has mastered the process of messing things up with its interminable "notes." Obama must at once enter the fray and stand above it. And his mentors, whoever they turn out to be, must remember that while Vietnam knocked the bad guys out of power, it delivered the nation to Richard Nixon. That didn't help much. "

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957727.html?categoryid=1&cs=1

2/20/2007 9:28:38 PM

You haven't been around here in awhile, but there is a rule that as the thread poster, you have to post your commentary first to kick off the debate.

2/20/2007 9:42:08 PM

looks like i might vote for edwards

2/20/2007 9:46:40 PM

More like: Peter Bart on Edwards on Israel/Iran

2/20/2007 9:55:18 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities."

And that is 100% correct.

I don't see how that statement is "anti-Israel" or the stupid "anti-Semitic".

He DID NOT say that Israel is a threat to world peace, as some world figures have, what he said is a fact, that a strong polarizing country attacking another strong polarizing country would be a threat to world peace.

Fucking Zionists can go to hell, fucking controlling motherfcukers.

And then people look at you funny if you say that this world is run by fucking Zionist Jews.

2/21/2007 4:24:31 AM

Quote :

"You haven't been around here in awhile, but there is a rule that as the thread poster, you have to post your commentary first to kick off the debate."

I've always had the feeling that this rule only exists so the first few people to reply can know how to attack the person that created the thread rather than address the issue with their own opinion. If you don't know where the thread creator stands on the issue how can you be the first to flame/troll/etc.?

2/21/2007 7:58:28 AM

are we supposed to be getting outraged about something

2/21/2007 9:14:44 AM

i can't wait till they do nuke iran

those bitches need to be taken out

might as well take out north korea and venezuela all at the same time

2/21/2007 10:32:46 AM

Chavez may be a prick, but why nuke his country?

2/21/2007 10:35:25 AM

because jnpaul is a terrorist and a baby-killer.

2/21/2007 10:36:43 AM

OEP

Edwards wont ever win if he comes out slamming israel

2/21/2007 2:57:37 PM

yeah just make a rolly eye stupid face you damn zionist... that really tells me what you are thinking because i am a mind reader!

2/21/2007 3:00:38 PM

yeah just make a rolly eye stupid face you damn zionist... that really tells me what you are thinking because i am a mind reader!

2/21/2007 3:01:02 PM

i am not interested in you knowing what i am thinking....

and why is it that because i dont think that israel should turn over all thier land and be blow i am automatically a damn zionist....

you are the most pathetic piece of racist shit....i swear



[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 3:57 PM. Reason : asdf]

2/21/2007 3:56:07 PM

Quote :

"and why is it that because i dont think that israel should turn over all thier land and be blow i am automatically a damn zionist...."

yeah, because that's what this thread, or edwards' comments are about goddamn you are an idiot.

I don't see how that statement is "anti-Israel" or the stupid "anti-Semitic".

He DID NOT say that Israel is a threat to world peace, as some world figures have, what he said is a fact, that a strong polarizing country attacking another strong polarizing country would be a threat to world peace.

yeah, when you have nothing to say, and you have accepted defeat, is when you make rolly faces without making any statements or arguments. of course you are not interested in i knowing what you are thinking... you are just interested ine being a troll and making rolly faces.

2/21/2007 4:08:52 PM

ok

2/21/2007 4:13:42 PM

Quote :

"i can't wait till they do nuke iran those bitches need to be taken out"

nuking them eleventy times over won't defeat them. moreover, starting a land war with the Persians will be Thermopylae all over agian -- except this time it will be in reverse.

despite the best and worst efforts of the chronic social rheumatism that is organised religion (in this case Islam), the Persians are a natural ally to western civilisation. it is better (and more likely to occur) to wear them down diplomatically and bring the moderates to power with incremetal political successes.

2/21/2007 5:16:58 PM

Quote :

"nuking them eleventy times over won't defeat them. "

It would...actually

2/21/2007 5:19:11 PM

no, no it wouldnt

2/21/2007 5:20:23 PM

yes..yes it would..

2/21/2007 5:20:52 PM

Has appeasement ever worked?

2/21/2007 5:24:30 PM

Quote :

"the Persians are a natural ally to western civilisation. it is better (and more likely to occur) to wear them down diplomatically and bring the moderates to power with incremetal political successes."

Interesting, but elaborate on that and the Thermopylae comment.

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 5:37 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2007 5:35:48 PM

young people in iran were pro-america, im not sure how much damage our policies have damaged that already but nothing good will come of further marginalizing them.

2/21/2007 5:42:35 PM

Resources? I'm not doubting you, I've heard stuff about that but haven't seen anything concrete recently. Also, can we assume that teenage infatuation with American culture (this happens most everywhere) is the same as pro-American political leanings?

2/21/2007 5:47:16 PM

Quote :

"I don't see how that statement is "anti-Israel" or the stupid "anti-Semitic"."

2/21/2007 6:26:34 PM

Quote :

"It would...actually"

Depends on the yield of the 110 nukes in question. But yeah, you'd think you could at least take out most of the Iranian government. Though if they have deep shelters...

2/21/2007 6:27:37 PM

I don't think they would nuke Iran. If they tried and failed with conventional weapons, then they might.

And I think my commentary is the emphasis added to the article.

And I think John Edwards is an idiot a liberal if he thinks that a country using it's power to defend itself is dangerous (because everyone knows why Iran wants an Islamic Bomb).

2/21/2007 8:12:26 PM

Quote :

"(because everyone knows why Iran wants an Islamic Bomb)"

To be in more even position in relation to Israel?

2/21/2007 8:14:56 PM

for what?

2/21/2007 8:35:54 PM

with all due respect golden, Israel isnt saying they need to wipe Iran off the map.

2/21/2007 8:47:16 PM

Quote :

"with all due respect golden, Israel isnt saying they need to wipe Iran off the map."

But they're the ones with the nukes. It's pretty normal for Iran to want nukes as well, if only to assure MAD.

2/21/2007 9:20:51 PM

I disagree with you. We have to assume that these crazies mean they want to take Israel off the map, clearly a Nuke helps them acheive thier goal.

2/21/2007 11:12:50 PM

You really think Iran would nuke Israel?

Israel would just nuke Iran back, and then everyone would be nuked.

Anyways, if you wanted to get Iran to stop trying to make nukes, bringing up Israel's nuclear program would likely be key.

Of course, we'll probably just try to bomb some stuff and see if we manage to take out the Iranian nuclear program.

2/21/2007 11:19:56 PM

MAD works, and the Iranians aren't crazy.

2/21/2007 11:22:09 PM

Edwards is blaming the target of hatred for the Mideast's problems?

So the Jews were the major cause of unstability in Germany in the 40's?

2/21/2007 11:25:21 PM

golden, Im saying you have to assume they mean what they are saying.

2/21/2007 11:27:28 PM

Quote :

"Edwards is blaming the target of hatred for the Mideast's problems?"

Where did he say that?

Quote :

"So the Jews were the major cause of unstability in Germany in the 40's?"

What?

2/21/2007 11:29:52 PM

Quote :

"Edwards is blaming the target of hatred for the Mideast's problems?"

No, he's blaming the country launching the preemptive strike. Can't you read?

EDIT: Really, he's not blaming anyone, only pointing out that an Israeli attack on Iran would start shit.

Quote :

"So the Jews were the major cause of unstability in Germany in the 40's?"

Yes, yes they were.

Quote :

"golden, Im saying you have to assume they mean what they are saying."

Why?

[Edited on February 21, 2007 at 11:56 PM. Reason : start shit]

2/21/2007 11:55:12 PM

Quote :

"he's blaming the country launching the preemptive strike"

Let's see. Iran is busy building nukes or has them already. The leader of the country has repeatedley called for the destruction of Israel. And Edwards says the greatest threat is the target of Iran's hatred. How dare they defend themselves.

So according to presidential hopeful Edwards.. America could never defend herself preemptively?

2/22/2007 12:06:54 AM

Quote :

"Iran is busy building nukes or has them already."

Already has them?

Quote :

"And Edwards says the greatest threat is the target of Iran's hatred. How dare they defend themselves."

No, he said the greatest short-term threat to peace would be an Israel strike on Iran. "Short-term threat" basically means Edwards wins.

Quote :

"So according to presidential hopeful Edwards.. America could never defend herself preemptively?"

Sounds good to me.

2/22/2007 12:33:00 AM

Quote :

"the greatest short-term threat"

[Edited on February 22, 2007 at 12:33 AM. Reason : ]

2/22/2007 12:33:23 AM

^
Which is why he should stick to chasing ambulances.

Israel has been attacked and hated by its neighbors for decades. And now that one of them will shortly have nukes, any attempt to defend itself is considered reckless.

How about pretty boy condemning Iran for developing weapons of mass destruction while making open threats of destruction on other countries?

2/22/2007 1:01:27 AM

Quote :

"How about pretty boy condemning Iran for developing weapons of mass destruction while making open threats of destruction on other countries?"

What if he said something like:

Quote :

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran... To a large extent, the U.S. abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGIwODg1ODE5ZTJjMTQ5ZmJkN2VmY2IxYzY1ZGZiN2Q=

2/22/2007 1:45:54 AM

Don't forget to quote the rest of the article there.....

Quote :

"...But listen to Edwards just a few days later, in an February 2 interview with The American Prospect: Q. Can we live with a nuclear Iran? A. “I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet... When [Bush] uses this kind of language ‘options are on the table,’ he does it in a very threatening kind of way — with a country that he’s not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he’s just dead wrong about that.” How else should a military threat be made? What option does Edwards mean to leave on the table — a bouquet of flowers? On the February 4 edition of Meet the Press, Edwards was asked, “Would President Edwards allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons?” His response: “There’s no answer to that question at this moment... We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not been done....” Q. But they may get one. A. “I think we don’t know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along.” Farther on, Edwards said the U.S. should “engage directly with Iran and Syria because both Iran and Syria have an interest in Iraq not going totally chaotic.” In just a few days, Edwards’s supposedly unequivocal stance has turned to incoherent mush."

2/22/2007 2:04:31 AM

Quote :

"And now that one of them will shortly have nukes, any attempt to defend itself is considered reckless."

Bombing shit inside Iran isn't self-defense for Israel, though I'm sure they think it is. Some Iranians likely believe their nuclear program is for self-defense against the United States and Israel.

2/22/2007 8:37:17 AM

What Israel and America don't realize (at least publicly) is that there is a defined legal difference between preemptive and preventative defense, most notably the latter is 100% illegal according to international law while the former is legal in most circumstances.

2/22/2007 8:43:06 AM

Lay off israel. israel is in no way a threat to peace. Whats a threat is a country that is actively persuing weapons and just laughing at nations while they do nothing to stop it because of all the political red tape.

2/22/2007 11:25:26 AM

Israel is like a red-headed stepchild. Except this stepchild breaks people's noses when he gets made fun of.

2/22/2007 11:33:43 AM

golden "why"? is your response. Are you serious? Let me ask you this, why should we not take them seriously? or why would they say shit like that?

2/22/2007 11:37:56 AM

Quote :

"Whats a threat is a country that is actively persuing weapons and just laughing at nations while they do nothing to stop it because of all the political red tape."

Yeah, but a country with 200 nuclear warheads and just laughing at the whole world because they can't enforce 25+ years of binding resolutions, is no threat, right?

So, basically, according to you:

A bully with a bat is no threat.
But a bully trying to acquire a bat is a threat.

STFU.

2/22/2007 12:36:38 PM