The New York Times‘ Roger Cohen weighs in on Obama’s proposed Middle East team, and he’s not enthusiastic, to say the least. I think it’s very significant that the behind-the-scenes concern about Ross (and the other more or less conventional figures under consideration) has now moved to the Times’.
4 Responses to “ Good for Roger Cohen ”
Leave a Reply
* Your name and email are required to leave a comment
also by jim lobe 
- Early End to U.S. Combat Role in Afghanistan Draws Cheers, Jeers, Confusion
- U.S. Group Urges 'More Credible' Military Threat Against Iran
- Rights Groups Denounce Duvalier Ruling, U.S. Urges Appeal
- US-BAHRAIN : Rights Groups Oppose Smaller Arms Transfer
- U.S. : Growing Elite Opposition to Military Option Against Iran
- U.S. Condemns Boko Haram Attacks
- U.S. : Obama Rejects Giant Keystone Pipeline Scheme
- In Signal to Israel and Iran, Obama Delays War Exercise
- U.S. : Burma Release, Ceasefire Hailed by Obama, Rights Groups
- US-CHINA : Leading Think Tank Urges Naval Build-Up in South China Sea
Ups and Downs of U.S. Neo-conservatives
- Early End to U.S. Combat Role in Afghanistan Draws Cheers, Jeers, Confusion
- U.S.: Growing Elite Opposition to Military Option Against Iran
- Less Counter-Insurgency, More Asia in New U.S. Strategy
- U.S.: Anti-Neo-Con Candidate Getting Serious Look
- U.S.: Iraq Intervention Ends with Scarcely a Whimper
- U.S.: Former Top Aide Offers Insight on Mideast and Iran
- U.S.: "Israel's Advocate" to Leave White House for Pro-Israel Think Tank
- "Who Lost Iraq" Debate Fails to Get Traction
- U.S.-IRAQ: Obama Confirms Full Withdrawal by Christmas
- U.S.-LIBYA: Obama Claims Vindication
Jon Harriaon
January 12, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
Good for Cohen, indeed. Usually, this sort of thinking gets the spike at the Times. Too bad Cohen’s preferred list is, apparently, purely a figment of his imagination. Obama could really get somewhere with the people Cohen mentions, all of whom are head and shoulders above Obama’s prospective choices. But there simply is no organized, heavyweight resistance to the mainline parties’ (not to mention the mainline media’s) focus on putting Israel first, even when that goes against the U.S. national interest.
Should we conclude that making Hillary Secy. of State was a wise move, politically, but a major blunder from the point of view of U.S. national interests? And how long will the Left put up with a pragmatic/establishmentarian Obama? (And does it really matter if they do turn on him at some point?)
gordon
January 14, 2009 @ 12:26 am
Judging by the latest humiliation of Condoleezza Rice at the UN it doesn’t really matter who is in charge of State : the orders come from Israel now, without any real pretence of US independence.
Renfro
January 14, 2009 @ 11:44 am
I am not surprised that Obama is upholding the zionist ownership of America by allowing such people in his adm. It was obvious during the general that was what he was going to do.
The USA, what it was,is on it last breath. It’s been like watching a patient as cancer eats into his organs one by one.
Steve
January 14, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk have had their turn at the plate, and they both struck out. Ross made serious misjudgments in his role as Bill Clinton’s advisor, and he bears heavy responsibility for the failure of the Clinton Administration’s peace efforts during 2000-2001. Why is he now being brought back? To bring us more failures? And Indyk was a prime author of 16 years of failed U.S. policies toward Iran. His misguided ideas about how to deal with Iran have now brought us to a dangerous impasse, and left Iran with a dangerous nuclear program. Hooray! How smart! Why is such failure a qualification for office in the Obama administration? Ross and Indyk should be put out to pasture. Much better talent is available, from Telhami to Aaron David Miller. Let’s let them give it a try.