Good for Roger Cohen

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’.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
avatar

Jim Lobe

Jim Lobe served for some 30 years as the Washington DC bureau chief for Inter Press Service and is best known for his coverage of U.S. foreign policy and the influence of the neoconservative movement.

4 Comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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?)

Comments are closed.