India's National Newspaper saying what the MSM here won't

[impik]

The Hindu:

....
New Start is a major domestic triumph for Mr. Obama in a lame-duck Congressional session that followed heavy Democrat defeats in the November mid-term elections. Mr. Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden have coordinated a strong team of senior Democrat Senators, not least the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair John Kerry.

They have worked under severe pressure of time to convince a number of recalcitrant Republicans that their concerns about the treaty had been addressed, particularly over restrictions they feared on any future strategic plans and over funding to modernise the existing U.S. nuclear arsenal. Faced with the detailed explanation and a willingness to compromise, the startled Republicans had no option but to concur — or be known as those who left the two military giants without a nuclear arms reduction treaty. Many of them, such as the Senate Minority whip John Kyl, who voted against the treaty, had been manifestly disingenuous, participating in a lengthy series of discussions and then announcing that it was too late in the Congressional term to debate New Start fully. They have been exposed for their unthinking, reactionary antipathy to anything that has to do with Mr. Obama.

President Obama, for his part, will now be better prepared to handle more Republican hostility and obstructionism in the next Senate, which will start its term with a much smaller Democrat majority than the present one. He emerges from this episode greatly strengthened as a shrewd, tough political negotiator — and as an international statesman.


http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/30/stories/2010123055111200.htm

[Exilednight]

1. Shewd political negotiator? Yes. Statesman? No.

A statesman does not escalate a war. Statesmen end wars.

"The statesman is one who divines the long future, foresees the place of his class and nation in it, labors intelligently to prepare his countrymen for their fate, combines courage with discretion, takes risks, exercises caution when it is necessary, and goes off the stage with a reasonable degree of respectability." - Charles A Beard

"A politician thinks about the next elections — the statesman thinks about the next generations." - James F Clarke

"What is the difference between a statesman and a politician?... A statesman does what he believes is best for his country, a politician does what best gets him re-elected" - Mikhail Gorbachev

"A politician is a person with whose politics you don't agree; if you agree with him he's a statesman" - David Lloyd George

"A statesmen is a dead politician. We need more statesmen." - Oscar Wilde

Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Jimmy Carter were all statesmen. Barack Obama has a long way to go before he can be mentioned in the same breath as those three.

[elias7]

2. Do I smell a reactionary antipathy towards anything Obama?

I am amazed how you can completely ignore the content of the post and focus on one word that you disagree with (though many would agree with) and proceed to hijack the thread into a love-hate Obama thread. This is a post about the MSM...

[young but wise]

3. +1

[CakeGrrl]

8. Yes, I think you nailed it. n/t

[Go2Peace]

13. No, not in that post..... But yes in yours.....

The other counters below yours are valid, because they argue with the premise. The posts that try to "call out" and slam others for expressing their views of politics of political figures are the "reactionary" constructs.

Seriously, this has been going on for too long on this site. Can folks allow for difference of opinion and democratic debate? It is perfectly appropriate, even within a party to have preferences, and even to express a dissatisfaction of current office holders within the party. That is simply healthy in a democracy. Can we respect that?

Let's leave the these kinds of "persuasion" to conservatives shall we?

[elias7]

14. I agree with you in part,

in that you're right, the posts below mine carried a fairer validity than my arguably reactionary construct. Where I would diverge would be in that the dissatisfaction quotient was tangential to the topic of the OP. I didn't want to see yet another "Obama: Devil incarnate or Chessmaster?" debate again. Give credit where credit is due, I say, and set your dog down for once to comment on the real topic of the OP, which is the Mainstream Media..........

[Exilednight]

19. The OP was the one who intentionally pointed out, by

making it bold, that Obama is seen as a statesman.

I highly disagree with that statement.

[treestar]

4. Huh?

Many a statesman has been involved in wars - Churchill, Roosevelt, Wilson.

Gimme a break. From abroad, people think our President is a great one.

[Exilednight]

18. You mention Churchill Roosevelt, and Wilson as statesment who

were involved in wars.

Those were wars of defense. Afghanistan and Iraq are not wars of defense, nor is there such a thing as a war on terror. Nor does a statesmen expand and start new secret wars, like Obama did with Yemen.

Obama managed to get one treaty passed through Congress. If that your measurement of a statesmen, then you have to add Bush, Reagan and Nixon to your list of statesmen.

[treestar]

22. Obama inherited those wars from Bush

and the American public sure took it as "defense" and they don't get to back down now.

[Exilednight]

26. The American people were lied to about "defense".

[Jennicut]

9. Woodrow Wilson was also a racist. the START treaty is part of being a statesmen.

FDR refused to get involved in WWII until Pearl Harbor. Europe had collapsed under Hitler and still he waited. His treatment of the Japanese in the US was wrong. No one is perfect. Most Presidents are not black and white but grey, they have done great things and not so great things.

[karynnj]

12. If you are going to hit Obama for expanding the Afghan war, then you better

google "the Carter doctrine". In a SFRC hearing with Jimmy Carter, Lugar spoke of how the Carter Doctrine was the reason behind the first Gulf War - it was a war for Oil. In addition, Carter's administration was the first to fund the Mujaheddin to fight the Russians. This is the root of AlQueada - and the reason for their anger at the US was the bases in Saudia Arabia that started in the Gulf War.

If you want to go back further, Carter had a Lt Calley Day when he was let out of jail.

Now, is Carter a statesman - of course he is. Camp David alone makes that so,

Nothing is all black or white - and you will eliminate EVERYONE if you look at everything done. Obama's goal was to get out leading a stable Afghanistan - I think he would have been better had he listened to people like Reed and Kerry, not Gates, McChrystal and Clinton, but I do not doubt his motivation.

[Exilednight]

20. You're talking about operation cyclone. Carter did sign an order to

funnel money to Afghan rebels, but Carter did not funnel money directly to the Mujahideen. Carter funneled money to Pakistan, who in turn decided to funnel the money to the most radical groups of Afghan rebels.

Reagan, after taking office, opted for a more straight forward role and funneled the money directly to the Mujahideen along with supplying Stinger missiles and CIA agents on the ground to help train Mujahideen fighters.

And to be honest, I didn't find Carter to be that much of a statesmen while he was in office, or first left office.

Carter became a statesmen by creating the Carter Center and taking a hands on approach to producing fair elections, fighting hunger and expanding human rights is more than any president has quite possibly ever done.

[karynnj]

21. I agree with everything you say - and as I said Carter was a statesman

My point was that Carter Doctrine that essentially said we would fight to protect our oil sources as long as they were needed should bother you as much as Obama's continuing a war he inherited. (In fact, I would have preferred that both did otherwise - but the fact is that other things they each did make them statesman. )

[Exilednight]

24. And my point is, Obama hasn't done much of anything else. His one major

diplomatic achievement is SALT. One achievement does not a statesman make.

I am not saying he can not be a statesman, but I highly doubt it will happen during his presidency. More than likely, it will happen after he is out of office, like it did with Carter. That is of course providing that Afghanistan and Gitmo do not tarnish his record.

[karynnj]

25. You mean New START

I think there will be other accomplishments. I do have a different definition of statesman. I think you can be a statesman even when you fail. Whether something succeeds is complicated. Articulating a good policy and means to get there is statesmanship - and you do not even have to be a President to do that - though obviously, it is something a President has more ability to do than anyone else.

I think that Obama's speech in India was well crafted and showed statesmanship. There he was able to link to their values and explain how Ghandi was someone who influenced the strategies of our own Civil Rights movement, that he benefited from. It may be that Afghanistan/Pakistan and India will be the most explosive problem that he is faced with. He has improved our relationship with the fragile democracy in Pakistan and has moved Pakistan somewhat in the direct it needs to move in. The India speech may well have improved his position within India. It is possible that he and his administration can help with the tensions here. Whether it works or not, what he is showing is statesmanship.

[Sheepshank]

5. excellent post

wouldn't it be a scream if the US MSM would actually state what the international community recognizes, rather than cow tow to the Republican meme.

[jenmito]

6. K&R. If only WE had a media (and a majority of people) who recognized how much Obama

has accomplished ALREADY...

[Go2Peace]

16. We *do* have a media

It is still fledgling, but the administration avoids it like the plague and has even attacked it? Maybe it would be better to try and engage them becuase that small but significant and growing media segment is really our only chance to change this situation.

In many parts of the country there are mulltiple radio stations with liberal commentary. There are a number of liberal Television based liberal media outlets trying to gain share. But they pretty much get completely ignored by the party.

So how would you propose that we get more media when our party does not want to make any significant move to change the situation?

[mtnsnake]

7. The worst place to find out what's happening in the USA is the US Media

The media in Asia and Europe is so much more useful and truthful than anything our corporate media puts out. Our media is pretty much concerned with money issues and "reality" TV, and that's about it.

Even the Canadian media is heads and shoulders above ours.

[Pisces]

10. Excellent post!! K &R

[jenmito]

11. kick again

[snot]

15. India's all hot for Obama bec. he's killing the rules that restrict US cos. from selling

nuclear tech to India.

Meanwhile, the Wikileaked cables show the State Dept. extremely concerned that India's weapons security is a complete farce.

[golfguru]

17. youtube video on India

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjB_Tf7Cy3A&feature=related

[Enrique]

23. MSM nearly 100% behind Obama on New Start

Over the past several months, newspapers across the United States – and even a few from our allies overseas – have called on the U.S. Senate to promptly provide its advice and consent for ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). This tidal wave of approval reflects the overwhelming support that the treaty commands from the American public. According to a CBS News poll conducted Nov. 29-Dec. 2, 82% of Americans favor U.S. ratification of New START, while only 12% oppose it.

Below is an extensive list of editorials and op-eds published in support of New START.



Editorials

Lincoln Journal Star, "Approve New START," December 22

Los Angeles Times, "Stopping New START," December 21

Minneapolis Star Tribune, "Reject the old split on New START," December 21

St. Petersburg Times, "For good of the country, ratify arms treaty," December 21

The Baltimore Sun, "START treaty test," December 21

Chicago Tribune, "Kirk's next key vote," December 19

Casper Star-Tribune, "Barrasso should listen to Simpson on treaty," December 17

The Plain Dealer, "Pass New START treaty, now," December 12

The Providence Journal, "Kyl vs. the country," December 9

The Miami Herald, "Vote Yes on New START pact," December 9

The Boston Globe, "Stop delays; pass 'New START,'" December 4

Iowa City Press-Citizen, "Ratify treaty with Russia sooner rather than later," December 2

USA Today, “Our view on nuclear weapons: Stop playing politics and ratify the New START arms treaty,” November 30

The Florida Times-Union, “Start treaty: No time for politics,” November 30

Sun Journal, “Now not the time to stall on nuke treaties,” November 30

The Sacramento Bee, “One senator delaying New START pact,” November 28

The News and Observer, “In our interest,” November 28

Houston Chronicle, “New START now,” November 27

Rocky Mount Telegram, “U.S. Senate should ratify New START treaty,” November 27

The Asheville Citizen-Times, “START ratification a matter of U.S. security, not petty politics,” November 27

The Sheboygan Press, “Senate should pass nuke weapons treaty,” November 26

Tulsa World, “‘No’ to security?,” November 26

The Vindicator, “Arms reduction is a matter of national security; it should rise above partisanship,” November 26

Financial Times, “Ratify US-Russia nuclear accord,” November 25

The Salt Lake Tribune, “New START,” November 24

The Register-Guard, “GOP should back treaty,” November 24

The Bemidji Pioneer, “Ratify New START yet this year,” November 24

The Palm Beach Post, “GOP senators going rogue,” November 23

The Philadelphia Inquirer, “Politics over safety,” November 23

The Orlando Sentinel, “Ratify START treaty,” November 22

The Toledo Blade, “START rethinking,” November 22

The Seattle Times, “Senate GOP stalling on new arms treaty,” November 22

The Knoxville News Sentinel, “Senators should vote on New START,” November 21

Chattanooga Times Free Press, “Sacrificing national security,” November 21

The Nashua Telegraph, “Political posturing hurting U.S. security,” November 21

The Times of Trenton, “Dangerous delay,” November 21

The Courier-Journal, “Politics over security,” November 21

The Washington Post, “The New START pact should be passed, not politicized,” November 20

The Oregonian, “Don’t stop START,” November 20

The Denver Post, “Playing politics on nuclear policy,” November 19

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “Peace not politics (or) Psst…the Cold War is over,” November 19

The New York Times, “The Party of National Security?,” November 18

The Charleston Gazette, “Bizarre flap over nuclear treaty,” November 18

San Francisco Chronicle, “Don’t delay START,” November 18

The San Jose Mercury News, “Kyl’s treaty stunt is a new low for the GOP,” November 17

The Times Record, “Security trumps politics,” November 17

The Des Moines Register, “Ratify the new START treaty now,” November 16

Deseret News, “Ratify New START treaty,” November 16

Bangor Daily News, "Ratify New START," November 16

The Christian Science Monitor, “Senate must ratify new START agreement on nuclear arms,” November 15

The Economist, “Just do it,” September 23

Omaha World-Herald, “Senate should get STARTed,” September 4

The Portland Press Herald, “Senate should back Russian nuke treaty,” August 4



Op-Eds

The New York Times, Robert Wright, "Fear vs. Reason in the Arms Control Debate," December 21

San Francisco Chronicle, Gloria Duffy, "New START a shift to the political center," December 21

The Clarion-Ledger, Greg Harris, "Congress should approve the new START arms treaty," December 18

International Herald Tribune, 25 European foreign ministers, "New Start Matters," December 17

The Washington Times, Thomas D'Agostino, "Unprecedented commitment to modernize," December 13

The Knoxville News Sentinel, Howard L. Hall, "Senate should not stop progress of New START," December 9

International Herald Tribune, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, "Ratify the New Start Treaty," December 7

The Wall Street Journal, Condoleezza Rice, "New Start: Ratify, With Caveats," December 7

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sam Nunn, "Playing politics with New START harms U.S. security," December 7

The New York Times, Bruce Blair, Damon Bosetti, and Brian Weeden, "Bombs Away," December 7

The Philadelphia Inquirer, Arlen Specter, "Rejecting treaty would hurt U.S.," December 7

New Hampshire Union Leader, Jeanne Shaheen, "New START treaty will enhance our security," December 5

Pasadena Star-News, Adam Schiff, "Nuclear treaty with Russia an urgent matter," December 3

The Washington Post, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, and Colin Powell, "Why New START deserves GOP support," December 2

The Baltimore Sun, Nancy Gallagher, "New START: The world is watching," December 1

Kennebec Journal, George Smith, "STARTing to worry about nuclear weapons, lack of treaty," December 1

Evansville Courier and Press, Ann McFeatters, "GOP resistance to START puts us at risk," November 30

Gainesville Times, Joan King, “Political jockeying stalls START, strengthens our enemies,” November 30

The Boston Globe, James Carroll, “Fallout from a US treaty failure,” November 29

The Boston Globe, John Kerry, “Now is the time to ratify New START, November 26

The Wall Street Journal, Joe Biden, “The Case for Ratifying New Start,” November 25

Los Angeles Times, Diane Feinstein, "Indefensible," November 21

The Guardian, Radoslaw Sikorski, "Why the west needs a New Start," November 20

Palm Beach Post, William F. Burns, “Get STARTed: Senate must ratify U.S.-Russia arms control treaty,” November 17

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Robert Farquhar, “Ratify disarmament treaty this year,” November 16

The Washington Post, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Robert M. Gates, “We can’t delay this treaty,” November 15

Salt Lake Tribune, Mark Shurtleff and Ryan Wilcox, “New START widely supported, should be ratified,” November 13

The Portland Press Herald, Daniel Oppenheim, "New START needs GOP support to pass," November 11

Bangor Daily News, Chris Rector, “New START ratification important for our security,” November 10

Henrietta Post, Susan Shaer, “New START ratification would honor our veterans,” November 10

Pocono Record, Joe Volk, “Will Senate come together to make a safer world?,” November 10

The Blade, Phineas Anderson, Richard P. Anderson, and Stephen Stranahan, “Senate must make arms treaty lame-duck priority,” November 9

The Philadelphia Inquirer, Joseph Cirincione, “Nuclear-arms treaty will test Obama, GOP,” November 8

The Washington Times, John Castellaw, Arlen Jameson, Donald Kerrick, and John Adams, “GENERALS: Military gung-ho for New START,” October 22

The Asheville Citizen-Times, Lee McMinn, “Senate should approve new arms treaty,” October 14

Tucson Weekly, Tom Danehy, “Regarding nuclear arms control, Jon Kyl is letting gamesmanship trump statesmanship,” September 23

The Washington Times, Brent Scowcroft and Jake Garn, “Ratify New START Now,” September 22

Casper Star-Tribune, Alan K. Simpson, “Senate should support New START treaty,” September 15

The Boston Globe, John B. Rhinelander, “A GOP legacy at risk,” September 14

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Joseph E. Lowery and Jonathan Merritt, “A faith perspective on arms treaty,” September 14

The Florida Times-Union, Nancy Soderberg, “Arms reduction pact with Russians deserves support,” September 13

The Star-Ledger, Avis Bohlen and Daryl G. Kimball, “Senate should speed approval of New START arms treaty with Russia,” September 12

USA Today, Dirk Jameson, “Consensus is clear: Ratify New START now,” September 11

The Washington Post, Madeleine Albright, George Shultz, Gary Hart, and Chuck Hagel, “It's time for the Senate to vote on New START,” September 10

Omaha World-Herald, Greg Thielmann, “Let’s reduce nuclear threat,” September 6

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Lawrence Korb, "U.S. Senate must ratify New START," June 24

The Wall Street Journal, Robert M. Gates, "The Case for the New START Treaty," May 13

[ShadowLiberal]

27. If MSN was 100% behind START they would have attacked GOP obstructionism and shamed them

What happened in reality is that some Internet media attacked the GOP and tried to shame them into letting START pass, but those stories were few, most just tried to report it in a 'neutral' way just repeating GOP 'concerns', even if Obama already addressed them and agreed to GOP's demands on them 100%. There was no mention on the nightly news shows about the national security risk of us not approving the treaty, and how the GOP was putting our security at risk.

The fact is that if democrats tried to hold up a nuclear arms treaty just like this one being pushed by a republican president, for the same reasons the GOP were, the media would be screaming their heads off just about everywhere about democrats putting our national security at risk, even national nightly news shows.