I actually have some admiration for Ms. Applebaum's columns. I don't understand her logic when it comes to McCain circa 2008. She states that he is a "foreign policy intellectual" and then mentions his familiarity with personalities and his travel history. I don't see how such encounters or such exposure confers intellectual capacity. An intellectual approach involves the ability to see multiple sides of complex issues and construct a mechanism for reaching practical or "practicable" solutions. His inability to even see the complexity of the Georgian situation does not bespeak a "foreign policy intellectual". How does Ms. Applebaum deal with his lack of understanding of the basis and evolution of the Sunni Shiite conflict in Iraq and its complicated connections to the insurgency, al qaeda, militias and Iran. I agree that there are qualities to admire in Mr. McCain but it is hard to elevate him as a true intellectual.

Furthermore, does Ms. Applebaum feel that G.W. Bush had been tested sufficiently before he assumed the presidency? If she does, she should certainly explain.

One could also query whether Clinton had been sufficiently tested. Her metric on this one issue seems obscure.

Although I respect you as an author and journalist, I wish your reasoning and facts in this matter were as reliable. Please refer to General Powell's explanation for his support of Obama on MTP as a useful template.

Ann Newton:

I actually have some admiration for Ms. Applebaum's columns. I don't understand her logic when it comes to McCain circa 2008. She states that he is a "foreign policy intellectual" and then mentions his familiarity with personalities and his travel history. I don't see how such encounters or such exposure confers intellectual capacity. An intellectual approach involves the ability to see multiple sides of complex issues and construct a mechanism for reaching practical or "practicable" solutions. His inability to even see the complexity of the Georgian situation does not bespeak a "foreign policy intellectual". How does Ms. Applebaum deal with his lack of understanding of the basis and evolution of the Sunni Shiite conflict in Iraq and its complicated connections to the insurgency, al qaeda, militias and Iran. I agree that there are qualities to admire in Mr. McCain but it is hard to elevate him as a true intellectual.

Furthermore, does Ms. Applebaum feel that G.W. Bush had been tested sufficiently before he assumed the presidency? If she does, she should certainly explain.

One could also query whether Clinton had been sufficiently tested. Her metric on this one issue seems obscure.

Although I respect you as an author and journalist, I wish your reasoning and facts in this matter were as reliable. Please refer to General Powell's explanation for his support of Obama on MTP as a useful template.

Quite amusing to hear you bring up the Georgian issue. Obama said to bring it to the Security Council.

OK. Listen carefully now...

Russian is on the Security Council. They would have vetoed this. That's why McCain did not suggest it.

This is kindergarten level foreign policy- Obama failed it.

How does that make McCain an intellectual?

The term "intellectual" doesn't mean that someone is brilliant, per se, just that he or she has a lot of information in his head about a particular subject.

Hillary Clinton became a foreign policy intellectual when she walked point in Bosnia and had to belly crawl under heavy sniper fire to take out an enemy machine gun nest in order to save her platoon. I understand she's up for the Medal of Honor.

And McCain failed to realize Al Qaeda is a sunni, not shiite group. So two failures. I guess we gotta elect Joe Biden or Bill Richardson by your standards. On the other hand, perhaps there is more to this election than pointing out people's mistakes? What do you think?

bsharporflat:

And McCain failed to realize Al Qaeda is a sunni, not shiite group. So two failures. I guess we gotta elect Joe Biden or Bill Richardson by your standards. On the other hand, perhaps there is more to this election than pointing out people's mistakes? What do you think?

Bullshit. McCain never said Al Qaeda was a Sh'iite group.

ah, ah ah! Watch the language Mr. Person. And stop getting mad. What McCain said was that Shiite Iran was training and supporting Sunni Al Qaeda. We have all seen Lieberman correcting him in the desert sand. Stop trying to pretend you haven't seen it.

bsharporflat:

ah, ah ah! Watch the language Mr. Person. And stop getting mad. What McCain said was that Shiite Iran was training and supporting Sunni Al Qaeda. We have all seen Lieberman correcting him in the desert sand. Stop trying to pretend you haven't seen it.

I saw it.

And either you were unaware that there is a long history of Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups/terror-supporting nations cooperating - or you are aware and are lying about it to try and convince people out there who may not be too informed about it.

So which is it?

MisterPerson:

And either you were unaware that there is a long history of Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups/terror-supporting nations cooperating...

Such as? That shouldn't be a problem for you since there is such a long history. And make sure that you include examples of Iran supporting Al Quaida.

<link>

Here's another one - this one has Iranian/Al Qaeda cooperation to satisfy any nitpickers out there;

<link>

Not even close to being satisfied. You offered "sources" with corporate sponsors that provide security details in Afghanistan and "neighboring countries" (according to its own website). Hmmmm...... vested interests?

fix_point:

Not even close to being satisfied. You offered "sources" with corporate sponsors that provide security details in Afghanistan and "neighboring countries" (according to its own website). Hmmmm...... vested interests?

That's funny! A progressive who doesn't even trust a United Nations report showing cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iran's client semi-state ( Shi'ite) Hezbollah.

Would Chomsky himself have to swear on a copy of "Das Kapital" for you to believe it?

The two sites Mr. Person picked are each pretty funny. The second one relies on the 911 Commission report...weren't they the guys who said Saddam had WMD and was buying yellowcake uranium?

And the first one is "Augean Stables". What a name! We can remember from the Hercules legend that the Augean Stables were most notable for being overflowingingly full of horses***.

But who cares. McCain has been proved correct by Mr. Person. Shiite Iran has now been proved to be the sponsor of Sunni Al Qaeda. We can all vote for John now. ;- )

Your thesis in incoherent. The facts are that:

1) The Wahhabi fanatics of Al Quaida and the Taliban do not consider Shi'ites to be Muslims. The Taliban slaughtered Afghan Shi'ites when they were in power. Musab Al Zarqawi, the late leader of Al Quaida in Iraq, waged war against the Shi'ites, including the deadly bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara. This is what the Z-man had to say about the Shites in a four hour audiotaped harangue released in 2006:

"Sunnis, wake up, pay attention and prepare to confront the poisons of the Shiite snakes. Forget about those advocating the end of sectariansim and calling for national unity."

2) Iran, as the leader of the world's Shiites, feels compelled to protect their co-religionists. This is why Iran, along with Russia and India, kept the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan alive during the period 1996-2001. In 1997, the Taliban held hostage and later killed nine Iranian diplomats, almost leading to war with Iran.

3) Iran shares goals in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Why wouldn't it? The US has put in power pro-Iranian parties in Iraq. Iran backs the Karzai government in Afghanistan.

4) Al Quaida understand that Iran has been aiding the US. This is what al-Qaeda's number 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had to say in a video in 2007:

"Iran has stabbed the Muslim Ummah in the back. It caused itself and the Shiites following it a historic disgrace. The signs of this stab will remain vivid in the Muslims' memory for a very long time. The strange paradox to which I would like to draw attention is that despite the fact that Iran permitted the Crusader troops to enter Iraq, recognized the agent government there, and pushed its militias to participate in this government's army, security services, and police force, and despite its recognition of the agent government in Afghanistan, it is warning the United States of double retaliation against its interests worldwide if it attacks Iran."