News Roundup - Hour 2
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-05-07/news-roundup-hour-2
Gordon Brown in April, just before announcing the date of the General Election
Downing Streetvia Flickr
Results from the U.K. election, Iran's president addresses the U.N. and Iraq's two biggest Shiite parties unite in hopes of forming a new government. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top international news stories.
Guests
David Sanger
chief Washington correspondent for "The New York Times," author of "The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power."
James Kitfield
senior correspondent, "National Journal" magazine.
Michele Kelemen
diplomatic correspondent, NPR.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I do hope that we touch a little bit on the death of the Nigerian president and what this may mean for the country and its political stability.
Thanks
Julia (Grand Rapids, MI)
in relation to the drone attacks in Pakistan- does any one realise here in USA that thousands of innocent pakistanis are dying. If the US is carrying out its war on teeror on pakistani soil there is bound to be some sort of retaliation . USA and Pakistan are in this war on terror together and should be prepared for casulaties on both sidea.
I am neither a fan of Iran nor Israel. However, while listening to the latter part of the show, I could not help but wonder: How can someone run down the talking points against Iran's nuclear program without applying the same set of questions to Israel?
Over the past few weeks, there have been several articles and commentaries about the enthusiasm for, and dangers of, a push for a "nuclear-free Middle East." The US has consistently pushed for a halt to any and all nuclear development (of any kind), but has generally ignored the entire question of Israel's unknown nuclear status.
That sounds like it's about to change; a group of Arab nations has managed to get the question of Israel's nuclear status on the IAEA agenda. It may not remain there, but it puts the US in a very difficult position--go against an uneasy ally, or try to explain why they are different.
Oh. My. God. I was sure this is what I heard today.
David Sanger @ 35:14 "The question is what do you do in the space between sanctions that few think will work, and a military strike that no one wants to conduct... because of what would happen in the aftermath. And that's the really hard question."
So reasonable people can now agree.
1) We are in charge. Everyone else just lives in our world. We decide who to 'confront", when, and over what.
2) Military strikes - Yeah, just an option. And only problematic to use - in the "aftermath". Nice. Just what I was thinking.
It's disgusting. Words matter. And those words only state the obvious. Those with the voices you hear masquerading as reasonable people just laid out the choices in a creation of our own making. Sanctions and War. Those are the choices.
We are in this because we choose to be. Make no mistake about it. Eventually, the circle will close around Iran and their "threat" potential based on the same evidence we have now. No wonder. We're talking about using warfare as though this was simply a choice with an "aftermath" and disguising it as part of a reasonable discussion on the news.