ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC Political Researcher



Brzezinski on Obama

Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 7:07 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: ,

From NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan
Zbigniew Brzezinski doesn't believe in speaking down to his audience. 
 
The former national security advisor to Jimmy Carter introduced Obama at Ashford University in Iowa today, after decrying what he called the Bush administration's colonialist policies in a postcolonial world, adding the Administration had "used mendacity" to justify the war and that "it has discredited America as a whole."
 
For Brzezinski, 79, support for Obama means support for a radical change in direction of American foreign policy. But some argue Brzezisnski's support could hurt Obama, particularly with Jewish voters. The Politico today wrote Brzezinski came under fire this summer for an essay he wrote in the journal Foreign Policy, “defending a controversial new book about the power of the ‘Israel Lobby’ in American politics.”

"The fact of the matter is that I'm part of the only administration that brought about peace between Israel and its neighbors,” Brzezinski said in an interview with NBC News/National Journal in Iowa on the day Obama delivered his Iraq policy speech, which he said he did not have a direct hand in. “And so I'm proud of my record in the Middle East.”

Talking of his support for Obama, Brzezinski evoked the mantle of former presidents Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy Jr. "What makes Obama attractive to me," he said, “is that he understands that we live in a very different world where we have to relate to a variety of cultures and peoples."  
Brzezinski says that willingness to understand the subtext of culture allows for a more informed foreign policy that can create a comprehensive strategy in Iraq that is inclusive rather than delineating the region into those who are allies of the United States and those who are against it.

Obama's emphasis on speaking to foreign leaders could be echoes of Brzezinski viewpoints. Brzezinski emphasized the need to engage Iraq's neighbors, including Iran, to help stabilize Iraq. He dismissed the notion that leaving Iraq could leave it open to civil war and a wider sectarian conflict that could engulf the region, a fear that U.S. Amb. to Iraq Ryan Crocker alluded to in his testimony before the Senate yesterday.
 
"The administration is really putting American in the position of being a prisoner of uncertainty," he said. "We know the engagement is costly to us. We don't know what the consequences of disengagement will be, but the administration always says it will be the worst possible."
 
Brzezinski said Iran would be a partner in helping the situation in Iraq rather than the foe that the Bush administration claims it to be because it could face instability within its own borders if Iraq were to "blow up."

"If you look at the math,” he said, “the overlap between Iran and Iraq, Iran has an enormous stake in Iraq not blowing up because it itself could blow up," he said.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I think it's a real plus for Zbig to endorse Obama.
The man is the last word on FP and he has integrity.  You cannot bribe him for an endorsement, unlike his rival does.  His endorsement comes from his belief and maybe now the beltway pundits will listen to Obama the next time and take a closer look at Hillary's neocon views.
His phrase, "prisoner of uncertainty" is what the Republicans have counted on to hold onto power.  Those Democrats who are counting on the same kind of ambiguity to get themselves nominated are doing the voters and themselves a disservice.  I'm going with Obama, who has finally laid out a clear-cut plan to get out, and not hide behind the Generals as a way to avoid making the policy decision that will advance America's security and interests.
Wow! So many different opinions. Thanks Domenico for the great info.  This Iraq/Iran conflict is very complicated and confusing. Still cannot decide who I think is right.  

Question?
Why doesn't MSNBC not have your picture on the side below Chuck Todd & Mark Murray. You write all the time. Maybe they will soon.

1st time voter in 2008
Elizabeth G.
http://BookTestOnline.com
http://BookTestOnlinecom.blogspot.com


Brzezinki can see Obama's wisdom, as can I.  If you read "The Audacity of Hope" you will as well.  We need to understand that respect pays dividends.  Our arrogant intransigent cowboy diplomacy only makes us look scared and weak.  Go Obama!
How racist to think that all American Jews monolithically support the political and military positions of Israel. That's akin to stating that all Catholics unconditionally support Ireland or the IRA.  There are even many Jews in Israel who don't support their nation's handling of their problems with the Palestinians.  That's not to say that this is an endorsement of Palestinian terrorism which is as repugnant as are the actions of the vermin, Al Qaeda and their sub-human and deluded leader.  
    But the point is, the talking heads continue to simplify all issues, as is well known, and to counter these platitudes, I propose that the feeling that American Jews have for Israel is varied and complex.  Anyone who assumes differently is, to paraphrase a common expression, 'an ass'. There may be a Jewish lobby but they sure don't speak for all of us.  
    So, I am here to assert that there is no uniform Jewish-American position on Israel and I refer to an old adage which states that when one finds two Jews in a room, one finds three opinions.  As a Jew, my position on Israel is the same that I hold for my country, the United States of America; I want both nations to act honorably, in the Judeo-Christian tradition that has spawned democracy in both lands.  I strongly support Israel's right to exist, as I do the existance of an economically viable  Palestinian state.  I know many Jews who feel the same way as I do.  And if Obama speaks as honestly as he has in the past, his words will provide the strength to ward off any criticism from any small minded voters, no matter what race or religion.  And to all Jews, Christians and Moslems (as well as to all other religions of the world) Happy New Year!
Obama '08
Whatever Zbigniew Brzezinski has to say is worth listening to. I consider him one of the brightest political brains this country has to offer, with the much needed ability to see beyond the borders of this country and, just as Jimmy Carter, with the courage to say what needs saying and to put himself out on a limb. If Obama is willing to do the same, he could change this country indeed. Diplomacy, tact,truth and brain is what the US needs - not ignorant bullies who want to bomb everybody who refuses to accept their dictate!!!
anybody who is introduced by a member of one of the biggest bunch of liberal losers in the history of the United States is pretty much hexed for life.

Anybody wonder why none of the other candidates have had any of the Carter people around them?  
Brezezinski,
How can you sell Obama to the American people.
Gary Carter's administration which you were part of was one of the worst in US history. Don't you remember the gas station lines no fuel odd and even days to fuel your car Interest rates were 17% the economy was in a recessesion if not a depression Who had a job Yeah Isreal and Egypt made peace by the US tax payer's money then and every year since including this year, billions upon billions sent there. You sold the economy down the drain Thank God Regan came along and defeated carter in a landslide, brought back the american economy to record high's brought the soviet country to it's knees brought the germanys together And we weren't really running out of oil like you and carter tried to push on us Give me a break Your administration was a diaster. Obama what do we know about Obama Oh I know Oprah Wimphey likes him He's a 2 year senator what else. Did he governe a state whats his back round. He wants to bomb packistan to get Osama whether packistan likes it or not Thats nice that would be a smart move bomb an allie no problem does he know packistan has nuclear weapons no problem Sir dont peddle this crap on people Your oppinion is worth as much as the Carter administation was worth nothing, losers once always a loser
Oh yeah Forgot to mention you said that we should engage a country like Iran to have discussions and for them to help us with iraq Well did you here what there president said of Isreal that they sould be wiped off the face of the planet and that Iran is hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons you want to have discussions with them why dont you tell the people of Isreal the ones you helped broker a peace agreement with american money that they should embrace a country that wants to destroy them You make as much sence as carter did Thats why you 2 guys never got a 2 nd. term Losers once always a loser
Candidates preach on how to do this and how to do that. At this time, isn't it wiser that they help voters best understand WHO they are and WHAT they have ACCOMPLISHED? followed by their SOLUTION! to REMEDY A PROBLEM. Opposition pays close attention
to every word. It works Exceptionally well at any Presidential debate. Many Voters are Confused and
easily influenced by others and Not Smart Voting.      
Candidates preach on how to do this and how to do that. At this time, isn't it wiser that they help voters best understand WHO they are and WHAT they have ACCOMPLISHED? followed by their SOLUTION! to REMEDY A PROBLEM. Opposition pays close attention
to every word. It works Exceptionally well at any Presidential debate. Many Voters are Confused and
easily influenced by others and Not Smart Voting.      
Candidates preach on how to do this and how to do that. At this time, isn't it wiser that they help voters best understand WHO they are and WHAT they have ACCOMPLISHED? followed by their SOLUTION! to REMEDY A PROBLEM. Opposition pays close attention
to every word. It works Exceptionally well at any Presidential debate. Many Voters are Confused and
easily influenced by others and Not Smart Voting.      
Colonialist policies in a post colonial world and the fact Bush used mendacity to sell the war exactly characterize the invasion of Iraq. Too bad Americans are fed the news at a sixth grade level otherwise they may have figured out Bush lied about we were invading Iraq. Clearly the real Bush/Cheney/Corporate goal was to dominate an oil rich but militarily weak country. Iraq was not a threat to us and it sure looked like an easy target.
For pete's sake. "Speaking down"? Just for using the language appropriately? Have we become so accustomed to the virtually illiterate President that we currently "enjoy", that any use of the language involving polysyllabic words becomes a news item?

I'm afraid so. Welcome to the "ParisHiltonalization" of America. What next? Will the average citizen respond as she apparently did on the Larry King show? Ms. Hilton is reported to have said that she does, indeed, vote. In fact, she voted in the presidential election held last year!

Sigh.
"The [Bush} administration is really putting American in the position of being a prisoner of uncertainty," he said. "We know the engagement is costly to us. We don't know what the consequences of disengagement will be, but the administration always says it will be the worst possible."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, quoted above, stated more clearly than I ever could why we need both a change in administration and a change in policy direction to win the global "war on terror".  Bush doesn't get it!  To win that global war you need as many allies as possible, even those you disagree with on other issues.
Yes, I completely agree with you Diane.  He did such wonders for Jimmy Carter's Administration.  The Carter Administration was probably the best at foreign policy of the 20th Century.  Right.  
The fact that the wackos here have Hillary as everything  from a neocon to a socialist is one explanation for her broad appeal, and is the definition of what a centrist looks like from the viewpoint of an extremist.
Maybe he can teach the rest of the democrats how to be a loser and a quitter like carter was.
Bogie,

I think I speak for everyone when I say PLEASE use at least a little punctuation and maybe correct spelling so we can read what you are saying.

Actually, on second thought, what I got out of it after reading it twice isn't really worth posting anyway, so nevermind.
Yes, how honerable of American to replace a true Christian Conservative, a Baptist Sunday School teacher with a whoremonger with two wives (and that is all Reagan ever was - kind of like Freddie).
With the exception of the Clinton years, the Carter Presidency was the best for the single working woman I have ever experienced.  The interest rate on my house did not sky-rocket until 1983 when Ronnie took office, and unemployment did not get better under him either if you really worked for a living, so get off your high horse - ronnie was not a good person, governor, or president.  Just another whoremonger, but that is what the repugnants seem to like a lot, isn't it?
Bogie, Gary Carter was a catcher for your own New York Mets.  Jimmy Carter has been the best ex-President this country has ever had.  He has montitored elections, he has given copious amounts of money and time to worthy causes, and he has been a goodwill ambassador for this country in a way no other ex-president has.  He may have been over his head politically to be effective in the snakepit that is Washington DC but he was the first President to get an Arab and an Isreali to agree to a peace deal.  Gary and Jimmy did have one thing in common: they were underaprreciated for their efforts.


As far as the "Israel Lobby" goes, it does exist and it is very powerful.  As Mitchell Feldman said in his post, most Jews I know are fair-minded people about the situation.  However, the ones I know who support Israel and give money to the lobby are as rabid as any fundamentalist Christian supporting George Bush.  But, then again, any kind of a radical who can't see the other side of the argument they advocate are without reason.
Bogie your history is a bit confused.  Although, I was not a Carter fan, I do know that his first name is Jimmy and not Gary.  The economy actually rebounded during the Carter administration (after the stagflation of the Nixon-Ford second term - remember the Win campaign?).  What happened during the Carter years was the beginning of a service economy replacing a manufacturing economy (and there was resultant inflation with increased consumer demand).  This led to tinkering by Paul Volkner, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, who drastically cut the money supply by raising interest rates -not until 1979.  The resultant economic downturn coupled with rising gas prices (Iranian revolution with oil production cuts) led to recession that resulted in 10% unemployment by the second year of the Reagan administration.  The Fed then cut interest rates after killing the economy and controlling inflation (Reagan lost the Senate and more seats in the House in 1982) but it took another couple of years before freer money led to an economic rebound by 1984 (leading the to the resounding Reagan win in '84 - no, his tax cuts were not the source of the rebound as their net effect was not a tax cut to the average tax payer.  But his increase in military spending led to ever increasing deficits not corrected until Bush I, signed the first of two major tax increases - which lost him the election of '92).  The typical Reagan-loving superficial spin needs a bit more scrutiny.  Although, I do credit Mr. Reagan with using his charm (after understanding the potential for catastrophe of an unlimited arms race) to cajole Mr. Gorbachov into dissolving the Soviet Union.
great, obama's run tied to the Carter administration.

talk about a losing idea
Jimmy Carter was the worst. President. Ever.

To use Woodrow Wilson as an example is hysterical. If you guys think that Bush abused the constitution, have a look at Wilson's record, especially as regards censorship, getting the country into an unpopular war and imprisoning people who criticized his administration.  Fools who say "Bush is the worst ever" should read some presidential history and find out that Lincoln and Wilson both declared extraordinary war powers.
Pulling out of Iraq while loudly advertising this fact neither advances American interests,or security. Writing in INFORMED CONSENT yesterday,even leftwinged professor Juan Cole ,who is for a pullout,yet warned Democrats that it will not be the bright new world post-Bush that they imagine. Antedating my own thoughts on what will occur,Cole agrees that the Iranians will move to invest Iraq as well as claiming soverignity over the entire Persian Gulf. Cole fully and reasonably expects that in this environment,energy prices will soar to the point that massive inflation and job loss will return the nation to its Carter period,with even more international instability as the result of our hasty exit from Iraq and that its effects will be levied upon the Democrats,whom he pleads with not to succumb in totality to his own antiwar leftwing which even he admits are amateurs in the area of foreign policy,and are easily gulled suckers as we saw with Pelosis ''road of peace''period while in Damascus,and believing that terrorism can be redefinded into ''legitimate resistance''movement which does not take into account movements that are not organic to the Palestinians but to their Iranian masters who work to further their role of true empire[as opposed to the false one cooked up by antiwar critics that claim we are engaging in ''empirebuilding''in the Middle East]. Of course,this does not even take into consideration Irans acquisition of the Bomb which will create a new paradigm in that region which will not bring the ''security''that those who advance a pullout desire.
Right on Amy- If only the majority of Americans in 2004 were not so gullible and easily led astray by fear and been more astute vis-a-vis history and geopolitics the damage would have been minimized;however; they were manipulated by jingoism and pathetic namecalling. Is their any wonder why only 50% of eligible voters bother to vote.
So this is a new twist.  I'm not sure why the Bush administration hasn't yet adopted this new reason for our presence in Iraq; we're there to keep the Iranians out. Yeah, right. That's rich, as if the Saudis and Syrians (albeit quite weak) would stand by and let the Iranian army, which is quite rag-tag in it's own right, (why do you think they had us dispose of Saddam for them - through their agent, Chalabi) step up to the plate and call the shots in Iraq.  And don't think for a minute, that the Russians want a powerful Iran on their Southern border.  In reality, there are many elements that come into play in this south Asian matrix and although I agree that there would be a disruption in oil production, I think that the Russians will be only too happy to make up the deficit-and make a killing in the process-no pun intended.  What we have to do is the Manhattan project thing for energy independence.  That will not only free us from being hostage to the politics of the Middle East but will stop up from funding the terrorists through our purchase of fossil fuels - then I guess, the terrorists will just have to rely on sales of their poppy crops.  
    In reality our presence in Iraq is a stablizing force for Iran as they can stand by and, unfettered by any war commitment, develop a nuclear capability while building their army. Not only that but if there is civil unrest in Iraq (upon our departure) they may have to deal with one or two or three million Shia immigrants that will further destablilize a shaky Iranian economy.  So let's not make it so easy for the Iranians.  Invite them to them join the party now, maybe it's a little earlier than they'd like but what the hell.  
    Seriously, don't fall prey to the administration's fear inspired war mongering.  If we draw down our presence in Iraq, it is in the Iranian, Saudi and Syrian best interests to help stabilize the region.  We are still the most powerful nation on earth and these third world, nouveau riche oil nations do not have the infra-structure, militarily or politically to launch a successful war but they will be traumatized by Iraqi unrest and will need to stop it.  
    On the other hand, we do have to fear the terrorist groups as they have no population or land mass to protect.  They can strike like locusts and then flee, to regroup in outposts that are forbidding by austere geography.  Our enemy is Al Qaeda but we don't have to worry about telegraphing them about our actions.  They know that we're after them.  They're waiting for us to come.  They're waiting for us to give them their chance for martyrdom.  They're just wondering what's taking us so long.  We only need to change our strategy and hit them where they live and it is not in Iraq.  If we destroy the command center(s) the rest will follow.  It's our best chance.
Inflation under Carter was not borne by the switching of the domestic workforce into the newer service economy but by OPEC. Even Jimmy Carters biographers [The Presidents:James Earl Carter,PBS DVD/VHS],agree that ''stagflation''was a formative creature not of the Nixonian years but of Carter,when inflation rocketed to over 12%,high,double-digit unemployment was brutally affecting minorities and low-wage earners,and the Federal Prime Interest rate achieved its highest levels,before or since,in American history[21.5%]. Coupled with this was the further emasculation of Americas intelligence services by the Democrats as a result of the Church[D-Id] Committee Hearings from which the CIA has never recovered. Carter was thus blindswiped by the Iranian revolution that his CIA director Adm.Stansfield Turner,never saw coming.Scandal rocked in the form of ABSCAM and his OMB Bert Lances corruption,as well as the Libyan antics of his brother Billy Carter. Americas military reached its post-WWII nadir.[Carters attempted Iranian hostage rescue[DESERT EAGLE],was a disaster. I was present here]. It was thus that a weakened,tired Carter would issue his famous ''malaise''speech to the American people who had had enough of the farmer from Plains.
            His post-presidency record remains decidedly mixed. While his efforts to bring peace between Sadat and Begin were a crowning achievement,he has never retuned to this epic moment of his presidency. Guatamala is riven by leftwinged[this time around]death squads as is Mexico. His ''new democracy''in Venezuela has been replaced by one-man,for -life,rule. His unleavened criticisms of the Jews and his illogical support of the terrorist HEZBOLLAH and Syrias Assad have achieved nothing except more death. He has,if little else,courage of conviction.

Also see: ''Rise and Decline of the CIA'' [Cptr.XIV ''In Search Of Magic'':Carter,Reagan Presidencies,Ranelaugh,John Touchstone Books Reprnt.1994
Lee, I am not and never was a Carter fan (I could never understand how he captured the Democratic nomination in '76, thinking that Mo Udall or Scoop Jackson had a better chance.  But the political climate then (post Watergate) was for the outsider and Carter had that 'folksy' appeal.  However, as a monetarist I maintain that Carter was neither responsible for the inflation nor the high interest rates (which were a move by the Feds to control the inflation associated with the economic boom of the early Carter years - also not his doing).  In the same vein, Reagan wasn't responsible for the economic recovery of the mid-eighties. That occurred in spite of Reagan.
    I do agree with all of your other comments about Carter's self absorption.  His comment on Israeli apartheid is a misnomer, at least in reference to the occupation of Palestine (but not for the potential of an apartheid state in a future Israel where Arabs outnumber Jews, and that's a situation that will require a completely new line of thinking by Jews in Israel if they want to stay true to democratic principles) but perhaps the inflammatory nature of the word (even if a misnomer now) may stimulate a much needed debate in this country (as noted in the NYT book review Vol.54 #5 March 29,2007 "Jimmy Carter and Apartheid" by Joseph Lelyveld) about the morality of the occupation (the debate goes on in Israel and sadly if not for the Palestinian violence would have been long ago settled in the Palestinians' favor).  As a Jew, I feel that an even handed approach toward both parties by the U.S. (as we had during the Clinton years) would act to quell violence and perhaps allow a continuation of the pursuance of the 'roadmap to peace'.  If Carter has helped to stimulate that debate then he has accomplished something valuable in his post-presidency years.
Wait a minute wasn't this President Carters guy. What an endorsement, every one wants to go there!!! Lets return to the prosperity of the 70s. Gas lines,21%,big inflation,high unemployment,under funded military, and hostages. Oh yea there was the truce in Isreal that really lasted! Great, how I long for those days.
Yes, Barack Obama. Hillary had beaten you to the AIPAC cookie jar. From Joseph Lieberman's protegy and a “passive resistance” salesman to the Palestinians,  you are turning to Brzezinski for geopolitical guidance.

Now that neocons overplayed their ideological hand, this may be your best bet. You may be sensing the turning tide and if your timing is right, you may actually surf with the neolibs all the way to the White House.

History may repeat itself this time. Remember how Zbig picked Carter, and why? This may be the only mature move you've made so far.
Let's think, lets think. Gas lines, big inflation, unemployment, unpaid Vietnam war bills - is what Nixon left to Cater to preside over. What shall Bush leave behind except for a $1Trillion foreign debt to the Chinese and an unpaid war?

I feel sorry for the next president. He/she will need something fun to sell. How about a "theme park" in Jerusalem?


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=358475

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

More First Read

Recent Posts:


Archives:


Topics:

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google