Mike Stark at Calling All Wingnuts had a chance to talk to Joe Klein and he asked him about why he believed that nuclear war should be on the table.He said:
Joe: Oh… Oh… OK. I said that it should be an option. And I do believe that it should be an option. But let me tell you what I actually believe about this. First of all, it should be an option and I think it doesn’t do us any harm for the Iranians, if they are going to go around saying crazy things, to think that we might act crazily as well.
Mike: So it’s not really an option…
Joe: No, but let me say this. It’s not really an option because I don’t believe that the Bush administration, given the disastrous foreign policy of the last five years, has the credibility or the wherewithall to act unilaterally attack Iraq (sic)…And as a matter of principle, throughout my entire career, my entire career I’ve believed that we can only use force when we do it in concert with out allies as we did in the first Gulf War, as we did in Kosove when it was NATO. So for you to say that I am in favor of nuking Iran, you sound like one of those left wing bloggers who are so routinely innaccurate in everything they write about.
I believe that Klein accurately represents the level of sophistication we see in many American political circles these days, which is this notion that if we act crazy we will scare the hell out of the wogs.
No, the axis-of-evil idea isn’t thought through – but that’s what I like about it. It says to these countries and their terrorist pals: “We know what you’re cooking in your bathtubs. We don’t know exactly what we’re going to do about it, but if you think we are going to just sit back and take another dose from you, you’re wrong. Meet Don Rumsfeld – he’s even crazier than you are.”
There is a lot about the Bush team’s foreign policy I don’t like, but their willingness to restore our deterrence, and to be as crazy as some of our enemies, is one thing they have right.
Suppose your local police department suddenly threw out all the rules and started acting “crazy” on the theory that the criminals would get scared and stay home. Would that actually make your town safer or more dangerous?
This is such a deeply immature view that I honestly don’t know these influential middle aged men are even allowed to drive much less be taken seriously on foreign policy. The United States is a superpower. We do not need to “act crazy.” Indeed, acting crazy is the last thing a superpower should ever do. It makes others miscalculate because they think we are unpredictable and dumb.
If you want an image of what America’s long-term plans for Iraq look like, it’s right here at Balad. Tucked away in a rural no man’s land 43 miles north of Baghdad, this 15-square-mile mini-city of thousands of trailers and vehicle depots is one of four “superbases” where the Pentagon plans to consolidate U.S. forces, taking them gradually from the front lines of the Iraq war. (Two other bases are slated for the British and Iraqi military.) The shift is part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s plan to draw down U.S. ground forces in Iraq significantly by the end of 2006. Pentagon planners hope that this partial withdrawal will, in turn, help take the edge off rising opposition to the war at home—long enough to secure Iraq’s nascent democracy.
But the vast base being built up at Balad is also hard evidence that, despite all the political debate in Washington about a quick U.S. pullout, the Pentagon is planning to stay in Iraq for a long time—at least a decade or so, according to military strategists. Sovereignty issues still need to be worked out by mutual, legal agreement. But even as Iraqi politicians settle on a new government after four months of stalemate—on Saturday, they agreed on a new prime minister, Jawad al-Maliki—they also are welcoming the long-term U.S. presence. Sectarian conflict here has worsened in recent months, outstripping the anti-American insurgency in significance, and many Iraqis know there is no alternative to U.S. troops for the foreseeable future. “I think the presence of the American forces can be seen as an insurance policy for the unity of Iraq,” says national-security adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie.
There is ample evidence elsewhere of America’s long-term plans. The new $592 million U.S. Embassy being built at the heart of Baghdad’s “international zone” is “massive … the largest embassy to date,” says Maj. Gen. Chuck Williams, head of the State Department’s Overseas Building Operations office. In an interview with NEWSWEEK, Williams called it the “most ambitious project” his office has undertaken in its history. Officials in both the executive branch and Congress say they are unaware of any serious planning, or even talk inside the national-security bureaucracy, about a full withdrawal. The Pentagon has one intel officer assigned to produce and update analyses regarding the consequences of a U.S. pullout. But the job is only a part-time assignment, according to a Pentagon source who asked for anonymity because of the sensitive subject matter. As President George W. Bush himself said in March, the final number of U.S. troops “will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq.”
We’ve known this for a long time, of course, although nobody ever discusses it. But nobody has yet factored in how our “superbases” and “super embassy” are going to fare in the middle of a civil war. What exactly does “the presence of the American forces can be seen as an insurance policy for the unity of Iraq” mean in light of events like this:
As the shooting died down Tuesday afternoon, the tired and frightened residents of Baghdad’s Adhamiyah neighborhood packed their cars and prepared to flee. After two days of street fighting that had kept them locked in their houses, they did not want to see what might come next.
The details of the unusual street battle that began Monday remained shrouded by the fog of war. U.S. and Iraqi soldiers thought they were shooting at insurgents who were trying to ambush them. Local men on neighborhood watch in the predominantly Sunni Arab area thought they were shooting at Shiites who were coming to kidnap and kill them. Residents hiding in their homes, simply praying for survival, could only guess who was fighting whom.
American troops aren’t ever going to be able to “insure” against this. They will end up withdrawing behind the walls of their military and diplomatic compounds. Yet our continued presence in the country will exacerbate the problems without solving anything. So what is going to be accomplished with these huge bases and embassy compounds?
And by the way, is it still politically incorrect to ask how much this is costing the American public? “Freedom” may be the Almighty’s gift to the world but the American taxpayer is paying the insurance premium.
The sublime Wolcott tries to prepare us for what’s coming:
Like so many of her fellow insufferables on the right, the Anchoress has to grip and wield her nun’s ruler of rectitude ever more fiercely now that the war in Iraq has gone so disastrously and Bush’s poll numbers are eating through the floorboards. The rhetoric will escalate into the higher rafters of hysteria as they find themselves more and more in the minority, finding it harder and harder to scrape up a lynch mob to go after such dastardly varmints as the Dixie Chicks. Or it will delve deeper into the mire, as the Anchoress leads them into noble battle against the Cult of Mendacity with a crucifix in one hand, a toilet plunger in the other.
It’s going to be bad, no matter what. Do you remember what it was like before Bush was president? The blond shrieking harpies with aneurysms the size of tennis balls pulsing wildly on their throats and temples? It’s all going to come back, only worse. This time they really, truly believed they had embarked on a thousand year Reich.
Art by Rebekah Naomi Cox Computer Wallpaper can be purchased at Conlan Press
California’s not very fond of Republicans right now. When the two most famous failed Republican leaders get together it’s not pretty:
Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said Mr. Bush’s visit to Stanford was interrupted by protesters, who blocked the only road leading to the Hoover Institution, where Mr. Bush was to meet with fellows before dining with Mr. Shultz.
As a result of the protest, the meeting was switched to Mr. Shultz’s house, and the dinner followed.
The get-togethers with Mr. Schwarzenegger and Mr. Shultz were the most significant events so far in Mr. Bush’s visit.
For Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, Mr. Bush’s visit presented a dilemma: The governor, who is facing a tough re-election fight, did not want to appear too often or too cozy with Mr. Bush, whose approval rating in this largely Democratic state is 32 percent, according to a Field Poll last week. That is even lower than Mr. Schwarzenegger’s, 36 percent in the poll.
America seems to be waking up to the fact that stolen elections, bogus recalls, movie stars and guys you want to have a beer with don’t actually add up to leadership. If they can be wised up to the fact that tax cuts for billionaires don’t actually benefit them, then we might be getting someplace.
I was musing yesterday about the habitual misjudgment on the part of the Bush administration and why it all felt so familiar to me. The unique combination of hubris, emotionalism, and confident assumptions that through little effort the US would “win” by dint of its superiority in both goodness and courage. And that’s when it came to me where I’d heard it before:
From a speech given at the centennial of the civil war by historian Stephen Z. Starr:
Granting the existence of cultural differences between the North and South, can we assume that they would necessarily lead to a Civil War? Obviously not. Such differences lead to animosity and war only if one side develops a national inferiority complex, begins to blame all its shortcomings on the other side, enforces a rigid conformity on its own people, and tries to make up for its own sins of omission and commission by name-calling, by nursing an exaggerated pride and sensitiveness, and by cultivating a reckless aggressiveness as a substitute for reason.
And this was the refuge of the South. For ten years before secession, Northerners were commonly referred to as “mongrels and hirelings.” The North was described as “a conglomeration of greasy mechanics filthy operatives, small-fisted farmers, and moonstruck theorists … hardly fit for association with a southern gentleman’s body servant.” And, most fatal delusion of all, Southerners began to credit themselves with fighting ability equal to that of nine, five, or more conservatively, three Northerners.
Once a nation or a section begins to speak and think in such terms, reason has gone out the window and emotion has taken over. This is precisely what happened in the South, and this is why the Cotton States seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated and before his administration had committed, or had a chance to commit, any act of egression against them. Such behavior is fundamentally irrational, and cannot be explained in rational terms.
We seem to have a little glitch in our national psyche that won’t go away. It isn’t just southern anymore. The misadventure of the last five years has been run by a southern dominant political party, but its architects were elite, cosmopolitan intellectuals. This is an American problem and we are going to have to get rid of it if this country is going to survive.
Uh Oh. The Republicans are starting to fight over the mouldering corpse of Ronald Reagan. The end is nigh.
The elites in the GOP have never understood conservatives or Reagan; they’ve found both to be a bit tacky. They have always found the populists’ commitment to values unsettling. To them, adherence to conservative principles was always less important than wealth and power.
Unfortunately, the GOP has lost its motivating ideals. The revolution of 1994 has been killed not by zeal but by a loss of faith in its own principles. The tragedy is not that we are faced with another fight for the soul of the Republican Party but that we have missed an opportunity to bring a new generation of Americans over to our point of view.
Ah yes. But, remember, it’s because these greedy elites like William Kristol aren’t really conservatives, after all. The real conservatives are putting their tiny little feet down.
It was the populists under Reagan, and later under Newt Gingrich, who energized the party, gave voice to a maturing conservative ideology and swept Republicans into power. We would be imprudent and forgetful to disregard this. But it may be too late, because conservatives don’t want to be part of the looming train wreck. They know that this is no longer Ronald Reagan’s party.
Rats deserting the sinking ship of state. What a bunch of chickenshits.
Update: TBOGG finds some serious right wing doom and gloom over at The Corner.
Reading this interesting article in Forward about the potential consequences of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities (presuming we even know where they are) I am struck once again by the right’s willingness to violate important taboos. (Some of you may not find this surprising considering their rather shocking public obsession with bestiality, but this goes beyond their usual bedroom hypocrisy.)
They talk a lot about the decline of western civilization and worry incessantly about gay marriage and changing gender roles, but they quite casually violate some of the most important taboos of the last half century or more. Big honking important taboos at that.
First, they declare that the taboo against wars of agression, formed in the blood of more than 70 million dead people in the 20th century’s two world wars, is out. Not even a second glance at that taboo. They simply repackage it as “pre-emptive” war, changing the previous definition of troops gathering on the border to somebody some day might want to attack us so we must attack them first.
Then there’s torture. This society used to teach its children that there is no excuse for torture. Indeed, until recently, people who torture were considered to be either evil or sick. We didn’t make exceptions for “except when you suspect the person is a really bad person.” We said torture is wrong. Now we have sent a message far and wide that torture is necessary and even good if the person who is committing it is doing it for the right reasons. Those right reasons are usually that we “know” that the victim has information but is refusing to tell us what it is. How we “know” this is never spelled out. All we know is that if the person is on our side they are “good” and the ones who are refusing to tell are “evil” and that should be good enough for anybody.
Finally, we seem to have crossed the rubicon with respect to nukes. We are openly discussing using them on television, much as otherwise decent people tossed around the idea of torture after 9/11. People like Joe Klein think it’s not only ok for George W. Bush to say nukes are on the table — but it’s desirable becaue then people will think we are crazy and run like hell when we say boo. However, just as with torture, once you start talking about how it might be ok in certain circumstances, then you have begun to break down the taboo against it.
Much of our safety in the post-Hiroshima world has relied on the fact that nuclear war is too horrible to contemplate. It’s not just the horror of the explosions themselves, it’s the visions of radiation sickness and cancer and deformities and half lives of thousands of years. It’s apocalyptic (which may be why the Left Behind faction thinks this is such a great idea.) For the sane among us, letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle is simply unthinkable. It’s not and never can be “on the table” because once you start talking about it as if it’s just another form of warfare somebody is going to do it.
I’m trying hard to think if there are any taboos left after endorsing launching pre-emptive nuclear war and I don’t think there are. The only thing left is actually exploding a “tactical” nuke and considering this administration’s determination to break as many civilized norms as possible we would be fools not to take them seriously.
Hat tip to Gene Lyons for the Forward article. Here’s his excellent piece on this subject. I think this is particularly good:
Once again Bush has denied hostile intent, just as he did for many months after secretly ordering the Pentagon to draft detailed war plans against Iraq. Writing in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh suggests that all systems are go at the White House, including possible use of tactical nuclear weapons. He hints that the neo-conservative ideologues around Dick Cheney have deluded themselves that bombing Iran would lead to internal rebellion and the overthrow of the nation’s Islamic regime.
Yeah, sure it would. Ever noticed how much the neo-cons’ ignorance of basic human psychology rivals only Osama bin Laden’s ?
Via Tristram Shandy I see that TIME’s in-house faux liberal is at it again, this time giving Hugh Hewitt a private lap dance instead of dancing around the pole for everyone to see:
HH: I just have never seen them on PBS. But nevertheless, Joe, what I want to talk about is reverse Turnip Days, moments where candidates were not candid, and I think it hurt them. I want to start with an episode I find odd not finding it here in Politics Lost, which is the Florida recount, and the disastrous attempt by Gore and Lieberman to throw out the ballots of the military. Was that not the sort of authentic moment where we saw the soul of the modern Democratic Party on display?
JK: I think that the Florida recount in general…well, first of all, you’re right about that. I mean, too often, the default position, especially in the left wing of the Democratic Party, is to not respect the military sufficiently, and to assume that anytime the United States would use force overseas, we would be wrong
.
And people wonder why liberals are popularly perceived as being cowards.
Here we have alleged liberal Joe Klein being confronted by alleged human Hugh Hewitt with a comment that the Democratic Party’s [black]”soul” was on display when it argued that illegal ballots cast after election day shouldn’t be counted (for good reason, as it turned out.) Does Joe Klein argue that the the Republicans staged fake uprisings and attempted to get the Cuban community to rise up (among many other things) thus showing that using the Florida debacle as an illustration of the “soul” of a party wasn’t really a smart thing to do? No. Does he point out that the Republican party has a funny way of showing its “soul” when it supports torture? No. Does he laugh in Hugh Hewitt’s supercilious face? Of course not.
He agrees with Hewitt. Indeed, this line is his foremost Scotty McClellanesque robotic talking point lately, called into use no matter what the question about the Democrats, whether it’s about “soul” or nuclear war. Is there anyone in DC who can deprogram this guy? Or, at least officially relabel him a conservative so he an no longer be used as a liberal or “left of center” counterbalance on talking heads shows? Then he’ll be able to officially join the right wing noise machine and he can take Hewie to the Conservative Prom.
Here are some highlights of Joe’s bumps and grinds. It’s true that he teases poor Hewie with some feints toward Democrats by saying the Swift boaters were wrong and a few other things, but he always comes back with a big gyrating bounce right where it counts:
JK: No, no. Hugh, in the past year, I’ve stood for the following things. I’ve taken the following positions. I agreed with the President on social security reform. I supported his two Supreme Court nominees, and I support, even though I opposed this war, I support staying the course in Iraq, and doing whatever we have to do in order to stabilize the region.
HH: All right. There are two critical aspects…
JK: So where do you put me on the spectrum?
HH: I’m going to put you as an old liberal with some hope of coming around.
JK: You know, I keep on getting hammered by the left.
HH: Oh, I know, but they’re crazy now, Joe, as you write in this book. That’s what’s so wonderful about it. Your descriptions of the Democratic Party made me chuckle. It’s lost. It’s off the cliff.
JK: It made me cry.
[…]
JK: Well, you know, I also run in the kind of faith based circle. In fact, one of Bush’s nicknames for me is Mr. Faith Based.
HH: Well, that’s good.
JK: And at the very end of the book, I acknowledge Bill Bennett as giving the best advice on how to judge a presidential candidate.
HH: At a Christian Coalition meeting. Yeah, it’s a great anecdote.
JK: And Bill’s a good friend of mine. But I’ve kind of got to give these guys cover. You don’t want to be praised by what you call a traditional liberal, do you?
[…]
JK: But can I just say this about the President? You were saying this before the break. Let me say that of all the major politicians I’ve covered in presidential politics in the last two or three times around, he is the most likely to stick with an issue, even if the polls are bad, and to govern from the gut as you said. I don’t always agree with the decisions that he makes, but I think he is an honorable man, and when I’ve criticized him, I’ve tried to criticize him on the substance, and certainly not on his personality, because I really like the guy.
[…]
HH: When Michael Moore shows up in Jimmy Carter’s box, the presidential box…
JK: Disgraceful!
HH: Disgraceful?
JK: Utterly disgraceful. I mean, one of the problems that I have with being called a liberal by someone like you is that there are all these people on the left in the Democratic Party who are claiming to be liberals, and I don’t want to be associated with them.
HH: And Michael Moore is one of them?
JK: Oh, yeah. I mean, Michael Moore is reprehensible.
HH: How about when Al Gore shouted he betrayed us, he betrayed us? Was that reverse turnip time?
JK: Yeah, I thought that was pretty terrible. I mean, I think that Democrats have gotten so frustrated by their inability to win elections, that they’re beginning to get pretty harsh and stupid.
HH: What’s going on at the Daily Kos, and at Atrios, and these left wing bloggers? Do you read them?
JK: Only when they attack me, which is just about every day.
HH: Yes, they do. So what’s happened…
JK: You know, last Sunday on Stephanopoulos, I said that we can’t keep…that we have to keep the nuclear option on the table when dealing with Iran, if for no other reason than to make them worry a little bit, that we might be so crazy as to use it. That gets translated the next day by a number of left wing bloggers into me supporting a nuclear attack on Iran.
HH: Well, doesn’t the Democratic Party have to distance itself from this fever swamp?
JK: Well, I think the Democratic Party has to, and I think the Republican Party has to distance itself from Creationists, and extremists on their side. You know, I was up with Newt Gingrich in New Hampshire last week, and someone asked him about intelligent design. And he said I think it’s a perfectly fine philosophy, it just shouldn’t be taught in science classes, because it has nothing to do with science. And those are the kind of politicians…I’ve always really respected Newt, because he’s a man of honor, and he is a real policy wonk, and he really cares about stuff.
HH: We’re out of time. Joe, will you come back when you’re done with the hectic of the book tour?
JK: Sure.
HH: Because I would love to continue this on. In fact, as often as you want, you’ve got the open invitation to be our responsible Democrat on the show, because they’re hard to find.
Joe loves you too big guy. You know just what to say to guy like him.
For the record, I can’t speak for everyone in the left blogosphere, but I can say that I criticized Klein’s comment about leaving nuclear war on the table as being insane because you don’t want pre-emptive war (especially nuclear)on the table, not because I thought he actually wanted nuclear war. I think the first is stupid and insane, and the second is stupid, insane and evil. Klein wants it known that he is only stupid and insane and I’m happy to grant him that. Evil would require some actual substance.
Update: And, btw, he goes out of his way to support, of all things, gun control, which has pretty much been jettisoned by the Democratic Party. I’m beginning to think he’s a paid agent of Richard Mellon Scaife. Everything he says, whether in “favor” of Democrats or against them is Karl Rove’s dream.
Former National Security Agency Director Lt. General William Odom dissected the strategic folly of the Iraq invasion and Bush Administration policies in a major policy speech at Brown University for the Watson Institute- America’s Strategic Paralysis . “The Iraq War may turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history. In a mere 18 months we went from unprecedented levels of support after 9-11..to being one of the most hated countries…Turkey used to be one of strongest pro-US regimes, now we’re so unpopular, there’s a movie playing there- Metal Storm, about a war between US and Turkey. In addition to producing faulty intel and ties to Al Qaida, Bush made preposterous claim that toppling Saddam would open the way for liberal democracy in a very short time… Misunderstanding the character of American power, he dismissed the allies as a nuisance and failed to get the UN Security Council’s sanction… We must reinforce international law, not reject and ridicule it.”
Odom, now a Yale professor and Hudson Institute senior fellow, was director of the sprawling NSA (which monitors all communications) from 1985-88 under Reagan, and previously was Zbigniew Brzezinski’s assistant under Carter. His latest 2004 book is America’s Inadvertent Empire.
Even if the invasion had gone well, Odom says it wouldn’t have mattered: “The invasion wasn’t in our interests, it was in Iran’s interest, Al Qaida’s interest. Seeing America invade must have made Iranian leaders ecstatic. Iran’s hostility to Saddam was hard to exaggerate.. Iraq is now open to Al Qaida, which it never was before – it’s easier for terrorists to kill Americans there than in the US.. Neither our leaders or the mainstream media recognize the perversity of key US policies now begetting outcomes they were designed to prevent… 3 years later the US is bogged down in Iraq, pretending a Constitution has been put in place, while the civil war rages, Iran meddles, and Al Qaida swells its ranks with new recruits.. We have lost our capacity to lead and are in a state of crisis – diplomatic and military.”
That’s harsh. Maybe they can charge him with a federal crime, like that woman who exercised her free speech in front of important people yesterday.
