In words written as much for a domestic audience as for an international one, Mr. Bush is expected to make limited concessions giving the United Nations more control in Baghdad, as the allies would like. But he will keep real authority in American hands.
“There’s a feeling that you have to assert that the United States is still in control, if nothing else for domestic concerns,” said a senior administration official, who, like most of those interviewed, requested anonymity.
“We’re going into an election year and the president has to project an image of power and authority,” the official added. “There will be a lot of language implying that we’re not going anywhere. We’re asking for help, but not for anyone to take over.”
Joan Walsh says that Clark’s candidacy is being foisted on the Democratic party by Democratic Big Shots. Cool. I should definitely get a slot on the DNC blogroll, now.
The rest of her screed is simple snottiness worthy of Lucianne Goldberg. She’s “tempted” to call Clark’s candidacy “doomed” after one day because:
…it would just feel good, in a way. A dead-in-the-water Clark candidacy would be a great rebuke to party big shots who are trying to foist him on Democrats because he’s more “electable” than Howard Dean or John Kerry. We’re going to see about that. It should be interesting.”
We’re just going to see about that, my pretties … heeheeheeheehee!
It’s funny. Today, I’m hearing very nasty things about Clark — all of them from Democrats, none of them candidates. Walsh points to a letter in the Note from an “angry democrat” who says:
I am not a Dean supporter — but I am angry that our party’s leaders have anointed an alternative to him who seems even more ignorant and unprepared — and that this supposed ‘anti-war’ candidate turns out to have been in favor of both the war resolution and Richard Nixon!! And let’s not even talk about the Clintons. Today I am embarrassed to be a Democrat.”
Interestingly, I got a handful of similar e-mails today striking a similar theme, one of them from somebody named “Sal” who said:
How can you support Wesley Clark when he’s even stupider than Bush? I’m don’t support any candidate yet, I’m keeping my options open. Howard Dean never voted for Richard Nixon at least! How much does the DLC pay you, anyway?”
I haven’t had this much fun since I argued with Nader voters in 2000. (Oh, and did I mention that I’m a Democrat who, nonetheless, believes that George W. Bush is the messiah?)
Joan figures Clark’s toast. One day in and it’s over. He’s just another Schwarzenegger — nothing but a lazy, Austrian, weightlifting moron without the women problems (although the day is young….)
But, at least we won’t have to endure that nasty campaign we are convinced he must have been planning with those horrible Clinton people.
Sullywatch catches the Prince of P-Town using a bad, bad phrase to describe a fine fellow traveler, Drudge. Oh my, my. And after calling me a “leftist homophobe” for saying the same thing about Sully himself, along with Lesley Stahl and Howard Fineman, for drooling and simpering over Junior’s manly profile (the first time — when he dressed up in fireman’s suit.)
I really wish that Miss Manners would start a blog so we could have someone to consult about the appropriateness of certain political discourse. It gets so confusing.
I had been under the misapprehension that once Republican members of Congress called President Clinton a “scumbag” a “pervert” and a “rapist” among other things, that the GOP had joined the ranks of rappers and cast members of The Sopranos as far as crude, insulting language was concerned. Even the esteemed cheerleader frat-boy himself was seen on television calling a reporter a “major league asshole” and had been quoted saying he and his father talked about “pussy” on the golf course. This newfound willingness to say in public what Richard Nixon had only said in the privacy of the Oval Office, seemed to signal a loosening of the old fashioned edict that elected officials should be civil, at least in public.
Apparently I was wrong about that. Lately, I’m seeing a large number of middle aged Republican men blushing and fidgeting on television over what they say is very inappropriate language on the part of elected Democrats. They are working themselves into a complete tizzy over it.
Ed Gillespie was on CNN the other day practically having to call for the smelling salts he was so upset by the shocking phrase “miserable failure” being applied to the President. He could barely look at the camera he was so embarrassed to have to say such a thing in public. He held back a sob as he whispered, “it’s political hate speech.”
And just today, the shy and virginal Tom DeLay said “it is disturbing that Democrats have spewed more hateful rhetoric at President Bush then they ever did at Saddam Hussein.”
But the brave, young debutante soldiered on. He looked the Democrats right in the eye and said, voice shaking, his little chin trembling, “I call on all the vociferous Democrat critics, from Kerry to Dean and from Daschle to Pelosi, to have the courage to tell their hero Ted Kennedy that he went too far.”
I’ve heard that burning feathers will bring a tightly corseted maid out of a swoon. I would suggest that all the television anchors keep some at the ready, along with a large supply of tissues. The delicate debs of the GOP are likely in for a rough ride over the next few months.
I wonder what the American public is going to make of this newfound delicate sensibility on the right. Certainly, they have forgotten all about that unpleasant impeachment matter and the press are hardly likely to bring up such an unseemly topic. But, you still must wonder how this newfound diffidence and sensitivity will comport with the masculine, fighter jock image that has so captivated Kate O’Beirne and her hot flashing lunch bunch.
Is George W. Bush “Top Gun” or Blanche DuBois?
At the risk of sending Robert Novak to his boudoir with a migraine, I offer a taste of things to come Republicans.
Get out your handkerchiefs.
Jay Leno: “Today, retired General Wesley Clark announced he is running for president of the US. Pretty amazing guy. Four star general, graduated first in his class at West Point, supreme commander of NATO, served combat in Vietnam. What, he won the bronze star, silver star, the purple heart. Wounded in battle. See, I’m no political expert, but that sounds pretty good next to choking on a pretzel, falling off a scooter and dropping the dog.”
Buzzflash and I both have hurt feelings that we weren’t included on the “Kicking Ass” DNC blogroll, but I’ll give them a plug anyway. (Me, I can understand … but Buzzflash???)
As I was pondering this problem with the cheese eaters last night, I remembered that our good friend Michael Ledeen was way out ahead of Tom Friedman in recognizing that the French are now an official enemy of the United States.
Last March, when the vin guzzlers first had the ineffable gall to stand in the way of an immediate invasion — one which which we insisted was imperative because Saddam was blatantly lying about his massive cache of WMD and was preparing to use them any minute (ahem) — Ledeen set forth his theory about France’s cunning plan to destroy America:
How could it be done? No military operation could possibly defeat the United States, and no direct economic challenge could hope to succeed. That left politics and culture. And here there was a chance to turn America’s vaunted openness at home and toleration abroad against the United States.
So the French and the Germans struck a deal with radical Islam and with radical Arabs: You go after the United States, and we’ll do everything we can to protect you, and we will do everything we can to weaken the Americans.
The Franco-German strategy was based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States.
[…]
If this is correct, we will have to pursue the war against terror far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, into the heart of Western Europe. And there, as in the Middle East, our greatest weapons are political: the demonstrated desire for freedom of the peoples of the countries that oppose us.
Radio Free France, anyone?
I’m surprised that Mr. Friedman hasn’t yet made the connection that Ledeen made lo those many months ago. France is not just any old enemy of the US. It is protecting its terrorist partners in their mutual plan to destroy the United States.
(Just as obvious are the French people’s desires for freedom. Dr. Rice drew the obvious comparison when she observed that we liberated the German people from Hitler in WWII. It may be time to open a can ‘o whoop ass on the dictator Jacques Chirac and give those Frenchies a whiff ‘o freedom fries.)
Luckily, according to the NY Times today Colin and Condi also have a cunning plan in place — the same plan, as it happens, that worked so spectacularly during the last UN negotiations.
Last winter, in the face of a threat by France to wield its veto power, the United States tried to line up 9 of the 15 Security Council votes to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force to overthrow Saddam Hussein. American officials said that if they had won the votes, France might have abandoned its veto threat.
President Bush then maintained that the United States did not need the resolution to go to war.
The big difference this time is that even French officials say France will not veto a new resolution.
“Powell is upset about the French, but the fact is they are not in a combative mood on this,” a senior European diplomat said. “Behind closed doors, the French are saying they would never dream of vetoing. There is no fighting spirit here.”
[…]
American officials discussing the strategy of trying to isolate France said it reflected mounting concern among administration officials that in their view, virtually every policy adopted by France in recent months has seemed to try to thwart American policies in Iraq and elsewhere.
“There are just a lot of bad feelings toward the French,” an administration official said. “Every time they talk about multilateralism, we know that it’s nothing more than a euphemism for constraining the United States.”
Earlier this year, the administration was surprised when Russia sided with France over the war resolution. Germany’s opposition had been well known. The other surprise was the American failure to enlist African and Latin American nations.
After that diplomatic setback, the administration adopted a policy of punishing France in symbolic ways.
In effect, administration officials say, the policy now is to enlist the Germans in negotiating a possible compromise resolution and to offer Russia a chance to take part in Iraq’s reconstruction — as well as get a share of the lucrative contracts to be offered. Mr. Powell has repeatedly praised Russia and Germany for trying to work out a compromise.
A diplomat familiar with administration thinking summarized the American policy as “talk to the Germans, buy off the Russians and isolate the French.”
Another was less polite, saying Condoleezza Rice, the White House national security adviser, had characterized the approach as “ignore, reward and punish.”
Now why is the administration leaking such things to the NY Times and gullible useful idiots like Tom Friedman? And why would we adopt the same exact strategy we used last time with such spectacularly bad results?
Well, perhaps it’s because the results we are seeking are not the ones we claim they are. Maybe we don’t really want the UN involved in Iraq (especially now that we’ve found out they aren’t going to pony up much more than Dick Cheney’s annual Hallibuton stipend.) Perhaps we are after the same results as last time for the same reasons: buying time, scapegoating, delegitimizing the UN and domestic politics.
Those damned French are refusing to do what is needed to reconstruct Iraq and that is why it is not succeeding. If Rove plays his cards right, in a matter of months the administration should be able to convince a majority of Americans that the French are paying terrorists rewards for every American they kill in Iraq.
But, Colin and Condi will bear any burden, take any amount of time necessary to ensure that we do everything we can to force France to stop supporting terrorism and live up to its obligations. It could take months, but they will not give up — at least until things calm down enough for President Flightsuit Arbusto to triumphantly parachute into Baghdad with his harness cinched up so high that G. Gordon Liddy pops a Viagra and propositions Chris Matthews on live television.
They’re looking at around October, 2004 to officially declare victory over the Iraqi terrorists and their French partners.
At which point Wolfie and the Dicks will open up that bottle of Dom Perignon they’ve been hoarding in the basement of the Pentagon and privately declare Operation Elect the Moron a success.
Of course, there’s always the possibility that things will not magically improve in Iraq over the next year, in which case we will have to declare war on the Syrians.
France will not have anyone but itself to blame if that happens.
As I have said many times, the neocons have always been wrong about everything. Until now, they were kept in a little corner where they couldn’t do any catastrophic harm:
AMY GOODMAN: And you worked directly under George Bush
RAY MCGOVERN: I did when he was director for CIA and later I saw him every other morning for a couple of years in the 80’s when he was Vice President.
AMY GOODMAN: Doing what?
RAY MCGOVERN: I was one of the briefers who prepared the President’s daily brief and delivered it and briefed people one on one with the senior officials downtown.
AMY GOODMAN:Now one of the things we are talking about a lot and seeing a lot is that the same people that were there during the Reagan-Bush years and even before, the Wolfowitzes the Rumsfelds, Cheneys were there then. What was George Bush’s view of these people then?
RAY MCGOVERN: Well, you know it’s really interesting. When we saw these people coming back in town, all of us said who were around in those days said, oh my god, ‘the crazies’ are back – ‘the crazies’ – that’s how we referred to these people.
AMY GOODMAN: Did George Bush refer to them that way?
RAY MCGOVERN: That’s the way everyone referred to them.
AMY GOODMAN: Including George Bush?
RAY MCGOVERN: Well, when Wolfowitz prepared that defense posture statement in 1991, where he elucidated the strategic vision that has now been implemented, Jim Baker, Secretary of State, Brent Scowcroft, security advisor to George Bush, and George Bush said hey, that thing goes right into the circular file. Suppress that thing, get rid of it. Somebody had the presence of mind to leak it and so that was suppressed. But now to see that arise out of the ashes and be implemented. while we start a war against Iraq, I wonder what Bush the first is really thinking. Because these were the same guys that all of us referred to as ‘the crazies’.
This is what happens when you allow a spoiled, stupid prince with a daddy complex to take control of the most powerful country in the world. It’s worth remembering how Lil’ Cap’n T-Ball came to bring this entire group of nutballs into the highest reaches of decision making:
They [the neocons] supported the maverick senator John McCain until it became clear that Bush would get the nomination.
Then they had a stroke of luck — Cheney was put in charge of the presidential transition (the period between the election in November and the accession to office in January). Cheney used this opportunity to stack the administration with his hard-line allies. Instead of becoming the de facto president in foreign policy, as many had expected, Secretary of State Powell found himself boxed in by Cheney’s right-wing network, including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton and Libby.
The neocons took advantage of Bush’s ignorance and inexperience. Unlike his father, a Second World War veteran who had been ambassador to China, director of the CIA, and vice president, George W was a thinly educated playboy who had failed repeatedly in business before becoming the governor of Texas, a largely ceremonial position (the state’s lieutenant governor has more power). His father is essentially a northeastern moderate Republican; George W, raised in west Texas, absorbed the Texan cultural combination of machismo, anti-intellectualism and overt religiosity. The son of upper-class Episcopalian parents, he converted to Southern fundamentalism in a midlife crisis. Fervent Christian Zionism, along with an admiration for macho Israeli soldiers that sometimes coexists with hostility to liberal Jewish-American intellectuals, is a feature of the Southern culture.
The younger Bush was tilting away from Powell and toward Wolfowitz (“Wolfie,” as he calls him) even before 9/11 gave him something he had lacked: a mission in life other than following in his dad’s footsteps. There are signs of estrangement between the cautious father and the crusading son: Last year, veterans of the first Bush administration, including Baker, Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, warned publicly against an invasion of Iraq without authorization from Congress and the U.N.
It’s Shakespearean. The question is whether it’s tragedy or farce.
Tristero tells Nicholas Lehman that he needs to stop assuming that Bush has ideas that are worth discussing.
Wha?? There’s nothing impressive about what Bush said at all, except for the sheer stupidity of framing an argument so badly. The Middle East will never be a place that is either progressive and peaceful or violent and terrifying. The world doesn’t work that way. There is never peace or violence; they must inevitably coexist. To frame the Middle East situation as Bush does is, at best, an invitation to an endless, fruitless, insane crusade (yes, that word) to eliminate evil. It can never be accomplished because evil, as Bush uses the term, is a worthless concept. Bush’s reasoning is the reasoning of a moral idiot and you are an enabler of his idiocy by declaring it “impressive”, despite the fact that you refute his point immediately afterwards.
You do this a lot, Nick. You seem to admire Bush’s words and merely regret that his words don’t apply very well to the situation. You are making a terrible mistake. Bush’s premises are profoundly flawed.
I agree wholeheartedly. This is true of a lot of good writers who are trying to sort out just what in the hell is going on with this administration. They are rational people so they begin with the idea that Junior and the Retreads are pursuing some sort of logical ends. In order to try and organize what they see, I think they end up having to attach meaning to words and actions that simply aren’t there in order to keep themselves from going crazy. I know that it is one of the constant pitfalls in my own thinking.
I have have to remind myself that they are like sharks, a predatory eating machine. They have a list of goals, many unassociated and many contradictory, but they just keep moving — relentlessly biting off one item at a time without regard to the consequences. Logic has nothing to do with it.
Mahablog says the Bushies are playing a six degrees of separation game with Saddam and al Qaeda:
What the neocons are trying to do is akin to a “six degrees of Kevin Bacon” game. Much of the world is swarming with Muslim terrorist groups, and sometimes these groups work together, and sometimes they don’t, and some individuals move between groups, and if you look hard enough you can always find this guy who knew this other guy who was in an al Qaeda cell, and the first guy met with somebody who knew Saddam Hussein ten years ago, according to another guy.
Hell, using this same technique, we could prove that George W. Bush was in league with al Qaeda. There are fewer degrees of separation between him and Osama than most other people on the planet.
This is correct. In fact, there are only two degrees of separation —
Bush – Arbusto investor Salem bin Laden – Osama bin Laden
Bush – Dana Rohrbacher – Osama bin Laden
Bush – Prince Bandar – Osama bin Laden
Still, as much as I like this theory, reader Dennis S. clued me into another that I find more believable. He believes that Junior himself has been convinced of a far more insidious type of conspiracy, one with which he is intimately familiar and one that he continues to study to this day.
Remember the old Batman TV series? How all the badguys would hang out together? The Riddler and the Penguin et al, plotting against Batman? President Dikhed thinks that since Osama and Saddam are both bad guys they obviously must hang out and plot against Commander Codpeice, superhero of the American Way.
I think this might be the real reason for the persistent yammering about a non-existent connection between al Qaeda and Saddam. To Junior, that is the way the world works.
After reading today’s puerile little anti-French screed I am forced to conclude that anything insightful Tom Friedman ever wrote was a fluke.
He says the French are our enemy because they have not magnanimously offered to “assemble an army of 25,000 Eurotroops, and a $5 billion reconstruction package, and then saying to the Bush team: Here, we’re sincere about helping to rebuild Iraq, but now we want a real seat at the management table. Instead, the French have put out an ill-conceived proposal, just to show that they can be different, without any promise that even if America said yes Paris would make a meaningful contribution.”
Yes. That’s the smart way to deal with the Bush administration. Put your best deal on the table and let them up the ante. They are soooo trustworthy and honest in their dealings that you needn’t fear that they will screw you. Being above board in all things is their watchword.
And the French are little pink bunnies who were born yesterday.
Friedman relays the following as if it were a sacred truth as passed down from Moses himself:
Let me spell it out in simple English: if America is defeated in Iraq by a coalition of Saddamists and Islamists, radical Muslim groups — from Baghdad to the Muslim slums of Paris — will all be energized, and the forces of modernism and tolerance within these Muslim communities will be on the run.
And we know this because we’ve already seen how cowed terrorists are by our magnificent military might and democratic motivations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The entire Arab world is trembling in fear and yet are simultaneously terribly impressed with our benevolence, kindness and generosity; they are particularly moved by the competence we’ve shown thus far in the post-war aftermath. Needless to say, like everyone else in the world, they are very likely bowled over by the expertise and skill of our intelligence services with their preternatural gifts for knowing if they’ve been bad or good (so be good for goodness sake!)
Just today we hear reports that Saudi Arabia is thinking of putting out feelers to buy a small nuclear bomb or two from our other close ally Pakistan.
Oh yes. The plan is working perfectly.
It doesn’t occur to Friedman that this magical kool-aid formula that he and the neocons are swilling by the gallon just MIGHT BE WRONG. Maybe this administration’s continued insistence on running things in Iraq after our blatant lies and mistakes leading up to the war are the very things that are making this beautiful flowering of democracy IMPOSSIBLE.
Nobody believes a fucking thing we say anymore, whether it’s about WMD or civil liberties or transforming Iraq into a non-drinking version of Tennessee. This is not France’s fault and it isn’t the EU’s fault and it isn’t the UN’s fault. It is the Bush administration’s fault and whether or not the French “want us to fail” is of little consequence. We are the one’s who are failing.
The question is whether France has an obligation to involve itself in a terrible mess, against the will of its own people, that they were on the record opposing in no uncertain terms and which they do not believe is going to be successful under the leadership of a bunch of bungling megalomaniacs.
Even more importantly the question is whether they might think they should try to put the brakes on this neocon fantasy called the Bush Doctrine before something really, really bad happens. Although it’s somewhat in doubt that Friedman has bothered to read it, we can be sure that the leaders of France have, as well as the numerous underlying writings that fully explain its goals, something Tom Friedman should also do before he start throwing around stupid accusations about the French launching “Operation America Must Fail.”
Long before any such (non-existent) French perfidy was conceived, fellows like Charles Krauthammer were writing in his article Universal Dominion: Toward a Unipolar World: “America’s purpose should be to steer the world away from its coming multipolar future toward a qualitatively new outcome–a unipolar world” shaped and led by American power. Ben Wattenberg wrote: “We are the first universal nation. ‘First’ as in the first one, ‘first’ as in ‘number one.’ And ‘universal’ within our borders and globally.A unipolar world is a good thing, if America is the uni.” link
It may be that the disagreements between Europe and the US aren’t about some unhinged French hatred for America, as Friedman seems to think, nor are they necessarily the natural consequence of European cultural hedonism leading to military weakness, as Robert Kaplan asserts in his unctuously condescending article, Power and Weakness.
It’s just possible that the French and others, based upon their historical experience as well as a clear reading of the intentions of the US government, have decided to push back for bigger reasons than thwarting the onanistic mid-east fantasy of a bunch of delusional neocons.
They may believe that enabling the US to run the world as a “hegemony” is not in their best interest. They may sincerely believe that a real multi-polar world is preferable, not because they are weak and flabby, but because they know that when a nation’s leaders start talking about “global military dominance” it has always translated into bad results for ordinary people, no matter who does it.
Maybe they have learned from their own mistakes.
Friedman would do well do at least consider that France’s intransigence is born of something a bit more nuanced than petulance, greed and bad temper (although they, like everybody else, have ample amounts of them.) The logical reason for their behavior is that they don’t trust this government and its newfound enthusiasm for using its huge military as far as they can throw it.
And in that they are joined by millions and millions of others all around the world, many of them right here in the Homeland itself. A few of us have read the history of Empire, too. We don’t have to actually live it to learn its lessons.
I believe that allowing the voting public time to know the potential replacement candidates plays to Governor Gray’s greatest strength. He is the master of “lesser of two evils” politics and that is the single most important political skill in California today. Even with 135 rivals, he still looks like the best choice.
If the Republicans had ever put up a reasonable candidate to run against him they probably could have won. Yes, Davis did run negative ads against the saintly Dick Riordan in primary season — just as Jebbie ran negative ads against McBride — but the California Republicans weren’t the victim of chip implants in their brains that forced them to nominate Simon because of it. (And they say Democrats are stupid…)
I have to believe that there simply aren’t any good Republican candidates in this state. Desperately embracing a crude, ill informed, overwhelmed cyborg as their savior pretty much confirms it.
One thing is clear. Arnold is not wearing well. In bars and living rooms across the state, the greatest guaranteed laugh of the night, across the board, is the sighting of his advertisement where the earnest young lady asks, “How do you plan to end the budget crises?” Arnold answers,” Here’s my plan. On day one open the books. Audit everything. TAnd then we’ll end this crazy deficit spending.”
I don’t know if it’s the accent or the substance, but whatever it is it brings down the house.