Bob Novak (singing along with the Mighty Wurlitzer) is upset that Jimmy Carter is speaking out of turn and criticizing President Legacy:
NOVAK: There was a time when ex presidents acted like elder statesmen, rarely seen, almost never heard. But on “60 Minutes” this past weekend, there was Bill Clinton, basking in the spotlight of big money and criticizing President Bush’s proposed tax cut. Even that wasn’t as grading (sic) as yesterday’s sanctimonious op-ed column in “The New York Times” by Sunday school teacher and ex-President Jimmy Carter. “As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantial unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards.”
He’s right, as always. But, I really think he needs to have a talk with this guy too:
”We need to make clear the new world order is not some code for American imperialism, but making freedom and self-determination widely accepted norms”
It’s highly inappropriate for former presidents to speak out of turn this way.
Americans are growing impatient with the United Nations and say they would support military action against Iraq even if the Security Council refuses to support an invasion, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
The poll found that 58 percent of Americans said the United Nations was doing a poor job in managing the Iraqi crisis, a jump of 10 points from a month ago. And 55 percent of respondents in the latest poll would support an American invasion of Iraq, even if it was in defiance of a vote of the Security Council.
The problem with this headline is that they didn’t mention that while the public feels the United Nations isn’t “managing” the crisis well, the Bush administration has a bare 51% of Americans who think that he is. And that number hasn’t budged. The same number feel he is doing a good job on foreign policy in general, 51%.
The second question concerning defiance of a Security Council vote has never been asked before, so saying that such sentiment is growing is based upon total conjecture.
On the other hand the answers to many of the questions are so contradictory and incoherent that you really have to wonder what the hell people are thinking.
My personal favorite is:
From what you have seen or heard so far, how much progress have the U.N. weapons inspectors made in finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — a lot, some, not much, or none at all?
9% say “a lot”, 47% say “some”, 33% say “not much”, 8% say “none at all”, and 3% say “don’t know.”
56% of the public believe that the inspectors have made some or a lot of progress finding weapons of mass destruction. I suppose they could mean since 1991, but surely a fair number think that Blix and his boys have found them in this last round.
Are We Better Off Now Than We Were Six Months Ago?
Vote Quimby points out that the very hegemony and military dominance so prized by the neoconservative warmongers, and on which they base their starry-eyed plans for a Pax Americana, is being seriously diminished by the incompetence of this administration.
Let’s just look at this last few months and ask this simple question: Is America more powerful than it was last summer, or less?
I thought that perhaps the answer was ‘more’ after seeing the 15-0 Security Council vote that got inspectors back on the ground. Achieving unanimity on a security council that included Syria was no mean feat.
But since then, America’s ability to influence events has receded dramatically. We’ve seen a coalition of the unwilling form between France, Germany, Russia and China; and we’ve been blown off by Turkey(!). It’s unclear how many of these diplomatic failures were caused by massive disagreement over matters of substance vs. team G-Dub’s ultra-manly approach to getting what it wants. But it seems pretty clear to me that the most powerful nation in the world gets less powerful every time another country publicly refuses to go along with its positions.
One of the leaders described Bush as “cocky and relaxed” and said he conveyed the clear impression that he had concluded that attacking Iraq was inevitable. Another lawmaker described Bush as being “in high spirits.” This leader said that at the congressional breakfast a month earlier, Bush had “seemed to have the weight of the world on his shoulders.”
The lawmakers’ accounts were echoed by Bush’s aides, who said he is still an optimist in settings unrelated to the war. People close to Bush said he has kept to his usual schedule of sleeping from roughly 10 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. And they said he continues to work out for at least half an hour, at least five or six days a week, alternating between weight-lifting and running — sometimes on a treadmill and sometimes on an outdoor track.
“I do work out daily. And I’m sleeping well at night,” Bush told a roundtable for regional newspaper reporters Monday.
This is just wonderful, just peachy. It makes me proud to be an American.
Now, let’s suppose the (suspected) terrorist (supposedly) knows that there is going to be a terrorist attack somewhere at sometime in the future. In order to protect the innocent people who might be harmed, isn’t it incumbent upon us to torture his children to find out that information?
Because, if torture is called for because of the number of innocent lives that could possibly be saved, then there really is no limit on who is eligible for the torture, is there? Since the moral argument rests on “we have to do it to save lives” then the calculus is pretty straightforward.
Yousef al-Khalid, nine, and his brother, Abed al-Khalid, seven, were taken into custody in Pakistan in September when intelligence officers raided a flat in Karachi which their father had fled hours earlier. They were found cowering behind a wardrobe with a senior al-Qaeda member.
The boys have been held in Pakistan, but this weekend they were flown to America to be questioned about their father.
CIA interrogators confirmed on Saturday that the boys were staying at a secret address.
“We are handling them with kid gloves. After all, they are only little children,” said an official. “But we need to know as much about their father’s recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times and they are given the best of care.”
Yeah, I’m sure that these kids have a lot of important information to impart.
(Hey, aren’t 7 year old’s eligible for the death penalty in Virginia? If they aren’t, they should be, little terrorist bastards…)
Of course there is that pesky little problem of whether torture actually works.
Patrick Nielsen Hayden posts a spot-on comment from one of his readers, James D. Macdonald, that really should give pause to even the most bloodthirsty proponents of the “torture for the sake of the greater good” school of cruelty:
Oliver, lad, let me explain something to you.
Give me a pair of pliers, a soldering iron, and two hours alone with you, and you will confess to being a member of Al Qaeda. Another half hour or so, and I’ll have a list of all the terrible things you did, and most of the details of the things you plan to do. Then I’ll get a list of the other secret members of Al Qaeda you know. Give me a little time with them, and they’ll confess too, confirming that you’re a terrorist.
Are we so fucking deluded that this is not completely and totally obvious?
I hope that the Democrats face up to the reality that national security is going to be the foremost issue in the coming Presidential campaign and find a way to deal with the fact that we are considered to be complete losers on the issue. This is a HUGE problem and it’s not going to magically disappear no matter how badly they manage to fuck up the economy. They are going to keep asserting that the economy is in the ditch because of the “war” on evil and there is nothing to be done but to keep cutting taxes and invading countries that might threaten us someday. They are committed to this and they aren’t going to budge.
And we are going to lose if we don’t find a way to answer the charge that Democrats are pussies.
I like Dean’s feisty iconoclasm and I’ve always thought that Kerry is a good man. Hart is one of the smartest politicians, ever. But, all of these guys are going to be going up against a guy whose hagiography has turned him into a cross between Winston Churchill and Stonewall Jackson. It’s bullshit, but you have to picture the flagwaving, near hysterical cheering crowds that will be seen every single day on the whore media for the next two years as President AWOL begins his re-election campign in earnest. And they will consistently portray him as resolute, strong, manly, etc., etc., etc., while Kerry will be seen as a creature of the Senate debating society and Dean as an obscure northern Governor with no foreign policy experience. Hart = Monkey Business.
And, to ignore the importance of the southern constituency at a time when the public is very evenly divided is folly. As Michael Lind pointed out in his fascinating article called “America’s Tribes”, the martial tradition in the south is a fundamental, defining issue in american politics and we Democrats ignore it at our peril.
I have held off really looking closely at this guy until now because I had no idea of his domestic positions and I wasn’t sure if he was going to be a reliable Democrat. This article , called “Mr Credibility” by Michael Tomasky went a long way toward allaying those concerns, at least in the short term. (I also noticed that he has quite a bit of education and some political experience (’75-’76 White House Fellow OMB) in economics.)
Think Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) looks good because he fought in a war? Well, check Clark out. Clark, now 58, fought in Vietnam, too, of course, but that was just his stretching routine. He won a war. He was NATO commander during the Kosovo operation. Granted, this may not be the military equivalent of beating back Adolf Hitler. But it arguably is something of a moral equivalent in that it led to the downfall of a Hitler manqué in the person of Slobodan Milosevic. It was, however sliced, a successful, multilateral mission that largely achieved its objectives, both military and political. And the Kosovo campaign was merely the most recent in a long line of Clark’s feats. After graduating from high school in Little Rock, Ark., in 1962, he went to West Point, where he finished first in his class; after that, to Oxford University, where he earned a master’s degree in philosophy, politics and economics as a Rhodes Scholar (an Arkansas Rhodes Scholar, eh?); to Vietnam in the late 1960s; thence up the ladder, all the way to NATO command, which Bill Clinton bestowed on him in 1997. Although both from Arkansas, Clinton and Clark first met, Clark says, at a 1965 student leadership conference while both were in college. Since then, Clark has won the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, a Silver Star, a Purple Heart, and more accolades and decorations than Secretariat.
So there’s all that. And there’s this: He votes Democratic. In Arkansas most voters enroll with no party affiliation; you show up on primary day and select the ballot of whichever party you want to support. Clark told me he voted in the Democratic primary in last year’s state elections. He seriously considered seeking the Democratic nomination for governor of Arkansas in 2002, challenging Republican incumbent Mike Huckabee. He told me in an interview that he favors both abortion rights and affirmative action. We spoke just after the Bush administration filed its brief against the University of Michigan’s admissions policy, and Clark said he was “surprised and dismayed” by the president’s decision. He has “tremendous regard” for the Clintons. And, just as a little sweetener for the culture department, he quotes Bob Dylan toward the end of his book, Waging Modern War, and writes affectionately about the protest folk music that he used to love to listen to as a young man.
A lot of this is still sketchy, but I am gravely concerned that we are going to be in a campaign framed as if it is between John Wayne and Michael Jackson and if that is so, we are going to be in deep shit.
I think he could be the one — and I mean at the top of the ticket, not the bottom.
I had long wondered why the very influential Richard Perle, who often acts as spokesman for the administration position both here and abroad, wasn’t brought on in any official capacity. They hired Elliot Abrams, John Negropont, John Poindexter and Otto Reich, so they are certainly not constrained by matters of reputation or even criminality when bringing zealots and crazed ideologues in to the administration. So why not Perle?
Well, it would appear to be the oldest reason in the book. Greed. According to that well known terrorist Sy Hersh, he stands to make a great deal of money with his new company (coincidentally, I’m sure) formed in November 2001 that sells homeland security and defense products.
Of course, the good news is that he still maintains all the influece he could possibly want with Rummy and Wolfie, but he doesn’t have to give up making huge sums of money to do it. In fact, his crazy-assed scheme to remake the world in his own image is finally being implemented and he can make a boatload of money from it at the same time.
Is this a great country or what?
(But, I still don’t think we have the full story on what Bill Clinton knew about that 1985 check they found in the trunk of that rusted out Chevy. Corruption in high places is intolerable.)
What do we do when the war starts? He has a list of possibilities, beginning with the obvious call to arms for regime change at home.
Matt Yglesias has also brought this up a number of times, particularly as it pertains to the anti-war movement shifting its emphasis from stopping the war to re-building Iraq properly.
I have been convinced that the war would happen since last August, barring a miraculous spine transplant from the Democrats or the UK bowing out. Since neither of those things have happened, we’re going, (supposedly on the 17th, although just because this group is so incredibly predictable, it will probably be on the 15th. Hail Caesar.)
Leap-frogging over the horrible carnage we are about to wreak but over which we so clearly have no say, I ask all 12 of my readers to weigh in on this because I’d really like to know. Taking all of Zizka’s points into account, how can we also persuade the Bush administration to deal with post-war Iraq properly?
The most confounding aspect of this Iraq debate is the question of motivation. Why in the world are we really doing this? Clearly, the official explanations don’t make sense, the “case” has been presented over and over again, but it has never been made. We spend hours and days researching the past writings of the advisors, reading 5 pound tomes about the history of the middle east, and desperately scanning the foreign press for hints about what they are really up to. We force ourselves to fight the nausea that listening to the President inevitably brings and make ourselves watch him repeat his bumper stickers mantras over and over again. Oil, Pax Americana, personal revenge, bloodlust, delusions of grandeur, Israel, end-times…it goes on and on.
Oddly, it’s a somewhat serious Maureen Dowd who most accurately answers the question of motivations, and illustrates why the “case” has been so shockingly incoherent:
The president wants to avenge his father, and please his base by changing the historical ellipsis on the Persian Gulf war to a period. Donald Rumsfeld wants to exorcise the post-Vietnam focus on American imperfections and limitations. Dick Cheney wants to establish America’s primacy as the sole superpower. Richard Perle wants to liberate Iraq and remove a mortal threat to Israel. After Desert Storm, Paul Wolfowitz posited that containment is a relic, and that America must aggressively pre-empt nuclear threats.
And in 1997, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Fox News, and other conservatives, published a “statement of principles,” signed by Jeb Bush and future Bush officials — Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams. Rejecting 41’s realpolitik and shaping what would become 43’s pre-emption strategy, they exhorted a “Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity,” with America extending its domain by challenging “regimes hostile to our interests and values.”
And then there is Karl, whose influence is easily as great as any of the above and who weighs in with the electoral calculation and the motivation that has to be a primary one in Junior’s mind — not to be booted out of office after having attained it on a technicality, an asterisk forever after his name, less successful even than his wimp of a lip reading Poppy. Bush family honor, sis boom bah.
And, there is the scary question of Bush believing he is anointed by God, as Jack Beatty writes about so vividly in the Atlantic:
Why? The surface explanations—Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, has used them on his neighbors, on his own people, and “could” use them against us—fall short, don’t balance the heaping price Mr. Bush is prepared to pay. To judge by his rhetoric, the President believes God has chosen him to lead the U.S. in a war against “Evil”; beside that eschatological assignment, NATO, the UN, our allies, Arab opinion, world opinion, the war on terror, the budget, are as nothing.
So, the problem isn’t that there is one overarching sinister reason for the insane foreign policy actions we are taking. It’s that every member of the administration has his own overarching reason, and they are all competing and conniving and complimenting to the extent that we are now being pushed by events and nobody knows quite how or why we are doing it.
All of this comes around, once again, to the absolute folly of allowing a callow, gladhanding brand name to assume the office on the assurance that he would be “advised” by a committee of cool hands with limitless expertise. Human nature and history shows that this never works. An ignorant, childlike Dauphin is always spoiled, stubborn and convinced of his own infallability while also being easily manipulated by his Regents. They battle amongst themselves, and with him, until the government becomes nothing more than a game board upon which each faction presses his advantage of the moment, only to be outmaneuvered or overtaken by a rival. The boy-king, meanwhile, is always also held close by some who whisper in his ear that he has been ordained by God to maintain the power of his forebears.
Democracy and an open meritocratic society were supposed to insure that the government was never led again by a silly boy and his unaccountable cabal. Yet here we are, once again.
Right wing talk show hosts have been highly critical of “Hollywood celebrities” like Janeane Garafolo because, while they certainly have a right to speak, they don’t have the expertise or credentials to discuss serious issues of foreign policy and national security. They should not be taken seriously, nor should they be given valuable air time when such grave matters as war and peace are at stake.
I agree. Therefore, I think that such celebrities as Rush Limbaugh (3 semesters at Missouri State before dropping out to become a top 40 radio DJ), Michael Weiner Savage (PhD in ethnobotany) and Sean Hannity (biography only states he was a college radio DJ, no mention of where anywhere) should not be allowed to expound for a combined 40+ hours per week on radio and television stations throughout the country about their political beliefs.
Discussions of national security are much too important to be left to unqualified celebrity dilettantes.