McCain once attempted to strangle someone on a diplomatic mission.
Seems True. McCain denies it, but Republican Senator Thad Cochran remembers McCain’s volatile presence while negotiating with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
Category: Foreign Policy
Categories
McCain v. Spain
Matt Yglesias, I think fairly, gives his take on the whole McCain v. Spain gaffe:
…instead of admitting to a minor mix-up, the McCain campaign decided that in order to preserve their man’s aura of omniscience they would . . . provoke a diplomatic incident with Spain.
It’s kind of sad that virtually all of the other alternative ways of looking at this situation portray McCain in a worse light.
I wanted to put this in the “Humor” category – but it’s too scary/pathetic to be funny at the moment. Maybe in November – or maybe not.
[digg-reddit-me]Yet again, Jon Stewart asks the questions no one else does and confronts another architect of the War in Iraq, the noted British liberal and former prime minister, Tony Blair.
Tony Blair: None of this is easy…
Jon Stewart: Look I know, and I do appreciate even having the conversation. No one believes they took the decisions lightly. The only point for me is: nineteen people flew into the towers; it seems hard for me to imagine that we could go to war enough to make the world safe enough that nineteen people wouldn’t want to do harm to us. So it seems we need to re-think a strategy that is less military-based and more [unintelligible].
This exchange comes towards the end of the interview with Blair, which overall, I don’t think was not one of Stewart’s best.
But the catharsis that comes when Jon Stewart confronts these powerful men and speaks common sense to these once formidable powers – it’s hard to describe. Somehow, it is as if he is doing more than anyone to hold the men and women who made the disastrous decisions that led to war in some way accountable.
Part 1 2 of interview with Blair
Part 2 1 of interview with Blair
As I wrote about Stewart confronting Douglas Feith earlier this year:
I’m not sure if it should be so cathartic to see one of the planners of this misbegotten gamble scolded by a comedian. But it was.
My sister just texted me to ask if Obama had violated the Logan Act – a law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. This apparently is the I’m sure this question is a result of this story by the infamous Amir Taheri. Even Jonah Goldberg of the National Review in his post on the matter concedes:
If memory serves, Taheri hasn’t always panned out…
This I suppose is Goldberg’s way of saying that he will fan the flames if it hurts Obama whether Taheri’s “reporting” is true or not. Most famously, Taheri recently claimed that the government of Iran was forcing Jews to wear yellow stars a la Nazi Germany. He refused to retract the story although the publisher of the story later issued an apology.
I don’t see an official response from the campaign yet on this issue, but I will post it as soon as I get it.
I’m sure it’s forthcoming as the McCain camp has issued an official response fanning these flames – saying that even the possibility that Obama may have violated the Logan act was “unprecedented.” Of course, McCain has been accused in the past of violating the Logan Act on a number of occasions – with regards to Georgia and Columbia; and the right has accused Nancy Pelosi of violating the Logan Act as well.
[digg-reddit-me]
[Photo by amypalko licensed under Creative Commons.]
Tim Shipman, writing in the London Telegraph, reports on the intense foreign policy briefings being given to Sarah Palin. The crowd assigned to brief her consists exclusively of neoconservatives – as was evident in the answers she gave in the Charlie Gibson interview on Russia, Israel, and national security. Most especially was her thrice-repeated formulation about Israel’s defense: “We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.”
She is being groomed to be a female George W. Bush – but even Bush has realist foreign policy voices around him – from Condoleeza Rice to Colin Powell.
As one former White House official working at the American Enterprise Institute put it: “She’s a blank page.”
Think of that – “A blank page.”
They see her as the vessel which will give them influence and will keep them in power. They see her as the best agent to sell their ideas, to accomplish their goals.
“She’s a blank page.”
Lest it be called sexism, let’s remember that George W. Bush was a blank page as well – one that neoconservatives filled with their ideas as well.
And let’s remember that even the Bush administration has turned away from the neoconservative project in the past few years, embracing a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy. And understanding that Sarah Palin has become a political figure in her own right, in many ways, more influential than John McCain, and certainly someone who is seen as the Future of the Republican party. This is an individual who, when asked about the surge explained that she wasn’t really paying attention to such things. She was thrust into the spotlight having formed few opinions of the world, having thought about foreign policy very little, and being ill-informed. Those who directed our disasterous foreign policy see her as a fresh face who can sell their ideas – and as someone who has not studied the matters herself needs a tutor: “She’s a blank page.”
For a writer, there is great possibility in a blank page. As we all look to Sarah Palin – with her combative but warm personality; her shameless ability to sell her lines, to make them her own (like an actress or a car salesman); her unique cultural blend of femininity and feminism – we project onto her our dreams and fears, and it takes quite a lot to dislodge these dreams or fears once they have settled in. This is the essence of politics. It is the core of McCain strength. It is the core of the sense of possibility around Palin. It was what led voters to choose Clinton over Dole, Bush over Gore, and Bush over Kerry. Each side sought to shape the projection of the other, but the essential decision as to who would win was made in a blink. Stubborn facts only gradually affect our projections – as we can see in Bush’s gradual decline in popularity.
But William Kristol, Randy Scheunemann, and other neoconservatives have the opportunity to fill in this blank page with their own dreams and fears – to make their projections reality. “She’s a blank page,” they say, which must terrify the rest of us.
[digg-reddit-me]On September 11, 2001, our national security state failed to protect us – but ordinary citizens sacrificed their lives to protect the seats of this state on United 93 and emergency responders and ordinary individuals gave their lives to help evacuate buildings. On September 11, the only effective responses were local and often spontaneous.
Yet the Bush administration took a different set of lessons from that day. They looked at what went wrong instead of what went right. The lessons they chose to take from this day have shaped the past seven years.
- A more aggressive foreign policy. The first lesson the Bush administration took from the attacks on September 11 was that we needed to demonstrate our strength and that if we were “over there” they would not come “over here.” They believed that September 11 taught us that our foreign policy was too defensive – and needed to become more aggressive. The immediate steps they took – military action, economic pressure, and diplomatic pressure to prevent any of our enemies from having a sanctuary – were overdue and necessary. But they believed we needed to be more aggressive – and pursued a preventive war with Iraq (which they deliberately mislabeled as a preemptive war) and sought to transform the Middle East through elections and democracy. According to Bob Woodward, their first instincts after the attacks on September 11 were to attack Iraq – despite the lack of evidence linking it to the attacks.
- Removing constraints on law enforcement. The second lesson the Bush administration took from the attacks was that if law enforcement had more power and civil liberties constrained them less, then they could have prevented the attacks. Although it was clear that the laws regarding warrants, surveillance, and intelligence-gathering needed to be updated to keep up with the times, the measures passed in the immediate aftermath of September 11 were broader.
What the Bush administration learned on September 11 was that we needed to strengthen the national security state to prevent another attack. They believed that a more aggressive national security state could have prevented the attacks.
Yet, they failed to learn any lessons from the only attack that was foiled that morning. While the national security apparatus was in shambles and scrambling to figure out what was going on, they were rescued by a group of citizens with no authority or special information. They were informed of what was going on by friends and family who had learned their information from a free press; the cell phones they used were on an open system – and those who called did not worry that they were being monitored by the state; the people gathered together – as citizens do in a time of crisis – and acted communally and determinedly. Yet in the aftermath of the attacks, the president seemed to deliberately play down the one element of our society that had prevented an attack – the sense of volunteerism, of community, of active engagement. He said we should shop.
Our national security state should attempt to prevent another September 11, but while doing so, it must be careful not to undermine the very aspects of our society that actually functioned on that morning. The most profound lesson that we did not learn on September 11 was this:
The federal government cannot be everywhere. The best defense of our way of life, of our institutions, of our government, of our people is the American people themselves – properly informed.
[The conclusions of this piece are inspired by Stephen Flynn.]
[digg-reddit-me]
Drudge, that driver of all news stories, is headlining a new BBC poll showing that the world, overwhelmingly supports Obama. This has been clear for some time, but it’s a positive development if Drudge is focusing on it.
The Indian author and former top United Nations official Shashi Tharoor ((Tharoor came in second in straw polls deciding who should replace Kofi Annan as Secretary-General.)) tried to explain why the world wants Obama several months ago in a talk he gave about America’s image in the world.
Tharoor’s thesis is that there are two main “stories” of America told around the world – that of the powerful bully that is uncouth and rough and forces it’s way; and that of the open, pluralistic society where anyone can make something of themselves. Obama clearly represents this second story – and after 8 years of America playing into all the stereotypes of the first story, Tharoor thinks it’s time for a change:
[This is an excerpt. For the complete video, go to Fora.tv.]
At the end of this clip, he quotes from this article by Andrew Sullivan from the Atlantic last year, my favorite excerpts of which are here.
[Photo by World Economic Forum licensed under Creative Commons.]
[digg-reddit-me]Steven Lee Myers of the New York Times reported yesterday on Cheney’s visits to former Soviet states:
Mr. Cheney, who visited Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine this week to express American support, offered no new proposals either, but he described the conflict as a new test for NATO that required a unified response.
This has been the baffling and fundamental flaw of the neoconservative approach to foreign policy. How America responded to 9/11, how America endured the occupation of Iraq, how America responded to the Iranian’s development of nuclear weapons, how America responded to Russian aggression in Georgia – each of these represented – in the words of Bush, Cheney, McCain, and other neoconservatives – a “test” of America’s and our allies’ resolve.
Yet – the neoconservatives only offer a single way for America to pass each of these tests: Escalate matters until America can plausibly threaten to use military force.
That was America’s justifiable response to 9/11. It was the Bush administration’s strategy with Saddam Hussein. It has been Cheney’s strategy for containing Iran. It is McCain’s strategy for confronting Russia. The reason neoconservatives are so eager to use military force – instead of diplomacy, containment, alliances, creating and living by systems of rules for international affairs, or economic pressure – is that they believe America’s military might can solve any problem. They are correct that our military superiority ensures that we can defeat any other military on the planet. But what they do not acknowledge is that the military is a blunt weapon and that without a draft, it can only be deployed under limited circumstances and for limited periods. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate these lessons – yet McCain, Bush, Cheney, and company do not seem to have noticed.
Thus, McCain invoked Kennedy’s defense of Berlin when Russia invaded Georgia – saying, “We are all Georgians!” Kennedy had proclaimed, “Eich bin ein Berlinier” to demonstrate our resolve to the Soviet Union – that if they tried to take Berlin, we would protect it as if it were our own home. McCain, by saying that we are all Georgians, was committing the United States to take military action against Russia. Yet, if that is his plan, he has not admitted it. If it is not his plan, then he has not been following the advice given by his hero, Teddy Roosevelt:
Speak softly, and carry a big stick.
McCain talks a good game – but if he means half of what he says, we’ll have more than one new war on our hands by the time he’s through. Either way, he’s not the president I’m hoping for.
[digg-reddit-me]Do you remember when the Bin Laden tape in 2004 was spun by Fox News and the right-wing as a Bin Laden endorsement of John Kerry?
If – as Charlie Black, a top Washington lobbyist unti McCain put him on his payroll, admitted – it is the conventional wisdom that a terrorist attack before the election would “be a big advantage” for McCain in the election and help get him elected…
And as McCain’s policies of military over-extension, fiscal irresponsibility, and continued occupation and war in the Middle East fit nicely into Al Qaeda’s master plan…
Wouldn’t that logically make any terrorist attack on American soil, or any surprise videos putting Bin Laden front-and-center, an effective endorsement of McCain?
Just asking…
Stephen Kotkin reviews Thomas Friedman’s new book, Hot Flat, and Crowded, for the business section of the New York Times today. Friedman himself has a bi-weekly column in the opinion section of the Times, which makes Kotkin’s review all the more pleasurable. Kotkin captures the formula Friedman inevitably uses to write his columns – and his books:
The content and method will be familiar to Mr. Friedman’s legions of readers: source, anecdote, pop metaphor. Repeat point. In italics. The unfamiliar reader should prepare for hyperbole, neologisms and aphorisms. “Affluenza.” “Code Green.” “The new Energy Climate Era (E.C.E.).” “We’ve already hit the iceberg.” We’re “the proverbial frog in the pail on the stove” (boiled to death after failing to jump out because the temperature rose only incrementally). “We are the flood, we are the asteroid. We had better learn how to be the ark.”
I have to admit that I have a bit of a soft spot for Friedman. I generally read his column and have read several of his books. I read them with the same attention I give to reading a Grisham thriller – as both authors take big ideas and make them entertaining. (Grisham is a far superior entertainer however.) I find that reading Friedman forces me to think – because he describes great changes that are going on and then attempts to explain and solve them by using simple, salesmen’s terms: “The World Is Flat!” or “Obama-Cheny 08!” He takes interesting ideas and then trivializes them before their gravity sinks in. The New Republic, in an article written in 2004 or 2005, criticized Friedman for being a salesman for globalization rather than an analyst of it’s effects. And while Friedman certainly is enamored with globalization, I think the real issue with Friedman’s work is how he so crassly simplies every issue. However, it is probably this skill that has made his work so palatable and popular to those who shy away from serious writing on economic and foreign policy issues.
For all my criticism of him, I have to give Friedman credit for having been consistently pushing – for the past dozen years – what has become the obvious next step to achieve a greater measure of national security, to drain the funding of our strategic adversaries around the world, to stop climate change, and to establish America as a leader in a new worldwide industry. Again, from Kotkin’s review:
Mr. Friedman has an unabashedly American-centric solution: the United States can regain its national purpose and save the world via green innovation. This can happen, he says, if Americans recognize — in the words of John Gardner, founder of Common Cause — “a series of great opportunities disguised as insoluble problems.”
Friedman told the story on Meet the Press this morning of what he says to young Chinese who justify China’s increasing pollution:
Friedman: You know, I was just in China a week or 10 days ago, Tom, and you know, young Chinese, you know, whenever I go here, they say to me, you know, “Mr. Friedman, you guys got to grow dirty for 150 years, now it’s our turn.” To which I always say to them, “You know what, you’re right. It is your turn. Take your time. Grow as dirty as you want. Because I think we just need five years to invent all the clean power technologies you’re going to need before you choke to death and then we’re going to come over and we’re going to sell them to you and we’re going to clean your clock in the next great global industry.” That’s when I see the headsets of the translators adjusting, “What is he saying?”
Clearly, Friedman has become a salesmen for green technology. He’s not analyzing – he’s advocating. Even if his presentation rankles, it’s worth listening to – and hopefully, he’s changing some minds.