Category: Foreign Policy

Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy McCain Obama Politics The Clintons

Top McCain aide: Thanks for softening Obama up for us.

[digg-reddit-me]I was listening to a podcast this morning and came across some comments that I am surprised haven’t gotten more attention.

Last Friday, March 7, the Council on Foreign Relations hosted a discussion among top foreign policy advisors to Mr. Obama (Susan Rice), Ms. Clinton (Mara Rudman), and Mr. McCain (Randy Scheunemann). There’s audio of the whole event here. The event wasn’t insightful, but the tensions between the campaigns kept it from being boring. As you can imagine there were a few testy exchanges, including one where after Ms. Rudman told a rather large fib about Mr. Obama and NAFTA. More on that later.

The most revealing comment was not on foreign policy – a matter on which all of the advisors remained rather bland – but on the Democratic primaries. Mr. Scheunemann addressed Ms. Rudman:

Well, let me first address what Mara said about the experience and judgment. Can I just say, please keep running those 3 a.m. phone call ads about who you want to answer the phone – (laughter) – because we like those.

That’s right – a top McCain advisor was thanking a top Clinton advisor for softening up the likely Democratic nominee. At this point, everyone paying close attention to the Democratic primaries has noticed that short of a huge stumble by Mr. Obama, he will be the Democratic nominee. His leads in delegates, states, and the popular vote look insurmountable – and in the event he wins all of these categories, it seems extremely unlikely that the superdelegates will impose a different choice on the party. Even after Ms. Clinton’s best week in the campaign so far, she lost ground on Mr. Obama.

Yet Ms. Clinton has decided on a strategy which severely undercuts her party’s nominee against his Republican opponent – and seems extremely unlikely to win her the nomination.

I’m sure John McCain will call her to thank her after she concedes.

NAFTA

Less exciting, but still interesting is the other exchange I mentioned above was between Ms. Rice and Ms. Rudman. (Although many people missed it, Ms. Rice refers to this story which broke last week indicating that the comments supposedly made by an Obama aide to the Canadian government were actually made by a Clinton aide. Of course, Ms. Clinton’s surrogates have continued to use this story to attack Mr. Obama’s campaign as disingenuous, despite the fact that the Canadian government now reports that the campaign at fault was the Clinton’s.)

Rudman:
To me, the bigger question is, again, in how you approach tough situations, how you approach tough issues, how you approach challenging discussions with both friends and adversaries. And not only how you do it but how, frankly, the people who are working with and for you do it. And that’s where, I think, we are particularly dismayed to see what happened within the Obama campaign with their economic adviser because that was an example of just, you know, in however it played out, a perhaps lack of experience and how you communicated with a foreign government on a particularly delicate and sensitive issue….

(Cross talk.)

Jim Hoagland(moderator):
I’m going to stop an argument that you two have already had or your candidates have had – (laughter) –

I’m going to go to a questioner right here.

Life is not fair. (Laughter.)

Questioner:
Well, sometimes it is, and I’d really love to –

Hoagland:
If you’d state your name and any affiliation.

Questioner:
My name is Rebecca Barnard, Goldman Sachs, formerly of Senator Biden’s office.

I would just be very interested in hearing Senator Obama’s response to that last point, because it has – (laughter and applause) –

Hoagland:
The deck was stacked!

Rice:
Thank you, Rebecca. (Laughter.)

As the Canadian government has repeatedly acknowledged and has now been amply reported in the press, Austan Goolsbee said nothing to the Canadian government that he or Senator Obama have not said many times in public. And Mara, I think, in all fairness and with due respect, that needs to be clarified and acknowledged.

What he said is exactly what I just said, which is that when we revisit NAFTA, it is with the aim of putting binding labor and environmental standards into the core agreement. Anybody who wants to see the memo that the Canadian government wrote reporting on their meeting can find it on the Internet. You will find that that is exactly what Austan Goolsbee said.

You will also find that he made a general statement which was then taken out of context in the press reporting, which was that neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton nor the Democratic Party in general is protectionist. We want to fix certain specific agreements.

What happened was the summary paragraph of the memo is – those of you who have seen cables know – was not reflective of the body of the conversation and indeed, the quotations or the statements, the characterizations of Goolsbee’s statement in the body of the cable. So the summary was distorted. That was what was leaked to the press. And the Canadian government has said it wasn’t accurate and apologized.

And by the way, while we’re talking about this, now the press is reporting that indeed not only was there a contact which we have now acknowledged and explained from Senator Obama’s campaign that actually began with the Canadian government, not us, but in fact the Clinton campaign, at least that’s what the reports are suggesting, initiated a contact with the Canadian embassy or government for the same purpose. I have no idea if that’s true. There’s been a lot of false reporting on this.

Hoagland:
Well, maybe Mara can respond to that.

Rice:
But let’s be accurate.

Rudman:
No, I think that’s been completely denied by the campaign. There’s no name –

Rice:
Well, then, it can’t be true. Okay. (Laughter.)

Continue reading “Top McCain aide: Thanks for softening Obama up for us.”
Categories
Election 2008 Iraq McCain Obama Politics The War on Terrorism

Steve King: Obama will be a savior to Al Qaeda

[digg-reddit-me] Representative Steve King, Republican from Iowa, yesterday stated:

Obama will certainly be viewed as a savior for them [referring to Al Qaeda]…

I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror.

Despite a rebuke from Mr. McCain, Mr. King is standing by his remarks.

Mr. King did promise later that if

…we elect Obama to the presidency and he declares defeat, if they don’t dance in the streets, I will come and apologize to you and everybody in America.

We’ll have to remember in November –  after Mr. King loses his seat in Congress as he deserves to –  to rub this trash in his face.

Mr. Obama, of course, retained on the high road but rightly pointed out that our intelligence agencies have reported that in fact the Iraq war has played into Al Qaeda’s hands.  He then scoffed:

But I have to say that Mr. King and individuals like him thrive on offensive or controversial statements as a way to get in the papers, so I don’t take it too seriously. I would hope Sen. McCain would want to distance himself from that kind of inflammatory and offensive remarks.

I’m sure we’ll see much more of this in the coming campaign – no matter how much Mr. McCain condemns it.  This is sure to be one of the right wing propaganda machine’s main talking points against Mr. Obama (or Ms. Clinton).  Although Mr. Obama’s response was adequate, I’d like to see a stronger response from him, and for him to pivot to his forward-looking strategy.  Something like this:

I applaud Senator McCain for condemning these attacks.  As I have said many times before, the Senator has a distinguished record of public service and he has, as I have, committed himself to running a clean and issue-based campaign.  I have many disagreements with Senator McCain – one of which is about the strategy America must pursue in the War on Terrorism.  Men like Representative King degrade our politics by trying to turn disagreements about strategy into virtual treason.  I believe the best way to attack Al Qaeda is to focus our military and intelligence resources on Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are still hiding nearly seven years after they attacked America on September 11.  Senator McCain disagrees, and I respect that.  But both of us want to protect American lives and interests – and whichever of us wins the coming election, we will do whatever we must to protect the United States – and Al Qaeda knows that.  Congressman King should be ashamed that he is trying to play politics with national security.  Republicans are not the only people who are fighting to protect American lives – there are intelligence officers, soldiers, diplomats, and politicians who are Democrats, Republicans, and independents.  As Americans, we must unite in the face of the evil of organizations like Al Qaeda – and those who seek to divide us against ourselves, to portray our political opponents as friends of terrorists – they only serve to distract us from the real challenges we face.  I would call on any Democratic office holder to withdraw from the Democratic party for comments like that.  But I am thankful that Senator McCain has condemned these remarks as he has.

Continue reading “Steve King: Obama will be a savior to Al Qaeda”
Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy Obama Politics The Clintons

A Hypothetical Question of Judgment

JFK alone at his desk in the Oval Office

[digg-reddit-me]It’s early spring 2012. The most recent National Intelligence Estimate and the intelligence communities agree that Iran is less than a year away from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Daily leaks to the press from the national security apparatus provide the now familiar drumbeat of fear as a prelude to a war. Karl Rove – retired in Texas but being consulted by those planning a Republican comeback – begins to ask the question: “Who let Iran go nuclear?” He makes it clear – as does the Republican presidential nominee – that it was the job of the current president to prevent Iran from going nuclear. “Do you feel safer now than you did four years ago?” they ask.

Every morning, the first two items on the president’s agenda are:

  1. A status report on the Iranian situation;
  2. An update on how the election campaign is progressing.

The pressure to take dramatic action is building, as much from domestic political pressures as foreign actions. Military action could be catastrophic, although it still might be the best of available options. Although it is never discussed, it is understood that a war would practically guarantee the president’s victory in November – despite a shaky economy that the Republicans have largely been able to blame on the current president.

Every morning, the president must balance the options and calibrate American strategy. There are no black and white issues – and in the end, the decision is on his or her shoulders alone.

It’s 2012 – whose judgment do you trust to make the right decision?

Updated: Let me be clear – as far as I’m concerned, the correct answer is, to borrow a line from Fox Mulder, “Trust no one.”  Which is why I think it is important to support a candidate who seeks to reduce executive power and allow the traditional checks and balances to reassert themselves.

Continue reading “A Hypothetical Question of Judgment”
Categories
Foreign Policy Iraq McCain The War on Terrorism

Man, there’s a country where they have great tactics to prevent suicide bombings

Yglesias on the difficulty in coming up with effective policies for Iraq’s problems:

…there’s really nothing we can do to stop sporadic bombing attacks. It’s not, after all, that you look at Italy and say “man, there’s a country where they have great tactics to prevent suicide bombings – Iraq should really implement those.” Rather, you don’t see suicide bombing where you don’t see would-be suicide bombers and that’s not the kind of outcome a foreign military force can produce in Iraq. So things will probably get worse again, but not as bad as they were at the very worst times.

I think that about sums up where we are – and what we can accomplish.  I understand that Mr. McCain’s answer to this problem is a century of occupation – if that’s what it takes.

Continue reading “Man, there’s a country where they have great tactics to prevent suicide bombings”

Categories
Foreign Policy Humor

Geldof and Bush

Irish rocker Bob Geldof has written a reflective piece on the time he spent with Mr. Bush in Africa this past week.

[Mr. Bush] is also, I feel, an emotional man. But sometimes he’s a sentimentalist, and that’s different. He is in love with America. Not the idea of America, but rather an inchoate notion of a space — a glorious metaphysical entity. But it is clear that since its mendacious beginnings, this war has thrown up a series of abuses that disgrace the U.S.’s central proposition. In the need to find morally neutralizing euphemisms to describe torture and abuse, the language itself became tortured and abused. Rendition, waterboarding, Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib — all are codes for what America is not. America has mortally compromised its own essential values of civil liberty while imposing its own idea of freedom on others who may not want it. The Bush regime has been divisive — but not in Africa. I read it has been incompetent — but not in Africa. It has created bitterness — but not here in Africa. Here, his administration has saved millions of lives.

Continue reading “Geldof and Bush”
Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy Obama Politics

“Nonesense on Stilts”

From the Associated Press:

“What’s lost by embracing a tyrant who puts his people in prison because of their political beliefs?” Bush asked rhetorically. “What’s lost is it’ll send the wrong message. It’ll send a discouraging message to those who wonder whether America will continue to work for the freedom of prisoners. It’ll give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity.”

A U.S. president’s decision to talk with certain international figures can be counterproductive, Bush said.

“It can send chilling signals and messages to our allies,” he said. “It can send confusion about our foreign policy. It discourages reformers inside their own country.”

Sometimes, it is astounding how obtuse Mr. Bush can be.

Ezra Klein:

The idea that Bush — who regularly hangs out with, and thus “lends the status of the office and the status of our country” to the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Russia, China, and Egypt — would ever try and take a strong, principled stand against meeting with, much less supporting, repressive autocrats…well, it’s what my grandmother would call chutzpah, and what the rest of us would call “nonsense on stilts.”

Continue reading ““Nonesense on Stilts””
Categories
Foreign Policy The War on Terrorism

The Jihad Bunny

It might be funny if it weren’t so disturbing.

(h/t Sullivan)

Continue reading “The Jihad Bunny”
Categories
Iraq Politics The War on Terrorism

Passive support for al-Qaeda

The National Review continues to push the long-discredited understanding of the Iraqi insurgency with this article in the current magazine describing:

a realistic and detailed picture of the enemy … in Fallujah… — “an insurgent global all-star team” that included “Chechen snipers, Filipino machine gunners, Pakistani mortar men, and Saudi suicide bombers.” The insurgents were not ordinary Iraqis fighting for their freedom against an invading power — but international Islamic militants supported by al-Qaeda.

The U.S. government estimates [pdf] that the insurgency in Iraq is made up of approximately 4% to 10% foreign fighters. This was widely reported in 2005 and 2006.

Keeping with the “fair and balanced” approach to news that let’s “you decide!” ((Aren’t FoxNews and the National Review basically the same thing?)) , the article concludes:

I’ll leave it to you to decide where passive support for al-Qaeda still persists.

Continue reading “Passive support for al-Qaeda”
Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 Foreign Policy Obama Politics The Clintons

The Obamanauts

From Noam Sheiber’s look at Mr. Obama’s policy team in The New Republic:

The Clintonites were moderates, but they were also ideological. They explicitly rejected the liberalism of the 1970s and ’80s. The Obamanauts are decidedly non-ideological.

It’s well worth reading the entire piece.

Categories
Domestic issues Foreign Policy Politics

The Coming Financial Pandemic

Foreign Policy magazine has an interesting article behind it’s firewall by Nouriel Roubini about “The Coming Financial Pandemic“.

The subheadline reads like promotional material for a Michael Crichton novel:

The U.S. financial crisis cannot be contained. Indeed, it has already begun to infect other countries and it will travel further before it’s done. From sluggish trade to credit crunches, from housing busts to volatile stock markets, this [article will show] how the contagion will spread.

Given that – as this hype seems to suggest – this article may very well determine whether you will survive the next few years, it might be worth subscribing to Foreign Policy magazine. Of course, if you’re like me, despite paying for a two-year subscription last night, you might still be left without the promised “instant access”.

Still – I’ve read Foreign Policy magazine on and off for some time now, and it’s always worth the bi-monthly cost. The above-linked article proved to be rather insightful, despite it’s over-hyped opener.

Continue reading “The Coming Financial Pandemic”