World Affairs: December 2002 Archives
Eric Hoffer. "The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not." [Quotes of the Day]
"Point two: One of the most important rules of foreign policy is not to let yourself get pushed around. An even more important rule, though, is not to make threats or issue ultimatums that you either can't or won't follow through on. That not only makes you look weak. It also makes you into an object of contempt. That's just what the administration has done in this case.
The White House called the Clinton policy craven and dishonorable. That policy was essentially to pay the North Koreans to behave and hope that in the medium-term a better solution -- perhaps a soft landing in the North -- would arise. Not pretty certainly, but it was a difficult situation.
The Bushies told the North Koreans that they either had to shape up or we'd take them out. Now the North Koreans have called our bluff. And the administration -- as signalled by Powell's comments over the weekend -- has caved, enunciating a policy which is now substantially more dovish than the Clinton policy.
Tough talk sounds great until your opponent calls your bluff and everybody sees there's nothing behind the trash talk. Then you look foolish. That's where we are right now with North Korea. As Nelson says, no doubt the NKs are the bad guys. And this is an extremely complex problem with no easy solutions. But the Bush administration has pursued a keystone cops policy on the Korean Peninsula for two years now, mixing think-tank braggadocio with feckless inconstancy. Now we're all going to pay the price. "
I especially enjoyed the contrast of Rumsfeld assuring the North Koreans that we could take them out if we really really had to and then 7 days later Powell claiming this is not a crisis and it can be resolved diplomatically. I think it paints a nice portrait of this Administration's internal confusion.
North Korea is actually doing everything Bush is using to justify war with Iraq, and they're bragging about it, daring us to do something. The difference is, we're fairly certain North Korea isn't lying, so nothing is done about it. North Korea is a prime source of weapon proliferation, probably has nuclear capabilities, and is telling us not only that they plan to continue making weapons, they're going to sell them to whoever they want to, and they can do it within 30 days. Its only a matter of time before North Korea ships a nuke to Saddam.
And all of this is a direct reaction to Bush's national security strategy, which while sounding nice, and keeping the neo-con hawks in the background happy, obviously was a bit premature. Oops.
I somehow missed a long thread on Metafilter about this.
"A Democratic lawmaker said Sunday he will introduce a bill in the next session of Congress to make military service mandatory.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, said such legislation could make members of Congress more reluctant to authorize military action.
"I'm going to introduce legislation to have universal military service to let everyone have an opportunity to defend the free world against the threats coming to us," Rangel said on CNN's "Late Edition."
"I'm talking about mandatory service.""
Hmmm, going to have to keep an eye on this one. I don't imagine it will get too far.
"The Information Awareness Office finally seems to have picked up on the fact that its logo, noted in these parts a few months back, was -- to put it succinctly -- freaking people out. The IAO site now features a more subdued, corporate insignia, though compulsive Illuminati-watchers will note that it still includes a pyramid."
...
"Fifteen years after withdrawing from his second presidential bid and quietly settling back into private law practice, Gary Hart has found his voice again.
Frustrated because people didn't listen to his warnings about terrorist attacks and worried about the future of the nation, Hart has done nothing to turn away attention generated when he hinted that he might seek the Democratic presidential nomination again.
But he declined to say when he would make a decision."
More speculation on Hart's plans. He would seem to me to be a natural choice for these times we're living in. He's an expert on security, homeland defense, and terrorism and he's got prior nationally spotlighted political experience - both positive and negative - from which to draw.
More importantly, he's a Democrat from Colorado. How many of those are in the national political scene outside the left-leaning bubbles of the People's Republic of Boulder and downtown Denver? ;)
"viapoliticalwire"
"GWEN IFILL: Senator Graham, are there elements in this report, which are classified that Americans should know about but can't?
SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes, going back to your question about what was the greatest surprise. I agree with what Senator Shelby said the degree to which agencies were not communicating was certainly a surprise but also I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.
I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and, even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists for the current generation of terrorists who are here planning the next plots.
To me that is an extremely significant issue and most of that information is classified, I think overly-classified. I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. That would motivate the government to take action.
GWEN IFILL: Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11?
SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States.
GWEN IFILL: Do you think that will ever become public, which countries you're talking about?
SEN. BOB GRAHAM: It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today."
Somehow this has been totally missed by the media. This is from an interview on December 11th, and Senator Graham admits that there is evidence that a foreign government at the very least assisted in the 9/11 attacks. Its obviously not Iraq, since there's no way this information would have been classified if that were the case. Why hasn't this story spread beyond PBS (and the blogosphere of course)?
Who ever could it be?
"viainstapundit"
"Though still publicly coy about whether he'll run, Hart is preparing a series of policy speeches that he will deliver at universities across the country beginning in January. The first will be on national security, the second on economic policy, the third on foreign affairs, and so on. (The itinerary is not yet set, but Smith, who's working on the logistics, suggests that somewhere in Iowa would be a logical first stop.) Hart says public reaction to these speeches will help him decide whether the climate is right for a run. "I want to see if people think they make any sense. And, if the speeches do receive any press attention and have been critiqued, maybe they will have the effect of getting some other candidates to respond." But, Polkinghorn and Smith's infectious enthusiasm notwithstanding, says Hart, "I have no need to be in office. I am not a career politician. People say my career ended in '87, but I didn't see it as a career. I saw it as public service. I don't need to be president. I thought I had something to offer in the '80s--and maybe I have something to offer in the new century."
Polkinghorn and Smith are certainly convinced. The moment Hart decides to go for the gold (and possibly before) Smith will drop out of Harvard and head for Denver. Polkinghorn is more ambivalent about leaving med school but clearly hates the idea of missing the action. Hart says he has counseled (and will continue to counsel) the young men against discontinuing their studies. "I've said, 'Don't do that. It's not chopped liver to be at Harvard Medical School.'" Still, he hedges, "What an opportunity for them to learn American politics up close and personal." He points to the grand times he had as a volunteer for John Kennedy's and Bobby Kennedy's presidential campaigns and as director of George McGovern's 1972 White House bid."
A good article on TNR Online about the 2 young folks behind the push to get Colorado's own Gary Hart back in the national political spotlight and into another run for the Presidency.
"viainstapundit"
"Clearly, the best solution would be for Americans to realize the danger of SUVs and simply stop buying them. Social pressure can be a powerful determinant on car choices, as seen in Japan, the one country where SUVs have not caught on because of cultural checks that emphasize the good of the community over that of the individual. There are signs that perhaps public sentiment is beginning to shift against SUV drivers here, too, as activists have begun to leave nasty flyers on SUV windshields berating drivers for fouling the environment and other offenses. But for a true reckoning to take place, image-obsessed Americans will need to fully understand the SUV's true dangers--including to themselves--before they will willingly abandon it to the junkyard. Spreading that message against the nation's biggest advertiser--the auto industry--will be tough work. Drivers can only hope that Bradsher's book will cut through the chatter. "
The Washington Monthly reviews the New York Times' Detroit bureau chief, Keith Bradsher's new book, "High and Mighty: SUVs -- The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way."
"viaalternet"
"Welcome to the world's first digital news archive. Now you are here you can preview items from the entire 3500 hour British Pathe Film Archive which covers news, sport, social history and entertainment from 1896 to 1970. You can also license higher resolution copies of the same items for PowerPoint Presentations and Web Publishing."
Nice flash animation from MoveOn.
"Former Vice President Al Gore has decided not to run for president in 2004.
Gore will announce exclusively on CBS' "60 Minutes" tonight at 7 p.m. EST. that he will not run for president. "
This is probably for the best. At least it clears up the field a bit to allow others to step up.
"viameta"
"Marketplace host David Brancaccio talks with media analyst Marty Kaplan about the struggles of the left to find a media type who's actually interesting enough to get good ratings. "
Minnesota Public Radio's Marketplace comments on this New York Times article discussing MSNBC's search for a "Bill O'Reilly" of their own in order to take on Fox. Media analyst Marty Kaplan discusses the issues of media bias and why the mass-media news is moving to the right. The short version: its easier to be entertaining when you don't have to think about and explain your positions.
The segment in question starts at the 18:39 mark of the show for those that aren't interested in the entire thing.
I mentioned something along these lines earlier this week.
"Here's how I break down the liberal internal debate.
For War1. Saddam is cruel and dangerous.
2. Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction and has never stopped trying to develop them.
3. Iraqis are suffering under tyranny and sanctions.
4. Democracy would benefit Iraqis.
5. A democratic Iraq could drain influence from repressive Saudi Arabia.
6. A democratic Iraq could unlock the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate.
7. A democratic Iraq could begin to liberalize the Arab world.
8. Al Qaeda will be at war with us regardless of what we do in Iraq.
Against War1. Containment has worked for 10 years, and inspections could still work.
2. We shouldn't start wars without immediate provocation and international support.
3. We could inflict terrible casualties, and so could Saddam.
4. A regional war could break out, and anti-Americanism could build to a more dangerous level.
5. Democracy can't be imposed on a country like Iraq.
6. Bush's political aims are unknown, and his record is not reassuring.
7. America's will and capacity for nation building are too limited.
8. War in Iraq will distract from the war on terrorism and swell Al Qaeda's ranks.
At the heart of the matter is a battle between wish and fear. Fear generally proves stronger than wish, but it leaves a taste of disappointment on the tongue. Caution over Iraq puts liberal hawks, who are nothing if not moralists, in the psychologically unsettling position of defending a status quo they despise -- of sounding like the compromisers they used to denounce when it came to Bosnia. Fear means missing the chance for what Ignatieff calls ''a huge prize at the end.''
But wish makes a liberal hawk sound like a Bush hawk, blithely unconcerned about the dangers of American power. The liberal hawk is a liberal -- someone temperamentally prone to see the world as a complicated place.
This dilemma is every liberal's current dilemma. "
An interesting article in the Times a few days ago discusses the quandry many mainstream liberals find themselves in these days. Those who aren't anti-war loony-lefties and can see the benefits of war with Iraq are still conflicted about the possible consequences. The article interviews 5 "liberal hawks": Michael Walzer, Christopher Hitchens, David Rieff, Leon Wieseltier and Paul Berman on their - and my own - dilemma.
"viameta"
"Bob Beauprez today was declared the winner over Mike Feeley in the whisker-close 7th Congressional District race.
The announcement came after 36 days of post-election court fights and recounts.
Beauprez led by 121 votes, down one vote from the results before the recount. "
"It was time for someone to have a quiet word with Cheney. The president’s emissary was his national-security adviser, a trim 48-year-old woman with a wide, warm smile, a polite manner and an unmistakable steeliness. Meeting with the vice president at the White House, Condoleezza Rice was friendly and low key. Cheney’s speech, she blandly suggested, had been “interpreted” by the press in a way that might “limit the president’s options.” Rice waited for Cheney himself to suggest a solution. The veep said he was giving another speech in a couple of days. He would tone down the derisive language about inspectors and leave the door open for the United States to work through the United Nations. The newspapers duly noted the shift in the vice president’s tone, but Rice’s intercession did not leak."
A good story in Newsweek about Bush's enforcer in the White House, Denver Univeristy's own Condoleezza Rice. I've been fairly impressed with what appears to be her firm control over the hawks of Cheney/Wolfowitz's camp, and the more dovish Powell supporters. Is there some hope in this administration?
"In his most public and extensive analysis of the state of the Democratic Party since it lost control of the Senate last month, Mr. Clinton told Democrats in New York City that they could break through to the American public only if they directly confronted the issue of national security. He said the party should challenge Republicans on what he suggested was the administration's failure to spot signs of an impending attack before Sept. 11, and what he called a muddled response to the terrorism threat over the last year."
Clinton disects the midterm losses, and challenges Democrats to confront security issues and present a reasonable plan for handling a dangerous world, rather than deflecting the issue in favor of traditional Democratic issues.
"I always like the bit in the Bond movie where 007 and the supervillain meet face to face — usually at the supervillain’s marine research facility or golf course or, in this latest picture, his Icelandic diamond mine. Bond knows the alleged marine biologist is, in fact, an evil mastermind bent on world domination. The evil mastermind knows Bond is a British agent. But both men go along with the pretence that the other fellow is what he’s claiming to be, and the exquisitely polite encounter invariably ends with the mastermind purring his regrets about being unable to be more helpful. ‘But perhaps we shall meet again, Mr Bond,’ he says, as the Oriental manservant shows 007 to the door. "
I ran into this article through an interesting thread on Plastic. It pokes around a bit at the "special relationship" between America and our Saudi pals.
