Ahmadinejad the fabulist

Nobody denies the obvious like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has called the Holocaust, probably the most well-documented event of the 20th century, a "myth." He has continually denied Iranian involvement in Iraqi violence or in arming Hamas and Hizballah's rocket forces, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary on all fronts. He famously said at Columbia that in Iran there aren't homosexuals "like in [the United States]." One of his techniques in interviews with Western media is to simply deny allegations they make and dispute their sources.

He does this in his own country, too. He is under fire from both reformists and conservatives for his fiscal policies, yet he brushes aside problems like they were because of other peoples' actions all along. When asked about the doubling of Iranian currency in the open market over the last 3 years, widely blamed as a factor in the country's rising inflation, economist Morteza Allahdad said, "Ahmadinejad can't escape responsibility for this."

But why would that stop him from trying? In a TV address, he responded, "Inflation has its roots in the past," meaning that the blame should not be placed on his shoulders. What a far cry from Truman's "the buck stops here," no?

What planet is Ron Paul on?

Ron Paul, the darling of the internet (who is not Barack Obama) is on record as saying this: "I don't think we'd all die of unsafe food if we didn't have the FDA. Someone else would do it."

Let's dissect this a moment. Paul seeks to assure us by saying that we won't all die. This might be parsing language a bit, but it doesn't settle me much.

Of much more significance is his second part of the quote -- "Someone else would do it." Really? We would get one, unified body of experts to -- without regard for profit -- monitor every food and drug item on the market, outside of our government?

Paul and other free market fetishists fail to comprehend the absurdity of what they are suggesting. Did they ever ponder why the FDA was established in the first place? Or Social Security and Medicare for that matter? They were established precisely because somebody else wasn't doing it. The free market had its shot in each of these areas, and it failed to adequately address the problems presented to it. That is why the government must be tasked with things such as product safety.

Why do we like Musharraf again?

President Bush probably feels a bit outdone by Pervez Musharraf. He uses "The War on Terror" to wastefully spend and clamp down on civil liberties. As the New York Times reports, the multi-billion dollar investment in Pakistan's military, an attempt to quell Al Qaeda, has been diverted to other projects. One example of this has been an effort on the part of the Pakistanis to shore up defenses against another U.S. ally, India.

In another classic instance of the administration seeming to have its foreign policy wander without direction, the aid had few stipulations or even specific purposes. Only now is it being evaluated as to its use.

It's about time we stopped feeling so obliged to support Musharraf at all costs. Bush obviously pushed hard for him to remove the martial law in place, but he didn't go far enough. Our image has suffered even more. And for what? The people protesting against Musharraf were not Al Qaeda -- in fact, they were the people we ought to have been encouraging: people who respected civil law and modernity. But we can't win. Bush would never allow us that chance.

Copy editors needed!

Now, I don't think this is going to cost Hillary much in the Iowa caucuses, but how on earth does your campaign put out reminder cards to folks telling them to caucus on the wrong day? Not only is it the wrong day -- it's six days even after the New Hampshire primary. By January 14, the day listed, Hillary may have (but hopefully will not have) pretty much already won the Democratic nomination. This is why it's always good to have copy editors and knowledgeable campaign staff . . .

Mitt Romney, the true conservative?

It's the process all the Republican candidates have to go through to be considered a shot for getting the party nomination: who is the "real conservative"? Even normally sensible people like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain get swept up into the madness, courting the evangelical vote. But Mitt Romney? The former pro-gay rights, pro-choice, anti-gun governor of the bluest of all blue states? Some conservatives are biting. National Review endorsed him. And now, so has Tom "Immigration is un-American" Tancredo. This after The Boston Globe twice uncovered the fact that Romney's Belmont home was being landscaped by illegal immigrants. Ron Paul's popularity doesn't make any sense to me, and neither does Romney's. As Jon Stewart said regarding Romney's campaign, "A patrician flip-flopper from Massachusetts . . . good luck with that."

The Ron Paul phenomenon

He's not polling very high in Iowa, but Ron Paul is raising money like a beast: $6.2 million in one day! I don't quite understand the internet phenomenon surrounding Paul, the only candidate to my knowledge who favors disbanding Medicare, the Department of Education, and other popular programs. Plus, what's the deal with this conspiracy about a North American Union? Is this so much better than Kucinich believing in aliens?

Making sense of the NIE

With the news that the 16 US intelligence agencies have reached a consensus that Iran stopped developing a nuclear weapons program in 2003 due to international pressure, the urgency for quick action is dropping. But there are many reasons not to call it a day and move on:

• The assessment that Iran had not re-started its weapons program by mid-2007 was judged with only "moderate" confidence, because of intelligence gaps.
• The estimate was not able to conclude whether or not Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons.
• The report judged with "moderate-to-high confidence" that Iran is still "at a minimum" keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons.
• The estimate highlighted that Iran would probably be using covert nuclear facilities rather than declared sites to convert and enrich uranium for a bomb.
• Finally, it "assess[es] with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so."
• Past NIE reports, namely the 2002 Iraq estimate -- and now perhaps a 2005 NIE on Iran -- were glaringly wrong in their intelligence assessments.
• Israeli intelligence and presumably that of some European capitals contradict the findings of this NIE.

It is fair to say that the mission has not been accomplished. It will undoubtedly be more difficult to persuade Russia and China in for another round of sanctions, but we still have to keep trying.

National Review offers a reasonably coherent defense of continued vigilance on Iran.

A sigh of relief and a new low for Bush

Shock of all shocks, Iran is NOT actively developing a nuclear weapons program. Read more here.

This is rather remarkable. We were nearly led into another Middle East conflict based on Bush and Cheney cooking intelligence. When will I learn?

Democracy 1, Dictatorship 1

Mixed news in the world of liberal democracy today. Generalissimo Vladimir Putin's United Russia won 63 percent of the vote in a highly flawed parliamentary election. If it was not clear already that Russia did not have civil liberties, well now it cannot be even described as illiberal democracy. This is thuggery and extortion. Why, why can he get away with this? . . .

Luckily, the news is not all bad. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez will not be president-for-life after all. To his credit (I can't believe I'd ever say that), he conceded defeat and did not change the results in his favor. Venezuelans won't sell out to populist rhetoric after all.

Law & Order

Will we find any in Arab Palestine? Thanks to Marty Peretz's guidance, I found an article on Ha'aretz's website, announcing the arrest of 3 men who murdered Israeli settler Ido Zolden. They are Palestinian. They are under Fatah's command. Worse yet, they are Palestinian national security servicemen. Israel put a gag order on the arrest until after the Annapolis Conference concluded so as not to guilt Abbas. I'll ask what I've wondered many times before -- how much more control over the West Bank does Abbas have than over Gaza?

Abbas's inferiors causing trouble . . . anyone remember this?

Who is Bush kidding?

Doesn't it go without saying that the Annapolis Conference is just a really dumb idea? Bush, Olmert, and Abbas are all too weak to make anything meaningful happen. Shas and Yisrael Beyteinu are ready to bolt from Olmert's coalition at any mention of Jerusalem. Abbas does not have control of the Gaza Strip and barely has control of the West Bank. Even his Fatah faction is segmented. Add in a bunch of random countries (Senegal?!), 16 of whom do not recognize Israel. Syria is there on the outside chance Olmert will talk about the Golan Heights. (If you want to see Olmert's coalition partners sprint like an Olympic runner, just tell them he's giving the Golan back to Syria.) Hamas, not surprisingly, is threatening violence both if the talks succeed in a pact or if they fail. Everyone will be discouraged from future talks once these inevitably fail. Bush is sadly mistaken if he thinks now is the time to turn Clintonesque and challenge the sides to make up before his presidency ends. I dare you, Annapolis -- prove me wrong.

In advance of Annapolis

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced at the cabinet meeting yesterday that Israel will not build any new settlements in the territories, will stop expropriating land, and will dismantle illegal outposts, all according to the state's commitments in the first stage of the Road Map.

About time. They've said they'd do it for years, they should have done it even before then, and they still may not do it now. But at least now, the Prime Minister is saying that he will halt any new settlement expansion in the West Bank as a condition of the road map. Settlement construction has been one of the few areas of Israeli policy where Americans have given Israel an unwarranted free pass. The settlements certainly have not been the cause of Palestinian terrorism, but as a friend once said to me, "They're not helping." This is especially the case because according to Israeli government data, 32% of West Bank settlements are built on private Palestinian land. This is appalling. It's good to see the Israelis coming to grips with the fact that they can't maintain their current settler policy. While completely removing the IDF from Gaza may not have been wise in retrospect, evicting the settlers was a painful but necessary measure. There will likewise be other necessarily painful measures Israel must take in dealing with West Bank settlers. Hopefully Olmert will not go back on his word.

As for the Palestinians, their mammoth failures in meeting the Road Map conditions are too well-documented to even begin here. We'll save it for another time.

And now an update on our Persian friends

The news is mixed. As the Washington Post and others report, the US has begun seeking a third round of sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program. This comes on the heel of IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei’s update on Iran’s compliance with past UN resolutions on the program. Paradoxically, ElBaradei admitted that even while Iran was giving more information to the IAEA about its nuclear program, its overall knowledge of the program is “diminishing.” What the IAEA does know for sure is alarming: Iran is now continuously processing 3,000 centrifuges, a tenfold increase from a year ago. If each of them functions at peak capacity, they can produce enough uranium for a nuclear bomb in one year. While they are not at this point yet, if left alone they certainly will be.
The various Western powers with a head of sense on them are contemplating their next moves. Washington is pushing for sanctions, which would be backed in the UN Security Council by Britain and France, but probably vetoed at this point by, predictably, Russia and China. The so-called “EU 3”—Britain, France, and Germany—are also considering getting the EU to consider American-style sanctions that could deliver a big hurt to the Iranian energy sector, and thus Iran’s entire economy.
As a result of both economic and military threats, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is now under increasing pressure to muzzle Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and get him to cooperate more with Western powers. The sanctions have not stopped the nuclear program yet, but it is clear that they are influencing the opinions of the Iranian elite. Stepping up internal pressure is the only way to get Khameini to clamp down on the nonsense. This is why we should encourage complete divestment from the Iranian energy sector by all of our allies. It doesn’t get us caught up in a waiting game with Ahmadinejad and it’s less risky than airstrikes.

Obama, part deux

We have had a tendency to, to argue along the spectrum of you’re either a hawk or a dove. Either you’re willing to engage in military action and oftentimes think military action first and diplomacy second, or you’re a dove, you’ve got post-Vietnam syndrome, you’re suspicious of any military action. I think that the way we have to think about it is to say that right now we live in a dangerous world. There are times where we’re going to need to act militarily. We should not hesitate to act on behalf of the national interest. But we have to understand that we’ve got more power than just the military at our, our disposal, and that’s something, obviously, the Bush administration has forgotten.

More from the Meet the Press interview. Is this guy great or what?

Took the words out of my mouth

The Democrats . . . have not been clear about what an alternative foreign policy strategy would be, and, unless we present as a party a different vision about how we would approach national security, how we’d approach battling terrorism, I think that we are going to make ourselves vulnerable in the fall, and, more importantly, we’re going to be doing a disservice to the American people.

This is from Senator Barack Obama on Meet the Press last Sunday. He is a wise man, and any formal inexperience he has in foreign policy matters is offset by his wisdom. To take the title of a Dennis Ross book I've been meaning to read, Obama understands Statecraft, and How to Restore America's Standing in the World. They go hand in hand. Using all the tools of diplomacy (statecraft) by approaching each situation with an open mind and a sharp eye for the broad consequences of any diplomatic endeavor, America will re-gain the respect it commanded until say, 5 years ago. Hillary Clinton may also prove a capable commander-in-chief, but we should not dismiss Obama for having little international experience . . . other than, you know, having lived overseas.

Speak of supporting the troops . . .

It will surprise no one that United States Armed Forces veterans are more likely to wind up homeless. However, the numbers are astonishing. Even though veterans compose only 11% of the adult population in this country, fully a quarter of the homeless population on a given day is composed of veterans. The logical sequence to achieve this realization is not difficult: (1) Returning veterans are disproportionately more likely to have mental health problems, and (2) people with mental health problems are grossly overrepresented in the homeless population, so (3) veterans are disproportionately homeless.
Some in this country demand that all Americans "support the troops." But does supporting the troops not apply when they are not in combat? Do they only need support in Baghdad and Kabul? As the recent Walter Reed scandal and other stories have shown, too many of our soldiers are neglected on a number of fronts. One of the most serious of these is the lack of capacity at army mental health services. Even as soldiers are sent to multiple tours of duty in hositle regions of the globe, their mental health needs are not being adequately addressed.
The US Armed Forces owe its fighters the best care that it can provide. This means at a minimum, not sending patients with symptoms post-traumatic stress disorder into battle again. (This sounds fairly obvious, but to Army brass it is not, apparently.) If they provide better health services, maybe the Army's suicide total will fall from its record high in 2006. And maybe, just maybe, it could help fix some of the Army's recruiting problems.

A no-brainer

Waterboarding—“immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water and induce the sensation of drowning”—is torture. Just ask former torturee Sen. John McCain, or at least 114 US law professors, or the US State Department’s own internal reports. Seems pretty simple, but Michael Mukasey’s refusal to declare waterboarding illegal is costing him, and rightfully so. It’s a shame that a guy who gave answers to 495 written questions, had a spotless judicial career, and seemed like a consensus pick for Attorney General after Alberto Gonzales’ disaster run is now in danger of not being confirmed. But it’s his own doing; he denounced the procedure multiples times, but something was holding him back from saying it was torture. The worst part is, Democrats weren’t out searching for something in his testimony to pick him apart with—they genuinely wanted to get the beleaguered Justice Department back on track with a competent Attorney General. Ah, such is politics.

The difference between Israel and some

The Israeli establishment has been under Arab attack for decades, and arguably for centuries and millennia. Given this constant threat, some Israeli politicians have approved tactics that may break international law, which gives little leeway to countries under unending attack. And yet despite Israel's faults, it is liberal and democratic, and it has recourse for rule-breakers. The Israeli Supreme Court forced the government to change the route of the security fence multiple times after human rights groups complained. The IDF punished a soldier recently who illegaly used a Palestinian youth as a human shield on his Jeep, after a civilian shot a video of the act and submitted it to the Army. And, today, Israeli Attorney General Menachem Mazuz temporarily halted a government plan to cut electricity to Gaza until it can "evaluate the risks that such measures could have on the civilian population." Ehud Barak, the Defense Minister, has threatened the move in response to frequent Qassam rocket attacks.
It's pretty amazing that in the two-plus years since Israel withdrew from Gaza, the government has neither re-occupied the Strip nor instituted this kind of punishment before, even despite Qassams and a war that was started when Hamas operatives captured Gilad Shalit in summer of 2006. Israel will not gain anything by instituting collective punishment on Gaza's citizens, assuming they are allowed to do so. But some countries (critics of Israel, of course) have committed far worse injustice for far less provocation than this. One wonders if we might find this kind of democratic recourse for citizens in any other country having suffered from thousands upon thousands of terrorist incidents over the last 60 years.

A long 10 months

That's the length of time we'll be forced to wait between the Iowa caucuses and the presidential election. The Iowa Democratic Party has moved its caucuses to January 3rd, 2008, following the lead of Iowa Republicans. This adds 11 more days to the gap between primary season and general election. Our country drags this process on longer than anyone else. Australia is set to have a general election in just under a month, and it was announced only two weeks ago.
The punishing length of the campaign cycle has a detrimental effect on political discourse in this country. One, it forces candidates looking to lay groundwork for campaigns to start ever earlier in establishing a national base. Mitt Romney spent 219 days completely or partially out of state in 2006 in preparation for an election that will not even happen until November 2008. On a related note, the lengthy campaigns draw candidates away from their jobs once they've declared. Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John McCain have each been forced (or had convenient excuses) to miss important Senate votes. If they're out giving speeches or debating instead of voting on whatever issue is up for consideration, is this really a more honest way of getting their views out to the general public? Lastly, the endless "strategy-framed" election coverage increases the cynicism of the public towards the political process. They see their elected officials not concentrating on accomplishing something in their current job, but asking for money so they can get a better one.
If our presidential candidates can't articulate their policy positions and vision for our country in theoretically even 10-12 weeks, haven't they failed us? Why must we demand that they tour the country for two-plus years laying the groundwork for campaigns? 45% of voters will vote for Democrats no matter what, and 45% will vote for Republicans no matter what. If the remaining 10% of the electorate can't make up their minds in the time of 10-12 weeks, any additional time would not make their decisions easier. Enough of this lengthening of the primaries. Shorten the election cycles so we can let politicians do the jobs they were elected to do.

It keeps getting even more interesting . . .

President Bush's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation may be even more misguided than we thought. He chose to attack a country out of a supposed fear of a nuclear weapons program, which was apparently right in the middle of two countries who actually did have nuclear weapons programs! A couple of stories from the New York Times help prove the case that Syria was indeed working on a clandestine nuclear operation until Israel bombed the supposed facility last month.
The first, which came in Friday's print edition, showed a satellite photo of the site taken in August, featuring a large square building (the reactor) and a pumping station (reactor cooler) nearby along the banks of the Euphrates. Another photo taken Wednesday showed the pumping station intact and the square building gone. Not half a building with a blast crater. Gone. The Syrian government apparently decided that it had to demolish any trace of the reactor as soon as possible, because it will make it harder for the IAEA to investigate claims of illegal nuclear plans. Analysts quoted by the Times claimed that this should only serve to raise suspicions of wrongdoing.
The second, from the Times' website, reports of a photo of the site from September 2003, where construction was already well under way. These developments, coupled with multiple leaks from American intelligence sources and North Korea's hyperbolic condemnations of the Israeli strike, leave little to be concluded other than this: North Korea has helped Syria start a clandestine nuclear weapons program. The fact that top American officials were either not aware of this or chose to ignore it is very alarming. Thus, President Bush's fixation on Iraq quite evidently was not about weapons of mass destruction that could threaten neighboring countries, as he would have pursued either Iran or Syria if this were the case. (It also should slam the door on any claims that the "Israel Lobby" was the principal force behind the Iraq War.)