The Cold War Liberal

McCain's spooky ads

2008-08-02T18:22:00.004-04:00

One lesson that the GOP has learned and applied for many years now is that for an ad to work, it must tap into the subconscious and strike fear. Thus came the Willie Horton ad, Jesse Helms' "Hands" ad, the RNC's "Call me" spot attacking Harold Ford, etc. John McCain is dutifully fulfilling this tradition with a commerical of his own, the now infamous "Celeb" ad. Rick Perlstein notes the similarity of the chanting, German crowds for Obama in McCain's ad to an old Nazi propoganda film -- with still frames to back him up. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

A less talked-about and probably little-noticed McCain advertisement I found online while looking at an article on The New York Sun's website has some interesting features, too:

Appearance of a random opinion poll? Check.

Strongly loaded language in "question"? Check.

Visual association of Obama with despot? Check.

Clicking on ad takes you to www.johnmccain.com? Unfortunately, I can't verify it at this point, but it's probably a pretty safe guess.

Berlin helps Obama

2008-07-27T01:39:00.003-04:00

Two weeks ago, Anne Applebaum argued for the wisdom behind Barack Obama's big speech near the Brandenburg Gate and more generally his tour of the world. Among other reasons, Americans might support Obama's appearances abroad because

It matters how America is perceived abroad, and not just because it's nice to be popular. When America and American values are admired in other countries, American politicians have more influence on foreign affairs.

Right. And since Obama is clearly the more popular choice in Europe, the large, adoring crowds that greeted him in Germany demonstrated his appeal -- and, perhaps, his potential ability to use that appeal to advance American interests.

It's also apparent that the visit helped him domestically. Nate Silver explains how:

Gallup shows [Obama] ahead by 7 points, tying his best-ever margin in that poll, while Rasmussen has him ahead by 6. What Obama's foreign policy trip may have done, and particularly his speech in Berlin, is to refresh enthusiasm among his core supporters. Fully 60 percent of Democrats now have a very favorable opinion of Obama, according to Rasmussen's latest numbers. That number is improved from 53 percent a week ago. During that time frame, Obama has gained 6 points of support among Democrats, capturing 82 percent of their votes rather than 76. Half of that gain comes from undecided voters, while the other half comes from McCain.

Justice served

2008-07-04T02:03:00.002-04:00

Recently the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo Bay detainees have the right to challenge their detentions in federal court. Naturally, this provokes the Chicken Little response from the White House. Dana Perino warns the ruling means that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be able to roam the streets of Baltimore, or Fort Lauderdale, or wherever he pleases! Well, the only way this happens is if the United States government has been unable to compile any evidence whatsoever that he is a threat to the public or that he has committed acts of war against the United States. And if no such evidence exists, why should he be held in a military prison?

The truth, as detailed in the above AP article, is much more nuanced. Yes, the ruling may expedite the release of prisoners who are actually not terrorists, but cases of mistaken identity or simply unlucky Muslims civilians. But KSM would almost certainly still be confined to Guantanamo. And those who have been released would not necessarily be placed on US soil. In fact, the Supreme Court has not indicated where these detainees would be released, nor has any other federal court.

This is one of many examples where the so-called "liberal" justices are actually giving deference to the executive branch and yet still upholding the rule of law. They are ensuring that Guantanamo detainees are afforded proper legal protection, yet still giving the executive branch almost complete control over their fates. This is not judicial activism in the slightest. It is the last line of defense against a secretive and stubborn administration who just likes to do things their own way.

An insight into Bush-McCain foreign policy

2008-05-15T14:52:00.002-04:00

President Bush likes to stir the pot sometimes. So he decided to travel to Israel for its 60th birthday bash -- an event noticed and celebrated by Democrats and Republicans alike -- and managed to make it half a stump speech for John McCain. He said:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

Barack Obama felt perhaps rightly that this was a swipe at his position that the United States ought to talk without preconditions to countries like Syria and Iran -- an idea I have not supported but might if the practitioner of talks was more competent than this president. (The White House, as it has many times, by acting like the American public was born yesterday and claimed that the remarks had nothing to do with him.) Obama has not, however supported talks with Hamas until they meet the 3 criteria levied against them: cessation of violence, recognition of Israel, and adoption of past agreements. Still, it provided Bush with an opportunity to support his buddy McCain from overseas and hit Obama. And it shows us the GOP's simplistic view of foreign policy.

To Bush and McCain, meeting with Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il is "appeasement," -- yes, this is the word Bush used -- akin to giving away the Sudetenland for free to Adolf Hitler. As Obama said in a recent interview, "We don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy." Truer words have not been spoken this year.

McCain, the so-called foreign policy heavyweight, was no more nuanced in his reaction. He remarked, "It shows naivete and inexperience . . . My question is, what does he want to talk about?" The kids? Baseball? Use your imagination, John. And to speak of naivete! McCain has a very poorly-earned reputation for foreign affairs expertise. And one of McCain's foreign policy advisers, former Secretary of State James Baker, would in a private setting would say it shows "naivete and inexperience" NOT to talk to Ahmadinejad and others.

This is not to say Barack Obama is James Baker. Nuance, people, nuance.

Jews and Obama

2008-05-08T01:27:00.002-04:00

On this, the 60th birthday of the State of Israel, we are also coming to a finish with the Democratic nomination for the presidency. And so we also have some new information regarding the attitudes of Jewish voters this time 'round. The Gallup Organization reports that American Jews favor Barack Obama 2-to-1. Rumors of a Muslim past and ties to the anti-Israel Jeremiah Wright evidently are not weighing heavily on Jews' minds. We know this because New York-based Hillary Clinton does only about 5% better in the general election than Obama. Among Jewish preferences within the Democratic Party, Clinton wins only by 50-43. This is remarkably close given that this is in line with other white Democrats. In other words, Obama has no more trouble courting Jews than other white voters -- which is a whole other story. But I think we can say that on May 8, both Barack Obama and the State of Israel can live to celebrate a bit.

So this is what moderation looks like

2008-04-19T00:52:00.003-04:00

Evidently, darkness. This is what Sderot residents are seeing now after a Qassam rocket hit power lines in the beleaguered city. Thank goodness Hamas has now embraced a more moderate position! Jimmy Carter's visit has worked wonders! Can he defuse the Iranian problem, too?

Another word about Hamas: can we get over the falsehood that Iran will not work with Sunnis? When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Khaled Meshaal exchange kisses and pleasantries in public, do we think they are just discussing the sports scores?

Colbert to the rescue

2008-04-19T00:29:00.003-04:00

Stephen Colbert is quite a phenomenon. Apparently, his "Colbert Bump" for visiting politicians may have some truth to it. This even for a basic cable show! Bill O'Reilly likes to brag that his viewers know their stuff and The Daily Show/Colbert Report's viewers are "stoned slackers." Yet viewer research by Pew shows that in fact, TDS/Colbert viewers know slightly more about the news than O'Reilly viewers (and dramatically more than FOX watchers in general). They are also more educated (31% have a college degree vs. 24% for O'Reilly), even though they are younger (26% under 30 vs. 16%). If Colbert truly does have influence on this election, may Barack Obama's act of putting "distractions" from the real issues "on notice" actually have an effect.

Yellowest of yellow journalism

2008-03-26T02:28:00.003-04:00

If there's one thing I can appreciate at 18 that I couldn't at 14, it's how Goddamn awful the news media is at covering a presidential election. (However, I did get a sense in 2004 of this trend when the Swift Boat thugs were given an equal voice on John Kerry's Vietnam record as the senator.) The news media is constantly evolving; during the 2000, nobody on Earth knew what a blog was. But the continuing patterns of media coverage do not bode well. Many bad trends in journalism, especially on campaign politics, have been exacerbated in recent years.

The New York Times just ran a story about the declining numbers of newspaper writers who follow the presidential campaigns. Print newspapers have been hit hard in recent years by the rise of the Internet as a popular news source. As a result, more and more newspapers have decided to restrict most of their news staff to just local events and fluff pieces.

It's really just as well that there aren't more newspaper reporters. The press makes it easy on themselves by following narratives throughout the campaign, making every news story fall into these categories whether they belong there or not. They also tend to report every story the same way in every outlet -- a phenomenon known as "pack journalism."

Pack journalism is compounded by the fact that television still plays the largest role in campaign news. TV news is where actual journalism goes to die. Because the news media is a business, networks and 24-hour news channels are discouraged from going out on the front lines and reporting -- it's much easier to just have people talk! And so they do, to no end. And the pack journalism means that the play the same video clips over and over again on every channel -- like with the recent Jeremiah Wright controversy -- in such a way as to lure in viewers, but not to educate and inform.

And this leads to yet another problem with coverage of the race and all elections: horse-race journalism and sensationalism over substantive debate. When the presidential candidates have debates, what lines are repeated endlessly in the news cycle? Not the distinctions in health care policy. No, that's much too boring. Instead we get all the zingers and one-liners that mean really nothing. Since when does anyone have the right to criticize Americans for being ill-informed when the media make it so difficult to be informed? The press is truly in a state of ruin. But progress has been made -- at least Crossfire was canceled.

Gays turn to Israel

2008-03-26T02:05:00.002-04:00

Israel's embrace of Western culture is exemplified in its treatments of homosexuals. It is a country with a powerful rabbinate and deep religious tradition, yet still offers gays better opportunities in many ways than even most of the United States. Gays are allowed to serve openly in the IDF, for example. Israel is the only Middle Eastern country to allow this.

It is also a well-documented phenomenon that Palestinian gays immigrate illegally to Israel to escape persecution in the territories. But now the Israeli government has taken a step further; it has granted a temporary visa to a gay man from the West Bank who claimed he was under the threat of death at home because of his orientation. He was allowed to join his lover in Tel Aviv.

A residency permit to protect someone from facing repercussions of their sexual orientation? Could you imagine that in Jordan? Could you imagine that even in France?

Double standards

2008-03-17T04:30:00.002-04:00

Good news for those who do not align themselves with al Qaeda. According to intelligence sources, the United States fired missiles at a Pakistani house where members of al Qaeda and the Taliban were located, killing 9 and injuring 9 more. Neither the Pakistani nor American governments would acknowledge the strike, so it was obviously an American action.

This is an example of the United States acting in its interests by killing terrorists in Pakistan after the Pakistani government apparently decided not to. I can't imagine anyone in American politics saying this was a foreign policy blunder. So why is it such when Barack Obama suggests it?

Iran votes, West holds its breath

2008-03-15T00:58:00.006-04:00

Iran has held its legislative elections, and the results are starting to creep in. There is no trend yet, but expectations should be low for anything positive. After all, the Guardians Council eliminated 1,700 electoral candidates because they were too much on the reformist side. In some localities, reformists were not even allowed to field a candidate. The choice is between the jihadi conservatives and the moderate conservatives, who are themselves not so moderate as just less hostile in their words to the West.

This election is truly a momentous occasion. This is the last opportunity for Iran's people to deal a significant political setback to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before the nuclear standoff will have changed dramatically in some fashion. By the time Ahmadinejad is up for re-election in mid-2009, it will be too late.

One must feel for the Iranian people, a people who wants change badly but whose government will not allow it. This is not democracy. Not when the candidates are permitted to campaign for a maximum of one week, and only those who meet the absurd standards of the Guardians Council. This is a contest to see who is least unpalatable. With the reformists so weakened by the religious authorities, they cannot do all that much. All that can be done is to hope, hope and pray.

Russia joins the best of the best

2008-03-13T16:34:00.004-04:00

I have written about the travails of Iranian blogging and the difficulties they face with their government. Frequently, independent bloggers in Iran are shut down for speaking out against anything not called the United States, and often they are thrown in jail and charged with absurd crimes like "insulting the Supreme Leader of Iran."

The Russians are learning well from their uranium trading partners to the South. For the first time, a Russian blogger has been arrested for "insulting the police." This is part of a series of new laws banning "hate speech" on the Internet. The maximum punishment in this instance is two years in prison or a large fine.

Russia has now truly become an authoritarian state in every way. It already had the severely rigged elections, the suspension of independent media outlets, the suppression of opposition rallies, the cult of personality for its leaders. But now it has the means of crushing dissent on the Internet, an opportunity afforded to only the elite among dicatorships -- your Chinas, your Irans, your Pakistans. Welcome to the club, Putin and Medvedev.

Obama triumphs

2008-03-08T18:11:00.003-05:00

To the surprise of no one, Barack Obama has won the Wyoming caucus, further pinning Hillary down in the delegate count. Yes, Obama does better in the caucus states, he having won 13 to Clinton's 3. The Clinton machine derides the success he has in the caucuses because they are not, perhaps, as "democratic" as a primary. And in the primaries she does considerably better. Some have posited that people are less likely to show their latent racist tendencies in the public atmosphere of the caucus. But this is baloney -- the misogynists would also have less opportunity in public to be themselves.

No, Obama wins in the caucuses because only the committed and the informed attend the caucuses. And Obama does better across the board -- among whites, the working class, everyone -- who pays close attention to the race. Clinton is the default candidate, which is why she wins more in primaries. Those who have not paid close attention to the race know her name and so they support her. But their numbers decrease every place Obama campaigns -- which bodes well for the general election. Besides, Obama will have to broaden his base of support: he can't rely on all the black voters, college students, and upscale independents who helped him win the Wyoming caucus.

Sign of the times

2008-03-06T23:34:00.004-05:00

Who says Hamas isn't keeping up with today's latest trends? After today's savage attack on a yeshiva in Jerusalem, Hamas did not take responsibility for the attack. But they were in a celebratory mood afterwards, giving out sweets in the streets of Gaza, just like on 9/11. And they alerted their supporters to their glee at the shooting, by sending a text message to their supporters. It read: "We bless the operation. It will not be the last." So nice to see Israeli cell phone technology being put to good use.

Update: According to The Jerusalem Post, four of the dead had not even turned 18. Two were 15 years old.

Chavez and A'jad: Tweedledee and Tweedledum

2008-03-06T02:35:00.004-05:00

It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Chavez is threatening military reprisal for a cross-border raid that US-backed Colombia executed into Ecuador over the weekend. The Colombians were looking to strike against the leftist revel FARC, apparently successfully. They recovered the laptop of a top FARC leader with some interesting files inside.

Mr. Chavez, who has established ties with Ahmadinejad, is linked in these files to the FARC rebels. Chavez sounds just like his Persian friend when he denied the authenticity of these files, just like the Iranian government did when evidence surfaced of recent nuclear weapons development (see below). (Chavez also attempted to insult Colombia by calling it the "Israel of South America.")

Apparently, FARC also has dreams of trading uranium. Whether there are nuclear ambitions are involved is not clear, as it may just be a profit-making venture. However, if they are serious in this matter, they have a natural ally in Ahmadinejad.

Skepticism proves right

2008-02-26T02:15:00.004-05:00

Surprise! Looks like the NIE may have been less than dead-on. So much for being more accurate this time around. The IAEA has released documents--which, inevitably, the Iranians are calling "forgeries"--that show a commitment on the part of the Iranians to weaponize a nuke after 2003, which is the date the NIE said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons ambitions:

A senior diplomat who attended the IAEA meeting said that among the material shown was an Iranian video depicting mock-ups of a missile re-entry vehicle. He said IAEA Director General Oli Heinonen suggested the component — which brings missiles back from the stratosphere — was configured in a way that strongly suggests it was meant to carry a nuclear warhead.

This is of course just part of the evidence at hand. Most bizarrely, however, is that most of the material in the presentation came from the United States. If the US had evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons past 2003, why on earth was this not reflected in the NIE? Were the writers of the report so afraid of an American strike that they went so far as to intentionally put false and attention-grabbing information prominently in the document? Or, if the evidence came after the report was published, why was this not publicly and loudly corrected? The Bush Administration better get its act together on what the official story in Washington is, or it risks stunting whatever momentum is left in bringing a peaceful halt to the Iranian nuke program.

Unfair accusations

2008-02-25T00:10:00.004-05:00

During World War II, London was hit by about 1,400 V-2 rockets, wreaking utter havoc on the population. Hitler's blitz on London also included bombing raids, causing massive damage and thousands of deaths. How did the British respond? They turned Dresden into an inferno, inflicting 30,000 civilian fatalities in 3 days.

In 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood revolted against Hafez Al-Assad's Alawite dynasty in Syria. In a few weeks, 25,000 lay dead in the city of Hama.

Since the Summer of 2005, over 4,000 Qassams have been fired from the Gaza Strip. There has been much public anger towards the perceived government inaction against those responsible. Limited airstrikes have been the extent of Israeli reprisal. Did I say "limited"? I am perhaps understating the case. Israel has made extraordinary efforts not to harm surrounding populations in these strikes--not the easiest thing when the mortar shells are launched from school playgrounds. Let nobody tell you that Israel is the among the worst human rights violators in the world or even aims to be. The British and the Syrians and many others should speak first.

Striking down the axis of evil

2008-02-15T17:52:00.003-05:00

Israel (or officially, some unknown entity) has been in the mood for striking big the past few days. Yesterday, a mystery blast killed Ayman Atallah Fayed, a senior member of Islamic Jihad. The group warned of reprisals against its top suspect, the Israeli government.

This follows on the heels of the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, Hizballah's number two man. He is responsible for hundreds if not thousands of deaths--Americans, Israelis, and others. And of course, Hassan Nasrallah is warning of a great reprisal against Israel. And if we need any more proof of the close cooperation between Hizballah and Iran, the Iranian foreign minister attended Mughniyeh's funeral.

Why Hillary is oh, so unlikeable

2008-02-08T18:05:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton attracts the female vote for obvious reasons. Gloria Steinem has defended her in the New York Times. But why is she considered such a pioneer for women? What separates her from, say, Carol Moseley Braun? Well, for one thing, she's been a professional wife. Yes, her most important qualifier for the presidency is her marriage -- which, as we know, has been infamous. Hillary is not a self-made woman. Where would she be without her husband? Where would she have gotten access to party insiders early on? On whose coattails would she have been able to ride into a carpetbagged New York Senate seat? Who else would have given her the name recognition necessary for her to be the frontrunner ever since John Kerry lost in 2004? Where else could she have dipped into a pool of rich (and corrupt) money circles to fund her campaign? None of the heavy lifting is her own. And yet she feels an entitlement to the presidency.

Barack Obama grew up as a mixed-race boy, moved from state to state (and country to country), and worked his way up to Columbia University. He worked on the ground in Chicago helping communities deal with the problems of the inner city. He became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. He became an influential legislator in Illinois and won a landslide election to the US Senate, where he became the first black Senator since 1979 and the second since Reconstruction. He was behind in the polls since day one of his campaign and won over people with his message and rejection of the slash-and-burn political techniques. He is a true inspiration. And that is why he can win in November.

Slow and steady wins the money race

2008-02-07T00:40:00.000-05:00

Sometime around 9:30 last evening I checked my e-mail to see Barack Obama campaign manager David Plouffe ask for $5 million by midnight (45 minutes ago) to close the gap that Hillary had created by pouring that amount of her own money into the race. And at 9:30, about $4.96 million had been raised already. As of this writing, Obama has raised $6.23 million since the polls closed on Super Tuesday, and the numbers keep climbing. I guess it really does pay to have lots of small-time donors feed you a little bit along the way.

Mission accomplished

2008-01-30T17:28:00.001-05:00

If the writers of the NIE last year sought to give Iran a free diplomatic pass on its nuclear program, well it's "mission accomplished," then. According to today's New York Times, the newest draft resolution on Iran's nuclear program is

[. . .] far weaker than what the United States, Britain and France were seeking, and officials say their efforts to win support from Russia and China have been undercut by the release in Washington in December of a National Intelligence Estimate that said Iran had abandoned its nuclear arms program.

Experts theorized that the timing and content of the NIE was meant to insure that the diplomatic process -- and not airstrikes -- would be used to stop Iranian nuclear enrichment. Alas, they have taken the wind out of the diplomatic sails of Western powers looking to enforce and expand sanctions -- which the NIE itself implied would be useful in persuading Tehran. The Russians and Chinese now have boundless excuses to delay and water down any diplomatic effort against Iran. So thank you, American intelligence community, for helping stop the development of the Iranian nuclear bomb.

Shalom, Shalom

2008-01-28T23:36:00.000-05:00

That's, "Hello, Goodbye" in Hebrew. The Jerusalem Post reports that the State of Israel has officially apologized to The Beatles 43 years after withdrawing an invitation for the world's biggest band to perform on their 1965 world tour. But that's not all!:

Israel's ambassador to Great Britain is scheduled to . . . present the [Beatles Museum in Liverpool's] manager with an official apology letter, including an invitation to remaining band members Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr to come perform during the celebrations of 60 years of Independence of the State of Israel, Army Radio reported.

This story illustrates Israel's progression from a moralistic, socialist state in the 1960s (The Beatles were turned away because of the government's paternal attitude) to a capitalist, liberal democracy today. It's a progression that started with state-owned media and has resulted now in a diverse popular culture. It's a progression that Great Britain went through too, oddly enough. Having the remaining Beatles perform in Israel for its 60th birthday celebrations is a bit idealistic, but would be a fitting tribute to the way the Western world has changed in the last 43 years.

The magical disappearing e-mails

2008-01-19T02:31:00.000-05:00

Apparent gaps in White House e-mail archives coincide with dates in late 2003 and early 2004 when the administration was struggling to deal with the CIA leak investigation and the possibility of a congressional probe into Iraq intelligence failures.

Doesn't this incident sound a lot like the 5 million missing e-mails related to the Justice Department hiring/firing controversy? And doesn't it also sound a lot like the 18-and-a-half minute tape from the Nixon days? Shameless.

Crazy talk

2008-01-10T19:59:00.000-05:00

Ever wondered why most economists vote for Democrats in presidential elections? It's because they know that cutting taxes does not replace the revenue it loses. But Rudy Giuliani does not. He says that cutting taxes should only be supplemented by cutting other taxes if it wants to maximize revenue. His argument would seem to imply that a tax rate of 1% would generate even more revenue to the government. This is of course nonsense. Giuliani is playing to the crazy Republican base for the primaries -- and losing his head as he does so.

Norman Finkelstein: mere critic?

2008-01-09T03:45:00.000-05:00

Former Professor Norman Finkelstein always said he was simply a scholar whose legitimate criticism of Israel was met by unmerited rejection. "What's wrong with being a critic of Israel?", he and others insist. Criticism of Israel is one thing. Meeting with Hizballah leaders is another. Does this sound like mere critiquing of Israeli policy?:

I think that the Hezbollah represents the hope. They are fighting to defend their homeland.

Defend their homeland? So when their operatives send Katyushas into Kiryat Shmona completely unprovoked, who are they defending against? Where will you find a singular Israeli soldier in Lebanon? Finkelstein is no critic, he is a terrorist sympathizer.

Poll smoking

2008-01-08T02:31:00.000-05:00

Stephen Colbert, in his first show back from a writer-strike-induced hiatus, told his guest the following (paraphrased):

You can get 50% of Americans to say anything! [turns to audience] Who wants to be a pirate? [audience roars] You see? 100% approval.

With the 2008 primary campaigns in full swing, polls are on everyone's mind. We heard about the legendary Des Moines Register poll, which supposedly had great influence and accuracy picking the winners of the Iowa caucuses. I was skeptical of this legend, yet Obama (huzzah!) and Huckabee won their respective contests.

Months and months of meaningless polls having been conducted, two candidates bucked consistent polling trends and came out on top. Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney have fallen by the wayside. When will the media stop obsessing over surveys that will not have any actual bearing over the election? My guess: never -- they would eliminate so much campaign coverage that they will be around forever. This is such a shame, given that voters obviously pay them no heed. (Amazingly, the voters are making an informed decision in doing so!)

Ahmadinejad the fabulist

2007-12-27T22:19:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-12-25T20:14:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-12-24T03:22:00.000-05:00

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!

2007-12-24T01:51:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-12-21T01:27:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-17T23:45:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-06T18:03:00.001-05:00

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

2007-12-03T19:17:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-03T15:46:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-02T22:17:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-11-28T00:45:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-21T23:22:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-18T03:12:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-13T23:41:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-12T22:56:00.000-05:00

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 . . .

2007-11-08T01:19:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-02T00:10:00.001-04:00

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

2007-10-29T21:33:00.000-04:00

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

2007-10-29T02:06:00.000-04:00

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 . . .

2007-10-27T01:16:00.000-04:00

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.)