In The Hands Of Donald John Trump

Derek Chollet, who served from 2012 to 2015 as assistant secretry of defense for international security affairs, has  a nuanced view of the Tomahawk missile attack on a Syrian air base ordered last week by President Trump. While recognizing this may not represent "a dramatic change in adminstration policy," he told Slate

If the intent is not to end the civil war or remove Assad but rather to dissuade Assad from using chemical weapons again, it absolutely could succeed. This was part of my frustration with Obama's "red line" remark. What people failed to recognize is that that ultimately led to the peaceful removal, with the help of Russia, of 1300 tons of chemical weapons, which I don't think could have been accomplished with the use of force.

This situation is different, but if this isolated attack deters Assad in the future, it's a success, even if it does nothing to end the broader conflict.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry- not even bothering to defend his former boss- appears to have a less nuanced, more common, view. Citing a source "close to the former diplomat," Politico writes Kerry "was 'absolutely supportive of Trump’s strike and “gratified to see that it happened quickly.'”

Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware termed the attack "appropriate," though adding

This is not the time to significantly cut our investment in diplomacy and development and humanitarian aid. Because navigating through the very complex crises in Syria and Iraq is going to be difficult and expensive.  If we're not prepared for a diplomatic solution and a development solution, once we retake [the] cities of Mosul and Raqqa, then we’re simply going to repeat some of the mistakes of the past.

The moderate view that a quick, limited attack to deter Bashar al-Assad from presiding over another chemical weapons attack carries more benefits than risks overlooks two critical elements of the President's action. Whatever the Administration's future course in the region, the action will inevitably be only a small part of an overall strategy. And that strategy will be carried out by one Donald J. Trump, whose sympathy for Syrian children does not extend to the ones who seek refuge in the land of the free and home of the brave.

That is no small matter because Donald Trump is a character unlike any other, with a character unlike any other.  The day after the airbase was hit, David Frum explained

Every decision presents risks and costs, and any responsible decision maker insists on a detailed itemization of those risks and those costs. That cannot have happened here. Trump has walked into a military confrontation that implicates regional and global security with only the haziest notion of what might go wrong. One friend of mine has warned: “If it were good foreign policy, Trump wouldn’t be doing it.” Foreign policy is hard, and even the best process does not guarantee good outcomes. Sometimes you get lucky, and can escape the consequences of a bad process. But the odds are the odds. Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, bad processes lead to ugly results.

Chollet, Kerry, and Coons and uber hawks such as Senators Graham and McCain and former Representative (D-CA) Jane Harman have endorsed, to one degree or another, Donald Trump's first military action in the Middle East. Recognizing the prevalence of that perspective among critics of Trump, Matthew Yglesias-less gentlemanly than Frum- tweets, "Trump is an unstable, ignorant, madman with no regard for democracy but I'm glad he's shooting missiles' is a bizarrely popular take."











Share |

Blow On Her And She Falls Over

"Worst still, those who were openly abusive about Trump now pretend to be his friend," Nigel Farage, the brazenly anti-immigrant leader of the right-wing Independence Party in Great Britain, wrote Tuesday in Steve Bannon's old rag, Breitbart News.

Reflecting Farage's unabashed support of him for President of the USA, Trump on November 21 had tweeted "Many people would like to see @Nigel_Farage represent Great Britain as their Ambassador to the United States. He would do a great job!”

Evidently, Trump knows how to deal with the easily intimidated prime minister Theresa May, who herself had not commented on the composition of a democratically-elected government of an ally. When May's call became the tenth- tenth- taken by the victor following the election, Trump  told her "If you travel to the U.S., you should let me know."

She got the message. Trump's shot across the bow, followed by his show of contempt for what is arguably the United States' closest ally, already has paid dividends.  The Washington Post reports that in an e-mail statement

British Prime Minister Theresa May condemned a blunt speech this week by Secretary of State John F. Kerry on the state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an unusual move that boosted Britain’s relations with the incoming Trump administration at the expense of President Obama.

The rare diplomatic spat between Britain and the United States, which was met with surprise by the State Department, highlighted the fast-collapsing influence of the lame-duck White House. It also pointed to a vast reordering of international affairs expected after Donald Trump takes office in three weeks, as U.S. allies position themselves to curry favor in the new order.

It may not be surprising, given that the incoming President has sharply criticized Kerry's thoughtful, comprehensive speech, that some governments would criticize the position staked out by the lame-duck Obama Administration. However, the Post adds

May’s government acted as a key broker between U.S. and Palestinian interests ahead of a U.N. Security Council vote last week to declare Israeli settlement construction “illegal.” British diplomats worked as go-betweens in shaping the measure to ensure that the language was acceptable to the United States, Britain’s Guardian and Israel’s Haaretz newspapers reported this week.

Great Britain worked on the resolution upon which the United States abstained, thereby enabling its passage, and which Kerry defended in his apparently offending speech. And Great Britain- as a member (permanent, as it were) of the U.N. Security Council- voted for the measure, days before it criticized the American Secretary of State's speech defending it.

In its e-mailed statement, the office of the Prime Minister additionally commented

we are also clear that the settlements are far from the only problem in this conflict. In particular, the people of Israel deserve to live free from the threat of terrorism, with which they have had to cope for too long.

They appear to have missed Kerry stating "We have repeatedly and emphastically stressed to the Palesinians that all incitement to violence must stop We have consistently condemned all violence and terrorism, and we have strongly opposed unilateral efforts to delegitimize Israel in international fora." Even more clearly, he had noted

President Obama and I have made it clear to the Palestinian leadership countless times, publicly and privately, that all incitement to violence must stop. We have consistently condemned violence and terrorism, and even condemned the Palestinian leadership for not condemning it.

But perhaps the best example of chutzpah- as it would be recognized were the Israeli government not on the opposite side- is May's claim "we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally."  Donald Trump took the extraordinary step of publicly recommending the appointment to an office not vacant, British ambassador to the USA. Now P.M. May has given what the Times' describes as "an olive branch both to Netanyahu and to President-elect Donald Trump," individuals who railed against the Obama Administration's failure to veto a resolution actually supported by Great Britain.

The Secretary of State's office responded to Theresa May's cowardice by explaining

We are surprised by the U.K. Prime Minister's office statement given that Secretary Kerry's remarks- which covered the full range of threats to a stwo-sate solution, including terrorism, violence, incitement and settlemetns- were in line with the U.K.'s own long-standing policy and its vote at the United Nations last week.

They have a right to be surprised; annoyed, even angered. It is a measure of "no drama Obama" that, under the circumstances, his State Department has reacted as calmly as it has. Over the next four years, perspective and serenity will be in short supply in Washington, and Great Britain will find itself among the nations which long for their return.













Share |

Netanyahu, Not Israel, Is An Obstacle

If he deserves credit for anything- and probably he does- Benjamin Netanyahu deserves credit for evidently having read Albert Camus. In The Myth of Sisyphus, the great French philosopher and author writes

For the rest, he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that slight pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which become his fate, created by him, combined under his memory's eye and soon sealed by his death. Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human....

In Wednesday's response to John Kerry's brilliant speech on the status of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Israeli Prime Minister maintained

the decisions that are vital to Israel’s interests and the future of its children (will) be made by the government of Israel around the negotiating table, making them on behalf of the one and only Jewish state, a sovereign nation that is the master of its own fate.

Notwithstanding Camus, if Israel were the master of its own fate, it wouldn't be fate, but something else, which illustrates an aspect of the answer to the question of why the American Secretary of State chose to make this speech only on his way out the door.

Obviously, the Secretary is clearly setting the Administration on the side of every Administration since President Carter, in contrast to the obvious perspective of the incoming Trump crew. Additionally, however, circumstances have changed, and not because of the USA or Israel's foes.

Secretary of State Kerry explained that the current policies of the coalition government heading Israel are

leading towards one state. In fact, Israel has increasingly consolidated control over much of the West Bank for its own purposes, effectively reversing the transitions to greater Palestinian civil authority that were called for by the Oslo Accords.

I don’t think most people in Israel, and certainly in the world, have any idea how broad and systematic the process has become. But the facts speak for themselves. The number of settlers in the roughly 130 Israeli settlements east of the 1967 lines has steadily grown. The settler population in the West Bank alone, not including East Jerusalem, has increased by nearly 270,000 since Oslo, including 100,000 just since 2009, when President Obama’s term began.

He later added

Palestinian structures in Area C that do not have a permit from the Israeli military are potentially subject to demolition. And they are currently being demolished at an historically high rate. Over 1,300 Palestinians, including over 600 children, have been displaced by demolitions in 2016 alone – more than any previous year.

So the settler agenda is defining the future of Israel. And their stated purpose is clear. They believe in one state: greater Israel. In fact, one prominent minister, who heads a pro-settler party, declared just after the U.S. election – and I quote – “the era of the two-state solution is over,” end quote. And many other coalition ministers publicly reject a Palestinian state. And they are increasingly getting their way, with plans for hundreds of new units in East Jerusalem recently announced and talk of a major new settlement building effort in the West Bank to follow...

Among the most troubling illustrations of this point has been the proliferation of settler outposts that are illegal under Israel’s own laws. They’re often located on private Palestinian land and strategically placed in locations that make two states impossible. There are over 100 of these outposts. And since 2011, nearly one-third of them have been or are being legalized, despite pledges by past Israeli governments to dismantle many of them.

Now leaders of the settler movement have advanced unprecedented new legislation that would legalize most of those outposts...







The Prime Minister of Israel- similarly to the incoming President of the United States, whom he (currently) adores- seems bent on antagonizing as many people and nations as possible. Ask not, therefore, why Secretary of State John Kerry decided to give this comprehensive speech less than four weeks before he, and the President he serves, leave office. Ask why the Prime Minister of Israel has decided to do what he can to upset the delicate balance which could serve as a bridge toward a final status agreement in greater Israel.







Share |

McCain Forgiving To A Fault

Asked Sunday on CNN whether there is "anything specific in Donald Trump's national security profile that's better than Hillary Clinton's, anything specific that you like about what he said about foreign policy," Senator John McCain replied

Well -- well, I think American leadership, he emphasizes that, and I think that's important. 

This president doesn't want to lead. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state for four years. Tell me one accomplishment that she can point to, besides the fact that she flew more miles than anybody, any other secretary of state in history? 

Perhaps the Arizona senator is more impressed with the accomplishments of Clinton's successor at State, John Kerry, a long-time friend of his.   Last June, Kerry wrapped up a deal with Iran which would severely restrict its nuclear program for fifteen years in return for easing sanctions. Former National Security Council member and State Department official P.J. Crowley remarked "It's an enormous diplomatic accomplishment. There's no question that it has profoundly changed the status quo."

Accomplishment- just what John McCain appreciates. Except not always, it appears, Three months before the deal was consummated, forty-seven (47) Republican Senators had signed a letter written by Arkansan Tom Cotton which warned Iran

We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear weapons program that is not approved by Congress as nothing more than an executive agtreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of an agreement at any time.

This obviously was an effort, ultimately unsuccessful, to derail negotiations and deprive Mr. Kerry and the Administration of an accomplishment.  McCain, according to this Los Angeles Times' reporter, admitted “Maybe that wasn't the best way to do that” but "reaffirmed the letter's message (and) said he signed the letter quickly on a day when senators were rushing to get out of Washington before a snowstorm hit."

Although the communication was entitled "An Open Letter to the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran" (the personal touch), McCain's excuse is reasonably credible, given that it's hard to imagine him thoughtfully doing something clearly unpatriotic.

McCain has been as generous to Donald Trump as he and his comrades were when last year they gave a heads up to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Trump last July infamously disparaged McCain's military service by charging "He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured."

Now the Senator defends Trump, despite the criticism of the billionaire by party leader Paul Ryan and McCain's own buddy, Lindsey Graham.  "You have to draw the conclusion," McCain rationalized Sunday

that there is some distance, if not a disconnect, between party leaders and members of Congress and the many voters who have selected Donald Trump to be the nominee of the party,  You have to listen to people that have chosen the nominee of our Republican Party.  I think it would be foolish to ignore them.










It's the same, unpredictable fellow who would endure years in the Hanoi Hilton but then try to put Sarah Palin a heart attack or stroke from the presidency. The same MCain who is loathe, Charles Pierce summarizes, to criticize

a vulgar talking yam who began his campaign by ridiculing the torments of the damned that McCain endured in North Vietnam. (This is right up there with his sucking up eight years later to the forces who slandered his daughter in 2000.) Why does it alway seem that the way to gain John McCain's favor is to treat him as badly as possible?









Share |

The Duplicitous John Ellis Bush

If you're going to say this about Medicare, at least you want to say it at an event sponsored by the Koch Brothers' Americans for Prosperity (video below), whose attendees will always be able to pay for whatever health care they want. So on Wednesday, John Ellis Bush argued

The left needs to join the conversation, but they haven’t. I mean, when [Rep. Paul Ryan] came up with, one of his proposals as it relates to Medicare, the first thing I saw was a TV ad of a guy that looked just like Paul Ryan … that was pushing an elderly person off the cliff in a wheelchair. That’s their response.

And I think we need to be vigilant about this and persuade people that our, when your volunteers go door to door, and they talk to people, people understand this. They know, and I think a lot of people recognize that we need to make sure we fulfill the commitment to people that have already received the benefits, that are receiving the benefits. But that we need to figure out a way to phase out this program for others and move to a new system that allows them to have something – because they’re not going to have anything.








Though the venue was favorable, the timing wasn't. Claiming "they're not going to have anything" would have worked better ten years ago when (as the graphs below from Mother Jones indicate) "spending projected to increase indefinitely, rising to 13 percent of gross domestic product." This year's projection has medicare spending- primarily because of cost containment in the Affordable Care Act- projected to slow down by 2040 and constitute only 6% of GDP by 2090.

Hey, anyone can be deceptive once in awhile. But in New Hampshire the next day (video below), Bush did it again, contending "we have a Medicare program that’s not going to be around 30 years from now in form that is.” (And of course, he employed the "entitlements" dodge.) He did not say that it appears it will be in better form.









People don't understand the elderly must be cut off at the knees. This is par for the course for John Ellis Bush, even more out of touch than his father was, and as deceitful, if that's possible. Joan Walsh explains

Jeb Bush was quick to denounce Donald Trump after the reality show host-turned-presidential candidate made his ugly claim that Sen. John McCain was “not a war hero” last weekend. “Enough with the slanderous attacks. @SenJohnMcCain and all our veterans – particularly POWs have earned our respect and admiration,” he tweeted Saturday.

But journalists quickly saw a problem for Bush: he had signed on to a similar attack on a decorated war hero: 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry, when he was running against Jeb’s brother George. Unbelievably, Bush reiterated his support for those ugly attacks on Kerry Tuesday afternoon in South Carolina.

To recap: Bush backed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s shameful attacks on Kerry, writing a letter to the group’s founder, Col. Bud Day, thanking him and the “other Swifties” for their “support of my brother in his re-election.” It went on: “I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry.” That “willingness,” of course, involved claiming Kerry lied about the military service that won him the Purple Heart.

You might think Bush would feel a twinge of self- consciousness, in the wake of the loud, strong, nationwide bipartisan condemnation of Trump. But you’d be wrong. Bush repeated his support of the Swift Vote Vets when asked about it in Spartanburg Tuesday afternoon.

“[Day] won every award possible,” Bush said.  “He served in three wars, and if he says that there was a problem [with Kerry’s service], I believe him. He’s a great Floridian and a great American and so I wrote him a note thanking him for his service. Not gonna change my beliefs about that at all."

Not gonna. John Ellis is such a son of privilege he repeats the pet phrase of George Herbert Walker.  Next up: "it wouldn't be prudent?"

Steve Benen remarks "Remember, Jeb Bush is the ostensible moderate candidate in the massive GOP presidential field. It says something important about Republican politics in 2015 when the most mainstream candidate is also the candidate who wants to scrap Medicare altogether."

John Ellis Bush may be "the most mainstream candidate," for he is the guy the Establishment media is determined to convince us would be only a somewhat more telegenic, bilingual version of Bush 41. However, he is not the most moderate candidate. He has no sense of introspection and as at least war hero John Kerry is learning, John Ellis has no sense of shame or decency.






Share |

Nothing Original About Trump

Writing in Salon, Sean Illing argues "the GOP sold its soul to Fox News and the broader conservative mediascape years ago."  Citing Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and even Sarah Palin, he identifies Donald Trump as only the latest manifestation of this tendency. He maintains

Trump, quite literally, is an actor; he’s delivering the lines his audience (the Republican base) wants to hear. But he’s not the first of his kind. He’s doing what many Republicans have done in recent years: pretend to run for president in order to promote his personal brand.

But Trump is not only the most recent in a long line of blowhards and poseurs. His attack is consistent with mainstream GOP politicians who have demeaned American soldiers. Joe Conason recalls

One of the most poisonous occurred in 2002, when a Georgia Republican named Saxby Chambliss ran ads suggesting that Senator Max Cleland, a Vietnam War hero who had lost both legs and one arm in an accidental grenade explosion, lacked the guts to face down Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Cleland, a Democrat who had served in the Veterans Administration under President Carter, had cast a vote protecting the rights of civil service workers in the new Department of Homeland Security, thus earning him a smear at the hands of Chambliss — one of those smooth favorite sons who had nimbly avoided the Vietnam draft.

The official citation, according to Conason, reads

When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment which had been damaged by enemy fire. His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.










That didn't stop Chambliss (ad, above), who won the election, despite Cleland's vote in favor of the Iran war resolution.  Georgia Democratic Senator Zell Miller, a conservative who went on to support George W. Bush for re-election, condemned Chambliss because "It's disgraceful for anybody to question Max Cleland's commitment to our national security."

But it evidently wasn't disgraceful to question John Kerry's commitment to country.  When Trump recently questioned John McCain's status as a hero, John Ellis Bush responded by tweeting “Enough with the slanderous attacks. @SenJohnMcCain and all our veterans – particularly POWs have earned our respect and admiration.”  But Judd Legum of Think Progress notes

In 2004, a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth spent millions of dollars attacking the military service of John Kerry, who was then the Democratic nominee for president. The group claimed that Kerry lied about his service and was awarded military honors he didn’t deserve. The basis for these claims were definitively proven false, but the group carried on with their campaign anyway. (The claims were first published in a book by Jerome Corsi, who would later gain fame for insisting that Obama had a fake birth certificate and was not born in the United States.)

After the campaign Jeb Bush, then Governor of Florida, sent a letter to George Day — a member of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth who appeared in television advertisements trashing Kerry. Day said Kerry, a recipient of the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts, would “go down in history sometime as the Benedict Arnold of 1971.” In his letter, Bush thanks Day and the “other Swifties” for their “support of my brother in his re-election.” “I simply cannot express in words how much I value their willingness to stand up against John Kerry,” 

"Whatever one sows, that he also will reap," Paul wrote to the Galatians.  The modern Repub Party, including John Ellis Bush, has sewn the seeds of demagoguery, and out has popped Donald Trump.





Share |

Kristol Certainly Knows A 'Crazy' When He Sees One

The reviews have come in on Donald Trump's statement that John McCain is "a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured.

The responses have not been positive. John Ellis Bush termed Trump's remarks "slanderous attacks." Scott Walker called McCain "undoubtedly an American hero" and argued Trump "needs to apologize to Senator McCain" for this "disgrace." Marco Rubio asserted "America's POW's deserve much better to have their service questioned by the offensive rantings of Donald Trump."

Rick Perry claimed Trump has shown himself "unfit" to be Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces," as if there ever were reason to believe he was fit.  However, the most clever (though probably not prescient) remark came from Mitt Romney, who declared "the difference" between McCain and his critic is "Trump shot himself down."

In a sense, though, the most interesting remark was made by Bill Kristol, who stated on ABC's "This Week"

So I'm finished with Donald Trump. And I don’t think it's going to -- he'll -- and I don't think -- I don't think he'll stay up in the polls, incidentally. Republican primary voters are pro-respect the military. And he showed disrespect for the military.

He showed a lack of respect for war heroes (not for "the military") but, as John Kerry discovered and Jake Tapper pointed out (video below), the GOP's respect for the men and women in uniform is selective.  We will find, also (though it will not be acknowledged) that support for Trump does not plunge because he slammed a guy for having failed to succeed. McCain's service was heroic; but he was captured, and that's a far cry from Republican idolization of the "winners" in society. "I don't like losers" Trump said, but that really captures the ethos of his entire Party.










Evidently, Kristol's recognition that showing a lack of respect for war heroes is offensive does not extend to showing a lack of recognition for other people.    It's not only labeling the individuals cheering Trump on for his anti-immigration remarks as "crazies," even if many are, well, fanatics.

Kristol played a prominent role in the 2008 presidential campaign, for he and two other National Review heavyweights (with some family members) took a cruise to the governor's mansion in Juneau. After a pleasant visit to the state's chief executive

The most ardent promoter, however, was Kristol, and his enthusiasm became the talk of Alaska’s political circles. According to Simpson, Senator Stevens told her that “Kristol was really pushing Palin” in Washington before McCain picked her. Indeed, as early as June 29th, two months before McCain chose her, Kristol predicted on “Fox News Sunday” that “McCain’s going to put Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, on the ticket.” He described her as “fantastic,” saying that she could go one-on-one against Obama in basketball, and possibly siphon off Hillary Clinton’s supporters. He pointed out that she was a “mother of five” and a reformer. “Go for the gold here with Sarah Palin,” he said. The moderator, Chris Wallace, finally had to ask Kristol, “Can we please get off Sarah Palin?"

The next day, however, Kristol was still talking about Palin on Fox. “She could be both an effective Vice-Presidential candidate and an effective President,” he said. “She’s young, energetic.” On a subsequent “Fox News Sunday,” Kristol again pushed Palin when asked whom McCain should pick: “Sarah Palin, whom I’ve only met once but I was awfully impressed by—a genuine reformer, defeated the establishment up there. It would be pretty wild to pick a young female Alaska governor, and I think, you know, McCain might as well go for it.” On July 22nd, again on Fox, Kristol referred to Palin as “my heartthrob.” He declared, “I don’t know if I can make it through the next three months without her on the ticket.” Reached last week, Kristol pointed out that just before McCain picked Palin he had ratcheted back his campaign a little; though he continued to tout her, he also wrote a Times column promoting Senator Joe Lieberman, of Connecticut.

On Sunday, Kristol contended Trump "jumped the shark yesterday."   But when a great war hero and veteran United States Senator- in part due to Kristol's prodding- selects Sarah Palin (!) to be a heartbeat from the presidency (cartoon below by M. Wuerker of Politico), that could not possibly be jumping any fish..

Donald Trump was very rude. But so was Barack Obama. He did not, after the election of 2008, bother to send a thank-you note to William Kristol.

Share |

We'll Back Him Up Until We Can Push Him Off The Cliff.

In his latest column about President Obama's new Mideast policy, Charles Krauthammer does what he does best- blaming President Obama- writing

... What was the Islamic State thinking? We know it is sophisticated in its use of modern media. But what was the logic of propagating to the world videos of its beheadings of two Americans (and subsequently a Briton) -- sure to inflame public opinion?

... It was an easily sprung trap to provoke America into entering the Mesopotamian war.

Why?

Because they're sure we will lose....

They count on Barack Obama quitting the Iraq/Syria campaign just as he quit Iraq and Libya in 2011 and is in the process of leaving Afghanistan now. And this goes beyond Obama. They see a post-9/11 pattern: America experiences shock and outrage and demands action. Then, seeing no quick resolution, it tires and seeks out leaders who will order the retreat. In Obama, they found the quintessential such leader....

Steve M. does what he does best, skewering conservative columnists, remarking

"The quintessential such leader"! So ISIS has calculated that Obama is a big wuss -- but not quite enough of a big wuss to shrink from the fightaltogether if provoked, just enough to start the fight, get embroiled in it,then quit, just the way he's done in, oh, say, the fight against Al Qaeda, in which ... um ... he's killed the leader and some top subordinates, thus helping to create precisely the competition for the title of Earth's Baddest Jihadist Group that ISIS is currently trying to win.

Oh, and Obama is so uniquely and predictably feckless that ISIS can count on him not to give in to pressure to widen the war, and to cut and run before another U.S. president (maybe even a Republican!) can fight ISIS more effectively (because who could possibly fight ISIS lesseffectively?). It just isn't possible, according to ISIS, that Obama will hold the line, or even score some victories, then hand the war off to an able successor, even though he'll be president for only two more years. ISIS is counting on Obama to pursue the fight to exactly the extent that maximizes ISIS's glory, and then to withdraw exactly when the fight can't be rapidly escalated by whoever succeeds him, all because Obama is such a uniquely terrible American leader. 

Why, it almost seems as if ISIS thinks exactly the way Charles Krauthammer and his Fox News buddies think. Odd how that works.

Shortly before Obama took office, President Bush negotiated with Iraq a Status of Forces Agreement which would have had all American soldiers out of Iraq by the end of 2011. His successor wanted to keep a small residual force, but that fell through when Baghdad refused Obama's condition that American soldiers be given immunity from prosecution. But the right simply can't (or refuses to) get its arms around the idea that the Iraq War had not been won before Barack Obama lost the war and became The Great Appeaser.

Still, sixteen paragraphs through the seventeen paragraph column, one is surprised that the ever-hawkish Krauthammer apparently opposes further U.S. military action.   He refuses to join the GOP "they're coming to get us chorus," noting

the Islamic State’s principal fight is intramural. It seeks to supersede and supplant its jihadi rivals — from al-Qaeda in Pakistan, to Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, to the various franchises throughout North Africa — to emerge as champion of the one true jihad.

He realizes even "The strategy is simple: Draw in the world’s great superpower, create the ultimate foil and thus instantly achieve supreme stature in radical Islam as America’s nemesis."

He maintains "Obama's 'broad coalition' remains a fantasy" because

It’s more a coalition of the unwilling. Turkey denied us the use of its air bases. The Sunni Arab states are reluctant to do anything militarily significant. And not a single country has volunteered combat troops. Hardly a surprise, given that Obama has repeatedly ruled that out for the U.S. itself.

He might have added that even Iraq premier Haidar al-Abidi, a Shiite Muslim who would be pleased if the Sunni ISIL were eliminated, is lukewarm about the coalition.  Al-Abidi had definitively ruled out American soldiers and asserts "The only contribution the American forces or the international coalition is going to help us with is from the sky.   We are not giving any blank check to the international coalition to hit any target in Iraq."

But by the end, Krauthammer goes off the rails, remarking

Testifying on Wednesday to the Senate, Kerry declared that the Islamic State “must be defeated. Period. End of story.” Not the most wisely crafted of declarations: The punctuational emphasis carries unfortunate echoes of Obama’s promise about health care plans and the word “must” carries similar echoes of Obama’s assertions that Bashar al-Assad had to go.

So John Kerry is unwise, even a fool.  Barack Obama is incompetent and a dissembler.  But- wait for it- we have to support their policy.  Even then, in contrast to nearly his entire argument, Krauthammer cannot bring himself to opposing, or even expressing ambivalence about, the Administration's plan. He  concludes- even as he takes a shot at the President-

Nonetheless, Kerry’s statement remains true for strategic and even moral reasons. But especially because when the enemy deliberately draws you into combat, it is all the more imperative to show the world that he made a big mistake.

The problem is not only that Krauthammer and his Fox News buddies think as ISIL thinks.  It is also, as Steve M. clearly understands, that the GOP will not give credit to President Obama even when they agree with his policy.

Speaking out of turn, Republican Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia (who has wanted a vote to authorize military action; photograph from the AP) captured the essence of his Party's desire to have it both ways when he admitted

A lot of people would like to stay on the sideline and say, 'Just bomb the place and tell us about it later.'   It’s an election year. A lot of Democrats don’t know how it would play in their party, and Republicans don’t want to change anything. We like the path we’re on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long.

There is insufficient profile in courage in either party but especially in the GOP, annoyed Obama has refused to employ triumphalist rhetoric.  They so badly want a war from a President who gained office partly by pledging to wind down the Iraq debacle. "See, I told you so" can be emotionally gratifying. They won't oppose the war, but won't give Obama credit, either, an easy transition (or no transition at all) for a Party which decided to obstruct the President and his agenda before he even took office.



Share |

It's The Signatures, Stupid

A long, long time ago (something else, unrelated, a long, long time ago, video at end), a commercial (beneath this paragraph) featured two women, apparently twins, with the narration "stop, you're both right.. New Certs is two mints in one. Stops bad breath in seconds; tastiest mint of all."









Rush Limbaugh and Crooks and Liars' karoli are both somewhat right but are missing a crucial point about the war in Gaza.  Limbaugh notes "So Hamas puts their own children in known targets.  Israel warns at 20 minute intervals, 'Get out, we're hitting the target.'  Hamas leaves their children there.  "How dare Israel kill children on purpose!  Damn those Israelis. They hate children."  He adds "and Hamas applauds.  PR victory after PR victory."

The observation is accurate but he draws the wrong conclusion when he claims

Ladies and gentlemen, I have just been convinced.  I already was.  Let me put it that way.  I have just had the exclamation point attached to my being convinced that the Obama administration has chosen sides, and the side they've chosen is Hamas. ...

And I'll tell you again, there's a predisposition to hating Israel, disliking, opposing, whatever, in this administration, there can be no doubt about it now.

Karoli links to a post from Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall, who in turn links to a Politico report of a transcript of an alleged discussion between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. A confrontational Obama "demand(s)  that Israel agrees to an immediate, unilateral ceasefire and halt all offensive activities, in particular airstrikes"  and a reasonable Netanyahu maintains "Qatar and Turkey are the biggest supporters of Hamas. It's impossible to rely on them to be fair mediators."

Each side vehemently denied the report, which came from Israel's Channel 1 News and is very likely phony, and not only because reasonableness does not define Netanyahu nor confrontational, Obama.

Both Marshall and karoli suggest a link among Netanyahu; Ron Dermer, Israeli ambassador to the USA, former GOP operative and employee of Frank Luntz; Sheldon Adelson; and Repub political strategists. Karoli recognizes the transcript as part of an effort to spin opinion in both Israel and the USA against the government in Jerusalem and believes also that Netanyahu is "obstructing Kerry and Obama's efforts to negotiate a ceasefire."  But then she goes off the rails, claiming

Netanyahu reveals his hand as a political tool of the American right wing. Forget all the sob stories about tunnels and missiles. It's convenient for Bibi to kill a bunch of Palestinians and it's even more convenient for the American right, who can parade themselves all over Fox News, the Sunday shows and the Internet crying about the President's failure of "leadership."

The billionaires are greedy, and they're calling in their markers. Bibi is just one of their tools. Putin is likely another. As for the dead children? Meh. For them it's collateral damage.

Netanyahu, seemingly unwise for launching a war whose successful outcome could result in costly Israeli occupation of Gaza, is not a "tool" of anyone.  While theory or principle for the vast majority of Americans; this conflict is serious business, perhaps even a matter of survival, for both Israel and Hamas. The allegations that "it's convenient for Bibi to kill a bunch of Palestinians" and that he and the American right view "dead children" as "collateral damage" are loathsome smears.  Dead Palestinians (actually Gazans) provoke vehement opposition to the incursion into Gaza, and therefore are hardly convenient for the Israeli Prime Minister.

But karoli and Limbaugh are both fundamentally wrong, Limbaugh convinced the Obama-Kerry duo is full tilt pro-Hamas, and karoli seemingly assuming President and the Secretary of State are motivated by an interest in a long-lasting peaceful solution.  Last week, Secretary of State Kerry abandoned a cease-fire plan proposed by Cairo, a bitter foe of Hamas, which it equates to the Muslim Brotherhood. It was favorably viewed by the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, but opposed by Hamas.

Instead, the American Secretary of State met with Hamas' representatives, Qatar and Turkey, and came up with a scheme which would have created a cease-fire in place- Israeli soldiers remaining in the Gaza Strip but forbidden to destroy any of the tunnels leading from Gaza into the Jewish state.   Supposedly "protecting civilian lives, ending all hostilities in and from the Gaza Strip and achieving a sustainable cease-fire and enduring resolution of the crisis,"  the agreement would have been implemented by the Qatar and Turkey.

The latter nation is headed by Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, infamous for having uttered

Israelis like to remind us of the genocide that took place in history. They take advantage of that genocide, and always act as if they are the victims all the time,   We say Germany must compensate Israel, and it has. So Germany is still paying dues to Israel. But Turkey and Muslims in this region don't have that problem. We never inflicted such pain on Israel. Israel, on the other hand, is cruel. It doesn't display any mercy.

It's not surprising, then, that in addition to the content of the two cease-fire proposals, Netanyahu is not pleased with Kerry's activities.  Neither is Egypt which, according to Newsweek, "was reportedly so angry that Qatar and Turkey had been invited to the Paris talks that it declined to send its foreign minister, Sameh Shukri.”  And the Palestinian Authority's Fatah issued a statement declaring "Those who want Qatar or Turkey to represent them should leave and go live there.”  (note that Fatha did not say ".... should leave and come here to live under the unbearable conditions of Israeli occupation.")

Kerry's outreach to the most vicious elements in the Mideast, however, is not without reason. His boss, President Obama, is not going to be President forever.  And Kerry will not be Secretary of State forever.   Drawing upon his long experience as a legislator, the former Massachusetts senator wants an agreement, any agreement.   He wants to end the war between Israel and Hamas even if, as would be likely, the situation soon after would deteriorate.

It is difficult to determine whether John Kerry's interest is merely self-interest or a belief that a lasting peace currently is unobtainable. But Rush Limbaugh, Karoli, and the rest of us ought to recognize that the Secretary of State's goal is not to upend Israel, exalt Hamas, or to create a lasting peace. It is to obtain a negotiated settlement, and little else.











Share |

Hillary Clinton Endorsed The Sixth Amendment. John Kerry Won't Go That Far.

It has been only a few hours but at least as of now, there is no response from Hillary Clinton or John Kerry to the article in today's Washington Post in which Barton Gellman reports

Ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike, far outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications intercepted by the National Security Agency from U.S. digital networks, according to a four-month investigation by The Washington Post.

Nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of intercepted conversations, which former NSA contractor Edward Snowden provided in full to The Post, were not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody else.

Many of them were Americans. Nearly half of the surveillance files, a strikingly high proportion, contained names, e-mail addresses or other details that the NSA marked as belonging to U.S. citizens or residents. NSA analysts masked, or “minimized,” more than 65,000 such references to protect Americans’ privacy, but The Post found nearly 900 additional e-mail addresses, unmasked in the files, that could be strongly linked to U.S. citizens or U.S.residents....

The material spans President Obama’s first term, from 2009 to 2012, a period of exponential growth for the NSA’s domestic collection.

Taken together, the files offer an unprecedented vantage point on the changes wrought by Section 702 of the FISA amendments, which enabled the NSA to make freer use of methods that for 30 years had required probable cause and a warrant from a judge. One program, code-namedPRISM, extracts content stored in user accounts at Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, Google and five other leading Internet companies. Another, known inside the NSA as Upstream, intercepts data on the move as it crosses the U.S. junctions of global voice and data networks....

The NSA treats all content intercepted incidentally from third parties as permissible to retain, store, search and distribute to its government customers. Raj De, the agency’s general counsel, has testified that the NSA does not generally attempt to remove irrelevant personal content, because it is difficult for one analyst to know what might become relevant to another.

Nearly lost in the controversy over the relatively trivial matter of the wealth of Bill and Hillary Clinton provoked by the latter's interview with ABC News, and then the Guardian of the UK, were comments the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee made about Edward Snowden.

Mr. Snowden remains in asylum in Russia while his attorneys try to work out a deal which would allow him to return to the U.S.A.  Thirteen months ago The New York Times explained he "has been charged with violating the Espionage Act and stealing government property for disclosing information to The Guardian and The Washington Post."

This would come as a surprise to Mrs. Clinton, who told the Guardian during a recent interview. (Relevant portion begins at 13:22 of video.) "I have no idea what he's been charged with."  Still, if Clinton chooses to feign ignorance about the charges against Snowden, she clearly knows her U.S. Constitution. Asked whether Snowden should have the right to mount a defense based on the public interest, Clinton deftly dodged the question, instead stating "In any case that I'm aware of, as a former lawyer, uh, he has a right to mount a defense and he certainly has the right to mount both a legal defense and a public defense, which of course can affect the legal defense."

A former First Lady, United States Senator, and Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton has clearly and forthrightly determined that Snowden should not be stripped of his rights under the Sixth Amendment, in which

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Clinton questioned Snowden's motives, contending he had added little to the debate on national security and privacy, should return to the USA without any promises, and should not have sought asylum in Russia- though with the USA State Department having revoked his passport, he had little choice.

But at least Mrs. Clinton  maintained a rough approximation of objectivity, unlike the current Secretary of State, who told CBS News "This is a man who has betrayed his country.  He should man up and come back to the US.”  Were the infantile macho man on the playground, his preferred wording would have been "Don't be so gay." That would have been condemned as "man up"should have been.  (And good luck on that fair trial thing, Edward.)

Come back to the land of the free and home of the brave, the former and the current secretaries of state say. But as Kerry and probably even Clinton know

Snowden's legal team have stated that lack of recourse to a public interest defence is a key obstacle to the whistleblower returning to the US.

Ben Wizner, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, said: "The laws would not provide him any opportunity to say that the information never should have been withheld from the public in the first place.

"And the fact that the disclosures have led to the highest journalism rewards, have led to historic reforms in the US and around the world – all of that would be irrelevant in a prosecution under the espionage laws in the United States."

Fortunately, somebody gets it right.  Asked whether the former private sector contractor to the NSA is a traitor or a whistleblower, the man elected President in 2000 refused to

put him in either one of those categories. But I'll be candid and give you want you want. If you set up a spectrum... but I would push it more away from the traitor side. And I will tell you why. He clearly violated the law so you can't say OK, what he did is all right. It's not. But what he revealed in the course of violating important laws included violations of the US constitution that were way more serious than the crimes he committed.

In the course of violating important law, he also provided an important service. OK. Because we did need to know how far this has gone. 







Share |

Race Confusion

Texas Repub Senator Ted Cruz was crowing. "I was convinced," he bragged, "that as Secretary of State John Kerry would place what he considered to be the wishes of the international community above the national security interests of the United States. I fear with these most-recent ill-chosen remarks, Secretary Kerry has proven those concerns well founded."

Unsurprisingly, AIPAC also pounced, maintaining "any suggestion that Israel is, or is at risk of becoming, an apartheid state is offensive and inappropriate" (comma after "is" and "becoming"- someone knows his/her English grammar!).  David Harris of the more mainstream American Jewish Committee added "In trying to make his point, Kerry reaches into diplomatic vocabulary to raise the stakes, but in doing so he invokes notions that have no place in the discussion.”

Two prominent Jewish Democrats also were repulsed.  Nita Lowey of New York, the ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, took to Twitter to comment  “Inflammatory rhetoric comparing Israel’s democracy to repugnant apartheid policy is irresponsible, inaccurate & counterproductive.”   Senator Barbara Boxer of California less explicitly remarked that comparing the Jewish state to apartheid "is nonsensical and ridiculous."  A statement from Democratic Senator Mark Begich of Alaska argued “Secretary Kerry knows as well as anyone that negotiating lasting peace in this region of the world is difficult but it’s not productive to express his frustration in this way,”

The outrage was sparked by a piece in The Daily Beast (from which the photo below is taken) in which Josh Rogin  reported Senator John Kerry had told "a room of influential world leaders in a closed-door meeting" on April 18

A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state.   Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution, which both leaders, even yesterday, said they remain deeply committed to.

Kerry's critics are right, but not for the reason they imply.  Continuation of the present trend (and no one has suggested how that trend can be interdicted) would lead to a majority Palestinian state in what otherwise is rightfully a Jewish state.  :Ultimately, Kerry was not labeling Israel an apartheid state, suggesting instead that continuation would be either a non-Jewish state or one characterized by apartheid. A similar point was made by former Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Secretary Ehud Barak, who explained in 2010 "as long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic.  If this bloc of millions of ­Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."

However, although Kerry's critics have assiduously avoided citing an inaccuracy in his "offensive, irresponsible, ill-chosen, counter-productive" remarks, Barak and the US Secretary of State are wrong for one, fundamental reason.  Rogin notes

According to the 1998 Rome Statute, the “crime of apartheid” is defined as “inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” The term is most often used in reference to the system of racial segregation and oppression that governed South Africa from 1948 until 1994.

By one racial group over any other racial group.

Race can be an elusive subject.  However, Merriam-Webster defines "semite" as"a member of a group of people originally of southwestern Asia that includes Jews and Arabs." By that definition, control of Palestinian Arabs by Palestinian Jews (otherwise known as "Israelis") hardly would be apartheid. Further, modern Jews may be descended from Europe or from the Middle East. Still no apartheid.

But the Secretary of State is not alone in failing to recognize the trickiness inherent in defining ethnicity. Then-Senator Joseph Lieberman, himself a Jew, was one of the first Americans in the modern era to refer to "Jewish-Americans." Judaism, he implied, is not a religion but rather an ethnicity akin to Polish-American, Italian-American, or African-American (a reference to Americans of African ancestry).   He not only passed over the varied national background of Jews, but failed to recognize Judaism as a religion.  It's that Old Testament thing, which an orthodox Jew such as Lieberman might have been expected to notice. Nevertheless, he avoided proper condemnation for practicing atrocious anthropology without a license. And very bad anthropology at that, practiced with the self-righteousness Lieberman sometimes appeared to have invented.

It is, no doubt, a wistful thought that the policies of the Secretary of State should come under greater criticism- or praise- than his careless use of the word "apartheid."  But like a certain National Basketball owner with loose lips, John Kerry is of the modern era, another public figure evaluated for his words while his actions go relatively unexamined.

Share |

Elizabeth Warren Strikes Back

Elizabeth Warren has learned from Senator John Kerry (and others) and will not go gently into that good night (cliche #1). Kate Zernike of The New York Times writes

Three decades after the Vietnam War and nearly two years after Mr. Kerry's failed presidential bid, most Americans have probably forgotten why it ever mattered whether he went to Cambodia or that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accused him of making it all up, saying he was dishonest and lacked patriotism.

But among those who were on the front lines of the 2004 campaign, the battle over Mr. Kerry's wartime service continues, out of the limelight but in some ways more heatedly — because unlike then, Mr. Kerry has fully engaged in the fight. Only those on Mr. Kerry's side, however, have gathered new evidence to support their case.

Kerry has made his case, as he characteristically does, methodically and thoroughly, as Zernike outlines:

The Swift boat group insisted that no boats had gone to Cambodia. But Mr. Kerry's researcher, using Vietnam-era military maps and spot reports from the naval archives showing coordinates for his boat, traced his path from Ha Tien toward Cambodia on a mission that records say was to insert Navy Seals.

Mr. Kerry's supporters have also frozen frames from his amateur films of his time in Vietnam and have retrieved letters and military citations for other sailors to support his version of how he won the Silver Star — rebutting the Swift boat group's most explosive charge, that he shot an unarmed teenager who was fleeing his fire.

Another photograph provides evidence for Mr. Kerry's version of how he won the Bronze Star. And original reports pulled from the naval archives contradict the charge that he drafted his own accounts of various incidents — which left room, the Swift boat group had argued, to embellish them.

But it is now over four decades from the incidents portrayed- and nearly a decade since Kerry, who completely dominated President George W. Bush in the three debates which were held- lost a presidential election Democrats had within their sights (cliche #2).  The Swift Boat controversy, accurately or otherwise, often is credited with having cost the Massachusetts senator the election and

Of course, plenty of disappointed and angry Democrats would like to know why Mr. Kerry did not defend himself so strenuously before the election. He had posted some military documents on his campaign's Web site and had allowed reporters to view his medical records but resisted open access to them as unnecessarily intrusive.

Mr. Kerry and his defenders say that they did not have the extensive archival material, and that it was too complicated to gather in the rapid pace of a campaign. He was caught off guard, he says; he had been prepared to defend his antiwar activism, but he did not believe that anyone would challenge the facts behind his military awards. "We should have put more money behind it," Mr. Kerry says now. "I take responsibility for it; it was my mistake. They spent something like $30 million, and we didn't. That's just a terrible imbalance when somebody's lying about you."

The presidency is a ship that has sailed (cliche #3) for the current Secretary of State as the party, ignoring the growing gap between the middle class and the ultra-wealthy amid growing corporate wealth and power, appears to be excitedly handing on a silver platter (cliche #4) the nomination to the neo-liberal wife of a neo-liberal former president.

But Elizabeth Warren is no John Kerry, and no Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, each of whom has at times been overly generous to his political enemies.  On November 18, she spoke out (transcript here; video here) on the Senate floor to defend Social Security, and- more threateningly- link it to the importance of maintaining "a middle class that continues to remain the backbone of our country."  Understandably, Jim Cowan and Jim Kessler, respectively the president and the vice president for policy of think tank Third Way, were not pleased.  In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal flogging the urban myth (cliche #4) of a Social Security system in crisis, they claimed

Undeterred by this undebatable solvency crisis, Sen. Warren wants to increase benefits to all seniors, including billionaires, and to pay for them by increasing taxes on working people and their employers. Her approach requires a $750 billion tax hike over the next 10 years that hits mostly Millennials and Gen Xers, plus another $750 billion tax on the businesses that employ them.

Slickly, Third Way tries in one paragraph to gin up generational warfare- "hits mostly Millenials and Gen Xers!"- and class warfare- "increasing taxes on working people!"  The organization evidently defines "working people" as individuals with an income well above $100,000, given that Warren supports Senator Tom Harkin's bill, which would raise the needed revenues merely by eliminating the cap on income (currently $113,700) subject to taxation.  Salon's Elias Isquith finds that the other arguments by the "economically plutocratic wing of the Democratic Party" fail on several counts (cliche #5).

But Warren's take-no-prisoners approach (cliche #6) may prove to be as consequential to the drive for adequate Social Security benefits as appeals to reason, whether by Isquith, CAP's Alan Pyke, Daily Kos' Joan McCarter, Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, or others.  In a letter promptly sent by Warren's office, the Massachusetts senator confronted the heads of the nation's six largest financial institutions by explaining

I am writing to encourage you to voluntarily disclose financial contributions your institutions make to think tanks. In my view, policies by your institutions to conceal those contributions from public view are wrong. Greater transparency will benefit your shareholders, policymakers, and ultimately, the public...

When you use corporate resources to support think tanks there are only two possible outcomes from public disclosure – those contributions do not influence the work of the think tanks or those contributions do influence the think tanks’ research and conclusions. Either way, shareholders have a right to know how corporate resources are spent, and, even more importantly, policymakers and the public should be aware of your contributions and evaluate the work of the think tanks accordingly.

As a list- to which Isquith linked- of the Board of Trustees of Third Way indicates, the "centrist" organization is dominated by Wall Street.   But Elizabeth Warren will have none of it (cliche #7).  She has attitude, a vital attribute long missing among Democrats








Share |

Maybe A Way Out


The Obama Administration denies, I think credibly, that it aims for regime change in Damascus, Secretary of State John Kerry even cautioning action would consist of a “very limited, very targeted, short-term effort.” President Obama, less credibly, has denied that the threat of missile strikes against Syria involves his or the nation's credibility. Secretary of State Kerry, though, has avoided denying that saving face is an issue and last week told MSNBC's Chris Hayes

But if we don’t do this, Assad will have the message that he can use these weapons with impunity. We will have turned our back on the next batch of children, on the next batch of parents.  We will have turned our back on the international norm, we will have lost credibility in the world and I guarantee you, if we turn our backs today...

Today's news, consequently, may offer the Administration a way out.  Reuters reports

Syria welcomes a Russian proposal to place the nation's chemical weapons under international control, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said on Monday after talks in Moscow, praising the Kremlin for seeking to "prevent American aggression".

Moualem, who spoke to reporters through an interpreter after Russia expressed hope the proposal could avert military strikes against Syria, stopped short of saying explicitly that President Bashar al-Assad's government accepted it.

"I state that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes the Russian initiative, motivated by the Syrian leadership's concern for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country, and also motivated by our confidence in the wisdom of the Russian leadership, which is attempting to prevent American aggression against our people," he said.

There are more than a few ifs, ands, or buts attached but this might point the way toward preventing a big mistake by the Administration.   And it comes on the heels of further evidence that while government forces were behind the chemical attack outside of Damascus, it probably was not ordered by Assad.According to The Guardian yesterday

President Bashar al-Assad did not personally order last month's chemical weapons attack near Damascus that has triggered calls for US military intervention, and blocked numerous requests from his military commanders to use chemical weapons against regime opponents in recent months, a German newspaper has reported , citing unidentified, high-level national security sources.

The intelligence findings were based on phone calls intercepted by a German surveillance ship operated by the BND, the German intelligence service, and deployed off the Syrian coast, Bild am Sonntag said. The intercepted communications suggested Assad, who is accused of war crimes by the west, including foreign secretary William Hague, was not himself involved in last month's attack or in other instances when government forces have allegedly used chemical weapons.

Assad sought to exonerate himself from the August attack in which hundreds died. "There has been no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people," he said in an interview with CBS.

But the intercepts tended to add weight to the claims of the Obama administration and Britain and France that elements of the Assad regime, and not renegade rebel groups, were responsible for the attack in the suburb of Ghouta, Bild said.

Representative Alan Grayson, in an op-ed in The New York Times Friday, suggested that he was unsure the attack had the approval of even the Syrian general staff.  He notes the documentary record includes only a four page unclassified summary and a ten page unclassified summary and explains

gaining access to just the classified summary involves a series of unreasonably high hurdles.

We have to descend into the bowels of the Capitol Visitors Center, to a room four levels underground. Per the instructions of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, note-taking is not allowed.

Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided.

Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided.  

This comes from the Administration of a President who upon taking office told his staffers "I will also hold myself as president to a new standard of openness .... Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."  And which President later issued a memo reading

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Congress, at this point, is in no mood to authorize military action opposed by the American people.  Even if (as is likely) Bashir al-Assad is not fully committed to placing all chemical weapons under international control, his apparent willingness to work out some kind of a deal gives President Obama a possible escape hatch from issuing an unpopular order whose stated aims are murky and weak.


Share |

Norm!

A week ago Friday, President Obama led the way when he told reporters

It's important for us to recognize that when over 1,000 people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 or 99 percent of humanity says should not be used even in war, and there is no action, then we're sending a signal that that international norm doesn't mean much... And that is a danger to our national security.

Interviewed (transcript, here) by Chris Hayes Thursday, Secretary of State Kerry on three occasions went George Wendt on us:

Now, that’s not the calculation of what we’re — of what the president has proposed in the military strike he is seeking to get authorization for.

That is specifically to enforce the international norm, almost a century old now, that came out of World War II — out of the horrors of World War I — whereby 189 nations have signed an agreement that we will not use chemical weapons in warfare.

And — and Bashar Al-Assad joins with Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein as being somebody who has crossed that line.

We are trying to enforce the international norm against that behavior and that’s all that this military strike seeks to do...

Our effort is to — is to preserve this international norm regarding the — the — the prohibition on the use of these terrible weapons. 

But if we don’t do this, Assad will have the message that he can use these weapons with impunity.  We will have turned our back on the next batch of children, on the next batch of parents.  We will have turned our back on the international norm, we will have lost credibility in the world and I guarantee you...

And if you haven't heard enough about norms, Kerry wanted to make it "crystal clear":

We have made it crystal clear to them.  We make it crystal clear now in every statement that we have made, this action has nothing to do with engaging directly in Syria’s civil war on one side or the other.  It has to do with enforcing a norm of international behavior that has protected people against chemical weapons.  And it is one of the things — chemical, biological, nuclear warfare, we have decided as a world we are going to protect people against those weapons.

After something like 100,000 Syrians have been killed by the Assad regime in Syria's civil war, the Obama Administration is up in arms about chemical weapons.    But it's no coincidence that President Obama is drawing a "red line" on chemical weapons, and only on chemical weapons.

There may be more than one "international norm."  John Reed and Noah Shachtman recently reported in foreignpolicy.com

Cluster bombs are banned by 83 nations. The world recoiled in horror when it learned that Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad's forces have killed children with such weapons.

But that isn't stopping the U.S. military from selling $640 million worth of American-made cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia, despite the near-universal revulsion at such weapons, and despite the fact that relations between the two countries haven't been entirely copacetic of late.

Cluster bombs spit out dozens, even hundreds, of micro-munitions in order cover a wide area with death and destruction. These weapons are used for killing large groups of people, destroying thinly-skinned vehicles and dispensing landmines or poison gas. Some of the Soviet-made incendiary cluster bombs used by Assad's forces during Syria's civil war are even designed to light buildings on fire and then explode after sitting on the ground for a while -- thereby killing anyone who gets close enough to try to extinguish the flames.

The irony of the U.S. selling one authoritarian Middle East country 1,300 cluster bombs while criticising the use of indiscriminate weapons by another isn't lost on the Cluster Munition Coalition, an international group dedicated to ending the use of such weapons.

"This transfer announcement comes at a time when Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have joined international condemnations of Syria's cluster bomb use," said Sarah Blakemore, director of the Cluster Munition Coalition, in a statement about the sale.

These weapons are loathed because in addition to killing enemy combatants, their fairly indiscriminate nature means they can kill plenty of civilians. And not just in the heat of battle. The little ball-shaped bomblets dispersed by cluster munitions don't always detonate on first impact. Often, they will just sit there on the ground until someone, often a child, picks them up and causes them to explode.

So far, 112 countries have signed an international treaty banning cluster bombs, with 83 ratifying it. Guess who isn't part of that club? China, Russia, most for the former USSR, Syria... and the United States, which is selling thousands Textron-made cluster bombs to the Saudis between now and 2015.

Despite the fact that the U.S. State Department says it "shares in the international concern about the humanitarian impact of all munitions, including cluster munitions" it's in no hurry to sign the ban. Foggy Bottom insists that "their elimination from U.S. stockpiles would put the lives of its soldiers and those of its coalition partners at risk."

Perhaps, then, President Obama could order an air strike against Riyadh, vowing that no violation of an international norm can go unpunished lest it endanger our national security.  But then he might also have to take seriously one of those other "international norms," the one prohibiting torture pursuant to the Geneva Convention and the Convention Against Torture.   He could start by prosecuting Bush Administration officials involved in approval of the euphemistically termed "enhanced interrogation techniques," but he would be breaking his own belief in "looking forward, not backwards."  (It might, though, bolster that "credibility" Kerry speaks of.)

Fortunately, there is no international norm against being a brazen hypocrite.



Share |