Rob's Politics Blog

David Brooks - the best thing to happen to the New York Times since Howell Raines' resignation - has an eye opening column on what he calls The Presidency Wars.

Money Quote:

The warriors have one other feature: ignorance. They have as much firsthand knowledge of their enemies as members of the K.K.K. had of the N.A.A.C.P. In fact, most people in the last two administrations were well-intentioned patriots doing the best they could. The core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves.

Indeed. It's hard to think that this hyper-adrenal partisanship will lead to anything good.

Jackson Diehl makes some interesting observations in his Still Losing at Diplomacy:

The Bush-Schroeder reconciliation has been in the works for months. Germany's foreign policy and defense elite, who were particularly appalled by the split, drew up plans for potentially bold steps to support the postwar mission in Iraq -- including even the dispatch of troops, possibly in conjunction with France or under NATO command.

Still, there is the troubling observation that German public opinion remains "overwhelmingly hostile to Bush." And the galling note that Donald Rumsfeld is refusing to talk to Joschka Fischer - one of our best friends in Germany.

I do have the hope that this may prove a boon for whoever succeeds Bush - particularly if a Democrat wins in 2004. At that point, otherwise intransigent Europeans may be inclined to give a more moderate administration some leeway.

A touching reminder that Germany remains an ally.

"Jefferson, I think we're lost . . ."

Rather baffled at the news that "senior administration officials" leaked the name of a CIA officer to Robert Novak, who then proceded to print the name. I've long subscribed to James Carville's notion of Novak as the "non-thinking man's conservative" but it's pretty appalling that he would just go ahead and print it. If true - and I doubt Novak got the name out of a hat - this could shed some real light on the dark side of this administration. I was willing to believe that the administration talked itself into thinking the WMD issue more serious than it actually was - and Saddam's own disinformation campaign seems to have contributed to that - but this qualifies as actual misconduct. Let's hope the press doesn't bury it. And let's hope noone lets Bob Novak off the hook for a genuine act of journalistic irresponsibility.

Story at CNN

Ignore Germany?

Gerhard Schroeder's recent Op-Ed in the New York Times, Germany Will Share the Burden in Iraq, highlights the real missed opportunity experienced by the Bush administration in its approaches to Europe before the war.

I have no pretensions that France was a potential partner with Iraq. Chirac's own personal connection to Saddam and France's history of voting in Iraq's favor, be the issue at question sanctions or treatment of the Kurdish northern area speaks for itself. But Germany was and is a different story.

Germany's own intelligence service, the BND, reported on several occasions about the extent of Iraqi weapons programs. In 2001, the BND reported that Iraq would be able to launch nuclear missiles at its neighbors within 3 years. This is quite a thing to read in our jaded post-April mindset, but it bears mentioning.

France and Germany tend to be lumped together as opponents of the war. In fact there was some daylight between them. On the issue of allowing NATO aid to Turkey France was intransigent and Germany ultimately cooperative. France was the state that attempted to bully Eastern Europe over its support of the US. Germany has attempted to compensate in other spheres of its relationship with us for damage done by opposition to the war - bolstering its commitment to peacekeeping in Afghanistan for example. One of the most passionately pro-American politicians in Europe is Germany's Joschka Fischer, whose support for our campaign in Kosovo led to him being physically assaulted.

And, as Schroeder does mention, he faced a no confidence vote over sending troops to Afghanistan. The extent of German pacifism is a factor worth considering, when his actions are viewed.

My suspicion is that Team Bush, which has a real knack for remembering slights, was stung deeply by Schroeder's campaigning against the war last fall, and also by the tastleless comparison that his justice minister, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin made between Bush and Hitler. Schroder did eventually dismiss Daeubler-Gmelin.

French anti-Americanism taps into a deep vein of sentiment. The German side of this phenomenon is far more recent in origin and springs from more intellectually genuine roots - namely Germany's deep fascination with pacifism and deep sensitity to nationalism. Germans I know are deeply troubled by the extent of nationalism they see in the US. I don't agree with the sentiment, but it seems neither a dishonest nor unreasonable statement.

Condi Rice's earlier formula of "forgive Russia, ignore Germany, punish France" is one in dire need of amendment. I'm glad to read that Bush and Schroeder have met and announced their mutual rapprochement. With real effort, I think Germany could be engaged to an extent that would frustrate French schemes to drive a wedge between the United States and Europe. Give it a shot already.

Dubyaphobia

Jonathan Chait has a disappointing piece in the latest edition of The New Republic on the case for hating Bush. Let me count the ways by which Chait hates #43:

His privileged birth and inability to recognize it

His highly conservative programs

His continual quest for partisan advantage in the wake of 9/11

The manner of his assuming office (the Nader and Florida factors)

The defeat to the idea of meritocracy that his success represents

His apparent lack of intelligence or curiosity

To be sure, Chait recognizes that hatred can have the tendency of sliding into irrationality. I quote:

Have Bush haters lost their minds? Certainly some have. Antipathy to Bush has, for example, led many liberals not only to believe the costs of the Iraq war outweigh the benefits but to refuse to acknowledge any benefits at all, even freeing the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. And it has caused them to look for the presidential nominee who can best stoke their own anger, not the one who can win over a majority of voters--who, they forget, still like Bush. But, although Bush hatred can result in irrationality, it's not the product of irrationality.

But in the end, the excesses of hatred are not the subject on his mind. Witness the closing paragraph:

You decide Bush is a dullard lacking any moral constraints in his pursuit of partisan gain, loyal to no principle save the comfort of the very rich, unburdened by any thoughtful consideration of the national interest, and a man who, on those occasions when he actually does make a correct decision, does so almost by accident.

There. That feels better.

My problem with Dubyaphobia is not grounded in its critique of his policies, at least his domestic ones. The very last sentence of Chait's piece brings it all home to me - in the end, indulging in this sort of ranting is self-indulgent and lazy. And I think it caters to the dark side of the liberal personality, without doing anything to advance liberal goals. As a member of the Star Wars generation, I've been brought up to believe that anger and hate come from the Dark Side of the Force, and we all knows what embracing that will lead to (without having to see any of the prequel movies in fact.)

Chait spends a fair amount of time discussing the issue of Dubya's intelligence, lamenting that: "ust as mainstream Democrats and liberals ceased to question Bush's right to hold office, so too did they cease to question his intelligence." He goes on to renew the case by citing a few instances where Dubya was clearly unaware of a topic being posed to him. But frankly, there could be any number of circumstances at play. Ask yourself: how many times has someone asked a question to which you knew the answer, but were unable to remember it in time? You might say back to me that you're not president - well fair enough, but it still doesn't go to a question of your intelligence.

Some - not Chait - tend to base their claim more on the self-evident rightness of liberal policy positions. This is not a conscious statement often, but it is implied. That is far deeper water because the essential contention is not really about Dubya but about conservatives in general.

The dark side of the liberal personality can be a smug sense of rightness, just as an equally intolerant self-righteousness is the dark side of the conservative personality. That is not to say that all liberals or conservatives have this dark side, but merely that these are vices to which each side can be prone. Frankly, I have a hard time hearing liberals snickering about Bush without hearing them tapping into their ids and venting. That this is electorally counterproductive is certain. It's also just plain ugly behavior.

I've generally seen Bush as canny, if not always well-briefed. His instincts are often pretty good, and he is known to be a gut decision-maker. Bill Clinton had a brief meeting with him in the last days of 2000 and later said to friends that he thought Bush was pretty smart after all. Is Bush attentive enough to the range of issues facing America and the world to be a good President? I personally doubt it, but I find it neither satisfying, nor helpful nor tasteful to despise or ridicule him.

In the underrated Godfather III Michael Corleone passes one very useful tip to his successor Vincent: "Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgement." Vincent, of course, doesn't heed it, and all too many liberals today aren't heeding it either. You want to get rid of Bush? Spend more time critiquing the current policy in Iraq than calling him a liar. Find a candidate who speaks to your brain instead of one who panders to your anger. Your objective for the next 14 months is not to vent or "feel better." It is to reclaim the White House and Congress and to set this country on a better path. Anger and hatred are costly indulgences.

# posted by Rob @ 3:59 PM

Building a Free Cuba by a trio of post-Communist leaders (Lech Walesa of Poland, Arpad Goncz of Hungary and the great Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic), is a great reminder of the wisdom and prudence that the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe have to offer both the rest of Europe and the United States.

Few things were so validating to me in my support of the war in Iraq as knowing that Vaclav Havel supported the American position. Eastern European delegates brought a note of sanity to the insane feeding frenzy of the Durban Conference in 2001. In a joint statement on September 2, 2001, the Eastern and Central Europe NGO Caucus released a concise and effective critique of Durban.

Some of its highlights include:

We must emphasize that the language of the chapter "Palestinians and
Palestine" as well as the deliberate distortions made to the chapter
"Anti-Semitism" is extremely intolerant, disrespectful and contrary to the
very spirit of the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.

and, more relevant to this post:

PS: On top of all the troubles of the NGO Forum, at the closing ceremony,
the delegates had to listen for over two hours to a speech by Fidel Castro.
We are offended by the fact that one of the worst dictators in the
contemporary world, particularly notorious for gross violations of human
rights, was invited to address this world gathering of non-governmental
organizations. Listening to Fidel speak, we only had to wonder why the
organizers had failed to invite Alexander Lukashenko, Turkmenbashi, Saddam
Hussein, or a representative of the Taliban regime.

Other NGOs outside the region also signed onto this document, but the shame of Durban is how few of the thousands there were willing to speak out against the hijacking of the conference by parties that didn't give a shit for human rights.

Havel, Walesa, Goncz and others in Eastern Europe have a real perspective on how Communist regimes can be dismantled. I hope that Europe and Washington can listen to them.

Four years on . . .

I stumbled on a 2000 election-era dispatch that makes for amusing reading now. From an article chronicling Al Gore's 11th-hour counterattack against Nader, I ran into the following quote from a Naderite:

a Nader supporter handing out leaflets, Joe Katroscik, repeated arguments made by many Nader supporters, who say that a Bush victory might just invigorate what Mr. Katroscik described as a "true progressive movement" in the country.

"Sometimes you have to cut the trees back," he explained. "Sometimes you have to really prune back the tree in order to help it grow."

I wonder how he thinks the tree is doing now? Was he on a branch that was due to be cut? Or, like most the Green Party base, was Joe from the upper-middle strata of our society, as he calmly assessed the need for pruning? Bet he didn't think that trees other than our own would be pruned. I'll take a wild guess and assume that (unlike myself) he didn't support the Iraq war.

Remember this. These arguments have been deployed before and they will be deployed again. Don't let anyone who said this in 2000 pretend that they didn't.

The story was found at Common Dreams

A couple of items at the always trenchant Little Green Footballs seem like appropriate additions to yesterday's post on 9/11. First consider some lines from W. H. Auden.

There Will Be No Peace

Though mild clear weather
Smile again on the shire of your esteem
And its colours come back, the storm has changed you:
You will not forget, ever,
The darkness blotting out hope, the gale
Prophesying your downfall.

You must live with your knowledge.
Way back, beyond, outside of you are others,
In moonless absences you never heard of,
Who have certainly heard of you,
Beings of unknown number and gender:
And they do not like you.

What have you done to them?
Nothing? Nothing is not an answer:
You will come to believe - how can you help it? -
That you did, you did do something;
You will find yourself wishing you could make them laugh,
You will long for their friendship.

There will be no peace.
Fight back, then, with such courage as you have
And every unchivalrous dodge you know of,
Clear in your conscience on this:
Their cause, if they had one, is nothing to them now;
They hate for hate's sake.


Auden, to be sure, probably had fascists in mind when writing this, but Bin Laden's fundamentalism has been profitably compared to fascism before.

Another take on the root causes of 9/11 can be offered here, by the following story from Yahoo News:

Barbie Deemed Threat to Saudi Morality

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia's religious police have declared Barbie dolls a threat to morality, complaining that the revealing clothes of the "Jewish" toy — already banned in the kingdom — are offensive to Islam.

"Jewish Barbie dolls, with their revealing clothes and shameful postures, accessories and tools are a symbol of decadence to the perverted West. Let us beware of her dangers and be careful," said a poster on the site.

This, of course, follows the earlier banning of Pokemon in Saudi Arabia because leading clerics concluded (in the apparent absence of any knowledge of the Japanese language) that the word 'Pokemon' is Japanese for "I am a Jew."

These stories of Wahhabis Gone Wild used to be funnier to me, but all I can see now is a country's religious elite determined to lead its congregants toward mass lunacy. And there is no way that we can ultimately avoid addressing the Saudi sources of the ideology that we face.

Two Years On . . .

I would be remiss not to comment, however meagerly, on the passage of the 2nd anniversary of September 11, 2001.

What seems paramount now, is how long ago it all seems. Perhaps I'm now totally acclimated into the world that 9/11 introduced us to; memory is such a personal thing that the distance of an event is inextricably tied to those events that followed it however unrelated, and my life has changed several times since that day.

But this is illusory; two years, or 730 days is a fairly trifling figure. By whatever combination of circumstance or fortune, noone I know was killed that day. But the abrupt extinguishing of some 3000 lives directly affected millions more. Friends of mine, and friends or family of theirs might have been on one of the flights, or in the WTC, but for some accident of fate. It turns out that we are a smaller country than we thought.

The act spoke for itself, which may be why so many people (notably on the far Left, but also on the far Right) felt compelled to interpret it and claim that their interpretations were the truly authentic ones. That they continued to advance these, without pause, when more susbstantive statements by the perpetrators were onhand, can only testify to how distant these voices have grown from the reality that you and I share. When Noam Chomsky declares it "entirely possible" that Bin Laden did not know about the 11 September attacks or that Bin Laden can be "taken at his word," this is the mark of someone in the advanced stages of delusion - perhaps a delusion as profound as whatever made Bin Laden think that his god was to be appeased by the immolation of thousands.

Thankfully, this was a delusion limited to marginal, if expressive segments of the public.

In conversation with people last night, we touched on a few points of contention. Were the victims of 9/11 heroes? Martyrs? I had thought that martyrdom required the choice to die, so the term seems inapt. The question of whether they were heroes is more difficult to address. Certainly the firefighters and police and the passengers on Flight 93 more than meet the standard; indeed it seemed to me that their heroism gave the country, or at least myself, some precious solace in the wake of the event, when fears about what lay ahead were most pronounced.

That, however, leaves so many others unconsidered - ordinary working people taking a flight or going to work on a mundane day without any way of knowing what calamity awaited them. Were they heroes? To a broader public, perhaps not. But to read the profiles of these individuals published in the New York Times afterward is to conclude that many, most, all perhaps were heroes in an everyday sense: parents, children or siblings working to support their families, serving as examples to others. It's our misfortune not to have known them before the calamity, but we need not compound it by presuming what they were not.

A broad, diverse segment of America and the world was taken away that morning and if we pause to linger, we can see reflections of ourselves among the victims. America remains a great place, and the post-9/11 world has jarred us yet again out of yet another fit of inaction in the larger world (for better or for worse, as my opinion of Bush's policy is mixed). But a necessary part of marking this day is remember the fragility of life, even in America, and to understand what that knowledge impels us to do, in our lives and in the world.

Just as Johnny Depp is flailingly trying to correct his earlier statement, another bold celebrity has entered the ring.

Carlson then steered the interview to politics, asking Spears if she'd supported the war in Iraq. Spears answered, "Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that."

Well, if you say so, Britney. I don't know where my political opinions would be without help from savvy celebrities . . .

(hat tip to Daniel Drezhner)

Speaking of O'Reilly (or shall I say 'O'뭃eilly'?), I saw the funniest thing the internet has hosted since the Arnold crank calls: a Booknotes-televised discussion between Al Franken, O'Reilly, Molly Ivins and Pat Schroeder as moderator, available here.

This was taped sometime in the late spring, before FOX News went and embarrassed itself by suing Franken for the use of "Fair and Balanced" in his book title. From about 35 minutes into it, onward, O'Reilly and Franken have at each other, with O'Reilly coming off somewhat worse (at one point telling Franken to "Shut up!!") Franken does appear to have been looking for a fight, so I'm guessing that there was some prior friction between the two. Still, he is at least funny and somewhat civil to O'Reilly, who repeatedly blows his top.

This is well worth the 90 minutes; although the first half is free of conflict, it does have a nice presentation by Molly Ivins, who keeps her cool throughout.

One of the more interesting geopolitical developments of the past decade has been the expansion of ties between India and Israel. Official relations between the two states date back to 1992, though there were certainly tacit ties before that point. Reported in the past week are two linked events that will mark the continued consolidation of the relationship: Ariel Sharon's visit to India and impending sale of $1 billion worth of airborne early warning radar systems to India by Israel.

Reuters notes that this will further skew the balance of power in the Indian subcontinent:

"This is not a unique capability but it is one that few nations possess and gives a huge war-fighting advantage to any air force that has it," said Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's Air Launched Weapons.

"The Phalcon would increase India's airpower advantage over an opponent such as Pakistan...by a very considerable margin."

Also noted in the article is an interesting counter-move by Pakistan, which is frustrated by its inability to block Indo-Israeli weapons deals: President Musharraf is debating recognizing Israel. On the surface, this may not be enough to impede the natural confluence of interests between India and Israel, it may offer a very tempting possibility to Israel of beginning to normalize its ties with the non-Arab Islamic states. How far these ties would go is an open question, but it is in Israel's interest to attempt to peel states away from rejectionism.

Within Pakistan, normalizing relations with Israel would enrage the Islamist opposition, and perhaps force Musharraf toward further confrontation with them. While searching on Google News for articles about this, I encountered a rather astonishing opinion piece at Paknews.com which was remarkable, not for strong support of recognition but for critically evaluating Pakistan's relations with Arab states. Notable is the following excerpt:

* Had any Arab Muslim country assisted virtually when the poor Pakistan was yet in the acute trauma of partition - and was get entangled in countless
issues of assortment in 1947/48, by the belligerent [India] - while this poor Pakistan was yet in the womb that it undertook every action in favor of the Turk Muslims, Palestinian Muslims and other Arab Muslims?

* Has any Arab Muslim country ever opened her mouth a little against the 56-years long Hindu atrocities on poor Kashmiris?

* Had any Muslim Arab country extended any assistance to Pakistan in the all out wars fought against [India], in 1965, 1971 - while numerous non Muslim countries were assisting [India] all roundly?


This is interesting, and an ironic parallel to one of the causes of India's own decision to seek closer ties with Israel: the perception among Indian elites that shunning Israel had not won any reciprocal support from Arab countries. There are a number of comments below, which I read - expecting all to be critical of the author. To my amazement, a significant number backed recognition, alongside the posts you would expect extolling eternal hatred toward Israel or Jews in general. One sample, by 'Pakistani' is below:

Pakistan has no problems with Israel and Israel has no problems with Pakistan. We should extent a hand of friendship to Israel and open up trade with Israel. It will benefit Pakistan and Israel. There is not reason not to recognize Israel! Israel has never done nothing to Pakistan or never even threatened Pakistan.

It will be interesting to see how this story develops. Musharraf just might have more support for this than I previously thought. And Israel may have to face real tradeoffs in its relations with the subcontinent.

And now, for some real news:

Johnny Depp Likens U.S. to 'Dumb Puppy'

I'm awaiting a storm on the right of people swearing to never watch Pirates of the Caribbean again, as well as folks burning their old VHS tapes of 21 Jump Street. Celebrity vents are doubly exasperating, first in their own right, and then for the reactions that they cause.

I respect Johnny Depp's work as an actor (don't we all?) but I'm not certain that he's chosen the right refuge from the world's "Big Dumb Puppy". Let me count the ways that France has made it clear that it, too, has teeth, claws, and an irritable disposition. We are talking about the country that chose to intervene in Rwanda in 1994, not to prevent the genocide, but to shield the fleeing perpetrators of the genocide (for information on this, see Philip Gourevitch's We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families. We are talking about the country that has acted to thwart the pursuit of accused Serbian war criminals in its sector of Bosnia (see Chuck Sudetic's analysis in The Atlantic). Need I mention Jacques Chirac's long friendship with Saddam, and his sale of a nuclear reactor to Baghdad?

But, let's leave the question of residence aside, because the below comment is a bit more vexing:

Depp recalled that French fries were renamed "Freedom" fries in the House cafeteria on Capitol Hill at the height of U.S. anger over France's refusal to back the administration of President George W. Bush over the war in Iraq.

"Nothing made me happier than when I read that — grown men and grown women in positions of power in the United States government," Depp said. "I was ecstatic because they revealed themselves as idiots."

Earth to Depp: this is not being staged for your own amusement. You may view this as farce, but there is real reason to see it as tragedy, and only a ghoul laughs during tragedy. For my part, I think the whole "Freedom Fries" thing is pretty funny, but for very different reasons (I have renamed my standard potluck dish "Freedom Potato Salad" in keeping with this glorious new custom). But if you dislike the direction the US has taken, like Mr. Scissorhands, snickering to yourself as you sail down the Loire is a funny way to address it.

Sighted blinking beside an article at FOX News:

Join O뭃eilly in the No Spin Zone.

Can't say I've heard of him, but the No Spin Zone could use some diversity. Hopefully, O뭃eilly will keep the maniac who usually runs the show in check.