Monthly Archives: April 2008

Persian Red Herrings

I have been meaning for a week to get around to addressing this absurd question asked by George Stephanopolous, of Mickey Mouse dot com, at last week’s Democratic Presidential debate in Pennsylvania:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, let’s stay in the region. Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States? (as per Council for Foreign Relations transcript)

I held off because there has been such a din off criticism of the debate, and criticism of the criticism, i figured someone else would raise this.

The responses to this question varied from Sen. Obama’s rather restrained

…I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons…

which was wrapped up in an answer which dealt mostly with the unasked question of non-proliferation and containment, and on follow up,

…it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we — one whose security we consider paramount, and that — that would be an act of aggression that we — that I would — that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.

to Sen. Clinton’s more bellicose response

Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States

which then lead to a more extensive explanation of the importance of non-proliferation and containment.

This was only the begining, though.  Here is further belicosity from Sen. Clinton on Good Morning America (also a Mickey Mouse property) when asked by Andrew Cuomo to expand on her earlier comments she said this:

I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran…In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

So, what is my complaint here?  Is it the apparent inconsistency in Sen. Clinton’s position with regard to attacks, diplomacy or, for that matter, hypotheticals?  No, tho that is ably covered by Jake Tapper in this piece No, my complaint is the absurdity of the question, and why neither candidate demonstrated an understanding of the region by answering simply:

While such hypothetical scenario as an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel may seem stark, there is more heat there than light.  The more likely threat in the region is that with Iran’s expanding capability to enrich uranium, and their complicity in the training, arming and command and control of Hessbollah, and now Hamas; the more likely scenario is one in which the Iranians supply one of these terrorist forces, these avowed enemies of Israel, with a suitcase bomb.  If we are to be serious about such threats then we need to find productive means to engage Iran and bring them back into the community of nations who demonstrate through deeds as well as words their willingness to comply with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.  And should they fail to, we must make sure that they know that they will be held responsible not just for their actions, but for their client’s actions.

Of course the right question was not asked, and the right answer was not given.  Oh well, we can now look forward to World War III.

On Descent Into Mire

Pawn had a discussion last night, as the results from Pennsylvania were first coming in, with his good buddy K. K went into a rant about this year’s campaign, the essence of which was “A Pox On Both Their Houses!” but expressed in infinitely more colorful language. This morning the New York Times agreed with him. Here is an excerpt from their lead editorial today:

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.
Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work.

No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they’re wrong.
The Low Road To Victory – The New York Times

I shared this with my buddy K, and here is his more considered, less colorful, but no less damning response:

So I’m not the only one who is mortally ill at the sight of what should have been, our Shaka Zulu(s), our 300, our “He/She has risen!” rolling around in the fetid diarrhea of what passes for modern governance. Would they have had to walk through it like the faithful through the valley of the shadow of death? Yes! Point the Finger of Shame at ourselves! We have invited that level of non-discourse into our houses simply by not bothering to examine the bottom of our shoes along with those of our guests when we come home. And the bottom of our shoes is the level that most of the activity and personalities in Washington apparently aspire to. No one can possibly listen and watch those craven idiots on a daily basis and think otherwise. But I expected, wanted, desired, needed… prayed for…these two to be like fire walkers, to have their eye on the prize and to deliver us from our self-inflicted evil, they were to stride over and past the na-na-boo-boo of the 2 major political parties, to actually talk about issues, to run on their own strengths, to be leaders, goddamnit!.Instead the two of them have slipped on the masks and dived willy-nilly into the barrel of monkeys and are now working double shifts in the clown factory.

Woe unto us.

Well put K! Why am I thinking about Pogo right now…

Rules? What Rules?

There has been a lot of back and forth lately amongst the punditocracy and the campaigns about who, in the Democratic primary, has the most popular votes, and what that means.  Currently Sen. Obama holds that distinction, along with the most Pledged Delegates and most state wins.  But there is a movement afoot to convince the uncommitted Super Delegates that they should base their decision upon who has the upper hand in popular vote, as Sen. Clinton tries to rack up an advantage there over the next 6 weeks.

What is wrong with this picture, and why is no one talking about it?

The Democratic National Committee allows the state parties to choose how they select their pledged delegates; Caucus, Primary (open or closed) or a mixture (see Texas).  Only the primaries render a popular vote total — the whole point of the caucus process is to render a collective judgment, not a individual one.  So, if Super Delegates are to suddenly base their decisions solely upon popular vote, they will effectively be ignoring all of these states: Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii and Wyoming.

Given that Sen. Clinton is so upset about the potential exclusion of Michigan and Florida delegations from the convention (and whose popular vote she choses to include in her totals) can we count on her to fight against the potential exclusion (disenfranchisement) of the voters of these 14 states and territories?

Pawn expects not.

It does beg the question: What is the point of party nominating rules?

A Rich Roll


Frank Rich was in high dudgeon yesterday, and no one does it as well as he does.  Yesterday his topic was the Pennsylvania debate/debacle from Wednesday night.  Here is a sample, with some of my favorite lines:

In this one-size-fits-all analysis, Mr. Obama must be the new Dukakis, sure to be rejected by white guys easily manipulated by Lee Atwater-style campaigns exploiting race and class. But some voters who lived through 1988 have changed, and quite a few others are dead. In 2008, they are supplanted in part by an energized African-American electorate and the young voters of all economic strata who fueled the Obama movement that many pundits didn’t take seriously before Iowa. And that some still don’t. Cokie Roberts of ABC predicted in February that young voters probably won’t show up in November because “they never have before” and “they’ll be tired.”

However out of touch Mr. Obama is with “ordinary Americans,” many Americans, ordinary and not, have concluded that the talking heads blathering about blue-collar men, religion, guns and those incomprehensible “YouTube young people” are even more condescending and out of touch. When a Washington doyenne like Mary Matalin, freighted with jewelry, starts railing about elitists on “Meet the Press,” as she did last Sunday, it’s pure farce. It’s typical of the syndrome that the man who plays a raging populist on CNN, Lou Dobbs, dismissed Mr. Obama last week by saying “we don’t need another Ivy League-educated knucklehead.” Mr. Dobbs must know whereof he speaks, since he’s Harvard ’67.
Shoddy! Tawdry! A Televised Train Wreck! – New York Times

Fine stuff there, Frank!

A Prodigy Of Fear And A Portent Of Broached Mischief

Six months ago I wrote about the seemingly willfull ignorance of the global effects and spread of the so-called sub-prime mortgage crises in this post.  The United Kingdom has indeed been facing a calamatous trend very much as we have.  The latest is a series of cuts to the English equivilent to the Prime Rate, three cuts so far, to the current 5% (still double our 2.5%).  In an interesting turn, however, lenders have not been passing these cuts along to borrowers.  So, while liquidity in the capital markets has been preserved, little or no beneficial effect has reached the consumer.  Meanwhile home prices in the UK have dropped by 2.5% just in March.

The British as a people are deeply in debt, more so than any other rich country.  By various measures the average household in Britain carries from £9,052 to £56,078 in debt (depending upon whether or not mortgages and unsecured loans are included).  This represents a national debt to GDP ratio of 1.62:1, versus 1.42:1 in the US and 1.09:1 in Germany (widely considerd a wealthy country).  The Brits enjoyed the fruits of this profligate borrowing and spending while rates were low.  But, a combination of rising rates in the past 12 months, and then the collapse of the American sub-prime market, the run on Northern Rock, the ensuing BOE bailout and now cascading home prices…

As the Bard said “’tis not well/That you and I should meet upon such terms/As now we meet. You have deceived our trust,/And made us doff our easy robes… A prodigy of fear and a portent/Of broached mischief to the unborn times”

Beware Of Ex-Presidents

Much has been made of Vice President Al Gore’s failure, back in 2000, to fully utilize President Bill Clinton on the campaign trail during the general election contest against then Governor George Bush.  Many unhappy democrats — when they got done blaming Ralph Nader, David Boies, elderly Floridians, the butterfly ballot, etc. — complained that had Gore just used Clinton more in the campaign he would surely have won the election.  Well, fast forward to 2008, where former President Clinton is a constant fixture both in his wife Hillary’s Presidential campaign and in those sort of headlines which that self-same campaign dreads, and maybe Mr. Gore doesn’t look so foolish after all.

First we had the roundly condemmed series of unfortunate comments in New Hampshire and South Carolina, “Fairy tale” or “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina…“.  Now we have Bill’s innaccurate and distracting attempts to defend Mrs. Clinton against the press infactuation with her inflated and inaccurate remarks about her visit to Bosnia in 1996.  In this latest round he has managed to reintroduce, much to the press’ delight, an issue which had finally died down, and gave it new currency, with just over a week left before Pennsylvania votes.

It is looking as though unless he himself is the candidate Mr. Clinton is not such a sure asset on the stump after all.

How About Some Truth?

Listening Post - London Science Museum

I have just finished watching Nightline on the Mickey Mouse network, and Terry Moran held a pretty good interview with General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker. What I really want to see, however, is someone, anyone, who will take the high podium, the bully pulpit, and say the truth. I want to hear someone say, “Look, we all know we were hoodwinked into this war, but this is where we are now and we had best figure out a good way out.”

The Democrats are not saying this. Neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are willing to own up to the uncomfortable fact that even if we are appalled at how we got into this mess, it is our mess and we owe it to the Iraqis and the world to get out properly.

The Republicans will not own up to it either. Mr. McCain has the distinction, however, of coming the closest to that. His formulation is that he wouldn’t have done it this way, but we have to see it through. He has only to pivot slightly (and don’t doubt that he can) and he can just as easily claim to have been against this misadventure all along.

What the public is thirsting for is not so much change as honesty. It may seem like change at first blush, but only because this is the most honesty impaired administration of all time (no, not since Nixon — of all time). The change that people really want is for their government to trust them enough to tell them the truth, and any wannabe administration will do themselves a huge favor if they get that process started now.

I prescribe this:

  • Tell the truth — It was a mistake to start this war
  • Tell the uncomfortable truth — We own this, and we cannot just walk away
  • Describe the next step — We need a plan to get out, and we cannot just run away (see George Packer)
  • Plan for truth and reconciliation — We must learn how this happened and how to prevent it happening again
  • Realign the region — We cannot get out as long as the region is as frightfully misaligned as it currently is. We must work to achieve true realignment, which means talking to Iran, Syria and (ick) Hessbollah.

I am no Mid-East expert, but I can clearly see that we must do at least this if we are ever to gain respite from the hell that Bush/Cheney has visited upon us and Iraq. I only hope that one of our candidates will see this as well. Posturing is one thing, but leadership calls for more than postures, it calls for vision, action and sometimes a little discomfort.

Bring on the discomfort. Now.

Blues Over Blue Men


I am certainly not the first to comment on the “farcical” Olympic torch relay which has been winding its way across the globe and through the news recently.  Following the disastrous attempts to conduct the relay in London and Paris, The Independent has asked a question which has been on many minds; Who are the mysterious Men in Blue?

Barging people out of the way, and even scuffling with some of the 1,000 police officers called in to provide extra security, the tracksuited guards made their presence felt across the capital. Their behaviour has prompted many to ask whether Scotland Yard deliberately turned a blind eye to their tactics.

“Britain seems to have caved in to demands from Beijing that Chinese security agents police the streets of London,” said Matt Whitticase, of Free Tibet UK. “It certainly fits in with the supine approach Britain has taken towards China over the years, compared with other nations.”

Shami Chakrabati, director of the human rights group Liberty, added: “Everyone appreciates the difficult duty of our police to hold the line between the Olympic ceremony and critics and supporters of the Chinese regime. But who were the ominous figures running in formation in light blue uniforms? Where was their lawful authority to scuffle with policemen and protesters?”
Questions raised over mysterious ‘men in blue’ – Home News, UK – The Independent

Ah yes, a supine Britain…

Penn-manship

William Penn

I wrote some time ago about Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s now former aide, and his conflicts of interest. Nearly a year ago he said “Working with Hillary, I have found the mixing of corporate and political work to be stimulating, enormously helpful in attracting talent, and helpful in cross- pollinating new ideas and skills. And, I have found it good for business.”

Maybe not anymore. What fascinates me about this latest denouement is that Penn has fallen in Pennsylvania. Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

Here’s Newsday’s take on it:

On Friday, The Wall Street Journal reported that Penn met with representatives from Colombia’s government in his capacity as CEO of the Burson-Marsteller PR firm on March 31 to push the Colombian Free Trade agreement through Congress. Penn later apologized, calling it an “error in judgment.”

Penn – who infuriated many other Clinton advisers by refusing to quit his private-sector job during the campaign — was given his walking papers by the angry Clintons over the weekend, according to campaign insiders.

“They made it clear it was time for him to go,” said one top staffer on condition of anonymity. “So he did the honorable thing.” Sources told Newsday that the Colombia story was the last straw for Bill Clinton, a longtime Penn defender who had for months resisted calls to replace the pollster after a series of embarrassing episodes and questionable advice.

Hillary’s Chief Strategist is Ousted – Newsday