Conducting the trainwreck

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 21:11:21 PM MST

The big news is that a prominent foreign policy advisor for the McCain campaign, Randy Scheunemann, was a lobbyist for Georgia. Apparently, not only did he receive hundreds of thousands from the republic, he may have been in part responsible for giving that country's government advice that led to the invasion of South Ossetia, the flashpoint for the current conflict with Russia. Scheunemann - a former member of the Project for the North American Century, the "think" tank that brought us the Iraq war - urged Georgian inclusion in NATO, among other acts that seem to have been intended to provoke Russia.

Josh Marshall:

Scheunemann's 'policy' was to get the Georgians ginned up on the idea that we were their close military allies and that we'd come to their rescue if their brinksmanship with the Russians went bad. Well, that didn't work out very well. Any situation where you start the shooting and then find yourself begging for a ceasefire within 48 hours is a major blunder. He's not an 'expert' on Georgia; he's the lead guy on the policy that got us into this situation. And the fact that John McCain would make him his chief policy advisor after he's been the conductor on so many trainwrecks should tell us all we need to know about Sen. McCain's foreign policy judgment.

McCain seems to be taking his cues on the Georgian conflict and making provocative statements against Russian, egging our country on to another Cold War.  

Your tax dollars at work: Russia v. Georgia

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 15:46:48 PM MST

Kaplan:

Regardless of what happens next, it is worth asking what the Bush people were thinking when they egged on Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's young, Western-educated president, to apply for NATO membership, send 2,000 of his troops to Iraq as a full-fledged U.S. ally, and receive tactical training and weapons from our military. Did they really think Putin would sit by and see another border state (and former province of the Russian empire) slip away to the West? If they thought that Putin might not, what did they plan to do about it, and how firmly did they warn Saakashvili not to get too brash or provoke an outburst?

It's heartbreaking, but even more infuriating, to read so many Georgians quoted in the New York Times-officials, soldiers, and citizens-wondering when the United States is coming to their rescue. It's infuriating because it's clear that Bush did everything to encourage them to believe that he would. When Bush (properly) pushed for Kosovo's independence from Serbia, Putin warned that he would do the same for pro-Russian secessionists elsewhere, by which he could only have meant Georgia's separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Putin had taken drastic steps in earlier disputes over those regions-for instance, embargoing all trade with Georgia-with an implicit threat that he could inflict far greater punishment. Yet Bush continued to entice Saakashvili with weapons, training, and talk of entry into NATO. Of course the Georgians believed that if they got into a firefight with Russia, the Americans would bail them out.

Now, there's some speculation that the US gave "tacit" support to a Georgian incursion into South Osesetia; for the record, Robert Farley's take seems more reasonable, that "motivated bias on the part of Saakashvili may have led him to believe that the Americans were making encouraging noises, because he wanted to believe the Americans were encouraging him."

Frankly, I don't think even the idiots in the Bush administration would green light a provocation of the irritated superpower on Georgia's border. Then again, I've been wrong about these folks before.  

Obama's foreign policy plans

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 23:25:27 PM MST

Okay, Berlin was more than a "little speech." It was a clear reaffirmation of Obama's intent to bring a disgraced United States back to the forefront of the international community as a leader for democratic values:

...the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.
The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

[snip]

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom - indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America's shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

Simply put, awesome. Obviously the use of "walls" has an emotional appeal in Berlin -- they know what he's referring to...and did I ever tell you I was in Germany and Berlin for the 1989 revolution? Forget Reagan, forget consumer goods; the '89 revolution was about people, just ordinary folks, like you reading this blog, who stood up and left. They had it, and they quit the system. And that was the end.

But I digress.  

Pre-emptive pardons for Bush law-breakers?

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 18:49:46 PM MST

The money quote:

"The president should pre-empt any long-term investigations," said Victoria Toensing, who was a Justice Department counterterrorism official in the Reagan administration. "If we don't protect these people who are proceeding in good faith, no one will ever take chances."

Sounds a lot like the Nuremberg Defense, eh? Yes, I'm aware of Godwin's Law - but we're talking about a government that was involved in illegal spying, illegal detention, torture, and kidnapping, and that reintroduced pre-emptive war to the world. At this point, we're entering a rarified arena and running out of suitable analogies. Is Pinochet a better comparison? South Africa's Apartheid state? Brezhnev?

And who here thinks the pardons will be for the regular joe spooks and other agents in the trenches? Me, neither. We've seen from the Abu Ghraib fallout how the administration rolls: throw the little guy under the bus while dodging any and all accountability.

The point here, the idea of pre-emptive pardons is odious. I don't want the government to "take chances" with my civil liberties. I want them to stay within the law, and I want accountability for those that don't, regardless of rank or station.

Bush's "malignant" legacy

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:25:17 PM MST

In short, Bush has had many "substantial" accomplishments, although they're "almost entirely malignant." Bacevich is talking about, among other things, Bush's legacy of permanent war; using pre-emptive war as a viable foreign policy option; using the DoD  as a means for the projection of power, not defense; setting a precedent of "imperial" power over national security, weakening our system of checks and balances; and expanding the security state.

In essence, the Bush presidency has changed the very fabric of our executive branch and federal power, and for the worse. But the worst of this legacy is that is has gone largely unexamined and unchallenged by the media or by mainstream political players.

The burden of identifying and confronting the Bush legacy necessarily falls on Obama. Although for tactical reasons McCain will distance himself from the president's record, he largely subscribes to the principles informing Bush's post-9/11 policies. McCain's determination to stay the course in Iraq expresses his commitment not simply to the ongoing conflict there, but to the ideas that gave rise to that war in the first place. While McCain may differ with the president on certain particulars, his election will affirm the main thrust of Bush's approach to national security.

The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict.

And that, my friends, is why Obama's seeming embrace of the current FISA rewrite causes such vociferous reaction from those of us who want to see Bush's legacy erased.

The Foreign Policy Primary

by: Matt Singer

Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:37:41 PM MST

1. McCain has a lot of credibility on foreign policy.
2. That Clinton has more credibility than Obama on foreign policy.

But he's, um, an expert.

As for the Clinton v. Obama thing, let me just say that I trust both of them way more than John "100 more years" McCain when it comes to foreign policy. But the idea that Obama hasn't passed a Commander-in-Chief test is just bizarre. Look at his endorsements: Bill Richardson, Lee Hamilton, Samantha Power (regardless of her stupid comments on Clinton, definitely a powerful/sharp foreign policy thinker), Larry Korb, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Ivo Daalder.

Hell, Chuck Hagel said he'd consider running on a ticket with Obama.

Frankly, these are all mainstream foreign policy thinkers -- and of the non-crazy realist variety. Mark T probably isn't a huge fan of all of these folks -- they're too focused on U.S. interests for some. But they don't define U.S. interests in the same way that, say, Bill Kristol does. And they're the sort of voices I'd trust in an Administration.

They say Obama's ready to be CinC. He passes my thresholds for showing good judgment. What's the basis for saying he's not ready?

Putting politics over policy

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:36:42 PM MST

My response is that as much as I appreciate the idea of a dead terrorist, I don't like what we did in Pakistan, and I really don't like the fact that we're bragging about it, or that a presidential candidate would openly discuss it as an option. And if Obama hadn't recommended it in August in a bid to gain political credibility, then you wouldn't be defending it, either.

How bizarre is that?

Steve Benen:

It's truly bizarre. One gets the distinct impression that the right opposes Obama's counter-terrorism position, not because he's wrong, but because he's a Dem whose opinions must be reflexively rejected regardless of merit. If Obama wants to pursue top al Qaeda operatives into Pakistan, Republicans argue, then the right answer is to not pursue top al Qaeda operatives into Pakistan.

Dead on. Conservative political tactics require that no part of a Democratic candidate's platform or belief system should be abetted or left unchallenged, even if the policy is good. (Bill Kristol's notorious opposition to the first Clinton health-care plan is the perfect example. Health care reform should be opposed, because it might be successful!)

Yes, believe it or not, many liberals do want to crack down on al Qaeda! Yes, many of us favor strong measures against Islamic terrorists, especially balanced by a practical foreign policy that would encourage allies, not pit us against the world. Iraq, of course, is the antithesis of good, practical foreign policy, and the worst possible way to deal with Islamic terror.

Is that so hard to understand? Well, we do have to remember that most neoconservative ideologues are not practical thinkers. (Thus, Iraq.) This kind of thinking only reinforces their incompetence and should serve as a reminder why our current brand of Republicanism shouldn't be trusted with major political offices.  

Iran not building the bomb

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 22:31:02 PM MST

That's right. Iran's not working on a nuclear weapons program. Like Kevin Drum, you may be wondering what all the bluster was about:

This NIE was apparently finished a year ago, and its basic parameters were almost certainly common knowledge in the White House well before that. This means that all the leaks, all the World War III stuff, all the blustering about the IAEA - all of it was approved for public consumption after Cheney/Bush/Rice/etc. knew perfectly well it was mostly baseless.

In any case, given the outcome of Iraq, that should still the saber-rattling around Iran, right?

Your liberal media: "US Officials: Iran Has Nuke Capability." (Hat tip, Kos.)  

Hillary: terror attack good for the GOP

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 11:42:12 AM MST

The relevant paragraphs:

Discussing the possibility of a new nightmare assault while campaigning in New Hampshire, Clinton also insisted she is the Democratic candidate best equipped to deal with it.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

"So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that," she added.

That's why conservative crazies are practically begging for domestic terror attacks. They think a good slaughter at America's Mall, say, would put them right back into the driver's seat.

Only thing is, it's not true that Americans think the GOP is better on national security. In an August 1 Rasmussen poll, it's the Democratic party voters trust more on national security issues, 42 to 40 percent. An August 21 Rasmussen poll reversed the numbers - 44 to 40 percent - trust Republicans more on the issue. In short, it's neck-and-neck.

What's true is that rhetoric from prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton only feeds into the media's implicit belief that Republicans are better suited to security. If a Democrat says that a Republican is better for an important job, voters will simply opt for the Republican -- even if the Democrat is implying that she's just as good as a Republican on that issue.

And in this case, the media meme is flat-out wrong. Republicans - at least Bush and his faithful Twenty Nine Percent -- have shown themselves completely incapable of manning a coherent national security policy. From 9/11 to Katrina to Iraq, this administration and its yes-men Congressional representatives have hamstrung our military capacity fighting an unwinnable and irrelevant war, while driving support to terrorist groups, and making the world a much less safer place. These Republicans are bad at wars, bad at diplomacy, bad at preparing for and dealing with domestic emergencies.

Matt Yglesias:

I think the Democrat best positioned to deal with GOP political mobilization in a post-attack environment is going to be the one who isn't reflexively inclined to see failed Republican policies resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans as a political advantage for the Republicans.

The other is that I think there's a pretty clear sense in which the further one is from Bush's Iraq policy, the easier it is politically to say that the failures of Bush's national security policy should be blamed on Bush's failed policies....Most of all, though, I think the politics of national security call for a strong, self-confident posture that genuinely believes liberal solutions are politically saleable and substantively workable, not the kind of worry-wort attitude that says we need to cower in fear every time Republicans say "terror."

And you wonder why Montana leftys think a Hillary Clinton nomination would destroy the state ticket.

Darmok and Jalad at Tenagra

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 13:37:22 PM MST

Citing a Star Trek episode in which the Enterprise encounters a species of aliens that speaks only in metaphor, O'Brien realized that Bush and his followers likely substitute romanticized and mythic ideology for historical fact.

...when righties talk about history, they are not talking about what actually happened in the past. Instead, they are evoking historical persons and events as archetype and allegory.

Thus, when they speak of Winston Churchill, they are not speaking of the real Winston Churchill. They are speaking of what Winston Churchill represents in their minds, which is the stubborn refusal to back down from a fight. In fact, the real Winston Churchill wrote a letter to Prime Minister David Lloyd George in 1922 advising him that British troops should abandon Iraq.

I think we should now put definitely, not only to Feisal but to the Constituent Assembly, the position that unless they beg us to stay and to stay on our own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate before the close of the financial year. I would put this issue in the most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to co-operate in every manner I would actually clear out. That at any rate would be a solution. ? At present we are paying eight millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having.

But instead of actually studying the life and words of Churchill for understanding, righties simply evoke the man as an archetype of bulldog, never-give-up tenacity. I've read that Bush keeps a bust of Churchill in the oval office, for inspiration. And perhaps there's something like tantric identity yoga going on here; Bush imagines himself to be the great Churchill, the wrathful dakini of Stubbornness.

Thus, Bush's speech about Vietnam was not about the actual war and its aftermath, but about the mythic symbolism it represents to the metaphor-bound minds of his base: the United States lost in Vietnam because of the craven weakness of the corrupt and effeminate left.  In reality, due to geopolitical, cultural, and historical reasons, the mission was doomed from the start. In any case, by 1968 it was obvious that the war was unwinnable. Our only options were to fight an ugly and perpetual war, or leave.

O'Brien:

Ah, but let us not bother with facts. Facts are for wonks and women. Real men, heroic men, listen to their hearts, or perhaps something else located along the lower part of the brain stem. We need not fear actual consequences of our actions. Our quest is to re-enter the heart of darkness and slay the demon therein, even though he is probably us. And if we fail, the failure will not be ours, but will be the Democratic Party's. Win/win.

It's time we had some grownups run the country.

The rehabilitation of Alden Pyle

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 23:35:38 PM MST

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 11:07:05 AM MST

Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday criticized President Bush's foreign policy, and said if she were president she would do things differently, including beginning diplomatic talks with supposed enemies and sending envoys throughout the world.

"I would begin diplomatic discussions with those countries with whom we have differences, to try to figure out what is the depth of those differences," said Clinton, who spoke to about 1,000 people at Luther College in Decorah in northeastern Iowa.

"I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people. You don't make peace with your friends -- you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don't agree with," said Clinton....

Hillary Clinton, on July 23:

[The debate] was highlighted by a clash between the top 2008 Democratic contenders after Obama said he would be willing to meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. The Bush administration considers the nations regional troublemakers.

Mr Obama...said it was important to search for areas "where we can potentially move forward" and added, "I think it's a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."

Ms Clinton, the New York senator, disagreed, saying such meetings could be used as propaganda purposes.

"Certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria, until we know better what the way forward would be," she said.

Rice Kickbacks with Her Mind on Chevron's Money

by: Matt Singer

Thu May 10, 2007 at 16:22:09 PM MST

Cripes -- these folks are a joke.

Sure, I'll Let Him Buy on Credit

by: Matt Singer

Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 17:28:55 PM MST

  In an interview, Pelosi also said she was puzzled by what she considered the president's minimalist explanation for his confidence in the new surge of 21,500 U.S. troops that he has presented as the crux of a new "way forward" for U.S. forces in Iraq.

  "He's tried this two times - it's failed twice," the California Democrat said. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.' "

  Asked if the president had elaborated, she added that he simply said, " 'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."

Is our President six years old? Seriously, WTF.

Retired Montana General: "We don't have them [enough troops], and it is too late."

by: Matt Singer

Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:23:09 AM MST

This escalation plan isn't a serious plan. It's just that it was the only plan left. And a fumbling Bush Administration looked at the only two options left on the table -- the ISG's recommendation of starting a drawdown or the McCain plan of escalating -- and went with the one that looked less like admitting defeat.

So they doubled down.

It's tough to wrap one's mind around this administration's infinite ability to make things worse, but they're doing it once again. And they're doing it again over the advice of everyone who has been right from day one and the rest of the country that has realized just how incapable these fools are of even tying their shoes.

For their idiocy, another 20,000 Americans' lives will be in danger. That's the only real result we'll see here.

Jon Tester Comes Out Against Escalation

by: Matt Singer

Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 21:13:18 PM MST

Tonight, the President proposed sending more troops into Iraq as a strategy for victory.  Staying the course by escalating this war only spells disaster.

I call on the President to listen to the Iraq Study Group. The solution for Iraq will not solely be a military one.  Switching to political and diplomatic solutions involving our allies in the region is not a defeatist strategy, but instead an appropriate course for a war of this complexity and magnitude.

Today my colleague, Sen. Max Baucus, said he would not have voted for the war knowing what we know today. I commend Max for his courage and stand with him, the thousands of Montanans and millions of Americans who agree we cannot afford the status quo.  We have already lost too much blood because of an Administration that will not admit when it is wrong.

I will continue to hold the President, our Commander in Chief, accountable for a sensible plan for Iraq to get our troops home as soon as possible.

The Escalation Will Not Be Armorized...or Authorized

by: Matt Singer

Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 17:37:02 PM MST

Did I say preparing? I meant, they are sending troops over. That's right. The escalation has begun.

He'll announce his policy tonight. He'll talk a lot about seeking input. But even though military leaders oppose escalation. And even though prominent Democrats and Republicans are saying this idea is folly, he's just doing it.

This makes Congress's response even more critical. Max's speech today was a good start -- but now the question is this: how far are Democrats willing to go to reinstate the rule of law into America's foreign policy?

Let's stop this escalation.

Stopping the Escalation in Iraq

by: Matt Singer

Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 16:44:24 PM MST

Using the power of the purse is nothing new -- Congress can use its authority to place limits on war powers. But let's face it -- when even Ollie North is saying the President is going too far and is out of touch with what troops want, we should probably rein the executive in.

The question now is whether Congress will actually move to prevent the escalation -- even a lot of Republicans have voiced opposition to escalation and Gordon Smith of Oregon is calling Kennedy's bill "a good idea" -- or simply make it a rhetorical strategy.

Let's hope they actually do something.