Bill Kristol pushes for war with Libya, but there are more sensible alternatives

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Bill Kristol -- and this should hardly come as a surprise to anyone -- is pushing for war with Libya, arguing, like a broken record, that a no-fly zone wouldn't be enough and that the U.S. should "take out [Qaddafi's] ships in the Mediterranean" and "take out tanks and artillery," but more sober minds are, understandably, rather more hesitant to intervene so recklessly.

At Slate the other day, for example, Fred Kaplan asked all the right questions:

But let's say Obama was fine with taking the risk, assuring the nation and the world that he wouldn't fall into the escalation trap—that he'd order U.S. fighter planes in the area (an air base in Italy, an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean) to enforce a no-fly zone and go no further. There would still be some things to figure out. For instance: How much of Libya do you want to restrict? (All of it? Just the Mediterranean coastal area? Just the eastern territories?) What are the rules of engagement? (Do we shoot down all aircraft that enter the zone, fixed-wing and helicopters? What if a Libyan pilot fires back? Do we destroy their air defenses ahead of time or just when they turn on their radar? If Qaddafi's planes keep flying, do we bomb his runways? If the planes are down but Qaddafi sends in tanks, do we bomb their tanks?) Will other nations send their planes, too, or just their blessings, if that? How long do you want to keep this up?

These questions, and many more, have to be answered before the military can even begin to plan a campaign.

But even before any of these questions can be asked, there's a more basic question still: What is the desired goal of this action? Is it to pressure Qaddafi to stand down? Is it to provide air cover to the rebels, so they can fight Qaddafi's ground forces on more equal footing? Whatever the goal, if the no-fly zone doesn't get us there, should we try other means? And if not, why not? As Clausewitz wrote, war is politics by other means. War is fought for a political objective. If that objective is important enough to justify one form of military intervention, why not another form? What is the goal? How far are you willing to go to accomplish the goal? How important is the goal?

And at The Washington Note, Steve Clemons expressed concerns over a possible no-fly zone:

In short, a no-fly zone is a high cost, low return strategy that doesn't necessarily create a military tipping point in favor of the Libyan opposition. Gaddafi is at war with his own people, and it's natural and important to try and protect and help unarmed protesters and innocent victims -- but a no-fly zone may harm the situation more than help.

If the US and NATO impose a no-fly zone, it gives Gaddafi a frame he thrives in: Libya against what he calls the imperialistic and neo-colonial interventions of evil America and the West. Last week at the TED 2011 meeting in Long Beach, Al Jazeera Director General Wadah Khanfar underscored the significance that the protests shaking the entire Middle East were occurring without the clutter and distraction and potential delegitimization of foreign intervention.

This is important. A no-fly zone changes what appears on TV and changes the entire frame. What is happening in the Middle East will instantly become about what the West will do and won't do -- rather than on what the citizens who have had enough are doing for themselves.

I still believe we should help and there are ways to do so without a large military footprint.

Among these and perhaps most importantly is sharing real time intelligence with the Opposition, from targeting to what Gaddafi's movements are. Stop the flow of mercenary goons into the country. Consider a blockade. Perhaps look at facilitating third countries helping to re-arm and supply the military stocks of the Opposition with no US weapons visibility -- which will only stoke the conspiracy theories that run rampant that the US has become Messianically obsessed with regime change and will tilt outcomes in directions it wants rather than what the public is calling for.

Send food, water, shelter and medical supplies to support those in need -- on the borders with Egypt & Tunisia -- as well as inside Libya.

Knee jerking wildly as usual, Kristol doesn't seem to be considering the situation with that sort of considered perspective. Ultimately, yes, the goal may very well be regime change -- i.e., something other than Qaddafi, though Kristol obviously want that "something" to have his stamp of neocon approval -- but the question is how to get there without making the situation worse and without the U.S. sinking into yet another quagmire. Kaplan's questions need to be answered satisfactorily before any military intervention should be started, but, before that even, other alternatives, such as the ones Clemons mentions, should be pursued.

This isn't about being soft on Qaddafi. He is indeed a "monster... at war with his own people," as Clemons says, and we (those of us in the West but also those in the Arab world) do need to try to "stop him from slaughtering people as he moves east across the country," as Kristol argues. But, again, heavy-handed military intervention -- and perhaps even unilateral intervention, or yet another military misadventure in a part of the world that isn't exactly sympathetic to American objectives and the imposition of American power -- hardly seems to be the answer.

Elephant Dung #17: At CPAC, Ron Paul libertarians attack Cheney and Rumsfeld

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.) 

Highlighting a major divide within the Republican Party -- that separating isolationist (often Tea Party) libertarians from interventionist, warmongering neocons (and their ilk) -- Ron Paul supporters used the right-wing insanitarium known as CPAC to launch into a verbal assault on two of the major figures of the Bush regime, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the latter (hilariously) receiving this year's CPAC "Defender of the Constitution" award:

One shout of "where's Bin Laden?" rang out as Cheney spoke of Rumsfeld.

That led to the pro-Cheney contingent (which it should be said greatly outnumbers the opposition) to shout the hecklers down with the familiar "USA, USA" chant.

It was all very odd, especially considering that when Cheney appeared as the "surprise guest" at last year's CPAC he was greeted with the kind of cheers generally reserved for a rock star.

But Team Paul -- whose numbers appear to have grown at CPAC in 2011 -- were not going to let that happen this time around.

"Uh, Defender of the Constitution?" Justin Bradfield of Maryland scoffed when I caught up with him after he walked out of Rumsfeld's speech. "Let's see: he expanded the Defense Department more than pretty much any other defense secretary and he enforced the Patriot Act."

"[Speaking] as a libertarian, that's not really the type of person who should be getting Defender of the Constitution," he added.

Bradfield said the moment showed that "half" of CPAC this year is libertarian, which means his side is winning in the civil war between "libertarians and right-wing conservatives."

"We're loud," he said.

Ah, yes, the GOP civil war. (Hence this whole Elephant Dung series.) Good times.

Oh, by the way, someone even shouted "war criminal" at Cheney. Sure, that could have been someone on the left who just happened to be there, but the battle was clearly being waged between the Ron Paul Teabagging libertarians and the supporters of the warmongering neocons.

That divide isn't going away anytime soon, and it promises to contribute to the further fracturing of the GOP's coalition, not least with the Teabaggers gaining more and more confidence.

Here, watch it for yourself:

Elephant Dung #13: Beck and Kristol trade insults over Egypt

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

The right has had a hard time figuring out where to stand on the situation in Egypt.

Or, rather, it has had a hard time coming up with a unified position, simply because there isn't one, what with some conservatives backing Mubarak (and U.S.-friendly dictatorships generally), some of them because they support Israel no matter what and Israel backs Mubarak, others lashing out against Islam as the great threat to America and asserting, without a shred of convincing evidence (the Muslim Brotherhood is not evidence), that the pro-democracy movement in Egypt is basically Iran-style Islamism, others, on the other side, still buying into Bush's democracy-promotion agenda and approving the prospect of change in Cairo.

Conservatives like to stick together. You know, like with "taxes are bad," "abortion is wrong," etc. The Iraq War ultimately exposed huge fault lines on the right. And now, with Egypt, conservatives are actually coming to blows, including two of the most prominent, Krazy Bill Kristol and even crazier Glenn Beck:

Fox News's Glenn Beck lashed out at Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on his radio show this morning, accusing Kristol of betraying conservatism and missing the significance of what Beck sees as an alliance between Islamism and socialism.

"I don't even know if you understand what conservatives are anymore, Billy," Beck said in his extended, sarcastic attack on Kristol. "People like Bill Kristol, I don't think they stand for anything any more. All they stand for is power. They'll do anything to keep their little fiefdom together, and they'll do anything to keep the Republican power entrenched."

Kristol this weekend took Beck to task for the latter's skepticism of the Egyptian uprising:

When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He's marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.

Kristol's words drew an approving nod from National Review's Rich Lowry, a rare public repudiation of the influential Fox host from a conservative elite that quietly dislikes him. 

And all this at the time of the Reagan birth centennial. What was that about some 11th commandment?

Now, there's really no contest between Kristol and Beck. Kristol's a smart guy who often knows what he's talking about, while Beck is paranoid and insane. And Kristol is right that Beck is "marginalizing himself" with this conspiracy-theory nonsense. It's good to see that Kristol, a vicious Republican operative who has never shied away from spewing nonsensical and utterly ridiculous talking points, isn't even pretending to play along with Beck.

But, you know, Beck is sort of right, too, isn't he? I mean, Kristol may talk principle but he's really all about power, about getting Republicans elected and keeping them there. Think back to the '90s, when he was the source of the Republican opposition to "Hillarycare," all because he didn't want Bill Clinton to have a victory on a key, and historic, social policy issue.

And yet Kristol isn't necessary all about power. He isolated himself in 2000, for example, with his support for the renegade John McCain and he has certainly spent much of his career in Washington, and inside Republican circles, pushing a specific neocon agenda, specifically around a neocon view of American global hegemony. That's about power, too, but national rather than personal, and I suppose Kristol has at times been willing to run counter to the prevailing winds in the Republican Party, even if, in public at least, he is generally a good team player.

Anyway, it's fun to see these two go after each other. And yet it's not just about two prominent conservatives trading insults, it's about a serious divide on the right, with Republicans unable to land on a coherent message, let alone one they can all agree with.

The situation in Egypt will slowly drift away from American consciousness and will likely have no play at all in next year's Republican primaries, but this divide and others will remain, and deepen, and Republicans, divided against themselves, might just unravel into all-out civil war.

Enjoy.

John Bolton for president! Wait, that John Bolton?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, crazy neocon John Bolton:

John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells National Review Online that he is seriously considering a 2012 presidential run. "I am a Goldwater conservative," he says. "I am not a professional politician. I don't anticipate running a typical kind of campaign, if I do make that decision."

In an interview this morning in his Washington office, Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime diplomat, opened up about a potential campaign, discussing his views on foreign policy and domestic affairs. "I just don't think that a Republican can convincingly oppose the president using talking-point platitudes," Bolton tells us. As he looks at his options, Bolton says that he wants to "shape the debate, and hopefully make an impact on the national-security issues."

He wouldn't win, of course, but, whatever his efforts at hyper-gravitas, he'd be an amusing addition to the Republican field (a field that could be as unamusing as Romney, Thune, and Pawlenty).

Remember that he only served as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. as a recess appointee. The Senate wasn't going to confirm him and so Bush II put him there on his own.

And why? Well, here's what I wrote about him back in 2005:

[B]y reputable accounts a reprehensible man who has intimidated and harassed subordinates at the State Department (where he is still -- God help us -- Cheney's minion (and formerly Powell's nemesis) as undersecretary of state for arms control... something he doesn't even believe in!), who childishly lashes out in red-faced rage at any and all disagreement from his staff, who seems to lack anything in the way of humility, who rejects the legitimacy of international law, who doesn't seem to grasp the complexity of international relations and the nuanced shades of international diplomacy, who amorally evaded the question of Rwandan genocide during his recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings, and who has repeatedly attacked the United Nations, even saying publicly that "if the U.N. Secretariat Building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

For background, I highly recommend Fred Kaplan's articles at Slate from that time on Bolton's nomination: here, here, here, and here. 

The good thing about a Bolton run is that it would force Republicans to address Bush's foreign and military policies (when they'd rather lie about Obama, though of course Bolton do that, too) and remind voters that the Republican Party foreign policy establishment is controlled by warmongering neocon extremists who are hell-bent on exerting American power in reckless and irresponsible ways.

And hey, maybe he'd joke about nuking Chicago again. So hilarious -- at least to CPAC Insanitarium types.

Anyway, if Bolton wants to position himself as a "Goldwater conservative," there's really only one suitable response. And here it is:

The transparent insincerity of Krazy Bill Kristol, partisan hack

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I've met Krazy Bill Kristol a couple of times. I've even spoken to him about my academic work (long story -- one of my teachers at the Univ. of Toronto was one of his teachers at Harvard). He's not a stupid man. Sure, he's a partisan hack with a whole lot of neocon fervor, and I think he's wrong about just about everything, but I'm not about to ridicule him for lack of intellectual capacity, even if he deserves a whole lot of ridicule for just about everything he says and writes and, well, is.

And I've been deeply critical of him here at The Reaction. In fact, I think we all have.

And sometimes, or a lot of the time, it's just so transparently obvious what he's up to, as he spews arguments that are just plain stupid. Like, for example, this, from earlier today:

There's a really big snowstorm coming to D.C.tonight. It would be unsafe to ask all the staffers and Hill employees who'd be needed at the Capitol if Congress stays open all hours this weekend, as Harry Reid intends, to drive to and from work -- especially since many will have to do so at night, and they won't be well-rested. So from the point of view of public safety and personal well-being, Ben Nelson can do everyone a favor, announce today he won't vote for cloture, and let everyone stay home this weekend.

Furthermore, Harry Reid is maniacally insisting on a Christmas Eve vote on a bill whose final text no one has seen yet. So from a good government point of view, Nelson can say that he feels he has to be against cloture.

And of course there's no need to vote in December rather than January or February -- it's just that Reid fears the already unpopular bill can't stand up to more public examination and debate. So from the point of view of respecting democracy and the American people, Nelson can insist that he needs time -- once we have Reid's text -- to go back to Nebraska and have some town meetings to let his constituents' voices be heard.

Two things:

1) Kristol has nothing positive to add to the health-care reform debate. He's just against it. And, to that end, the end of killing it altogether, he's all for obstructing and delaying as much as possible. So if there's no need to vote in December, there's no need to vote in January or February, or perhaps at all next year, and so on and so on. The "argument" is absurd. At some point a vote needs to be held. Why not this month? Oh, right, because the bill will likely pass and there will be actual reform. That's what Kristol knows and fears. There's still work to be done, not least winning the support of Nelson and Lieberman, but we're almost there. Unlike last time, with Hillarycare, Kristol has lost, and he knows it.

2) Kristol likely doesn't give a shit about the welfare of Hill staffers, or at least not much of one. So his deep concern for their safety at this time of impending snowstorm is obviously insincere. He just wants any excuse to delay the vote, which is why he's pushing Nelson to make a decision now. As Jon Chait notes sarcastically, "Kristol is a man of ideas, not some hack who marshals any available argument that serves his political ends." And as Chait correctly points out, if the roles were reversed, Kristol wouldn't be pushing for everyone to be sent home ahead of a key vote. Kristol's "argument" is so stupid and so insincere, and so obviously so, it isn't possible to take him at all seriously. Yeah, yeah, we know he's against reform, and we know he badly wants Nelson to side with the Republicans. So then just say it and don't bullshit us with "the point of view of public safety and personal well-being."

No, he's not a stupid man. He knows full well what he's doing and what's going on. But he really does write and say some appalling stupid things. In fact, he's made a highly lucrative career of it.

Krazy Bill Kristol, un-American, says Fort Hood killer should be put to death without a trial

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On Fox News the other day -- where else? -- Krazy Kristol, discussing Nidal Malik Hasan and the Fort Hood massacre, came out against due process, the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, and, well, America herself:

I was very struck also by Janet Napolitano's comment, I hadn't read it before to see her say that, that the number one priority is to bring him to justice is such a knee-jerk comment and such a stupid comment. He's going to be brought to justice. He is not going to be innocent of murder. There are a lot of eyewitnesses to that. They should just go ahead and convict him and put him to death.

This isn't just stupid, it's appalling -- and rather un-American, and hypocritical, coming from someone who wraps himself in the flag the way Krisol does.

But was he kidding? Well, if pressed, he might back down and say he was just making a point that a guilty conviction is inevitable, but he seemed to be speaking seriously.

And it's typical of Kristol, just as it's typical of conservatives generally. They talk up America as the unrivalled peak of human history, as the exception, as a worthy hegemon, and yet they think nothing of tearing down the foundations of American democracy and constitutionalism. So they push for the unitary executive when one of their own is in the White House, dismissing Congress and the Supreme Court as lesser branches. And so they put down the justice system, along with its Constitutional supports, as an inconvenience when they want to put away "terrorists," alleged or not, without a fair trial, or when their bloodlust turns to state-sanctioned killing, or when they just want to impose their will on the people.

For the right, neocons included, it's often about power, not principle -- or, rather, power is their principle, and they don't much care for anything that might stand in their way, including the very basis of the American justice system.

Daddy's Little Girl launching PNAC-Lite

By J. Thomas Duffy

Oh boy, just what we need.

A new NeoNitwit outfit

From Politico this morning:

Liz Cheney's group 'Keep America Safe' takes on 'radical' White House

Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s eldest daughter Liz will launch a new group aimed at rallying opposition to the “radical” foreign policy of the Obama administration which it says has succeeded only in undermining the nation’s security.

The new group, Keep America Safe, will make the case against President Barack Obama’s moves to wrench America away from Bush era foreign policy on issues from detaining alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay to building a missile shield in Eastern Europe.

[snip]

The new group will add institutional heft to a scathing critique of Obama articulated first and loudest by Liz Cheney’s father, and fills a void left by a Republican Party made skittish by the Iraq War, and apparently more eager to engage the president on domestic issues like health care.

[snip]

Keep America Safe will focus on issues like troop levels, missile defense, detainees, and interrogation, according to Liz Cheney, who is heading the group along with Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and Debra Burlingame, the hawkish sister of an American Airlines pilot killed in the September 11 attacks.

Little Billy Kristol?

I suppose, with the record of eight failed years, he can't keep running the same failed PNAC cow chips (tell us again, Billy, how'd that "greet us as liberators" thing work out?)

So, they repackage it, and get the former Shadow President's daughter to carry the banner.

Steve Benen also sees disaster written all over this;

The truth is, Cheney/Kristol had their day. They got to do exactly what they wanted to do -- torture, preemptive war, abandoning the rule of law, abandoning democratic norms, alienating allies, ignoring the concept of international cooperation -- and they failed anyway.

[snip]

Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol have become clownish figures, so blinded by their ideology that they can't even see the dangerous ineptitude of their agenda. I don't doubt that wealthy right-wing financiers will be delighted to throw some checks at "Keep America Safe." Likewise, I can only assume that news outlets will continue to pretend that Cheney has some shred of credibility on these issues, and will have her on national television every day for the next year.

But that doesn't make this endeavor any less ridiculous.

They already have Politico, Matt Sludge, and other Flying Monkey perches lined up to promote their drivel (which means our mainstream corporate media will instantly pick up and run with their ball), and, no doubt, Faux News will be in the bag.

Hmmm...

But maybe it's all just a front.

On her website, we have this, right at the top of the home page, under "Featured Resources":

Seven former CIA chiefs asked President Obama to halt the CIA investigation that damages our national security and the personal security of CIA agents. Click here to read their plea now!

I suppose they couldn't call it "Keep Daddy Out of Jail," now could they?



(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Smartest Conservative of the Day: David Brooks (for being against conservative anti-Olympic fever)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For saying this about Obama's efforts to bring the Olympics to Chicago on Meet the Press yesterday:

I have to say, I’m with Obama on this. He took a risk, he comes away somewhat humiliated, but he took a risk for his town, he took a risk for his country, he put his country ahead of his own personal prestige, and he lost one. I actually don't mind it. I think he was all right on this.

I object to Brooks's suggestion that Obama "comes away somewhat humiliated" -- he tried and the effort failed, but not necessarily because of him, and there is no humiliation in losing when the Olympics are concerned (more on this below) -- but, overall, I praise Brooks for coming out in opposition on this issue to so many of his fellow conservatives, including his former Weekly Standard colleagues Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes. (He even agreed, more or less, with fellow MTP panelist Rachel Maddow, who said this: "For them to be cheering America's loss here on the right, I think is sort of disgusting." Because, as she rightly pointed out, other world leaders, including Blair and Putin, have campaigned for the Olympics. This time, "all four finalists sent their head of government or head of state to make the argument.")

Kristol, on Fox News yesterday, accused Obama of bullying the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and he was "amused" by his failure, but of course Obama did no such thing. At The Weekly Standard, meanwhile, where he and Kristol are editors, Barnes pointed to "Obama's embarrassing failure in Copenhagen":

[W]hen an American president voluntarily takes up a fight and loses badly, it's a big deal. Obama could have stayed out. Having the summer Olympics in Chicago doesn't involve the national interest. But he thought the matter important enough to fly to Denmark and make the pitch for his hometown in person. He put his prestige on the line, only to be slapped down.

This is also ridiculous. Obama didn't lose badly. Chicago's bid lost out to Rio de Janeiro's. It would be one thing if Obama had gone to the U.N. and, say, been refused support on a key matter. In this case, he just did what so many other world leaders have done, and do, and only one city, only one big, can win at a time. Did the Chicago bid "involve the national interest"? Maybe not, strictly speaking, but what it against the national interest? No, not at all. There have been financial disasters in Olympic history, like Montreal '76 (my hometown, originally), but for the most part having the Olympics is a matter of national pride, an opportunity for the home city, and country, to showcase its best while the world is watching. (We Canadians are certainly excited about the upcoming Winter Games in Vancouver.) Besides, it's not always about financial gain -- though, in the long run, it may well be that having the Olympics is a fantastic investment in a city's, and country's, future.

Getting back to Barnes, it is simply not true that Obama was "slapped down." He supported Chicago's bid, but the vote in Copenhagen wasn't a referendum on Obama. Furthermore, given the IOC's reputation for, and long history of, corruption and insider politics, is there anything wrong with losing such a vote? As much as a city, as well as a country, may want the Olympics, the IOC has its own priorities, and winning has to do with trade-offs and quid pro quos among IOC members at least as much as it does with the actual merits of a bid. Toronto, for example, lost out on the 2008 Summer Games to Beijing. Was that an embarrassment for Toronto, a great loss for Canada. Were we "slapped down"? No. Beijing won because the IOC wanted the Games to be in China, a huge market. Forget that Toronto is an open, diverse, cosmopolitan city. Forget that China is a brutal totalitarian dictatorship. The IOC got what it wanted, and China got its reward. So it's a bit rich and rather disingenuous for these conservatives to be suggesting that an IOC vote is somehow a significant indicator of world opinion -- and that Chicago's loss was Obama's great embarrassment.

Steve Benen (quoting Paul Krugman) is right: "[A]s a political matter, in light of [the] right-wing ecstasy over Chicago not getting the Olympics, Paul Krugman concluded, 'Middle-aged adolescents -- dumb middle-aged adolescents -- rule one of our nation's two great political parties.' Sad, but true."

If there's anything embarrassing, and utterly repellent, it's the right-wing "glee," as Benen put it, over America's failure to win the 2016 Summer Games. Clearly, among conservatives, with one or two exceptions, party and ideology come before country. And they dare call themselves patriots?

Irving Kristol (1920-2009)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Irving Kristol, father of Bill and one of the founders of neoconservatism, has died at the age of 89. You can find obituaries, among other places, at the Times and the Post, as well as from Robert Kagan (a close friend of Bill and a leading neocon) and John Podhoretz (son of Norman, another founding neocon, at Commentary, one of the key neocon publications).

I usually find myself in opposition to neoconservatism, and hence I usually found myself in opposition to almost everything Kristol stood for. Indeed, I consider neoconservatism a reckless, insensitive, and at times, as during the Bush II presidency, insane ideology. It was the ideology behind the Iraq War and Occupation (through not just Bill Kristol but, more directly, Paul Wolfowitz), after all, not to mention behind the promotion of American global hegemony (through PNAC, the Bill Kristol- and Kagan-founded think tank). It has also been one of the leading ideologies behind regressive right-wing social policy in reaction to LBJ's Great Society initiatives of the '60s, as well as to the civil rights movement. It is more open, to be sure, than more traditional conservatism -- such as the paleo-conservatism of William Buckley and National Review -- not least with respect to its strong support for Israel, an area where I find some common cause with the neocons (even if I'm hardly as extremist in this regard), but, whatever its initially more radical origins (it grew out of the leftist politics of the City College of New York, for the most part), and however much it offered, early on, a useful critique of liberal public policy, it ultimately devolved into a core plank of the Republican coalition. In this respect, while Irving was a Republican, he was nothing like his son, who has spent his post-academic career as a partisan hack (and not nearly enough as an intellectual), and as an extremist who seems to lack the skepticism and flexibility of the earlier generation (even though, in supporting McCain, he has occasionally found himself in opposition to the Republican establishment).

I have not always been so opposed, however. Back in high school and college, when I was fairly conservative, I came to admire Kristol and the early neocons a great deal. Some of them, of course, didn't veer off to the right and embrace Republican politics, but, regardless, what I admired was their ardent intellectualism, their respect, so much at odds with so much of contemporary conservatism, for ideas. And I respected Kristol, in particular, for his adherence to the political philosophy of Leo Strauss (I studied with Straussians and still consider myself a Straussian, albeit a liberal one -- see here and here) and his admiration for Matthew Arnold, the 19th-century British poet and literary critic who is a hero of mine and on whom I focused my studies in graduate school. I moved away from Kristol -- and from neoconservatism, and from conservatism generally -- many years ago, but I suppose some of that early respect has remained ever since. Even in disagreement, usually strong, I have taken him seriously as a thinker, he and the first generation of neocons. (I've also always admired his wife, the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, who has written extensively on the Victorian period.)

I highly recommend Kristol's Reflections of a Neoconservative: Looking Back, Looking Ahead (1983), which I first read as an undergraduate at Tufts in a research seminar on post-war American political thought. It's not easy to find, but it's worth the effort. I also recommend Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (1995). If you want to know more about neoconservatism, why not go back to the source?

Irving Kristol was one of the giants of American conservatism, a true man of ideas who contributed a great deal to enlightened political discourse. Our thoughts go out to his friends and family, including to those with whom we disagree, on the other side of the partisan divide.

Dog bites man

By Creature

And John Bolton uses the Iranian uprising as an excuse to start bombing.

What took him so long?

According to Bolton, the presidential election fraud and the subsequent uprising have made the case for bombing crystal clear: since the Iranian people hate their leaders as much as we do, they won't mind so much being bombed by Israel with American made weapons. It's all so simple, really. Now bring on the flowers and candy.

The neocon prism

By Creature

Benen makes a point that's worth reinforcing:

[S]eeing Will and Graham on opposite sides of this reminds me of a point that often goes overlooked: we're not dealing with a dynamic that pits the left vs. the right, or Dems against Republicans. Rather, this is a situation featuring neocons vs. everyone else.

You'll notice that President Obama's strategy has not only been endorsed by Democratic lawmakers, but also prominent Republicans who are in office (Dick Lugar), served in Republican administrations (Henry Kissinger, Gary Sick, and Nick Burns), or are prominent Republican voices in the media (George Will, Peggy Noonan, and Pat Buchanan).

The president's leading detractors, meanwhile, primarily come from a motley and discredited crew who cling to neoconservatism -- McCain, Graham, Kristol, Krauthammer, Wolfowitz.

When we see reports indicating that "Republicans" are outraged by the president's tack on Iran, let's not forget it's mostly just a certain part of the party

Here's Sullivan along the same lines:

The key point is that many neocons actively want war with Iran and they are doing all they can in this crisis to precipitate one. Whether it be hoping for an Ahmadinejad win, or trying to goad Obama into making this critical uprising into a US vs Iran showdown, their goal is conflict. Everything they say needs to be filtered through that prism.

A discredited prism of conflict, death, destabilization and destruction sounds about right, but since they make such "great guests" who cares.

**********

UPDATE: Here, from Think Progress, is the clip of Will criticizing ("foolish") conservative criticism of Obama's (sensible) response to the Iranian election:



-- MJWS

Where is Obama? (On Iran, the world is watching, and waiting)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Roger Cohen: "City of Whispers."

I have thus far praised Obama's cautious handling of the Iranian election and its aftermath. It is essential, given Iran's deep reservoir of nationalism, and given the regime's history of linking its internal opponents to America, the Great Satan, that the U.S. not interfere, and not be perceived to be interfering, directly.

It is also essential, however, that the U.S. stand firmly with the opposition, with the "liberals" and others who oppose the totalitarian Islamic regime and who wish to reach out to the West, with the courageous men and women who are saying NO to Khamenei and Ahmadinejad and YES to change.

The neocons -- Wolfowitz, Kagan, Krauthammer, et al. -- have it wrong. The situation is more nuanced than they know, or care to admit, and there is only so much that Obama can or ought to do. It is easy to condemn Iran (and Obama) from the comfort of neocon certainty, easy to call for more to be done, for a harder line to be taken. The situation is much more challenging for Obama, who must deal with reality, and who must walk a fine line if he is to show his support for the opposition while not undermining it, not feeding into the regime's oppression, not giving the regime the justification it is looking for to crack down even harder than it has already.

Still, I think Cohen is right: "In this city of whispers," Tehran, "one of the whispers now is: Where is Obama?" And there is more that Obama could do:

The president has been right to tread carefully, given poisonous American-Iranian history, but has erred on the side of caution. He sounds like a man rehearsing prepared lines rather than the leader of the free world. A stronger condemnation of the violence and repression is needed, despite Khamenei's warnings. Obama should also rectify his erroneous equating, from the U.S. national security perspective, of Ahmadinejad and Moussavi.

"The world is watching" Iran, as Obama put it to CBS's Harry Smith (in an interview that showed his formidable grasp of the complexity of the situation). But the world is watching Obama, too... and waiting.

And so are the Iranians, who, taking to the streets and risking their lives for freedom and democracy, need to see that America is with them.

First, do no harm

By Creature

Jacob Heilbrunn has an answer to the neo-con's wishful thinking:

The truth is that the impressive thing has been how well Obama has handled the crisis. Again and again, Obama was pounded for his lack of experience during the 2008 election campaign. But imagine if John McCain were president? The mullahs would not be in the predicament they are. Instead, they could point to the demonstrators as American stooges. The uprising would have been quashed before it ever began. Fortunately, Obama's basic approach has been to follow the foreign policy equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm." Imagine the obloquy that would greet Obama if he were to champion the demonstrators and help to create a bloodbath, as Radio Free Europe did during the 1956 Hungarian revolution, when it encouraged Hungarians to revolt by assuring them that they had backing of the West, which they didn't. So far, Obama has shrewdly hewed to a middle course that allows him some flexibility in dealing with Iran.

As with most of Obama's critics their criticism does not reflect reality.

More Kristol meth -- let's put on a show!

By Mustang Bobby

William Kristol is still sure that John McCain can pull a do-over:

When you’re in a hole, stop digging. McCain could order his campaign to pull all negative ads, mailers and robocalls.

For that matter, he might as well muzzle the campaign. McCain campaign senior staff members now seem to be spending more time criticizing one another than Obama, and more time defending their own reputations than pursuing a McCain-Palin victory. McCain should simply say that for the last week of the campaign, no staff member is authorized to speak to the media about anything beyond logistical and scheduling matters.

Then McCain and Palin can spend the final week speaking for themselves. They should throw themselves open full time to the media. Could the press coverage get worse? Next Sunday, McCain and Palin could divide up the talk shows. Sarah Palin live! Lots of people would tune in.

There could be one other big moment this week. Obama has bought a half-hour of television in prime time Wednesday. McCain and Palin could buy time Thursday night — giving voters some incentive to keep an open mind at least until McCain and Palin get to make their case.

Palin could speak first, reprising her fine recent speeches on women’s issues and special needs kids — speeches that got almost no press coverage. She could then introduce her running mate, reminding people of his heroism, and pointing out, as she does on the stump, that he is the only candidate “who has truly fought for America.”

As for McCain, he needs to speak about America’s greatness and its future; about how the ingenuity and toughness of the American people will turn around this financial crisis just as the ingenuity of General Petraeus and the toughness of his fighting men and women turned around Iraq; about how America’s spirit was not undone by a terrorist attack, and will not be undone by a financial mess; about how the naysayers will once again be proved wrong; about how America will emerge from its troubles stronger than ever and will win its battles at home and abroad.

McCain has a chance to close this election in a big and positive way. He has a chance to get voters to rise above the distractions and to set aside the petty aspects of the campaign. He has a chance to remind them why they have admired him, and perhaps to persuade them to vote for him on Nov. 4.

Would this turn things around? Unlikely. But why not take a shot?

In other words, forget everything that the McCain-Palin campaign has done for the last eight weeks. Wipe that from your memory. Forget all the talking points about "socialism." Forget the dithering and the panic-stricken (and inducing) campaign "suspension" and parachute-drop into the economic crisis. Forget about Joe the Not-the-Plumber. That never happened; it was all a really, really bad dream. Here is the real John McCain, presented by his charming and well-dressed sidekick, Sarah Palin, and they're going to introduce themselves and their ideas for America in a big prime-time special on the scale of Donny and Marie Go to Washington.

In other words, let's go out there and say, "America, we think you're amazingly stupid and you have the short-term memory of a goldfish. We think we can win all of you independents and undecideds and, yes, even you moderate and conservative Republicans who have been grossed out and scared off by our train-wreck of a campaign by just playing nice for a few minutes here for the last big finish." That's the equivalent of the Marx Brothers trying to make their last movie a heartwarming and insightful look into the soul of America by doing I Remember Mama.

For Mr. McCain, however, it's more like Long Day's Journey into Night.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Ken Adelman, conservative Republican for Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Colin Powell's recent endorsement of Obama may not have come as much of a surprise -- and I'm generally not surprised that Obama has found supporters among Republicans, given the pathetic state of McCain's vicious and dirty campaign and the extremist state of the GOP these days -- but Ken Adelman... well, that's a different story altogether.

If you don't know him, and not many do, Adelman is a long-time stalwart of the neoconservative foreign policy movement, a member of both the Committee on the Present Danger in the '70s and the Kristol/Kagan-founded Project for the New American Century in the '90s, the latter the think tank that pushed for war with Iraq -- and the overthrow of Saddam -- long before 9/11 gave the warmongers in the Bush Administration, some of whom were PNACers (Wolfowitz was both a CPDer and a PNACer), all the excuse they needed. He was a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, until he turned against it. He is currently a member of the Defense Policy Board, the right-wing committee that advises the Pentagon.

Given his current views on the Iraq War, it may actually not be much of a surprise that Adelman has endorsed Obama. However, other than this break with his friends on the right, and his critique of the Bush Administration warmongers as "among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional," he has been a loyal Republican. During the Ford Administration, for example, he was Rumsfeld's assistant at the Pentagon. Later, under Reagan, he was the deputy U.S. ambassador to the U.N., then the director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and an advisor to the president.

And now? As George Packer notes in The New Yorker, Adelman is a still a conservative -- a "con-con," not a "neo-con." As he himself puts it, his views "align a lot more with McCain's than with Obama's." Yet he says he'll be voting for Obama on November 4. Why?

Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I've concluded that that's no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office -- I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain's main two, and best two, themes for his campaign -- Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

Adelman may not share Powell's disgust with the GOP, and he may not share Powell's enthusiasm for Obama, but like Powell he is now willing to break with his party, and his friend McCain, to support a Democrat -- one who has shown himself over the course of this long campaign to be a man of exceptional intelligence, judgment, curiosity, and wisdom. It's not like either Powell or Adelman was looking to break with the GOP and McCain. They both probably wanted to support McCain. And yet both are now with Obama.

And, in Adelman's case, notice why: McCain's "weird" and erratic response to the financial crisis, including the phony suspension of his campaign, and, as is the case with quite a few conservatives, Sarah Palin, whose very pick speaks to McCain's irresponsibility and lack of judgment.

To be sure, many conservatives, including Krazy Bill Kristol, remain on McCain's side. And many of them just love Sarah Palin. But there are those -- the courageous few who are putting country before party -- who have simply had enough.

Adelman's endorsement won't mean nearly as much as Powell's, but it's a stunning reflection of Obama's broad appeal and the collapse of McCain's integrity and credibility.

Kristol's cry for help

By Mustang Bobby

I am not one who believes in interventions for people who are obviously delusional. If they're not a danger to themselves or others, I let them go on their merry way, leaving them to be happy in their own little world of pink skies and talking rainbows or whatever it is that populates their reality. But in the case of William Kristol, I truly believe it is time that he got some help.

Today he devotes his column to the analysis of the "common man" and how, in spite of all sorts of evidence to the contrary, the vast population of America isn't really angry or concerned about the future of the country or their own personal well-being:

Last week, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released its latest national survey, taken from Oct. 9 to 12. Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country and of course concerned about the economy. But, as Pew summarized, “there is little indication that the nation’s financial crisis has triggered public panic or despair.”

In fact, “There is a broad public consensus regarding the causes of the current problems with financial institutions and markets: 79 percent say people taking on too much debt has contributed a lot to the crisis, while 72 percent say the same about banks making risky loans.”

This seems sensible. Indeed, as Sept. 11 did not result in a much-feared (by intellectuals) wave of popular Islamophobia or xenophobia, so the market crash has resulted in remarkably little popular hysteria or scapegoating.

I added the emphasis, and it's that line that should set off the alarms: "Sept. 11 did not result in a much-feared (by intellectuals) wave of popular Islamophobia or xenophobia..."

WTF??

That right there should tell you that Mr. Kristol has obviously taken leave of his senses. The anti-Islamic rhetoric, demagoguery, and hysteria that took over this country after September 11, 2001 is not only well-documented in case after case of vandalism, threats, physical assaults, terror alerts, and other acts of mindless hysteria, it has never stopped. It is still going on today and is playing a major role in the presidential campaign -- Obama is a Muslim! His middle name is Hussein! For Mr. Kristol to say that there was no "Islamophoba or xenophobia" is pretty much the same as saying that there was no popular hysteria or scapegoating of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

As for the reaction by the public to the collapse of Wall Street, all he has to do is look at the poll numbers for the McCain-Palin ticket and see exactly who the public blames for their dwindling fortunes. People don't riot in the streets when they open their mail and read their 401(k) quarterly statements, but they know who's been in charge of the economy for the last eight years and they know who let the banks get away with it. There isn't hysteria in the streets, but there may well be panic in Phoenix on November 4 when the scapegoating shows up in the election booths.

Mr. Kristol concludes his paean to the common man by praising Joe the Plumber: "He seems like a sensible man to me." If his idea of "sensible" is a guy whose entire "Joe the Plumber" persona is a fiction dreamed up by the McCain campaign and Fox News but who is in reality nothing more than a shill who is not really a plumber, owes back taxes, and thinks that Barack Obama tap dances better than Sammy Davis, Jr., then I think intervention is his only hope.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Who's presumptuous now?

By Creature

I can't help but think that all this presidenting John McCain is doing on the Russia-Georgia front is going to backfire. His prancing and squawking is transparently self-serving (not to mention his top adviser has been lining his lobbying-pockets for years with Georgian money). The only thing John McCain has accomplished this week is that he has solidified his neocon credentials, and if that's a plus in a post-Iraq America, then I'm Ronald Reagan.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

What kind of government do you want

By Carol Gee

. . . in Iraq differs, depending on with whom you are having the discussion. The original goal of the neocons was quite clear. They were intent on establishing a democracy as a foothold somewhere in the Middle East. Iraq seemed militarily and strategically easier than Afghanistan. It is now five years later, 4000 American military deaths later, and $541 billion later. And the United States UN mandate to be in Iraq runs out at the end of this year. The deadline set by our current president (OCP) for getting a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the government of Iraq is today, July 31, 2008. With the Iraqi parliament's failure to reach an agreement on holding provincial elections in the fall, Democracy In Iraq looks a bit in peril. But the SOFA persists. The New York Times story is headlined, "Deal on a Security Agreement Is Close, Iraqis Say." Alissa Rubin and Steven Myers' story elaborates on many of the key elements of the SOFA. To quote:

Iraq and the United States are close to a deal on a sensitive security agreement that Iraqi officials said on Wednesday satisfies the nation’s desire to be treated as sovereign and independent.

. . . The emerging agreement, officials said, gives Iraqis much of what they want — most notably the guarantee that there would no longer be foreign troops visible on their land — and leaves room for them to discreetly ask for an extended American presence should security deteriorate.

. . . The Bush administration’s unofficial deadline for the deal has long been July 31. Although the United Nations mandate allowing American troops to operate in Iraq will not expire until the end of the year, politicians in both countries have been concerned that with elections approaching in the United States and Iraq, it might not be possible to reach an agreement once the fall campaign is in full swing and it would be better to finish negotiations during the summer.

. . The authorization for the presence of American troops would be renewable annually so that if conditions worsened or improved, Iraqis could respond to that, according to Ayaed al-Sammaraie, a Sunni leader, and several other Iraqis knowledgeable about the agreement.

"American hubris, " is how my friend, betmo, characterizes this from the link (at Take it Personally) to Tom Friedman's column in the New York Times. Friedman's stance fits in quite nicely with (the above) neocon ambitions for the Middle East, unfortunately. One of my gurus, Dr. Marc Sageman, reminded us that Afghanis historically will be more nationalistic than anything else. Friedman obviously is not familiar with "leaderless jihad." I quote the offending paragraph at the end of these three:

. . . For many Democrats, Afghanistan was always the “good war,” as opposed to Iraq. I think Barack Obama needs to ask himself honestly: “Am I for sending more troops to Afghanistan because I really think we can win there, because I really think that that will bring an end to terrorism, or am I just doing it because to get elected in America, post-9/11, I have to be for winning some war?”

The truth is that Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Pakistan are just different fronts in the same war. The core problem is that the Arab-Muslim world in too many places has been failing at modernity, and were it not for $120-a-barrel oil, that failure would be even more obvious. For far too long, this region has been dominated by authoritarian politics, massive youth unemployment, outdated education systems, a religious establishment resisting reform and now a death cult that glorifies young people committing suicide, often against other Muslims.

. . . The main reason we are losing in Afghanistan is not because there are too few American soldiers, but because there are not enough Afghans ready to fight and die for the kind of government we want.

The kind of government we civil libertarian activists want is one that balances the need for intelligence with the need for Fourth Amendment Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Just claiming that those protections are included in this so-called overhaul in no way makes it so. In fact the recent work by Congress on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a foolproof recipe for the loss of those protections. "Bush Orders Intelligence Overhaul," is today's NYT (7/31/08) headline. I paid close attention to this story for hints about how it will affect the kind of government civil libertarians want. To quote what seems to pertain from the article:

. . . an executive order that revises the rules for intelligence agencies and strengthens the authority of the national intelligence director . . . according to a power point briefing given to Congress that was reviewed by The Associated Press.

. . . The new order gives the national intelligence director, a position created in 2005, new authority over any intelligence information collected that pertains to more than one agency -- an attempt to force greater information exchange among agencies traditionally reluctant to share their most prized intelligence. The order directs the attorney general to develop guidelines to allow agencies access to information held by other agencies. That could potentially include the sharing of sensitive information about Americans.

. . . The order has been under revision for more than a year, an attempt to update a nearly 30-year-old presidential order to reflect organizational changes made in the intelligence agencies after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It was carried on in secret in the midst of pitched national debate about the appropriate balance between civil liberties and security, spurred by the president's warrantless wiretapping program. The briefing charts assert that the new order maintains or improves civil liberties protections for Americans.

The order also gives the national intelligence director's office the power of the purse: . . . It did not explain the FBI's domestic intelligence mission, which has gotten increasing attention since 9/11.

''The executive order maintains and strengthens existing protections for Americans' civil liberties and privacy rights,'' Perino said Thursday.

Is this, too, hubris? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a recently headlined statement, was not addressing the questions raised by her mass abandonment of civil liberties in the eventual FISA bill revision. Pelosi's statement about the energy crisis leaves a bitter and ironic taste in the mouths of many of us including this articulate minister. "Save the planet? How about saving the Republic?," by Chuck Baldwin at News With Views.com, July 30, 2008. To quote more extensively than normal from his essay (hoping the author will not mind too much):

Yesterday, the Politico quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as saying, "I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet." She was responding, of course, to pressure that she and her fellow Democrats are experiencing to suspend a congressional ban on offshore oil drilling in the face of skyrocketing energy prices. It would be really wonderful, however, if the liberal congresswoman could get as energized about saving our once great republic.

Herein lies another problem: the vast majority of our politicos (from both major parties) do not even seem to know what kind of country the United States was designed to be. Virtually every reference made to the United States by our civil magistrates is that we are a "democracy." That's odd; someone should have told our Founding Fathers, because they emphatically rejected the concept of creating a "democracy" in favor of creating a constitutional republic.

. . . The fear of what happens to freedom and liberty under democratic rule is what prompted Madison and the rest of America's founders to labor so hard to create what they did: a constitutional republic.

Under God, it is allegiance to the Constitution that has preserved our liberties, our peace and happiness, our security, and our very way of life. Furthermore, it is the repudiation and rejection of constitutional government that is responsible for the manner in which these very same blessings are currently being lost.

. . . What every elected officeholder is expected and required to do is very simple: they are required to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Period. End of story.

. . . Of course, the problem is, the people who are charged with the preservation of our republic are the ones who are the most responsible for its destruction. The American people have far more to fear from Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and John McCain than they do from any foreign adversary, because our leaders have proven that they have absolutely no fidelity to the principles of constitutional government. They have no compunction about eviscerating the protection of our freedoms, or about abolishing the vanguard of our liberties. They are Machiavellian, making King George of old look like a mere amateur.

No, I take that back. It is not our civil magistrates who are most responsible for the destruction of our republican form of government: it is "We the people."

At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the people to govern themselves. We must be willing to hold our civil magistrates accountable to the contract they made with us, which is to uphold constitutional government. It is our duty to "throw off" any system of government that does not secure our liberties and protect our constitution. And this we have not done.

. . . Patriotism is more than waving a flag on July 4th, or singing The National Anthem at a ball game, or wearing a flag lapel pin on Flag Day. For an American, real patriotism means that we are willing to preserve and protect our constitutional republic. Remember, Franklin's answer: "A republic--if you can keep it."

Nancy Pelosi can talk about saving the planet all she wants to: her duty, however, is to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution. And that is also the job of every single American citizen. Unfortunately, most of us are no better at doing our job than Pelosi is at doing hers.

"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" (Matthew 7:3) Today's post takes a look at recent news with an eye to the hypocrisy of U.S. leaders who ignore the loss of democracy in the last 8 years, while persisting in imposing "democratic" occupation in Iraq, while neglecting the more crucial terrorist threat posed by al Qaeda's bases on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The kind of government we want is one that cares more about its own people than the neocon adventurist agenda, one that does not spy on its own people, and one that rewards politicians for statesmanship rather than the acquision and maintenance of political power. Dare I dream?

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Operation Iraqi fiefdom

By Capt. Fogg

So the government of Iraq is sovereign? Well obviously not when it comes to being able to ask an occupying army to leave or to make Iraqi law apply to their actions or being able to tell foreign powers and their carpetbaggers that no, they can't just come in and take their only natural resource.

In case you haven't been reading the papers, one of the architects of our conquest of Iraq, Richard Perle, has been making oil deals which include a venture near the Kurdish city of Erbil . Needless to say Iraq, to which this area allegedly belongs and which is trying to put together legislation affirming its ownership of its resources, is displeased. Of course he's not the first and not the only entity with close ties to President Bush to attempt to circumvent US policy and Iraqi law for private gain. The State Department is investigating, but one expects nothing to come of it as long as the carpetbagger oil men themselves run our country.

Perle, together with Turkish AG Group International, has been talking with Kurdish officials and with Kazakhstan's ruthless and corrupt dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev, who has been involved in a US oil bribery investigation about all kinds of oil deals. Mr. Perle, who began pushing an attack on Iraq nearly 10 years ago and who invented dishonest scenarios including Saddam Hussein dancing around the maypole with Osama bin Laden to justify it all, calls Nazarbayev "visionary and wise," says The Wall Street Journal. Sometimes words fail me.

Will a Department of State under another Republican president continue not to object to such imperial appropriation of another country's resources while continuing to sell that country as an independent nation struggling for freedom against foreign enemies? Who knows, but Mr. McCain has not said much other than to talk about "victory" and "surrender" nor has he any record of maintaining a consistent position for very long.

But unless you're looking for this sort of news, you won't be aware of it and you'll probably buy into the comic opera scenario they've been presenting for 7 years. You'll be made far more aware of the fist bumps and the funny sounding middle name of the other candidate. You'll wave the flag and talk about honor while your country becomes another corrupt and greedy empire pushing its will on the world through fear and force of arms.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

A negotiated failure

By Creature

WaPo:

The Bush administration will send a senior envoy this weekend to international talks with Iran about its nuclear program in what U.S. officials described as a "one-time deal" designed to demonstrate a serious desire to negotiate a solution to the impasse over Tehran's ambitions.

Color me skeptical. This move is designed for failure. A negotiated failure that would provide cover for this:

President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

On the less skeptical side, they are sending Undersecretary of State William J. Burns. Burns was responsible for the recent North Korea breakthrough and has been a constant thorn in the side of Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and their neo-con pals (always a good thing). That being said this could be the quid pro quo Cheney was looking for, maybe from Burns himself, after having relented on North Korea. Which puts me back on skeptical footing and wondering if this "one-time deal" is designed to fail and designed to provide we-did-all-we-could cover for the bombing of Iran to begin.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)