December 11, 2006
Iraq Study Group Response
:Washington was ablaze this week with the release of the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s findings on how to improve the situation in Iraq. Democrats and Moderate Republicans lined up to lavish praise of the ten wise men that have given us a “New Way Forward”. And despite the excitement, there is very little in this report that gives much hope for the future of Iraq. Not only does the report speak to a “grave future,” it provides few substantive realistic proposals. I will address these flaws in the next couple days; I first wanted to address the current critics of the report.
There is plenty to criticize in this report – lack of boldness, lack of a coherent overall strategy, and lack of honesty in the true difficulties in getting things back on track – all of which have been attacked. Ironically, these attacks have come from leading neoconservative thinkers.
Richard Pearle, a Reagan-administration defense official who strongly supported the invasion said, “The report is a monumental disappointment… The recommendations are either wrong or of no consequence. There is no magic bullet, but in their desire to find something, they found the wrong things.”
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon aide and now a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute said, “Sometimes realists have to deal with reality. Iran and Syria will press to exploit every advantage they have.”
And Kenneth R. Weinstein, chief executive of the conservative Hudson Institute said that “It’s preposterous, period.”
Of course, the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s findings are not what really got this group of neoconservatives mad. What really angers them is that there were only two neoconservatives among the 40 or so experts that briefed the Commission. Apparently that was not enough. Again, Michael Rubin, “Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush’s war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy… [the Commission] gerrymandered [experts] experts to ratify predetermined recommendations. Rather than prime the debate they sought to stifle it.”
The neoconservatives may be totally right in the specifics – the Commission may be wrong (I’ll argues as much this week) and they may have been left of the Commission – but they are wrong on the overall picture. The Commission really shouldn’t have had a single neoconservative on the briefing board. It really makes no sense to have their input.
For one, the President has endorsed their vision of the world and he met with the Commission. He is in the best position to articulate that vision and his views were well represented. Thanks to the President, the Commission never really considered an immediate withdraw despite large evidence in support of such a move. In addition the Commission was to address alternative paths to victory. It is hard to see how having the architects of the war as chief experts helps to provide a path other than the one we are currently on.
Truthfully, though, what’s concerning to me is that there were even two neoconservatives on the Commission staff. It would be as if a big group got together for a study group in College that was dominated by one person. The group later receives its test grades and found they all failed. Come the next test, I guarantee, that the group will not invite or listen to the person that dominated the last conversation. Unfairly, after all that person may have some good thoughts to add to the discussion for the next test. But that person was responsible for your failure on the last test and you would be a fool to listen again.
Likewise, it would be foolish to give any credence to people like Rubin, Weinstein, or Pearle. They failed this nation. They believed that we would be greeted with flowers and that the oil would pay for the invasion. They still believe that permanent bases are needed to take care of Israel and put pressure on Iran. While full responsibility is on the President, the neoconservatives have a large share of the bloodshed and failure on their ideas. And for that, pardon me, if I do not care if they feel that they are now not being listened to – don’t we all wish that we hadn’t listened to them three years ago.
(Filed under: Iraq, America at War, Bush Administration, Middle East, Commentary, America)
December 6, 2006
Gates Confirmation
:We will soon have a new Defense Secretary. Robert Gates was confirmed today with a 95-2 vote (only opposed by Conservative Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Jim Bunning (R-KY) who seemed to think he was not supportive enough of the President’s policies in Iraq). The Senate seems to have finally come to the view that most of the population already had decided – Rumsfeld has to go and the sooner the better (more on this when Rumsfeld finally leaves the Pentagon, rumors have him staying through the end of December). And while few will argue with this desire, we have no idea if Dr. Gates is the right man for this job. Sure he said the right things for a day and a half and seems to be a bit independent but he is not the first to dazzle Congress nominated by this President. The devil was in the details and could have been had if his hearings were delayed to hear the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations. Instead we know very little about Dr. Gates and have no basis to be excited about this nomination.
(Filed under: America at War, Bush Administration, Commentary, Politics, America)
Iraq Study Group
:Do you have your copy yet? I hope to finish it by this weekend and will begin posting my thoughts soon after. Get your copy at Amazon by clicking on this link: Iraq Study Group
(Filed under: Iraq, America at War, Bush Administration, Middle East, Commentary, Politics, America)
November 7, 2006
Midterm 2006
:A couple quick thoughts about this election (I will be following up on some of these themes in the days ahead):
- Vote!
- Who would have thought the Democrats would have a chance to take over the majority in either the House or the Senate even three months ago? Amazing. At the beginning of the year, some were looking at an outside shot of the Republicans gaining a filibuster immune majority for the last two years of the Bush administration (60 seats). Of course, Conservative spinners are now trying to say what a huge loss it would be for the Democrats if they do not take the House tonight and how it was a preordained victory. Pure rubbish and political spin. Just remember the last few election cycles and how surprising it really is for the Democrats to be even close tonight.
- For all of the Bush and Rove bravado about tonight’s results, a Democratic victory could be the best thing for his administration (not to mention for the country). Clinton was able to use a divided government to gain support and move the agenda of the country away from his base. If Bush did the same, he would find that a lot of people could agree on things like energy conservation, an aggressive policy towards Iran and North Korea, and immigration. Not to mention that he wouldn’t mind having another party to pin some of the Iraq war on (although it will be hard to stick after six years of complete dominance in DC for the GOP).
- No matter what happens, the power of the Republican majority is in serious trouble. The Democrats were able to neutralize the money advantage of the GOP across the board this year (they still had less but not as much as in previous cycles). This is with corporate lobbyists giving two-thirds of their contributions to Republicans. Only a year ago, that was closer to one-hundred percent as the GOP basically demanded that K Street lobbyists only play ball with them or their bills would sit on the sideline. Businesses are now rethinking that logic and it is obvious that with a tight Congress (with either party in control) heading into a wide-open Presidential race, the Democrats will be getting money from the corporations, in addition to the funding they found elsewhere.
- Finally, this is one exciting race. As many as seven Senate seats are still in play. The House is likely to flip but it could be anywhere from 10 to 40 seats that change with control still in the balance. The Democrats will also gain seats at the state level which could be huge heading into redistricting fights in 2010. Imagine if gerrymandering had not become such a great science for both parties? These nights would be too much fun.
Like I said, I hope to be posting some follow-up comments in the days ahead. This has been an exciting race that I really regret not sharing more of my thoughts on it.
(Filed under: Bush Administration, Commentary, Politics, America)
January 18, 2006
Feeling Completely Hopeless - The Iranian Nuclear Problem
:Iran’s decision this past week to restart their nuclear program appeared to come out of nowhere. Many have recently speculated as to how the European Union’s talks with Tehran failed or how the United States can get the Russians and the Chinese on board for new sanctions. But this is a distorted conversation. Iran’s re-started nuclear ambition was easily predictable with the events ongoing in neighboring Iraq.
At the outset of the invasion of Iraq, conservative columnists lined up to praise the invasion as a way to demonstrate to other dictators what would happen if they “misbehaved.” When, five days after Saddam Hussein was arrested, Muammar al-Qaddafi announced his intention to give up a WMD program, conservatives saw this as proof. Charles Krauthammer, at the time, wrote that it could not be a coincidence. Dictators were feeling the “aftershocks of war.” For the sake of argument and ignoring many scholars who point to Qaddafi offering the same thing for four years to end Western sanctions, let’s assume that Krauthammer was right - the invasion of Iraq did make nations more civil – then we are in store for a difficult few years.
The problem with this conservative view that a successful invasion would be a message to the rest of the world is what happens when the invasion fails or at least bogs down. The invasion tied up our military. Over 100,000 troops are stationed just across the border in Iraq but none of them can be spared to threaten Iran. Effectively the United States does not have any teeth. If the Iraq invasion was supposed to be a message, a rogue state now knows they have until the United States leaves Iraq to acquire nuclear weapons. If you accept the argument, then you also accept that the rest of the world gets the opposite message if the invasion fails.
And that is where we are with a failed invasion. If you agreed with Krauthammer’s views three years ago, you would have assumed that if Iraq failed you would end up where we are today. That is why I was so surprised today when I read Krauthammer’s column in the Washington Post where he blamed the European Union’s misguided and naïve talks with Iran. It was a complete red herring argument.
While, the European Union’s talks with Tehran may have been imperceptive of the true Iranian desire, one should not hold the EU accountable for that. They had little choice. If there are two ways of dealing with the situation a) diplomacy and b) military, they had no choice when the US invaded Iraq. And when the wheels came off the US military in Iraq, there was no threat. Of course, the Iranians pulled out of their commitments to arms inspections and seals. They always wanted a nuke and now they had their chance.
All of this angers me. I share this administration’s desire to limit the nuclear club and do not feel comfortable with a Tehran hot button. But it isn’t surprising. After all we have been hopeless to do anything about it since we tied up our military for a decade in invading Iraq. That Krauthammer and other conservatives didn’t see it coming doesn’t make it unexpected. Just them blind to the problems of invading Iraq.
(Filed under: Iraq, Bush Administration, Middle East, Iran, Commentary, Europe, America, Global Issues, Nuclear Proliferation, European Union)
October 31, 2005
Libby Indictment
:After weeks of speculation in the nation’s capital, I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President’s Chief of Staff, was indicted Friday on one count of obstruction of justice and two counts of both perjury and making false statements in the investigation of the Plame leak case. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitgerald met with reporters for over an hour explaining the charges and why Libby is accused of these crimes. He said that the investigation “is not over? but declined to say whether there would be any other indictments. Bush adviser Karl Rove was a known target of the investigation as well. Earlier in the week, it became known that it was Vice President Dick Cheney who informed Libby of Plame’s identity. Libby resigned his post on Friday.
(Filed under: Bush Administration, Politics, America)
Miers Canceled Nomination
:Three weeks and three days after Bush’s announcement of Harriet E. Miers to be the next-associate justice on the Supreme Court, Miers withdrew among speculation that she would not be confirmed. Conservatives had fought the nomination and television ads opposing her nomination were to begin this week. Bush said that he “reluctantly accepted? her decision. It is widely expected that Miers will continue to serve the President as White House counsel.
(Filed under: Supreme Court, Bush Administration, Miers Nomination, America)
Alito Nomination
:President Bush named appeals court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., 55, to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito’s nomination comes three days after Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination for the same post. Alito was appointed to the appeals court in 1990 by President Bush’s father. He is widely praised in conservative circles while raising concern of many liberals.
(Filed under: Supreme Court, Bush Administration, Politics, America, Alito Nomination)
Federal Reserve Nomination
:President Bush nominated Ben S. Bernanke, 51, to replace Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, when his term expires in January. Bernanke, a former Economics Professor, was named to the Federal Reserve board in 2002 by President Bush and recently was named chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers. Bernanke’s political views are not widely known (other than he is a registered Republican) but he is known as an economist that favors inflation targets.
(Filed under: Bush Administration, Economy, America)
Commentary – Libby Indictment
:Two years ago, at the beginning of the investigation into the leaking of a covert CIA operatives name to the press, the President of the United States vowed that he would look into the matter personally and that anyone that was involved in the leak would no longer work at the White House. He later weakened that threat to simply those that committed a crime. Libby’s resignation made the second claim truthful. The President, however, should keep his word and fire two of his leading partners in the administration – adviser Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney.
This investigation has highlighted and undressed the tactics of this administration. Bush’s team rarely has wanted to debate policy. They would rather go for the throat. During the 2000 primaries, after two surprising McCain victories, Rove associates ran a survey in South Carolina that suggested McCain had black children out of wedlock (the truth is that he had adopted the children). In 2004, those same associates created the “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth? ads that were severely lacking in truth. And during the runup to war in Iraq, Wilson’s claim that Bush had lied during the State of the Union address, led this White House to attack Wilson’s wife.
It has become clear that this is the normal operation of this White House. They do not debate. They go for where you are weak and destroy you there. That this time, the White House was dealing with national security did not matter to them. That might serve you well on the campaign trail, it is no way to govern. Libby, unfortunately for him, will be the fall guy. The man that obstructed the investigation enough to keep Fitzgerald from having enough evidence to show that the administration intended to release classified information. But that does not mean the public has to buy it or this President. He knows the same truth that we all do, Rove and Cheney both intended to have this information leaked. Bush should hold to his first promise and send these men packing.
(Filed under: Bush Administration, Commentary, America)
/ Older Reports