|
The LiberalOasis Blog
The daily view from the oasis
May 11, 2006 PERMALINK
Bush Misleads On Iran
(posted May 11 1:30 AM ET)
Yesterday, the St. Petersburg Times published, and the
NY Times followed up on, Dubya’s public response to the surprise letter from Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Dubya said:
It looks like it did not answer the main question that the world is asking and that is, “When will you get rid of your nuclear program?” ...
Britain, France, Germany - coupled with the United States and Russia and China have all agreed that the Iranians should not have a weapon or the capacity to make a weapon.
There is a universal agreement toward that goal and the letter didn't address that question.
That is highly misleading on two fronts.
One, as regular LiberalOasis readers surely know, Iran already tried to directly address that question in a 2003 negotiating proposal to the White House, which was quickly snubbed.
Two, while it’s technically true that Monday’s letter from Ahmadinejad did not directly address Iran’s nuclear program, Dubya conveniently ignored the other Monday letter from Iran.
That is the open letter given to Time magazine by Hassan Rohani, representative of Ayatollah Khameini, Iran’s Supreme Leader (the guy who actually calls the shots).
It begins:
A nuclear weaponized Iran destabilizes the region, prompts a regional arms race, and wastes the scarce resources in the region.
And taking account of U.S. nuclear arsenal and its policy of ensuring a strategic edge for Israel, an Iranian bomb will accord Iran no security dividends.
There are also some Islamic and developmental reasons why Iran as an Islamic and developing state must not develop and use weapons of mass destruction.
You can’t “directly address” the “main question” any more directly than that.
Rohani follows by sketching out an 8-point framework for a negotiated solution, one of which is, “Iran would consider ratifying the Additional Protocol, which provides for intrusive and snap inspections.”
A separate Time article provides the political context of Rohani’s emergence:
In Iran's shifting political alliances, Rohani, who was long associated with the reformist government of former President Mohammad Khatami. has often been classified as a "moderate."
Ousted as Iran's chief negotiator last year by incoming hardline President Ahmadinejad, he has continued to speak out on nuclear issues, often arguing for a less confrontational line, while hewing to Iran's strategic goal of nuclear development, including the domestic enrichment opposed by the U.S. and its allies.
But his views carry weight, because Rohani, who served for 16 years as the top official at the SNSC, has been close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini.
"In the context of Iran's domestic politics, which is the driving force behind Iran's nuclear initiative, Rohani's proposals are significant because they have the imprimatur of the Supreme Leader, who would have approved them in advance," says William Samii, the longtime senior Iran analyst at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
"The important, if implicit message to Washington in Rohani's declaration," says Samii, "is you may not like hardline President Ahmadinejad, but we do have more pragmatic leaders with concrete proposals, like Rohani, whom you have known for years, and whom you can deal with now if you want. His proposals amount to recognition of Washington's concerns."
Unsurprisingly, Dubya’s reaction is to pretend Rohani’s declaration never happened.
To acknowledge it gets in the way of the goal: to make a caricature of Ahmadinejad the sole face of Iran (even though he is not the Supreme Leader of Iran) and in turn, paint the Iranian regime as irrational and impossible to negotiate with.
Instead of telling the American public that Iran has, more than once, opened the door to a negotiated settlement of its nuclear program, Dubya misled the American public.
Perhaps the “main question” should be, “can a single president mislead his people into two wars in a row?”
QUICK HIT
Cole v. Hitchens on BloggingHeads.tv
Earlier this week, Robert Wright and Mickey Kaus cited LiberalOasis in their video log debate of the Juan Cole/Christopher Hitchens dispute over translations of Ahmadinejad’s remarks. You can watch here.
May 10, 2006 PERMALINK
Dems Up Big In Poll
No Time To Rest on Laurels
(posted May 10 1:45 AM ET)
The latest CBS/NY Times poll shows the constant stream of scandals spawned by the culture of corruption and the deeply unpopular Bush presidency has made a major impact on public opinion regarding the two parties.
Consider these results:
Do you think the Republican party or the Democratic party comes closer to sharing your moral values?
Dem 50
GOP 37
...do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party has more new ideas?
Dem 45
GOP 21
Do you think the Republicans in Congress are more financially corrupt, or are the Democrats in Congress more financially corrupt?
GOP 40
Dem 15
... do you think the Republican party or the Democratic party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq?
Dem 48
GOP 30
... do you think the Republican party or the Democratic party is more likely to make sure the tax system is fair?
Dem 55
GOP 27
...do you think the Republican party or the Democratic party is more likely to make the right decisions when it comes to dealing with immigration issues?
Dem 45
GOP 29
That’s all good news. But the data should not be overinterpreted.
We should not assume that these are hard figures reflecting fervent support for the Democratic Party.
They certainly show major disappointment with the Republican Party and a willingness to give Democrats a chance – which may well be enough to reclaim one or both houses of Congress in November.
But without a clearly understood ideological vision that applies to the tough issues we face – such as Iraq, Iran and levels of taxation -- there will be no mandate from the public, and a November victory may prove short-lived.
Democratic leaders appear to grasp this, at least in part.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has been talking up a legislative action plan -- in the W. Post and on Meet The Press -- if they win. She correctly says, “We have to be ready to win, and we have to tell [voters] what we will do when we win.”
The development of such plans that garner party-wide consensus have been slow in coming, and from LiberalOasis’ perspective, there’s still more work to do.
Pelosi’s plan hits some big issues: minimum wage, prescription drugs, 9/11 commission recommendations, student loans.
But, for example, we’re not hearing anything yet regarding how Dems will seek to change Iraq policy if they win back Congress.
And they will get asked.
Today’s poll numbers might lead Dems to think that the hard work on messaging and vision is over, or that there’s no need to tackle tough subjects when the wind of public opinion is at their backs.
But winds can shift.
Dems have some momentum now, but if they can’t craft coordinated messages on difficult issues that will surely remain in the news, momentum can be killed.
Perhaps, because of the GOP’s massive failings, momentum wouldn’t be killed until after November.
But that only brings relief if you’re into fleeting victories.
May 9, 2006 PERMALINK
Cole v. Hitchens Part II: Hitchens v. Hitchens
(posted May 9 2 AM ET)
Following Iran President Ahmadinejad’s surprise letter to Dubya, there’s a fresh round of speculation regarding Iran’s strategy and objectives.
So it’s a good time to check in on the latest development in the Juan Cole v. Christopher Hitchens dispute, which is helping call attention to how neocons are pushing dubious translations to bolster a case for war.
As you may recall, last week Hitchens attacked Cole for arguing that Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to “wipe[ Israel] off the map” and that the remark was a mistranslation. Cole ably defended his argument, and also criticized Hitchens for inappropriately obtaining and publishing a private email of Cole’s.
On Sunday, BTC News (via Juan Cole) found that Hitchens made the exact opposite argument about the meaning of Ahmadinejad’s remarks just two months earlier.
Hitchens’ May 2 Slate piece attacking Cole said:
One might have thought that, if the map-wiping charge were to have been inaccurate or unfair, Ahmadinejad would have denied it. But he presumably knew what he had said and had meant to say.
Yet on March 6, Hitchens wrote in Slate:
The recent fuss about the obliteration of Israel is largely bullshit[.]
“Come again?” you say. That's what he said. Here’s the full context:
Appearances sometimes to the contrary, they are not mad—or not clinically insane in the way that Saddam Hussein was and Kim Jong-il is.
The recent fuss about the obliteration of Israel is largely bullshit[.]
Ayatollah Khomeini's call for this has been intoned pedantically and routinely ever since he first uttered it, and it only got attention this year because of the new phenomenon of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the scrofulous engineer who acts the part of civilian president for his clerical bosses.
These people (who once bought weapons from Israel via Oliver North in order to fight Saddam Hussein) are cynical and corrupt.
They know as well as you do what would happen if they tried to nuke Israel or the United States.
They want the bomb as insurance against invasion and as a weapon of strategic ambiguity to shore up their position in the region.
(Sounds a lot like this guy.)
Granted, Hitchens didn’t say in March that the translation was wrong, so he’s not technically contradicting himself on that point.
But he did effectively contradict himself on the larger point of what Ahmadinejad meant.
In May, he argued Ahmadinejad meant to say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. In March, he argued Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Iranian government have zero intention of doing so.
So when you see White House officials try to dismiss this latest effort by Iran to start a dialogue (remember, this is not the first time they have reached out) by spreading the dubious translation, or reporters lazily repeating it unchallenged, call them on it.
Write to the media outlets, and tell them not only did Prof. Cole deem it a mistranslation, Cole’s most prominent critic doesn’t even think the statement is a real threat.
May 8, 2006 PERMALINK
The Sunday Talkshow Breakdown
A weekly feature of LiberalOasis
(posted May 8 3 AM ET)
There are two tracks to the Porter Goss story.
One involves the supposed turf battles between Goss at CIA, John Negroponte as the newly established position of Director of National Intelligence, and Defense Sec. Don “I’m Not In the Intelligence Business” Rumsfeld.
The other is Hookergate, the investigation into a defense contractor who may have supplied prostitutes to congresspeople and CIA agents, including one of Goss’ top aides, Dusty Foggo.
(Mainstream media actually connecting Hookergate to Goss’ firing include Newsweek, Baltimore Sun, NY Daily News and San Diego Union Tribune. Lots of good analysis at War and Piece and Talking Points Memo.)
On the Sunday shows, the turf battle track got much more play, as GOPers threw cold water on
Dubya’s expected pick to replace Goss, Gen. Michael Hayden (and Dems flinched a bit from hitting the prostitution angle.)
Why are GOPers criticizing?
Because of concerns that Hayden won’t stop Rummy and the Pentagon from taking further control of our intelligence gathering and analysis.
As House GOP Intelligence Chair Peter Hoekstra said on Fox News Sunday:
The danger of having the military take over intelligence is that the military has a very different perspective on the world.
They're worried about today and wars, you know, and threats to the United States in the short term and how we might respond militarily.
So they need information that helps them better prepare for fighting and winning future wars or winning the war that we are in today.
The CIA's job is to provide us as policymakers better information so that we can make informed policy decisions of which — you know, war, and winning a war and the consequences of war are very, very different.
Now, LiberalOasis doesn’t necessarily buy that the motives of Hoekstra and other GOPers are so pure.
Consider that Hoekstra strongly backed Goss and the ongoing purge of CIA officers.
More likely, Hoekstra and other congresspeople just don’t want to be cut out of the intelligence loop. As the NY Times reported last Sept.:
Republican members of Congress say there are signs that the Defense Department may be carrying out new intelligence activities through programs intended to escape oversight from Congress and the new director of national intelligence.
This issue is often characterized as a turf battle between Rummy and Negroponte, especially since when the Director of National Intelligence position was created, Rummy lobbied hard to minimize the control the post would have over the Pentagon – even though the new job was created to better coordinate the entire intel community.
But there are indications that Negroponte isn’t really fighting for his turf.
In Feb., the W. Post reported on congressional concern that Negroponte wasn’t exerting his authority. Dem Sen. Jay Rockefeller said:
I am disappointed that he failed on his first test in wresting control of national intelligence programs from the Pentagon . . . and you only get one or two such shots to show your independence and after that you are just part of the administration
In March, CQ reported (via War and Piece) that Negroponte was regularly taking long breaks at a private club, and:
...some close observers think they know why.
He’s figured out the job. Which is to say, he really doesn’t have much control over the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
So why not hang at the University Club?
And this past weekend, while the LA Times reported that Negroponte was in a “struggle” with Rumsfeld, it also noted he was “cautious in confronting the Pentagon.”
The interesting thing about yesterday's criticism of Hayden is that, while he is in the military, he is currently Negroponte’s deputy and is not seen as particularly close to Rummy.
But according to the W. Post, congresspeople are worried that, like Negroponte, he won’t stand up to Rummy.
Which begs the question: perhaps no one is going to stand up to Rummy, because Bush doesn’t want anyone to.
Which would mean, it really doesn’t matter if Hayden gets confirmed or rejected.
Because the CIA purge will continue, as will the off-the-books intelligence operations out of the Pentagon, regardless of who is eventually confirmed for the CIA.
So instead of getting bogged down in the Beltway turf battle game, we should use the hearings to call attention to how Bush is deliberately degrading our intelligence community in service of his reckless foreign policy agenda.
That means not treating Bush as if he is at all interested in improving our intelligence community.
This is arguably more important than beating on Hayden’s role in the illegal wiretapping.
Everyone’s mind, pro or con, is pretty much made up on the wiretap front.
But with confrontation with Iran looming, it’s extremely important to establish that Bush is intentionally harming our ability to get straight objective analysis of the situation.
(UPDATE 5/8/06 11:30 AM ET -- Further evidence that Negroponte is not fighting his own turf battle. War and Piece flags this piece from the neocon-friendly NY Sun: "A senior intelligence community official yesterday said the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, has indicated 'he is willing to give up covert operations to the Pentagon.'")
|
The Blog Wire
Tracking the liberal blogosphere
**************
The debut book from LiberalOasis' Bill Scher
Available 9/19/06
Pre-order today at Amazon
**************
Editor: Myself: "BBC News confirms the bad news circulating in the past few days. [Canadian-Iranian intellectual] Ramin jahanbegloo is arrested [by the Iranian government]."
War and Piece: "Harper's, with an assist from POGO, has found some truly strange stuff about the limo company owned by the longtime driver for alleged Cunningham coconspirator Brent Wilkes."
Feministing: "The Missouri House approved a bill this week [requiring] public school students to get permission slips from their parents before taking sex ed, would ban 'abortion providers' from providing any class materials, would state that life begins at conception and would have to push for 'lifelong monogamous marriage between a man and a woman.'"
Democrats.com's Bob Geiger: The Myth of McCain as Political Maverick
Nathan Newman: The NeoCons Look Toward Latin America
The Washington Note: "Resigning generals may be the canary in the cave if a real Iran strike is genuinely on course."
Balkinization: "...Bush has taken the ... position that if the President doesn't agree with legislation, even legislation that he signs, it isn't law ... mov[ing] us down the path to a dictatorial conception of Presidential power ..."
Religious Action Center: Why Jews Should Care About Darfur
Demagogue: On Darfur, U.S. Leaders Offer More Platitudes
Newshounds: Mission Accomplished? 3 years and counting
Latina Lista: Already Latino Citizens Are Coming Under Assault and Suspicion
Tapped: "Ryan Lizza's new profile of George Allen is the sort of article that can sink a candidacy."
Think Progress: The Gaping Hole In Rove’s Defense
Opinions You Should Have: Ten Reasons I Will Make A Great White House Press Secretary
Unclaimed Territory: "In just one day, before it has been released, and with literally nothing more in the way of marketing and publicity than a handful of bloggers discussing it and a very committed and passionate blog readership here, 'How Would a Patriot Act?' went to #1 on the Amazon Top Sellers List last night ... thank you and congratulations are in order for everyone who helped make that happen ... I want to make a few observations about why I think this is so potentially significant ..."
No Quarter and TomPaine on the firing of CIA analyst Mary McCarthy
MyDD: Background on the efforts to take control of the internet out of our hands, and into the hands of corporations
Talking Points Memo: "[Former CIA agent Tyler] Drumheller's [60 Minutes] account is pretty probative evidence on the question of whether the White House politicized and cherry-picked the Iraq intelligence. So why didn't we hear about any of this in the reports of those Iraq intel commissions ... He was interviewed by the Robb-Silbermann Commission ... Did he tell them everything he revealed on tonight's 60 Minutes segment. Absolutely."
The Reality-Based Community: "Why, [right-wing blogs] demand, was she fired rather than being prosecuted? ... [W]ait, don't tell me ... ummmm .... because she'd assert a "public interest" defense, which would mean putting the story back on the front pages for weeks, and risk having the facts about what's been going on in those dungeons revealed in open court? Just a guess." (via Tapped)
Stygius: "Will Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice be subpoenaed in the AIPAC espionage case? Looks possible ..."
Informed Comment: "The chief candidates [for Iraq PM] now seem to be Jawad al-Maliki, a long-time Dawa Party activist exiled for decades to Syria, and Ali al-Adib of the Dawa Party's Tehran branch. It is so amusing that the saviors of the Bush administration's political process in Iraq are beholden either to Syria or Iran-- Bush's chief targets for demonization-- for their political survival in the Saddam years ... Some Iraqis believe that Iyad Allawi is going to try to make a coup. None of these maneuvers will dampen down sectarian violence."
The Nation: "Blackwater is being sued for the wrongful deaths of Stephen "Scott" Helvenston, Mike Teague, Jerko Zovko and Wesley Batalona by the families of the men slain in Falluja ... 'Blackwater sent my son and the other three into Falluja knowing that there was a very good possibility this could happen,' says Katy Helvenston, the mother of 38-year-old Scott Helvenston, whose charred body was hung from the Falluja bridge. 'Iraqis physically did it, and it doesn't get any more horrible than what they did to my son, does it? But I hold Blackwater responsible one thousand percent.'"
The Carpetbagger Report: Republican donor gets presidential pardon
Newshounds: Fox News Floundering On Rove, McClellan without GOP Talking Points
Editor: Myself: "Many of Iranian anti-war activists, for whatever reason, forget one side of the story and only attack the Bush administration ... Khamanei must ultimately change his behaviour and at best become a symbolic religious leader with as much power as the King of Spain or Queen of Britain. But it doesn't also mean ... the least transparent and accountable administration in the American contemporary history has the right to topple Khamanei."
Head Heeb: "the situation [in Nepal] is looking increasingly pre-revolutionary ... is anyone else getting echoes of Iran in 1979?"
Ostroy Report: Al Gore Takes Huge Step Closer to the White House
The Democratic Party: "we're on schedule and gearing up for the unprecedented Neighbor-to-Neighbor Organizing Day on April 29th."
**************
REVIEWS
What people are saying about LiberalOasis
"Among the best ways to [pay close attention to the grass roots] is logging onto Web sites like Liberal Oasis."
Joe Conason
"indispensable"
Tapped
"bloggeriffic"
Air America
"something interesting"
Eric Alterman
"quite well reasoned, almost scholarly"
Star Tribune's 2cents
"one of the sharpest political minds around"
Hartford Advocate
"must-read liberal mega-site"
Swing State Project
"unsurpassed political commentary"
P.L.A.
"wonderful"
BushOut.tv
"one of my many must-read-every-day sites"
Terminus
"it's what our site would be like [if we had] more time"
Bear Left
"smart new weblog for us lefties"
Reading & Writing
"always-excellent"
Groupthink Central
"consistently interesting"
Body and Soul
"If you're one of the few who has not been to Liberal Oasis, get on over there for great blogging, sharp humor and activism"
Ruminate This
"It's like a freakin' candy store!"
Chernovog's Journal
"Liberal Oasis is so good I ought to print it out and mail it to my Senators."
The Sideshow
"Excellent commentary"
The Guy James Show
July 26, 2002
"Political Site of the Day"
AboutPolitics.com
"Left-wing twits"
Right-thinking.com
"The parallel dimension in which supporters of Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and various and sundry other shitheels live."
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
"Pathetic site"
Sean Hannity
July 29, 2002
"The Many Faces of Satan© Website of the Week"
Patriotist.com
|
