“The cut-and-run phrase is an effective political weapon…It is also a very dumb phrase…As one Republican congressman put it recently: ‘Reality has been suspended for a moment. Republicans cannot speak out publicly on this issue right now.‘” With even Republicans making dour assessments of Baghdad these days, Slate‘s John Dickerson makes the obvious points against Dubya for the “cut-and-run” garbage he indulged in last week.
Category: Dubya Diplomacy
State of Denial?
“What’s maddening is the way Woodward reverses his point of view without acknowledging he ever had one — then or now. You could charge him with flattering politicians only when they’re up, and piling on when they’re down. But you might as well accuse a weathervane of changing its mind about which way the wind should blow.” Slate‘s Jacob Weisberg examines Bob Woodward’s treatment of Donald Rumsfeld through his three Dubya books (most recently State of Denial) and finds him a fickle beast at best.
Feral Lapdog?
“The disclosures so far have been devastating. The book paints the administration as clueless, dishonest, and dysfunctional.”” Slate‘s John Dickerson surveys the likely political impact of Bob Woodward’s State of Denial, which broke today (in the NYT, strangely enough) and which is apparently much more critical of the neocons than his last two puff pieces, Plan of Attack and Bush at War. Of course, we’ve all known that the Dubya White House is chock-full of scheming, untrustworthy, incompetent loons for years now, but apparently, when Bob Woodward finally figures it out, it’s suddenly newsworthy. Oh well, I’ll take it.
The Knights who say NIE.
“Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq ‘jihad;’ (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims — all of which jihadists exploit.” In a sorry attempt at a document-dump diversion, the precis of the National Intelligence Estimate report cited over the weekend has been declassified by order of the Dubya administration, so as to help blur one of its central contentions in the public mind (point #2 above): The Iraq War has served to fuel the expansion of terrorism against the US and its allies. (Update: If you’re here from Daniel Drezner’s blog, welcome, and have a look around.)
Tribunes v. Tribunals.
“Purely from a strategic point of view, this is another mess…Every time Republicans think they have an issue to unite them and divide the Democrats, the Republicans end up spending most of the time fighting among themselves.” As fear-mongering and falling oil prices perhaps help the GOP get back in the race this November, the WP surveys the political implications of the recent stand of principle by Senators Warner, McCain, Graham, and Snowe against Dubya’s grotesque tribunal plan. Politics or no, Dubya’s proposed gutting of the Geneva Conventions must be stopped: “‘What is being billed as “clarifying” our treaty obligations will be seen as “withdrawing” from the treaty obligations,’ Graham said. ‘It will set precedent which could come back to haunt us.'”
The Shame of Kazakhstan.
Now, in our country there is problem. Despite being British, Sasha Baron Cohen, a.k.a. Borat, sparks a mild diplomatic situation between the US and Kazakhstan, one that the administration will try to alleviate with White House talks. To be honest, I think I’d prefer Borat representing my country over Dubya.
Al Liars.
“‘Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden,’ the former Iraqi foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, told the Federal Bureau of Investigation when he was asked about Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda’s leader…’He specified that if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China,’ says a passage in the nearly 400-page report.” A new Senate intelligence report confirms what has become patently obvious: There was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the war. “Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was ‘a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration’s unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts’ to link Saddam to al-Qaida.”
The Party of Lincoln?
“It is no secret that I have serious questions about this Administration’s policies in the Middle East.” Desperate to shore up his maverick cred before the GOP primary next week, Sen. Lincoln Chafee puts a hold on the GOP’s planned Bolton coronation. (Of course, the UN would never have had to put up with Bolton in the first place were it not for Chafee’s capitulation last year.)
Scribbling Adams | Exhuming Neville.
Two recent history-minded links courtesy of the NYT: National Review‘s Richard Brookhiser evaluates the marginalia of John Adams, and Sheryl Gay Stolberg examines the recent revival of Munich among the Bushies (as does the WP‘s Eugene Robinson.)
Strategery in Action.
“As for Iraq, it’s no news that Bush has no strategy. What did come as news — and, really, a bit of a shocker — is that he doesn’t seem to know what ‘strategy’ means.” Slate‘s Fred Kaplan tears apart another dismal Dubya press conference. At this point, it’s a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, isn’t it?