Neocons and the truth: Bitter enemies to the end
In a July, 2006 article in Rolling Stone -- entitled "Iran: The Next War" -- the superb journalist James Bamford detailed the shady activities of numerous neoconservatives inside and out of the U.S. Government to plan an attack on Iran. Bamford focused on the role played by Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute and National Review, who created and began implementing an attack scheme in coordination with the Pentagon's then number-three official, Doug Feith, and Feith's deputy, Larry Franklin (subsequently convicted of felonies for passing classified information to AIPAC).
A couple weeks after Bamford's exposè was published, National Review enlisted former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy and talk show host Mark Levin jointly to author a defense of Ledeen and, more importantly, to savage Bamford for writing what they claimed was a pack of lies. The McCarthy/Levin article was entitled "Rolling Smear," sub-headlined "James Bamford writes a fiction about our Michael Ledeen," and accused Bamford of being "the latest in a growing crowd of hacks to smear our friend Michael Ledeen."
McCarthy and Levin specifically attacked Bamford's disclosure that Ledeen "had arranged a covert meeting in Rome with a group of Iranians [and Feith's team] to discuss their clandestine help" in attacking Iran. Said McCarthy and Levin:
Bamford, to the contrary, wants to turn the meeting into a nefarious plot by Ledeen and the neocons to push the nation into war with Iran. Yet, anyone even vaguely familiar with Michael's work knows that he has opposed military action against Iran -- notwithstanding that he was years ahead of most experts in accurately portraying Iran's role as the terror master at the center of the jihadist network.So Bamford's claim was "embarrassing" because "anyone even vaguely familiar with Michael's work knows that he has opposed military action against Iran." Got that?
Here's Ledeen yesterday, writing in National Review's Corner (h/t sysprog):
Time to Attack Iranian Terror Camps? [Michael Ledeen]More amazingly, a mere two weeks before McCarthy and Levin wrote that "anyone even vaguely familiar with Michael's work knows that he has opposed military action against Iran," Ledeen himself wrote at The Corner that "I would insist that my soldiers have the right of 'hot pursuit' into Iran and Syria, and I would order my armed forces to attack the terrorist training camps in those countries."So says John Bolton, and he's right. As you know, I have been proposing this for years. I always thought it was only a matter of time before we were compelled to take this action, which is a legitimate form of self-defense. And while we're at it, we should do the same thing to the Syrian camps as well. It isn't "sending a message," it's acting to protect our guys by fighting back in the proxy war the mullahs have been waging since 1979. Faster, please?
In late 2006, I wrote about virtually identical deceit from this same group, that time with regard to Iraq. On National Review in December of 2006, Ledeen -- just as the Beltway establishment was finally turning against the war in Iraq and in the wake of a lengthy Vanity Fair article identifying the neocons who were to blame -- claimed: "I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place."
In fact, Ledeen, throughout 2002 and 2003, had repeatedly and explicitly urged the invasion of Iraq in countless venues, including: The Wall St. Journal's Op-Ed Page ("If we come to Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran as liberators, we can expect overwhelming popular support"); in an interview with David Horowitz's Front Page ("Question #2: Okay, well if we are all so certain about the dire need to invade Iraq, then when do we do so? Ledeen: Yesterday."); on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews ("if President Bush is to be faulted for anything in this so far, it's that he's taken much too long to get on with it, much too long"); and in National Review (calling for "the desperately-needed and long overdue war against Saddam Hussein and the rest of the terror masters").
That war-cheerleading neoconservatives of this strain are completely unbound by the truth is not news. Obviously, the war they unleashed in Iraq is the most compelling proof of that. But sometimes when the lying is so blatant, one can't help but note it.
The same is true for the complete lack of accountability. Ledeen is a so-called "Freedom Scholar" at the revered and widely-cited American Enterprise Institute and a Contributing Editor at National Review. An intense email campaign over his Iraq comments to AEI and National Review's Editor Rich Lowry demanding a retraction or some comment from them on Ledeen's blatant falsehoods over his Iraq stance was simply ignored, as will be this episode concerning the article by McCarthy and Levin smearing Bamford due to Ledeen's alleged opposition to attacking Iran.
This isn't just a matter of documenting guilt with regard to what happened with Iraq. The Washington Post's David Ignatius today became just the latest establishment spokesman to warn (or celebrate) that "judging from recent statements by administration officials, there is also a small, but growing, chance of conflict with Iran."
The neoconservative war-lovers behind this effort have not changed, nor have their tactics. They realize, as many of them acknowledge, that they will have four more years in power if John McCain is elected. But they also realize that he may not be, and that their last hope for their long-desired attack on Iran lies in convincing the current administration to provoke one before its tenure ends. As much as one wishes it weren't true, as much as the fixation on petty election issues might obscure it, the truly depraved extremist group that brought us the invasion of Iraq still exerts substantial influence and is quite busy trying to exert it.
UPDATE: It isn't just the American neocons, but also the Israelis, who are escalating the "Attack Iran" campaign. The Jerusalem Post yesterday "reported" that "with Iran racing forward with its nuclear program, Israel now believes the Islamic Republic will master centrifuge technology and be able to begin enriching uranium on a military scale this year" (h/t quick strategy) and:
The new assessment moves up Israel's forecasts on Teheran's nuclear program by almost a full year -- from 2009 to the end of 2008. According to the new timeline, Iran could have a nuclear weapon by the middle of next year.According to several commenters, the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. was on Fox News this morning making the same fear-mongering claim.
The principal tactic Israel-centric neocons have repeatedly used with Bush to induce him to attack Iran has been to tell him that history will judge him based on whether he permits Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. From The Weekly Standard's Irwin Stelzer, writing about a 2007 White House luncheon with Bush, historian Andrew Roberts, and a group of necons:
The closing note was a more serious one. Roberts said that history would judge the president on whether he had prevented the nuclearization of the Middle East. If Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other countries will follow. "That is why I am so pleased to be sitting here rather than in your chair, Mr. President." There was no response, other than a serious frown and a nod.Norman Podhoretz, when telling the President to bomb Iran, used the same tactic:
"I urged Bush to take action against the Iranian nuclear facilities and explained why I thought there was no alternative," said Podhoretz, 77, in an interview with The Sunday Times. . . .And now, magically up pops these new reports from Israel warning that the deadline to stop Iran's nuclear bomb is the end of the year -- right before George Bush leaves office. Bush has less than eight months left to fulfill his history-mandated mission "to prevent another holocaust" by attacking Iran, or else "be in the historical dock if he allows Iran to get the bomb." They're as transparent as they are dishonest and bloodthirsty.He also told Bush: "You have the awesome responsibility to prevent another holocaust. You're the only one with the guts to do it." . . . .
"The president has said several times that he will be in the historical dock if he allows Iran to get the bomb. He believes that if we wait for threats to fully materialise, we'll have waited too long -- something I agree with 100%,' Podhoretz said.
Greater Regulation of Financial Markets?
Gary Becker
The major deregulation movement of the past 100 years started with the Ford and Carter administrations in the 1970s, and continued through the Reagan years. This movement came to an end with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 under the administration of George W. Bush. Since then some sectors, such as labor markets and product safety, have been regulated much more extensively, while others, including commercial and investment banking, have had no further declines in the extent of regulation. Despite the considerable and tangible successes of this deregulation movement, the pressure is intense to significantly increase the regulations affecting consumer safety, the introduction of new drugs, and especially financial markets.
The 1970s saw a bipartisan reduction in the regulation of airline travel, trucking, security exchanges, and commercial banking. Measures of the success of this deregulation include sharp declines in the cost of air travel and of shipping goods by truck, huge reductions in commissions on stock transactions, and higher interest rates on bank deposits. Not only has no serious attempt been made to re-regulate these activities, but also European and many other nations on all continents have copied the American deregulation of airlines and securities.
The impetus to tighter regulations varies from sector to sector, although there is a growing belief that many activities are insufficiently regulated. Obviously, the current turmoil in the financial sector is stimulating many proposals to regulate extensively various types of financial transactions. Yet it is not obvious that the problems in the financial sector resulted mainly because of insufficient regulation. For example, commercial banks are probably the most heavily regulated group in the financial sector, yet they are in much greater difficulties than say the hedge fund industry, which is one of the least regulated industries in the financial sector. Banks participated very extensively in originating mortgages, including subprime mortgages, and in buying mortgage-backed securities, and so they are suffering from the high foreclosure rates, and the sharp decline in the market value of these securities.
One reason why extensive regulation of commercial banks did not prevent many banks from getting into trouble is that bank examiners became optimistic along with banks about the risks associated with mortgages and other bank assets because the market priced these assets as if they carried little risk. It would run counter to human nature for regulators to take a skeptical attitude toward the riskiness of various assets when the market is indicating that these assets are not so risky, and when originating and holding these assets has been quite profitable. One can expect regulators to mainly follow rather than lead the market in assessing riskiness and other asset characteristics.
To some extent that was also true of the Fed's behavior during the past few years. I believe that Alan Greenspan is right in claiming that the main cause of the housing boom was not the Fed's actions but the worldwide low interest rates due to an abundant world supply of savings. The demand for very durable assets like housing is greatly increased by low interest rates. Still, the Fed seems to have contributed to the booming demand for housing and other assets by keeping the federal funds rate artificially low during the boom years of 2003-05.
In evaluating the need for greater financial regulation, one should also not forget that the American economy greatly outperformed the European and Japanese economies during the past 25 years. Might that not be related in part to the fact that the United States led the way with major financial innovations like investment banks, hedge funds, futures and derivative markets, and private equity funds that were only lightly regulated? An infrequent period of financial turmoil may be the price that has to be paid for more rapid growth in income and low unemployment. Rapid income and employment growth might be worth an occasional period of turmoil especially if they do not lead to prolonged slowdowns in the real part of the economy. So far the effects on GDP and employment have not been severe, although the financial distress is not yet completely over.
Nevertheless, a few important regulatory changes are probably warranted. For the first time the Fed allowed investment banks access to its federal funds window, and the Fed guaranteed $29 billion worth of mortgage-backed assets to induce J.P. Morgan to take over that investment company. Since these types of Fed actions would likely be repeated in the event of future financial turmoil, investment banks would have an incentive to take on additional risk since they can reasonably expect to be helped out by the Fed in the future. For this reason it might be desirable for the government to impose upper bounds on the permissible ratios of assets to equity held by investment banks. The ratio of assets to the equity of the five leading investment banks did increase greatly from about 23 in 2004 to the highly leveraged level of 30 in 2007.
Other regulations of financial institutions may also be merited, but elaborate new regulations of the financial sector would be counterproductive. For example, the Fed has proposed limits on how much mortgage interest rates can exceed the prime rate for low-income borrowers with poor credit ratings. This would be a foolish intervention into the details of credit contracts that have all the defects of usury laws.
The financial sector has served the economy well by managing, dividing, and pricing different types of risks in the economy. It would be a mistake if Congress and the President allow the present financial turmoil to panic them into inefficient new financial regulations.
Under Clinton's rules, Obama still wins
Barack Obama can fully accept Hillary Rodham Clinton’s terms on Michigan and Florida and still win a majority of pledged Democratic delegates on June 1, allowing him to lay claim to the nomination under the New York senator’s own rules.
A Politico analysis of the delegate numbers after Tuesday’s primaries in North Carolina and Indiana shows Obama can concede to Clinton’s position on Michigan and Florida and still claim victory — potentially forestalling the Democratic nightmare scenario of a floor fight at the Denver convention.
The Clinton campaign rejected the premise of Politico’s analysis, dismissing it as “artificial metrics” that “might make for interesting cocktail party conversation” but would give Obama no legitimate claim on the nomination.
But the numbers could add to Obama’s growing strategic advantage. Some background: The magic number of pledged delegates — excluding Florida and Michigan, which were stripped of their delegates for holding early, unsanctioned primaries — is 1,627 to have a definitive majority.
Obama will reach that threshold on May 20, after the Kentucky and Oregon primaries, and plans to declare victory.
The Democratic National Committee sets the clinching number at 2,025 pledged delegates and superdelegates, excluding Florida and Michigan. The rationale of the Obama camp is that hitting 1,627 means the candidate is a lock for the higher DNC number also, because superdelegates are unlikely to overturn voting results.
Many neutral Democratic strategists agree. “It’s not going to happen,” said Carter Eskew, the chief strategist for Al Gore’s 2000 campaign. “I don’t think anybody in Democratic circles, not aligned with either campaign, believes any different.”
Clinton’s campaign, however, has argued that Obama needs to clear yet another figure — 2,209 pledged delegates and superdelegates, a figure that includes the two rogue states. Clinton aides have said Obama won’t meet that target on May 20.
But using Clinton’s own numbers, there now seems a clear path for Obama to claim victory. If Clinton managed a split in Oregon — a state Obama is heavily favored to win — he would still need only 35 percent of the delegates in Puerto Rico to clinch a lead in earned delegates.
Clinton’s push for the full inclusion of Florida and Michigan brings the total pledged delegates to 3,566. That would mean the magic number for a majority would rise to 1,784.
A conservative assessment of Obama’s chances shows he would reach 1,785 pledged delegates on June 1, when polls close in the Puerto Rican primary.
This showing by Obama is possible even under extremely generous expectations for Clinton in the weeks ahead. Should she win about 70 percent of the delegates in West Virginia next week, a showing she has only accomplished in her husband’s native state of Arkansas, she would walk away with 19 additional delegates to Obama’s nine delegates.
A week later, should Clinton win 62 percent of the delegates in Kentucky, larger than her win in her home state of New York, she would walk away with 32 additional delegates while Obama would walk away with 19.
The Clinton campaign insisted that even if Obama reaches 1,785, he’s not the nominee. “Declaring mission accomplished doesn’t make it so. The Democratic Party’s rules do not differentiate between the different types of delegates. Using artificial metrics . . . won’t change the fact that it takes 2,209 delegates to win the nomination," said deputy communications director Phil Singer.
An unassailable lead in pledged delegates, however, also would give Obama wide flexibility in negotiations over how to handle Michigan and Florida.
Obama’s campaign currently refuses to tie delegate allocation in Florida and Michigan to voting results in the two states because both candidates pledged not to campaign in either state. Obama was also not on the ballot in Michigan.
Clinton’s argues that to not recognize either contest would be equivalent to disenfranchising voters. Clinton’s aides also point out that Obama chose to remove himself from the Michigan ballot.
Howard Wolfson, one of Clinton’s two strategists, said Friday during a breakfast with reporters that the campaign would be willing to offer Obama all of the “uncommitted” votes from Michigan providing both states were seated in with delegate totals reflecting their votes.
Obama’s supporters had to vote “uncommitted” when they went to the polls in the Jan. 15 Michigan contest.
Both the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties have expressed a preference for Clinton’s stance — though the position has been opposed by Obama. The DNC and state parties have broadly indicated that they would accept any deal the two campaigns agreed on.
“If there was a proposal that both campaigns and the leadership of both states agreed upon, it's likely the [DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee] would accept that,” said a Democratic Party veteran who has not sided with either campaign.
Obama’s campaign has not agreed to Clinton’s terms, in part for fear it would shift the paradigm of the race and offer Clinton a way to narrow the gap in pledged delegates.
But the Politico analysis shows that if Obama gets all the “uncommitted” votes in Michigan, as Clinton’s team proposes, and Obama's rogue state delegates are bona fide supporters, he will still win a majority of pledged delegates.
This also means that any decision on the status of Florida and Michigan by the eagerly anticipated RBC session May 31 could largely be moot, in terms of shaping who wins the nomination.
Jenna Bush marries Henry Hager in a private ceremony at the Bush ranch
by Mark Silva
Wedding bells will ring at the Prairie Chapel Ranch outside of Crawford, Texas, today, as a first twin, Jenna Bush, marries Henry Hager, son of a Virginia Republican.
"Please excuse me if I'm a little sleepy,'' the father of the bride, the president of the United States, has been seen joking. "A 3 am the phone rang.... The wedding planner.''
"I've got a lot of on my mind, by the way,'' Bush also has been heard to say, "getting ready to walk down the aisle.''
The aisle will be behind closed doors, at the Bush family ranch -- unlike the last White House wedding in 1971, a Rose Garden affair for the Nixons.
"I wanted to have something private -- something that fits my personality a little more,'' Jenna Bush has said. Her sister, Barbara, will serve as bride's maid.
The couple met around the White House. Henry Hager, son of a Virginia Republican who has run the state party and served in the Bush administration, worked in the political shop at the White House. The couple plans to settle in Baltimore.
McCain paints Obama's portrait
Although Sen. Hillary Clinton was -- and still is -- battling Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, McCain began preparing his case against the Illinois senator early on. McCain's advisers, like other observers, had concluded that Obama was the likely nominee and wanted to begin shaping Obama's image while the Democrat was still consumed with fighting Clinton.
Defining one's opponent is a key task of any campaign, and simply put, McCain has had a long head start. As early as Feb. 12--the day McCain and Obama each won primaries in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. -- McCain suggested Obama was guilty of hollow promises and a messianic self-image.
"To encourage a country with only rhetoric, rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people, is not a promise of hope," McCain said, alluding to Obama's speaking skills and campaign theme. And in another jab he added, "I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need."
Unlike McCain, Obama has been fighting a two-front war, trying to beat back an onslaught from Clinton while taking opening shots at McCain. Recently Obama has started focusing more squarely on the presumptive Republican nominee, attacking his positions on the war and the economy.
But because of the long, bruising Democratic campaign, McCain has gotten an early jump. Day by day, week by week, McCain has been portraying Obama as inexperienced, self-entitled and effete, a candidate coddled by a loving press corps and lacking the judgment necessary for the highest office in the land.
It's a line of attack likely to last through the fall election.
We'll make the case that Barack Obama is a wonderful new voice selling old, discredited ideas, including the most massive tax increase since Walter Mondale ran for president," said Steve Schmidt, a senior McCain adviser. "It's a combination of weakness, not being ready to be president and not being able to deliver on the things he says he will deliver on."
It's not clear how widely these criticisms have resonated, given the intense media focus up to now on the Democratic battle. The Obama campaign says that in any case they are unlikely to sway voters eager for change.
"Unlike John McCain, Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose this disastrous war from the beginning and the judgment to understand that for the sake of our security we now need to change course and bring it to a responsible conclusion," said Hari Sevugan, an Obama spokesman.
"It's clear that John McCain isn't offering anything new--his false attacks and meaningless labels are as tired as the failed Bush policies he's offering for another four years," Sevugan added.
McCain sees soft spot
But the McCain camp sees Obama's relative lack of experience and accomplishment as a major vulnerability, especially compared to a longtime senator and war hero. In a speech on his judicial philosophy last week, McCain again went after Obama for being more of a talker than a doer, as well as for what he considers his limited record of bipartisan accomplishment.
"Sen. Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Sen. Obama than it did the guy who can get things done," said McCain, accusing Obama of casting a "partisan" vote against John Roberts to be chief justice of the Supreme Court.
On Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" on Thursday, McCain was asked what Obama's main weakness is as a candidate. "Inexperience," he replied. "I think inexperience and lack of judgment, and a record that shows that--whether it be showing a desire to sit down with the president of Iran, who has articulated his country's commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel, [or] wanting to raise people's taxes."
As Obama closes in on the Democratic nomination, the public's attention is likely to turn more to the fight between Obama and McCain. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released Friday showed Obama leading McCain 45 percent to 40 percent, with the rest undecided. Most national polls have shown a statistical tie between the two, though polling this early often doesn't predict reliably.
Both candidates have emphasized their intention to run civil, positive campaigns. But that hasn't stopped either from taking shots.
Charles Black, McCain's senior strategist, said both McCain and Obama have presented themselves as change agents, and voters should know which candidate has the record to back it up.
"Both candidates are candidates of change, reform, and promising to work across party lines," Black said. "Guess who has a record of doing that? It's McCain and not Obama."
McCain is particularly critical of Obama for his plan to quickly withdraw troops from Iraq and his willingness to meet with the heads of rogue nations. Those positions, McCain frequently suggests, are grounded in a lack of experience, as well as poor judgment.
On "Morning Joe" on MSNBC in April, McCain, a former Navy fighter pilot, responded with derision to Obama's call for leaving a limited strike force in Iraq. "I think somebody ought to ask what in the world he's talking about, especially since he has no experience or background at all in national security affairs," McCain told host Joe Scarborough.
Message against grain?
But McCain faces hurdles in getting through to the public with that message. The Iraq War is deeply unpopular, which matches Obama's position better than McCain's. Republicans remain unpopular. Most voters believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, that economic conditions will get worse and that gas prices are likely to stay high, said Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg.
"Being the experienced person from Washington is not what voters are looking for right now," Greenberg said. "People actually want something very different. They want Washington to be different."
Some of McCain's arguments about Obama have already been tried by Clinton, who has portrayed Obama as inexperienced and unlikely to get big things done.
"Just because it didn't work so well for Hillary Clinton doesn't mean it's not going to work for John McCain," said Amy Walter, editor of the non-partisan political guide The Hotline. "What you're talking about are two different audiences."
The possible shape of a McCain-Obama contest came into stark relief last week when McCain noted that a spokesman for the Islamic militant group Hamas had said he supports Obama. The Illinois senator, who has said he would not meet with Hamas leaders, called that "a smear" and said McCain was "losing his bearings."
That, in turn, prompted the McCain campaign to issue a blistering response calling Obama's words a clumsy way of pointing to McCain's age, which is 71.
Descentralization is not Division:
RELIAL Supports Referendum in Santa Cruz, Bolivia
The referendum in Santa Cruz province, Bolivia, has a very important connotation. It is the first of a series of referendums in the country. The purpose of the referendum is to turn the administration of Bolivia, a traditionally centralized country, into a decentralized and therefore accessible and useful administration for its citizens.
The Government of Evo Morales rejects the idea of democratic decentralization. Thus, Morales is using different and dangerous tools against this initiative, generating a violent and repressive atmosphere.
Evo Morales is trying to follow the footsteps of his role model Hugo Chavez, by trying to centralize the entire state power on his own person, to accomplish his dictatorial project. For example, he annulled a resolution of the Bolivian Congress to determine a new law in favor of his own purposes. The “Movimiento Autonomista Boliviano” emerged in response of this illegal Constitution.
In countries with a solid federal tradition, such as Spain, the autonomy did not threaten the national unity but reinforced the democracy. Therefore, we support this referendum. This initiative searches for a governmental decentralization, respecting the regional autonomy characteristics, and we can find successful similar models in Europe.
To clarify confusing and false versions: the referendum respects Bolivia as a sovereign and indivisible state. This is not a division process. The Bolivarian provinces wish to decide about their autonomy, and are therefore urging the government of Evo Morales to respect their civil rights.
Thus, the members of RELIAL (Liberal Network of Latin America) invite the international community to watch and escort the referendum. The Santa Cruz citizens will express their will voting next Sunday for this legitimate referendum. And their voices must be respected.
No comments:
Post a Comment