A Running Diary of Thought

This site made possible by:

 

Billy Meet Bobby. Now Spar!

The recent news that Bill Clinton and Bob Dole will have 10 weekly debates is just too good to be true. After Bob Dole left office, he became, well, funny. Of course, it's only a two-minute segment. But that'll change once it again becomes the most-watched show on television.

"We're doing 60 Minutes because we're too old for 'Survivor' and 'Star Search,'" Clinton says in 60 Minutes' news release. Perhaps. But don't you think he'd rather be on the Bachelor, Are You Hot?, or the next Joe Millionaire?

But the skeptic digresses. This would suggest that James Fallows' piece in The Atlantic Monthly (article not available online, but the interview is) was right to detect that Jeffersonian streak in Clinton's Post-Presidential life. But it also suggests a fifth post-presidential way--besides Jefferson's coaching of successors, TRoosevelt's re-entry into presidential politics, Carter's humanitarianism, and Taft and JQAdams's re-entry into different branches of government (judiciary and legislative, respectively).

The fifth way combines Jeffersonian advising for the Democratic Party, with TR, Taft and JQA's desire to remain in touch with the American people, which Clinton's been longing to do.... But are the American people ready for them?

Clinton says it himself, "If we bust out and nobody wants to watch us and they're bored stiff, CBS could make 75 or 80 percent of the American people happy if they fired both of us."

By the way, is Star Search totally out of the question? After all, Clinton has some major connections....

posted at 5:25 PM |

 

File This, Kaus!

Or, Just Consider This Thought...

kausfiles takes on Pollack's comments about whether the U.S. should have even bothered to go to the U.N. to deal with Iraq. In a recent interview, the dove-into-hawk converter seems to contradict himself by arguing that taking Iraq to the Security Council was a good thing, even though he doesn't think the U.N. will ever seriously deal with Iraq.

But it seems to me that what Pollack is really advocating is a more multilateral approach. Not necessarily waiting for the U.N. to act, but working with a number of countries in a way that demonstrates to the world that this is not just a pet issue for Bush, but rather a legitimate concern for international stability.

Unlike kausfiles, the skeptic thinks when Pollack says "And instead they recognized that was a mistake" (skeptic's emphasis), he's referring to the administration's belief that 'We've got all the authority we need to go ahead and do this.'"

In other words, he believes that taking it to the U.N. was useful because it showed the U.S. was willing to work multilaterally to solve the issue, but the way in which it was done was not particularly helpful because of Bush's longstanding commitment to oust Hussein alone if necessary. By beginning with the go-it-alone approach, and then taking Iraq to a much-divided Security Council, the U.S. challenges the world to stop it, instead of encouraging the world to work with it.

posted at 1:48 PM |

 

Aligning American Allies

the skeptic's India correspondent (read: friend of a relative) forwarded this article about why Indians are against the war. Vir Sanghvi finds--much to his surprise--that 80 percent of those surveyed disapproved of plans for a war against Iraq. The reason? That pesky war on terror and Bush's good-versus-evil rhetoric.

Damning quote: "how credible can a war against terror be when your principal ally is the man who sends terrorists across [India's] borders?"

(The American Heritage picks up on this theme in their interview with Ralph Peters, who questions why international stability seems to be the dominant concern of U.S. foreign policy.... the article is long, and the skeptic hasn't quite had time to finish it, but look for more comments soon...)

What drives the divide between the U.S. and Russia? A couple of popular anti-war activists... Well, perhaps "drives" is a little too strong...

posted at 4:13 PM |

 

Whoops, Part II

London's Observer busts the U.S. for spying on UN Security Council members. Ahh, American diplomacy at its finest. As the article notes: "While many diplomats at the UN assume they are being bugged, the memo reveals for the first time the scope and scale of US communications intercepts targeted against the New York-based missions." Enjoy the leaked memo.

Any chance the American media reports this?

Update:The Post does here; The LA Times does here.

Update 2: Salon's Jake Tapper posts an article explaining why it matters.

posted at 5:34 PM |

 

The Iraqi Left

Frank Smyth writes a unique and compelling article about the Iraqi Left. He asserts most Iraqi Leftists (aligned with the Iraqi Communist Party) oppose Bush's war plans--but not war itself. Instead they want support for an Iraqi-led military uprising, or a multilateral military intervention.

This suggests that they are very worried about becoming a colonial outpost of the U.S. Another interesting tidbit: since the ICP isn't composed of refugee aristocrats, it hasn't got any play in the planning of the post-Saddam regime... Also, the ICP doesn't simply blame Bush for the looming war.

In this regard, the Iraqi Communist Party ironically joins the Bush administration in unequivocally demanding that Saddam fully cooperate with U.N. inspections to prevent his regime from developing more weapons of mass destruction. “The rulers” of “the dictatorial regime in Iraq,” reads an Iraqi CP declaration, put “their selfish interest above the people’s national interest, refusing to allow the [work] of U.N. weapons inspectors, and thus preventing action to spare our people and country looming dangers.”

Fine, but how many Iraqis are leftists? And how many of them see it exactly this way? Note to the Iraqi Communist Party: change your name, you might see some U.S. love....

P.S. How would the Iraqi Left define 'multilateral'? Do they need the UN stamp of approval? Or would a coalition larger than that of the first Gulf War suffice? As Rumsfeld said in a Newshour interview recently,

I keep reading things like "unilateral." I can't make a prediction but I'll bet you anything there is at least a 50-50 chance that there would be more countries, if the decision is made, that there would be more countries supporting the United States in a coalition of the willing with the United Kingdom and other countries in this coalition than there were in the Gulf War in 1991.

Does anyone buy that? Seems like this would be a good story for someone to pick up...

posted at 1:39 PM |

 

Looking for the Cure...

the skeptic is on the edge of his seat waiting for this one....

posted at 11:44 PM |

 
Note to skeptical Readers: the skeptic has contacted the fine folks at Blogger.com to try to figure out why the current page updates so much later than the archives.... Also the abundance of posts today should accommodate for a lack of posts over the past weekend, and an expected dearth of posts the next couple of days...

posted at 11:24 PM |

 

Will Bush Coast to Victory?

ABC's The Note put together this impressive list of reasons why GWB is doing better at this point in his presidency than GHWB was during his...

1) There's more time for the economy to get better soon enough for voters to feel it. (Better than expected economic news this morning, reports ABCNEWS' Schindelheim: GDP was revised UP, instead of down. The four-quarter increase was 1.4 percent).

2) He will continue to push a domestic agenda, even during war (reports today peg his Medicare unveiling to the period in which the CW has it that the attack on Iraq will begin).

3) He has a loyal, nearly leak-proof, blind-quote-eschewing staff.

4) He almost certainly won't face an attack from the right or a nomination challenge.

5) The congressional wing of the party is likely to be more supportive of him than the '92 crowd.

6) The war against terrorism has the potential to re-create the Cold War's electoral college lock.

7) There is currently no Ross Perot-like figure that will drain right-leaning votes away from him in the general.

8) The McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan changes will magnify his fundraising abilities.

9) Unlike his father, who resisted starting his re-election campaign, 43 launched his own during the transition in 2000, and hasn't let up.

10) At this writing, the Democratic field does not appear to have the kind of once-in-a-lifetime political heavyweight that was Bill Clinton.

11) The crowded Democratic field will be relatively easy for the White House to discombobulate.

Yikes! the skeptic wishes he had insight, or could counter the above claims.... Instead, the skeptic only wishes to say that he thinks 4 & 7 are mostly the same, and doesn't quite understand 6...

Update: Okay, an attempt to refute some of these points...

1) Even if the economy does start crawling back, will it be enough to help voters forget Bush's mediocre economic policy? Will anyone think Bush's plans did anything to lift the economy out of its doldrums?

2) Is it enough to push an agenda during war? Or does the agenda have to be one that appeals to most Americans?

3) Perhaps he won't face a challenge from the right, but he may find some disillusioned centrists willing to switch sides for an interesting, charismatic Dem (is there one?). Furthermore, Bush's not-always-compassionate conservatism may invigorate the left and get them to show up at the polls...

4) McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan also helps Clinton pull in the bucks... Which doesn't have quite the draw as being president does, but it's notable nonetheless....

5) Anyone who strongly comes out of the huge Democratic field, will have a lot of momentum (read: favorable press) on his side... Just hope the candidate doesn't get dragged through too much mud in the meantime...

posted at 11:12 PM |

 

Winning Hearts, But Losing Minds?

TNR's Hudson Morgan checks in on how the U.S. government's first-ever Arabic-language television channel is being set up. The campaign is being run by Norman Pattiz, founder and chairman of Westwood One.

The article looks at his creation of Radio Farda, "a bubble gum blend of Persian and Western pop." The upside is that the campaign is now reaching more listeners than ever before. The downside is that it replaced Radio Azadi, which actively fomented student-dissent activity in Iran. Washington has now put its faith in broadening the appeal of its media to attract more viewers--hoping that MTV will help "tear down the wall."

As Pattiz himself said: "There is a media war in the Middle East and its weapons include deception, incitement to violence, hostile propaganda campaigns, and government censorship." How effectively can pop fight this?

posted at 11:07 PM |

 

The New Democratic Candidate?

Tom Friedman launches his campaign to become presidency in a rather unusual way. Most candidates form publicity-creating "exploratory committees." Nope, not Friedman. Instead, he writes a column about what he would have done had he been in GWB's shoes. And, actually, it's quite impressive (after all, he does have the benefit of hindsight at this point). The Friedman List (and who it helps):

1) Offer a meaningful alternative to the Kyoto Protocol (European governments)

2) Not unilaterally scrapping the ABM treaty (Russia government)

3) Not proposed two radical tax cuts before heavily investing in nation-building (the economy)

4) A real Manhattan Project for alternative energy (the economy)

5) Told the Palestinians they wouldn't be dealt with until they stopped suicide bombing and got a leader who wanted peace (Israel, average Palestinian)

6) Told the Israelis that every new or expanded settlement would cost them $100m in U.S. aid (Palestine, Europe, Arabs)

7) Told Arabs that the U.S. has no imperial designs (Arab governments)

Couple of points: Friedman may be making too much of how Bush scrapped the ABM treaty in how it affects the current situation... but no doubt it helped create the image of the go-it-alone cowboy.... Embarking on Friedman's new Manhattan Project would do little to alleviate the high oil prices we face today, but would certainly have seriously undercut the repugnant, but popular belief that this is all about oil...

Okay, so he's not really launching a presidential campaign, but is there any doubt that the Democratic presidential candidates are going to use this as the blueprint for going after GWB in the next election? After all, it is pretty good...

posted at 9:39 PM |

 

Aiding the Fight Against AIDS?

The New York Times ran six stories Saturday on the White House's plan to fight AIDS. First up: Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance, pushes for the White House to give money to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Zeitz, who worked for U.S. government agencies in Zambia, says the effects of GWB's recent proposal "won't be felt in Africa for almost two years" due to typical bureaucracy.

The global fund, he asserts, could deliver the money and assistance in a matter of months (what accounts for the huge difference?) and only spends an impressive 3 percent of its monies on administrating the fund. Perhaps most important, the fund is coordinated with governments, nongovernmental organizations, international agencies and the private sector. Zeitz sees this as a huge opportunity for Frist to stand his ground with the WH, and push the House to approve a landmark bill.

Tricia Rose sees a significant gap in attention given to black women. She gives this scary statistic: "Black women make up less than 15 percent of the female population in the United States. But they represented 64 percent of all new AIDS cases among women in 2001." And while the skeptic isn't quite sure about the negative sexual image of black women, there can be little doubt that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Two authors from the World Bank want the GWB administration to ease up rules on the selling and trading of generic anti-retroviral drugs. This is something that's been agreed to in principle, but the authors suggest that it's being bogged down in talks right now....

Two medical experts fear the drive to fight AIDS leaves other dangerous diseases out of the spotlight. For instance, Hepatitis B and C, which "cause chronic liver infection that can be fatal, especially in developing countries where treatment is rare and a liver transplant is beyond almost everyone's means." But in making the case for their diseases, they overstate the successes of the fight against AIDS, pointing to success in Uganda. While Uganda has had success, it's foolish to take the exceptional case and suggest that it's the norm. That said, few would disagree that the world must remain vigilant against diseases in a way that saves the most lives...

Kati Marton, of the International Women's Health Coalition, takes the administration to task for not funding international family planning programs, "asserting that sex education promotes promiscuity." And drudges up last year's embarrassing UN Special Assembly on Children when the U.S. allied only with Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria and Iraq on this very issue.

the skeptic sees this as a valid point, but wonders how much not funding these programs that discuss abortions and distribute condoms really affects the serious cultural issues listed at the top of the article. Does simply funding these programs mean the end of "sexual coercion and violence against women, child marriage, polygamy and the widespread belief that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS"? Marton is a little too eager to demonize the administration, and fails to make a strong link between funding these programs and changing the culture....

At the same time, the Spectator's Hugh Russell offers this grim prediction:

In 1993 [Zambia's] neighbour Botswana, the place that used to be Bechuanaland and which today is one of the most economically successful countries in Africa, had an estimated population of 1.4 million. Today that figure is well under a million and heading downwards. Doom-merchants predict that Botswana may soon become the first nation in modern times literally to die out.

Russell sees cultural factors as dooming southern Africa. In fact, he offers these heart-breaking pronouncements: "one is haunted by the feeling that the worst is yet to come" and "there’s something else you can do, which costs nothing and which, cynics would say, is liable to be just as effective [as donating money to charities]. ... You can pray for us."

Russell's pessimistic vision should be balanced with the optimism of the medical experts above, and also seek to effectively answer Marton's dilemma. Edward C. Green, a medical anthropologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, takes the example of Uganda, adds context and history, and gives hope. The answer? A top-down emphasis on abstinence and monogamy.

But can the liberal AIDS groups embrace this effective conservative mantra?

posted at 8:50 PM |

 

Saddam Vs. Hussein, Part II

In response to my open-ended question, skeptical Reader MH offers this theory: "My copy chief told me that years ago AP decided to go with calling Saddam, Saddam, as opposed to Hussein, out of deference to Jordan's King Hussein. Perhaps no validity to the theory but it's one nonetheless."

If true, it certainly is interesting how the AP decides to defer to King Hussein on these matters.... Wonder if there was White House pressure on this.... At any rate, now that King Hussein's dead, must we still defer to him?

posted at 6:39 PM |

 

Human Shields, But What to Shield?

The anti-war activists in Newsweek's "Babes in Saddamland" perfectly match the stereotype: pot-smoking hippies flashing peace signs and brandishing Beatles memorabilia..... They have descended on Iraq to become human shields (www.humanshields.org) attaching "themselves to power facilities, water treatment plants, bridges, hospitals and other installations crucial to civilian life."

Never mind that, as the WP reports today, "Infrastructure such as electrical plants will not be hit, said people familiar with the planning." After all, if the U.S. is going to rebuild Iraq (assumption), it wouldn't want to devastate infrastructure if it didn't have to...

It's true that this article was just another way to make the anti-war protesters fit the mold of wacky, crazy liberals, but how far from the truth is it?.... In the end, the anti-war movement is riven by diverse motivations, and composed of a group dedicated to the symbolism of protest instead of actively advocating measures to improve both international security and the lives of Iraqis....

Diverse Motivations: One human shield says, “Every day people die from pollution, from global warming, from getting run over on the highway. More people died in 1991 from dirty water than from bombing; that’s one reason I want the electricity to stay on so that water and medical facilities will continue." (skeptic's italics)

Symbolism: Another human shield anonymously admits, “I’m trying to meet with [U.N. weapons inspectors] to make sure the sites we’re stationed at aren’t close to legitimate military targets.”

posted at 3:59 PM |