Will Someone Get This Guy a Muzzle?

After his several appearances in the past few weeks for analysis of the British-Iran hostage crisis, I think I prefer Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton in New York City than on TV. Not only has he been irrationally critical of Tony Blair’s handling of the hostages, calling Europeans the “weak link in this” but he has also issued stinging criticism of virtually every aspect of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy.

It’s numbing how only two years ago, President Bush fought vigorously with Congress to get Bolton’s confirmation as US Ambassador to the UN. Bush chipped away at his presidential legitimacy by appointing Bolton while Congress was at recess. In doing so, Bush facilitated the demise of alliances made with Republican House and Senate leaders.

So this is how Washington works. An estranged former UN Ambassador uses his former title to get around the talk-show circuit. At every chance, the former Ambassador bashes the choices made by his former employer and our current leader----Bolton’s speech at his current dwelling, the American Enterprise Institute, “I think [the North Korean deal] will inevitable fail. That day cannot come too soon in my view.”

He criticizes ally governments and their foreign policy decisions and explicitly points out success of foreign adversaries----in his article, “How Iran probed, found weakness and won a triumph,” in the Financial Times, UK published yesterday “Iran, sensing weakness, has every incentive to ratchet up its nuclear program, increase its support to Hamas, Hezbollah and others and even perpetrate even more serious terrorism in Iraq.”

And NOWHERE does he mention the work of himself as US Ambassador to the UN or his colleagues through the UN Security Council with both the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran. This just says to me that he did not take his post as US Ambassador to the UN seriously, that he is NOT interested in diplomacy. Period. Thank God he is no longer our representative in the United Nations.

I agree with Huffington Post’s paralleling Bolton with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who took the high road despite ideological differences with the administration. Even former Secretary of Defense, who some say was used as a scapegoat for the Administration’s unpopular foreign policy decisions in Iraq, has remained silent and respectful of the Administration.

Bolton has decided that it is much more profitable to join in the Bush bashing in American media than it is to bite your tongue and let the administration’s failures (or successes) speak for itself. Had his decision to be so vocal and critical of an administration he has intimate knowledge of been made only to expose the faults of the administration, than I would celebrate his frankness. However, I really don’t think Bolton is doing this for anyone else’s sake but his own. And quite frankly, he’s only rewarding President Ahmadenijad by giving Iran much more credibility, power and international prestige than it really does have.

John Bolton, please just shut up.

British Soldiers in Iran...Why No One Cares

The Iranian hostage “crisis” -if it could be called that compared to the Iranian hostage (real) crisis of 1979 involving American soldiers- has important implications for the international community. It is an important chance to see the political prowess of the Iranian regime as they interact with one of the West’s most prominent powers. How Ahmadenijad choose to engage or not engage in negotiations with Britain can give the United States unequivocal data into the psyche of the Iranian President.

Apparently not everyone sees the importance. I was disappointed not only at how little attention was paid to the situation but most importantly, the level of analysis applied when the crisis was covered. It seems American media is infatuated with the millions fundraised by Presidential candidates more than the international implications of a British-Iran diplomatic showdown.

BBC remains my preferred news source because of its analysis and unbiased presentation of important international news. Case in point…quotes from both Iranian and Middle Eastern newspapers were collected by BBC and offer a broader perspective on the circumstances and the global implications of the release.

After some searching, I did find some substantive engagements in the crisis and its implications in the American media. I disagree somewhat with Slate’s view of the crisis as a total Tony Blair/ British failure. Clearly the situation had an international impact and using Blair or the British government as a scapegoat is ignorant.

The Moderate Voice is entertaining on the matter, but not necessarily analytical.

I greatly appreciated Charles Krauthammer’s op-ed in the Washington Post which explored other institutional failures. He was disappointed in the failure of the European Union, who prefers soft power diplomacy to “the brute military force those Neanderthal Americans resort to all the time” as well as the United Nations.

It is very evident that Ahmadenijad attempted to use the hostages as political leverage. Specifically coining the release “a gift to the British people,” and awarding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard members who captured the British naval men. The moderate Iranian news, Kargozaran, states, “Iran’s withdrawal of all its legal demands has surprised the people because we did not see any obvious flexibility from the UK.” Reformist news, Aftab-E Yazd, said, “The release of the British sailors just a day after Tony Blair’s empty threat did not arouse any sense of pride among Iranians but possibly even a sort of repulsion.”

As news of Iranian soldiers in Iraq being released and the treatment of the British sailors are uncovered, this issue is not over and done with. I’m looking forward to finding more pieces of the puzzle and hopefully uncovering support for my belief that the crisis was not a complete Iranian victory.

Gingrich Video

Thank you Huffington Post, for the nice piece about Gingrich's "ghetto fab" slip up and the ever-so-entertaining Spanish apology on You Tube.

Gingrich Eats His Words (and Presidential Nomination)

Funny of the Day: White, rich Republican candidate apologizing for using "ghetto" to describe low income, uneducated, non-English language. In a speech denouncing bilingual education, Gingrich supported teaching English, "the language of prosperity," and hoped to get rid of "the language of the ghetto" in American schools.

I'm trying to find a video online of his apology in......oh dear God.....Spanish......

Humans are Just Naturally Evil Assholes...

I remember hearing about Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo's controversial but extremely enlightening prison experiements at Stanford that had to end early because of the psychological damage inflicted on subjects. Now he's written a book discussing his experiment and comparing results to the atrocities of Abu Ghraib prison at the hands of US military. The New York Times sits down the the psychology professor to discuss his new book and his ideas on the myth of inherently good human beings.

Expanding the US Missile Defense System: A Little More Skywalker, A Little Less Solo

Apparently Star Wars groupies in Washington are preparing for May’s Star Wars Celebration IV in Los Angeles a little early. The convention pays homage to the release of the first Star Wars film, released 30 years ago. Officials from the Missile Defense Agency, MDA, think what better way to channel the Jedi force, than to go back in time and expand the “Star Wars” missile defense system to Central and Eastern Europe. Their attempts to divide the world into the light side and dark side, however, is just as outdated as watching “The Empire Strikes Back” on VHS. Expanding the missile defense system into Europe while ignoring international concern only further encourages U.S. isolation in the international community.

U.S. and U.K. officials seem united in believing missile interceptor sites in Europe will protect both countries and their European allies. Potential host countries Poland and the Czech Republic are interested as well. The emerging Iranian threat, headed by dark and deceptive Emperor Ahmadinejad, remains the single uniting reason to support the MDA. And belief that Iran may emerge as a nuclear threat is legitimate. So is the North Korean threat.

The world is different than it was when “Star Wars,” the movie and the missile defense system were introduced. Iran and North Korea are not the evil empires the United States alone must combat to save the world. Instead, the international community is vastly complex with many members vying for respect, authority and cooperation. It isn’t as simple as the U.S. protecting its allies and itself.

Point in case: Russia’s ominous response to U.S. proposals. The original evil empire at the onset of “Star Wars” missile defense system has made itself quite clear. U.S. interceptor satellites in Poland and Czech Republic will be interpreted as an aggressive act on Russia and will incur an equal and opposite “force” - yes that is another Star Wars reference- in response.

Although stemming from what is post-Cold War paranoia, Russia has every right to object to U.S. missile interceptors next to its borders. The U.S. cannot hope to gain momentum in their plan without aggressively and persuasively engaging Russia in their missile defense expansion plan. Failure to do so indicates U.S. indifference, which is counterproductive to dismantling the Cold War mentality that to this day still rears its ugly head.

Meanwhile, in Europe…German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been the system’s most vocal critic next to Russian President Vladimir Putin. She echoes Putin’s concern that U.S. actions will provoke an arms race, and destabilize NATO, the EU or both. Yet her criticism has been subdued as of late- probably a result of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s Jedi abilities when she met with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier Monday, March 26.

And the U.S. goodwill tour continued throughout the European galaxy. The Czech Republic agreed on Wednesday, March 28 to open official negotiations for hosting U.S. interceptor satellites in its territory. MDA’s goal is to have the half a billion dollar radars up and running in the Czech Republic within four years. On that same day, Brigadier General Patrick O’Reilly, Deputy Director of the MDA, met with Hungarian Defense and Foreign affairs officials in an attempt to charm European hearts.

What is most disturbing is O’Reilly’s attempts to use fear as leverage for the system expansion. “Twenty years ago eight countries had ballistic missiles. Today 24 have them and we are very concerned that that number continues to grow,” O’Reilly said, going on to cite North Korea, Iran and terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah as possible threats. As aspiring Jedis, the MDA must remember Master Yoda’s wise words: fear leads to anger, hate and suffering. This rhetoric blatantly echoes the Cold War mentality Merkel and others fear could return to the international community if the expansion succeeds.

You would think the MDA would get a clue judging by the response it is receiving in Europe. Officials in the Czech Republic were met with intense protests and anti-American rallies. A stinging op-ed was published in the Washington Post by former secretary of defense and Polish senator, Radek Sikorski, that warns an arrogant United States to not take Polish and Czech governments for granted. Despite attempts to downplay Chancellor Merkel’s disapproval, Germans are weary as well. Germany’s position as President of the EU signifies the country’s importance in the matter. And of course, there is good old Vladimir Putin, taking satellite receptors as a sign that the U.S. is out to get him and his country.

The truth is the U.S. lacks the respect in the international community to pursue this issue unilaterally. It also, unfortunately, lacks the credibility to manipulate European governments to aid without significant compromise.

The consequences of expanding the “Star Wars” system promote deeper Russian skepticism and destabilize a fragile European Union expansion. Doing so will illustrate a flagrant disregard for international wishes on the part of the United States.

If the United States is bullheaded in pursuing this policy (as Western machismo suggests they are), using international institutions, particularly NATO is the best way to do so. Working through this defense alliance assures Central and Eastern host countries that the U.S. is not simply trying to protect itself from domestic threats, but that is resolved to protect European allies as well. While attempts to compromise with Russia may fail, they must be attempted and convincingly. When they do expand, the U.S. must also provide defensive aid to the Czech Republic and Poland against Russian missile threats.

In summary, the United States has got to be a little more Luke Skywalker- positive and influential- and a little less Han Solo- heroic but reckless.

Springtime and Vetoes

Springtime in Washington…birds chirping…flowers blooming…and veto showdowns between the executive and legislative branches.

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate narrowly approved a bill that funded $122 billion to the Iraq conflict but called for a withdrawal of most of U.S. forces by March 31, 2008. A few days earlier, a similar bill was passed in the House. President Bush answered with the threat of vetoing both bills, accusing Congress of withholding important funding from our troops and undermining Executive power over military policy. He has recently engaged in strengthing ties with his fellow Republicans by inviting the entire House GOP caucus to the White House in an attempt to assure a presidential veto will not be overridden with the 2/3 vote it needs.

The funny thing about the presidential veto is that it is most powerful when it is not used than when it is used. A powerful president will strategically place the word “veto” next to “cooperation” and “compromise” while the legislation is still in its early phases in Congress. By alluding to his constitutional power to veto legislation, he encourages the House or Senate to work with the executive to create laws that appease both branches. A wise president understands that he/she may even appear weaker by using the power of the presidential veto because it indicates an inability to work with Congress to pass legislation that fits the administration’s agenda.

In the current Congress-Bush struggle with funding and Iraq War withdrawal timeline, the President George W. Bush takes center stage. The perceived weakness by a potential veto on his unpopular war in combination with the President’s lame duck status and unprecedented unpopularity combine to leave the most damaging of circumstances to Bush…a losing legacy in the American history books. If President Bush vetoes either the House or Senate finance bill with an Iraq withdrawal timeline, he should do so on unconstitutional grounds. Legislation must be vetoed on grounds of unconstitutionality, not merely unpopularity in the administration.

That being said, there are points made by both Republicans and Democrats on this particular issue:

Points for Republicans
o Senate and House Democrats (and a few Republicans) are resolved in removing troops but have yet to agree to an effective unit of measurement for proper withdrawal…if they can’t do it how can they hold the administration responsible either?
o There is some truth to Republican criticism that the Congress is micromanaging military policy and…
o Failing to pass legislation for funding leaves thousands of our troops stranded, poorly equipped and at the fate of lawmakers thousands of miles away. By withholding proper funding to make a political point to the Bush Administration, the Democrats are using these men and women as political pawns.

Points for Democrats
o President Bush’s unpopularity has never been more defined. Period.
o Momentum in the bills passed in both the House and Senate stem from momentum of Democrats taking Congress in the midterm elections. They have enough support to suggest an electoral mandate to counter certain aspects of the Bush administration’s legislative agenda.
o The Democrats have successfully thrown the ball in President Bush’s court and leave him directly responsible for the fate of the bill as well as the programs and, most importantly, the men and women affected by the proposed funding within the legislation.

The moral of the story, however, is no one is completely right. Compromises must be made, and quickly. Representative David R. Obey (D, Wisconsin) and chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, “Nicaragua ended with a compromise. El Salvador ended with a compromise. Vietnam did, too. The president will compromise.” Let’s hope both the President and Congress can make history repeat itself in ending the Iraq conflict.