By Rick Morris
Rumors have run rampant for years now that the Bush administration plans an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities before it leaves office in January 2009. Certainly, the move by the mullahs to acquire nuclear weapons is a frightening one that should be focusing our energies on how best to protect our interests in the Persian Gulf.
But military intervention is not the only avenue open to us in the area. My longtime friend Scott Pullins has announced that his Pullins Report is part of a wide coalition dedicated to pursuing other means of addressing our very real issues with the regime in Tehran.
Ironically, while I'm a bit unsure as to the utility of free and unfettered talks with Iran right now, I support Scott's general efforts 100%. As with his stance on the treatment of detainees, I may differ with him here and there, but I think his general focus is exactly right.
He and I have traveled down parallel political paths, which helps me to understand and to support his present direction a bit better. We were both of college age at the end of the Cold War and we were both very hawkish given the realities of the day. Essentially, while shooting in that war was rare and generally confined to proxies (i.e. Vietnam, Afghanistan), it really WAS a war and we needed to be on a war footing when dealing with a grim enemy which hungered for nothing less than world domination. Ronald Reagan's method of confronting the Soviets directly, which was totally unprecedented, was appropriate and it worked -- and Scott and I supported him.
But we are now in a different time. The conservative movement long ago fractured into the (completely dominant) neoconservative wing and my paleocon wing. The neocons never moved from the "war footing" mentality and seemed well before 9/11 to be searching for any excuse to project American military might upon the world. For all the talk about how Eeee-Vil Republicans tried to destroy the Clintons with the impeachment saga, the neocons stood behind Bubba steadfastly as he wagged the dog with a completely unnecessary war in the Balkans in 1999.
George W. Bush, about whom I can honestly say I was skeptical from the very beginning given my aversion to Republican Establishment figures, came to office promising a humble, respectful foreign policy. But, as the cliche goes, "9/11 changed everything."
The foreign policy "realists" that Scott and I scorned in our youth were wrong then -- I will always believe that. But, given today's circumstances, they are right in this climate.
I have said on The FDH Lounge program that George W. Bush and Bill Clinton each accomplished the same dubious action -- by opposite means. Clinton destroyed American deterrence in the '90s by turning a blind eye to each successive attack by bin Laden and establishing us as a paper tiger. Bush destroyed American deterrence by getting us bogged down in Iraq from the end of the first phase of the war in April '03 until he FINALLY delivered the surge in 2007 -- thus reestablishing us as a paper tiger after restoring our global prestige by winning swiftly in Afghanistan in late 2001. Imperial overreach and pacifism both lead to disaster and to America's enemies licking their chops.
The neocons are right in the very narrow sense about staying on the offensive against Al Qaeda worldwide and this is a job that our special forces should continue to be pursuing in every nook and cranny of the globe regardless of who gets elected president in November (although I'm admittedly scared that Barack Obama will not agree with this basic common-sense point). But starting full-on conflagrations against other governments without fully thinking through the consequences -- haven't we been here before? Every Deskbound Rambo who proclaimed in 2002-2003 that Iraq would be a cakewalk should be permanently prohibited from being taken seriously.
George W. Bush and Karl Rove, who openly dreamed of creating another longstanding Republican dynasty in the mold of William McKinley, have seen their dreams die in the sands of the Middle East much in the same way that Jimmah Carter's aspirations did. To the extent that their militaristic brand of neoconservatism is left to define the Republican party and the broader American Right, then the party and the movement will never recover. That's why, in addition to personal friendship, I support Scott's efforts as strongly as I do. The school of thought about what's best for this country, as well as the country itself, is too important to be left to the rotting corpse known as GOP leadership. Whether you support every individual thread of anti-neocon policy, it's time to get with the program and work for the clear best interests of this country. If opposition to rampant militarism is ceded to the peaceniks and pinkos, we all lose.
Showing posts with label Jimmy Carter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jimmy Carter. Show all posts
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Bob Dole doesn't like two-faced weasels
By Rick Morris
Let's get this straight right away. Scott McClellan was perhaps the worst White House spokesman of the last century. His bumbling, buffoonish hemming and hawing from the podium day after day set a new standard for public ineptitude. Babies crying for their soiled diapers to be changed thought this clown was helpless and pathetic.
But, America being America, he's been able to cash in on his complete inability to fulfill even minor professional standards in the performance of his job.
All of the so-called "revelations" in his book fall into what might be called, in deference to family-friendly standards, "No S, Sherlock territory." Yes, this administration made a decision to get us into war without an imminent threat and played the Dean Smith Four Corners Offense for almost four years prior to the surge in the desert of Mesopotamia while we lost untold blood, treasure and deterrence capacity. Yes, the federal response to Katrina was putrid and down to the almost impossibly low standard of the hopelessly feeble and corrupt state and local governments.
However, McClellan shows himself to be completely gutless in his inability to walk away from this job believing that the president was in the wrong. In this way, Bob Dole is justified in his outrage that this piddling little turd was able to profit from his two-faced behavior.
As a RINO par excellence, McClellan whines and sobs about the Bush Administration's reluctance to "govern from the center," conveniently ignoring all of the left-wing sellouts of the past eight years (big spending, sacrificing poor kids to the alter of Big Labor in the voucher-free No Child Left Behind abomination, trying to put a moderate establishment weenie on the Supreme Court before conservatives howled, etc.) because they don't fit his narrative.
Who can blame him for trying to change the subject, though, especially when he knows that know-nothing jerks like OlbyLoon are going to give him a pass for all of his historical revisionism? The fact is that Scott McClellan was the personification of this administration's failure to live up to any kind of potential whatsoever. As I've stated previously, I voted third-party in the 2000 presidential election out of conviction that the Republican Party had erred tremendously in opting to sublimate its interests to those of the Bush Dynasty. But I did root for the Bush team to succeed in the first term, and saw signs after 9/11 that they just might prove me wrong after all and be up to the job. Sadly, they were not, and by the time the 2004 election rolled around I was pulling the lever in that direction solely out of abject fear of the prospect of radical pacifist, Jimmy Carter's Second Term John Kerry (although an argument could certainly be made that since Kerry would also have been an abject failure these past four years that the country might be better off right now had he won since we'd be poised to expressly repudiate his vision instead of being about to embrace it potentially in the form of Barack Obama -- but that's a different story for a different time).
The disillusionment that I felt with the Bush Administration during McClellan's tenure at the podium originated with their policies and follow-through, or lack thereof, but deepened substantially at their complete lack of competence in allowing this no-talent hack to stumble inarticulately day after day in front of the brutal jackals of the press. Not only could this crew not carry out policies in a capable manner, they could not communicate even a basic vision with any polish whatsoever. As a writer, that offended me greatly.
So to sum up: Scott McClellan didn't demonstrate the Bush Administration's incompetence through the contentions in his book that came out this past week. He demonstrated it by keeping his job for three years.
Let's get this straight right away. Scott McClellan was perhaps the worst White House spokesman of the last century. His bumbling, buffoonish hemming and hawing from the podium day after day set a new standard for public ineptitude. Babies crying for their soiled diapers to be changed thought this clown was helpless and pathetic.
But, America being America, he's been able to cash in on his complete inability to fulfill even minor professional standards in the performance of his job.
All of the so-called "revelations" in his book fall into what might be called, in deference to family-friendly standards, "No S, Sherlock territory." Yes, this administration made a decision to get us into war without an imminent threat and played the Dean Smith Four Corners Offense for almost four years prior to the surge in the desert of Mesopotamia while we lost untold blood, treasure and deterrence capacity. Yes, the federal response to Katrina was putrid and down to the almost impossibly low standard of the hopelessly feeble and corrupt state and local governments.
However, McClellan shows himself to be completely gutless in his inability to walk away from this job believing that the president was in the wrong. In this way, Bob Dole is justified in his outrage that this piddling little turd was able to profit from his two-faced behavior.
As a RINO par excellence, McClellan whines and sobs about the Bush Administration's reluctance to "govern from the center," conveniently ignoring all of the left-wing sellouts of the past eight years (big spending, sacrificing poor kids to the alter of Big Labor in the voucher-free No Child Left Behind abomination, trying to put a moderate establishment weenie on the Supreme Court before conservatives howled, etc.) because they don't fit his narrative.
Who can blame him for trying to change the subject, though, especially when he knows that know-nothing jerks like OlbyLoon are going to give him a pass for all of his historical revisionism? The fact is that Scott McClellan was the personification of this administration's failure to live up to any kind of potential whatsoever. As I've stated previously, I voted third-party in the 2000 presidential election out of conviction that the Republican Party had erred tremendously in opting to sublimate its interests to those of the Bush Dynasty. But I did root for the Bush team to succeed in the first term, and saw signs after 9/11 that they just might prove me wrong after all and be up to the job. Sadly, they were not, and by the time the 2004 election rolled around I was pulling the lever in that direction solely out of abject fear of the prospect of radical pacifist, Jimmy Carter's Second Term John Kerry (although an argument could certainly be made that since Kerry would also have been an abject failure these past four years that the country might be better off right now had he won since we'd be poised to expressly repudiate his vision instead of being about to embrace it potentially in the form of Barack Obama -- but that's a different story for a different time).
The disillusionment that I felt with the Bush Administration during McClellan's tenure at the podium originated with their policies and follow-through, or lack thereof, but deepened substantially at their complete lack of competence in allowing this no-talent hack to stumble inarticulately day after day in front of the brutal jackals of the press. Not only could this crew not carry out policies in a capable manner, they could not communicate even a basic vision with any polish whatsoever. As a writer, that offended me greatly.
So to sum up: Scott McClellan didn't demonstrate the Bush Administration's incompetence through the contentions in his book that came out this past week. He demonstrated it by keeping his job for three years.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
McCain's realistic hope - Democrats blow it
By Rick Morris
The domestic economy is circling the drain and the global economy could well be on the way to following it. The country is at war and 3 1/2 years of George W. Bush trying to apply the "Dean Smith Four Corners Defense" to a bogged-down situation where outclassed terrorists are killing us with IEDs had left him, in the words of one insolent commentator, as less popular than gonorrhea.
Plus, this country doesn't elect politicians of the same party for three consecutive terms even in good times; aside from George Herbert Walker Bush gravy-training Reagan's third term in 1988 (was there even one person in America who voted for that clueless dipstick because they were psyched to have his penny loafers shuffling through the Oval Office every day?), it hasn't happened since FDR was winning like 47 elections in a row back in the day. So even under ideal circumstances, John McCain would probably be screwed this year, right?
Probably. But not necessarily.
There is ample precedent in this country for one political party being pronounced dead and buried only to be revived by the complete and utter incompetence of the other. Granted, things are looking so bad right now that even the Seventies are pointing and laughing and saying, "Man, what an f'd up decade!" But to deny that the Democrats could screw up badly enough to hand it to McCain is to ignore several such precedents in the last few decades:
^ 1964: LBJ massacres Barry Goldwater in the presidential election, and pundits are righting off the Republican party forever for nominating a "right-wing nut." Two years, later, Vietnam and a domestic civil war manifesting itself in the form of riots and anti-war extremism almost costs the Democrats control of Congress and in 1968, Richard Nixon of all people is elected president under the Republican banner.
^ 1972: Nixon is riding high, thrashing George McGovern in a mirror image of the curb stomping the GOP got from LBJ eight years before. He is invincible, King of the World, and the Democrats are a hapless mess. Until, uh, that Watergate thing. He resigns in disgrace in '74 and the Republicans get wiped out in the midterm elections that fall.
^ 1974: If Dubya is less popular than gonorrhea right now, Nixon was trailing jock itch in the polls that year after resigning in disgrace and seeing his party get buried that year in Congressional elections. But then Gerald Ford rallied in '76 to almost win re-election (El Klutzo shouldn't have checked off "Yes" on the "Debate RSVP" that year, though) and Reagan put a huge beatdown on Jimmah Carter in 1980.
^ 1992: The walking coma known as the first Bush Administration ended in ignominy, as a shyster country lawyer from Arkansas won over a nation and came in with much momentum. Having seen Carter get hamstrung by bad relations with Bob Byrd and Tip O'Neill, however, Bill Clinton loudly proclaimed himself the huckleberry for Democratic Congressional leaders and his party got drilled in the '94 midterms, losing both houses of Congress in a historic rout.
^ 2004: George W. Bush was headed for the same one-term status as his mediocre father. The war was being perceived as a mistake, Abu Ghraib gave the America-haters in the domestic and world media with enough rope to hang us and the economy was still largely perceived as sluggish. But in an example of the Feiler Faster Thesis and in a supreme example of good luck, his many deficiencies were overshadowed by the national disaster that was the John Kerry campaign. Dubya became the first president since his father 16 years ago to be elected with an outright majority of the popular vote.
So there you have it. Numerous examples in our recent history of how one political party blew it badly enough to be down forever only to be revived by the mistakes and foibles of the opposition. As a matter of fact, the majority of recent reversals of fortune in this country have resulted in unforced errors being exploited successfully by the other side. So while others may be quick to minimize the effects of an increasingly bloody and bitter battle between Hillary and Obama for the Democratic nomination, I see the chaos for what it is: John McCain's greatest -- and only -- chance.
The domestic economy is circling the drain and the global economy could well be on the way to following it. The country is at war and 3 1/2 years of George W. Bush trying to apply the "Dean Smith Four Corners Defense" to a bogged-down situation where outclassed terrorists are killing us with IEDs had left him, in the words of one insolent commentator, as less popular than gonorrhea.
Plus, this country doesn't elect politicians of the same party for three consecutive terms even in good times; aside from George Herbert Walker Bush gravy-training Reagan's third term in 1988 (was there even one person in America who voted for that clueless dipstick because they were psyched to have his penny loafers shuffling through the Oval Office every day?), it hasn't happened since FDR was winning like 47 elections in a row back in the day. So even under ideal circumstances, John McCain would probably be screwed this year, right?
Probably. But not necessarily.
There is ample precedent in this country for one political party being pronounced dead and buried only to be revived by the complete and utter incompetence of the other. Granted, things are looking so bad right now that even the Seventies are pointing and laughing and saying, "Man, what an f'd up decade!" But to deny that the Democrats could screw up badly enough to hand it to McCain is to ignore several such precedents in the last few decades:
^ 1964: LBJ massacres Barry Goldwater in the presidential election, and pundits are righting off the Republican party forever for nominating a "right-wing nut." Two years, later, Vietnam and a domestic civil war manifesting itself in the form of riots and anti-war extremism almost costs the Democrats control of Congress and in 1968, Richard Nixon of all people is elected president under the Republican banner.
^ 1972: Nixon is riding high, thrashing George McGovern in a mirror image of the curb stomping the GOP got from LBJ eight years before. He is invincible, King of the World, and the Democrats are a hapless mess. Until, uh, that Watergate thing. He resigns in disgrace in '74 and the Republicans get wiped out in the midterm elections that fall.
^ 1974: If Dubya is less popular than gonorrhea right now, Nixon was trailing jock itch in the polls that year after resigning in disgrace and seeing his party get buried that year in Congressional elections. But then Gerald Ford rallied in '76 to almost win re-election (El Klutzo shouldn't have checked off "Yes" on the "Debate RSVP" that year, though) and Reagan put a huge beatdown on Jimmah Carter in 1980.
^ 1992: The walking coma known as the first Bush Administration ended in ignominy, as a shyster country lawyer from Arkansas won over a nation and came in with much momentum. Having seen Carter get hamstrung by bad relations with Bob Byrd and Tip O'Neill, however, Bill Clinton loudly proclaimed himself the huckleberry for Democratic Congressional leaders and his party got drilled in the '94 midterms, losing both houses of Congress in a historic rout.
^ 2004: George W. Bush was headed for the same one-term status as his mediocre father. The war was being perceived as a mistake, Abu Ghraib gave the America-haters in the domestic and world media with enough rope to hang us and the economy was still largely perceived as sluggish. But in an example of the Feiler Faster Thesis and in a supreme example of good luck, his many deficiencies were overshadowed by the national disaster that was the John Kerry campaign. Dubya became the first president since his father 16 years ago to be elected with an outright majority of the popular vote.
So there you have it. Numerous examples in our recent history of how one political party blew it badly enough to be down forever only to be revived by the mistakes and foibles of the opposition. As a matter of fact, the majority of recent reversals of fortune in this country have resulted in unforced errors being exploited successfully by the other side. So while others may be quick to minimize the effects of an increasingly bloody and bitter battle between Hillary and Obama for the Democratic nomination, I see the chaos for what it is: John McCain's greatest -- and only -- chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)