Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.
Well, we saw an earthquake in Denmark as the Left returned to power. Now eyes are on France in a stunner: the French Left has taken the Senate. This is huge news. The Left has not held the French Senate since the formation of the 5th Republic back in 1958.
The French Leftist parties ran united against austerity and PM Sarkozy. It worked. PM Sarkozy faces reelection this April and this is a major blow; coupled with Socialist wins in local elections, the French Right are getting worried.
The French Senate power change will impact one major austerity measure:
There is no major legislation outstanding that a left-wing Senate could delay, but losing his majority there would bury Sarkozy’s grand plan to get a budget-balancing debt rule written into the French constitution, a measure that could have been an anchor for France’s AAA-rating.
The hope is the Left is truly having a comeback in Europe. France and Germany are major players in this whole austerity kick these days. The faster the Left can surge there the faster we can get off austerity.
“Nothing changes one very important fact, namely, that Dominique Strauss-Kahn violently sexually assaulted the victim inside of that hotel room at the Sofitel,” he said. Prosecutors from the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., who initially were emphatic about the strength of the case and the account of the victim, plan to tell the judge on Friday that they “have problems with the case” based on what their investigators have discovered, and will disclose more of their findings to the defense. The woman still maintains that she was attacked, the officials said. “It is a mess, a mess on both sides,” one official said. – Strauss-Kahn Case Faces Test in Hearing
Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s guilty conscience made him do it, resign his IMF position, that is. Too bad he didn’t know then what the New York Times is now reporting.
Readying to run for the president of France, in fact already the favorite to win over Sarkozy, Strauss-Kahn caving to intense public pressure after doing the perp walk, it’s stunning now that the alleged rape victim’s own credibility and behavior has thrown the international sex crime intrigue into a tail spin.
I can’t see any reason for Strauss-Kahn giving up so much after he was arrested if he didn’t assault the maid. But in a rape case the woman has to be a credible witness or it devolves into a never ending case of he said-she said.
The New York sex crime unit has a very good reputation, but if the New York Times is correct in its reporting, with there no reason to believe they aren’t, it’s obvious that the urgency to arrest Strauss-Kahn before he left the country was the primary objective and came before anyone did any homework at all on the maid, which is truly investigative malpractice.
There’s a lot said in this country by feminists that America doesn’t take rape seriously. Ms. Magazine’s tweets are often focused on this subject. I’ve never agreed with this stance, though I certainly understand the horror for a woman attacked and the cultural history in this country of blaming her.
It could be the case here that Strauss-Kahn’s womanizing caught up with him in New York City, but that the woman he assaulted had her own problems too, which even if he’s a scoundrel and she was raped, has caused the case to implode.
According to the two officials, the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded.
That man, the investigators learned, had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. He is among a number of individuals who made multiple cash deposits, totaling around $100,000, into the woman’s bank account over the last two years. The deposits were made in Arizona, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania.
The investigators also learned that she was paying hundreds of dollars every month in phone charges to five companies. The woman had insisted she had only one phone and said she knew nothing about the deposits except that they were made by a man she described as her fiancé and his friends.
UPDATE 2:Prosecutors release the letter sent to defense lawyers about the accuser of Strauss-Kahn, which obviously led to his release. It’s a horrible embarrassment for the N.Y. D.A. Even as the woman’s allegations of rape by Strauss-Kahn could be true, her prior false statements, including on affidavits, are devastating to the prosecution. In part it reads:
[...] In interviews in connection with the investigation of this case, the complainant admitted that the above factual information, which she provided in connection with her asylum application, was false. She stated that she fabricated the statement with the assistance of a male who provided her with a cassette recording of the facts contained in the statement that she eventually submitted. She memorized these facts by listening to the recording repeatedly. In several interviews with prosecutors, she reiterated these falsehoods when questioned about her history and background, and stated that she did so in order to remain consistent with the statement that she had submitted as part of her application.
Additionally, in two separate interviews with assistant district attorneys assigned to the case, the complainant stated that she had been the victim of a gang rape in the past in her native country and provided details of the attack. During both of these interviews, the victim cried and appeared to be markedly distraught when recounting the incident. In subsequent interviews, she admitted that the gang rape had never occurred. Instead, she stated that she had lied about its occurrence and fabricated the details, and that this false incident was part of the narrative that she had been directed to memorize as part of her asylum application process. .. …
“We inject less libido… We don’t necessarily inject our own egos…” – Christiane Lagrande, French Foreign Minister (possible IMF replacement for Strauss-Kahn)
Foreign policy studies find that when women are included in a nation’s national dialogue that country has not only a better chance of stability, but it’s the only way developing nations can thrive. There are now studies that women make companies more economically successful when they’re in the lead. On ABC’s “This Week” yesterday, Christiane Amanpour teed up the topic with Cecilia Attias (ex-wife to Pres. Sarkozy), Torie Clarke, Claire Shipman.
Rush Limbaugh was even more unhinged than usual today because of this subject. Limbaugh talked about the “chick-i-fi-cation” of the U.S. One female caller said that women today having affairs with politicians are “greedy,” because in the old days they’d keep their mouth shut. Classic example of Rush’s female audience. This same caller opined that men should run the household, while Rush blamed liberal women for the fate of a bullies, Weiner and everything that ails the male populace.
After all these years of tuning in to Rush, however briefly when I can. I’m still amazed that his criteria for a successful woman includes marriage, children, heterosexualism, but especially beauty.
But while countries and corporations need women to thrive and succeed, there are other examples where women haven’t made any difference at all.
Where foreign policy, diplomacy and militarism meet, women still fail as miserably as men, because they’re intent on channeling what any man would do or say. Sometimes, of course, foreign policy answers aren’t gender based, with the obvious answer showing itself no matter the gender. But in tough geopolitical situations, so far women still have not found their own way.
Let’s remember who was at the forefront of Obama’s decision to get involved in Libya, which began with Samantha Power and Dr. Susan Rice, but also Sec. Clinton, who was convinced bombing Libya was the right move. It wasn’t.
There is no evidence whatsoever of women being more restrained, thoughtful or less militaristic. See Liz Cheney, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, but also women like Anne-Marie Slaughter, who wrote an op-ed entitled “Fiddling While Libya Burns.” You could also add Sec. Madeleine Albright’s comment that Colin Powell recalled in his memoir: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?” It blew his mind.
[...] And Israel is none-too-enamored of the alternatives in Damascus. One alternative to the Assad regime — a democratic Syria with greater soft power diplomatic heft and perhaps with Islamists as part of a governing coalition — is as unappetizing a prospect for an Israel intent on maintaining its belligerent posture to the Palestinians and to the region (including its occupation of the Golan heights), as the Egyptian version of the same is shaping up to be. Another alternative — that of Syria becoming a largely ungoverned chaotic space and forming an arc of fitna (or sectarian strife) with Iraq and Lebanon is also unattractive.
For the peace rejectionist government of Prime Minister Netanyahu, the survival of an embattled, desperate, and thoroughly discredited Assad regime apparently hits that Goldilocks sweet spot — just the right outcome.
If you take the time to read the whole piece carefully what Daniel reveals is the reason for U.S. policy being so hopelessly skewed and interminably incoherent, even as events continue to unwind. From Levy:
At least until Sunday’s events, Israel’s position on revolution in Syria hued closely to the status-quo conservatism that has so characterized the shared Israeli-Saudi response to the Arab Spring. Both Israel and Saudi had been critical of the “premature” abandonment of the Mubarak regime, especially by the U.S. Unlike Mubarak, of course, Assad is not an ally (for either the Israelis or the Saudis), but he is part of an ancien régime for which Israel had effective management strategies in place.
Fox News contributors take whacks at Sec. Clinton for her, let’s call it a softer approach to Assad, but considering Israel’s own stance it’s rather ironic conservatives don’t get what’s going on.
On Sunday, June 5, marking Naksa Day (the Arab “setback” in the 1967 war), protesters — mostly Palestinian refugees and their descendents — marched to the Israel/Syria disengagement line representing the border between Syria and the Israeli occupied Golan Heights. According to reports up to 22 unarmed Syrian-Palestinian protesters were killed when Israeli forces apparently resorted to live fire (Israeli laid mines may also have been detonated and may have caused causalities, the exact unraveling of events remains sketchy). In most respects, this Sunday’s events were a repeat performance of the outcome of May 15′s Nakba Day commemorations (which Palestinians mark as the anniversary of their catastrophe in 1948).
Israel’s initial response to the wave of regional anti-regime protests reaching Syria was, according to reliable reports, to privately root for the “devil we know” approach — encouraging allies, including the U.S., to go easy on the Assad regime.
The backdrop for all of this is the notion of a U.N. vote for Palestinian statehood this fall, which will change nothing without negotiations, something that the “peace rejectionist government of Prime Minister Netanyahu,” Daniel’s description that I am hereby adopting, has no intention of engaging seriously.
But if anyone thinks this is good news for Israel they’re wrong.
Some commentators love the Libya war; others hate it. But most agree that it’s profoundly unnatural that we were pushed into it by… France. Welcome to the post-American world. In the age we’re entering, most of the time, the choice will no longer be between humanitarian interventions controlled by the United States and humanitarian interventions where other nations take the lead. The choice will be between humanitarian interventions where other nations take the lead and no humanitarian interventions at all. – Peter Beinert
Pres. Obama is walking away from what Pres. Bill Clinton believed about the U.S. in foreign affairs. That we are the indispensable nation. In the year of the Arab Spring, that’s simply so ’90s.
This is what’s causing Republican heads to explode, with GOP presidential wannabes seeing this as their opening.
Rarely agreeing with Mr. Beinert, what he writes about today is the most important aspect of what’s going on over Libya, as Arab uprisings continue to spread and unwind.
He also has the most classic analysis of Gates since he uttered his own “on the fly” description of Obama’s war of choice in Libya.
I don’t know what it took to convince an obviously reluctant Robert Gates to permit American involvement in the Libyan no-fly zone, but it’s a reasonable bet that had Barack Obama not been able to promise that it would be a mostly European affair, Gates would now be a military analyst on Fox News. It’s not the 1990s anymore. The American public’s appetite for humanitarian war has always been meager. And now the American government’s capacity for waging it is meager, too.
Old school Republicans like Haley Barbour, Mitt Romney and to a lesser degree Newt Gingrich, as well as Sarah Palin, who simply doesn’t have the depth of foreign policy knowledge or study to do anything but parrot neoconservative ideology, are all caterwauling about Pres. Obama’s alleged lack of leadership. The problem with Newt’s fumbling analysis is that it reveals he’s absolutely paralyzed with fear at being humiliated in his quest for the Republican nomination, which seems baked into the plot. With Romney willing to say whatever it takes to nab the nomination this time around. The others simply refuse Obama’s premise.
Obama’s incoherence on Libya, especially Pres. Obama’s arrogant slight of Congress, is unquestionable. Sending Sec. Clinton out to do his job hardly puts to rest the argument that the women guided him into Libya, in fact it reinforces it. No doubt he’ll be center stage whenever this ill fated foreign policy misadventure concludes, taking credit, of course.
But Pres. Obama is attempting to transition the United States into a more humble foreign policy based on practicalities, not the least of which is our terrifying fiscal insolvency, even if Obama’s own mathematical solutions are as bad as Republican.
As impossibly scatterbrained as the Obama administration’s foreign policy is, looking at Republicans and their regurgitation of 20th century national security talking points that long outlived reality, is enough to scare anyone to death. Not only are they clueless about the emerging Arab world, but these fiscal numbskulls can’t even swallow that our means of making war can’t ever be again to deploy tens of thousands of troops. Modern warfare nimbleness hasn’t cracked their thick skulls yet.
But then Pres. Obama’s own stubbornness on Afghanistan is just as bad.
Beinert’s analysis of Europe is also noteworthy, as it’s the bookend change to what’s exploding in Arab nations. Part of it is due to Europe’s own experiences of war on their own soil, something America hasn’t faced. We still see bombs as flowers to people in countries we are invading to “save” for freedom, while European nations focus on the human carnage war making manifests.
Jeffersonianism has landed in Washington, which is why Obama’s taking such a hit politically.
Which leads us back to Beinert: Jeffersonians, to borrow Walter Russell Mead’s phrase, believe that preserving America’s economic and political solvency requires reining in American empire.
Ah, but countries have egos. The Republicans want to continue feeding ours, while Pres. Obama is trying to starve it.
If Pres. Obama wasn’t delivering confusion and chaos through his clumsy transition to America sharing the world’s stage with France and the rest of Europe, instead of making the case directly, which is a good one, the American people just might buy it.
The original intent of the no-fly zone was to prevent carnage in Benghazi. It did. Now fears are growing that a humanitarian crisis is coming across Libya.
Who could have predicted that? After all, war never causes these types of secondary issues– Oh, strike that. Pres. Obama and his administration say this isn’t a war. I keep forgetting that point. If Obama says it isn’t a war it isn’t a war, right?
MR. RHODES: Well, again, I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone. Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end. But again, the nature of our commitment is that we are not getting into an open-ended war, a land invasion in Libya. What we are doing is offering a unique set of capabilities over a period of days that can shape the environment for a no-fly zone.
What could possibly go wrong with this mumbo jumbo?
What a giant political disaster Pres. Obama has created. And not calling what’s being done in Libya a war? Who are these guys and how did they get to such a level of leadership? It’s absolutely juvenile.
It’s hard to find a precedent for a president ordering U.S. military forces into action, then heading off for a five-day tour of Latin America, but that’s just what President Barack Obama did when he approved the deployment of air and naval assets to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. His homecoming gift is a barrage of questions about the military action Obama aides refuse to label a “war.” – Unanswered questions about Libya
Jamie Rubin put it well on MSNBC this morning. There’s an old saying about NATO, which has an alternative acronym: Needs America To Operate. The reason America usually leads, which is why the Right and others are caterwauling about the operation, is that without our lead things fall apart.
Pres. Obama missed that lesson and is now in the middle of an international diplomatic firing squad, while his people are arguing about whether this is a war or not.
I can picture V.P. Joe Biden right now muttering expletives under his breath.
Sarkozy’s stamp on the conflict has been unmistakable. Cable news in the U.S. on Monday featured the celebrity philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, an unexpected Sarkozy ally, barking praise for the French president at a CNN anchor and elated Libyan opposition fighters shouting, “Merci, Sarkozy.” And Sarkozy was indeed a central force in goading the world to act. “Sarkozy has a huge investment in seeing Qadhafi go,” said Justin Vaisse, the director of research for the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings in Washington. “He’s going to be a constant force in favor of hardening the stance and the action.” – Nicolas Sarkozy’s war, by Ben Smith
Intelligence from people on the ground reveals there really isn’t a good reason for Pres. Obama to have engaged in the Libya no-fly zone. While Ms. Maddow was correctly slamming the Right’s Sen. Lindsay Graham and others, as well as the notion of impeachment that was always a non-starter, her purpose of pushing the marketing aspect of Obama’s reluctance, as well as his smaller U.S. foot print, didn’t hold up for very long. It hardly matters what’s being said as the U.S. pounds Libya with $1 billion worth of armament not surprising in the end, while also stating we’re getting ready to go and that Gadhafi has to, too.
The Democratic support for Obama on Libya is well-meaning, of that I have no doubt. But it’s sorely out of step with reality, which John Judis proves accidentally, especially when you consider Obama’s inaction on Iran in ’09, Egypt, not to mention what’s happening in Bahrain, which forces the U.S. to be on the side against the people looking for freedom, because of national interests. When you look at Syria exploding and Yemen as well, if this is our policy, our no-fly efforts look like the beginnings of interminable interventionism. That’s not going to happen, so Pres. Obama’s reasoning quickly starts to collapse.
Richard Engel provided the proof that U.S. intelligence on Libya was not only scant but non-existent, which could prove dangerously embarrassing for the American President if Obama doesn’t extricate our military quickly and even then questions will ultimately linger. When Maddow asked Engel what kind of impact the strikes were having on Gadhafi’s forces, saying the “declared strategy” was to “make things safe enough for the rebels that they can win on their own,” Engel revealed the intelligence chasm the U.S. is operating under.
“Ooh, that’s going to be a tough one. These rebels are, they’re divided into two groups. They’re the volunteers and these rebels have really no military experience, very little sophistication, very little education. A lot of bravado, but when the actual fighting happens most of them run away. We were with rebels today who didn’t know how to load their weapons. They were dropping rounds of ammunition on the ground. A lot of them are fighting for weird conspiracy theories. I would say 1 in 5 of the rebels told me today that they’re fighting because they think Gadhafi is Jewish. …The other of the rebels is people, units that have defected from Gadhafi’s army and if we’re waiting for these defected units to go and suddenly storm the front lines I think we’re going to be waiting a little bit longer. I went looking for one of the top commanders here in Tobruk, actually the top commander in Tobruk and we went to the military base and we knocked on the door. He’s decided to take the day off. And I was shocked at that. You would think if the U.S. military had just joined your revolution after two plus days that this wouldn’t be the time to go home and spend some time with the family.
“Unbelievable,” Ms. Maddow responded. Indeed.
Unlike Egypt or even Iran’s Green uprising in ’09, both of which Pres. Obama and his administration sat back and watched unfold, at first even backing Mubarak, after initial deliberative reticence Pres. Obama jumped in to have the U.S. military lead the way on the no-fly zone on Libya, obviously unaware the composition of the rebels U.S. firepower was protecting. Huffington Post’s David Wood revealed this early on, with some of them “anti-American extremists.”
The reasoning Obama intervened was on humanitarian grounds, with U.S. foreign policy rarely if ever having a consistent strategy on what constitutes this reality. Pres. Obama answered questions on Libya, but even he went ’round in circles, talking about limited military actions, along with “Gadhafi’s got to go” as policy, which isn’t regime change. It was… um… nuts.
And as hard as the White House is pushing back on the women inside the Obama administration having a leading role on Libya, which quite a few males in the media have channeled, there is absolutely nothing that convinces me that the strong diplomatic work of Sec. Clinton, with Dr. Rice’s lead at the U.N. to muscle abstentions instead of objections, aided significantly by Samantha Power and her history of influence on Barack Obama, didn’t play a lead role in guiding the Administration to where Obama landed. The notion that these women have to be in the room when the decision is actually made to have led the argument to strike in Libya is preposterous. But the White House doesn’t like the meme, so tapping political writers to push back by giving them access isn’t surprising as a counter narrative.
Neera Tanden, former policy director for Senator Clinton and now COO of Center for American Progress, tried again today on MSNBC to make the Democratic argument for humanitarian intervention. Keep in mind that the threats to civilians in Benghazi have been mitigated already, which Tanden admitted, so she was forced to dance on the head of Obama’s diplomatic pin to keep from talking about “regime change,” something from which Arab allies would recoil. There is no tape, but this is a good transcript I did myself:
“Look, we have a humanitarian crisis and that is what has sponsored this incredible outgrowth of international support to our Arab allies. And so I think what’s holding this coalition together is really strong support for stopping a madman from literally killing and slaughtering his own people. And that objective is actually being achieved as we speak. Benghazi was on the throes of being overrun and that was stopped in its tracks. I think we can debate ultimate goals… ..” – Neera Tanden, COO Center for American Progress
The “ultimate goals” of Pres. Obama lie somewhere between “Gadhafi’s got to go” and humanitarianism, the latter having already been achieved.
This is where France’s Pres. Sarkozy comes in, because going back years his “brain child,” if you will, has been the creation of an economic and political Mediterranean Union comprised of Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Morocco, Palestine, Portugal, Spain, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey, which is supposed to “bridge Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.”(Bernard-Henri Levy mentioned this last night on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show.) Sarkozy has a reason for leading the no-fly zone mission, even if he doesn’t have the military to begin it, so the importance of Pres. Obama handing off to him is critical.
The problem then becomes political for Obama, because the humanitarian aspect of the Libyan question was far away from any genocide standard, with “Gadhafi must go” a preference but simply not in America’s vital interests, because no one has a fricking clue what would replace him. The confusion of the mission coupled with the real leader being France, because of Sarkozy’s goal, is something that’s very hard to explain to a United States audience that expects America to be out front on every mission even if it’s not in our interest to do so.
Sen. Lindsay Graham helps this storyline by expecting Pres. Obama to make this no-fly effort a mission it simply is not, with the U.S. having absolutely no business attempting regime change. The Arab League backing the initial no-fly effort would freak if that’s what this morphed into, but Obama’s been his own worst enemy on this aspect.
Somewhere between Richard Engel’s reporting, which shows absolutely no fervor, let alone organization, from Libyan rebels close to Iran in ’09 and certainly not Egypt’s organized uprising, and our military interventionism, which is in Sarkozy’s personal interest, Obama’s foreign doctrine is being revealed as haphazardly incoherent.
It’s positively depressing to be a liberal and watch this national security insanity unfold.
That’s why you have experts like Steve Clemons going on Rachel Maddow and other shows carefully tiptoeing around what’s unfolding and trying mightily not to be critical of Pres. Obama, while simultaneously saying the whole effort is worrisome.
So, in the first two segments of her show as Ms. Maddow tried to separate Pres. Obama from his presidential predecessors, while also attempting to show him as a reluctant warrior, even as he ordered the U.S. military-led bombings to continue, everything fell apart. Because her guests provided evidence that regardless of Obama trying to go about his day job in a business as usual manner, keeping his South American job outreach on schedule, the rationale for authorizing military strikes unraveled before Maddow’s audiences’ eyes, with neither Richard Engel or Steve Clemons helping her case at all. Engel even suggestrf he might should be somewhere else since things in Yemen and surrounding areas were really catching fire.
Rachel Maddow is as good as they get on issues, but she and other Obama allies are really being put to the test on Libya. It’s not turning out very well so far.
The Pentagon says 114 Tomahawk cruise missiles have been launched from U.S. and British ships in the Mediterranean, hitting more than 20 Libyan targets along the Mediterranean coastline. Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, told reporters the Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from one British submarine and a number of American destroyers and subs. He said the success of the mission was not immediately clear, adding that additional attacks would commence later. – Qaddafi’s Air Defenses ‘Severely Disabled’ Following Military Strikes
Never having fallen for what Ann Althouse writes about today, I don’t find it remotely surprising that it’s women who guided Pres. Obama to act in Libya. Some of you might remember this column. It’s not the first time women have channeled the masculine on foreign policy, because there has yet to be a convincing competing narrative created by any woman. Is it because on war and peace gender doesn’t apply? If anything, it’s Pres. Obama who has offered the feminine side of the equation so far.
In a Paris hotel room on Monday night, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton found herself juggling the inconsistencies of American foreign policy in a turbulent Middle East. She criticized the foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates for sending troops to quash protests in Bahrain even as she pressed him to send planes to intervene in Libya.
Only the day before, Mrs. Clinton — along with her boss, President Obama — was a skeptic on whether the United States should take military action in Libya. But that night, with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces turning back the rebellion that threatened his rule, Mrs. Clinton changed course, forming an unlikely alliance with a handful of top administration aides who had been arguing for intervention.
[...] The shift in the administration’s position — from strong words against Libya to action — was forced largely by the events beyond its control: the crumbling of the uprising raised the prospect that Colonel Qaddafi would remain in power to kill “many thousands,” as Mr. Obama said at the White House on Friday.
The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity. Ms. Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate; Ms. Rice was an Africa adviser to President Clinton when the United States failed to intervene to stop the Rwanda genocide, which Mr. Clinton has called his biggest regret.
Now, the three women were pushing for American intervention to stop a looming humanitarian catastrophe in Libya. [...]
This is the same type of action that helped kick Hillary Rodham Clinton off the presidential path, regardless of the reality that Sen. Barack Obama had virtually the same voting record on matters of war and peace as Sen. Clinton, minus his ducking out on a measure on Iran where he couldn’t get away with voting “present,” which has been his problem the past few weeks as well.
As much as I wanted and applaud Pres. Obama for waiting for word from the Arab League and the UNSC, both of which finally came, I am astounded at the lack of consideration on who is going to pay for the military action Clinton, Rice and Power wanted, and Obama now backs.
Let me also ask a question no one seems to be asking: Where the hell are the Saudis and the Egyptians? The Saudis have a fierce fighting force, with Obama having completed the largest sale in U.S. history to them last fall, $60 billion, and we give Egypt $1.3 billion a year. So why is the U.S. so willing to foot the bill for a military action that isn’t in America’s vital interests no matter how you look at it?
Trying to salve the wounds of past mistakes doesn’t make what’s happening in Libya “genocide.” It’s a civil war citizens of Libya are waging against their leader, which however excruciating to watch isn’t any of our business.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Iran on Saturday to stop meddling in Bahrain and other Arab states in the Persian Gulf, but also called on the kingdom’s leaders not to use force against anti-government protesters.
Clinton said the United States “has an abiding commitment to Gulf security” and that “a top priority is working together with our partners on our shared concerns about Iranian behavior in the region.”
“We share the view that Iran’s activities in the Gulf, including its efforts to advance its agenda in neighboring countries, undermines peace and stability,” she told reporters after an international conference on the crisis in Libya. At that meeting, she met with numerous Arab officials who complained that Iran was fomenting unrest Bahrain and elsewhere.
Bahrain’s Sunni minority monarchy is facing growing opposition from the Shiite-majority population and has called in security forces from neighboring Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to deal with escalating protests.
[...] The Gulf force underscores the deep worries about Bahrain’s stability among the region’s Sunni kings and sheiks. They fear any stumble by Bahrain’s leaders could embolden more challenges to their own regimes and possibly open room for Shiite heavyweight Iran to make political inroads.
The U.S., which counts Bahrain as a centerpiece of its Gulf military framework, has sent top envoys to meet with the embattled monarchy and has been criticized by Shiite opposition groups for not coming to their support.
And where the hell is Congress where Libya is concerned? Did we learn nothing from preemptive war in Iraq?
Once again, this time goaded by females, Pres. Obama is unleashing the winds of war without thinking through the exercise completely, even if cautious deliberation is where he began. It does, however, give more proof that if he was in the Senate at the same time as Clinton Obama would have very likely joined the other presidential hopefuls in wanting to oust Saddam Hussein.
Obama’s declaration was stunning:
“Left untouched,” Obama said, “we have every reason to believe Gadhafi would commit atrocities against his people.” – USA Today
That’s our military foreign policy standard? Hardly, because it sure as hell didn’t apply in Darfur.
Pres. Obama, after being correct to wait, is now sounding astoundingly hypocritical.
American politicians have proven their bankruptcy once again through talking about military intervention as the U.S. economy sputters, austerity talks continue, entitlements suggested for targeting, with the U.S. military budget and our policies never being included in the reality scenarios.
You cannot talk about cutting entitlements while sanctioning military action in the Arab world and not also demand the Saudis and Egyptian government step in to use their massive military might, which we’ve made possible.
As for the women who continue to lead like men, I’ve written about it many times before, so none of this surprises me at all. Perhaps that’s why a woman has never been elected president, because no female has ever offered an alternative vision for the world and what it would mean for America in terms of war and peace.
That Pres. Obama has gone from deliberative and waiting for Arab nations and the world to join in, while not demanding more in the war of financial participation, as he also shrugs off Congress, reveals anything but “change we can believe in.”
UPDATE 3: Pres. Obama has announced no ground troops will be sent to Libya. So, time to revisit Gen. Wesley Clark’s warning this past week, “Libya isn’t worth the risk.” Clark remembers words that then Pres. Clinton said at the time, with there being a huge difference, part of which I mentioned today:
In 1999, when we launched the NATO air campaign against Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, President Bill Clinton had to state publicly that he didn’t intend to use ground troops. He did so in an effort to limit the costs of an initiative that the public and Congress did not consider to be in our nation’s vital interest. The administration and I, as the NATO commander in Europe, were in a difficult position, and Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic knew it. But what Milosevic didn’t understand was that once we began the strikes — with NATO troops deployed in neighboring countries and the Dayton Peace Agreement to enforce in Bosnia — NATO couldn’t afford to lose. And the United States had a vital interest in NATO’s success, even if we had a less-than-vital interest in Kosovo.
[...] It is hard to stand by as innocent people are caught up in violence, but that’s what we did when civil wars in Africa killed several million and when fighting in Darfur killed hundreds of thousands…
“For my Dad, America was the land of opportunity, where the circumstances of birth are no barrier to achieving one’s dreams,” Romney said in a high-profile New Hampshire speech earlier this month. He added: “The spirit of enterprise, innovation, pioneering and derring-do propelled our standard of living and economy past every other nation on earth. I refuse to believe that America is just another place on the map with a flag.” – GOP 2012 theme: American ‘decline’
During Rush Limbaugh’s first hour today he went on a bender about Pres. Obama’s NCAA bracket picks, which was a top item on Mike Allen’s Playbook this morning (where I get my early a.m. news), which NRO quickly picked up with a “Wow.” When I wrote about it today on Twitter, as I often do when I listen to the first hour of Rush, Politico’s Jonathan Martin responded that it was also on the top of Drudge, which stands to reason since Limbaugh often channels what’s on his front page. In the center column was PRESIDENT CHECKS OUT: FOCUS ON B-BALL BRACKETS… with a link to a weird little piece on Obama not being present enough as the world roils.
I’ll let you be the judge of whether Pres. Obama is doing his job, which is the crux of the Right’s argument today, joined by other anti-Obama sites, evidently believing that a moment spent on NCAA March Madness picks will mean the end of American greatness.
But I also won’t make light of the image issue being presented, because one of the reasons Ronald Reagan was elected is because at the end of Pres. Carter’s first term he seemed not on top of what was happening in the world, while considered responsible for America slipping. That’s the main theme of the GOP for 2012. Now all the Right needs is a Reagan.
However, the notion that Pres. Obama needs to be either looking grim and concerned or be hidden away for fear of seeming frivolous amidst Japan’s catastrophic nuclear challenge is not only ridiculous, but inconsistent with life itself.
Taking 30 minutes to enjoy the simple pleasures of life while Japan roils is not craven. It’s called living. Like him or not, approve of his politics or not, Pres. Obama is on the job 24/7, non-stop. To suggest that by taking a few moments out to honor the pleasures of sports is presidential sacrilege is misunderstanding the importance of trivial pursuits at times of great stress. So what if Pres. Obama plays golf on Saturday? George W. Bush did it all the time, which Rush and the Right never cared about.
Life is a pressure cooker. High stress jobs and situations make it even worse. Being president is beyond what any of us can imagine, especially today, and let’s hope one of Barack Obama’s plans is to live well beyond his presidency, not kill himself in the job.
Taking some time to enjoy life doesn’t mean a president or a person isn’t taking care of business. No one can immerse him- or herself in work constantly without eventually blowing a physical fuse.
It’s not a sin to enjoy life even when others are suffering. In fact, it’s more important to appreciate the gifts of life when you’re spared tragedy and take the time to breathe in the bounty when fate passes you by.
As for the Republican 2012 message of “American ‘decline,’” if they had a candidate there is no doubt Pres. Obama is vulnerable for this type of marketing. People like the President, but his standoffish, non-engagement leadership style amidst world events exploding, with Americans used to our presidents inserting himself and our country across the globe, is not going down well with everyone.
A normal moment of trivial pursuit comes off as out of touch. Cue the Jimmy Carter theme music, which is exactly what Republicans are turning to with their 2012 “American ‘decline’” theme, which in times when people feel overwhelmed and powerless could resonate.
If only Republicans had a candidate who could sell the message, but they don’t, at least not yet.
Ms. Slaughter didn’t learn squat from her support for the Iraq war and its devastating results. Her op-ed in the New York Times today is remarkable, not only for the chasm in her much respected thinking of not gaming what can happen once we get embroiled in a country’s civil war, but for calling out Pres. Obama for “temporizing” on Libya.
No doubt Obama will want to squash her truth to power militaristic opinion like he did PJ Crowley on Manning, but Ms. Slaughter is now well out of his reach.
PRESIDENT Obama says the noose is tightening around Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. In fact, it is tightening around the Libyan rebels, as Colonel Qaddafi makes the most of the world’s dithering and steadily retakes rebel-held towns. The United States and Europe are temporizing on a no-flight zone while the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Gulf Cooperation Council and now the Arab League have all called on the United Nations Security Council to authorize one. Opponents of a no-flight zone have put forth five main arguments, none of which, on close examination, hold up.
IT’S NOT IN OUR INTEREST Gen. Wesley K. Clark argues that “Libya doesn’t sell much oil to the United States” and that while Americans “want to support democratic movements in the region,” we are already doing that in Iraq and Afghanistan. Framing this issue in terms of oil is exactly what Arab populations and indeed much of the world expect, which is why they are so cynical about our professions of support for democracy and human rights. Now we have a chance to support a real new beginning in the Muslim world — a new beginning of accountable governments that can provide services and opportunities for their citizens in ways that could dramatically decrease support for terrorist groups and violent extremism. It’s hard to imagine something more in our strategic interest.
Slaughter’s claim that it’s “time to act” would put the United States intervening in a country where a civil war is raging, when it’s been obvious for days that Gadhafi is likely to prevail.
But her most astounding claim is on labeling “Arab democrats.”
..Assuming that a no-flight zone can be imposed by an international coalition that includes Arab states, we have an opportunity to establish a new narrative of Western support for Arab democrats.
This assumes much more than is currently evident, especially when you look at Egyptian men and their reaction to women marching for their own freedom. There is also no evidence that any of the countries enjoying the Arab spring will end up secular, which is a prime tenet of “democrats.”
If the Security Council fails to act, then we should recognize the opposition Libyan National Council as the legitimate government, as France has done, and work with the Arab League to give the council any assistance it requests.
This is where militaristic interventionist Democrats always end up. When other countries refuse to lead the U.S. should always step in. This is the same thinking that made Democrats in the Senate jump on the band wagon for Iraq that led to more ill will inside the Arab world than we could ever predict, but also led to a economic quagmire from which we still cannot extricate ourselves.
If the U.S. engages to help the opposition Libyan National Council it should be as partners with the world and the Security Council, but absolutely under no circumstance with America alone in the lead.
After all we’ve learned, 20th century Scoop Jackson Democrats still want to write checks for war supporting interventionist policies the U.S. economy can no longer afford to cash.
As Sect. Clinton’s former Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, Ms. Slaughter knows very well what it takes to impose a no-fly zone. So her “fiddling” slam is extraordinary given her respected stature in Democratic foreign policy circles.
Of course, former Pres. Clinton also supports a no-fly zone, as does John Kerry and others on the Democratic side.
Pres. Obama doesn’t have much company on his side, which should make everyone nervous on what may unfold.
[...] Given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame, the strains on our military, and other factors, it is doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. If the Obama Administration is contemplating this step, however, it should begin by seeking a declaration of war against Libya that would allow for a full Congressional debate on the issue. In addition, it should ask Arab League governments and other governments advocating for a no-fly zone to pledge resources necessary to pay for such an operation.
This is not unprecedented. More than $50 billion in foreign contributions were received to offset U.S. costs in association with the first Gulf War in 1991. Much of this came from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. …
The fact that this current State Department covert operation was initiated under Secretary Rice does not lessen Hillary’s guilt for having pursued it. Mrs. Clinton, not Miss Rice, has run for president and is presumed to continue to be interested in the job. Her addiction to spies, dumpster divers, sleuths, and negative research operatives has always been a cause for concern. – “Up to her old tricks,” Dick
Sect. Hillary Clinton is having a very rough week.
It’s a great thing she’s in Central Asia, with others handling the announcement of a security crackdown at State, because she’d be subjected to all manner of media inanity if she weren’t. Granted, the security tightening is a long time coming and should have been done under Pres. Bush, but it wasn’t.
Makes you wonder what kind of diabolical diplomacy Henry Kissinger was doing behind and before the technological barrier was broached, now doesn’t it?
No one should be shocked that it was Dr. Rice who initiated the diplomatic covert actions, at least as recent times goes. But as you see with Morris above, he doesn’t care what she did, because it’s all about Hillary and a possible, who knows and perhaps presidential run, circa 2016. Morris on Hannity Tuesday wouldn’t get off his Hillary talking points, dredging up absolute rubbish about his hallucinations about Hillary’s “secret (broad) police” during the ’90s, which remain a figment of Dick’s delusions.
There’s no doubt that the Wikileak diplomatic document dump has been a disaster for State all around. But mostly because it’s brought out Sect. Clinton’s enemies, beginning with the particularly loathsome foot fetishist, Dick Morris, Slate’s Jack Shafer, but also David Corn, one of the most obnoxious pissants on the Left side of the dial, who wants Hillary “grilled” on Capitol Hill. Bring it on, big boys, because she’d toy with the Republican rabble like a kitty cat playing with a big fat mouse.
After the Democratic midterm catastrophe everything is going to get tougher for Sect. Clinton. It began with Sen. Kyl’s nonsensical stalling on the new Start Treaty, but it won’t end there that’s for sure. As MJ Rosenberg writes, Wikileaks has also helped drive the neocon war with Iran meme.
The Wiki-revealed knowledge that the Israelis and the Saudis are tacitly working in concert against Iran would only make things worse, given that among most Arabs and Muslims, the Saudi regime is only a little more popular than the Netanyahu government. A US/Israeli/Saudi tripartite alliance against Iran could be America’s Suez, and could finish us off in the region the way the United Kingdom and France were finished by their anti-Egypt alliance with Israel in 1956.
In addition, of course, no one believes a strike on Iran would eliminate its nuclear facilities.
Good morning, everyone. I’m going to go ahead and dive into the headlines coming out of France and Europe right now, and then bring this back to America at the end, with a Wonk rant of course.
From the Richmond Times-Dispatch reporting in Paris on Friday’s big and hotly contested pension reform vote — “French Senate passes pension overhaul raising retirement age to 62.” The increase, which is a gradual one from 60 to 62 by the year 2018, still has yet to get the green light by both a parliamentary committee and another vote by a joint session of parliament, steps which look likely to go through. According to the French Senate’s press office, the committee will begin meeting on Monday, meaning the measure could be voted into law as soon as Wednesday, though its final passage does not look like it will be doing anything to stop the protests.
Polling released yesterday from the BVA Institute indicates that nearly 70% of the French people support the strikes and street demonstrations. The Christian Science Monitor has more on what to expect next on that front — “New France strikes to follow Senate passage of pension law.” On the future of the protests: “Once the bill passes and the school holidays kick in, however, union leaders will have to walk a fine line between cadres who want to continue striking and those that do not. To this end, the two days of demonstrations called on Thursday are considered a compromise.” The two days being referred to are next Thursday and the first Saturday of November. The article also reports on how oil workers have taken to blocking the country’s refineries in addition to striking. Police force was used on Friday at the Grandpuits refinery near Paris. Three protesters were injured.
The BBC published a piece Friday called “Contrasting views on the age of austerity,” in which, as the BBC describes it, “people from three different countries – two of whom work in the public sector – share their contrasting views on their government’s action and the public response.”
The first person is Helen Stollery, age 23. She works in the public sector in Maidenhead, UK. Here is a taste of what she had to say:
I think people in Britain have a different culture to those in Europe – and I don’t think we’ll see the same level of strikes.
People here are more accepting of the changes that have to be made. Our state retirement age has been going up for some time and people have accepted the changes.
There’s no point in resisting something that is inevitable.
Next is Eleni Hondrou, age 38, from the public sector as well, in Athens, Greece. A sample of Hondrou’s remarks:
For now things are relatively quiet in Greece. Most people are trying to adapt and get on with their lives on a lower standard of living
Reductions in my allowances mean I have lost 20% of my annual income. I have had to cut many things out of my life.
We had no choice but to make those changes in May because things were so bad, we were on the verge of bankruptcy.
But we never know what will happen next. We rely on our external creditors. If we have to borrow more money at a higher rate – and if that means we have to take further reductions then I don’t think people will accept things peacefully.
Finally we hear from Brian Hind, a 40 year old American farmer from Kansas. Briefly from his comments:
The cuts in the UK and elsewhere in Europe are just something that the governments have to do. Things won’t be as bad as they will be for us in America – we’re making things worse by delaying cuts.
Also from the BBC a little later on Friday — “Pension reform vote: Views from France,” which highlights reactions to the passage of the pension bill from three residents of France.
The first reaction is from Heidi Garnier of Charenton-le-Pont. An excerpt:
France seems to be the only country in Europe where people want to retire as soon as they have left nursery school.
I am very satisfied with the result of the vote. I discussed it with my husband and we have the same opinion.
Georgina Thompson, a teacher from the suburbs of Rouen who is active in the national strikes, had this to say in her comments:
I’d probably say that I’m disappointed without being surprised by the outcome of the vote in the Senate. President Sarkozy has clearly shown that he’s unwilling to heed what the strikers and protesters have to say.
The decree of application hasn’t yet been published; there are already a number of demonstrations and strike actions planned in and around Rouen over the next few days and I’ll be taking part.
There does need to be some kind of pension reform, but I’m not convinced that this is the type of reform we need.
There are other problems with the French economy, for example many people being laid off before the age of 60 and not being able to make up their full pension.
The whole system really needs an overhaul – not these measures that are being proposed.
I am losing money by striking, and I was back at work today and will work tomorrow in order not to lose out on holiday pay.
And, this view from Alexandre Aba of Grenoble, an unemployed computer aided designer:
I’m really annoyed about this at the moment, because the strikes are preventing me from getting to job interviews. We can’t use the trains or drive anywhere because of the fuel shortage.
At this time of crisis, strikes are extremely disrespectful to the private sector, who are effectively paying for civil servants.
Going on strike is one thing, but messing up our economy is another and these strikes are so bad for France’s reputation.
Additionally, if you have a few minutes and haven’t done so already, check out the video up top from the Associated Press. It is one French family’s perspective on the importance of protesting.
From Barbara Whelehan, on SS here in the US, via bankrate.com, with a title that piqued my interest, “Vive le Social Security,” until I read the first half of the entry, which was rather meh. It misses the point that the degradation of worker rights is what’s at stake at the broader level so quibbling over the best age to retire is neither here, nor there. The second half is more interesting, though, to say the least:
Tax the rich There are other ways to save pension systems besides raising the retirement age. As I pointed out on two previous occasions, the Special Committee on Aging came up with 30-plus solutions to fix Social Security. My favorite solution is to eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes. Right now, only earnings up to $106,800 are taxed. If the cap is eliminated, high earners would get a smaller check (so what?), and Social Security would remain solvent over the next 75 years.
This solution can be taken a step further. In a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Ken Langone, a co-founder of Home Depot, suggested that rich people shouldn’t get Social Security checks at all. “It makes little sense to send Treasury checks to high-net-worth people in the form of Social Security,” he writes. “I guarantee you that many millionaires and billionaires will gladly forgo it. …”
France’s lower house of parliament overhwelmingly approved a ban on burqa-like Islamic veils Tuesday, a move that is popular among French voters despite serious concerns from Muslim groups and human rights advocates.
There were 336 votes for the bill and just one against it at the National Assembly. Most members of the main opposition group, the Socialist Party, refused to participate in the vote – though they support a ban, they have differences with President Nicolas Sarkozy’s conservatives over some aspects of it.
The ban on face-covering veils will go in September to the Senate, where it also is likely to pass. Its biggest hurdle will likely come after that, when France’s constitutional watchdog scrutinizes it. Some legal scholars say there is a chance it could be deemed unconstitutional.
There should be no “tolerance” of the veil, which is a fundamentalist trap to move societies to the right and make it easier to move the anti-women’s freedom movement and the men who run them into a place of persuasion, then power.
The French Council of State on the other hand has warned that the ban is incompatible with human rights laws, which if you’re a woman sounds counter-intuitive, though how they came up with the possibility that it might be “unconstitutional” is odd.
Thankfully, the French government does not have to follow their recommendations. The French government also does not keep statistics on religion, following their laws & constitution, which demands the state be secular.
Two-thirds of French people want a law limiting the use of face-covering Islamic veils such as the niqab and the burqa, with only a minority backing the government’s plan for a complete ban, a poll showed Saturday. President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government is expected to present a bill in May on banning full veils from the public sphere, against the advice of legal experts who recommend a milder rule focusing on state institutions. – Most French want burqa law, but not total ban
Picasso’s women wouldn’t have been the same in a fundamentalist age that bent to the burqa and the niqab instead of respecting the beauty of women in a society that put religious symbols where they belong, outside the public sphere.
It’s part of what makes up the heart of France, this unbridled lust for life, including the female image, her soul, her liberated nature uncovered.
I can even write the next chapter if the French bend. Hear the uproar if the burqa, niqab and the chador become common coverings for women seen often in France. The coming battles will be about piety and insulting those who don’t approve of 21st century liberated women. Pitting the morality police against the culture of France, it will come to no good.
Covering women in the name of religious piety is anathema to the heart of France’s libidinous boisterousness, which is rooted in the rejection of publicly religious declarations regardless of religion.
As reports have stated, a full ban on the burqa and niqab may run into constitutional challenges, but it’s worth the fight.
Government spokesman Luc Chatel said after a cabinet meeting Wednesday that the president decided the government should submit a bill to Parliament in May on an overall ban on such veils “in all public places.” That ups the stakes in Mr. Sarkozy’s push against veils such as the burqa, the niqab and the chador. Some in his own party have bristled at a full-out ban, and France’s highest administrative body has questioned whether it would be constitutional. – France Moves Ahead With Islamic-Veil Ban
France is very different from America when it comes to women in many ways. The French respect and celebrate women of a certain age as we say here. In America, the exquisite and supremely talented actor Catherine Deneuve would never have enjoyed such longevity. In France, women may talk about how old they are, but they are less obsessed that their worth is tied to their youth. In America, women are not only apologetic about their age, many are obsessed with pronouncing themselves too old, as if they’re embarrassed by life’s arc; either that or they go to death defying lengths to cover their inevitable physical maturity. In America, we have politicians trying to undo women’s rights, including Democrats, with no American Sarkozy who’s willing to stand up and fight in sight. Republicans talk about sending female politicians “back to the kitchen.”
Needless to say, even as France banned religious scarves and overtly ostentatious religious symbols in schools in 2004, as the Wall Street Journal and others have reported, some who want to ban the burqa and other religious coverings do so out of racism and to marginalize Muslim customs. That’s not what this is about at all, but as several people have told me who live in France, there is an automatic reflex on the left to want to push back against conservative forces who are for banning the burqa for reasons that are pure racism. As much as conservatives hate all things French, even pommes frites, it takes pretzel logic to get behind the ban without exposing the obvious racism against Muslims many conservatives feel. Franklin Graham, the honorary chairman for the “National Day of Prayer Task Force,” recently called Islam “a very evil and wicked religion.”
The cultural integrity of any nation should never be bent for any group, whether it’s Muslims in France or religious fundamentalists in this country who want to weave religion into our political lives against the founding ideas of this nation.
Should Pres. Sarkozy bow to religious pressure so that France changes to accommodate one religion and their customs when it confronts and would change the historic rejection of religious symbols of this country?
For outsiders who love this country, the spirit of France seems antithetical to the burqa and niqab.
Some argue banning the burqa and niqab impinges on women’s freedom and they should be able to choose to wear it or not. But let’s remember that conservative religions, from Muslims to Southern Baptists to the Catholic church, are inherently misogynistic, separating women out because they are seen as less worthy, denying them priestly powers, which basically relegates women to second among men, even in God’s eyes. This is not 21st century thinking that should be supported in the larger public arena. Every religious group has customs that should be respected among those of that faith, but the public is under no obligation to embrace these customs, let alone acquiesce to them or even respect them if they discriminate through gender, or if the religious tenets will bring a chill across a country’s public landscape.
I’m not French (some French, on my mother’s side), but I’ve had the pleasure of traveling to this stunningly liberated nation, which I’ve grown to love deeply, beginning many years ago when I first witnessed French art. Few things would be more jolting than to see it change on the wings of any conservative religion. *The French fought off religious conservatives before, represented by the Catholic Church; as one of the people I reached out to on the subject living in France reminded me (via email), jogging my memory of laïcité, as it is labeled (coming from the word laity, those not Catholic). This is the overt and direct public stance that the state is separate always from religion, which is the only way free thought can thrive, with no specific religion supported by the state, which also applies to adopting atheism. Unlike America’s constitutional First Amendment, the French constitution states outright that France is a secular republic. The burqa battle is just the latest foray on this front.
The French should keep fighting; for the burqa, niqab and the chador are ostentatious religious symbols that have no place on the French landscape.
However, it is the conservative intent which is meant to manifest a cultural move rightwards that is the most worth fighting, especially for women, against whom most of the damage is meant to be done.
More power to Pres. Sarkozy. I hope he wins.
TM NOTE: Painting at the top of this essay is Olympia, by Edouard Manet. *This section has been edited.
This secret enrichment happened under George W. Bush’s nose, while he and his team were too busy ostracizing Iran into an “axis of evil”, instead of trying to actually engage them. Not that this would have changed the outcome, but let’s be clear that the Republican idea of sitting Iran in the world corner sure as hell didn’t work.
Pres. Obama is about to speak at the G20, directly confronting the news that surfaced last night that Iran has built a covert nuclear facility where it has enriched uranium, which the Iranians broke to the IAEA via a letter.
President Obama and the leaders of Britain and France will accuse Iran Friday of building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel, saying the country has hidden the covert operation from international weapons inspectors for years, according to senior administration officials.
The revelation, which the three leaders will make before the opening of the Group of 20 economic summit here, appears bound to add urgency to the diplomatic confrontation with Iran over its suspected ambitions to build a nuclear weapons capacity. Mr. Obama, along with Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, will demand that Iran allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct an immediate inspection of the facility, which is said to be 100 miles southwest of Tehran. [...]
“The agency also understands from Iran that no nuclear material has been introduced into the facility,” he said.
It’s not in the category of weaponization, but the dance music has started in Netanyahu‘s hotel room.
And when all this is done someone needs to explain to me why Mark I Never Met a Union I Wouldn’t Bust Penn was doing pontificating about Iran on “Morning Joe”? Someone at MSNBC has obviously lost their mind.
..I actually think that this public revelation makes war less rather than more likely. The timing of the announcement, immediately following the consultations at the UN and the G-20 and just before the Geneva meetings, makes it seem extremely likely that the Obama administration has been waiting for just the right moment to play this card. Now they have. It strengthens the P5+1 bargaining position ahead of October 1, changes Iranian calculations, and lays the foundations for a more serious kind of engagement. So now let’s see how it changes the game.
At least that’s the tease coming from Russian Pres. Medvedev after meeting with Pres. Obama yesterday.
“Russia’s position is clear: Sanctions rarely lead to productive results, but in some cases sanctions are inevitable,” Medvedev said in a joint appearance with Obama after their talks. [...] Medvedev said Wednesday that he and Obama discussed negotiations with Iran, including possible incentives, to help it “make the right decision.” … He then opened the door to sanctions, indicating a more unified approach to the issue. … – Medvedev signals openness to Iran sanctions after talks
On French television, President Nicolas Sarkozy was blunt: “… dialogue is achieving nothing. There will be a timeline, a date limit. In my mind, it’s the month of December.”
There is also a little dealing coming from Pres. Ahmadinejad having to do with their nuclear experts meeting with scientists from the U.S., hoping to calm nerves about Iran’s goals. However, there seems to also be an implied threat attached that wasn’t lost on anyone, as is reported by the Washington Post. The Albright referenced below is David Albright, a seasoned weapons expert who back in February said that Iran would “reach the first level of breakout capability” this year. Translation: enough low-enriched uranium to make one nuclear weapon.
Albright said Iran’s latest move is “clever” because there is “implied blackmail” behind the idea. If the material is not supplied, Iran could announce that it has no choice but to make the material, which is nearly 20 percent enriched; the material Iran is now producing is 3 to 5 percent enriched and suitable only for energy purposes. Allowing Iran to purchase the new material would require a waiver of international sanctions.
Can’t wait to hear the right spin Pres. Medvedev’s signals that he could be open to sanctions against Iran. Considering all the grief they gave Obama when he walked away from Bush’s missile defense plan, it will take some creative rhetorical acrobatics to get themselves out of this corner.
TM.com’s official position on the French is that we love all things French, but especially the wine, the culture, the food, and yes, the people.
However, Pres. Sarkozy got on our bad side when he dared to diss the American President after the G-20. Evidently Mr. France didn’t understand what it means to be a politician from Chicago.
According to the UK Times, the President of France is paying for his bad manners. Now, we know how these rumors go, so maybe there’s more to the story than meets this web page (and the stories that are told within), but it sure makes for delicious Friday evening reading:
The Obamas turn up in Paris this evening, but have declined a dinner invitation from the couple next door: the Sarkozys.
President Obama’s reluctance to spend more than minimum time with the French leader on his visit for the D-Day anniversary has come as an embarrassment to the Elysée Palace.
America’s First Family will not be dining with President Sarkozy and his wife, Carla Bruni, even though they are staying at the residence of the US Ambassador, yards from the Elysée apartments where the Sarkozys spend their weekends. …
Not only did Sarkozy choose to gossip about Pres. Obama, but he had the bad manners to not invite the Queen of England to the D-Day remembrance ceremonies that are being held this weekend, which will include honoring the all-black battalion that landed in Normandy. Talk about gauche.
No matter how this turns out in the end, President Obama has sent a message to Mr. Sarkozy of France that certain things will not be tolerated. He is, after all, leader of the free world.
No doubt Sarkozy doesn’t like where he currently finds himself, ridiculed by his own countrymen.
Mr Sarkozy has been pilloried in France for his failure to invite the Queen to the events. “The palace is fearing a snub,” Le Parisien newspaper said yesterday after the news emerged of the Obamas’ plans to keep themselves to themselves.
Yesterday the popular comedian Nicolas Canteloup did an impression of Mr Sarkozy worrying that he had “only two days to become tall, handsome and elegant”. The French leader is 5½ inches shorter than Michelle Obama.
The French were also piqued after the White House said that it was working on an invitation to Normandy for the Royal Family. Face was saved when the Prince of Wales agreed to attend with Gordon Brown. “Sarkozy has pulled off a double hit: insulting Queen Elizabeth and exasperating Obama,” the weekly Canard Enchaîné said on Wednesday.
Under Secretary of State WILLIAM BURNS Former Saudi Ambassador to US Prince TURKI AL-FAISAL International Peace Institute Chair RITA HAUSER Financial Times Washington Bureau Chief EDWARD LUCE Saudi Minister of Finance IBRAHIM AL-ASSAF Former National Security Advisor ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI Former National Security Advisor BRENT SCOWCROFT State Department Policy Planning Director ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER UK Ambassador to the US NIGEL SHEINWALD Former CIA, State, and National Security Council Senior Official FLYNT LEVERETT French Ambassador to the US PIERRE VIMONT Saudi Minister of Commerce ABDULLAH ALIREZA BusinessWeek Washington Bureau Chief JANE SASSEEN Saudi Monetary Agency Governor MUHAMMAD AL-JASSER Senate Foreign Relations Committee International Economics Chief HEIDI CREBO-REDIKER Former US Senator and Ambassador to Saudi Arabia WYCHE FOWLER Jadwa Investments Chief Economist BRAD BOURLAND Saudi Royal Court Advisor ABDULRAHMAN AL-SAEED Department of Defense Principal Deputy Asst for International Security Affairs JOSEPH McMILLAN
You can follow my report on Twitter, though I may do some live blogging as well, depending on the layout at the event.
Both credited the new U.S. president with helping to break a banking-secrecy logjam over tax havens and the release of a blacklist of non-compliant jurisdictions.
… “President Obama really found the consensus,” Sarkozy told reporters after the meeting. “He didn’t focus exclusively on stimulus … In fact it was he who managed to help me persuade [Chinese] President Hu Jintao to agree to the reference to the … publication of a list of tax havens, and I wish to thank him for that.”
In her news conference, Merkel noted that “the American president also put his hand into this.”
Pres. Sarkozy announced he will also take one detainee from Gitmo.
The Russian president contrasted Obama as “totally different” to his predecessor George W. Bush, whom he blamed for the “mistake” of US missile shield plans fiercely opposed by Moscow.
[...] “I liked the talks. It is easy to talk to him. He can listen. The start of this relationship is good,” he said, adding: “Today it’s a totally different situation (compared to Bush)… This suits me quite well.”
It’s a turn in a new direction, though manifesting something concrete, especially on loose nukes, remains to be worked out, as does the missile defense issue, which waits a solution.
Obama went further today, reaching out in an historic townhall that was obviously meant to encourage the people of France and also Germany that their countries need to get further involved in Afghanistan. This as Pres. Obama heads to NATO to press his case for more regional involvement in Afghanistan, while also stressing that Al Qaeda and terrorism remains a world threat.
“France recognises that having al-Qaeda operate safe havens that can be used to launch attacks is a threat not just to the United States but to Europe.
“In fact it is probably more likely that al-Qaeda would be able to launch a serious terrorist attack in Europe than in the United States because of proximity.
“This is not an American mission, this is a Nato mission, this is an international mission.”[..]
At the end of this day, President Barack Obama will have some serious points on the board. The House passed his budget, give or take a billion or two, with the Senate likely to pass it later tonight. On top of that was a G-20 summit that was not so notable for the $1 trillion pledged and what the leaders accomplished, but for a private moment that is now getting a lot of attention.
President Obama played mediator at a moment where Sarkozy of France and Jintao of China were heading the G-20 into turbulence. Obama stepped in.
According to sources inside the room, President Obama just played peacemaker in a spat between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Hu Jintao, President of the People’s Republic of China.
In the finaly plenary session among the G-20 leaders, Sarkozy and Hu were having a heated disagreement about tax havens. [...]
The back and forth orchestrated by Obama after a spat between two leaders over tax shelters first began with Sarkozy, with a note being passed to China’s Jintao, who Obama then talked to privately as well, with the help of translators. But the end result says a lot about our President, who was able to keep a rift from souring, even derailing the unity of a meeting that only has one day to get anything done.
It reminds me of what Obama said he was about back in May 2006, something I refer to often, which is especially appropriate today.
“I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that’s been in short supply over the last several years. I’m not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody’s concerns, seeing other people’s points of views and then making decisions.”- Barack Obama (on ABC’s “This Week”)
Read Tapper’s account and what went down. You won’t hear Germany or France grumbling, as was first expected. Something happened at the G-20 for Mr. Obama, who already has the attention of the citizenry, but now has a new relationship with world leaders.
“Well, if it’s just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, you know, that’s an easier negotiation. But that’s not the world we live in. And it shouldn’t be the world that we live in.” – President Barack Obama
It’s been a very good day for the American President.
It’s Not News that Romney Can Win MITT ROMNEY’S LUCKY the Republican primaries unmasked his warts long before anyone started paying attention. Sure America saw the clown [...]
The Choice for Romney is Liz Cheney Why not the best for President Obama and the Democratic party? And how much more will victory be worth having [...]
Oh Donna, How We Danced DONNA SUMMER was writing “Love to Love You Baby”; I was Miss Missouri. “Last Dance” came out in 1978, the [...]
Capitalism Out of the Closet **UPDATED** Would we be any worse off with Stephen Colbert as president? I doubt it. Politifact has watched the video [...]
Not Disappointed in Pres. Obama **Postscript added** President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics [...]
Fan Politics Despite rising public concern about the federal budget deficit, Americans favor keeping Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are [...]
