Let ’Er Rip, Ceaselessly

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_web...

Let ’Er Rip, Ceaselessly
By SusanUnPC
Monday, 31 July 2006 at 11:33

Some ceasefire. In defying the 48-hour cessation of air strikes after only about 18 hours, Israel — which had reserved the right to strike high-value targets and provide air cover for its ground troops — bombed a vehicle supposedly carrying a high-level Hezbollah member, MSNBC reports.

Instead, the errant air strike today killed a Lebanese soldier, said MSNBC, which also announced that the resumed bombings have forced the Red Cross and the United Nations relief workers, in fear for their lives, to immediately suspend their crucial, hurried humanitarian efforts. (The New York Times confirms that the air strikes are back on.)

And what about the Lebanese in the southern region who, MSNBC had reported earlier today, had finally dared to venture out on the few remaining roads with white flags flying above their vehicles? Will they be able to drive on to safety?

Another top NYT headline announces, "Rice Says Mideast Cease-Fire Is Within Reach." Really?!?!? An MSNBC anchor interviewed Ambassador Nancy Soderberg this morning. The former ambassador to the U.N., who had a role in the end to Israeli presence in Lebanon in 2000, asserted that the diplomacy has to be "multi-tiered" and has to include direct talks with Syria and Iran. Ambassador Soderberg — who, despite her diplomatic demeanor, appears clearly troubled by the Bush administration’s macho bondage with Israel and by Secretary of State Rice’s diplomatic failures to date — says Bush himself needs to get involved directly, because the talks require someone above Condi’s "pay grade," and that he needs to spend less time on vacation. (I hope to find a transcript of her remarks, and will add them below the fold.)

On the domestic front, in the hot battle for Connecticut’s senate seat: It was no surprise, this morning at Daily Kos, to spot yet another diary in opposition to Sen. Joe Lieberman (for whom the death and destruction in Lebanon are surely not good news for his teetering campaign). But I was stunned that that diary was written by Michael Shiavo — yes, that Michael Shiavo — and it’s at the top of Daily Kos’s recommended list this morning:

Excuse me, Mr. Lieberman? by Michael Schiavo
Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 07:04:25 PM PDT

In the media and political circus surrounding my case a few people stood out. Tom Delay, of course. Rick Santorum and Bill Frist. President Bush.

And Joe Lieberman.

Not only did Joe Lieberman support the illegal political intervention in the private and legally protected decisions of my family, he went out of his way to defend it. On national television.

So when I thought about going to Connecticut to remind voters what Joe Lieberman really thinks about family values and personal privacy, I didn’t have to think too long.

Last Friday Ned Lamont and I stood between Connecticut’s historic Capitol and Supreme Court speaking to reporters (video) about Joe Lieberman’s disconnect from average Americans.

But it was Joe Lieberman’s comment while I was in Connecticut with Ned Lamont that should show everyone Joe Lieberman still doesn’t get it. ...

According to press reports, Lieberman said, "It’s time for politicians to let Terri Schiavo rest in peace."

Really?

Mr. Lieberman, where was your sense of compassion for Terri last year when you went on "Meet the Press" to say politicians should get involved? ... Read all.

Talk about a misuse of Sen. Lieberman’s power and influence, urging other politicians to get involved in the Terri Shiavo debacle last year when GOP members of Congress, and even the brush-whackin’ George Bush, rushed back to Washington, D.C. to show off their moral outrage and superiority.

The biggest news in the NYT’s Lieberman story is the paper’s own decision to endorse Lamont. In an editorial, the Times condemns Lieberman’s "warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction." Lieberman, says the NYT, has become an "enabler" of Bush’s executive overreach. (Slate)
Not only has Joe been wrong to constantly support the Bush administration’s disastrous war in Iraq (which, it must be noted, has contributed significantly to our other woes in the Middle East, including the crisis in Lebanon), Joe was wrong — with his "warped version of bipartisanship" — to rush to the aid of rightwing Republicans putting their noses into the Shiavo’s private family affairs.

Then there’s an even more grave warped view: The Bush administration’s superiority complex. If only George Bush, as Ambassador Soderberg suggested this morning on MSNBC, would travel all over the Middle East to talk and talk and talk — over and over and over again — with each of the heads of government.

If only Bush were able to talk. If only I hadn’t just spotted him on MSNBC, goofy and smirking as he waved to a Florida crowd, next to brother Jeb. If only he had the patience, diligence, and work ethic to make those trips.

NYT columnist Thomas Friedman, just returned from Syria, said something very important yesterday on Meet the Press:

Do you know how many times I went with Jim Baker to Syria when he was preparing the Gulf War coalition and the Madrid Peace Conference? I believe it was 15 times.
And you know what I remember most about those trips, Tim? That I think on 14 of them, the lead of my story was “Secretary of State James A. Baker III Failed Today.” Failed in his effort to, to draw Syria in.

But guess what? On trip 15, he brought the Syrians into the Madrid Peace Conference. Those are the same Syrians, by the way, who were behind the attacks on the Americans in Beirut in 1982. They haven’t changed. This is a tough, brutal and mean regime, but they also can be done business with with the right, I think, administration approach.

But, really, we all know — don’t we — that there is no James Baker in this administration (although Dubya should get on his knees and beg James Baker, or any other American of similar stature and experience, to become our special envoy to the Middle East and do what he and Condi cannot do).

We all know — don’t we — that Bush, the peculiar isolationist who only conceives of intimacy in maddeningly meddling, malevolent military terms, would never dream of talking to Assad.

And we all know — don’t we — that all of the goodwill and dipomacy of those years past has evaporated all around the world.

MR. RUSSERT: Let’s talk about the Bush administration and a quote from your column on Friday. And here’s what Tom Friedman wrote:
“America should be galvanizing the forces of order - Europe, Russia, China and India - into a coalition against these trends. But we can’t. Why? In part, it’s because our president and our secretary of state, although they speak with great moral clarity, have no moral authority. That’s been shattered by their performance in Iraq.
“The world hates George Bush more than any U.S. president in my lifetime. He is radioactive - and so caught up in his own ideological bubble that he is incapable of imagining or forging alternative strategies.”

Pretty strong.

MR. FRIEDMAN: It was strong. It’s meant to be strong. Look at the situation we’re now in. You can’t go anywhere in the world right now-and I travel a lot-without getting that feeling from people thrown in your face. Why is that? You know, I’ve been asking myself that a lot. Some of it’s excessive, this dislike, this distaste, this hatred of George Bush. But what’s it about? Whenever you see something that excessive, you know?

And the way I explain it is this way: Foreigners love to make fun of Americans. Our naivete, our crazy thought that every problem has a solution, that silly American notion, that silly American optimism. But you know what, Tim? Deep down, the world really envies that American optimism and naivete. And the world needs that American optimism and naivete.

And so when we go from a country that, historically, has always exported hope to a country that always exports fear, what we do, and what this administration has done, is actually stolen something from people. Whether it’s an African or a European or an Arab or Israeli, it’s that idea of an optimistic America out there. People really need that idea, and the sort of dark nature of the Cheneys and the Bushes and the Rices, this, this sort of relentless pessimism about the world, this exporting of fear, not hope, has really left people feeling that the idea of America has been stolen from them. And I would argue that that is the animating force behind so much of the animus directed at George Bush.

I was curious about what Amb. Nancy Soderberg has been doing since her days as Clinton’s ambassador to the United Nations. Well, for one thing, she’s written a book, published in 2005:

The Superpower Myth: The Use and Misuse of American Might
From Publishers Weekly
A former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and Clinton foreign policy adviser, Soderberg offers this cogent study of the unilateralism that she believes has taken over American foreign policy and military intervention. The argument that ignoring U.S. allies (and even neutrals) interferes with the administration’s own stated goals of peace and increased democracy is familiar, but Soderberg’s deep knowledge of the mechanics of diplomacy, as well as of the players and issues, allows her to assess recent moves in depth: the book carries more than 1,150 footnotes. ...

From Booklist

Commentators from both red and blue sides of the best-seller lists have occasionally found common ground in criticizing, albeit for different reasons, the Clinton administration’s attempt to recast the U.S. role in the post-cold war world. Clinton wielded American influence with either too much ambivalence (leading to terrorism) or too much arrogance (leading to terrorism).

This book by one of Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, is a cogent critique of the current administration’s hyperpower hubris and a vigorous vindication of the Clinton team’s pursuit of elegant solutions to impossible situations. The U.S. may be the most powerful nation, Soderberg argues, but subscribing to the "superpower myth" of American omnipotence has led to dangerous miscalculations in Iraq and antipathy worldwide. Clinton, restrained as he was by American voters’ limited tolerance of fights in which they "had no dog," understood the global equation and the limits of American power. But Soderberg neither whitewashes Clinton’s failures nor looks entirely backward; rather, she advocates a humble and realistic foreign policy....

I hope that MSNBC interviews Ambassador Soderberg often. Perhaps, just perhaps, someone in the White House will be listening. If any of them are able to hear.