October 06, 2004
With Allies Like These
John Vinocur comments in the International Herald Tribune on Kerry’s prospects for making Iraq the “world’s responsibility”:
A participant on the sidelines of talks in Berlin between Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Richard Holbrooke, a would-be secretary of state in a John Kerry presidency, told a story about the meeting and the theme of how a Kerry-friendly Europe would leap to America’s aid in bringing stability to Iraq. (Or maybe hide under the bed.)
"Schröder," the American said, "asked Holbrooke what Kerry would do if he were elected. Holbrooke replied one of the first things would be to get on the phone and invite him and President Jacques Chirac to the White House. The chancellor laughed out loud. Then he said, 'That's what I was afraid of.'"
The participant recalled the moment as very jolly. Everybody in the chancellor's office, including Holbrooke, a former ambassador to Germany, joined in the chuckles.
That was in June, when the subject was still handled elliptically. Early in September, a German official, asked privately by a visitor if Kerry's claim of good relations with Europe could get him a German military presence in Iraq, stifled a guffaw; an explicit response, but wordless, and difficult to transcribe.
The odds are palpably worse with the French:
Asked about his view of the American presidential election, Chirac's former foreign minister, Hubert Védrine, who first described U.S. unilateralism as a central global problem during the eight "hyperpower" years of the Clinton administration, said it was a shame the rest of the planet could not vote.
It was "sad" to see, Vedrine said, how these Americans, this "nice people" ("peuple attachant" in French), were drowned in propaganda and "cut off from the rest of the world." The term is used in French travel literature, with seeming condescension, to describe interesting savages or exotic but childlike ethnic groups.
May we continue to fail the Global Test.
Thanks to The Belgravia Dispatch.
Posted by John-Paul Pagano at October 6, 2004 11:18 PMYou mean lie to the American people and the world to defend power grabs and wars of aggression? That’s what failing the Global Test means. If you’re going to interpret a Kerry quote, don’t do it piecemeal. Include the part where he says he won’t give the world a veto on our defense, or give up our right to preempt attacks on America.
As for laughing at us, I think you should consider that perhaps they would like to see Bush in office for four more years, because that would ensure a further loss of power from the rival Bush has made us into.
Our enemies love Bush because he is terribly easy to manipulate.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 7, 2004 12:12 AMWhat if I said that everyone must pass a basic literacy test before they’re allowed to vote? Bad, right?
But oh no, I add that failing this test should never prevent anyone from actually voting. Am I off the hook now? Well, yes, in the rhetorical world of John Kerry and the Democrats.
This is exactly the position Kerry is in with his “Global Test.” We must pass one before we act—but we will not depend on passing one in order to act. Up is down. Black is white. A test is not really a test. The war is wrong. Soldiers are dying for a lie. If Kerry is president, the lie becomes truth and soldiers have died for a just and noble cause.
Only George Orwell could really explain this logic—the logic of propaganda, which inevitably leads to intellectual death (and potentially political) tyranny. Even if I were a Kerry supporter, such a blatant insult against logic and honesty would prevent me from voting for him.
Posted by: Martin at October 7, 2004 01:18 AMTHE BLOG THAT ATE NEW YORK
Is it me or are these post delving more and more into the fantasy world of “what if….”
I wonder what GW Bush would do if an amorphous blob began to devour New York?….Bulletin: Jacques Chirac immediately committed troops to fight the ameoba.
What politician in his right mind would commit to a hypothetical question like that? Somebody has been fantasizing in Foxworld a little too much lately.
Posted by: Greg at October 7, 2004 03:16 AMEarly in September, a German official, asked privately by a visitor if Kerry’s claim of good relations with Europe could get him a German military presence in Iraq, stifled a guffaw; an explicit response, but wordless, and difficult to transcribe.
I’m not exactly sure what we should be taking away from this “difficult to transcribe” private exchange between an unnamed “German official” and a “visitor”.
it was a shame the rest of the planet could not vote.
Or from this, either.
I assume you somehow think these quotes reflect negatively on Kerry and/or his ability to engage other nations in Iraq. Do you use animal entrails or tea leaves?
John-Paul,
Why is it so hard for the right to just admit that Bush chose the wrong argument for taking out Saddam? I understand the christian right does not want to look like our actions was a dircet result of America’s and Great Britians responsiblity to defend Isreal being directly attacked by Saddam through his $25,000.00 SB program, but that is the truth and the facts that should of ruled the debate to invade Iraq. That would pass the Global Test vs. Bush’s excuses that keep turning up to be wrong.
The right used more than one argument for attacking Saddam. The WMD arguement got the most press and focus because it was sensational, and because there were questions about it.
Is it so hard for the left to admit that Kerry’s position on Iraq is convoluted and confusing if stable.
-D
Henry,
Even yesterday’s devastating final report (commissioned by Bush), will not deter folks on the Right like John-Paul or Martin, from spinning the few inconclusive of findings into a menacing bogeyman.
The American electorate was unnerved as well, not hearing your suggested admission or the promised explanation from the President on Thursday. They are now finding out the Vice President was indeed reassuring, confident and resolute - but, lied thru his teeth, nonetheless.
The voters will soon have a clear choice, between the guy that aces the Final Exam, or the guy that needs to do over the Oral Section.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at October 7, 2004 09:42 AMStephen, you are correct that under Bush the EU has grown in global power and prestige while the USA has diminished. Also, despite Bush’s best efforts, and despite the xenophobic rantings of the right, France and Germany and Russia are not our “enemies” - they are fading friends, possible rivals, but far from being “enemies”.
I don’t think that the leaders of our erstwhile allies would want Bush to win again. But they absolutely can’t and won’t say so. In fact, they won’t say anything. Why in the world would any foreign official make a public statement saying “We wont help America if Bush is in power, but if Kerry wins we’ll come back to the table.” First of all, they don’t want to meddle in our election - an endorsement by France would probably backfire. Second of all, if Bush wins a second term, they do not want to have antagonized America even more - most foreign leaders still want to have good relations with America regardless of who is in charge. Thirdly, they presumably do not want to promise or even predict anything because in the next few months, regardless of who wins the election, anything could happen in Iraq. And finally, they don’t want to give up a bargaining chip: they know, as does Kerry, that getting non-American troops into Iraq will involve some negotiations - why give anything away before the talks even begin?
The best policy for any country right now is to hold the line on their current policy towards the United States and wait to see what happens on November 2.
In other words, I don’t give a damn what the Europeans or anyone else outside of the United States is saying about Kerry’s chances of getting their help in Iraq.
John-Paul’s post, and much of the GOP argument against Kerry, assumes that Kerry is trying to dig for gold in a place where Bush is already looking and finding none. But that’s not the case. Bush has virtually ensured that he’s not going to get foreign help ever again. Hell, he damn near promises not to get foreign help on the campaign trail, with him and his Administration constantly ridiculing our erstwhile allies every chance they get. Kerry, on the other hand, will actually get to work. The difference between them is a policy difference, and it’s night and day. When Kerry is elected, America’s relationship with the rest of the world won’t turn around 180 degrees overnight, but it will turn. We won’t replace all of our troops with the troops of new coalition partners, but we will without a doubt get new coalition partners’ troops into Iraq.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 7, 2004 10:33 AMWhat’s wrong with a global test? If the majorty of nations believe that a war is unjust why should the US start a war? When Bush went to war he completely rebuked the United Nations, France, Germany and almost everyone else in the world. The UN was set up for a reason that Bush seems to have frogotten; to prevent wars of conquest or are in other ways unjust. I don’t understand how he can convince people it was all right to into Iraq and that everything he did there was the best thing to do although some non-partisian people have said otherwise. Paul Bremmer, appointed by George W. Bush himself to rule Iraq in Saddam’s place until an Iraqi could take his place, said that the United States needed more troops. Recently the CIA confirmed that Saddam had not had any WMD’s since 1991 and that his weapons programs were better in 1997 when UN inspectors were there than in 2003 when Bush said that they were there. Now that we know that the reason why he went to war was not WMd’s what was it? The answer is a clear and simple one word: OIL
Posted by: Warren at October 7, 2004 01:05 PM“what’s wrong with a global test?? Well, let’s see.
1)every other nation is envious of our abilities, and would restrict us not on the basis of right and wrong but on the basis of “anything to hurt the US.
2)Ummm I don’t think the rebuke was by George Bush. It was the other way around. And it is now coming to light why countries like France rebuked us! Because they were trading with Iraq in violation of the UN. It had nothing to do with right and wrong. You are right about oil. France rebuked us because they were getting oil from Iraq in violation of the food for oil program.
3)I would hardly call this a war of conquest. You aren’t that naive are you?
4) Why do liberals always point to oil as a sin? Everything in our society is dependent on oil. We have many freedoms and abilities because of oil. And I hear you already starting the argument about profits for oil companies. Well have you ever heard of capitalism, profits drive growth and invention. And hey do you want to pay $10 a gallon for gas? I certainly doubt it. So yes I admit, oil is a world currency, we have a desire to purchase it in a free market, and do not want terrorists or other enemies to control it. Is that so terrible??
Brad
Posted by: bnorth at October 7, 2004 03:37 PMbnorth, you must not be a conservative. To say that nations of the rest of the world would act out of motives other than self interest defies Adam Smith’s invisible hand, and Friedman’s theory of economic behavior.
Now if you are a conservative and buy into Smith and Friedman, then you certainly have no qualms with the U.S. acting in accordance with its own interests. Now, since those theories are based on human behavior, would you not also have to conclude that it is just and fair that other nations act on behalf of their own interests?
Quite a quandary isn’t it? Oppose the world when it fails to act in our interests and pat ourselves on the back when we war against them when it is in our interests, all the while trying to promote the American model of government and democracy to others throughout the world. Which of course would dicate that they act in their own interests and war against us when we don’t comply.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 7, 2004 03:50 PMRemer,
I didn’t say anything about nations acting in or out of their interests. The topic was “world test”. It seems that you assume that all nations have a vested interest in every dispute. I did not imply that. A world test indicates that all nations, whether interested or not, impacted or not, would approve or dispapprove of an action vis a vis a dispute. From that perspective, I listed reasons why nations may “vote” against our position. It would not be exclusionary from the authors you paraphrased, to vote from a purely political standpoint.
Also, one may apply the physical theory of “Entropy” to the political spectrum that we are talking about, ie nations, resources,and politics. It may be natural to spread as far away from the highest concentration of the solution. Meaning that in a limited universe, the only position that a less wealthy/developed nation, would have is to naturally oppose what is good for the more affluent nation. To vote otherwise catapults you further to the lessor.
Lastly, I don’t see a dichotomy in your quandry. This war was not against a democracy. Some of the opposition was from democracy, some of those in favor were not democracies.
Brad
Let’s clarify this again, for the millionth time- Get your facts and justifications straight, or don’t go to war. Wars are of too much consequence to simply go to war because our Commander in Chief feels like it.
You got too many people with too much ego dragging us into wars on farfetched political theory that history itself can show the deep reserve of error of.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 7, 2004 07:16 PM> So yes I admit, oil is a world currency, we
> have a desire to purchase it in a free market,
> and do not want terrorists or other enemies
> to control it. Is that so terrible??
And you think this wasn’t a war of conquest? How can you maintain these two thoughts in your mind at the same time?
Anyway, if the war was about oil and America’s need for it, why didn’t the President just say so?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 7, 2004 09:34 PMbnorth, to believe that the rest of the world is “envious of our abilities, and would restrict us not on the basis of right and wrong but on the basis of “anything to hurt the US.” simply lacks any understanding of the concepts in Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiment by Adam Smith, and is quite paranoid in my opinion.
Succinct enough?
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 8, 2004 02:41 AMAnyway, if the war was about oil and America’s need for it, why didn’t the President just say so?
Duh. Nobody would have supported it.
“The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason,” - Wolfowitz
Saddam was going down as part of the plan to spread democracy to our little brown brothers, it didn’t matter what the reason was - except that it needed to incite America.
Unfortunately the one really sensational post-9/11 reason that could really unite Americans was pretty shaky. The administration had to ignore a whole bunch of intelligence and independent reports to make the case.
I mean, it’s not like no one disputed the administration’s WMD/terrorist nexus story at the time. It seems like every day the administration had to do damage control on some piece of info that disputed their “intelligence.” Usually it was enough to simply imply the source was un-American.
> Duh. Nobody would have supported it.
Exactly! The “Noble Lie”.
It seems like every day the administration had to do damage control on some piece of info that disputed their “intelligence.”
That’s a good point. They seemed to spend so much time defending and spinning their evidence! It was like watching a child dig a deeper and deeper hole as they make up lies to cover up other lies. America’s leaders would never have to spend so much time spinning and making excuses and explaining discrepancies if the war was actually just.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 8, 2004 09:50 AMChristopher:
“And you think this wasn’t a war of conquest? How can you maintain these two thoughts in your mind at the same time?”
The definition of “conquest” is “territory appropriated in war”. I haven’t read in the news that Iraq is now the 51st state. Nor am I observing on the news enslavement of the endemic population. What I do see is a toppling of a regime, and construction of a democracy. Hard to use the word conquest here, wouldn’t you agree?
“Anyway, if the war was about oil and America’s need for it, why didn’t the President just say so?”
Because the democrats have instituted a class division, workers vs companies. Oil is in the company team. Therefore, anything to help big business is a naughty thing. Probably more important though, is the denial in this country, of how our way of life is dependent on oil.
REMER:
“simply lacks any understanding of the concepts in Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiment by Adam Smith, and is quite paranoid in my opinion”
Sorry, that I lack understanding of a book that you have read and I haven’t. I am still entitled to think aren’t I??/ And thank you for turning to a personal insult ie paranoid. That shows a weakness on your part.
Brad
Posted by: bnorth at October 8, 2004 09:57 AM> I haven’t read in the news that Iraq is
> now the 51st state.
Ha, well, get used to it because it pretty much is our 51st state. We spend more money helping Iraq and protecting Iraq than we do in most US states. And we’ll be doing so for a long time to come. Either that, or (b) we’ll leave it in bloody chaos, or (c) it will go back to being a dangerous regional threat, headed by a dictator, an Islamic regime, or both. That’s what Bush didn’t tell us before the war, and that’s what you and other Bush supporters still refuse to admit.
Ironically, your “51st State” comment was predicted before the war even began. Every prediction in the November 2002 article “The Fifty First State” has come true. The Administration pretends to be surprised by the looting and the insurgency and the terrorism, but they have no excuse to be surprised.
Great Britain never gave any of its imperial holdings, such as Iraq once was, seats in Parliament. Nazi Germany conquered France, but they didn’t teach the French people German or dismantle the French National Assembly. Yet it was still a conquest. When the Soviet Union invaded Czechosolvakia and set up a local puppet government, was that not still a conquest? So far, and to the eyes of the Muslim world, Iraq is the same thing. You are advocating that the US should assert direct control over a sovereign state in order to control their oil. That’s conquest.
Given the non-existence of WMD, the non-existence of terror connections, this is the only sane explanation for the war, the only explanation that does not require me to succumb to a world of fantasy. But it is conquest, it is empire.
-Cf
>> “Anyway, if the war was about oil and
>> America’s need for it, why didn’t the
>> President just say so?”
>
> Because the democrats have instituted a class
> division, workers vs companies. Oil is in the
> company team. Therefore, anything to help big
> business is a naughty thing. Probably more
> important though, is the denial in this
> country, of how our way of life is dependent
> on oil.
Shouldn’t the President be honest about it, though? Or do you think that the President knows best, and if he has to lie a little in order to get past political obstacles and do the right thing for our country, then it’s okay?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 8, 2004 03:21 PMChristopher,
First of all, I did not say the oil was “the” reason for the war. I said that people are being hypocritcal when they put the denunciation as the war was for oil. Unlike most americans, I would not think that a war to ensure a free market in oil is bad.
Next,
What is your definition of a lie? Michael Moores definition is, as I garnered from his visit to the “Factor”, that if you are wrong about something, it means you lied. I certainly do not subscribe to that. If you do, you may as well not read on. If you think that a lie is an intentional erroneous communication, then read on.
Was there a lie???? I’m not aware of a substantiated “lie”. I am also not sure what makes this point in time, the point in time to declare any finality to ascertaining the truthfulness of arguments made about Iraq, vis a vis, the suggestions made to substantiate taking action against Iraq.
All that aside, I am glad Saddam’s regime is toppled. Because, What I do know is that a nation whose leader clearly had time (12 years) to show his compliance with the UN mandates, was an obstructionist to the world. I also know that he tried to assasinate a U.S. president. I also know that he financially supported terrorism. I also know that he used WMD. So as a human being, living in peace and tranquility, I am glad that saddam is where he is now.
Brad
Posted by: bnorth at October 8, 2004 05:22 PM
We spend more money helping Iraq and protecting Iraq than we do in most US states.
Those guys are only paying a nickle/gal. of gas thanks to US taxpayer subsidies. Apparently, if the Iraqi interim government raises gas prices, there will be an insurgency.
What I do know is that a nation whose leader clearly had time (12 years) to show his compliance with the UN mandates, was an obstructionist to the world.
Man, you guys really need to wrap your heads around this. Iraq had no WMD or WMD programs for those twelve years. The inspections and sanctions were successful.
C’mon, say it with me, you can do it: There were no WMD or WMD programs in Iraq.
hey warren, do you believe that if we are attacked we should get the world’s ok to defend ourselves, i wish you could name 1 country that has ever done that and succeded. god help this country if kerry is elected we need someone who can think on his own 2 feet and make decisions with the aid of his cabinet not with the aid of the u.n..
Posted by: bob at October 12, 2004 02:18 PMEverything in our society is dependent on oil.This explains what I meant, the United States depends on the Middle East for this stcky black substance, which we burn and polute the Atmosphere. As a society we should be looking for ways to stop being reliant on oil, not ways to conquer nations so we can use more oil. When Bush conquers (oops I mean “liberates”) a country so he and his oil friends can have their pick on Iraqi Oil wells I nearly boil over hearing that. Now if you say Bush did not go their for oil listen to this. There is proof that Iraq had no WMD’s or WMD programs at all for the twelve years preceding the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq so that can’t be the reason. Saddam funded terrorism is another excuse Bush uses, to date there is no proof that I am aware of that Saddam funded bin-Ladden, helped bin Ladden carry out 9/11 or anything else connected to anti-US terrorism. The final argument is to remove a despot from his throne and set up democracy. At Abu Graib the autrocities that occured there are far worse than anything Saddam did. Sure Saddam was mean to the Iraqis, but to them Bush has been worse. Lastly the Bush family has been involved in the oil business for years. Isn’t it convenient that is one fact the President has not mentioned recently. So why should we spend hundreds of billions of dollars invading and occupying a country so we can have its oil and use it to pollute and ruin this planet on which we live. I think that a solution Bush should have looked at is this. Maybe we don’t need oil to run our economy. Maybe there are such things as renewable and non-polutting rescuorces that are found right here in the old USA that do not require costly invasions and occupations. Maybe electrical power from wind, the sun, the earth’s core (geothermal energy), dams and hydrogen do exist. Our nation should look towards the energy sources of the future, not the ones of the past. Now there’s a thought I’d like to see Bush or another right-wign answer to. Posted by: Warren at October 12, 2004 02:30 PM
do you believe that if we are attacked we should get the world’s ok to defend ourselves
bob, you sound like you think that’s what Kerry would do. Where did you get that wacko idea?
Oh, right! You’re the guy from the other column who was wrong about Kerry sidestepping health care in the debate. Well you’re wrong about this one, too. Who’s giving you this really bad information?
“I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances.I’ll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances.” - JFK
When al Qaeda attacked us, not only did we not need the world’s “ok”, but NATO and the UN were falling all over themselves to help out in Afghanistan.
Had Iraq attacked us - they didn’t - then I’m sure we could have expected the same enthusiastic support from our good friends and allies around the world.
