News 
Market Data 
Discover
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
part four; two'fers; Where there's a Will, there's a way out of Afghanistan...and an even bigger trap...
Tue, 09/01/2009 - 11:30am
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
As for Will being right for the wrong reasons, I can only speculate about his motivations, of course. They may be very narrowly founded on a desire to do what's in the national interest. I hope that's all there is to it and not a desire to further politicize the sensitive decision Obama faces on this issue (see today's lead story in the Times by Peter Baker and Dexter Filkins). It is in the interest of no Americans to see this war spiral downward into an even worse, more futile entanglement than it is. As Will correctly says, now is the time to reverse course, define goals even more narrowly and undertake the exit. Keep resources nearby. Strike fiercely against imminent threats using the distance weapons and, where essential, special forces. But stop trying to win the unwinnable. Recognize that shutting one terrorist enclave only creates another somewhere else. Stop lying to ourselves about Hamid Karzai who is rapidly becoming as crappy a former American puppet as any in the long list of supremely crappy former American puppets we have ever propped up. Disconnect ourselves from the futile charade of saying we are trying to contain the poppy business when in fact what we are often doing is protecting its key players ... men who are certainly responsible for more deaths worldwide than all the terrorist enemies in the region.
And in so doing, move to a new footing in Pakistan, reduce the risk of our getting involved in or exacerbating that country's deep civil tensions. Focus on securing their nuclear weapons and reducing any threat they may pose to India, our most "natural" important ally in the region.
In short, President Obama should recognize that of all the mistakes made early in his administration, trading "the wrong war" in Iraq for "the right war" in AfPak was probably the biggest and that he has a chance to stop and reverse course now, based on what he has learned (and Admiral Mullen seems to know and imply through his public statements) and not just get out of the country, not just avoid an even longer-term involvement in this expanding war, but also to once and for all reject the Bush administration's to the "war on terror" not just in name but in deed.
Where there's a Will, there's a way.
MANAN VATSYAYANA/AFP/Getty Images
David Rothkopf | Permalink | | 1 comment
( filed under: George Will on Afghanistan | Afghanistan | Bush Administration | Media | Obama Administration | Politics)
part three; two'fers; Where there's a Will, there's a way out of Afghanistan...and an even bigger trap...
Tue, 09/01/2009 - 11:30am
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
We entered the country in an understandable national spasm of anger toward al Qaeda and the Taliban after 9/11. Any president would have done that, I think. But rather than keeping the mission narrowly focused on exacting punishment and reducing the capabilities of the terrorists and their protectors in a swift and limited action, we accepted the idea, almost without debate, that America should wage a war on terror. The alternative approach, argued the right, would be to treat it as purely a criminal matter which would underplay the risks and produce inadequate responses. This is true, of course. Which is why they said it. But, it was a false choice. There is a middle ground. One can imagine targeted, tactical responses to specific threats that would likely be just as effective in reducing the risks to America and Americans ... or more so when you consider that myriad escalating and amplifying effects of pursuing the war strategy as we have.
part two; two'fers; Where there's a Will, there's a way out of Afghanistan...and an even bigger trap...
Tue, 09/01/2009 - 11:30am
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
What's a guy to do when the right is right? Especially when it's right about what it's been wrong about for so long. Especially if it's right for the wrong reasons? Especially if it's right about something that the sensible center and a president you otherwise admire is so wrong about?
The simple answer, of course, is to swallow hard, agree and change the subject. The other approach is to blog.
Blogging allows room for (a little) nuance. So here's where that begins: When I refer to the "right" above, I actually only mean one guy, although he himself is a pillar of the conservative establishments, George Will.
Specifically, I am referring to his op-ed today entitled "It's Time to Leave Afghanistan." In this instance, not only is he correct, he is ahead of the curve, a place that must be as shockingly unfamiliar to most of his followers as a visit to Afghanistan's Helmand province, a place Will correctly cites as a great case study in the futility of U.S. efforts in that tragically embattled land.
Yet, every so often Will hits the nail on the head and this is one of those times. And there is no greater proof to that than moments after the newspaper containing his column landed on my doorstep, I heard Joe Scarborough saying that the right was up in arms about it. This is where we get to the part about Will being right about what the right has been wrong about for so long. Because while Afghanistan is increasingly Obama's war (and will be only more so if he accedes to the recommendations of his battlefield commander Stanley McChrystal to up our troop commitments and other investments there), it didn't start out that way.
pix; two'fers; Where there's a Will, there's a way out of Afghanistan...and an even bigger trap...
Tue, 09/01/2009 - 11:30am
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
part three; Let's see Brown defend the Qaddafi decision in an election debate on TV...
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 12:51pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
Given Brown's other bumbles (screwing up the British economy comes to mind) and the fact that David Cameron is a twit who will be an international embarrassment to the U.K. should he win the premiership, if you had to be someone on that stage you'd definitely want to be Clegg. But whatever the outcome of the exchange, it is a necessary exercise that ought to be part of the British electoral process ... and one which Brown should not be permitted to hide from.
Brown's associates argue he goes through the process of debate on the floor of the parliament every week. But for all its value "Question Time" has its own rules and its own ritual theater that invalidate it as the kind of debate to which British voters are entitled. And as the list of questions the average citizen or thinking journalist would want to ask these characters grows, the need for the debate grows more urgent and the prospect for a valuable exchange grows more compelling.
Let's see Brown defend playing footsie at a distance with Qaddafi. Let's see Cameron defend backing a racist right wing leader of the right in European parliament. This is one of those occasions where television is the best medium for providing both heat and light.
Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images
David Rothkopf | Permalink | | 4 comments
( filed under: Britain | Corruption | Elections | Politics)
part two; Let's see Brown defend the Qaddafi decision in an election debate on TV...
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 12:51pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
As a general rule, I'm not so keen on the way Americans go about elections. My two biggest problems are that election campaigns go on for ever-longer periods and that our campaign finance rules are simply a way to dress up rampant corruption in volumes of complex code. I'm also not so keen on the electoral college, which ought to show up on Antiques Roadshow any day now were it not for the fact that I suspect it wouldn't fetch much of a valuation.
That said, one thing America does pretty well is debate. I say this despite the tenor of recent debates and the debating skills of recent candidates. Airing differences between candidates in a televised forum is an important innovation in democracy. And it is one that has yet to come to the United Kingdom.
That seems to be changing though with reports that Tory Leader David Cameron and the LDP's Nick Clegg have now agreed to take part in a televised debate in the run up to the next election. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has thus far declined to join the fray and frankly, I don't blame him. First of all, while television is good for those with "cool" personalities, it is not so good for people with none whatsoever. Secondly, as it becomes increasingly clear that Brown's government gave a well-thought out wink and a nod to the Scottish Authorities release of Libyan bomber Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, it is clear his team has manufactured yet another issue that can't work to their boss's advantage no matter how he addresses it.
That said, yesterday's statement that Brown "respected" the Scot decision to release the ailing terrorist certainly wasn't the way to calm the uproar over a mishandled mess that combines elements of placing compassion for a murderer over justice for his victims, alienating the U.K.'s principal ally and, no matter how many denials are made, currying favor with Libya's crackpot leader in exchange for better relations. On some level, for all the mouthwash about Megraghi's family's needs to see their dying relative (despite the unspeakable way he deprived hundreds of others of the same privilege), this is a situation in which it is clear that the Brown government has chosen to dance to the ka-ching of the cash register.
pix; Let's see Brown defend the Qaddafi decision in an election debate on TV...
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 12:51pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
part four; Why "Guards Gone Wild" are a symptom of a much bigger challenge for policymakers...
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 4:36pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
Stanger is not, it should be noted, an adversary of using outsourcing to leverage American government resources. Indeed, her much-needed upcoming book considers how broadly outsourcing has transformed the way government works in a wide range of issues including areas such as development where NGOs and other private sector players add a great deal of value. But she is a sharp critic of what she sees as outsourcing approaches that undercut America's foreign policy interests either by compromising values or raising risks. (See her recent U.S. News column "How the CIA Became Dangerously Dependent on Foreign Contractors" which addresses similar problems associated with the agency's use of contractors in covert programs to hunt down and kill al Qaeda members.)
Her point is simply that while it makes sense to leverage government resources with private sector capabilities in many instances, we need clearer rules and guidelines about how and when to do it. Her book could not be coming at a more auspicious time and one hopes that her work will get a close reading at State, the Pentagon, and from the leaders of the Intelligence Community.
AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/AFP/Getty Images
David Rothkopf | Permalink | | 3 comments
( filed under: Afghanistan | Bush Administration | Corruption | Iraq)
part three; Why "Guards Gone Wild" are a symptom of a much bigger challenge for policymakers...
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 4:36pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
But the bigger question in the wake of this behavior and other examples of out of control contractors, most notably the cowboys from Blackwater, who allegedly killed as many as 17 Iraqi civilians while providing an escort for State Department personnel in Baghdad's Nissour Square, is about the centrality of outsourcing in the conduct of sensitive U.S. operations worldwide.
The Congressional Research Service reported that well over half of America's manpower in Afghanistan, for example, is comprised of contractors -- almost 70,000 of them. They cited it as the "highest recorded percentage of DoD contractors in any conflict in the history of the United States."
How did we get here? Well, some of it was clearly expediency ... beneath which investigation will reveal another level of expediency. The first level is the one cited by government officials hiring the contractors: they provide skill sets needed by the government and the ability to deploy human resources quickly in difficult circumstances. The second level is that by using contractors, the Bush Administration was able to field twice as many people in Afghanistan with half the political exposure. Headlines report troop deployments. They ignore the ArmorGroups and Blackwaters until they screw up, misbehave or start making obscene amounts of money ... all of which are part of the story of the Bush War on Terror.
But at another level, not only do they put America's goals at risk, they also raise important questions about fairly fundamental questions like "who has the right to legitimately use force?" Traditionally that's a prerogative reserved for states, notes Allison Stanger, professor of international politics and economics and director of the Rohatyn Center for International Affairs, and author of the much anticipated One Nation Under Contract: The Outsourcing of American Power and the Future of Foreign Policy, to be published by Yale University Press next month. But by handing over a license to kill to big American companies, that line is blurred observes Stanger, which plays directly into the hands of America's enemies.
part two; Why "Guards Gone Wild" are a symptom of a much bigger challenge for policymakers...
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 4:36pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
The revelations of out of control behavior among the guards assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul no doubt brought to mind the images of out of control behavior by guards at Abu Ghraib. But there is an important distinction. The guards at Abu Ghraib were U.S. military personnel. The embassy guards were hired guns, part of the outsourcing explosion that is transforming the way the United States conducts its foreign policy.
The embassy guards were not employees of the U.S. government, did not report up a chain of command to senior U.S. military officers who could make career-ending decisions for them, were not subject to the same rules as U.S. military personnel and, perhaps most importantly, blurred important lines about the nature and role of government.
As most people now know, they also allegedly engaged in "lewd and deviant behavior" featuring nudity, drunkenness, hookers, and other behavior more suited for the cast of a Joe Francis video than U.S. embassy security forces, particularly those in a dangerous environment or a country in which strict Islamic values played such a central role. Why it took a report from the Project on Government Oversight to call out these Guards-Gone-Wild and their employers at ArmorGroup, a subsidiary of Miami-based Wackenhut Services, Inc. is a question worth asking.
pix; Why "Guards Gone Wild" are a symptom of a much bigger challenge for policymakers...
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 4:36pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
part five; 5 reasons to celebrate the results of the Afghan election...
Tue, 09/08/2009 - 2:58pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
And then, finally, silver-lining fans...
Even if the preceding reasons to be more cheerful about the outcome in Afghanistan don't work for you, there is always the fact that as America is convulsed by the health care debate, we are reminded that no matter how badly that turns out, in the end, AfPak will be worse. At some point this year, Obama will ultimately get a healthcare bill and it will include some important reforms (despite the best efforts of Republicans who are the ones who are actually convening the political death panels that will kill off reforms and in turn the people who need those reforms to survive). It won't be a total victory ... but compared to what we are likely to come out of Afghanistan with (thanks in part to "friends" like Karzai) ... it will look like Normandy, San Juan Hill, Appomattox, and Yorktown rolled into one with a Sousa march thrown in for good measure.
Paula Bronstein/Getty Images
David Rothkopf | Permalink | | 1 comment
( filed under: Afghanistan | AfPak Channel | Obama Administration | Politics)
part four; 5 reasons to celebrate the results of the Afghan election...
Tue, 09/08/2009 - 2:58pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
And while I'm on a wild optimistic flight of fancy...
And since I'm sitting here listening to the optimistic music in my head (who knew Julie Andrews even cared about Afghanistan, but I could swear I could hear something about "rain drops on poppies and bright paper packages wrapped up with string") perhaps this latest instance of a bad regime cleansing itself with the legitimizing Purell of democracy might get the rest of the world talking about establishing a more formal set of enforceable international standards regarding what really makes a democracy. For instance, what country's people wouldn't benefit from international inspectors at every election? As an American ... and a New Jersey-American at that ... I for one would welcome all the scrutiny we could get. The key is that if you don't play by common standards you are actually denied privileges whereas now all you have to do is create a Potemkin democracy (roll out the ballot boxes, who cares what goes in them?) and you get global props. Oh sure, I know this would be uncomfortable for some people (Chinese, Venezuelans, Russians, Iranians, Zelaya-supporters, Floridians) but isn't that the point?
part three; 5 reasons to celebrate the results of the Afghan election...
Tue, 09/08/2009 - 2:58pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
And then there is the benefit of reminding the U.S. who its friends really are...
Corruption. Oppression of women. Gainsaying U.S. efforts. None of these things seem to have sent home the message to the U.S. that Karzai is not the horse on which to bet ... or even a horse you want to have wearing your colors. But perhaps the discomfort surrounding this election, which is only likely to increase in the months ahead, will help cast the true nature of the Afghan leadership in a clearer light. It'll be ugly but U.S. planners ought to have their eyes wide open as requests are made for a greater investment that is likely to lead a longer-term commitment to AfPakia.
Perhaps it will stir up legitimate opposition...
While Afghanistan is not a country known for the rock-ribbed strength of its institutions of civil society and social justice, we can always hope that this watered-down sip of democracy or possibly its foul aftertaste may energize opponents who actually are more committed to free and fair governance. Or perhaps it will motivate America and our allies to work harder to find people who are more credible in this regard. And give them money. Oh sure, I know that sounds like us fiddling the system much as Karzai has done but sometimes you have to break a few eggs, you know what I'm saying?
part three; 5 reasons to celebrate the results of the Afghan election...
Tue, 09/08/2009 - 2:58pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
Here they are:
Cynics of the world rejoice...
Reports that hundreds of fake polling places were established that seemed to produce hundreds of thousands of ballots that were of net benefit to Karzai, confirm that Afghanistan is making progress. While, if these allegations are true, they are not exactly indicative of what you might call fair elections, they are not only a big step forward from Taliban "good governance" practices but they are roughly as fair as democratic practices found in many far more advanced countries such as neighboring Iran. Further, they do make one group I can relate to feel much better: the cynics who predicted that this is what would happen. Cynics have been disappointed recently, especially by apparent signs that the world is creeping out of a recession and by President Obama's principled stand, despite almost maniacal opposition to continue to fight for much needed healthcare reform despite great political risks. Calling this election right eases the pain a bit.
part two; 5 reasons to celebrate the results of the Afghan election...
Tue, 09/08/2009 - 2:58pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
I know it is tempting to look at the revelations that apparently the Afghan elections were rigged by supporters of President Hamid Karzai and become frustrated or depressed. After all, Karzai is America's man, the Jefferson we plucked out of obscurity to restore democracy to that war-torn country. And yes, not only have we been fighting there at staggering cost for eight years but we are now upping the ante making it likely that Karzai will remain the spokes model for the efforts of what very well may be a force of over 100,000 U.S. troops before it is all over (in many years).
But I am a stuffed-ballot-box-is-half-full kind of guy, one of those cock-eyed optimists that FP is known for (see Peter Bergen's recent upbeat piece on Afghanistan or just tiptoe through the tulips of the AfPak Channel blog which I can now reveal to you will soon be made into a Broadway musical starring Zac Efron as Karzai and Vanessa Hudgens as his secret love who meets a tragic fate when she inadvertently reads a book). Some people see America seemingly fighting to advance the interests of a slime bag who neither shares our values nor is grateful for the young men and women we are sacrificing for him or his people. But I see the upside, at least five benefits from election results that might make others throw up a little in their mouths.
pix; 5 reasons to celebrate the results of the Afghan election...
Tue, 09/08/2009 - 2:58pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
part four; The day of the locos...
Wed, 09/09/2009 - 3:33pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
Here's an excerpt of Time's review of the film:
Why is Hugo Chávez willing to open up his country to a foreign nation with little shared history or culture? I believe it is because his regime is bent on becoming a regional power, and is fanatical in its approach to dealing with the U.S. The diplomatic overture of President Barack Obama in shaking Mr. Chávez's hand in April at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago is no reason to assume the threat has diminished. In fact, with the groundwork laid years ago, we are entering a period where the fruits of the Iran-Venezuela bond will begin to ripen.
That means two of the world's most dangerous regimes, the self-described "axis of unity," will be acting together in our backyard on the development of nuclear and missile technology. And it seems that terrorist groups have found the perfect operating ground for training and planning, and financing their activities through narco-trafficking.
His theory is supported not only by the evidence outlined in his article but also by statements earlier this week that Chavez intended to provide oil to Iran in the event the world's leading powers attempt to impose an embargo on the country should it continue to pursue its nuclear weapons ambitions. The Iranian intransigence could put the U.S. on a collision course not only with Tehran but with suppliers like Chavez -- a fact which could delay his getting a star on Hollywood's walk of fame indefinitely as well as causing a real foreign policy headache for the Obama administration.
However, there are always two sides to every story (at least ... around the dinner table in my house growing up there were typically many more than that). And as dark as is the picture of Iranian-Venezuelan cooperation painted by Morgenthau there will always be someone who sees the happy Hollywood ending to such collaborations. And of course, for that we can always turn to Stone. Because according to The Guardian, Chavez's Leni Riefenstahl is currently planning as an encore "an interview film with Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."
Update: We just heard from Willie Geist of "Morning Joe" who noted that they did their takedown of Chavez and Stone earlier this week. I should have known that Geist, who has one of television's best B.S. detectors and, even rarer, a great sense of humor, would never have let this story slip through the cracks.
FILIPPO MONTEFORTE/AFP/Getty Images
David Rothkopf | Permalink | | 12 comments
( filed under: Celebs | Iran | Media | Obama Administration)
part four; The day of the locos...
Wed, 09/09/2009 - 3:33pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
Here's an excerpt of Time's review of the film:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday boasted of his good ties with fellow Western critic Belarus, even suggesting the two countries could become part of a Soviet-style union.
Chavez held talks in Minsk with his Belarussian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko marked by a chummy bonhomie that saw the pair also propose they travel the length and breadth of Venezuela in the near future.
"We need to create a new union of republics," Chavez told Lukashenko, according to a statement from the Belarussian presidency.
Today, in moves that are not so laughable, Chavez will meet with Russian officials where he is expected to discuss further arms sales, military cooperation and energy deals.
More ominously, today Chavez also stirred up a torrent of controversy when he accused Israel of genocide.
The question is not whether the Israelis want to exterminate the Palestinians. They're doing it openly," Chavez said in an interview with Le Figaro published on Wednesday.
The Venezuelan president, who has just completed a tour of Middle Eastern and Arab countries, brushed aside Israeli assertions that its attack on Gaza was a response to rocket fire from Islamist group Hamas which rules the coastal enclave.
"What was it if not genocide? ... The Israelis were looking for an excuse to exterminate the Palestinians," Chavez said, adding that sanctions should have been slapped on Israel.
While perhaps Stone would agree with these rants (and while he might disagree with Elliot Abrams's excellent piece in yesterday's Washington Post taking former President Jimmy Carter to task for his similarly one-sided, overstated and distorted views), his past record of using and abusing the truth like other directors do starlets suggests that he might not dig far enough into the facts to recognize that his film's hero is deeply in bed with some of the very worst of the Middle East's bad actors.
Fortunately for the rest of us, there is the very thoughtful and profoundly disturbing column by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau in yesterday's Wall Street Journal detailing a growing case that Chavez and the Iranians are up to the worst kind of no good in this neighborhood. (Connecting the dots between Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Chavez's views is very easy when you do a little more research than Stone did.) Morgenthau writes:
part three; The day of the locos...
Wed, 09/09/2009 - 3:33pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
Here's an excerpt of Time's review of the film:
Every step of the way, Stone is by, and on, on the President's side. He raises no tough issues, some of which are summarized in Amnesty International's 2009 report on Venezuela: "Attacks on journalists were widespread. Human-rights defenders continued to suffer harassment. Prison conditions provoked hunger strikes in facilities across the country." Referring to the 2006 election in which Chávez won a third term, Stone tells viewers that "90% of the media was opposed to him," and yet he prevailed. "There is a lesson to be learned," Stone says. Yes: support the man in power, or your newspaper, radio station or TV network may be in jeopardy.
According to Variety, Stone said, ""You can't get a fair hearing for Chavez. It's an outrageous caricature they've drawn of him in the Western press."
Yes. Outrageous. Let's just take a few items of Chavez news from around the world that have crossed the wires in just the past couple days and draw our own conclusions, shall we?
Let's start with the mildly comic. In Belarus, Chavez met with President Alexander Lukashenko (the White Russian version of a caudillo). There, according to AFP:
part two; The day of the locos...
Wed, 09/09/2009 - 3:33pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
Yes, "Morning Joe" thought the hot story out of the Venice Film Festival was the footage of an exuberant gay Italian man stripping down and begging for a kiss from George Clooney. But they missed the bigger story. Perhaps they were too dazzled by the flashbulbs or their reporter was unable to make his way through the fawning, screeching crowds of fans. But there, upstaging the canals and the pigeons of St. Marks was Hollywood's newest hunk, Hugo Chavez. And just like Clooney, he had his retinue of crazed admirers. In Chavez's case however, the heavy-breathing was coming from director Oliver Stone, who was in town to promote his latest labor of love, a valentine to Chavez called "South of the Border."
And you thought George W. Bush was Yale's most embarrassing graduate...
This new film -- which is not, incidentally, named after the South Carolina roadside tourist trap of the same name -- builds on Stone's unwitting reputation as a master of historical fiction. Whereas some filmmakers are known for their camera work or story-telling, Stone is best known for his inability to separate fact from fairy-tale. First, came JFK, which provided the same view of the Kennedy assassination you would get after huffing glue while watching the Zapruder film. Other fantasies made their way into his movies on Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. Appropriately, therefore, the best of all summaries of his worldview came in the description of his "single plane theory" of the 9/11 attacks as reported by the Onion. (Given Stone's track record, the fact that it is completely made up is precisely the reason it should be treated as the truth.)
pix; The day of the locos...
Wed, 09/09/2009 - 3:33pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
part four; A New York state of mind: Republicans are the party of Seinfeld while Obama channels Jeter...
Thu, 09/10/2009 - 6:35pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
It was not the soaring but empty rhetoric of the campaign trail nor was it delivered by a magical president, the man who the media had made into Lincoln before he had spent a day in office. Rather, for me it was a much more real and appealing Obama, a smart, earnest political leader attempting to produce a meaningful piece of legislation. Oh I understand all about meta-messages and zeitgeists and stature and all that, but what struck me was that we were witnessing an important part of the business of democracy, of struggling over the details, of cajoling even an abusive opposition to come along.
In short, while we can save for elsewhere a debate over the specifics of the health care legislation, he made a solid stand for rationality in the face of irrational opposition, for progress in the face of intransigence. He was a man at work rather than a heroic figure and he made his case both well and far better than any of his opponents have made theirs.
In fact, President Obama was aided in all this by those Republican opponents -- as they have ceased to be the party of Lincoln and have become the party of Seinfeld, a party about nothing.
That may be consistent with the D.C. vacuousness I mentioned at the outset, but it looked callous and irresponsible to me last night. (I am not going to get into the issue of rudeness. It's small potatoes. A kerfuffle in a teacup. These people are grown-ups. Neither party has cornered the market on idiots.)
No to me, Obama last night showed that he is maturing into the kind of workaday president that we need. His rhetoric was not just strong, it was purposeful. He looked to me like a man committed to getting this thing done. One day at a time. I believe he will and I believe when he does it will make it easier to move ahead on other issues like climate and energy.
That kind of approach counts for a lot where I come from. It's why I think while the Republicans are channeling Jerry and Elaine, Obama seems to be zeroing in on a better model (at least I hope he is) -- the dependable, steady, grace-under-pressure approach that has put another New Yorker, Derek Jeter, center stage this week.
To conclude with an unrelated anecdote that ties Jeter's Yankees to the Mayor Lindsay reference at the outset, and which seems to me to nicely contrast how Obama appeared last night versus how the Republicans did, there is always the famous story about Lindsay's wife. She once remarked to Yogi Berra that he (like Obama) looked cool despite the heat. He responded (as though speaking to the Republican leadership), "You don't look so hot yourself."
Jason Reed-Pool/Getty Images
David Rothkopf | Permalink | | 3 comments
( filed under: Health | Obama Administration | Politics | Public Health)
part three; A New York state of mind: Republicans are the party of Seinfeld while Obama channels Jeter...
Thu, 09/10/2009 - 6:35pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
It's even why President Obama can get a lot of credit for a speech that was, to put it mildly, arithmetically challenged. To begin with "fraud, waste, and abuse" is neither a number nor even a measurable thing. It's just a mythical creature that wanders the halls of the Congress year in and year out, much discussed but in reality untouchable and constantly growing. It's certainly not a budget item you can line out to produce a measurable saving. Further, suddenly it was argued that we could provide coverage for the 45 million Americans without healthcare by providing it to only 30 million additional people. (When numbers suffer, so do absolute terms like "universal.") Finally, it's clear we ended up with a $900 billion proposal not because that was the sum total cost of all the reform we need but rather because it was not more than $1 trillion, which was considered a line that could not be crossed politically. It's a sad thing when we start pricing much-needed transformational reforms the same way we do ladies' shoes ($99.99 rather than $100. Which numbers bear as little relation to bills I have seen recently as do most Congressional budget projections to actual results.)
Having said that, I liked the President's speech last night and thought it was very effective. It may have been too vague. It may not have been what you'd call mathematically rigorous. It also was not, to my way of thinking, even sufficiently broad in its proposed reforms. However, it was a serious effort at addressing a critical national concern. It contained a few key principles (extending coverage, combating abuse by insurance companies, seeking savings) and it embraced ideas from both political parties.
part two; A New York state of mind: Republicans are the party of Seinfeld while Obama channels Jeter...
Thu, 09/10/2009 - 6:35pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
New York's former Mayor John Lindsay once reportedly said he "didn't trust air he couldn't see." We're raised to be that way in that part of the world. As a rule we don't spend much time fretting about the things we can't see unless we're seated with our back to the door in an Italian restaurant.
Washington on the other hand is, for the most part, in the business of intangibles: Empty words, empty promises, speeches in the place of action, "sense of the Senate" resolutions, reading a crowd rather than sticking to principles.
Today for instance, both pundits and real people are spending hours discussing whether Obama was sufficiently "presidential" last night, whether he had regained his campaign "magic" or whether he had changed the "national mood." Most of that stuff gives me a nosebleed.
Of course, in these parts politicians prefer discussing things that can't be measured because measurements tend to be so deflating, suggesting that their jobs are not about leadership or rhetoric but are rather about what and how much they get done. Also the real numbers don't lie (unlike their statistical cousins) and so, if you lie for a living you learn to avoid them early on.
This explains a lot, notably why our national accounts never add up, why budget forecasts are always wrong, why official economic projections are seen as being a substance-less as Georgetown cocktail party conversation. Old Washington hands expect roughly the same thing from "we expect a turnaround in the fourth quarter" as they do from "let's get together for lunch sometime."
pix, part one; A New York state of mind: Republicans are the party of Seinfeld while Obama channels Jeter...
Thu, 09/10/2009 - 6:35pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
part six; How much do I hear for one almost new, unused reset button?
Fri, 09/11/2009 - 4:41pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
Oh, we'll try to put a good face on it. But note: they have given us every incentive to start working hard on our new BIC strategy ... which is to say trying to isolate Russia among the leaders of the emerging world by forging stronger ties with China, India and Brazil (among others). This in turn raises the final question in this litany: which is how much do you think we can get on eBay for one virtually new, unused reset button? Perhaps there is a museum somewhere that would like to put it in a display alongside Neville Chamberlain's umbrella.
David Rothkopf | Permalink | | 7 comments
( filed under: Iran | Israel/Palestine | Military | Nukes | Obama Administration | Oil)
part five; How much do I hear for one almost new, unused reset button?
Fri, 09/11/2009 - 4:41pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
Finally, just how much does Russia have to do before they go from being a contentious partner to actually once again being an enemy?
Ok, this is rhetorical. Given that this week Russia became the world's largest petroleum exporter, we're not going to be outright enemies with them. After all, we've long proven that if you give us a nice meal and pump enough oil into us, we're easy ... or at least flexible. Still, after a rough visit to Moscow by Obama, differences on missile defense, Russia's calls for a new global currency, Russian efforts to place itself at the center of every emerging global alliance to counterbalance the United States, provocative weapons deals with among others Tehran and Caracas, possible missile shipments on board ships that disappear and reappear, aggression in the near-abroad and torpedoing our efforts to stop Iran short of gaining nuclear weapons, you've got to start wondering when we're going to get the message. They'll take whatever we have to give but their agenda diverges from ours on a wide array of critical issues and on some, they conflict with us directly and, one might almost say, exultantly.
part four; How much do I hear for one almost new, unused reset button?
Fri, 09/11/2009 - 4:41pm
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/
Third, will it be NPT 2.0, NPT 1.1 or N2PT?
Once it is recognized that Iran's entrance into the nuclear club proves (yet again) the impotence of the non-proliferation treaty do we go for an entirely new agreement, a variation on what we have now or just accept that what we have is really the N2PT, which is to say the non-nonproliferation treaty (this is one case where a double negative definitely does not equal a positive.) A completely new deal is, in reality, a non-starter because it would be impossible to get agreement from many nations to opt in. The U.S. view is to renovate the sagging framework of the existing agreement with a much more robust international mechanism for dealing with the creation and disposal of nuclear fuel. But the real question is whether or not there will ever be an enforcement mechanism strong enough to enable multilateral inspections and to ensure multilateral action in the face of proven violations. Actually, Russia has gone quite a long way toward answering that ... which in turn raises another question: Just what is the best way to safely dispose of spent nuclear agreements?
A HOAX PLAY BY AL GORE AND ON FOREIGN GLOBAL HOAX ON GLOBAL WARMING! 09 - 13 - 2009 BY NYBob.
SEE MESSAGE # http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=41430791
GLOBAL WARMING $100,000,000 OR MORE ON THIS HOAX?
China Leads Weather Control Race -
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/china-leads-wea/
Can China control the weather?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/cloud-seeding.htm
The Good The Bad The Ugly with Politics.
is obama dictating here? socialistic rule? communist rule? czar rule?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/politics/ --- http://www.wealthdaily.com/ --- Wealth
http://mineweb.co.za/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page1
http://mineweb.co.za/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page34?oid=89354&sn=Detail
does union have too much to say now? is obama dictating here? socialistic rule? communist rule? czar rule?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/politics/
http://www.nationalreview.com/
http://www.humanevents.com/
http://www.Forbes.com
http://www.Politico.com
http://www.WallStreetJournal.com
http://www.hotair.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com
http://www.WashingtonExaminer.com
http://www.NewYorkDailyNews.com
http://www.rasmussenreports.com
http://www.news.yahoo.com
http://www.theglobalguru.com/article.php?id=268&s=fn --- 'market calling/financials.'
http://www.theglobalguru.com
http://www.zerohedge.com/ --- Good financial reads here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ --- Interesting views here.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/ {10/31/2009}
http://www.accuweather.com/ --- http://www.dailypaul.com/
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/newsA.htm --- great NVW news. [Bob's user stuff]
Rush Limbaugh is the MAN!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=2953
The Savage Nation FORUM!
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=15974
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geust4.Z5KuAkAdzpXNyoA?fr2=sg-gac&sado=1&p=michael%20savage%20show&fr=yfp-t-153&pqstr=michael%20savage&gprid=kCtLXqXvSxe_JbJVl029yA&sac=1&sao=1
http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/
Glenn Beck
http://www.glennbeck.com
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=14904
http://www.the912project.com
National Endowment for the Arts
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=national+endowment+of+the+arts&fr=yfp-t-153&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
http://www.nea.gov/
Bill O'Reilly | The O'Reilly Factor -
http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/
Sean Hannity
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu.Iu_J5KETkAen5XNyoA?fr2=sg-gac&sado=1&p=sean%20hannity&fr=yfp-t-153&pqstr=hannity&gprid=bfKBzqYgT3ads0cW63AiWA&sac=1&sao=1
http://www.hannity.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.wabcradio.com
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/
Liberal Free Chat Zone (NOLIB)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=1642
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geurif.p5KAFoB3OFXNyoA?p=no+liberal+chart+zone&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-153&fr2=sb-top&sao=1
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geuyd6.55KnioB.jVXNyoA?p=no+liberal+chat+zone&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-153&fr2=sb-top&sao=1
Jews, Judaism, and Antisemitism: Recent News,
http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/displacedjews.htm
http://geography.about.com/
http://www.about.com/education/
http://www.about.com/
http://search.about.com/fullsearch.htm?terms=obama%20african%20history
Barack Obama, 1961 - http://search.about.com/fullsearch.htm?terms=obama%20african%20history
DuSable Museum of African American History – DuSable Museum ...
http://www.biography.com/
http://www.biography.com/profiles-of-9-11/index.jsp
Political Families ; 09/03/2009
http://www.biography.com/search/biography.do?keywords=political+families&imageField2.x=13&imageField2.y=8
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/16/its_official_obama_creates_more_czars_than_the_romanovs
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/ --- Foreign policy
It's official: Obama creates more czars than the Romanovs
Thu, 04/16/2009 - 12:11pm
AI
