Watch Hillary

David Seaton's News Links
Hillary Clinton is the weather vane of American politics, the consummate professional who crafts everything she says or does to a very sophisticated (and expensive) reading of all the pressure groups, polls, niches and think tanks. She always seeks to be perfectly positioned on every issue, perfecting the Clinton trademark, "triangulation". For Hillary the Baker-Hamilton report presents a horrible problem. On one side is public opinion, that is to say; living, breathing voters and the foreign policy establishment: their consensus is talk to Iran and to hold a regional peace conference to settle Israel/Palestine. On the other side is the most unpopular president in living memory and of course, the neocons (Murdoch owns the Weekly Standard) followed by AIPAC and behind them the Israeli right wing; all of whom want to attack Iran. This is impossible to triangulate. Here, on one side, we have the weight of public opinion finally focused on reality and on the other side a pressure group famous for its power. Voters on one side, financing and press coverage on the other. A 'perfect storm' for a political hack. To really follow what is happening now, to know which way the wind is blowing, watch Hillary. Following her in the next few days and weeks may be comic as she whipsaws around this issue trying to find the perfect fix. DS

Israel: dangerous when cornered

David Seaton's News Links

Briefly described, the neocon plan for the Middle East theorized that the invasion of Iraq and its regime change, accompanied by much "shock and awe", would bring about regime change in Iran and Syria. The new regimes thus produced would forthwith sign peace treaties with Israel and this would leave the Palestinians isolated and thus forced to accept whatever conditions Israel willed. This strategy was expressed as, "the road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad". Poof! That strategy lies in ruins. Turned inside out like a stocking. The United States is now in the death grip of the Middle East and is struggling to extricate itself. Now it appears that "the road to Baghdad lead through Jerusalem", in other words: for the USA to leave Iraq with even a shred of dignity intact it needs the cooperation of Iran, Syria and the various factions of Iraq who share a common hatred for the "Zionist entity" and will need to humble Israel in order to justify their concessions before their peoples. Therefore, any cooperation, peace plan, or peace conference will come at the expense of Israel, which will have to concede much, much, more than what Ariel Sharon termed, "painful concessions". To top it off, after their military, diplomatic and propaganda failure against Hezbollah last summer, the Israeli's military prestige is in tatters and their enemies emboldened. The Israeli rightwing will do anything and activate any resource to slow down or derail this momentum which is totally to their detriment. In my opinion many of the strange things that are occurring and may occur in the near future, in the Middle East and elsewhere, can be explained by the Israeli right's need to save what they can from the collapse of the neocon 'dream'. This article from the Financial Times lays out the elements without connecting the dots. DS
The assassination in Lebanon should not derail dialogue - Financial Times
Abstract: The assassination of Lebanese industry minister Pierre Gemayel last Tuesday sent shockwaves through the Middle East. It seemed to run counter to the growing momentum for diplomacy and co-operation that had seen Syrian ministers in Baghdad, the Iraqi president preparing to go to Tehran and calls in London and Washington for a change of course toward more constructive engagement with Syria and Iran. However, the killing necessitates a balanced policy of moving ahead with the United Nations special tribunal on assassinations in Lebanon while also reducing conflict and instability through constructive and multilateral dialogue.(...) At the international level, the murder disrupts the momentum in London and Washington for a fundamental change of approach in the Middle East. Regardless of who actually perpetrated it, much public commentary has laid the blame at the doorstep of Damascus. Syria has condemned the killing, denies any responsibility and protests that the act, carried out on the day that the UN Security Council was meeting to finalise the tribunal agreement, could not have been timed more effectively to hurt its interests. Nevertheless, the assassination revived international wariness of the Syrian regime and helped rush the tribunal agreement through the Security Council.(...) Despite the latest events, the logic of reaching out to Tehran and Damascus still holds. The two are major forces in the region and there is much to be gained from robust and responsible dialogue between them and the international community. With the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, Iran has made gains in the region, helped by the rise in oil prices. Iran will be an important participant in the future of Iraq and in the stability or otherwise of the Middle East. Despite sharp differences over its nuclear programme, Iran shares with other countries an interest in a stable Iraq. It seeks assurances that it will not be attacked or overthrown, that it will not be considered a pariah state and that its role in the region will be recognised. In exchange, it should be open to co-operation in Iraq, security in the gulf, as well as co-operation in stabilising Lebanon.(...) The killing in Lebanon reminds us all that there are dangerous and violent elements at play. But there is no alternative to engaging governments and encouraging states to become partners rather than pariahs in the international community, thus having a stake in playing by its rules. READ IT ALL

Embittered Insiders Turn Against Bush - Washington Post

David Seaton's News Links
This "discontent" is part of a campaign to force Bush to bomb Iran. Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute, mentioned in this article, has an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times today entitled, "Bomb Iran". Subtle, nu? DS

Abstract: Most striking lately, though, has been the criticism from neoconservatives who provided the intellectual framework for Bush's presidency. Perle, Adelman and others advocated a robust use of U.S. power to advance the ideals of democracy and freedom, targeting Hussein's Iraq as a threat that could be turned into an opportunity. In an interview last week, Perle said the administration's big mistake was occupying the country rather than creating an interim Iraqi government led by a coalition of exile groups to take over after Hussein was toppled. "If I had known that the U.S. was going to essentially establish an occupation, then I'd say, 'Let's not do it,' " and instead find another way to target Hussein, Perle said. "It was a foolish thing to do." Perle, head of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board at the time of the 2003 invasion, said he still believes the invasion was justified. But he resents being called "the architect of the Iraq war," because "my view was different from the administration's view from the very beginning" about how to conduct it. "I am not critical now of anything about which I was not critical before," he said. "I've said it more publicly."(...) "It seemed like nobody was getting it," Adelman said. "It seemed like everything was locked in. It seemed like everything was stuck." He agrees he bears blame as well. "I think that's fair. When you advocate a policy that turns bad, you do have some responsibility." Most troubling, he said, are his shattered ideals: "The whole philosophy of using American strength for good in the world, for a foreign policy that is really value-based instead of balanced-power-based, I don't think is disproven by Iraq. But it's certainly discredited." READ ALL

Krauthammer blames it all on the Iraqis

David Seaton's News Links
I'm including this just in case you missed it yesterday. When I read it, it made me so angry and ashamed I nearly threw up. Charles Krauthammer is one of the major nonconservative pundits that led the people of the United States into invading a country whose people had never done anything to harm them. Now, as a result of that invasion the doors of hell have opened and the helpless people of Iraq are being swallowed in a terrible civil war that will surely lead to ethnic cleansing, the displacement of millions of people and probably the death of hundreds of thousands more... that is, if the war doesn't suck in the rest of the region and set the entire Middle East on fire... And now it turns out that the whole thing is the fault of the Iraqis. This miserable creature has the gall to throw a quote of Benjamin Franklin's, "A Republic if you can keep it" in the bloodied and humiliated face of the people of Iraq. I am really tempted to use one of George W. Bush's favorite words to describe Mr. Krauthammer, "evil". I can think of no other. Has he no shame? No pity? no mercy? Or even just enough sense to shut up and not reveal his vileness. DS

Abstract:(...) Are the Arabs intrinsically incapable of democracy, as the "realists" imply? True, there are political, historical, even religious reasons why Arabs are less prepared for democracy than, say, East Asians and Latin Americans who successfully democratized over the past several decades. But the problem here is Iraq's particular political culture, raped and ruined by 30 years of Hussein's totalitarianism.What was left in its wake was a social desert, a dearth of the trust and good will and sheer human capital required for democratic governance. All that was left for the individual Iraqi to attach himself to was the mosque or clan or militia. At this earliest stage of democratic development, Iraqi national consciousness is as yet too weak and the culture of compromise too undeveloped to produce an effective government enjoying broad allegiance. (...) s this America's fault? No. It is a result of Iraq's first democratic election. The United States was not going to replace Saddam Hussein with another tyrant. We were trying to plant democracy in the heart of the Middle East as the one conceivable antidote to extremism and terror -- and, in a country that is nearly two-thirds Shiite, that inevitably meant Shiite domination. It was never certain whether the long-oppressed Shiites would have enough sense of nation and sense of compromise to govern rather than rule. The answer is now clear: United in a dominating coalition, they do not. READ IT ALL (if you have a strong stomach)