In coup aftermath, Hugo Chavez seen as the ‘George Bush of Latin America.’
In coup aftermath, Hugo Chavez seen as the ‘George Bush of Latin America.’
The New York Times reports today that, despite Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s attempts to portray the U.S. as the instigators of last weekend’s coup in Honduras, the Obama administration appears to have out-maneuvered him. Obama “firmly condemned the coup, defusing Mr. Chávez’s charges,” and leaders of other Latin American countries and media outlets seemed unwilling to accept Chávez’s portrayal of “Washington as the coup’s possible orchestrator.” Chávez’s unpopular and belligerent rhetoric inspired Venezualan opposition party Acción Democrática to dub him the “George Bush of Latin America“:
Mr. Obama’s nonconfrontational diplomacy seems to have caught Mr. Chávez off balance. “Chávez is beginning to understand that he’s dealing with someone with a very different approach than his predecessor,” said Michael Shifter, vice president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington policy research group. …
Mr. Chávez’s threats of belligerence in Central America led one opposition party here, Acción Democrática, to issue a statement on Monday that was full of irony: “Hugo Chávez has become the George Bush of Latin America.”
- Comments
- 80
Tauscher confirmed to State Department post after Kyl lifts hold on her nomination.
Tauscher confirmed to State Department post after Kyl lifts hold on her nomination.
Earlier this week, ThinkProgress noted that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) had placed a hold on Rep. Ellen Tauscher’s (D-CA) nomination to become Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, perhaps as blackmail in his wider goal of preventing the Obama administration and Russia from negotiating “deep cuts” in the respective U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. However a congressional source told Foreign Policy’s Laura Rozen yesterday that Kyl is no longer holding up the nomination. Soon after, the Senate confirmed Tauscher to the State Department post. Kyl’s office did not respond to inquiries from ThinkProgress asking why Kyl lifted the hold.
Is Sen. Kyl Placing A Hold On Ellen Tauscher’s State Department Nomination Because He Wants More Nukes?
Is Sen. Kyl Placing A Hold On Ellen Tauscher’s State Department Nomination Because He Wants More Nukes?
The Senate has yet to confirm a number of President Obama’s nominees to various State Department posts. One of those nominees, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) — a champion of repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy — has had a hold placed on her nomination to become Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. But the hold on her nomination is not anonymous, as Foreign Policy’s Laura Rozen reports:
A blanket hold placed late last week by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on all State Department nominees appears to have been lifted on Saturday, administration sources tell The Cable. Kyl’s only remaining hold, The Cable was told, is on Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), President Obama’s nominee to be under secretary of state for arms control and international security.
Kyl’s office confirmed his remaining hold on Tauscher’s nomination. “He honestly has made no guise of his hold on her nomination,” spokesman Ryan Patmintra told The Cable Monday.
When asked why Kyl is placing a hold on Tauscher, a spokesperson said, “He expressed privately to the administration his concerns. He has chosen not to discuss them publicly.” Indeed, Kyl’s office did not respond to an inquiry from ThinkProgress.
But last week, Rozen reported that Capitol Hill sources said Kyl “is not satisified with the information he has been receiving from the administration on the progress of arms control negotiations with Russia”:
“Kyl’s beef and the general Republican argument now emerging against the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy is that they are rushing to conclude a new agreement with Russia on strategic arms levels before their Nuclear Posture Review [NPR] is complete,” a Democratic congressional source said.
However, the Obama administration has to move quickly because the arms control agreement with Russia — the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), a verification regime signed in 1991 — expires on Dec. 5. The Obama administration has made no secret of wanting warmer relations with Russia. In recent negotiations, both nations have expressed interest in “much deeper cuts in strategic arsenals than those achieved by START when it came into force.”
Nuclear non-proliferation expert Joseph Cirincione told ThinkProgress, “Senator Kyl wants to delay any arms reductions until the Nuclear Posture Review, then work the process so the NPR makes only minor changes to the existing nuclear arsenal.”
Indeed, if Obama makes a deal with Russian President Medvedev to drastically reduce nuclear stockpiles, Kyl — who is against reducing America’s nuclear weapons — won’t have much of an opportunity to challenge it. Kyl would rather play domestic politics with the NPR and have a chance at limiting nuclear reductions before any U.S.-Russia binding agreement. Thus, it appears Kyl is using the NPR as an excuse to block U.S. negotiations with Russia, and is holding up Tauscher’s nomination as blackmail.
Caught Up In Nostalgic Reagan Hysteria, ‘Student Of History’ McCain Credits Him For 1968 Prague Spring
Caught Up In Nostalgic Reagan Hysteria, ‘Student Of History’ McCain Credits Him For 1968 Prague Spring
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been having a tough time with the current situation in Iran. He has been criticizing President Obama’s “hands off” approach and encouraging him to get more involved (despite expert opinion that says otherwise). But former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger — a McCain supporter whom McCain recently called “the smartest man in the world” — said this week that he thinks Obama “has handled this well.”
Last night on Fox News, McCain and Sean Hannity joined in with the right wing’s Reagan-era hysteria, with Hannity arguing that Obama should offer “some moral support the way that Ronald Reagan offered moral support” to anti-communists. But in this instance, McCain got carried away, crediting Reagan for something that happened well before he became president:
McCAIN: You and I are both students of history and we’ve seen this movie before. When Ronald Reagan stood up for the workers in Gdansk in Poland, when he stood up for the people of Czechoslovakia, in Prague Spring, and America did. And some good Democrats did, too.
Watch it:
Perhaps McCain needs a new history lesson. The Prague Spring was a period of political liberalization in Czechoslovakia when Communist Party leader Alexander Dubcek allowed greater speech and assembly freedoms when he came to power… in January 1968. Ronald Reagan had just completed his first year as California’s governor at that time. Soviet and other Warsaw Pact troops invaded eight months later to end the reform movement.
Since the uprising in Iran over its disputed elections, conservatives of all stripes have been quick to invoke their hero Ronald Reagan as a guidepost from which to criticize Obama’s response (as they often do with just about any issue). But as Matt Duss noted, referring to McCain, “Indeed, we’ve all seen this movie before”:
It’s the one where conservatives deploy a potted history of the Cold War — in which Reagan spoke and the walls came tumbling down — to cast international politics as a zero-sum contest between good and evil, and to cow progressives into a more aggressive rhetorical posture toward America’s adversary of the moment. It is usually hidden under the guise of “solidarity with captive peoples” and absent any genuine consideration of the practical effects on the peoples concerned.
If McCain and company are going to continue to rely on Reagan for guidance, they should at least try to maintain the correct historical time-line.
House GOP rush to a microphone to criticize Obama immediately following passage of Iran resolution.
House GOP rush to a microphone to criticize Obama immediately following passage of Iran resolution.
With a 405-to-1 vote, the House passed a non-binding resolution expressing support for the pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran. Despite the unobjectionable text of the resolution, the manner in which Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) promoted the resolution in recent days left no doubt that his motive was to score political points. As further evidence that House Republicans were playing politics with this resolution, Pence and a host of his conservative colleagues lept to the microphones immediately after the resolution was passed to bash President Obama and sing the praises of Ronald Reagan. Watch a compilation:
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was the only no vote, while Reps. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) and David Loebsack (D-IA) voted present. Sens. Joe Lieberman (R-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ) plan to introduce the same resolution in the Senate.
Pence Pushes House Resolution To Criticize Obama’s Response To Iran
Pence Pushes House Resolution To Criticize Obama’s Response To Iran
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced a non-binding resolution yesterday “condemning the crackdown on pro-democracy activists in Iran.” Roll Call reports that it was “cleared for a Friday floor vote.” Pence, in recent days, has been all over cable news channels talking up his resolution, repeatedly insisting that it was motivated out a sense of loyalty to the “American cause of freedom.”
While the text of his resolution appears to offer unobjectionable support for Iranian freedoms, Pence is using bipartisan support of the resolution to criticize the Obama administration’s response to Iran.
On Fox News this morning, Pence repeated the pitch he’s made again and again on cable news in recent days: “We’ve yet to hear the President express the unqualified support of the American people for the people who are bravely going to the streets in Iran.” But despite his very public campaign for Obama to make such a statement, Pence admitted that he hadn’t actually talked to the President about how to best support the people of Iran:
PENCE: I haven’t talked to the President about it this week, but I do want to say that I think it’s a false choice to say that you can be either about engagement and or speak the ideals of the American people and our historic commitment to freedom. I think you can do both.
Later, Pence cited former President Reagan’s speech at the Brandenburg Gate as reason for Obama to combine tough pro-democracy talk with engagement. Watch it:
Despite Pence’s criticisms, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger endorsed Obama’s response. “I think the president has handled this well,” he said. Similarly, Iranian human rights activist and the Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi called Obama’s comments on Iran “sufficient” and said “what happens in Iran regards the people themselves, and it is up to them to make their voices heard.” Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) took a similar view, saying, “For us to become heavily involved in the election at this point is to give the clergy an opportunity to have an enemy and to use us, really, to retain their power.”
Pence also may want to consider how the demonstrators feel about the U.S. inserting itself into their struggle. Former Iran correspondent for Time magazine Azadeh Moaveni reported that there is “a resounding belief that this time the United States should keep out.” As for Pence’s criticism that the U.S. posture toward Iran should include Reagan-style pro-democracy rhetoric, Obama already has that covered. In his speech in Cairo earlier this month aimed, in part, at Iran, Obama declared:
America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.
Armitage: Obama conducting foreign policy ‘in a more intelligent way’ than Bush.
Armitage: Obama conducting foreign policy ‘in a more intelligent way’ than Bush.
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage spoke earlier this week at the Missouri Boys State, an event that was held on the campus of the University of Central Missouri. During the question and answer period, Armitage was asked about President Obama’s “softer force when dealing with other nations.” “Mr. Obama is in some ways presenting a much better face to the world. I wouldn’t call it a soft face, I’d call it a smart face,” Armitage replied. He then took a subtle dig at President Bush:
ARMITAGE: I think he’s using both our soft and hard power in a more intelligent way. [...] I think he’s using our power more intelligently. And using all the tools in our kit box now, in our tool box. Mr. Bush just used sanctions and force. And I think this gives us a better opportunity to prevail. What is soft power? It’s the ability to attract. You want to persuade, you want to attract them. Hard power is coercive. Well, force them to do something. If you can attract people I think it’s always better. It seems to last longer.
Earlier in the discussion, Armitage said he disagrees with Vice President Cheney’s criticism of the Obama administration adding that he should “pipe down.” “I think it’s unseemly,” Armitage said. Later, referring to Colin Powell’s criticism of Republican Party, Armitage said that Powell is just trying to get the GOP to stop acting “like a bunch of knuckleheads.”
Mousavi makes first public appearance since Friday to thousands of supporters.
Mousavi makes first public appearance since Friday to thousands of supporters.
In his first public appearance since Friday, Iran’s reform presidential candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, “joined a huge rally against the result of last week’s election, defying a government ban.” Gathering in Tehran’s Revolution Square, the crowd chanted “pro-Mousavi slogans as riot police stood by.” “Mousavi we support you. We will die, but retrieve our votes,” they shouted. From the roof of his car, Mousavi said, “The vote of the people is more important than Mousavi or any other person.” The Iranian government said Mousvai would be held responsible for what it called an “illegal rally.” Watch it:
Neocons Claim Iranian Elections Don’t Matter
Neocons Claim Iranian Elections Don’t Matter
Yesterday, the American Prospect’s Dana Goldstein noted that the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), despite warning of the dangers of an Iran led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are now suggesting that his possible ouster in today’s elections in Iran will not have any impact on how the Iranian government approaches relations with the West. Goldstein characterized AIPAC’s message this way: “If you are concerned about the expansion of Iran’s nuclear program, the argument goes, it doesn’t matter whether Ahmadinejad wins or loses.”
As the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss and HuffPost’s Rachel Weiner have noted, AIPAC’s read on the Iranian elections is nearly identical to that of the broader neo-conservative community:
Daniel Pipes: “The president tends to have power in the areas — in the soft areas — having to do with culture and religion and education. And it is the Rahbare, the Supreme Guide of Iran, Khomeini at first and now Khamenei who has control of the military, the law enforcement, the judiciary system, the intelligence agencies. So its not clear that the president matters that much.” [Heritage Foundation Panel, 6/03/09]
Michael Rubin: “[S]hould someone more soft-spoken and less defiant [than Ahmadinejad] — someone like former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi — win, it would be easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger.” [National Review, 06/11/09]
Elliot Abrams: “In fact, a victory by Mr. Ahmadinejad’s main challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi, is more likely to change Western policy toward Iran than to change Iran’s own conduct.” [New York Times, 06/12/09]
In apparent confirmation that such sentiments have now become neoconservative dogma, John Bolton echoed them on Fox News this morning. Bolton — who has long demonized Ahmadinejad as a significant threat to U.S. national security — argued to Fox’s Bill Hemmer that an Ahmadinejad defeat would not change Iran’s foreign policy because such issues are handled by the Iran’s religious leaders:
HEMMER: It doesn’t matter who wins then, based on what you’re telling us.
BOLTON: In terms of foreign policy. People like to joke this dispute between moderates and hard liners is that you have Ahmadinejad who tells people that he’s proceeding with the nuclear program and plans to wipe Israel off the map, or whether you have a moderate who proceeds with the nuclear program but is smart enough to keep his mouth shut.
Watch it:
In fact, it would be significant for the Iranian people to reject the radical politics and hard-line policies of Ahmadinejad. As Duss explains, the clerical leadership does not appear to be as interested in pursuing nuclear weapons as Ahmadinejad appears to be. Goldstein adds, “The thing to remember is that despite buzz to the contrary, there are key foreign policy differences between Ahmadinejad, who does not support international talks regarding the Iranian nuclear program, and Mousavi, who does.”
Laura Rozen agrees, writing that “the voting out of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would undoubtedly be seen in Washington and the West as a welcome sign that the Iranian public supports greater liberalization and a less hostile attitude toward the West.” Indeed, even if Ahmadinejad’s main challenger, Mousavi, loses, the campaign demonstrates that “there’s clearly a lot of popular disconnect with Ahmadinejad’s rule, and a lot of it centers around his bizarrely self-defeating approach to foreign policy,” Stephen Walt concludes.
Lugar Bucks Right-Wing Criticism Of Obama’s Cairo Speech: ‘I Don’t Agree’ That It Makes America Look Weak
Lugar Bucks Right-Wing Criticism Of Obama’s Cairo Speech: ‘I Don’t Agree’ That It Makes America Look Weak
Soon after President Obama delivered his enlightened speech at Cairo University in Egypt last Thursday, the right wing reflexively launched into attack mode. Led by Fox News, conservatives off all stripes began (again) touting the speech as another “tour of apology.” Charles Krauthammer claimed Obama “was exceedingly weak” on Iran, while a sizable right-wing chorus bemoaned what they deemed as instances of “moral equivalency” in the speech. “I think it makes America look weak,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) complained of the speech.
However, during an interview with Bloomberg News this past weekend, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), ranking member of Foreign Relations Committee, broke ranks with his party’s criticism of Obama. Lugar called it an “important speech,” adding that he “thought” it “struck the right tone.” Asked if Obama was “tough enough” on Iran, Lugar responded, “Oh I suspect so for that particular purpose.”
When Hunt asked if “there was a moral equivalence message in the speech,” Lugar didn’t take the bait. “I think there was some attempt to find a balanced nuanced situation,” he replied. And then he distanced himself from Boehner:
HUNT: How about the charge of some critics like Republican leader John Boehner that it was too apologetic, that it was too weak and almost groveling?
LUGAR: I do not agree with that.
Watch it:
Lugar expounded on the “moral equivalency” charges, especially with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian issue by pointing out that Obama was simply “asking people to forget the past” because the arguments about which side has suffered more bring you “back to square one.”
Commenting on the right wing’s “apology tour” cries, Lugar said there is “a lack of sympathy for our country,” adding, “We probably as Americans need to give a lot of speeches in the Arab world.”
Transcript: More »
Rove: ‘Who Cares’ Whether Muslims ‘Approve Or Like The President Of The United States’?
Rove: ‘Who Cares’ Whether Muslims ‘Approve Or Like The President Of The United States’?
Last night, Karl Rove went on Fox News and lambasted President Obama’s speech in Cairo, saying that he would give him a grade of “D minus” on the “important parts of the speech.” Host Bill O’Reilly then decided to play “devil’s advocate” and pointed out that President Bush’s approach wasn’t all that great since Muslim communities around the world “hated him.” Rove responded that it doesn’t really matter what they think:
O’REILLY: Okay? The bottom line on it is that President Bush may have been right in a lot of the things that he said and did during the war on terror in his administration. But the Muslim world would not listen to him. They wouldn’t. They didn’t like him. They hated him. He was demonized. And they didn’t like him at all.
ROVE: No, I totally disagree with you.
O’REILLY: The Muslim world –
ROVE: Totally disagree with you.
O’REILLY: — the Muslim people. They didn’t like him.
ROVE: Well, no, no. Look, I disagree with you.
O’REILLY: Well, all the polls showed in every Muslim country that President Bush’s approval rating was 20 percent. So I mean how can you disagree?
ROVE: You know what? Who cares about whether or not they approve or like the president of the United States? The question is do they respect the policies of the United States government? And you bet they did. Because we showed strength and power and influence.
Watch it:
Not only did many Muslim countries not “like” President Bush, they also didn’t respect his policies. A 2006 poll of five Muslim nations found that just 8-16 percent of those surveyed believed that “the ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein made the world a safer place.”
In fact, the reason that so many Muslim communities didn’t approve of Bush was because of his policies. The United States may have had “strength and power and influence,” but under the Bush administration, it used it to “weaken and divide the Islamic world,” according to a 2007 poll of four majority Muslim nations. The abuse of this power is what led to “widespread…unfavorable attitudes” of the United States by Muslim nations throughout Bush’s two terms.
Not that Rove ever cared what they thought anyway.
Transcript: More »
Inhofe Rips Obama As ‘Un-American,’ Suggests He’s On The Side Of Terrorists
Inhofe Rips Obama As ‘Un-American,’ Suggests He’s On The Side Of Terrorists
Reacting to President Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world yesterday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) decried the president’s speech as “un-American” and even suggested Obama might be on the side of terrorists:
Sen. Jim Inhofe said today that President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo was “un-American” because he referred to the war in Iraq as “a war of choice” and didn’t criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program.
Inhofe, R-Tulsa, also criticized the president for suggesting that torture was conducted at the military prison in Guantanamo, saying, “There has never been a documented case of torture at Guantanamo.”
“I just don’t know whose side he’s on,” Inhofe said of the president.
Unsurprisingly, actual Iraqis and Iranians — a couple of the key audiences for Obama’s speech — viewed it far more favorably than Inhofe. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the speech reflected greater understanding of Mideast culture and “reduces the chance of growth of extremist ideas that are trying to tarnish the image of Islam in the world.” “Obama’s speech was extraordinary. I loved it,” said 24-year old Iranian Morteza Sinaie. “I wish every Iranian would hear it. I think it would dramatically change their opinion about Obama and the United Sates.”
Reporting from Iraq, NPR correspondent JJ Sutherland noted one family said they wished Obama’s words “to be real. We wish what he’s saying to be real.” Reporting from Iran, Christian Science Monitor’s Scott Peterson wrote, “Mr. Obama’s pledge that America was ‘ready to move forward’ with ‘courage, rectitude, and resolve’ will be welcome in Tehran.”
One of the important goals of Obama’s speech was to stop creating an “us versus them” mentality with the Muslim world, the very approach that Inhofe is still espousing. In his speech, Obama tried to end language that suggests the Muslim world and the U.S. are on competing sides:
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
The Wall Street Journal reports, “Muslims in the Middle East and beyond praised U.S. President Barack Obama for the tone of his speech Thursday.” Al-Jazeera, the Arab world’s leading satellite channel, celebrated the speech as “an attempt at forging a new relationship between Washington and the Muslim world.” If the Muslim world is on America’s side, whose side is Inhofe on?
Liz Cheney: Obama’s Language On Israel Goes ‘Much Further’ Than The Bush-Era Road Map For Peace
Liz Cheney: Obama’s Language On Israel Goes ‘Much Further’ Than The Bush-Era Road Map For Peace
During his speech today, President Obama reiterated standing U.S. policy that the expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestine must be ended. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop,” he said.
On MSNBC this afternoon, former Vice President Cheney’s daughter, Liz Cheney, argued that Obama’s insistence that Israel freeze settlement expansion goes “much further” than the Roadmap to Peace negotiated by the Bush administration in 2002:
MITCHELL: Can you clarify at all a dispute some or among former Bush administration middle east experts and officials as to whether there was a secret promise or an agreement with Israel that Israel could proceed with settlement expansion to accommodate population growth?
CHENEY: It is a very complicated issue and the Road Map does talk about settlements. … But there’s the issue of, in existing settlements, if a family has a baby, are you allowed to build another room in the house? … I think there’s no question that this White House has gone much further in saying to the Israelis, “you must absolutely stop all of it.” And without, in my view, being as demanding of the Palestinians in terms of the security side of this equation.
Watch it:
Cheney is right to note that the Road Map to Peace — negotiated while she served in the Bush administration as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs — “does talk about settlements.” But she apparently doesn’t recall that when the Road Map talks about settlements, it is in the context of clearly stipulating that the Israeli government must freeze all settlement expansion — “including natural growth.” From the Road Map:
Cheney did not address a reported secret deal between former President Bush and Israel allowing some settlement expansion, despite being asked about it by host Andrea Mitchell:
Additionally, it is simply false to say that the Obama administration is not “being as demanding of the Palestinians” with regard to the security of Israel and its citizens. In his speech this morning, Obama made it clear that the U.S. would accept nothing less than full renunciation of violence in pursuit of political objectives on the part of the Palestinians:
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That’s not how moral authority is claimed; that’s how it is surrendered.
At another point in the interview, Cheney repeated Eric Erickson’s false claim that Obama equated conditions for Jews during the Holocaust with conditions in Palestine today.
Cheney: For diplomacy to work, U.S. must threaten to bomb Iran.
Cheney: For diplomacy to work, U.S. must threaten to bomb Iran.
Yesterday, former Vice President Cheney “swung quietly” through New York City to watch Liz Cheney, his daughter and a former State Department official, debate Iran policy. Continuing his long advocacy for military strikes to halt Iran’s nuclear program, Cheney said at a dinner after the debate that the only way for President Obama’s diplomacy with Iran to work is if Obama also threatens to bomb the country:
The former Vice President characterized the Iranian goal in negotiations on ending that country’s nuclear program as mere stalling for time, and the Europeans as trying to “restrain the U.S.” from military action. “Everybody’s in a giant conspiracy to achieve a different objective than the one we want to achieve,” Cheney said. The negotiations are “bound to fail unless we are perceived as very credible” in threatening military action against Iran, he said.
“If they believe the threat of military force is on the table that’s frankly the only thing I’ve seen that convinces them they’d better get serious about sanctions,” Liz Cheney said during her debate.
Clinton defends the U.N.: ‘If we didn’t have a United Nations, we’d have to invent one.’
Clinton defends the U.N.: ‘If we didn’t have a United Nations, we’d have to invent one.’
Earlier today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the Model U.N. Conference and offered a strong defense of the United Nations and the role it plays. The organization has long been a bogeyman of right-wing conspiracy theories, often championed by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, frequently involving climate change policy and the “threat” of global governance (which is often confused with global government). In response, Clinton explained:
CLINTON: If we didn’t have a United Nations, we’d have to invent one. On issues like piracy or the H1N1 flu virus, we have to work together and we do so through organizations that are formed by, run by, or associated with the United Nations. That’s why it was important when the United Nations was created back in 1945 here in the U.S. that people admitted that we can’t solve all the problems on their own. No nation, even one as powerful as ours, is able to do that.
Clinton concluded by urging the conference attendees to learn to practice “smart power” during the Model U.N. process by “listening to the other side even if you think in the beginning they have nothing that you will agree with.” Watch it:
Jordan’s King Abdullah says U.S. tortured.
Jordan’s King Abdullah says U.S. tortured.
Yesterday, NBC Meet the Press host David Gregory interviewed Jordan’s King Abduallah and asked him whether he believed the U.S. tortured detainees. “Well, from what we’ve seen and what we’ve heard, there are enough accounts to show that this is the case,” Abdullah said. Gregory pressed:
DAVID GREGORY: That’s an important point. You actually do believe that the United States engaged in torture.
KING ABDULLAH: What I see on the press … shows that there were illegal ways of dealing with detainees.
Watch it:
History Professor Gingrich Falsely Claims U.S. Presidents Don’t ‘Smile And Greet’ Russian Leaders
History Professor Gingrich Falsely Claims U.S. Presidents Don’t ‘Smile And Greet’ Russian Leaders
Yesterday, President Obama shook hands and briefly chatted with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, explaining in a press conference afterwards that he was trying to move towards a “more constructive” relationship with the South American country.
The right wing has responded with outrage to Obama’s meeting with Chavez, claiming face-to-face talks with a dictator show that Obama is projecting weakness. On NBC this morning, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Obama “bows to the Saudi King and is friends with Venezuela” and claimed the President showed “shallowness” in talking with Chavez. Gingrich then claimed that U.S. presidents do not “smile and greet” with Russian leaders:
Q: But do you think he should not be trying to mend relationships with other world leaders?
GINGRICH: How do you mend relationships with somebody who hates your country, who actively calls for the destruction of your country and who wants to undermine you?
Q: But we certainly have mended relationships with countries that have hated us in the past. Russia comes to mind, China comes to mind.
GINGRICH: But we didn’t rush over, smile, and greet Russian dictators. We understood who they were.
Watch it:
Dr. Gingrich, who has a Ph.D. in European history, should re-read his history books. As the Cold War waned, President Reagan (whose foreign policy Gingrich repeatedly praises) met with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at four summits, leading to nuclear arms reductions. President George H. W. Bush negotiated the Start II treaty alongside Russian President Boris Yeltsin, and President Clinton discussed foreign investment with Yeltsin. President Bush, of course, said he saw into Vladimir Putin’s soul after a private engagement. Each meeting had smiles all around:
Iranian court sentences journalist Roxana Saberi to 8 years in prison.
Iranian court sentences journalist Roxana Saberi to 8 years in prison.
An Iranian revolutionary court has sentenced journalist Roxana Saberi to 8 years in prison for spying. After a five-day secret trial held behind closed doors, Saberi — who has freelanced for NPR, BBC, PBS, and Fox News — had her press credentials revoked in 2006. When they first arrested Saberi — a former Miss North Dakota — Iranian authorities claimed that it was for buying a bottle of wine, “an act banned under the country’s Islamic law.” The Obama administration has called the charges baseless, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has released the following statement:
I am deeply disappointed by the reported sentencing of Roxana Saberi by the Iranian judiciary. We are working closely with the Swiss Protecting Presence to obtain details about the court’s decision, and to ensure her well being.
Ms. Saberi was born and raised in the United States, yet chose to travel to the Islamic Republic of Iran due to her desire to learn more about her cultural heritage. Our thoughts are with her parents and family during this difficult time.
We will continue to vigorously raise our concerns to the Iranian government.
Somali insurgents fire at U.S. congressman.
Somali insurgents fire at U.S. congressman.
Marking the first visit to the country by a senior American politician in years, Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ) flew into the Somali capital of Mogadishu today to “discuss ways the international community could help the government, and the issue of piracy.” Payne, who was flanked by six bodyguards on the trip, came under attack before he was about to leave:
Somali insurgents fire mortars toward U.S. Congressman Donald Payne during a visit to the Somali capital, Reuters reported.
“One mortar landed at the airport when Payne’s plane was due to fly and five others after he left and no one was hurt,” Abukar Hassan, a police officer at Mogadishu airport, told Reuters.
The attack on Payne came just “hours after a pirate leader threatened retaliation against America for killing his men during an operation to rescue a kidnapped US captain.”
Turkish anchor wears blackface to report on Obama’s visit.
Turkish anchor wears blackface to report on Obama’s visit.
A YouTube video has popped up of a Turkish anchor wearing dark face paint when reporting on President Obama’s recent visit to the country. Jonathan Turley has a rough translation of what the anchor is saying:
Welcome, Mr. Obama. You took our hearts with your hospitality. We appreciate your kindness. We will do whatever America asks of us, as friends. Now, we ask the same of you.
Watch it:
It is unclear whether this is a spoof or whether the anchor is trying to “show respect” to Obama, as others have suggested.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll