reflectivepundit

Dealing with Iran: Military or Diplomatic Approaches?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
When North Korea blew up a cooling tower at its main nuclear power plant the other day, the pictures of the destruction were meant to be viewed and applauded around the world as they indeed were. While experts of North Korea’s nuclear program warned immediately that this tower, unlike other parts of the nuclear complex, was a rather benign structure that could be rebuilt easily, the symbolic and actual meaning of this rather dramatic scene should not be underestimated. While many unanswered questions and unsolved issues remain, the demolition of the cooling tower dramatized that progress has been made in the ongoing process of ridding North Korea of its nuclear weapons program. Soon after the cooling tower went down, President Bush announced North Korea’s removal from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism and the lifting of some sanctions. In short, a great deal of progress was made thanks to diplomacy with multilateral negotiations at its center.   

In his 2002 State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush said of North Korea, Iraq, and Iran,
“States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.  By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States.  In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.”

Well, Washington was not indifferent, when it came to North Korea. Although there was no doubt that the country had the capability to build nuclear weapons, the Bush administration went and stuck to the diplomatic route—even after North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb underground in 2006.

Although there was far less certainty about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and especially an alleged nuclear program, the United States invaded Iraq, removed Saddam Hussein and his ruling clique but did not find WMD. Instead, esteem for the U.S. took a nosedive in the Arab and Muslim world and elsewhere. And five years after the invasion and in spite of the improvements in the wake of the so-called troop surge, the situation in Iraq remains highly problematic. The Bush administration’s plan to build a shining democracy in Iraq and thereby trigger a domino effect of similar reforms in the Middle East has not materialized.

So, what about Iran, the third state of Bush’s axis of evil? Contrary to its North Korea policy, the Bush administration has stuck to its refusal to negotiate with the Iranian government and its threats of military measures if Iran insists on building nuclear arms.

Gross Gender Imbalance on the Op-Ed Pages

By Brigitte L. Nacos
While I disagree with New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt’s assessment in his latest column that this newspaper’s primary season coverage of Senator Clinton was by and large free of gender bias, I wholeheartedly agree with his conclusion that Maureen Dowd’s column “by assailing Clintonin gender-heavy terms in column after column, went over the top this election season.” More specifically, Hoyt concluded,“Dowd’s columns about Clinton’s campaign were so loaded with language painting her as a 50-foot woman with a suffocating embrace, a conniving film noir dame and a victim dependent on her husband that they could easily have been listed in that Times article on sexism, right along with the comments of Chris Matthews, Mike Barnicle, Tucker Carlson or, for that matter, Kristol, who made the Hall of Shame for a comment on Fox News, not for his Times work.”

Dowd has a point in arguing that columnists express their opinions or, as she noted according to Hoyt, “she is a columnist who is paid not to be objective.” But even opinion pieces can go too far. And that was certainly the case for Dowd’s relentless “gender-laden assault on Clinton--in 28 of 44 columns since Jan. 1,” as Hoyt writes.

Since Dowd devoted more than half of her columns in the last six months to sexist anti-Hillary propaganda, it is not surprising that she hasn’t yet found another target for her assaults since Senator Clinton threw the towel.
                           
Decades ago, the op-ed page was introduced by many newspapers to provide the readers with a market place of ideas within the paper of their choice. The opinion pieces by columnists with different ideological and partisan views are one constant feature of these pages. One would expect that in our time, there would be some kind of balance (no, not quotas) in terms of gender among the newspapers’ own columnists. But the reality is far from it—certainly at the New York Times: Of the 11 columnist listed on the newspaper’s website, nine are males and only two are females! There must be an abundance of qualified males and a scarcity of qualified females, when it comes to select columnists!

New York Magazine on Media’s Gender Bias Against Hillary and Her Supporters

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Thanks to John Heilemann and New York magazine, we finally get a serious journalistic treatment of the mainstream media’s gender bias that was unleashed against Hillary Clinton and her female supporters during this year’s primary campaign and continues to be evoked against women that refuse to forget the mistreatment of their candidate. Towards the end of his excellent article on “The Fall and Rise of Hillary Clinton,” Heilemann addresses the Clinton campaign’s and her supporters’ anger towards the media that differs from so many efforts by his colleagues to brush this issue aside as sour grapes by a flawed candidate and bitter female backers.

Here are some excerpts from Heilemann’s article that deserves to be read in full:

“For months now, my e-mail box has been full of messages from women across the country, explaining what Hillary’s run meant to them, why it was so important. The reasons vary depending on age and race and region, but the one element almost all my correspondents express in common is a furious resentment at the press for what they see as blatant misogyny in the coverage of Clinton.

When I mention this to Hillary, she laughs and exclaims, “I’d love to get a look at your e-mail!” And then, more soberly, she goes on, “There’s a reason for the resentment. The level of dismissive and condescending comments, not just about me—what do I care?—but about the people who support me and in particular the women who support me, has been shocking. Shocking to women and to fair-minded men. But what has really been more disappointing to me is how few voices that have a platform have spoken out against it. And that’s really why you seen this enormous grassroots outrage. There is no outlet. It is rare that you have anybody on these shows or in a position of responsibility at major publications who really says, ‘Wait a minute! What are we talking about here? I have a wife! I have a daughter! I want the best for them.’ ”

The Latest Detainee Ruling: It's About Us, Not Them

by David Epstein

Just a few words about the Supreme Court ruling in the Guantanamo detainee case. It seems a simple point, but apparently it needs to be made out loud: it is wrong to throw people in jail without ever charging them with a crime, let alone bringing them to trial. It's just wrong. That's what the bad guys do -- those dictators and despots and old Soviet leaders do, not us. We're supposed to be the good guys, and much of our international power rests on the perception across the world that we stand for something more than doing whatever seems expedient to us at the moment.

Once you start with this premise, it becomes obvious that these rules apply to people other than American citizens. We don't take foreign travelers here in the US and throw them in jail for no reason either. If we think they've done something wrong then we charge them with crimes, let them see the evidence against them, give them a speedy trial and allow them to defend themselves. If the evidence happens to contain sensitive national security information, then the courts have well-developed procedures to balance defendants' rights and domestic security; see for instance this recent report on the subject. We don't just say "Well, we have what we consider to be really good evidence against you, but unfortunately we can't show it to you, so I'm afraid you'll have to rot in prison for six years or more until we figure out what to do."

And yet, John McCain, of all people, doesn't seem to get this. His reaction to the ruling was to say "We made it very clear these are enemy combatants. They have not, and never have been, given the rights of citizens of this country."That just isn't the point -- it's about us, not them. Time and time again history teaches us that we are strong, respected and powerful when we abide by our basic principles, even when it seems hard to do at the time, and we weaken ourselves when we make up ad hoc reasons to violate these principles (just consider the fiasco of our most famous detainee episode: Japanese citizens during WWII).

It is not just sad that McCain doesn't understand this; it is disturbing and scary.

Supreme Court Ruling on Habeas Corpus: Terrorists Do Not Win

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Too weak to fight and defeat the security forces of states, terrorists engage in psychological warfare with two particular goals in mind: first, they aim at frightening, intimidating, and demoralizing the citizenry; second, they hope to push the authorities in democracies to overreact and violate the most esteemed democratic values, in particular the rule of law. There is ample evidence that major terrorist events result in high levels of public fear and anxiety. This was particularly true in the wake of 9/11. And in reaction to serious terrorist strikes and threats, whether domestic or transnational, democratic states tend to curb individual freedoms in the name of preventing further attacks. In this respect, the response of the U.S. government to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon by a team of al-Qaeda hijackers was no exception. Several weeks after 9/11 Osama bin Laden told al-Jazeera reporter Taysir Alluni with obvious satisfaction that “freedom and human rights in America have been sent to the guillotine.” From the perspective of terrorists, success and failure of their violence are less measured by the number of people killed and maimed than by the psychological impact on and antiterrorism responses in societies they target. Terrorists win when they persuade citizens and elites of democracies that the most fundamental values of their societies, such as openness and restraints on executive power, are weaknesses.

This week’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision that ruled in favor of Guantanamo Bay detainees’ constitutional habeas corpus right—the right to challenge their detentions in federal court--denied al-Qaeda and terrorists in general a  victory in the on-going “value battle” against the United States. Whereas certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act as well as “aggressive interrogation,” “extraordinary rendition,” and outright torture practices provided terrorists with ample arguments to question and ridicule America’s commitment to democratic values, the latest majority ruling was a triumph for the very essence of democracy.

Attackdogs against Clinton, Lapdogs for Obama

By Brigitte L. Nacos
The other day, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, devoted her column to defend Michelle Obama against possible future attacks from Republicans. Dowd, who was and still is along with her colleague Frank Rich one of the leading attackdog among the perennial Hillary (and Bill) Clinton haters, wrote that “Mrs. Obama is the new, unwilling contestant in Round Two of the sulfurous national game of ‘Kill the witch.’ If anyone plays the “Kill the witch” game as ugly as it can get, it is columnist Dowd—at least when it comes to Hillary. Even after Senator Clinton threw the towel and endorsed Senator Obama, Dowd couldn’t stop going after Hillary. Nor could Rich or the obnoxious talking heads on cable television—especially those on MSNBC.

The attacksdogs against Clinton are lapdogs for Obama.

All during the campaign, female pundits were as sexist as their male counterparts in their united front against Hillary. And they fought mightily against those who accused them of gender bias. Dowd closed one of her recent columns with yet another defense against the charge of the mainstream media’s gender bias, when she wrote that Clinton “didn’t lose because she was a woman. She didn’t lose because
America isn’t ready for a woman as president. She lost because of her own — and her husband’s and Mark Penn’s — fatal missteps.”

Don’t believe it.

Even Katie Couric who knows a thing or two about gender bias in the media, especially when it comes to the coveted positions of TV-network anchors, said the other day,

“However you feel about her politics, I feel that Sen. Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I’ve ever seen.”

According to one account, “Couric went on to say that latent sexism contributed, in part, to Hillary's defeat. She referred to one ‘rominent member of the commentariat’ who said he ‘found it hard to be objective when it came to Obama.’

‘That's your job,’ she remembers thinking when hearing this, before suggesting that he ‘find another line of work.’”

For these remarks, I am sure, Katie will be put through the wringer one way or the other by those in the media who can’t overcome their gender prejudices..

Obama: Of Celebrities and Star Appeal

By Brigitte L. Nacos
As I came to terms with the reality that there will not be a first female presidential candidate or female president for a while—and perhaps not in my life time; as I pondered  the choice between Senators Obama and McCain; as I figured that I cannot vote for Mr.McCain or leave the presidential line on the ballot blank; and as I have concluded that Mr. Obama is the best choice now, I read in an Associated Press dispatch that Barack Obama picked “President Kennedy's daughter Caroline to help him choose a [candidate for] vice president.”

I took a deep breath and wondered whether this was a joke. I have no negative feelings towards the Kennedys. Quite the opposite. But I do have a problem with a presidential candidate and his camp that obviously make decisions based on the input of perfectly fine persons who are well connected—politically, socially, and financially-- but have no track record whatsoever in politics and policy-making. Their qualification is celebrity and star power.

The choice of Ms. Kennedy as part of an important advisory panel reinforces the impression that part of Mr. Obama’s success is based on his appeal as a polit-star and his significant support by and reliance on celebrities and what one might call a pop movement. This tend happens to come at the expense of substance.
Perhaps, Mr. Obama and his crew picked Caroline Kennedy to thank the ailing U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy for his early endorsement. Perhaps, her role will be that of a prominent figure-head. But if that is the case, Senator Obama could have made her honorary chairperson of something less important now or later instead of part of a group that will reportedly come up with recommending the vice-presidential candidate. Just look at current Vice-President Dick Cheney and you know how important the second person in command can be.

Many so-called political experts told us in the last 24 hours that Barack Obama has a lot of work to do in order to unite the Democratic Party and win the support of Clinton supporters. I for one was ready to forget the outrageous overt or covert charges by Obama campers that women in my age bracket are not supporting Mr. Obama all along because they are outdated racists and feminists, or bitter failures.

But now, I am more sure than yesterday that  Senator Obama has indeed a lot of work to do in the months before Election Day—particularly, but not only in the selection of those who advise him on important matters during the general campaign and in preparation for his now possible presidency. Moreover, he needs to show better judgment than in the past in selecting those he associates with. 

Bill Clinton Hurt Hillary ‘s Quest for the White House

By Brigitte L. Nacos
I do not know, and do not want to know, what is going on in former president Bill Clinton’s head or elsewhere in his sagging body. But this much is clear: he has not helped but rather hurt his wife’s efforts to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination and the White House. It is quite possible and perhaps likely that he wanted to help Hillary’s cause, but one cannot help but recognize that he should have rather devoted his time to his own post-presidential causes and stayed out of Hillary’s campaign. 

As it is, the man who has been called the first Black president because he was able to relate to and communicate with African-Americans like no other chief-executive before him managed to cause or at least contribute to the perception that the Clinton camp “drew the race card” in the heated competition between Hillary and Barack Obama.

There is no doubt that the leading mainstream media organizations are full of people who did not and do not hide their preference for Senator Obama and who used every opportunity to whack Senator Clinton and Ex-President Bill Clinton—even by misinterpreting and blowing remarks made by the Clintons and their aides out of all proportions. 

But after taking so many shots below the belt during his eight years as president, Bill Clinton should have known how to play the media game to his wife’s advantage. Instead and probably unwittingly, he hurt his wife’s chances. It will be up to psychiatrists and psychologists to figure out how and why this happened. 

As far as I am concerned the last proof of Bill Clinton’s damaging behavior with respect to his wife’s campaign was his stunning remark today—one day before the last two primaries of the Democratic Party. According to press reports, the former president said at a stop in South Dakota, one of the last two primary states, “"I want to say also that this may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind.”

In other words, Bill Clinton threw the towel at a time when Hillary was still campaigning her heart out to make a strong showing in both South Dakota and Montana.

If Bill Clinton would have kept his mouth shut during the campaign (a lesson that Michelle Obama learned quickly after the uproar over her controversial statements), his wife may have won the nomination race.

It's Official: Obama is Bush

by David Epstein

With today's results in Puerto Rico, Hillary has retaken the lead in the popular vote. So we're now back
in 2000, with the role of Bush being played by Obama, the role of Gore being played by Clinton, and the role of Florida being played by, well, by Michigan and Florida.

The only question is whether the superdelegates are going to play the role that the Supreme Court played and call the election for Obama even though the popular vote is against him.

But wait, there's more. This isn't an election, of course -- it's a nomination process designed to yield the candidate most likely to win the general election. You would think that with things as tight as they are, the Obama people would feel obliged to make a positive argument about why their candidate fits this description, especially given his weak polling in swing states, and related J-curve problem that I noted earlier. But no, like Bush before him, he keeps talking about his delegate advantage and "playing by the rules," conveniently ignoring the fact that the superdelegates are part of the rules too.

The question still stands: will the superdelegates do their job, or go the path of least resistance, like the Supreme Court did eight years ago?

Obama’s “Victory” and the Democratic Party’s Undemocratic Rules

By Brigitte L. Nacos
The Founding Fathers established an electoral college for the election of presidents based on the votes allotted to each state in the union. It was not exactly a democratic solution in that it allowed for the election of a chief executive who did not win the nation-wide popular vote. When this happens as in 2000 when Al Gore won more than half-a-million million more popular votes than George W. Bush, the “winner’s” legitimacy is questioned—at least by those who supported the “loser.” In order to keep the states on board, the Framers compromised on several counts. 200 years after the U.S. Constitution was framed and with the experience of the 2000 debacle fresh on their mind, the Democratic National Committee did not have concerns like the Framers and should have democratized the party’s presidential primary rules and respected the one-person-one-vote principle. Instead, the party continues to allowed the allotment of delegates in the primaries and caucuses of the states to violate the most fundamental democratic requirement. As a result, with yesterday’s decision by the party’s Rules Committee to recognize the primaries in Michigan and Florida, Senator Hillary Clinton has officially won more popular votes during the nominating process than Senator Obama who was nevertheless allotted more delegates during the intra-party selection process.

To be sure, it is too late for this year’s nomination to design a primary system that does away with the flawed caucuses, does not allow Republicans and Independents to participate in the intra-Democratic competitions, and divvies up delegates according to the popular votes in states and territories.

And don’t expect that this will happen at the Democratic Party’s convention in Denver or thereafter. Yesterday’s meeting of the Rules Committee (now firmly controlled by the Obama camp as is the  Democratic National Committee) gave Senator Obama everything he could have hoped for, especially in the case of Michigan primaries. Although Clinton, whose name was on the ballot, won 55% of the vote there and Obama, who took his name on the ballot, did not receive any vote, the Rules Committee awarded Hillary Clinton with 69 delegates and Barack Obama with 59 (each with ½ vote per delegate at the Denver convention). How, in heaven, can you insist that a percentage of the votes is given to a candidate whose name was not on the ballot?

Well, the Obama camp did and prevailed. That's why I would not expect from those responsible for this exercise in the Democratic Party’s undemocratic rules of the game to push for reforms in the service of democracy.

Much was said during and after yesterday’s disappointing meeting about the need and prospect for party unity by Obama supporters on the Rules Committee and even some Clinton backers. But in view of the undemocratic primary process, Hillary Clinton’s lead in popular votes, and the stunningly unfair and undemocratic Michigan ruling, it will be very difficult—if not impossible—to unite the party—even against Senator McCain and his Bush-like agenda.