reflectivepundit

No “New” Cold War but still Remnants of the Old

By Brigitte L. Nacos
When Russian president Vladimir Putin and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met in the Kremlin the other day, they agreed to tone down the recently hostile rhetoric. More important, Dr. Rice “dismissed talk of a new Cold War despite unease in Washington about Putin's criticism of U.S.foreign policy” according to reports from Moscow. Relations between Moscow and Washington may be at a low point, but certainly much warmer than the icy Cuban-American relationship. After all, Americans can freely travel to and do business with Russia while the 45-year old travel ban as well as trade sanctions against
Cuba remain in place. As provocative filmmaker Michael Moore learned recently, these restrictions are enforced—certainly if the violator is relentless in his attacks on President Bush and his supporters in big politics and big business. Thus, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control notified Moore that he was the target of an investigation for possibly violating the trade embargo against Cuba that also bans unauthorized travel to the island. Why did Moore travel to Cuba? According to one account, “to get treatment for ailing Sept. 11 rescue workers for a segment in his upcoming health-care expose, "Sicko." Whatever one thinks of Moore’s inflammatory work, the idea of showing movie-goers that the universal health system in Castro’s communist Cuba works far better than the proponents of the existing American system want us to believe, should be a wake up call for many Americans—especially those millions without health insurance and others who have increasingly trouble to pay for it. 

Former “Public Servants” and their Multi-Million-Dollar Book Deals

By Brigitte L. Nacos
While administration officials deflected George Tenet’s criticism of their pre-Iraq war stance over the weekend and former CIA officials outright attacked him for his version of pertinent intelligence during the build-up to the war, the former CIA director’s book “At the Center of the Storm” was already in second place on Amazon’s and Barnes & Noble’s bestseller list this morning. However beleaguered Tenet appeared during his appearance on the “60 Minutes” program last night, he was stuck with this interview and subsequent media appearances to market his book. After all, this book made him into a multi-millionaire before he wrote the first pages. That’s what these former “public servants” all do: they cash in once they leave office. Indeed, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in response to Tenet’s revelations: “There were some things that went right and some things that went wrong. And you know what? We will have a chance to look at that in history. And I will have a chance to reflect on that when I have a chance to write my book." Just as her predecessor Colin Powell, Dr. Rice will rake in a very hefty sum of money for her insider version.

The Virginia Massacre and the Right to Bear Arms

By Brigitte L. Nacos
In no other comparable democracy and civilized society is it as easy to acquire guns and rifles legally €”and illegally--as it is in the United States This is not a new revelation but simply one of the facts of the American exceptionalism that is inconceivable to people in comparable democracies. The shooting spree by an obviously deranged young man should reopen the debate surrounding this country’s adherence to a more than 200-year old constitutional amendment that should have been abandoned a long time ago. Never mind that presidential candidate Senator John McCain reaffirmed his support for the right to bear arms in reaction to the massacre at Virginia Tech. According to the Associated Press, McCain said, “I do believe in the constitutional right that everyone has, in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, to carry a weapon. Obviously we have to keep guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens." He did not say how to keep guns out of the hands of non-law-abiding citizens like the troubled Virginia Tech student. He was able to by the lethal hand weapons--and go on killing sprees. How can we continue to let this happen?

In case you do not remember the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, here it is:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This seemed a reasonable constitutional provision at the time it was enacted. After all, at that time there were no sophisticated police departments, national guards, FBI-like agencies or military forces as they exist today. The common sense behind the amendment was, no doubt, the recognition of a need for citizen militias for defensive purposes and thus for armed citizens that were available for serving in militias in times of need.

Vice-President’s Contempt for the Press Means Contempt for the American People

By Brigitte L. Nacos
What Dan Fromkin of the Washington Post reveals today about Vice-President Cheney’s rules of the game as they apply to his press entourage is another proof of the arrogance of power at the highest levels of government. This is how Fromkin sums up Cheney’s handling of the press while he traveled the world: 

“After nine days of almost completely ignoring the small pool of reporters who diligently followed him around through seven countries, Vice President Cheney yesterday finally agreed to a short group interview. But only on one condition: The reporters would have to agree not to tell anyone that the person they talked to was him. Cheney's insistence on being identified as a "senior administration official" -- even when the transcript shows he spoke in the first person -- is in some ways laughably trivial. But in other ways, the vice president's decision to extort reporters into a ridiculous agreement reflects the contempt Cheney has for the press corps.”

I go with the latter interpretation: this is not a laughable matter but utter disregard for the role of a free press and democratic transparency. Cheney’s behavior does not only display his contempt for the news media—but, more importantly, his contempt for the American people. Obviously, this vice-president is convinced that members of the press corps and of the general public are ignorant and easy targets for his manipulations.

When a president seems more like an American king and a vice-president more like an emperor, it is time for the press watchdog to bark. But don’t hold your breath. In the end, most in the media opt for access to those in power at the expense of the public interest.

No Stomach for an Indirect €œNo Confidence Vote

By Brigitte L. Nacos
In his Washington Post column, Howard Kurtz concludes that "many pundits €œseem to be writing off President Bush."€ He mentions New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin who wrote, "If America were a parliamentary democracy, we would have a no-confidence vote and a new prime minister by spring."€ We all know, of course, that the American presidential system, unlike the parliamentary one, does not provide for a no confidence vote and the removal of the chief-executive by the legislature. But even if such a provision existed, it is likely that not enough members of Congress would have the stomach to remove the President. Just look at what Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman report about a number of Senate Republicans making political calculations on whether a vote for a resolution against the additional troops for Iraq would sit well with voters in their respective states. At the same time, supporters of the President’s Iraq policies try hard to prevent a debate and vote on a resolution against the so-called troop surge. Even if a tough anti-surge resolution were to be adopted, Political Critic concludes correctly, that President Bush "is expected to carry on with his troop surge no matter what Congress has to say." Indeed, Vice-President Richard Cheney said so in no uncertain terms.

A Contracted Government

By David Epstein
Thanks so much to Brigitte for letting me add my voice to her excellent blog. To begin with, let's start with a subject near and dear to my heart: delegation. Don't miss this front page article from the New York Times about the increasing use of contractors by the federal government. A choice excerpt:

Without a public debate or formal policy decision, contractors have become a virtual fourth branch of government. On the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has soared during the Bush administration, to about $400 billion last year from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.

Contractors still build ships and satellites, but they also collect income taxes and work up agency budgets, fly pilotless spy aircraft and take the minutes at policy meetings on the war. They sit next to federal employees at nearly every agency; far more people work under contracts than are directly employed by the government. Even the government’s online database for tracking contracts, the Federal Procurement Data System, has been outsourced (and is famously difficult to use).

 

Iraq’s Civil War: Beyond Fix-It?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
While many Americans worked off their Thanksgiving calories in the yearly Christmas shopping frenzy on “Black Friday,” residents of Baghdad were forced to stay indoors because of a strict curfew that was ordered on the heels of the deadliest sectarian violence since the invasion. Keeping “on message,” namely that Iraq is part of the war on terrorism, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said according to the Washington Post, "It is an outrage that these terrorists are targeting innocents in a brazen effort to topple a democratically elected government. These killers will not succeed.” The problem is that they do succeed in throwing the country into complete chaos. But we ought not to worry since the President is on the ball here: As the White House spokesman put it, "Securing Baghdad and gaining control of the violent situation will be a priority agenda item when President Bush meets with Prime Minister al-Maliki in just a few days." In other words, more than three and a-half years after the invasion and the “Mission Accomplished” celebration Baghdad is not secured and violence is on the rise. Vice-President Cheney’s current talks in Saudi Arabia and President Bush’s scheduled meeting with Iraq’s Prime Minister in Jordan will not result in a turnaround of the mismanaged Iraq enterprise. As David Rothkopf, a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Fellow, told the Post, "I don't think, in modern American history, there is another example of such egregious failure of policy and execution. We're really seeing something unprecedented here. Even Vietnam was a slower decline, and the military forces were more in balance. . . . I don't know anyone who thinks there is an outcome in Iraq now that is hopeful."

Political Language Matters: the “L” Word for Liberal

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In an article about the end of the Republican intraparty squabble about the treatment of detained terrorist suspects, Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman write in today’s Washington Post, “Until the breakthrough was announced Thursday, Democrats had let Republicans fight among themselves... Now that McCain and his fellow dissidents have joined hands with Bush, it will be difficult to attack the deal, Democrats acknowledged.”

Why would it be difficult for Democrats to finally fight against legislation that would continue to give the administration’s pro-torture officials free hand in the treatment of detainees? According to the article, Democrats would jeopardize chances to win some of the contested races in November in that “for Democrats to oppose the compromise, which Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has embraced, would subject them to charges of being soft on terrorism.”  

The Israeli-Hezbollah Conflict: Who Won?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

When hundreds of people die, many more are injured, and residents are driven out of their neighborhoods, nobody wins. Nevertheless, as the cease fire between Israelis and Hezbollah continues to hold, for the time being that is, leaders on both sides have claimed victory. But polls, reported today, indicate that a solid majority of Israelis believe that neither side was victorious or that Hezbollah won. And while I haven't heard of Lebanese voices giving the victory to Israel, some observers in Lebanon call the result of the armed conflict a draw. In reality, we simply do not know whether the outcome will be more beneficial for one side or the other.