Month: September 2009

Ryan Sager makes a somewhat nuanced point:

Whites in the South are the most anti-black group in America; a lot more whites in the South are now Republicans than were at the beginning of the 1990s. What this all adds up to is that both of these statements can be true at the same time:

1) Many of Obama’s opponents harbor a significant amount of racial resentment against black people.

2) To quote Bill Clinton: “100% of those who are opposing him now would be against him if he were a white Democrat.”

Paul Cruickshank makes the case that Afghans have not traditionally been terrorists but that times are changing:

For most of its 20 years, al Qaeda’s commanders recruited very few Afghan militants into their ranks because their parochial world views, their lack of international travel experience, and their poor education made them useless as global operatives. But when the Taliban was forced from power across the border in Pakistan — where it became a target in what the Bush administration called “the global war on terrorism” — its members became much more worldly. As they came to see the United States, rather than rival Afghan tribes, as their enemy, Pashtuns were radicalized in the border region, where they had easy access to al Qaeda’s training facilities. The war in Iraq, the mushrooming of Internet cafés in the region, and al Qaeda’s relentless propaganda efforts have widened the horizons of Pashtun militants who, a decade ago, had little concept of the outside world, let alone global jihad.

We should always be cognizant that ill-thought-out wars against terror can easily end up provoking more of it. Even Rumsfeld figured that out.

"[W]hen Obama announced that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow", he is technically and legally wrong. . . . The need to create a mechanism of economic survival in the face of the real threat of either US or Israeli military action is probably the most likely explanation behind the Qom facility. Iran's declaration of this facility to the IAEA, which predates Obama's announcement by several days, is probably a recognition on the part of Iran that this duplication of effort is no longer representative of sound policy on its part. In any event, the facility is now out of the shadows, and will soon be subjected to a vast range of IAEA inspections, making any speculation about Iran's nuclear intentions moot," – Scott Ritter, urging skepticism of some of the maximalist claims about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

After Iraq, it seems to me important not to jump to any conclusions.

(Hat tip: Greenwald.)

Mark Blumenthal rounds up the debate on the challenged polling outfit.

That's the diagnosis of the neocon right when reviewing Obama's first eight months of foreign policy. They long for the days of Cheney. Any other approach is a form of surrender in their view. But is it? I demur:

Let's review the evidence, shall we? In Iraq, Obama postponed any rapid withdrawal, keeping troops there as long as the Bush administration pledged. While ending torture, Obama has retained key provisions for extraordinary rendition, and has recently scored real successes in the terror war. Last week revealed the exposure of what looks like the first real al Qaeda plot within America, busted by the FBI and unaccompanied by any Obama grandstanding or fear-mongering. Several key Qaeda leaders have been taken out by drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Obama has sent additional troops to Afghanistan and ordered up a wholesale review of strategy from one of Cheney's favorite generals, Stanley McChrystal. For the first time in two decades, Israel does not have carte blanche from the White House to do whatever it wants on the West Bank.

And on the critical test of Iran, we see the Obama method in clarifying perspective.

First off, Obama makes it absolutely clear that America is ready to talk if Iran is ready to deal. The Bush era polarization is defused, revealing to global opinion that it is Tehran, and not Washington, that is the problem here. The Bush-style warnings are instead given by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, further underlining the fact that this is a global problem, not just America's. Obama then goes to Cairo to deliver a speech re-branding the US with the Muslim world, and seizing the p.r. advantage always implicit in the Obama presidency. The following month, the Green Revolution breaks out on the streets of Iran, and despite brutal suppression, the spell of theocracy is for ever smashed. Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are opposed now not only by the massive majority of Iranians, but by part of their own elite as well.

Then, Obama scraps the missile defense in Eastern Europe, pleasing Russia, and moves the focus of defense to the Mediterranean, pleasing Israel. Medvedev expresses the view – never uttered by a Russian leader before – that sanctions against Iran may be inevitable. Obama follows up by being the first president of the US to preside over a resolution to reiterate the importance of nuclear non-proliferation. The vote is unanimous. Again, he wields American power through the prism of international cooperation – and receives a rapturous welcome at the UN from many developing countries who would previously have stayed aloof. Again, he lets Brown and especially Sarkozy make the more focused comments on Iran.

And then on Friday, he reveals the existence of a second nuclear testing site – near the religious center of Qom – and proves that Tehran is a dishonest negotiator. And this time, the story line is not America-vs-Iran, but the world versus a deceptive dictator, clinging to power via a coup.

Is this weakness? Or is it a different avenue to strength?

Continued here.

(Photo: Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images).

They have an internal enemies list of conservatives who need to be expelled or disciplined for heresy. Top of the list: Olympia Snowe and John McCain, perhaps the two Republicans most able to talk persuasively to the center. (I'm disappointed I did so poorly this year; Frum is now the online conservative the base most likes to hate). Now check out the list of those the Reynolds crowd loves:

12) Ann Coulter 7
10) Jonah Goldberg 8
10) Newt Gingrich 8
9) Jim DeMint 9
7) Mark Levin 10
7) Glenn Beck 10
6) Charles Krauthammer 11
5) Mark Steyn 14
4) Michelle Malkin 15
3) Thomas Sowell 17
2) Sarah Palin 20
1) Rush Limbaugh 24

They think this will get them back to power?

Andrew Sprung diagnoses the speech-writer's character type.