What, is "Bellinger" a new way to spell "bull$hit"???

Any relationship between what that waiter-on-the-Titanic has to say and what is really going on is purely and completely coincidental.

As to whether he is a "good man" or not, the point is totally and completely irrelevant. I have several friends who served in the Luftwaffe during World War II and each of them is absolutely a "good man." Machts nichts! What the organization they were in was doing was EVIL, and whether they were "good" or not is of no value to point out.

Bellinger is nothing more than the pianist in the whorehouse who has no clue what those boys and girls are doing once they get to the top of the stairs.

Anything about Padilla?

Thanks for the insight Steve.

I find great irony in the timing of this counter intervention on the heals of Secretary Rice hosting and calling the President of Equitorial Guniea, Teodoro Obiang Nguema a "good friend".

I wonder what internation law jargon will be used to spin in 5 to 10 years(average amount of time it takes for a corrupt dictator's system to collapse under their weight of his crimes) from now when this dictator will be called to justice?

Steve Clemons is the problem. Bellinger is the "anti-John Yoo?" The opposite of rendition and torture, better than any Democrat, or possible Democrat, or Amnesty International figure, or anyone at Humans Rights Watch...is Mr Bellinger.

The center just got redefined by Steve Clemons from actual torturers to apologists for torturers...with bad consciences. Doesn't anyone here understand the daily enabling Steve Clemons? "Let us discuss torture, amicably, we are all friends here."

Bellinger is "...one of the heroes." I know heroes, Steve, they are lawyers actually working without pay to get people out of Guantanamo and trying to stop rendition. I can name dozens, but I guess they are not your good buddies. Not Bush administration flacks.

I want you out of Washington forever, Clemons.

Bob -- your note reflects your views -- but I am not going to join up with a crowd that sees those who have been working inside the administration for good causes to be cast on some sort of enemies list. That is not good policy, nor good politics. I have no patience for fascism on the left or the right.

I have tried to broker a civil discussion about tough issues...and I wanted to get what was said at the meeting out into the public. If you think I am some apologist for torture, then you haven't been reading my blog as long I thought you had. You are just plain wrong if that is the case you want to make.

In any case, I have no illusions that what I posted would be easy for everyone to swallow -- but I do expect a civil discussion about the issues.

best,

Steve Clemons

Uh--the footprints are low-hanging fruit?

Thanks Buce for catching lines I would rather re-phrase. ;-) But I'll stick with my general point that Rice has been largely successful in her post since moving from the White House to State -- in part because unlike Colin Powell, she doesn't have a National Security Advisor in her way -- and also because she's been selecting "doable" challenges. I think that's better than doing nothing.

This is a controversial post, and I know that.

Bob McManus -- I've just reviewed a long line of your thoughtful, often hard-hitting comments on this blog. You seem to be flaming on this one -- and you are directing an attack against me personally, which doesn't seem to be your normal style.

So, I hope you stick around -- but engage in a debate on these issues that is sensible. John Bellinger, as I have written and as many other reporters have documented, has been fighting for the right things in this administration. If you think that all of these people are Cheney-Bolton clones, you are incorrect.

I think that we need to cultivate and support those who want to get the country on a better course. You may disagree. But that's my view.

More later.

Steve Clemons

Just above a picture of the dreadful consequences of our "justice," a speech about our great respect for the law. This from a member of an administration that cherry-picks the law to suit its own convience.
Very probably Secretary Rice, likely more aware than the other members of the cabinet of the isolation in which they now find themselves, is trying to dig out of the hole. People know about the rendition planes, the black-hole prisons, the evident contempt with which Bush, Cheney and their fellow connivers hold the rest of the world, Congress and the citizens of our own country.
They have used and abused of power and the law.
Mr. Bollinger remarks:

"The Secretary is really committed to find, to combat this perception, and both she and I have gone and talked about just the general issue of international law a good deal."

Again, as always, their aim is to change the 'perception.' The outcry is not about perception, it is about the reality that is being created.
As Bush said, he is the decider.
One can only hope that when this administration is gone there can be a new commitment to the law.
Until then what valid reason is there to think there will be any change? Certainly not speeches.

~~

Marica -- I appreciate your desire for a new administration -- but with 2 and 1/2 years left -- I think that we must attempt to cultivate something different in the current administration. Just think about it. Rice and Cheney are very differently directed this past year in my view. I think that difference is worth widening.

Steve Clemons

Steve - Congratulations on the session with John Bellinger. We need more, not less, dialogue with an Administration that is increasing looking for ways to get out of the corner it has painted itself into.

The reality is - like it or not - that this Administration will be here for 31 more months. There are many decisions yet to be made and many debates to be had between the different factions represented at Foggy Bottoms and the Whitehouse. Conversations with folks like Bellinger are an important way to influence those debates.

We need more decisions like, for example, Secretary Rice's decision to not block the referral of the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court. We won't win them all, but the John Bellinger's of the world help us win some of them. Thanks and keep up the good work.

What is Rice saying about Iran?
What does it matter if she has a kinder, gentler way of coddling dictators in Africa if she is not influential in Iran policy? As far as I know, she has been equally as strident about the danger from Iran as she was in 2002 and 2003 about Iraq. Is she going to play "Mrs. Mushroom Cloud" again? I don't know, but if that's the case, then then she is no better than Cheney or Rumsfeld.
In fact, you could argue that she may be cast to replay the Powell role---sacrificing whatever integrity she is perceived to have in order to sway public opinion in favor of turning Iran into glass at the key moment. No thanks.

The problem we face is that the reality of an incompetent, dangerous, delusional president, in combination with an incompetent, sadistic, delusionsal, corrupt, sick Vice President, with more than 2 years left in their term, and with very little public support, is a situation which tests our system of government past its limits.
In a country with a parliamentary system, Steve would be calling for a vote of no confidence to remove Bush. Since we have no legal mechanism to remove Bush, short of impeachment, which will not happen, Steve feels compelled to suggest alternatives which fall short of the necessary step of removing Bush.

If you perform the simple thought experiment of imagining that we had a parliamentary system, you realize that no effort would be wasted on Rumsfeld: you would call for Bush's removal as essential.
Really, the only step which makes a difference is to elect a Democratic majority in Congress in November, in order to put a check on Bush.
Nothing else matters, and I think hoping for moderation from Mrs. Mushroom Cloud is quite misguided.

Since, I know Steve, I can say with 100% that Mr. McManus is wrong. Steve has consistently and skillfully challenged the status quo by using a sense of history, a respect for governance principles, and a canny middle-progressivism to give self-destructive adminstrations and policy persons a carrot-driven "out" to their folly.

However, I can empathize with Mr. McManus's frustration (and Mr. Weaver's). Civility matters little (it appears as pure window dressing) and can even serve to sell intolerant policy stances, when it's legitimacy is used to sell unworthy and unworkable strategems. Colin Powell comes to mind. To allow one's civility to be used thus, knowing it will be (and the Bush administration has an unbroken record in this regard), is to aid and abet.

The problem is how to engage in an effective way, not necessarily a civil way. I agree that UNCIVIL conduct is not helpful. Partisan hammering or disdain is definitely the wrong way to go. Perhaps we should look toward "civil disobedience" as the standard bearer. Come up with an alternative narrative (not reactively but creatively and coalitionally), stand behind it, and refuse to participate in charades, compromises, and promises you know will be broken. (Heads up Sen. Kennedy on immigration. After being screwed six ways from Sunday on every other "compromise" you've been promised, you're going to get it again.)

Insist on your end being met first (Bush always promises, "Vote for my stuff and you'll get your stuff." He simply never does). If there is uncivility and contempt, do what Sen. Reid did, shut down the Senate until you get not just assurances, but lawful action. (Even shutting down the Senate did not do anything, except gain assurances that have gone nowhere once again.)

This "civil disobedience" must be extremely consistent. A consistent "no" and a consistent alternative that will not be bought out by failed promises. Mr. Bellinger is singulary unfit in this regard. He cannot say "no" because he works for the administration. His alternative will not be listened to, or will be used to "crack down" and divert attention to the Charles Taylors of this world, and human rights abusers in other countries, while Bush and Company hypocritically say no to the ICC, restrictions on torture, rendition, because US interest has been deemed as having the power to do whatever it wants in an inherently uncivil way.

I'd rather have intolerance exposed and uncivility unmasked then to try to paste over it with attempts at civility which ultimately legitimate uncivil policy and character. Bellinger has no power, except as a cheerleader. He's not the man, and he's not a hero. He's an earnest flak, perhaps not "Thank-You-For-Smoking" flak like John Yoo, but a flak nonetheless charged with selling bad policy, while trying to ineffectually modify it. There is simply no evidence that people like him, who've tried to work inside the administration have been anything other than tools or shills ultimately. Colin Powell learned that finally and he quit.

Will this leave the government in very bad hands? Yes. Will it drag our country down faster. Yes, but not by much more than a speed bump will stop a speeding Hummer. Civil energies should be put into civil refusal and creative alternatives. The system is broken. It's time to change it.

Citizen Zeus

[T]he refreshing recent foreign policy footprints of Condoleezza Rice.

Refreshing?

What is wrong with you?

Rice called President Teodoro OBIANG NGUEMA MBASOGO, a brutal oil-rich dictator a ‘good friend’.

According to the CIA:

President Teodoro OBIANG NGUEMA MBASOGO has ruled the country for over two decades since seizing power from his uncle, then President Francisco MACIAS, in a 1979 coup.

Although nominally a constitutional democracy since 1991, the 1996 and 2002 presidential elections - as well as the 1999 and 2004 legislative elections - were widely seen as flawed.

The president exerts almost total control over the political system and has discouraged political opposition.

This is refreshing?

Rice's good friend from Equatorial Guinea

From Wiki:
Most domestic and international observers consider [Rice's good friend's] regime to be one of the most corrupt, ethnocentric, oppressive and anti-democratic states in the world.

Equatorial Guinea is now essentially a single-party state, dominated by [Rice's good friend's] Democratic Party of Equatorial Guinea (PDGE).

All but two members of the 100-seat national parliament belong to the PDGE or are aligned with it.

The opposition to [Rice's good friend] is severely hampered by the lack of a free press as a vehicle for their views.

Around 90% of all opposition politicians live in exile, 550 anti-Obiang activists have been jailed unfairly, and several killed since 1979.

[Rice's good friend ] was re-elected in 1996 and 2002, but the conduct of both elections was not acceptable to international observers.

In July 2003, state-operated radio declared that the [Rice's good friend ] is a God who is "in permanent contact with the Almighty" and can "kill anyone without being called to account", he personally made similar comments in 1993.

Coincidentally, Macias Nguema had also been proclaimed God.

[Rice's good friend ] has encouraged his cult of personality by ensuring that public speeches end in well-wishing for himself for well-wishing for the republic.

Many important buildings have a presidential lodge, many towns and cities have streets commemorating [Rice's good friend's] coup against his own uncle as well as there being a penchant among the population to wear clothes with his face printed on them.

Mr Clemons, I obviously don't know you personally, or know you at all well, and am criticizing something you represent, someone between who you are and someone I imagine from what I read on your blog. Make no mistake, the Steve Clemons I imagine is decent, of good will and intentions, pragmatic, and committed to "getting things done" within the constraints of our present situation.

Of course you have likely formed personal relationships with people both of us would disagree with on matters of policy. Although I am quite partisan and ideological I do not deny that most Republicans would hold the usual virtues and qualities.

I suspect that my greatest difficulty is that I believe you hold an attachment to certain institutions, traditions of bipartisanship and comity, of rational policy discussion over personality or party affiliation when all those things have failed us. Lines have been crossed, walls knocked down, things that should not have been possible have become actual. If the apparently strong institutions as for instance the Geneva & Hague Conventions or habeus corpus are this fragile, afford so little protection from predators, incompetents, and charlatans then perhaps an affection or attachment to the institutions and traditions, or some subset of them, has become dangerous. Perhaps they should be replaced, if only temporarily, with a ferocious partisanship, or disengagement, or other extraordinary response to these extraordinary times.

Paul Krugman, speaking of course of fiscal policy early in 2002, called this present group revolutionaries rather than reformers. I do not think revolutionaries can be countered with reform, but only with counter-revolution. The implications are of course dangerous, likely destructive, and possibly wicked. At best very uncomfortable. I can certainly understand anyone who would disagree and hold onto the rule of law and the hope of compromise and reform as the only sane and safe response.

But the leadership is outlaw, lawless, and the law has become a weapon of the wicked against the good. Nothing more. We will not, I am afraid, become a lawful nation again by lawful means. I will read Mr Bellinger carefully, but I think "the cabal" must be punished severely, and that will be, if possible, very expensive. I am sorry, but I think you are in the way. I expect the foreign policy establishment and consensus to be destroyed, much more than say, after Vietnam. I hope the good guys survive, but it is not inevitable.

I am no fascist or totalitarian, but it is possible you has a higher opinion of me than, by your standards, I deserve. I did lose my temper, and I do apologize.

Rice is not a refreshing change.

Rice STINKS!!!!

More on Rice's Good Friend, Equatorial Guinean President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo:

SECRETARY RICE: (snip) So thank you very much for your presence here. You are a good friend and we welcome you.

PARADE’s Annual List Of...The World’s 10 Worst Dictators
10) Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea. Age 63. In power since 1979. Last year’s rank: 10

Obiang took power in this tiny West African nation by overthrowing his uncle more than 25 years ago. According to a United Nations inspector, torture “is the normal means of investigation” in Equatorial Guinea.

There is no freedom of speech, and there are no bookstores or newsstands. The one private radio station is owned by Obiang’s son. Since major oil reserves were discovered in Equatorial Guinea in 1995, Obiang has deposited more than $700 million into special accounts in U.S. banks. Meanwhile, most of his people live on less than $1 a day.

Zeus:

That was one of the best comments I have read on this blog in a very long time, and there appear to be some very insightful folks paying attention to Steve Clemons' blog.

--Alan Lewis

"but I am not going to join up with a crowd that sees those who have been working inside the administration for good causes to be cast on some sort of enemies list."

Ten years ago Richard Rorty speculated over a next civil war in the United States. He was eagerly dismissed as a philosophical dimmwit not knowing what he was talking about. Could it be that the US are already in a new civil war? When, in any country, generals are becoming the voice of moderation, these countries are, pardon me, in deep shit.

Steve,

Thank you for creating these "speak to power" and "power speaking" events by & for the electeds and the appointeds, and for sharing them with the whole world and not just the beltway. From my general citizen's knowledge, I would suspect that these were the kinds of things Walter Lippman did quietly on the side on a weekend afternoon. (When the NYT was truly necessary.)

Such conversations need doing. That they have to be formally done illustrates how successful the ideologists have been at segregate and conquer. Cultivating the better angels of the natures of this parcel of pygmies can only be a good thing. Now if you could find redeemable souls over at the DOJ ... (At least the retired "grunt commanders" have stepped up to the plate, as they have the right to do as concerned citizens. The Silence of the Desk Jockeys is as revealing.)

The headline you've crafted really sums up this, yes, constitutional problem: Senior Administration Person "argues case FOR international law". So the premise behind this conversation must be that currently this Administration is AGAINST international law, and is therefore Internationally LAW-LESS at least in its intent and certainly in some specific acts.

While it may not seem to you that stark, given the whole raft of NGOs and treaty obligations that US agencies act on & with in their daily operations, the good that a person like Bellinger can do is limited in the executive structure by what good his boss can do. And as she herself has burnt the pies at her own boss's behest, that good runs smack up against whatever the Great Decider has or has not on his mind, or rather what Mr. Addington has "larned" him about.

Now it is true that this administration will run officially to January 2009. But if even one of the Houses turns Democratic (can you say $4 a gallon of gas?), the Great Decider will have lost all leverage. (Veto? It would be a laugh.) Only petulance will remain and for handling that I'll have to place my trust in the Joint Chiefs.

Only if the Senate turns can there be concrete actions taken that would signify the Resumption of International Law as part of the Law of the Land. This co-equal branch needs to demand its chair at the table once again, and only the opposition party can effectively do that.

I can only hope that Mr. Bellinger, showing he understands what someone like Clark Clifford adroitly practiced at his best and recognizing how easy it is to do the following from participating in such meetings as this one, is already creating back-channel conversations with senior DEMOCRATIC leaders in anticipation of such turn in control. This would be a Very Good Thing he could do for his boss, given that Mr. Cheney is a slight infarction away from being unable to enjoy his millions. And it would be good for the country, too.

Because on the day after this election, her boss will be officially irrelevant--dangerous, yes, but in any case irrelevant for the long term future because he lacks the skills possessed by his own father as well as Clinton and because gas will be $4 per gallon and reality on the ground in Iraq will be festering guerilla civil war. Outcomes all too evident to the American citizenry educated by the 24/7 media transmission. Power is Blue Smoke, indeed, and it is dissipating quickly. I'm thinking a low of 29% approval, unless Mr. Boiten, our new COS, is more a magician than a bean counter.

Bridging the conversational void that has spread among the power elites is necessary given the power transition issues and events that will be accelerating shortly. As its what you do naturally, keep it up.

Aside: now that I know of your affiliations, I've got to dig up my '60s copy of Revolutionary Change and see how the Rove/Cheney cabal fits.

bob mcmanus -- thanks for that very decent response. i understand, i think, how you feel. there is much I don't put on this blog -- which I may share with you personally in a phone call or private email -- but my rage about some things that this administration has done is as intense as anything you might see on the most shrill blogs or political punditry.

I sometimes lose it -- I get so angry or obsessively driven by something that has unnerved me in the policy game that i lose my balance. there is a reason i maintain the temperature of the blog the way i do. Perhaps it is tactical; and maybe it's just who I am.

I don't give in, in the long run -- I just realize that there is a quintuple level chess game going on, and thin, binary assaults one way or another are not going to win these policy debates.

I'd like to talk to you some time if that makes sense because I really learn a lot from your intense commentary. One thing that's cool about being the proprietor of a blog is that you can pull up everyone's comments and read them over a long period of time -- and yours are intense, consistent and principled.

I'd like to share with you some of why I think it's so important to do what I can to draw out portions of this administration into turf that may be uncomfortable for both them and you. I'm not naive about this -- but I need to try.

Anyway, thanks for what you wrote. I knew that posting John Bellinger's on the record comments would be controversial -- but he's important, either to clarify why you are so angry at the administration, or to give some hope that there might be a change in direction, or to offend those who want the Bush administration to stay on a John Yoo-like course.

It was a clarifying evening.

Thanks to the other commenters. I try not to be thin-skinned about comments or even attacks on me. None of us have a monopoly on the correct game plan in the uncertain and fragile circumstances we are in.

More later -- and sorry my involvement here has been episodic. best,

Steve Clemons

Interesting discussion as always.

At the risk of being labeled a "Vichy" progressive, I have to agree with your approach. History will shortly deal with this strange mix of hyper- nationalist utopians, I think the verdict will be a very poor one, and then what?

This is not to say that there is no place for the passions of the partisan or those who, I think rightly, are deeply offended by this Administration on nonpartisan constitutional and moral grounds.

By all means, take political action and throw the bums out, or impeach them, but EVERYBODY doesn't have to do so. In fact, one can make a good case that this is precisely the right time for some to put partisanship aside and make sure the country does not become irretrievably broken, and that there is some level of continuity and sanity in our policies.

Having said that, an old lawyer once told me that "you can only lose your credibility once" and this administration has done that. So the plan has to be to crawl back into the 21st century, the goals have to be modest "low hanging fruit" and we can't rely on our credibility, because we don't have any.

The next 3 years may be the most dangerous this country has ever faced, we have a crippled and illegitimate executive, a corrupt and frivilous congress and a corporate media which is unable to find its voice in a new era, not to mention an electorate which appears to be operating from entirely different sets of operative facts, an economy facing the onslaught of peak oil and a military that is stretched to breaking and divided in its leadership.

I prefer to believe that the current bunch represents the last throes of a dieing and self conscious nationalist order. This too will pass, but what next?

It is refreshing, as a conservative, to come to a progressive blog to find the "progressives" attack Steve Clemons for reporting on someone he might find common cause with within the Administration. Now Mr. Clemons knows what Bukharin was feeling before Stalin had him picked up by the OGPU on trumped up charges. Charges of "right deviationism" abound on this blog.

I await the verdict of the People's Court.

It is passing strange that as a Persian fascist threatens the existence of Jews with atomic weapons that he aims to build and, if needs be, use, "progressives" turn all their anger and all their hatred at Condi Rice and George Bush. No, really, this is like going back in time to an America Firster meeting in 1939. It didn't take long for one wag to bring up Condi's "mushroom cloud" statement (incontrovertibly true, if you read her statement in whole, btw, which most liberals never do). It's never the fault of the Persian Brownshirts. It's always George Bush's fault.

Now then, Lindbergh was saying the same thing in 1940 when he was full of invective against Roosevelt. You realize of course, where Lucky Lindy ended up politically when the inevitable happened. I say this to point out the obvious: there is a reason, despite all the cockups in the Mesopotamian expedition, why the American people don't quite trust Democrats with national security. You may hate George Bush till the cows come home. You may scream about mushroom clouds till they arch up to the sky.

But you ignore the nature and ambitions of the Iranian regime at your peril. The sad thing is, you do so deliberately. And for that, your entire progressive movement, so filled as it is with hatred and anger for one man, will pay a terrible price for hating the wrong guy.

Steve, as personally decent as some individual might be, he can find himself in a situation in which he is working for a criminal and vicious enterprise. At that point the individual's friends are faced with a moral dilemma. Do they continue to offer support for their friend, and assist his forlorn and unavailing efforts to effect change from within? Or do they withdraw support from the entire enterprise, decent friends included, in order to help form a united front against it?

Where the foul and deformed Bush administration is concerned, one has to reckon with the possibility that even if the insider's hopes for change are well-meaning and sincere, gestures of support from mainstream voices outside the administration only help to provide legitimacy to that administration, and may weaken the capacity for opposition by suggesting to many on the fence that things are not all bad, that serious people have not rejected the administration entirely, and that the situation is already correcting itself from within. This weakening of the opposition buys Bush and Cheney valuable time to plot and execute plans to do more damage.

Conveying the suggestion that things are not so bad, and change is on the way, wouldn't be such a bad thing if that was what was really going on. But although hopes for a change in the direction of the Bush administration have been raised several times, I see little evidence that the course has been altered in any significant way. The administration is irredeemable, because the rot is present right at the top, in the persons of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzalez. And while they continue to attempt to buy support, co-opt opponents and neutralize critics, their resolve is unwavering. The news that there are also nice guys, decent guys, working inside the administration, and trying through the usual channels to get the captain to adjust the course, only raises false hopes and diminishes the moral energy and vigor that will be needed to mount the kind of opposition that is called for.

This is no ordinary bad adminsitration. The Bush administration represents a fundamental breach in our constitutional traditions, and a profound danger both to Americans and the rest of the world. It must be spit out entirely, and hopes for rehabilitation abandoned.

In the United States, we do not really have the ability to remove administrations before their terms have expired. We do not allow recall elections, and the impeachment option has never succeeded even once in our 230 year history. Thus, the only way to successfully oppose this administration is to cripple its ability to govern in the manner it would prefer. To do so will require isolating the administration from the rest of the government - including those that are in the same party. We actually have an opportunity to do this in this election year, given the administration's dreadful poll standings. If the public hears a clear, consistent, unrelenting and uncompromising voice of articulate opposition, a majority of members of the President's own party may be persuaded to abandon him. Pressure can be exerted on people inside the administration to resign, and join the opposition. If the adminstration is successfully crippled, we may one day find that leaders in Bush's party are forced to go to him, and to Dick Cheney, and ask both of them to resign. And even before that blessed day comes, we may succeed in bringing their sordid and reckless international plans to a grinding halt.

I think some of the frustration that bubbles up here on your blog has to do with a fundamental tension between those of us who live outside the capital, whose lines of vision are not refracted through personal relationships, and those like you who live in the midst of the Washington culture and social network. Perhaps in most circumstance, the insiders have a clearer view of what is really going on, and what moves are being made in the Washington chess game. But you should consider the possibility that in this case your personal relationships are a hindrance. There is a time for chess moves, for effecting change by subtle, incremental steps. But there is also a time for cutting the Gordian knot. The time has come to choose sides, even if that means you have to part ways decisively with long time friends and associates.

You might also consider what impact an influential person like yourself might have if you were to simply boycott the administration entirely, and refuse to provide them with any legitimizing forums. I realize that this is a hard thing to do, and will bring pain and frustration to people in the administration who are really trying to do good. But you might say to your friends "I'm sorry. While I believe your intentions are good, I can no longer in good conscience offer support of any kind to this administration. I encourage you to resigen from the administration and join me in firm opposition to it."

Mr. Clemons,
Seen the record, a record of facts, I cannot see how this administration can be given the benefit of the doubt. They are furthering their agenda, American hegemony, control of the world's oil supply, all behind public speeches filled with lies, duplicity and the sacrifice of how many lives? If peanuts grew under the sand of the Middle East would there be a single boot on the ground?
Bush as a person I find a poor, twisted, pathetic little man, but as President he is responsible for policy, international and domestic, that is bringing ruin to us all. Since one cannot imagine he has ideas of his own, though he professes many beliefs, he too will become expendable when he can no longer "deliver."
When public policy is dedicated to uncontrolled private interests, the consequences lead to authoritarian, if not totalitarian states, not more democracy.
I think the world is closed not flat. People are now trapped, there is no "New World."
An historic opportunity was lost after 9/11.
Perhaps the next revolution will be a cyber one,
the destruction of the hard drive that allows the dehumanisation of humanity. The first act of most revolutions is to try to "delete" the past.
Please forgive the digression but I had an ancestor at Valley Forge and often wonder what he thought.

"John Bellinger gets this. John Bolton does not."

I disagree. John Bolton definitely "gets it." He also definitely rejects it. There is no question in my mind that Bolton understands the nuances of diplomacy. Unless he is severely mentally handicapped, there is no way that he could NOT understand after his years observing it. However, Bolton decided some time ago, with the support and encouragement of his sponsors, that unilateralism and testosterone rule, never mind the human debris left bobbing in his wake. While, like you, I cautiously applaud Bellinger's initiative and the courage he displayed in venturing outside the "bubble," I despair of any impact as long as the cabal is in place.

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

Steve, I'm interested to know whether you think Congress can provide proper oversight to Bush if the "right" Republicans win in the fall.
Also, do you agree that there is a danger in pumping up Rice's credibility? Why not tear it down (very easy to do)? Won't Bush be less effective in that case? Think about what Rice is saying about Iran.. she is no moderate.

section 9,

Where you, and other conservatives like you err is in seeing the response of progressives and the reality of the world as mutually exclusive categories. It is perfectly possible to be clear minded and open-eyed about the realities of the world and people like the ruler of Iran, to not be naive, to look evil in the eye and call it for what it is, and to also see the response of BushCo to this situation as tragic, grossly incompetent and wrong, as making the situation several magnitudes of order worse!

It is possible to set a limit, be very clear and firm about it and not respond in kind to the energy put out by the offender. It indeed must be a real leader who is capable of holding the vision of the values that they are defending who can only respond effectively to such evil. This BushCo has consistently proven themselves incapable of doing. He and conservatives of his ilk cannot see that they abandon and give up the power they have to make a difference, the true position of leadership which potential is always there, when they respond in kind.

Please try to get that into your head section 9, it is not progressive's hatred of Bush that blinds them necessarily. What we reject is the empty moralism, the saying one thing and doing another, the glaring weakness of the man's character. And what we see are the manifest tragic outcomes of his policies, as the recent poll numbers about who the American people trust to handle National Security are telling you: there is absolutely a time and a place for the use of force in defense of your values, but when you use it recklessly and without appreciation for the implications, people are going to see you for what you are: reactionary and without a plan and they will abandon you, as they should.

We don't miss the evil and danger to the world in the form of the Iranian government, we just accurately want a response that is both tough and wise and can think beyond the "crush it at all costs" mentality that conservatives cannot get past, and which ultimately empowers and expands the influence of the perpetrator, witness Bin Laden and al-Quaeda. They were a small, struggling group until Bush empowered them by his response to 9/11.

We hope you get a clue, until then please consider giving up the split between progressives and tough, effective response to evil in the world. You couldn't get it any wronger than the current administration.

Frankly, I'm neither impressed nor surprised that, in general, the U.S. would like to see international law reign supreme. That is, after all, how U.S. patents collect money from third-world nations, and international treaties open borders to disastrous flows of trade.

But, is it 'law' if the President can create, change, or nullify it on a whim? In our system, legitimacy is supposed to come from the consent of the governed, not the consent of the governer.

Is it law if it is created and changed to meet the demands of the largest corporations, and acts unequally on different people and countries? Laws are supposed to act uniformly on all, and provide constancy that can govern planning for the future.

So, as an ordinary guy far from the seats of power, at the end of the day I sometimes wonder...is everyone in Washington DC just plain nuts?

Mr. Clemons, I have been reading your blog on a daily basis from its inception. But I fear I may have to take you off my Bookmarks list. You really need to get out of the cocktail and seminar circuit in order to recalibrate your sense of reality. All this talk about "nice" amd "reasonable" is BS wrapped in prettier packages. Take it from those of us out here in real life who have to live with the day to day consequences of the policies these "nice" people implement.

re: Condi Rice's nice words on international treaties - I guess that doesn't include the Chemical Weapons Convention. Rumsfeld recently announced that we won't make the 2012 deadline - which is an extension of the 2007 deadline - to get rid of all chemical weapons. Congress doesn't seem to care, because they're all catering to Sen McConnell and Sen Allard's desires to get billions more dollars into their states and delay the destruction of chemical weapons by using an inefficient, costly, and unproven alternative neutralization technology instead of incineration.

But hey, Condi knows how to sound pretty.

The first white flag? Tom Friedman's column today in our local rag--sorry y'all we're on tape-delay in Texas--mentioned something about getting used to an Iran with the bomb. Friedman pointed out that a nuclear Iran carries a lot more responsibilities than a conventionally armed Iran--for the Iranians. He also correctly observes that the Iran "crisis" is possibly (I would say "certainly") fueled by the neo-con dream of regime change in Iran, not behavior-change. So like in 2003, we are threatened again with the mythical mushroom cloud. To see the real agenda for Iran, please google neo-con websites like the "Coalition for Democracy in Iran," a grass roots movement populated by Iranian Americans like James Woolsey. And to think I used to believe he was from Arkansas. Who knew?

"Bellinger is the anti-John Yoo, in my view (though not his). I think John Bellinger walks a hard-to-walk line in putting forward a new and "different" frame regarding America's attitude towards international law and, at the same time, carrying water for several years of war-time decisions that his bosses -- the Secretary of State and the President of the United States -- have made and been party to."

That sounds distrubingly like "I was just following orders."