by Alex Evans | Oct 20, 2007 | Influence and networks, North America
Much sniggering on the US right as shock jock Rush Limbaugh executes an expert piece of political aikido on his political opponents. The story goes like this:
After Limbaugh referred to Iraq war veterans criticial of the war as “phony soldiers”, 41 infuriated Democrat Senators sent him a stiff letter of complaint. “Although Americans of good will debate the merits of this war, we can all agree that those who serve with such great courage deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. That is why Rush Limbaugh’s recent characterization of troops who oppose the war as ‘phony soldiers’ is such an outrage,” they thundered.
1-0 to the Dems? Not so fast! Undeterred, Limbaugh announced on his show that he was going to auction the letter for charity on eBay. And, he’d match the price dollar for dollar. So – what did it fetch? A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? Not even close. Here it is: two point one million dollars – the largest amount ever paid on eBay for an item being sold for charity. Ouch – 2-1 to Limbaugh!
And where will be money be going? To the Marine Corps – Law Enforcement Foundation Inc. (of which he’s a director), to give scholarships and aid to families of marines and cops killed in the line of duty. 3-1! (Limbaugh: “this is more fun than I’ve ever had in my life”.)
But it gets worse for the Democrats. In a statement of the floor of the Senate on Friday, Democrat majority leader Harry Reid actually praised the auction (choking all the way, presumably): “I strongly believe that when we can put our differences aside, even Harry Reid and Rush Limbaugh, we should do that and try to accomplish good things for the American people”. 10-1!
What can one say to a drubbing like that? “The horror, the horror…”
by David Steven | Oct 19, 2007 | North America, South Asia
130 people reported dead in Pakistan and Scrappleface – the right-wing answer to the Onion – sees an opportunity to use its wit to settle some political scores. Nice.
As the death toll climbed past 130, with nearly 400 injured, in a suicide-bomb assassination attempt on former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemned the attack as “symptomatic of fundamentalist Islam’s crusade against equality for women.”
Rep. Pelosi, D-CA, said the fact that a prominent female politician was targeted has shaken her thinking about the war on terror.
“This misogynistic massacre has finally got it through my thick skull what President Bush has been trying to tell us for years,” she said. “These terrorists have no legitimate political grievance, no conscience, and no place in civilized society. We must crush them wherever they are to prevent the spread of their poisonous ideology and brutal tactics.”
Rep. Pelosi said that when news of the attack broke, she held a conference call with Senators Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barbara Boxer, D-CA. The three women agreed that “if these evil men are willing to attack a beautiful, charismatic female politician overseas, there’s not much to stop them from trying it on U.S. soil.”
The three lawmakers plan to introduce legislation next week to increase funding for the surge in Iraq, to finish the fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and to remove barriers to eavesdropping by U.S. spies on suspected terrorist communications at home and abroad.
“These woman-haters need to know that we mean business,” Rep. Pelosi said. “And to those who commit these atrocities against women, I say, we will no longer tolerate, we will no longer negotiate, and we will no longer be afraid. It’s your turn to be afraid.“
by Alex Evans | Oct 12, 2007 | Middle East and North Africa, North America
While we’re on the subject of US policy on the Middle East, take a look at the letter to Bush and Condi in the new edition of the NYRB from Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinksi, the ISG’s Lee Hamilton, Ted Sorensen, Paul Volcker and others (co-ordinated behind the scenes by Scowcroft, Gareth Evans and Steve Clemons).
It’s essentially a stiff a pep talk in advance of Bush’s Israeli-Palestinian peace conference in late November. “Failure,” they say, “risks devastating consequences”. And in blunt contrast to the more incrementally focussed Road Map, the signatories say that the talks need to cut to the chase on final status issues: “Because a comprehensive peace accord is unattainable by November, the conference should focus on the endgame and endorse the contours of a permanent peace, which in turn should be enshrined in a Security Council resolution.” In practice:
- “Two states, based on the lines of June 4, 1967, with minor, reciprocal, and agreed-upon modifications as expressed in a 1:1 land swap;
- “Jerusalem as home to two capitals, with Jewish neighborhoods falling under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty;
- “Special arrangements for the Old City, providing each side control of its respective holy places and unimpeded access by each community to them;
- “A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees’ deep sense of injustice, as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance;
- “Security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty.”
And while the letter welcomes the administration’s decision to invite Syria to the talks, they say there’s still some way to go as far as relations with Hamas are concerned: “we believe that a genuine dialogue with the organisation is far preferable to its isolation”.
by Alex Evans | Aug 26, 2007 | Cooperation and coherence, Middle East and North Africa
View Larger Map
Back when the US chaired the 2004 Sea Island G8, George Bush’s flagship proposal centred on the idea of a Greater Middle East Initiative, or GMEI (by way of a reminder, here’s what Brookings had to say about it then). At the time, there was heavy criticism – not only of of the GMEI’s optimistic hopes about democratisation, but also its dubious geographical assumptions: could Iran and Afghanistan really be lumped together with all the Arab countries?
But here’s the thing. If the idea of a Greater Middle East was clumsy, there’s still a case for coming up with some new geographical categories to reflect changed political realities in the region. In particular, it’s surprising that we still have no one category that draws together Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(more…)
by Alex Evans | Aug 15, 2007 | Conflict and security, Economics and development, Middle East and North Africa
My CIC colleague Barney Rubin has an excellent post this morning comparing the recent New York Times and Wall Street Journal [subscribers only, annoyingly] op-eds on Afghanistan, which have sharply divergent perspectives: broadly speaking, half empty and half full respectively. (See also Barney’s mostly approving discussion yesterday of the NYT article.)
But, Barney argues, the half empty / half full metaphor misses the point. The problem with it, he implies, is that the kind of change needed is a transformation that either does or does not take place, and which is therefore not well captured by an incremental ‘steps in the right direction’ image like that of a half full or empty glass.
“We are in Afghanistan to achieve some vital objectives. If we fail to achieve them, no one will give us an ‘A’ for effort.”
(more…)
