American Politics Journal

apj.us / correntewire.com presents
Pundit Pap
for August 6, 2006
by Corrente's Leah
with APJ's JJ Balzer and Jane Grice

August 6, 2006 (correntewire.com/apj.us) – Top news story of the week: the Israel-Hezbollah shooting war, although it should've been the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Top political story of the week: the coming Connecticut primary showdown between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman, although it should've been Rep. John Conyers's devastating report on Administration lawbreaking.

Let's cut straight to the action...

—Jane Grice

Fox Sunday With Chris Wallace And Many, Many Friends
by Leah

Why is this man...
John Bolton
... so amused?

Because this...
Beirut in flames Christian secition Daily Star
isn’t going to stop happening any time soon.

So many guests this morning; Diplomats representing Lebanon, Israel, and us, a Senator, and a former Speaker of the House, and the regulars, of course…

Leaving aside Lebanon, and why not, since everyone else seems content to sit bye and watch while a nation is blown apart, the headline from today’s show is this:

Newt Gingrich thinks what is going on in the Connecticut primary election of U.S. Senator is a kind of insurgency, not entirely unlike what is going on in Iraq. But that comes later.

First, Chris led us, along with Mahamud Chatah, security advisor to the P.M. of Lebanon, Daniel Ayalon, Israel’s ambassador to the US, and Steven Hadley, Condi Rice’s shadow, through a magical mystery tour of the French-US brokered two step cease-fire proposal for the end of “hostilities” currently going on between Lebanon and Israel; by the end of the discussion it seemed clear the proposal isn’t going anywhere, but perhaps that was the point of the exercise.

One clear difference between Mr. Chatah and Amb. Ayalon, the former is desperate for a real cease-fire, the latter is interested in stopping nothing, unless both Lebanon and Hezbollah agree to concessions they have no reason on earth to accept, like, for instance, the return of the two captured Israeli soldiers as a precondition for a cease-fire, rather than as one of the outcomes a cease-fire would trigger.

Steven Hadley used the word “sustainable” within the first four or five words he uttered and repeated it endlessly; is anyone in doubt that when used by the Bush administration, it means our way or the highway, even if the highway is your highway, and it has been bombed to smithereens.

Ayalon communicated a cold arrogance, as he replayed all the Israeli talking points - Hezbollah doesn’t have military installations, they hide among civilians; in case any of you don’t know, there are military installations all over Israel, cheek by jowl with civilian infrastructure, and I seem to remember something called the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and Pt. Magu here on the coast, and Vandenburg Air Force base.

Israel’s arguments about why this is a good war are exactly those employed by the Bush administration to justify their invasion of Iraq, and which they continue to employ in defending their ham-handed occupation.

Chatah confirmed that Lebanon isn’t officially rejecting the cease-fire conditions to be voted on in the Security Council next week, but he made it clear that Lebanon was not going to go along with a model that allows Israel to occupy the south of Lebanon.

Hadley assured everyone that once the resolution is passed at the UN everything will start coming up roses.

If you think I’m being hard on Ayalon, here’s what I mean by arrogant; at one point, shaking his head, he insisted that Lebanon’s elected officials, and their appointees, don’t represent the best interests of the Lebanese people; yes, it turns out the Israelis are mainly interested in strengthening Lebanon. Why do the Israelis even bother with such arguments; they really think they are going to convince the people whom they are bombing and turning into refugees are going to be convinced that all of this destruction of their homes, farms, roads, families, their society, their country, is in their own best interest?

Next up - to analyze the “big picture,” according to Chris anyway, Senator Biden and Newt Gingrich.

Newt went first - it was his usual really big picture, basically of WW 3 or 4, I forget what the Neocons consider that we’re up to. How did he get there? Well, he found himself fascinated, watching the Minister from Lebanon, Mr. Chatah, who was clearly more afraid of Syria and Iran than he was of us, by whom I guess Newt meant the US.

From there it was an easy leap, at least for Newt, into the world being in a Munich phase, in which the weak are being tempted into appeasement - and a desire to believe their can negotiate with their enemies. Yeah, that’s what’s brought us to a Middle East on the verge of going up in flames, the Bush administration penchant for diplomacy.

Unfortunately, I mean really, really unfortunate, Senator Biden started out by saying that he tended to agree with Newt. He didn’t really mean that; he was actually agreeing with some of the negative things Newt said about the feckless policy that’s gone on under Bush, and as Biden talked, it was clear he had a very different take on all this than Newt. But that didn’t keep Biden from saying, “I have to agree with Newt on that one,” at least one more, possible two more times.

The Bush administration’s Neocon foreign policy is going down, quite literally, in flames; why on earth are any Democrats in their right mind saying “I agree with” Newt, Rice, the Prez, Bolton, Hadley, any of the whole lot of them?

Granted, the Democrats have their own problems with reining in Israel, but this is a policy headed for disaster: What the fuck? Are they going to make the same mistake they made in the fall of 2002, when they voted for that “use of force” resolution? True, Newt was talking about a combination of diplomacy and use of force, and Biden tried to turn those statements into a indictment of the Bush doctrine, but Newt’s willingness to diss Bush doesn’t make Newt any less a proud practitioner-prisoner of Neocon thinking.

Any Democrats who hear themselves saying “I agree with Newt on that…” needs to consider hara-kiri, before they take all of us down with them.

At the end, Newt wasn’t fooled that Biden agreed with him, and of course he tried to use Biden’s detailed critiques of every wrong, stupid, incompetent, wrong-headed policy the Bush administration has continued to pursue, no matter the disasters said policies hath wrought, as an example of the difference between the two parties, i.e., one is for taking the fight to the enemy, the other for running home and hiding under the bed. It was around this time that Newt came up with his comparison of national politics, and what our attitudes should be abroad:

Third, you have what I think is a legitimate insurgency in Connecticut, which needs to be met head on and debated head on, which is people who say this is so hard, it is so frightening, it’s so painful, can’t we come home and hide? And I think if Lamont wins next Tuesday, it will be the beginning of extraordinarily important period in American politics, and in American history. For all of us to have this debate. How dangerous are the terrorists? How dangerous are the dictatorships? And
what does America have to do in that kind of a dangerous world?

Biden didn’t let that “can’t we come home and hide” stand, but he should have been all over Newt before he even had a chance to pull out that chestnut. Good God, the government of Lebanon was elected, as were its Hezbollah ministers; Egypt is a dictatorship. What is dangerous, what has proved to be lethal, is the approach the Bush administration has taken in almost every foreign policy crises it has faced, and Newt Gingrich supported those policies every step of the way.

The regulars, Barnes, Kristol, Juan Williams, were joined today by Alexis Simendinger.

At no point during the two segments allotted to the regulars did Bill Kristol stop grinning. A big, smug Cheshire cat grin. It seemed to be the result of the general consensus that the just-hammered-out UN resolution, even if adapted, wasn’t about to stop Israel from doing what it’s been doing in Lebanon for going on four weeks now. Apparently, that just tickled Bill pink with delight.

Juan Williams agreed that the war would go on, but was chagrined by the prospect. Fred Barnes position seemed to be that everyone else but Israel in the Middle East are fools and knaves, so, fuck ‘em, if they can’t take a little invasion.

Kristol picked up on Newt’s contrast between the two parties - one that wants retrenchment in the face of a recognition of how difficult is the task ahead, and one that wants to redouble efforts. Juan jumped on that one: same old same old, he pointed out; Democrats are the party of cut and run. What is the point of staying a course that isn’t working, he asked?

Staying the course, to find a better course, seemed to be Kristol’s answer. Simendinger agreed, that’s how the administration views stay the course; she had the smartest perception about Steven Hadley, pointing out that he’d said nothing about there being any concrete steps being taken to implement the terms of that cease-fire resolution, like, for instance, the gathering of any kind of international force to go in an relieve the Israelis immediately.

As to the politics of the situation, Kristol made the most interesting and the most ominous comment - that the defeatist Democratic Party would undoubtedly do well in the midterms against a demoralized Republican party, but that if Lamont wins, and the anti-war minions of the liberal/left take over the Democrats, no way Democrats are winning in 2008. Oh, and parroting Robert Kagan in the Wa Po today, which I’ll be posting about, right after this one goes up, Lieberman is in trouble for one reason only - he’s just too honest a guy to turn on former friends and allies, and to go all apostate about Iraq. These guys; Barnes, in talking about Hillary’s confrontation with Rumsfeld, tried to insist that it said more about Hillary than about Rumsfeld, which sounds knowing, but is quite simply bull; true, what it showed about Rumsfeld is that he never stops lying, and we all know that by now.

In the end there was a genuine consensus; this war is going on for weeks, if not months. Stay tuned, but keep the aspirin close by.

This Week: Lieberman, Lamont and that idiot Cokie "Schoolmarm" Roberts
by JJ Balzer

There were more than the usual number of lowlights from ABC's decent excuse for a Sunday political debate show. Yes, I said "decent excuse." It's getting a lot better, and a lot less predictable, that the fare from FOX, NBC, CNN or CBS.

George Stephanopoulos let Joe Lieberman stick his foot in his mouth. First, he showed Holy Joe in front of a campaign rally claiming the race is not about one issue, i.e. Iraq -- which is basically an admission that he's losing on the Iraq issue. He tried to imply that Ned is "smearing " and "nitpicking" Lieberman's career and positions, then whined about being "scapegoated" and claiming he was "not taking cheap shots" ('cause that what Rich Goodstein is for – in the face of or away from Ned Lamont). On Iraq: "It is better now, it, it, it’s better and worse if you’ll allow me to put it that way." Okay, we'll more than allow you to put it that way, in that it shows how wrong you were to support your kissing partner George the Lesser's little feud with the Hussein al-Tikriti family. Lieberman sounded defeated and even more morose than usual.
Ned Lamont didn't get quite as much coverage as Lieberman, but close. And Steph surprised us by letting Ned Lamont tell viewers at the outset where he stands on topics other than Iraq – and on the war, he said that it's neither left nor right to feel "this war was ill-conceived from the beginning" – it's not about partisanship. Lamont said he's a self-identified liberal and progressive, who wants to take on health debacles, energy policy failures, and a foreign policy that's inept. Lamont added that we can get our military out while continuing humanitarian aid and support for democratization. Lamont also went on a tear about jobs – and losing them to foreign countries – the health care crisis, and pricey insurance. He wants pooled deals that will drive down the cost of care and drugs. He characterized Lieberman as having "18 years of experience on the wrong side of the issues" (i.e., corporate constituents as opposed to Connecticut's citizens). His political hero? Teddy Roosevelt. George reminded Lamont that he was a Republican – and Lamont reminded George of Roosevelt's conservation initiatives and added that he'd never be a Republican today! He concluded by talking about his stint as a teacher and the need for better public education resources. All in all, a strong performance by Lamont in the face of cordial but tough questions from George.
Cokie Roberts made a complete and utter fool of herself with a loopy, stuck-in-1990s-conventional-Beltway-wisdom comment about Ned Lamont that burst from her lips almost as if it were a Tourette's outburst: "the guy with a lot of money who is able to come in and take advantage of it. But it’s – it’s, I think, a disaster for the Democratic Party, and it’s going to be very interesting to see what happens as a result of it... because, I think that first of all, that pushing the party to the left, which is what's likely to happen, is pushing the party to the position from which it traditionally loses." Yep, it's the ol' DC press narrative about those inept Democrats, bickering amongst themselves. And those Liberal Democrats? Perennial losers. Hell, look at Ted Kennedy. How many Senate elections has he lost? Right, Cokie. To top it off, Roberts suggested that a Lamont win in the Connecticut Senate primary would push the WHOLE Democratic party to the "left." Roberts, you are so out of touch, sop clueless about what Americans outside of Georgetown are actually saying (hint: a majority think America's on the wrong track and want our troops out of Iraq), that you are just making a fool of yourself. If Lamont wins, it means that Connecticut Democrats – who are on average more conservative than your average Democrat – are moving to the center. Now go take your Ritalin.
Sam Donaldson had a rare moment of lucidity, almost chiding the smarmy Ms. Roberts by reminding her that opposition to the Iraq war is not simply playing to the Democratic base, that in fact "it's playing to the country."

Universally acclaimed as boldly shrill members of the reality-based community, the Bloggers of Corrente can be reached off the record, on the Q.T., and very hush hush at their highly fortified headquarters, The Mighty Corrente Building.

Search the APJ Site Archive