Be sure to read Digby's post on the investigation into who forged the Niger documents. There is a possible Judy Miller connection -- "she's the Zelig of the iraq operation." Heh.

 

See also commentary by Bernard Weiner.

|

|

|

The London attacks served to underscore the reality that we face an enemy determined to destroy our way of life and substitute for it a fanatical vision of dictatorial and theocratic rule. At its root, the struggle is an ideological contest, a war of ideas that engages all of us, public servant and private citizen, regardless of nationality.

We have waged such wars before, and we know how to win them.  

We have? We do? Pray tell, when in the past were the first-world democracies wholesale targets of stateless and global terrorist organizations whose weapon of choice is suicide bombs striking civilian targets?

... our efforts since the attacks of 9/11 have been guided by three important lessons learned when free peoples twice defeated totalitarianism in the last century.

I'm assuming they're talking about World War II and the Cold War. But isn't responding to terrorism with pre-9/11 policy supposed to be bad?

First and most important, we must have a clear understanding of the ideology espoused by the enemy.

This from the administration that famously reduces all jihadi ideology to "they hate our freedom."

The terrorists we face today aim to remake the Middle East in their own grim image - one that, as President Bush has said, "hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent."

Sounds like Rush Limbaugh.

This vision is eerily reminiscent of earlier totalitarian systems, where a radical few subjugated the helpless many. Then as now, terror is the principal tool of the totalitarian.

It's a tool, and as a rule once a totalitarian regime is firmly entrenched it can become a principal tool. But the Big Cheese dictators of the 20th century--Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Castro, etc.--didn't come into power by telling the people "make us dictator or we'll shoot your dog." In some cases (e.g. Mao, Castro) they had a large base of popular support in their respective countries before they gained control. They gained this support in large part by packaging themselves as saviors of the people; the antidote to the corrupt, incompetent, and oppressive regimes they eventually replaced.

Today's terrorists seek through barbaric violence to topple governments, export terrorism and force free nations to stand down. The terrorists believe democracies are weak, and that those who champion freedom will retreat in the face of relentless attacks - that people, in Osama bin Laden's words, "will like the strong horse."

There's no question that today's terrorists are a nasty piece of work and represent a terrible danger. The question is, what is the best response? What can we do to minimize the terrorist threat and slow the spread of jihadi fanaticism? Judging by the results, Bush Administration policies have been exactly wrong.

History has taught us that the best antidote to totalitarianism is forceful resolve coupled with actions that advance human freedom.  

The antidote to the Third Reich was armed invasion. In a large sense, I suppose one could argue that the D-Day assault was an act of forceful resolve that advanced human freedom. The end of the Cold War came about in an entirely different way, and there remains enormous partisan disagreement over how much influence American policy actually played in the collapse of the Soviet empire. But as Russia is edging back toward dictatorship, I wonder if we didn't all celebrate the victory a tad too soon.

In any event, it's fine to make speeches about how freedom is better than totalitarianism and about how much "resolve" we all have. But that doesn't answer the basic question--what is the best policy? What concrete steps should we be taking to put an end to today's threat? What, exactly, should we do? The policies of democratic nations to oppose the Axis in World War II, and the policies of democratic nations during the Cold War, were very different policies. Yes, the policies may have shared basic philosophical goals (e.g., totalitarianism is bad), but that's about it.

Our logic is straightforward. Terrorists exploit conditions of despair and feelings of resentment where freedom is denied. When we support the vision and reality of a freer and hopeful future, we undercut the ideological underpinning for the terrorists and embolden those opposed to their grim vision.

That's grand, but the fact remains that Bush Administration policies are not working. The Bushies ought to be asking themselves why. Clearly, a whole lotta people are not realizing the glorious vision of a freer and hopeful future (clunky phrase, that).

I don't see anyone opposed to freedom and hope. I do see people arguing that Bush policies are not bringing freedom and hope to the Middle East, just increasing instability and violence. Not to mention corruption.

Another howler: "...we must overcome America's mixed record on supporting freedom in the Middle East. For too long we accepted a false bargain that promised stability if we looked the other way when democracy was denied."

Can we say Azerbaijan? Egypt? Pakistan?

Hadley and Townsend continue to evoke freedom and hope and freedom and vision and freedom to the end of the article. I'm not sure what they are trying to accomplish here. I actually agree with much of what they say. The problem is, Bush Administration polcies work in opposition to most of what they say. And instead of re-examining policies that are obviously failing, they do nothing but churn out more horseshit about what great visions they have. Not to mention how much resolve. 

The problem is that neither Hadley nor Townsend, nor anyone else in the Bush administration, seem to have a clue.

|

|

This is, at least potentially a very big deal -- for reasons which I've been talking about, off and on, almost since I first opened Whiskey Bar. While the financial market reaction to yesterday's move was, all things considered, relatively mild, there's no guarantee that will remain true going forward.

It's possible, in fact, that we have just passed a major milestone in economic history -- and in the much briefer history of America's reign as the world's only superpower. But this may not be recognized for many years to come. ...

... 

The factors that have allowed the United States to run enormous, sustained current acount deficits -- deflation, globalization, the Asian savings glut -- may persist for some time. But sooner or later, the sheer size of America's external liabilities is going to force foreign creditors to limit their exposure to our reckless financial behavior. Solvency, not relative rates of return, will be the issue on their minds then.

BW II only postpones the day; it can't prevent it. By allowing America to go steadily deeper into debt, it also makes the day's arrival more certain and more dangerous. And by modifying the dollar peg -- even if only slightly -- China has set the clock in motion.

There's a lot more detail in the elipses. That was just the teaser.

Now a word from Da Man himself, Paul Krugman:

... it could be the start of a process that will turn the world economy upside down - or, more accurately, right side up. That is, the free ride China has been giving America, in which the world's richest economy has been getting cheap loans from a country that is dynamic but still quite poor, may be coming to an end.

It's all about which way the capital is flowing. ...

...Right now America is a superpower living on credit - something I don't think has happened since Philip II ruled Spain. What will happen to our stature if and when China takes away our credit card?

This story is still in its early days. On the first day of the new policy, the yuan rose only 2 percent, not enough to make any noticeable difference. But one of these days Chinese dollar purchases will trail off, and we'll find ourselves living in interesting times.

Well, that's a cheerful thought.

|

|