On November 11, 2004, Bush 41 and Ford-era Assistant to the President for National Security Brent Scowcroft endorses John Kerry's foreign policy.
A little bit late.
You know, it would be nice if some of these guys were American patriots first and feudal retainers of the Bush family second. It would be nice if they had some... values.
Posted by DeLong at November 13, 2004 09:17 AM | TrackBackwashingtonpost.com: A Middle East Opening: By Brent Scowcroft Friday, November 12, 2004; Page A25: The region has been changed forever by the decision to go into Iraq. The debate about the timing and rationale for the war is behind us.... Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Iran and terrorism are parts of a whole and can only be satisfactorily engaged as such. To cut through this Gordian knot will require not only a new approach but the deep, sustained commitment of the United States and a significant investment of the president's attention. But American resolve will not suffice without the willing engagement of other states, especially those of Europe and the region itself....
The goal we seek in Iraq is to create a secure environment... providing such an environment in a reasonable time frame will require a larger coalition force.... This force increment must come either from our own already stretched military or from our friends and allies.... The leaders of Europe and the Arab world surely recognize -- even if their publics may not -- that a failed Iraq would affect their countries every bit as seriously as it would the United States.... European willingness to provide even a modest nucleus of troops could provide inducement and cover for other states, especially Muslim ones, to make militarily meaningful contributions....
This essential step in Iraq needs to be accompanied by a U.S. undertaking to revitalize the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.... The president should add substance to his commitment to an independent Palestinian state... free from the crushing presence of Israeli troops. The United States should insist that Israel stop construction of its wall... mirror its withdrawal from Gaza with the evacuation of the West Bank....
The "road map" plan... should be revived.... The outlines of such a settlement have... become much less contested. A unified Jerusalem would serve as capital to both peoples. While the "right of return" could be left as a principle, the reality is that most Palestinian refugees will remain outside Israel, just as most Jewish settlers will return to Israel. A donor pool may need to be organized to provide compensation for both groups. Border rectifications would be necessary to compensate for the settlement solution and would complete the package.
Substantial, visible progress on the Palestinian issue would significantly improve the atmosphere in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, including Iran, the third side of this triangle of tension and violence. The United States has three objectives with respect to Iran: a cessation of any moves toward nuclear proliferation; cooperation that contributes actively to stability in the Persian Gulf and in Iraq; and Iranian restraint on Hezbollah and other radical groups... the United States must... modify its attitude toward the British-French-German negotiations with Iran over its pursuit of uranium enrichment capabilities. We should actively embrace the European position... including the offer of an ensured supply of nuclear reactor fuel (low enriched uranium) at concessionary prices -- or even gratis -- in exchange for a comprehensive, verifiable freeze of Iran's uranium enrichment program.
Iran not only has strong interests in the future of Iraq but a powerful influence through its religious connections to the Shiite majority there. We should engage Iran about the future of Iraq, comparing our separate perspectives and emphasizing our joint interests.... Finally, the United States should indicate a willingness to modify its sanctions regime and thereby its relationship to Iran, were Iran willing to restrain Hezbollah and exercise its influence over other extremist groups. This would greatly minimize the risk that violence and other radical disruptions would hinder the Palestinian peace process.
The stakes are high. Progress in the region, in addition to being extremely critical for its own sake, holds the promise of making a substantial and lasting contribution to the war on terrorism....
Are they all gutless cowards or is the administration blackmailing (or bribing) them all in ways they cannot escape? I discount the small (?) possibility that they could actually be stupid uninformed morons of course...
Posted by: ergos at November 13, 2004 09:53 AMI remember reading something about him endorsing Kerry before the election.
Posted by: la at November 13, 2004 10:03 AMAhem...
----------------------
"...I propose that there be established there a single state, in which every person who declares his intention to live there and adopt citizenship be recognized as a citizen and have one vote. I propose further that the special advantages given to Jews be terminated, that the Palestinians who were forced into exile after 1948, and their descendants, be granted the right to live there, and that the state undertake practical measures to make it possible for them to do so by building housing and extending to them to right to rent or buy, if necessary providing funds to help them. I propose further that both Hebrew and Arabic be declared official state languages to be taught in the schools, that all residents be granted the right to publish newspapers and maintain cultural institutions in any language they choose, that the special position of Orthodox Judaism be ended and that the state declare freedom of worship and make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
NOEL IGNATIEV: Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the People of Palestine--Toward a Single State Solution; Counterpunch, June 17, 2004
http://www.counterpunch.org/ignatiev06172004.html
----------------------
See Also:
-----------
"Remembering General George Marshall’s Clash With Clark Clifford Over Premature Recognition of Israel": Alfred M. Lilienthal; Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, June 1999
http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/marshallclifford.htm
-----------
"America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace": Jimmy Carter; New York Times, 21 Apr 2002
http://www.cartercenter.org/doc949.htm
-----------
"The Troubling New Face of America": Jimmy Carter; Washington Post, 5 Sep 2002
http://www.cartercenter.org/doc1061.htm
-----------
"A Jewish Voice Left Silent: Trying to Articulate 'The Levantine Option'": David Shasha; American Muslim, January-February 2003
http://www.asfonline.org/portal/SpeakersGrid.asp?article_id=9&
-----------
"Just War - or a Just War?": Jimmy Carter; New York Times, 9 Mar 2003
http://www.cartercenter.org/doc1249.htm
-----------
"Two Peoples, One State"; Michael Tarazi; New York Times, 4 Oct 2004
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/palestine/2539.html
Posted by: Mike at November 13, 2004 10:23 AMMy guess is that he can justify his silence through the election by telling himself that it doesn't matter what anyone tells the President or the American people what must be done; the situation on the ground will make the only realistic solution obvious to everyone soon enough.
So Brent Scowcroft can keep his silence until the Dauphin is safely reelected and his conscience is not disturbed.
For what it is worth, Richard Haas'overview of forthcoming policy challenges in last weeks' economists had the same effect on me: it sounded a lot more like a roadmap for a Kerry foreign policy that a roadmap for Bush foreign policy. Haas was Scowcroft's right hand man in 41's NSC, and Powell's director of policy planning.
Posted by: brad at November 13, 2004 10:40 AMFor the good of the Democratic party, the Bush admininstration should NOT be allowed to follow this advice. They should continue their unilateralist policies, stay the course and go all the way.
Say NO to flip floppers!
Posted by: Anonymous at November 13, 2004 11:13 AMThis editorial would have been more realistic if it had ended with an appeal to President Josiah Bartlett to make these changes immediately.
Posted by: Eunoia23 at November 13, 2004 03:45 PMScowcroft is a Saudi tool. He's a paid lobbyist in their employ. Whatever he has to say is suspect.
Posted by: roger at November 13, 2004 04:21 PMIt is too late for Europe to do anything that would stabilize Iraq. Iraq is lost.
We have driven out the secular government of Saddam and destroyed the secular Baath Party.
The only parties left are fundamentalist.
Attacking Falloojeh is like squeezing jello.
Insurgents slip through our fingers while thousands of civilians are dead.
Thousands more civilians are homeless.
We are creating new insurgents faster than we are killing existing ones.
100,000 dead in Iraq. We will kill 100,000 more and it will make no difference.
It is time for the US to leave Iraq to the Iraqis and let them sort it out.
The time for the US to support an acceptable political settlement is passed.
Bush passed up too many opportunities at political settlement already.
We are now down to only options that we do not like.
We can leave now and deal with a fundamentalist regime in charge of an Iraq that is not safe for Americans.
We can continue to support a puppet government and kill a lot more Iraqis, lose a lot more soldiers and deal with an Iraq that is not safe for Americans.
No matter what the outcome, Iraq will be unsafe for Americans for years to come.
This is the legacy of GW Bush.
Scowcroft, as la noted above, has been consistently critical of the Iraq adventure, and stated publicly several times--to the point of eliciting a smear campaign from "Professor Wayback" and his ilk--his support for regime change.
Posted by: Ken Houghton at November 13, 2004 05:12 PMMeanwhile, the Cato Institute reiterates the obvious:
"In the meantime, we should expect that U.S. forces will remain bogged down in street-to-street fighting throughout Iraq. The occupation in Iraq distracts attention from fighting Al Qaeda and incites a new class of terrorists to take up arms against the United States. Iraq was never before a hotbed for anti-American terrorism; today, it is a source for such terrorism, as tens of thousands of Iraqis -- many of whom hated Saddam Hussein -- rise up against the foreigners in their midst."
http://www.cato.org/new/11-04/11-09-04r.html
Posted by: RT at November 13, 2004 05:28 PMIf it's any consolation, I don't think the mouth-breathers who voted for Chimp would care much what Scowcroft had to say.
Polling said 80% of people who voted for Bushh think Iraq is "going well".
Another grain of sand atop the mountain of evidence to the contrary doesn't make much difference for scared people obediently voting for an authoritarian who tells comforting fantasies with faux-macho 'resolve'.
At least some of these people know on some deep level they are being conned, but will violently react against anyone who threatens to expose this.
Posted by: California at November 13, 2004 09:04 PM
As noted above-
Scowcroft has been a prolific critic of the Bush foreign policy. Before the invasion of Iraq in 2002 he wrote a scathing editorial to the WSJ, and was a PBS commentator, and also wrote a book detailing some of his objections. This article details some of that: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2070189.
More recently, he was quoted by the Financial Times (October 14, 2004) in an article title "US Scowcroft Lambasts Bush's Unilateralism". The article quoted him saying that the adminstrations policies were "unilateralist", "generally bad" for European relations, Iraq is a "failing venture", the US administration a pawn for Sharon- "Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger"... "I think the president is mesmerized." Financial Times is subscription access but the article in full is available here and there on the web +Lexis-Nexis.
But who did he vote for? A Boston Globe article on June 3, 2004 "THE REAL DEMOCRAT IN THE RACE" (via the Internet) suggested (in caps): "FOR WHICH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WILL JAMES BAKER, BRENT SCOWCROFT, AND LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER - THE FOREIGN POLICY BARONS OF THE FIRST BUSH ADMINISTRATION - VOTE IN NOVEMBER: FOR THE ONE WHO SHARES THEIR KISSINGERIAN APPROACH TO FOREIGN AFFAIRS, IN WHICH ORDER AND STABILITY ARE MORE IMPORTANT GOALS THAN DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS? OR FOR GEORGE W. BUSH?" (but actually never circled around to definitively answer the question)...
But 'The White House Bulletin', cryptically reported on October 19, 2003 in an article titled; "Scowcroft Remarks Continue to Resonate", re: the FT article: "Scowcroft says his comments were supposed to be off the record, but friends say the printed version in the FT accurately reflects his views. These friends add that the retired general still plans to vote for Bush on November 2 because he thinks John Kerry's policies would be worse. But Democrats are gleefully using Scowcroft's comments in an attempt to discredit Bush's policies. Scowcroft is also reportedly miffed that he isn't consulted very often by Condoleezza Rice, the current national security adviser who was once a Scowcroft protege. He thinks he could have helped the administration avoid some of its current problems. -- Bulletin exclusive from U.S. News"
Sometime during the campaign Kerry had posed his name for a possible position in the ne'er to happen Kerry administration.
Posted by: arlee at November 13, 2004 09:33 PMIsn't it pathetic that Bush I has to lobby his own son to get a word in? "Dear son: When you have a minute, could we do brunch and discuss your exit strategy from Armageddon?"
Posted by: Bob Love at November 13, 2004 11:28 PMIsn't Brent Scowcroft the United States representative on an important international committee? The committee is due to report soon to the S-G with recommendations for reform of the United Nations.
In the interim, Mr Scowcroft has been given another difficult sales job for the US. With the UN being effectively sidelined in Iraq, countries are unwilling to send their manpower to help with the US occupation. It must have been difficult enough in the past for the UN to form a posse; faced with a similar problem, the US's opening offer is that it might reconsider its views on a number of global matters - such as revitalising the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, and Iran.
"The stakes are high" - indeed. However, the US offer may not be serious. In addition to refusing a key ally military technology, a meeting last week with the UK PM was not too encouraging. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=582736
All the fulminations of Americans are useless since they all want to have their cake, eat it too and then reguritate it and make Asia eat it.
This isn't going to last much longer. Our projection of "power" lasts exactly as long as Asia wants it to last and not one minute longer. Ie, when they stop handing us credit at low interest rates, we die as an economy.
Right now, they have various reasons to keep us running. This is about to end. China can't contain their delight that we are bleeding all over the Muslim world, trying desperately to steal the Muslim's natural resources while earning the reputation of being an insane bully boy.
It is no coincidence this week that the busy Chinese have gone to suffering Argentina and told them they will save Argentina from the IMF which is run by Americans who are deeper into debt and committing much worse economic messes than Argentina.
Hey, ho! No economic power=no political power. We can't be the red ink nation and project power.
Posted by: Elaine Supkis at November 14, 2004 05:43 AMThese guys value doing business and making money in the Middle East. They have to balance the lucrative insider deals from the Bush administration with a hapless foreign policy that is making it extremely dangerous to do business anywhere in the Middle East.
Posted by: bakho at November 14, 2004 07:22 AMIt's s shame politics is so partisan. Objectively agreeing or disagreeing with a candidate doesn't happen.
Posted by: Zach at November 14, 2004 08:24 AMRegarding the power of China/Asia,posted above,
Did'ja ever think it'll be tough for Asia to play its cards without oil?
Iraqi action is "state of war" policy --one step up from realpolitic.
Why didja think Paris is eaching out to Beijing and getting cool shoulder.
The next "cold war" began in Near Asia and Iraq. It's US against them. It's called "The War on Terror".
If you want to bet on the Asians at anything resembling even money, post back and we'll figure it out.
Posted by: MyName'sNotJerry at November 14, 2004 09:53 AMDear MyName'sNotJerry at November 14, 2004 09:53 AM:
The "next 'cold war'" is SOOO over.
In fact, it was over BEFORE it even STARTED...
-------------------------
THE END OF CHEAP OIL
by Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrère,
Scientific American, March 1998
http://dieoff.org/page140.htm
-------------------------
And, truth be told--a guy with a handle like yours ought to REALLY appreciate this--not only was it NOT 'cheap'...
-------------------------
Bush's B-Boys Replay Their Greatest Hits
February 9, 2004 http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd02092004.html
------------
U.S. Budget [AND Trade] Deficit[s] Threaten World Economy, IMF Warns
Thursday, January 8, 2004
http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20040108/449_11858.asp
------------
BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION
(Updated 5/27/03)
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html
------------
US dollar hegemony has got to go
April 11, 2002
http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DD11Dj01.html
------------
Ronald Reagan and the Commitment of the Mentally Ill: Capital, Interest Groups, and the Eclipse of Social Policy
(1998)
http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html
------------
James Galbraith on Global Keyensianism
(ca. 1995)
http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/art/artg0002.htm
-------------------------
...It wasn't even 'cold'!
-------------------------
The Earth's life-support system is in peril
January 19, 2004
http://www.iht.com/articles/125563.html
------------
Global Warming
http://www.climatehotmap.org/
-------------------------
Posted by: Mike at November 14, 2004 01:03 PMScowcroft: "A donor pool may need to be organized to provide compensation for both groups." If I were a Palestinian, I would settle for nothing less than a Western standard of living, comparable to that of my Israeli neighbors. Wouldn't you? And I think Europe should pay, since it was their anti-Semitism that drove the Jews out of Europe and started all the trouble in the first place. Of course, such compensation should not be in the form of a lump sum payment, which would be ruinous to the givers as well as the receivers. How about an on-going program of wage subsidies, old age assistance, universal health care, and free public education? Its continuance could be made conditional upon the Palestinian state honoring the terms of any final settlement; thus it would serve as both an incentive to settle that the Palestinian street would probably go for, and a lever to insure future compliance. It would cost about 1 percent of European GDP a year for a couple of generations, or until the Palestinian economy caught up with the Israeli one.
Posted by: Luke Lea at November 14, 2004 03:27 PMLetters to the Editor
New York Times
December 4, 1948
New Palestine Party
Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed
TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States...
(Scanned original)
http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/einstein/nyt_orig.html
Posted by: Mike at November 14, 2004 04:02 PMTo be fair to Scowcroft, he said all of this last summer. He was not holding back.
Posted by: Jim Harris at November 15, 2004 05:00 AMLuke Lea:
Of course, and for consistency purposes, the US would institute the same payments for African Americans and Native Americans?
As far as I know (i.e. from first hand experience) the Palestinians tend to not expect charity but justice.
They also overwhelmingly believe that the sole reason they have been denied justice is biased US policy.
Those US policy include the highest amount of US financial contribution per foreign head being paid to Israel for the sole benefit of the (jewish) Israeli people.
One easy modification to your suggestion is that the US would withdraw its financial contributions to Israel until an appropriate settlement is reached and/or balance it between Israel and Palestinians after that...
Scowcroft: "...the United States should indicate a willingness to modify its sanctions regime and thereby its relationship to Iran, were Iran willing to restrain Hezbollah and exercise its influence over other extremist groups..."
Oh yeah. That's good. And the US should likewise insist that Japan indicate some willingness to "restrain" the Yakuza, and "exercise influence" over Aum Shinrikyo.
I admit being a Texan. Okay, I'm real simple about such things. But are Hezbollah, et al, criminal enterprises operating outside the realm of law, and therefore subject to international law enforcement effort? Or, are such groups nation/state sponsored military operation agencies? You gotta spell this stuff out for me. Are the mullahs in charge of the bombers or not?
_IF_ it is assumed that a nation has some actual control, ability to restrain, influence -- or in the alternative encourage, enable, empower, or direct the operations of -- a group, then it seems to me that conventional military/diplomtic deterence and treaty all applies. "If one of our ships, like say _The Maine_, should explode it means war. If any of our territory is bombed, like Pearl Harbor, it means war. If a nuke goes off over a US City, in means totally massive total retaliatory annihilation.
On the other hand. If we assume that bad people run loose doing bad things, despite joint efforts among folks of good will to establish community standards, international law, police forces, mutual neighborhood watch parties ... Then it's kinda odd to talk about "restraining" such evil. I expect your cops to police your neighborhood, and mine to work mine; but I expect both to work together as criminals skip across jurisdictions. And if you can't work with me, then at least keep out of my way.
I'm prepared to assume that the howling beasts in the forest are wolves -- answerable to no man. But if you claim that these are NOT wolves, that these are, instead, dogs ... feral, perhaps; untrained, over the fence, and not wearing their tags, but dogs. Dogs that you cherish and intend to tame and make productive useful partners and pets of ...
Then I don't feel any obligation to pay you or otherwise help you to collar your own "dog". Y claim it, you leash it. And you leash your dog tight enough so that my kid can play in her own front yard without fear, or by god you AND the dog will be facing my shotgun. That's pretty simple.
Does Scowcroft REALLY mean to suggest that Hezbollah is Iran's dog?
Posted by: pouncer at November 15, 2004 11:16 AMPissing stories pee cam, pee cam pee videos. Pee lover piss on me, piss watersports. Pee drinking free pissing pictures, pee video free piss pics. Pissing in public pee pee, female pissing piss in mouth. Pee cam pee drinking, pee movies piss porn. Girl piss piss girls, watersports pissing teens. Woman pissing pissing sex, pee lover pee girls.
Pissing woman piss drinker, free pissing movies free pee pics. Pissing women pee sex, pissing lesbians piss in mouth. Piss porn pissing pussies, free pissing stories pee drinkers. Pissing gallery pissing in public, piss girls piss porn. Free pissing videos pee standing, pissing sex women pissing. Pee porn piss pants, pee panties piss pictures. Piss drinkers pee stories, pissing stories panty pee.
Posted by: pee videos at November 22, 2004 10:08 AMPissing stories pee cam, pee cam pee videos. Pee lover piss on me, piss watersports. Pee drinking free pissing pictures, pee video free piss pics. Pissing in public pee pee, female pissing piss in mouth. Pee cam pee drinking, pee movies piss porn. Girl piss piss girls, watersports pissing teens. Woman pissing pissing sex, pee lover pee girls.
Pissing woman piss drinker, free pissing movies free pee pics. Pissing women pee sex, pissing lesbians piss in mouth. Piss porn pissing pussies, free pissing stories pee drinkers. Pissing gallery pissing in public, piss girls piss porn. Free pissing videos pee standing, pissing sex women pissing. Pee porn piss pants, pee panties piss pictures. Piss drinkers pee stories, pissing stories panty pee.
Posted by: pee videos at November 22, 2004 10:09 AM3681 http://www.top-texas-hold-em.com
texas hold em
Posted by: texas hold em at November 22, 2004 04:05 PMTalk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. Euripides (484 BC - 406 BC), The Bacchae, circa 407 B.C.
Posted by: consolidation debt hl in program at November 22, 2004 10:20 PM5220 Kona Coffee Starbucks Coffee Jamaica Blue Mountain
Coffee
coffee maker gourmet coffee green mountain coffee kenya coffee organic coffee specialty coffee folgers coffee coffee brewers costa rica coffee Tullys Coffee Millstone Coffee coffee grinder
http://www.coffee-delivered.com
You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
dental plan.
Dental
insurance is
money well spent. I sleep better since I signed up for my new dental insurance
plan.
Get yours at: http://dental-insurance-plan.freeservers.com/
individual
dental
plans
You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
dental plan.
Dental
insurance is
money well spent. I sleep better since I signed up for my new
dental insurance
plan.
Get yours at:
http://www.dental-plan-source.com
individual dental
plans
You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
dental plan.
Dental
insurance is
money well spent. I sleep better since I signed up for my new
dental insurance
plan. Get yours at:
http://www.e-dental-insurance-plans.com/
individual dental
plans
5917 Kona Coffee Starbucks Coffee Jamaica Blue Mountain
Coffee
coffee maker gourmet coffee green mountain coffee kenya coffee organic coffee specialty coffee folgers coffee coffee brewers costa rica coffee Tullys Coffee Millstone Coffee coffee grinder
http://www.coffee-delivered.com
You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
dental plan.
Dental
insurance is
money well spent. I sleep better since I signed up for my new dental insurance
plan.
Get yours at: http://dental-insurance-plan.freeservers.com/
individual
dental
plans
You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
dental plan.
Dental
insurance is
money well spent. I sleep better since I signed up for my new
dental insurance
plan.
Get yours at:
http://www.dental-plan-source.com
individual dental
plans
You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
dental plan.
Dental
insurance is
money well spent. I sleep better since I signed up for my new
dental insurance
plan. Get yours at:
http://www.e-dental-insurance-plans.com/
individual dental
plans
Really good looking site
Posted by: Upskirts Mania at November 27, 2004 11:09 AM7205 Very well said chappy.
Posted by: click at November 27, 2004 10:41 PM