Month: September 2010

No sooner did my column on the shortcomings of Rand Paul appear online then Brian Doherty was out with a long blog post on the Reason magazine web site, which starts out:

“I’m already hearing whispers especially from the antiwar libertarian hardcore that a strangely respectful and nuanced profile of the GOP Senate candidate from Kentucky via The New Republic‘s Jason Zengerle in GQ is giving them all the more reason to dislike or fear him.”

Respectful? The article is illustrated with a photo of Rand sitting in what looks like a television studio dressed in a suit and tie from the waist up, and yellow madras Bermuda shorts. He’s wearing dress shoes, and no socks. His face bears the expression of an errant schoolboy who’s been kept after school, his cheeks puffed out like an exasperated blowfish. Zengerles’ kindest description of the candidate, eagerly cited by Doherty, reads as follows:

“Unlike some of the prominent Tea Party leaders he’s routinely lumped in with, Paul is not an idiot.”

Doherty’s reaction – he’s thrilled by such extravagant praise — must leave his libetarian readers baffled, who don’t understand what a high it is to be considered undiotic by an editor of The New Republic.

Truly a pathetic display, one that reveals the existence of yet a new libertarian faction: the libertarian masochists. The piece goes downhill from there, as Doherty tries to frame the growing intra-libertarian debate over the Rand Paul sellout as just a lot of noise made by a few noisome dissenters of the “hardcore” variety:

“Unpromising indeed for those who love Rand’s dad Ron’s political bravery and sense on matters of foreign intervention. And I understand why that is infuriating to the extent that Rand is seen as some sort of gold standard for what “libertarian” or even “libertarian-leaning” is going to mean in American politics. But if you are just looking at him as a potential Senate candidate for the Republican Party, well, that means that maybe he’ll be just as bad as every single other one of them on foreign policy. Disappointing, yes, but not infuriating.”

Not unless you’re one of the thousands of libertarians who, prompted by the endorsement of Rand’s father, either gave money or else were talked into actively campaigning for him – in which case waking up to find that you’ve elected someone “just as bad as every single other one of them on foreign policy” would indeed be infuriating.

Doherty then rhapsodizes about all the really really great things Senator Paul will be able to do: form a “Tea Party caucus” in the Senate, alongside Sharon Angle and Jim DeMint – a caucus, by the way, that is opposed by the actual tea party movement, but never mind that. He cites Zengerle, who avers:

“It’s one thing to oppose Obama; it’s another to oppose legislation and threaten relationships that have been central to how the GOP does business.”

Oh, and what are these “relationships” that are “central” to the GOP establishment’s machinations? “Paul doesn’t support the military spending most of his fellow Republicans slobber over” –- perhaps once, but if Kristol, Senor, and Donnelly didn’t talk him out of that, then AIPAC surely did.

“He doesn’t support handing out big fat prescription-drug benefits to private insurance companies.” – well, maybe, but he sure opposes any reform of Medicare, meaning any cuts in the program, and no wonder: a great deal of his medical patients are Medicare clients.

“He doesn’t support the earmarks that Republican senators, especially McConnell, use to curry favor with voters back home” – this is a phony issue. As Ron Paul has correctly pointed out, earmarks merely mean that money goes to local projects instead of into a general nationalized fund to be disbursed by Washington bureaucrats. Opposition to earmarks is hardly “libertarian.”

Doherty enthuses: “What sensible American doesn’t say hoo-damn-ray to that?” Nice try, Brian, but my own response is so the f—k what? And just when you thought Doherty couldn’t be more unconvincing if he tried, he outdoes himself by defending the likening of Obama to … Hitler. Or to the rise of Hitler: or something like that. Oh, and to top it off we are told Rand violates Godwin’s Law “with nuance and intelligence,” no less!

Poor Doherty: faced with the Sisyphean task of “spinning” what Andrew Sullivan accurately calls Zengerles’ “hit piece” as evidence of a Strange New Respect for Rand Paul, he pulls out all the stops – to no avail. In the end, he is reduced to this:

“The [Zengerle] piece leaves me feeling about Rand Paul as I already did: not as good as his dad; likely better than every other Senator of his party. And it leaves me a little more sure that any success he has won’t be successfully used to shame or marginalize the domestic limited-government movement writ large (except to the extent that it distances it from anti-interventionism, which remains lamentable).”

Lamentable, but not essential – because it’s “hoo-damn ray” for Rand Paul, who thinks Obama is a Nazi, and is “solicitous” of an organization plumbing for war with Iran on Israel’s behalf. Only the “antiwar hardcore” libertarians care about such things: little matter that this is the majority of libertarians in the US.

What I find troubling is that the same magazine that ran countless article smearing the elder Paul as a racist, an anti-Semite, and a embarrassment to the libertarian movement — written largely by a writer who is today employed as a professional anti-libertarian smear-monger for Slate.com and MSNBC —  is now extolling Paul the Lesser, who is a genuine embarrassment and openly panders to racist anti-Muslim hysteria. There’s an agenda here, but what is it: moral inversion? Bizarro World “logic”? Or simply a desire to sell out for the lowest possible price?

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 23rd, 2010:

The Wall Street Journal: Jay Solomon and Richard Boudreaux (with Farnaz Fassihi) write that while Iran hints it might be ready to resume talks on its nuclear program, U.S. and EU officials remain skeptical of any breakthrough. They note criticism from U.S. “allies such as Israel” who think “Tehran could be only months from achieving a nuclear weapons capability” and that talks are just a stalling technique. Nonetheless, an unnamed U.S. official tells the Journal that the U.S. and its allies are “focused heavily on preparations for […] talks.” Even so, the sanctions track continues with the U.S. applauding a Russian ban on selling missiles to Iran (see below). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to meet her counterpart from Syria on Monday for the first time. The authors note that, with Syria as one of Iran’s closest allies, this could portend an effort to weaken the ties between these two countries.

Foreign Policy: Former National Iranian American Council assistant policy director Patrick Disney writes about the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) — the dissident Iranian exile group labeled a “foreign terrorist organization” by the State Department — and its efforts to make inroads on Capitol Hill. Disney frames the piece with a resolution sponsored by Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), which already has 83 co-sponsors, which calls on the U.S. government to support regime change by supporting the MEK. Disney gives a summary of the group and its activities, its supporters (in and outside of Congress) and detractors (including former members), and what appears to be MEK’s ultimate goal: “to be removed from the terrorist list and to gain US backing in their fight against Iran’s clerical government.” Describing the group as a sort of “Ahmad Chalabi for Iran” (something we’ve written about), Disney enumerates reasons why using the MEK for regime change — and regime change itself — is not such a great idea: “[T]hey continue to call for American bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iran. De-listing the MEK would signal US backing for the group’s agenda, including regime change operations…” He concludes, “It should go without saying that Rep. Filner’s proposal is the wrong way for Iran”

The New York Times: Andrew E. Kramer reports Russia has ended its talks on exporting S-300 air defense missiles to Iran. Through a post on his website, Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev announced that Russia interprets the latest round of UN sanctions as prohibiting the sale of major weapons systems to Iran. This announcement puts to rest U.S. and Israeli concerns that Russia might go forward with a major arms deal with Tehran, which could have strengthened Iran’s air defenses against a military strike on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

The Wall Street Journal: In his weekly column, Bret Stephens describes attending a Tuesday morning breakfast host by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Stephens, known for his hawkish views on Iran, describes the breakfast as, “We get access to Ahmadinejad—and the feeling of self-importance that goes with that. In exchange, we pay him court.” Ahmadinejad, according to various accounts, deflected questions by offered lengthy monologues tangential to the issues. He denied the Iranian economy was negatively impacted by sanctions and rejected allegations that opposition leaders’ offices were raided last month. He also stated, “There is a good chance that [nuclear] talks will resume in the near future,” and downplayed the threat of an Israeli or U.S. military strike. Stephens concluded with a cautionary warning. “Perhaps I haven’t achieved the appropriate degree of jadedness, but my own impression of Ahmadinejad was that he was easily the smartest guy in the room. He mocked us in a way we scarcely had the wit to recognize. We belittle him at our peril.”

Nine years after the U.S. military began bombing Kabul, the war continues with thousands of American military and Afghan civilians dead. On Wednesday, October 6, Antiwar.com Development Director Angela Keaton will be joined by Daniel Ellsberg, Republican candidate John Dennis (8^th Cong. District), labor leader Michael Eisenscher, and radio host Karel. The free event will be held at the First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco (1187 Franklin Street) at 6p.m. and is open to the public.

Antiwar.com founder Eric Garris will be live on WBAI’s “Behind the News” today at 5:10 p.m. ET to discuss the emergence of the antiwar Republicans, the left-right antiwar coalition, and why Obama’s war in Afghanistan has disarmed the traditional antiwar movement. Listen live!

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 22nd, 2010:

Politico: Former Amb. Stuart Eizenstat and Mark Brzezinski, a former Clinton NSC official and Obama campaign adviser, write an opinion piece raising the curtain on the upcoming National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran. They call the 2007 NIE, which said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program, “a severe setback for U.S. efforts to isolate Iran,” and hope this year’s incarnation “answer the right questions and get the analysis straight.” They then launch into a series of those “right questions,” such as wondering just how big Iran’s stockpile of nuclear material is, what advances it makes toward potential weaponization, what Iran’s nuclear time frame is, and whether the IAEA would “be able to even detect a rapid push by Iran for a weapon” (the Arms Control Assoc.’s Peter Crail answered the last question with a definitive ‘yes’ a week ago). They also wonder if there is a consensus in Iran about acquiring nuclear weapons and ask if a “democratic Iran” would still pursue the alleged weapons program. They also ask questions about the sanctions-busting of Turkey and China; wonder about the prospects for the opposition Green Movement; and what type of regional role Iran seeks.

Los Angeles Times: Paul Richter writes from New York that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that there is a “good chance” that Iran will come back to the negotiating table with the West over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. The talks are “bound to happen,” Ahmadinejad told a group of reporters who ate breakfast with him Tuesday morning. “What is left is talks…. There’s no other way,” he added, also saying, “there is no alternative.” Ray Takeyh, a former Obama administration and fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that while Ahmadinejad has been a booster of engagement, Iran’s real head-of-state, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, remains opposed. Richter also reported other statements from Ahmadinejad where he warned that war “has no limits” — a reference to a potential U.S. or Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites. An Iranian political scientist traveling with the Iranian delegation to the UN General Assembly told Richter that “there had been behind-the-scenes diplomatic conversations and that a resumption of U.S.-Iran talks might be announced soon.”

The Washington Post: In an interview with Lally Weymouth, Turkish president Abdullah Gul defended his country’s enforcement of sanctions against Iran and Ankarah’s relations with Israel and the U.S. Gul said that Turkey abides by binding sanctions against Iran and will not allow a controversial Iranian bank to operate within Turkey, called on Iran to be more transparent with its nuclear program and denounced Israel’s raid on the Gaza flotilla. Defending his willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad, Gul said, “We tell them to be more conciliatory,” and called on the U.S. to better understand the constructive role that Turkey plays in diplomatic negotiations with Iran. “[W]e have the capacity to help and I believe the U.S. administration has understood that, and they want us to continue to go that route,” he said.

Foreign Policy: Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar writes about the Iranian perception of U.S. sanctions and warns that while “these ongoing pressures might bite, but they can also empower the IRGC and other institutions that are able to do an end run around the sanctions and get the country what it needs from the black market.” More importantly, says Tabaar, the sanctions reaffirm Ayatollah Khamenei’s strategy of portraying his country’s domestic policies through an ant-U.S. prism. With a sanctions regime, “Khamenei remains content with the status quo: more sanctions and isolation. It conforms to his worldview, his experience and his vocabulary,” but “if Khamenei sees a possible scenario that ensures his (and I emphasize his, not the moderates’, not the conservatives’, not the clerics’, not even Ahmadinejad’s, but his) grip on power, he may very well take it into consideration.” Tabaar reports that news sources traditionally aligned with Khamanei have indicated the Turkish-Brazilian mediated agreement on nuclear fuel shipment could offer a real opportunity for meaningful progress to be made towards a mutually acceptable negotiated agreement between the U.S. and Iran.

— from the new book of White House insiders’ leaks to a Washington journalist –

9/11 worked out great for Leviathan and the political class, but it has been hell on the freedoms and taxpayers of America.