With the US dollar on the decline, a recession possibly on the horizon, and our post-9/11 reputation diminished greatly, much of the world is looking elsewhere for leadership.
The latest , titled "The Post American World," explores how the world is looking beyond America:
The post-American world is naturally an unsettling prospect forAmericans, but it should not be. This will not be a world defined bythe decline of America but rather the rise of everyone else. It is theresult of a series of positive trends that have been progressing overthe last 20 years, trends that have created an international climate ofunprecedented peace and prosperity.
It's a good read. I encourage you all to take a look at it.
Just to note, one of the reasons why I support Barack Obama is because I believe heis the one most capable of restoring that sense of worldwideAmericanism. We need an internationalist in the White House.
You'd think someone would have figured out before:
Nobel Peace Prize winner and internationalsymbol of freedom Nelson Mandela is flagged on U.S. terrorist watchlists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice calls the situation "embarrassing," and some membersof Congress vow to fix it.
The requirement applies to former South Africanleader Mandela and other members of South Africa's governing AfricanNational Congress (ANC), the once-banned anti-Apartheid organization.In the 1970s and '80s, the ANC was officially designated a terroristgroup by the country's ruling white minority. Other countries,including the United States, followed suit.
Because of this, Rice told a Senate committeerecently, her department has to issue waivers for ANC members to travelto the USA.
It like both Condoleezza Rice and Democratic members in Congress will change his status. The real question is why, following a situation like that, would Mandela even want to come here?
Back in 2003, Paul Wolfowitz Congress that Iraqi oil would finance the reconstruction. More than $1 trillion of US taxpayer money later, Condoleezza Rice is naming :
Paul Wolfowitz, forced to resign from the World Bank because of hisrole in obtaining a high-paying promotion for his companion, is slatedto chair a U.S. State Department advisory panel on arms control, a U.S.official said on Monday.
The official, who spoke on condition that he not be named because ofthe appointment has not yet been made public, said U.S. Secretary ofState Condoleezza Rice planned to name the former deputy defensesecretary and an architect of the Iraq war to chair the InternationalSecurity Advisory Board.
The board gives the State Department independent advice on armscontrol, disarmament, international security and other matters and itsmembers include two former directors of the U.S. Central IntelligenceAgency.
It underscores the fact that neoconservatives still have a significance on policy in Washington, especially as it pertains to matters of arms control. The only way we can kick them out is by clearing the slate in '08.
The war in Afghanistan has lasted six years -- more than the Iraq war and World War II. And six years later, the Bush Administration can only report :
A White House assessment of the war in Afghanistan has concluded that wide-ranging strategic goals that the Bush administration set for 2007 have not been met, even as U.S. and NATO forces have scored significant combat successes against resurgent Taliban fighters, according to U.S. officials.
The evaluation this month by the National Security Councilfollowed an in-depth review in late 2006 that laid out a series ofprojected improvements for this year, including progress in security,governance and the economy. But the latest assessment concluded thatonly "the kinetic piece" -- individual battles against Taliban fighters-- has shown substantial progress, while improvements in the otherareas continue to lag, a senior administration official said.
Not only did Prime Minister John Howard's party last night, and not only will there be a new Australian chief executive, but Howard may even in parliament:
Mr Howard, who had been bidding for a fifth term inoffice, conceded the national election and accepted it was "verylikely" he would also be defeated in his Bennelong constituency.
If unseated, the 68-year-old would be only the second prime minister in Australia's history to suffer such a fate.
If you recall, Howard was the one who said earlier this year that a victory for Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2008 would be a :
"If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only forObama, but also for the Democrats," Howard said, speaking on "Sunday,"a TV show on Australia's Nine Network.
Hopefully this marks the beginning of the end of right-wing ethnic fear-mongering in Australia. They still have a long way to go though.
This weekend, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and . In a nutshell, that means martial law has been enacted. The military , shut down and isolated parts of the capital of Islamabad. Pakistan's judiciary were escorted out after the Chief Justice was , and the recently deposed Prime Minister spoke from .
As it all boils down, Pakistan represents a much greater problem than Iran, and it is disappointing that the Bush Administration took their eyes completely off the ball in the east. While we were busy attacking Iraq, al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouped along the border region with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now, terrorism is so out of control there that Pakistan's president is taking matters into is own hands, as the military regime is on the verge of falling.
Why is this significant? Pakistan has nuclear weapons -- Iran does not. If Musharraf's regime collapses, nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of right-wing religious fundamentalists that are staunchly anti-US.
On NBC Nightly News last night, Lester Holt outlined how serious this matter is:
Correctly, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposes this sudden suspension of constitutional law on the part of Bush's ally Pervez Musharraf. However, unilateral rhetoric is not enough. The United Nations Security Council would be wise to convene immediately. The US has over-extended itself, and does not have the diplomatic experience at the helm of any foreign policy-related department to solve this problem on its own. The international community needs to get involved immediately -- that means the hawkish war rhetoric on Iran needs to be put on the back-burner until this matter is defused.
Thus the two and a half year reign of former Bush campaign manager Karen Hughes as the State Department's head of American public diplomacy. Her job was to turn around the world's negative image towards the United States. We all know how well that has gone.
Astonishingly, on Halloween Condoleezza Rice called spectacular. Spooky indeed:
Rice told the assembled State Department staff that Hughes carried outher public diplomacy work in "spectacular fashion." She listed herefforts toward Muslim outreach and other public diplomacy programs likea rapid response unit to counter negative stories about America andsetting up regional media hubs around the world that deployed ForeignService officers into local communities, as successes.
Spectacular fashion, eh? Kind of like how, according to President Bush, the war in Iraq has been a .
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) will not run for reelection in 2008. Before his term expires, he plans to do everything to prevent a war with Iran. In a (.pdf) to President Bush, secretly obtained by the blog, Hagel begs the President to engage in direct, unconditional talks with Iran to prevent the neocons' biggest fantasy from coming true:
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I write to urge you to consider pursuing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.
In the last two years, the United States has worked closely with thepermanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, Japan, and otherkey states as well as the UN Secretary General and the Director Generalof the International Atomic Energy Agency to pursue a diplomaticstrategy regarding Iran's nuclear program. I have supported yourefforts. Maintaining a cohesive and united international front remainsone of our most effective levers on Iran.
In the last year, you have also authorized our Ambassador in Iraq,Ryan Crocker, to hold bilateral talks with Iranian officials regardingthe situation in Iraq. I have also supported this effort. Although Iranhas continued dangerous actions in Iraq, this channel for dialogue isimportant.
I am increasingly concerned, however, that this diplomatic strategyis stalling. There are growing differences with our internationalpartners. Concerns remain that the United States' actual objectives isregime change in Iran, not a change in Iran's behavior. Prospects forfurther action in the UN Security Council have grown dim, and we appearincreasingly reliant on a single-track effort to expand financialpressure on Iran outside of the UN Security Council. Iran's actions,both on its nuclear program and in Iraq, are unchanged. Iran's leadersappear increasingly confident in their positions vis-a-vis the UnitedStates.
Unless there is a strategic shift, I believe we will find ourselvesin a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months.I do not see how the collective actions that we are now taking willproduce the results that we seek. If this continues, our ability tosustain a united international front will weaken as countries growuncertain over our motives and unwilling to risk open confrontationwith Iran, and we are left with fewer and fewer policy options.
Now is the time for the United States to active consider when andhow to offer direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran.The offer should be made even as we continue to work with our allies onfinancial pressure, in the UN Security Council on a third sanctionsresolution, and in the region to support those Middle East countrieswho share our concerns with Iran. The November report by IAEA DirectorGeneral ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors could provide anopportunity to advance the offer of bilateral talks.
An approach such as this would strengthen our ability across theboard to deal with Iran. Our friends and allies would be more confidentto stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including toughersanctions on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iranrelations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility ofbetter relations with the West. We should be prepared that any dialogueprocess with Iran will take time, and we should continue all efforts,as you have, to engage Iran from a position of strength.
We should not wait to consider the option of bilateral talks untilall other diplomatic options are exhausted. At that point, it couldwell be too late.
I urge you to consider pursing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.
Thank you for considering my views.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Chuck H.
Chuck Hagel United States Senator
cc: Condoleezza Rice
Robert M. Gates
Stephen J. Hadley
At least he is ending his career with this aggressive attitude. Remember, the Republicans used to be the party of isolation. is trying to fill that vacuum. Speaking of whom, Ron Paul on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno earlier this week.
Recently, the Bush Administration changed its strategy of letting China control negotiations with North Korea to engaging with Kim Jong IL's regime directly. The State Department is to thank for persuading Bush to . Ironically, this is just a few years after Condoleezza Rice was that bilateral talks would not work. Now they are on the edge of a breakthrough.
This new approach is upsetting Dick Cheney. One of the Vice President's loyal soldiers, John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is to undercut any bilateral successes with the North:
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton is urging GOP lawmakers tooppose the Bush administration’s recent agreement with North Korea toend its nuclear programs, according to House Republican sources.
WhileBolton’s skepticism of North Korea is well-known, this is believed tobe the first time a former top adviser to the president has taken theunusual step of lobbying against a pillar of the administration’scurrent foreign policy. It is particularly surprising given the valuethe administration has placed on loyalty.
If North Korea disarms, that would give the U.S. a reason to stop flexing its sticks as much in Southeast Asia. Cheney's allies do not want that.
Remember, it was John Bolton that Bush brought in by way of recess appointment because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee him. And it was this same John Bolton who was responsible for the with North Korea earlier this decade when he had a different job under Bush.
Bolton desperately wants to prevent any breakthrough with the North, and will go to great lengths to do that -- even if it goes against Bush. And as we have seen from , Bolton never does anything without Dick Cheney's approval.
Just think: a sitting Vice President trying to undercut a sitting President. Has this happened before?
In a much anticipated foreign policy speech at Georgetown University, Bill Richardson helped himself by taking a position that most Democratic activists agree with, and could vault him up a notch in Iowa and New Hampshire. More importantly, if he does become a top-tier candidate, his popular view on the war may force Obama, Hillary and Edwards to take a more dovish position. Richardson is the only major candidate in either party with a clear plan to get all troops out of Iraq.
Here is what I think was the best part of his today. He starts with the issue of military contractors:
We must also remove the private mercenaries. As President, I will no longer privatize and outsource American security!By utilizing contractors who are not subject to the rules of war or theregulations of armed forces, George Bush has further underminedAmerica's reputation and global leadership.
And then he zeroed in on the other contenders:
After seven years of this Administration, we have come to expect thatGeorge Bush will make the wrong call on the important issues.
However, I expected more -- much more -- from my fellow Democrats in this race.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have said we have towait and see how things go before we can know how many troops to bringout and how quickly. I say there has been enough waiting and seeing. Ifyou haven't seen enough to know that we need to get all the troops outthen you aren't watching the same war that I and the rest of Americaare seeing. I don't think just changing the mission is enough -- weneed to end the war.
Lastly, he exposed the fact that Clinton's Iraq plan would leave troops in Iraq for up to nine years:
Senator Clinton has reportedly said thatshe might well have troops still in Iraq at the end of a second term --9 years from now. Senator Obama and John Edwards are unwilling tocommit to removing all of the troops by the end of their first term --that's 5 years from now. I am opposed to 5 years or 9 years or any moreyears of our troops dying. My colleagues are wrong.
Military analysts have said that Senator Clinton's plan could require leaving up to 75,000 troops in Iraq.
That's changing the mission, not ending the war.
Maybe a question for Edwards, Obama and Hillary in the next debate should be how would leaving ANY combat troops in Iraq help our overall situation AT ALL? I want to listen to them try and defend that.
Obama is probably the closest to Richardson's position. However, for Obama, it's not enough to say, "I was against the war before it started." The past is history. What do you want to do now? How would keeping US combat troops in Iraq decrease terrorist recruitment throughout the world over the next generation? Answer it, please.
In related news, explains that with the retirement of Republican Pete Domenici in Mexico, Bill Richardson could possibly decide to withdraw from the presidential race and run for that Senate seat instead.
Recent Comments