Why snipergate matters: a European Perspective

by brit, Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:24:11 PM EST

Update [2008-3-31 16:11:10 by brit]: This has just got worse. Christopher Hitchens has just posted an article in the Slate to prove what I always suspected. It was Hillary, who as reported then, was against early intervention because she'd read The Ghosts of War, and convinaced Bill that Bosnia was an ancient tribal quagmire

http://www.slate.com/id/2187780/

Bosnia is now coming back to haunt the Clintons, and so it should. Though both America, and the Clintons, are loved in Bosnia for finally forcing intervention after the Srebrenica massacre of 2005, the whole Tuzla Tale media outrage has made me revisit my feelings about the Clintons and American foreign policy in the 1990s

Let me be totally frank. In the end it took the US to silence the Serb guns which had encircled the civilian populations of Bosnia for three years. For Europeans of my generation, the final and effective use of US military power totally changed our mindset about US foreign policy. Through the post Vietnam years, especially in Latin America, myself and fellow left wingers had seen American power as mainly pernicious. Bosnia changed all that. We finally saw the use of military force for humanitarian reasons. The US showed Europeans how ineffective they were at policing their own continent.

This new belief in liberal intervention spurred the actions to defend the Albanian majority in Kosovo, and eventually brought down Slobodon Milosevic and his wild genocidal nationalism. It obviously went completely awry in Iraq, but that's another matter.

What matters here is that Hillary's 'misspeaking' about Tuzla - her reckless embellishment of her own heroics, her misuse of personal danger, show shocking disrepect to the 200,000 people, mainly civilians caught in real sniper fire and mortar attack, who died in the biggest conflict in Europe since world war II.

Iraq has a similiar number of casualties (by educated guess) but it's population (20 million) is five times as big as Bosnia.

As a European deeply involved in the Yugoslav wars of the 90s, her fib is much more audacious and repellent than anything Jeremiah Wright has ever said.

It makes me realise how complicit the Clinton's were in dragging their feet and intervening to save Bosnians as the genocide began. Check out Roger Cohen's brilliant devastating critique of the Clinton's in the New York Times yesterday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/opinion/27Cohen.html

Cohen is a brave and gifted journalist, probably one of the best to cover the former Yugoslav wars, and wrote a heart rending book - Hearts Grown Brutal - about it.

Given the shameless disregard for history and foreign affairs Hillary and her advisors have shown over this tragic war, I am amazed that no-one has resigned.

Ironically, one of the other great journalists to cover the war, and to pen a Pulitzer Prize winning book about Genocide as a result of it, is Samantha Power.

Power had to resign for describing Hillary, off the record, as a monster.

Given the real monstrosity of what happened in Bosnia, and Hillary's cavalier disregard for that, can we please have Samantha Power back?

Update [2008-3-31 16:11:10 by brit]: Having heard Clinton supporters aver that Hillary was pushing for intervention, when she was doing the reverse, her lie seems all the more egregious and shameful. It's not only valour theft, but victim theft
Poll
To atone for Snipergate Hillary should...
Make a public apology to the people of America
Make a public apology to the people of Bosnia
Reject and renounce lies
Ask for Samantha Power to be reinstated
Resign from the campaign
Pretend it didn't happen

Votes: 6
Results : Vote Link : Polls


Tags: Hillary Clinton, Bosnia, Snipergate, Tuzla Tale, Europe, Samantha Power (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 38 Comments :: Post a Comment


I used to ride the train with a Bosnian refugee (2.00 / 2)

and she was SO grateful to the US for SAVING HER LIFE she felt.. they were uprooted from their home in the Serbian part of the former Yugoslavia and forced to flee.. and were robbed along the way..

Thats a REAL European perspective, first hand...


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:33:01 PM EST

Absolutely (none / 0)

Thank God the US finally intervened. Many lives were saved.

But this is too important to lie about. And though I thanked the Clintons then, I am shocked that they don't get the shame attached to misusing a genocide this way.

I just think she should put this to rest by apologising.


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:56:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am tired of all these hit diaries... (2.00 / 1)

Your diary is titled "Why snipergate matters"

But in your diary, you refrain from providing us any actual reasons as to why it does matter.  The closest you come is that it "shows disrespect" to those who died in Bosnia !  Do you have a direct line to those who have died, and know what they would be offended by ?  I suspect the people in Bosnia differ with you on that.  

And as to your argument that "the Clinton's were in dragging their feet" rather than helping Bosnia ~ you must have slept through the 90s like Rip Van Winkle.

The truth is that Clinton campaigned in 1992 on the promise that he would bomb Belgrade if he had to...in order to stop the fighting in Bosnia.  The people who dragged their feet were the Europeans (does the name David Owens mean anything to you ?) and the US military (Colin Powell was the Chief of Staff, and he was predicting a quagmire).


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:43:31 PM EST

This is not a hit diary (none / 0)

I am and was passionately engaged with the Bosnian conflict. I did admire the US's intervention. But it took a long time coming.

Read Roger Cohen's piece. I know the Europeans dragged their feet. But Bill also wavered too long.

This is personal for me. As personal as may be the 'damn the United states' is for others.

If Hillary had apologised, I would have never felt this way. But she has just spun it. And anyone misusing this tragedy in a European political campaign would have to resign.


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:54:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is a hit diary (none / 0)

Where is the European perspective on why "snipergate matters", as you promise in your title ?

And citing Roger Cohen's one sided recital of history does not help.  US intervention only took a long time coming because of jelly kneed European, who wanted to try negotiations forever.

Do you have any proof that "Bill wavered too long", as you assert in another hit sentence ?

And oh..please spare the "holier than thou" European attitude (anyone doing this in a European campaign would have resigned) ~ I can provide you with a long list of european politicians who have done much worse, and not have to resign.  You can probably start with all the European politicians who did drag their feet in Bosnia, since you are so "passionately engaged" with that conflict.


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have spent 15 odd years... (none / 0)

..criticising the European politicians who dragged their feet while hundreds of thousands died.

You think Cohen is one sided? Give me another source which says Clinton was eager to intervene, despite his campaign trail promises, and I'll give you plenty more which point out how he believed it was a 'quagmire' and 'a european problem' until 1995.

But I praise him for his actions, and if you read my piece, have nothing but thanks for American intervention.

BUT...

This does not detract, nor should it distract, from the case at hand: Hillary's repeated spin about her false version of events.

Why can't she just come out and apologise properly? Address the issue, the same way Obama did when Jeremiah Wright's tirades came out?

I don't understand it. And yes, I did respect the Clintons, and yes, until about six weeks ago, I thought that Hillary was an honourable politician.

That belief has gone now, and makes me wonder about my previous belief in Bill

Just saying...


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:25:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lift and strike !! (none / 0)

(a) I am still waiting for that "european perspective on why snipergate matters"

(b) can you cite any European politican that got canned for inaction in Bosnia.  You had this holier than thou European attitude about it that such politicians would have resigned in Europe.

(c) As to the litany of charges you make against Clitnon, here is a lesson in historyy from 1993

The Clinton Administration Inherits the 'Hopeless Quagmire'

Although Clinton campaigned in support of a tougher foreign policy against the Serbs, the only tangible difference during 1993 was a more combative rhetoric struck hollow by inaction. Clinton's first task was to respond to the proposed Vance-Owen Plan, but because of his campaign rhetoric Clinton could not support what amounted to the partitioning of Bosnia. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Clinton had criticized Bush for not addressing the humanitarian crisis in Bosnia. Clinton followed up this rhetoric in early 1993 after less than a month in office, stating that continued U.S. inaction in Bosnia "would be to give up American leadership."18 Instead of the Vance-Owen Plan, Clinton advocated what he called a "lift and strike" policy of lifting the arms embargo and using air strikes to limit Serb aggression. However, France and Britain rejected "lift and strike" by claiming it would endanger their troops on the ground. Ironically, Europe opposed Clinton's attempt to create peace in the Balkans not on the grounds that it would escalate fighting, although that was debated, but because such action would likely bring Serb reprisals against peace-keeping forces, which, in turn, had no peace to keep. The peace-keeping forces actually made the problem worse by handicapping NATO policies and tacitly legitimizing Serb gains won through blatant aggression.19 Disagreements between the US, France, and Britain plagued European policy during 1993. Yet another hurdle was the tenuous position of Russian President Boris Yeltsin, who faced a national referendum on 25 April 1993 and, since Russia was a traditional ally of Serbia, could not afford less than hard-line pro-Serb rhetoric.20 In February, not a single member of the Russian Duma supported airstrikes against Serbs. Deputy Yevgeny Ambartsumov, considered a Russian moderate, expressed concern that any NATO action against Serbs would only prop up the position of Russian ultra-nationalists, and went as far as to suggest the lifting of the economic sanctions against Serbia.21 However, Yeltsin became more conciliatory two days after his victory in the 25 April referendum. Although unwilling to support or condone military intervention, Yeltsin warned the Serbs that, "The Russian Federation will not patronize those who resist the will of the world community. Both Serbian nationalists and any other participants in the conflict who rely on force will be confronted with a tough rebuff by the United Nations."22

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~hist490/kash mir/

"Lift and strike"  was to be the formula for achieving peace.  The international community would supply arms to the outgunned Muslims, and the US would launch airstrikes on the Serbs.  Bill Clinton was stymied by the Europeans in 1993...that is why Americans did not interven in 1993.  If you remember, "lift and strike" is very similar to what the US did in 1998 in response to a different crisis.

(d) I cannot tell you how to react to Hillary's misstatements.  If you want to believe that she lied, then that is your personal choice. From my perspective, she has apologized just fine, but you are entitled to hold any grudges you want. But please spare us this tortured explanation that Bill Clinton is guilty of inaction in 1993, and that you have a unique European perspective on it.


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:55:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lift and strike !! (none / 0)

a) Misrepresenting your role in the biggest European conflict since World War II will continue to matter. I think you can work out why. I won't even go there with the Northern Ireland Peace process, which is even closer to home.

b) The whole Dutch cabinet resigned over Srebrenica. Douglas Hurd is regularly vilified here for his pusillanimity in creating a 'level killing field' in Bosnia.

c) I made no litany of charges against the Clintons. My only charge about the 90s was that they both believed the 'quagmire' threat which turned out to be totally untrue. I know for a fact this threat of quagmire was touted by Serb lobbyists to scare off any inaction

d) Is this a question or just a rant?


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:07:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lift and strike !! (none / 0)

Aha, so now the truth comes out

This is not about the snipergate after all...you are really mad at HRC for misrepresenting her role in the Northern Ireland peace process.

You have no answers to any of my questions...just distractions.  Have you ever heard of the "lift and strike" proposal that Clinton was trying to push through ?

And oh..the Dutch cabinet resigned for criminal negligence ~ in most countries, the consequences would have been a lot more severe.


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:10:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

False Aha's (none / 0)

Nope. You're projecting again. I have no great beef about Hillary's exaggerated role in The Northern Ireland peace process. Par for the course but much more minor. Perhaps 3,000 people died over 20 years as a result of the troubles compared to 200,000 over 3 years in the former Yugoslavia.

I really think I rebutted your bullet point allegations quite clearly, but some people are never satisfied.

And you're way off beam about the Dutch government,. Not only have I've proved you wrong, but the suggestion that the 'consequences would have been a lot more severe' for other governments is quite absurd. I'll give you just two words to underline that - 'Mission Accomplished'


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:50:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Aha's (none / 0)

She has not "misrepresented her role" in any way.  She misspoke about once incident...you are the one that is projecting.

And no, you have not rebuted any of my points.  I am  still waiting for this "european perspective on why snipergate matters", for instance.

And finally, what the Dutch "peacekeepers" did was criminal.  "Mission Accomplished" is about incompetence ~ most sane individuals know the difference.


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:43:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Aha's (none / 0)

HRC's whole premise is experience, and her big speech on Foreign Policy was fronted by the Bosnia fairy tale. That's important. Her inability to either remember correctly, or fess up to her own embellishments, undermines her capacity to deal direct with foreign governments as President. It's pretty simple when you think of it.

What happened in Srebrenica was criminal in all regards - with the UN peacekeepers all round looking on while genocide was committed. The whole government resigned, thus proving my point that some politicians in Europe have taken the can for their mistakes.

I think the Iraq was criminal too  - a) illegal b) resulting in mass casualties, looting, anarchy and now virtual civil war.

So what point are you making? My point was a simple one: Hillary should have made a simple apology and the affair would have ended. I call it Snipergate because her mental somersaults in trying to get out of this is some kind of psychological coverup. And it's the coverup that is always more revealing and disturbing than the original error.

Voters are getting this. You, as a Hillary supporter, should be contacting her campaign, and making sure they get it too. It's a terrible way to start losing. She should address it directly in a speech, the same way Obama did with Rev Wright.  This is a serious suggestion from someone who used to admire the Clintons, and until I knew more about Obama, would have been delighted with her winning the presidency. But as the campaign has proven it takes courage under fire, not spin.

And please don't give me any more of the misogyny stuff further up your thread. I think by now I would support Obama even if both candidates were genderless and raceless. And you can't have it both ways. Hillary get's away with more dirty stuff than Obama because people love the fact she's a fighter. If Obama supporters push back - like Leahy did yesterday - Hillary then tries to claim victimhood and the fact she's 'bullied'. Have it both ways why doesn't she?


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:18:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Aha's (none / 0)

(a) Hillary has already acknowledged that she misspoke.  She is not going to flog herself to make you happy.  So you can go jump in a lake with your calls for her to apologize.

(b) Obama has not "addressed" the Wright issue...people still have a lot of questions.  He merely changed the subject.  You may be thrilled with his response, and that is your right.  But please dont project your feelings on to others, and then expect Hillary to "address" your concerns about her in a similar fashion.

(c) Your original claim "any European politician would have resigned over this" was about snipergate.  Snipergate is resume embellishment and nothing more.  The example you provided was European politicians resigning over criminal inaction.  Do you think I am too stupid to know the difference ?  Or are you too stupid to realize the difference yourself ?

(d) I do not recall accusing you of misogyny ~ you are being hypersensitive about it.  You do come across as one highly irrational individual.  Whether that is caused by misogyny, or because your mommy took your toys away when you were 2 yrs old... I am not a psychologist, and I don't really care.

Finally, the Iraq war was authorized by the US, and by the US congress.  That makes it legal.  And every war results in mass casualties, looting and some anarchy...perhaps that makes every war illegal !


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:17:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

New ABCs (none / 0)

I wouldn't like to speculate how you come across - let's just say you're wrong. Or at least wrong enough to create a whole new list of bullet points.

One last 'off track' response. Your opinion of the Wright issue, and the way he dealt with it, is a minority opinion. I contend that his speech in response will go down as one of the great American political speeches. You will no doubt radically disagree. Fortunately, I think your kind of irrational blindspot is a fading phenomenon. But time will tell.


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:57:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh and I almost forgot.. (none / 0)

Politicians resigning for lying. God, there are dozens in the UK. But one of the most contentious in the last five years was the 'dodgy dossier' about Iraq's capacity to launch a biological strike in 40 mins. Though speculative, and not a blatant historical lie like Hillary's, various politicians including the Director General of the BBC and Blair's media advisor lost their jobs over the factual claims. And David Kelly, the scientist at the heart of the dispute, took his own life.

I'm not suggesting Hillary should resign over this BTW, I'm suggesting she fesses up, overcomes her predisposition to spin at the cost of the truth. It's a trait that goes a long way back to Bill's administration. And with your acute psychological insight, perhaps you can tell me whether it's unconscious or deliberate. Do the Clinton's deceive others in these instances, or do they deceive themselves. It's an open question, and not a provocative one. This feeling that they both have a tendency to lie is one of the tragic flaws in all they've achieved (which I will admit is considerable)


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is not a hit diary (none / 0)

Europeans dragged their feet? The did NOTHING. And it was their problem, not ours.
by Mayor McCheese on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I basically agree.... (none / 0)

...but it was an Anglo French rapid reaction force that finally took out the guns around Sarajevo

But don't you get what I was writing. Bill's eventual forceful entry into the war was amazing. Cheers went up through Sarajevo in August 2005. It shouldn't have been your problem. But Europe was still bickering about the post cold war status of UN, EU and NATO

My point is not at all against the US. Or Bill Clinton (though the recent campaign has made me take more seriously the criticisms of his term in office and reaction to Bosnia and Rwanda)

My point is that this is a sensitive emotional issue just as much as Jeremiah Wright's invocation of 'Goddam America'

For the sake of the Clinton's legacy, if not the present campaign, it would be great if Hillary showed some real contrition about the episode. She managed to do that in New Hampshire, and both of them did during the 1992 primary campaign. Why not over this?

Forget the spin. Some honest owning up would do wonders for her ratings


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:51:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I basically agree.... (none / 0)

I agree in part. I think she should apologize. However, I think this is really a trivial issue, although she does deserve criticism for it.
by Mayor McCheese on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:59:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why snipergate matters: a European Perspective (2.00 / 1)

Feelings are such fragile things. No matter that as First Lady she had been pushing for US intervention for the entire three years. No matter that as First Lady she did actually fly into a war zone. She got one aspect of her tale wrong, and you're morally offended - so much so that the fact that she was the leading proponent for the intervention is irrelevant. so much so that the fact she brought her daughter with her is irrelevant. So much so that you can ignore a genuinely racist and misogynist assault (and a helluva lot more women have died from violence because of misogyny than died in that conflict) because of it.


by Little Otter on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:48:06 PM EST

What evidence do you have? (none / 0)

That she was 'pushing for intervention'.

1. She gave bill 'The Ghosts of War' - a terrible book implying that Bosnia was just a backward nation filled with tribal loathing.

That she flew into a war zone.

1. This was months after the war was over

Please. These are important facts for us.


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What evidence do you have? (none / 0)

Read a few books - she was pushing for intervention in the Balkans from the time the assaults began. She was the first and the foremost proponent for intervention in that administration, and pushed for years before she finally succeeded.

And of course, you're revealing what you're truly outraged about. For people who allegedly care about an issue, hearing that someone whom they are disinclined to care about took a passionate and aggressive interest in their cause, is usually good news. You hear Clinton was concerned, and you promptly deny her actions.

It's not that you care about Bosnia so much. It's that you care about denying Clinton credit for work that every historian who has written about that White House has acknowledged that she did.

Now, how's that subcommittee comin' along that Obama hasn't bothered to hold a meeting for?  Europeans are probably scared shitless that we're  considering nominating one more inexperienced goofball who has shown no evidence of taking Europe seriously.


by Little Otter on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The books I've read... (none / 0)

...do not at all support your assertions.

I care about Bosnia a lot. I won't even bore you by telling you how long I've been involved in the issue, or my visits there, or the Bosnian friends I have in London.

Notice how you have to mischaracterise me to try to ignore the point?

I don't deny the Clintons credit. But I am genuinely upset and dismayed about the potential trashing of their legacy. The eventual intervention in Bosnia, Kosovo, the Northern Ireland Peace agreement, the Israeli Palestinian peace process, these were great achievements of the Clinton era.
But Hillary is tarnishing them with misuse. She should address this more seriously.

And your need to impute my lack of knowledge or concern over the issue is typical of the shameless consistent use of spin. Try to dismiss me as 'insignificant', but the issue isn't, and won't go away until it is fixed


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why snipergate matters: a European Perspective (2.00 / 1)

Hillary Clinton has already apologized for misspeaking. She misremembered, conflated different events and inflated a sniper threat into actual sniper fire.

As a European, why are you trying to blame the Clintons rather than countries in Europe for not coming to the aid of your fellow Europeans sooner? Why do you want the US to constantly play the role of international policeman? You've already seen what kind of a mess can come from that approach.

In fact, that's one of the problems I always had with Samantha Power. I highly recommend the follow book review by Stephen Holmes in the London Review of Books of Power's genocide book to understand why some have long been critical of her approach to international intervention.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n22/holm01_.htm l

Btw, official estimates now have the death toll from the Bosnian war at 102,000, not 200,000.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:51:24 PM EST

Read my piece (none / 0)

I praise the Americans for intervening. I loathe the inaction and duplicity of European governments.

But I also think this is too important an issue to be left to that 'I misspoke'. We all know there were four or five pre written speeches on this matter. She has no apologised.

I don't think this will go away until she does. And her failure to realise the sensitivities here only make myself, and lots of other Europeans, go back to revisit the 90s and wonder why Bill wavered so long.

And as for the critique of Samantha Power's book. I could cite dozens more that praise it as a breakthrough work on one of the most pernicious foreign policy issues of the time.


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Read my piece (none / 0)

I'm sure you can cite dozens more that approve of her book. That doesn't make Holmes' criticisms any less valid. As another reviewer wrote:

This is primarily a book for people who believe that, in general, United States foreign policy is just: it's the other countries that commit genocide. While Powers does mention that the United States has occasionally aided the perpetuators of genocide, she only delves into areas where common opinion places the US on the side of the angels. She discusses Cambodia, but doesn't say much about the US war in Vietnam; she says a lot about the Iraqi violence against the Kurds, but nothing about the (US supported) Turkish war against the Kurds. Likewise there is literally nothing about US-sponsored actions in Central and South America; Kissinger's tacit approval of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor; or US support of Israeli violence against the Palestinians.

This is the kind of book that gets the author a reputation as a 'stern critic' of US policy while at the same time does nothing to prevent the same author from getting a prominent foreign policy position in the future. It's not surprising that this book has been well promoted on Book TV and public television, but for the whole truth about genocide and its causes, go elsewhere.

Anyway, talk about gratitude. In any case, I really don't give a fig what Europeans like you think. I travel there often and know that you hardly speak for the Europoean community. You're just another Obama shill.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stick and stones... (none / 0)

Holmes' criticisms sound very Chomskian, but I've seen enough books of that ilk - and Powers has created a new field.

But obviously anyone who was on Obama's campaign team can't be any good...

You make me laugh. I think Holbrooke was great in Bosnia, and he's a fine foreign policy guy, even if he is on Hillary's team.

As for gratitude. You can have it in abundance. My attitude to the US totally changed because of Bosnia. It was only dimmed by Iraq, and now shines again even stronger thanks to your potential presidential nominees this year. All will be better than Bush. And one of them is a real tribute to America's ability to reinvent its politics, and move to a more perfect union.


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:31:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stick and stones... (none / 0)

Oh grow up. Holmes is no "Chomskian". I may belong to that "ilk" but that is a silly and dismissive attack on Professor Holmes. Fwiw, he's the research director at the Center for Law and Security at New York University School of Law and a brilliant legal theorist. To get to know him better, I highly recommend the following Youtube video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d7__esnjl_4&a mp;feature=related

Anyway, my problems with Power began before this presidential election.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I won't grow up... (none / 0)

...my aim is to remain forever useful.

It's way off topic - but that excerpt you presented was all about American responsibility for genocide, I Chomskian meme methinks. Please feel free to expend your energy praising Holmes and dissing Samantha power. And enjoy a vitriol free old age.  


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:30:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Useful and youthfull I should have said (none / 0)

But it's half past seven here. Nearly time for bed


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:31:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Useful and youthfull I should have said (none / 0)

The other reviewer, from whom I quoted, probably could be described as "Chomskian", not that there's anything wrong with that in my eyes -- Chomsky doesn't reflexively blame America for everything, despite what his critics say -- he simply (and patriotically) points out where the U.S. foreign policy is woefully at odds with what you might call the great promise of our republic.

I just happen to be a fan of internationalism and legalism. The US (and the rest of the world) pay a huge price for the belief that it can and should act unilaterally as "the world's policeman."

Cheers!


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Though it's off topic - thanks (none / 0)

And I support your internationalism and legalism. And let's get real - BOTH democratic candidates are closer to those ideals than most republicans. Bush has been the nadir of American unilateralism.

What's your take on McCain? He's so hawkish on his foreign policy statements, but not so on Kyoto etc. Do you think he believes in the UN etc?


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:59:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Though it's off topic - thanks (none / 0)

Don't worry! I would never vote for McCain (McKinney maybe, but never McCain). My preference for Clinton is based on domestic policy differences, such as their respective approaches to health care reform, and my fear that Obama will actually be more of a "triangulator" than Hillary (in spite of her last name).

But as I said, I had problems with Samantha Power before this election.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:16:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually I wasn't being snide/sarcastic/snarky.. (none / 0)

...and implying you were supporting McCain. (Look what this primary has done to innocent dialogue!) I was genuinely interested where you would place McCain between the two democrat candidates and Bush on the scale of internationalism/legalism etc.

Obviously a genuine opinion-seeking question is rather dull compared with the trench warfare and regular sniping (no pun intended) of the Obama/Hillary battle. But if you've got time, let me know


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually I wasn't being snide/sarcastic/snarky (none / 0)

I should study it some more, but I'm thinking that Hillary and Obama are about tied (although I never liked Obama's statement that he could invision a scenario where the US might strike Pakistan w/o notifying the head of state if there was actionable intelligence about bin Ladin's whereabouts). But both are clearly more pro-internationalism/legalism than Bush, and at least according to the following article, McCain may even be worse than Bush:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/200803 12/pl_bloomberg/apzut4blweek

The prospect of a McCain presidency is truly scary, especially since we seem to be heading for rough times, re oil depletion, the credit squeeze, stagflation, global climate chaos, etc. The man knows next to nothing about economic matters and he's as hawkish as they come. Oy.

The future is a scary place. But I won't go into that as it is getting close to your bedtime. ;^)


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the analysis (2.00 / 1)

It's a scary thought than anyone could be more hawkish than Bush in the current environment. But as I tuck myself into bed, I'll console myself with the thought that this nomination process will be settled soon, and all democrats can rally round their nominee and ensure McCain doesn't get the presidency.

Sweet dreams


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:53:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why snipergate matters: a European Perspective (none / 0)

a) I think it's clear even from the accounts of people who hate HRC, along with contemporary accounts, that the Tuzla trip was fairly dangerous.

I don't think the problem here is that she was trying to lie about her record to pump herself up. I think the problem is that she was weak communications skills, relative to her level of intelligence, and has a hard time choosing, keeping and following the advice of good speechwriters and PR people.

If HRC had better speechwriters, or followed their advice, they could have figured out a way to fix this problem long before it blew up and started a firestorm.

b) I'm on the Bosnian side here, but keep in mind that you can find bitter, bitter posts from Serbians and their supporters all over the Internet that attack Bill Clinton for being too hard on Serbia here.

One reason Bill Clinton was slow to act was that he was paralyzed by the same kind of Republican hate PR machine that has helped turn the Tuzla and Rev. Wright controversies into front page news.

So, the same PR shops that are now keeping the Tuzla sniper controversy in the news may be the ones that used an endless parade of bimbo scandal stories to keep the Clintons from doing anything about Serbia back in the mid-1990s.

I think there's some evidence from mid-1990s Usenet posting patterns that Serbia might have helped amplify Clinton hatred specifically to keep Congress from permitting Clinton to do anything about the genocide campaign.


by sclminc on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:08:49 PM EST

Fair comments... (none / 0)

And I'm definitely not trying to trash Bill's foreign policy legacy. This campaign has led me to question it a little more closely, but the salient point is about the speech writers and advisers. Why didn't someone point this misrepresentation out?


Now Loose on the Moose
by brit on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:16:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fair comments... (2.00 / 0)

I sometimes think that maybe the Republicans have figured out how to infiltrate a lot of major Democrats' PR operations.

The PR double agents are good enough that they seem to be genuine Democrat PR people, but bad enough that they end up alienating reporters more than courting people.

If that's not the case, then I think Kerry was and Hillary Clinton is a really awful picker of PR people. The stories I've read about how Kerry used to and Hillary Clinton has recently been treating reporters were absurd.

I think it's smart for candidates to understand that even a "nice, friendly reporter" is about as dangerous as a "nice, friendly tiger," but you wouldn't go out of your way to make a tiger mad. Why was Hillary Clinton's campaign going out of its way to make the reporters covering her campaign mad earlier this year? I think that sort of behavior is bizarre.


by sclminc on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:32:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: