Author: Trish

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s blast at Bush policies is going largely ignored in this country, what with more urgent subjects for Americans to debate. You know, like who is Anna Nicole Smith’s baby daddy?

Still, we enjoyed Putin’s unique perspective at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, in which he said the White House should examine its own responsibility for Iran and others not trusting us.

Putin said it was “the almost uncontained hyper-use of force in international relations” that was forcing countries opposed to Washington to seek to build up nuclear arsenals.

“It is a world of one master, one sovereign. … It has nothing to do with democracy. This is nourishing the wish of countries to get nuclear weapons,” he said.

“This is very dangerous. Nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law,” Putin told the gathering.

Putin did not mention the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, but he voiced concern about NATO’s expansion plans as possible challenges to Russia.

“The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernization of the alliance or with ensuring security in Europe,” Putin said. “On the contrary, it is a serious factor provoking reduction of mutual trust.”

John McCain, who was at the conference looking presidential, rushed to condemn Putin’s speech, nearly falling over as his knee jerked out from under him.

Oddly, new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was more circumspect and actually waited a day to respond. When he did, he focused on the United States’ need for help in Afghanistan, which is going almost as badly as Baghdad.

He struck a familiar theme — one he pressed during a NATO defense ministers meeting this week, when he urged the allies to follow through on their promises to help secure and rebuild Afghanistan.

“It is vitally important that the success Afghanistan has achieved not be allowed to slip away through neglect or lack of political will or resolve,” Gates said. Failure to muster a strong military effort combined with economic development and a counternarcotics plan “would be a mark of shame,” he said.

Bring shame on a neocon initiative? Sounds like a job for George W!

You might have missed Garry Wills’ recent brilliant reality check, so we are excerpting it here as a public service.

We hear constantly now about “our commander in chief.” The word has become a synonym for “president.” It is said that we “elect a commander in chief.” It is asked whether this or that candidate is “worthy to be our commander in chief.”

But the president is not our commander in chief. He certainly is not mine. I am not in the Army.

Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order.

…The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

…The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements. We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines.

That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order. (George Bush came as close as he could to wearing a uniform while president when he landed on the telegenic aircraft carrier in an Air Force flight jacket).

…Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s prescient last book, “Secrecy,” traced the ever-faster-growing secrecy of our government and said that it strikes at the very essence of democracy — accountability of representatives to the people. How can the people hold their representatives to account if they are denied knowledge of what they are doing? Wartime and war analogies are embraced because these justify the secrecy. The representative is accountable to citizens. Soldiers are accountable to their officer. The dynamics are different, and to blend them is to undermine the basic principles of our Constitution.

Don’t miss the amazing interview with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) in GQ. You’ll see why the Bush White House is so upset with this guy, and why there is such a remote chance he will ever drink the Kool-Aid.

A sample:

GQ: What would it take to secure Baghdad?
Hagel: It’s not ours to secure. We have never understood that! We have framed this in a way that never made sense: “Win or lose in Iraq.” Wait a minute! There is no win or loss for us. The Iraqis will determine how this turns out. We can help them with our blood and our treasure and our standing, but in the end they have to deal with the sectarian problems. That is what’s consuming that country. It’s not Al Qaeda. It’s not the terrorists. That’s not the main problem over there. It’s a civil war!

Hagel: “If Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq and after two years he was having the same problems, do you think the Republican Congress would have put up with that? I don’t think so”

GQ: The administration doesn’t call it that.
Hagel: They won’t call it civil war. Everybody calls it a civil war! Of course it’s a civil war. The generals call it a civil war. And it’s even worse than a civil war, because in addition to the sectarian violence, you’ve got Shia killing Shia. We have ethnic cleansing of major proportions going on in Baghdad. It’s reminiscent of Bosnia. A truck pulls up and Uncle Joe is put inside; his body is found in a dump two or three days later, arms bound, usually tortured—one of the favorite deals is to drill into their head a little bit while they’re still conscious and then shoot them. We can’t solve that!

GQ: If we can’t win and the public wants out, isn’t it the responsibility of Congress to check the power of the president?
Hagel: Sure.

GQ: But it seems Congress has been ineffective at that.
Hagel: Well, we have. We’ve abdicated our responsibilities. That has to do with the fact that the Republican Party controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. When that happens, you get no probing, no questioning, no oversight. If Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq and after two years he was having the same problems, do you think the Republican Congress would have put up with that? I don’t think so.

…GQ: Does being a veteran also make you sensitive to the administration’s approach to interrogation and the use of secret military prisons?
Hagel: It does, because that’s not who America is. We have always, certainly since World War II, had the moral high ground in the world. But these secret prisons and the treatment at Guantánamo destroy all of that. We ought to shut down Guantánamo. There shouldn’t be any secret prisons. Why do we need those? What are we afraid of? Here we are, the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Why can’t we let the Red Cross into our prisons? Why do we deny they exist? Why do we keep them locked up? What are we afraid of? Why aren’t we dealing with Iran and Syria?

…GQ: You don’t hear very many politicians say that both sides of an issue are reasonable these days.
Hagel: We are living through one of the most transformative periods in history. If we are going to make it, we need a far greater appreciation and respect for others, or we’re going to blow up mankind. Look at what zealotry can do. Religious zealotry has been responsible for killing more people than any other thing. Look at the Middle East today. It’s all about religion. We need to move past those divisions and learn to be tolerant and respectful. If we go out there full of intolerance and hatred, we’ll never make it.

Read the whole interview. When the Rovian attacks start on Chuck Hagel — and they will — at least you’ll know what he really said.