Sarah Palin thinks she's got it covered now in explaining why she did so badly when interviewed by actual journalists in her failed vice-presidential campaign last year. She went on The O'Reilly Factor last night and told BillO that a simple foreign-policy question like Charles Gibson's query about the Bush Doctrine was just a "gotcha technique" by the liberal media (instead of a routine question intended to ascertain her bearings on foreign policy).

And Katie Couric? That was just a reaction to Katie's snotty questions:

O'Reilly: Katie Couric's a different story. Katie Couric asked you an easy question and you booted it, governor.

Palin: I sure did.

[Plays video]

COURIC: What newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —

COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.

PALIN: Um, all of them ...

O'Reilly: Why did you boot it? I mean, if somebody asks what do you read, I say I read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, I could reel them off in my sleep, you couldn't do it.

Palin: Well, of course I could. Of course I could.

O'Reilly: Well, why didn't you?

Palin: It's ridiculous to suggest that or say I couldn't tell people what I read. Because by that point already, although it was relatively early in that multi-segmented interview with Katie Couric -- it was, it was quite obvious that it was going to be a bit of an annoying interview with a badgering of the questions. It seemed to me that she didn't know anything about Alaska, about my job as governor, about my accomplishments as mayor or governor, my record. And a question like that, though, yeah, I booted it, I screwed up, I should have been more patient and more gracious in my answer, it seemed to me the question was more along the lines of -- Do you read? How do you stay in touch with the real world?

O'Reilly: See, that was your inexperience.

Palin: It was my inexperience with having to deal with a condescending, badgering line of questioning. No -- no reflection at all on my inexperience in terms of administrative record or accomplishments or vision for America.

Pardon me while I call b-llsh-t. "What kinds of things do you read?" is a stock question of the political journalist when querying candidates, particularly those new on the scene. And as you can see from watching the clip that O'Reilly shows, there was nothing high-handed or suggestive of "Do you read?" in Couric's question.

You can watch the longer clip of this portion of the interview here. Palin is not bridling at Couric's arrogance -- she's drawing a blank and reaching for straws.

But in Palinopia, of course, she's just being "human." And I guess that's right, to an extent -- since prevaricating and dodging and making up lame excuses is part of the human condition too. Just not a very attractive or inspiring one.

Now I am probably not telling you anything new in this title, but when I saw this op-ed by William Kristol in his Weekly Standard magazine (hat tip to Matt Y), I just suddenly got this pounding headache and resulting furious reaction.

In areas where policies are still being debated--in foreign policy in particular--conservatives need to keep urging Obama to do the right thing. We are disgusted with Obama's irresoluteness on Afghanistan. But we continue to urge that he side with the experienced military leaders he's been fortunate to inherit against the second-guessing of political hacks (and of failed ex-generals turned political hacks). We conservatives want American soldiers to win wars, American interests to prevail, and American principles to flourish. We want the bad guys to lose. We're happy to work with President Obama to defeat them--and we only wish he shared our clarity and urgency about accomplishing that task.

That is to say, Obama should only listen to active duty generals like Petraus (USCENTCOM), Odierno (Iraq), and McChrystal (Afghanistan), not "failed ex-generals turned political hacks" such as former generals Karl Eikenberry (US Ambassador to Afghanistan) and James Jones (National Security Advisor). The latter have, of course, counseled caution before engaging deeper into Afghanistan. To be more specific, the Republican political line seems to be "yeah, we always do what our generals tell us to do - so long as their statements support indefinitely continuing the wars in the Middle East." What a ridiculous little man he is.

As far as Kristol's other statement - he wants American soldiers to win wars and American interests to prevail - I really want to haul back and punch him hard in the stomach. If you cared one iota about the American soldier, you slime, you base villain, you would have been pestering the CheneyBush administration as to its inability to put adequate numbers of American troops into Iraq and Afghanistan and its refusal to grow the military force to the numbers required for a long post-war occupation. Now we have military families breaking up, military suicide rates going ever upward, promotions for any officer with a pulse, military modernization programs on hold because of mounting operational costs, and a trillion-dollar bill that was never adequately planned for,largely due to the CheneyBush administration's inability to close the deal after eight years of continued combat.

You clearly have no respect for the American soldier or for American interests. In fact, if you were working directly against the American soldier and American interests, you could not be doing a better job.

Please go over to Amazon and "recommend as helpful" Jesus General's priceless review of Going Rogue:

The book also fails to expose Mrs. Palin's intellectual brilliance and keen grasp of foreign policy issues. Why wasn't the text of her recent speech in Hong Kong included? Although it remains secret, it's rumored that she viciously rebuked the Vietcong king for his assault on the Empire State Building. That's a speech we've been waiting for nearly 75 years to hear. It's big news and should have been included.

...a few bad reviews won't stop her. She's seen much worse from her kitchen window. It can't be pleasant to gaze upon Antichristograd every morning as you brew your coffee.

We all love Jesus General. You might also enjoy/recommend his review of Carrie Prejean's book. Priceless.

So many of the saner people were driven out of the military during the Bush administration, it doesn't surprise me that the people left include a lot of the right-wing, racist fringe elements. Still, it's shocking to hear this:

DURHAM — The U.S. military is not just fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, America’s most renowned investigative journalist says.

The army is also “in a war against the White House — and they feel they have Obama boxed in,” Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Seymour Hersh told several hundred people in Duke University’s Page Auditorium on Tuesday night. “They think he’s weak and the wrong color. Yes, there’s racism in the Pentagon. We may not like to think that, but it’s true and we all know it.”

In a speech on Obama’s foreign policy, Hersh, who uncovered the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War and torture at Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraqi war, said many military leaders want Obama to fail.

“A lot of people in the Pentagon would like to see him get into trouble,” he said. By leaking information that the commanding officer in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the war would be lost without an additional 40,000 American troops, top brass have put Obama in a no-win situation, Hersh contended.
“If he gives them the extra troops they’re asking for, he loses politically,” Hersh said. “And if he doesn’t give them the troops, he also loses politically.”

The journalist criticized the president for “letting the military do that,” and suggested the only way out was for Obama to stand up to them.
“He’s either going to let the Pentagon run him or he has to run the Pentagon,” Hersh said. If he doesn’t, “this stuff is going to be the ruin of his presidency.”

Hersh called the “Af-Pak” situation — the spreading conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan — Obama’s main challenge.

The only way for the U.S. to extricate itself from the conflict, Hersh said, is to negotiate with the Taliban.

“It’s the only way out,” he said. “I know that there’s a lot of discussion in the White House about this now.

(Nguyen Cao Ky and LBJ in 1966 - Tea leaves in the eye of the beholder)

Since the talk this week centers on the endless war in Afghanistan, I thought it might be a good idea to visit another endless war from another time; Vietnam.

Like Afghanistan, Vietnam wasn't instantly met with derision and questions over our involvement. Like Iraq though, we were also sold a somewhat leaky bill of goods and goaded into pledging lives and untold millions over an involvement that had no timetable and no real plan.

The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is Iraq bears some resemblance to an organized country. Where Afghanistan is one big grab-bag of tribes, sects and factions that have been over-run, quasi-colonized and fought over for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Just like Vietnam.

In 1966 we were still getting our feet wet in Vietnam, having gone from "advisers" to "troops on the ground" in a little over a year. Support and the "domino theory" were still very much alive and our presence increased on an almost daily basis.

But also in 1966 there were the seeds of questions being sown - what was the plan? How long was it going to take? When it is supposed to end? How many troops are needed? What really was the government of South Vietnam all about?

Just like Afghanistan.

And so on June 21, 1966 Eric Severeid delivered a fifteen minute commentary on our state of siege in Vietnam.

Eric Severeid: “A crucial question: Whether our resistance in Vietnam is preventing the spread of Chinese dominance in other Asian countries, through their propaganda infiltration and subversion. The Administration points to Indonesia, where the powerful Chinese-inspired Communist apparatus was smashed not long ago. That would never have happened, we like to think were we not there in Vietnam. If this is true, all of us would feel very much better about this war in Vietnam. My personal opinion is that it’s not true.”

Needless to say, those questions only grew in number and intensity over the next several years as our justifications grew less and less feasible. It would seem we are heading in that direction again.

From the Rachel Maddow Show Oct. 5, 2009. Rachel reiterates this report from TPMDC--The GOP's New Foreign Policy: Undermine American Diplomacy:

An interesting pattern has been emerging in the Republican Party's handling of foreign policy: Individual GOP officials are now making a regular point of not only formulating an alternative foreign policy, to be presented to the American people and debated in Congress -- they're acting on it too, and undermining the official White House policies at multiple turns.

• Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is visiting Honduras in order to support the recent military coup against a leftist president, which has been opposed by the Obama administration and all the surrounding countries in the region. (Late Update: DeMint's office says he is not taking sides during his visit to the current Honduran leadership, denying the New York Times reports that this was his intention.)

• Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) will be going to the upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen, bringing a "Truth Squad" to tell foreign officials there that the American government will not take any action: "Now, I want to make sure that those attending the Copenhagen conference know what is really happening in the United States Senate."

• House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) traveled to Israel, where he spoke out against President Obama's opposition to expanded settlements. He also defended Israel on the eviction of two Arab families from a house in east Jerusalem, which had been criticized by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

• Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) boasted in June that he told Chinese officials not to trust America's budget numbers. "One of the messages I had -- because we need to build trust and confidence in our number one creditor," said Kirk, "is that the budget numbers that the US government had put forward should not be believed." Since then, he has declared his candidacy for U.S. Senate.

Anyone remember this statement by Trent Lott when some Democratic Congressmen dared to visit Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion?

Lott raps U.S. congressman in Iraq:

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, who is one of three House members visiting Iraq to urge Iraqi officials to avert war by allowing U.N. weapons inspectors back in, has acted irresponsibly, Lott said.

"For him to be in Baghdad, the center of one of the most dangerous dictators in the world, with all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, to be questioning the veracity of our own American president, is the height of irresponsible," said Lott, R-Mississippi. "He needs to come home and keep his mouth shut."

Or these attacks on Nancy Pelosi for going to Syria? Pelosi's Syria Trip: Media Advancing Right-Wing Spin.

As always, IOKIYAR.

Update. Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

Rachel Maddow talks to the Washington Note's Steve Clemons about Jim DeMint's attempts to travel to Honduras to deliver a political message contrary to the official position of the United States.

MADDOW: So, let‘s say there‘s a military coup somewhere in the world. In some country in the world, the military takes over and ousts the president. And our government, the government of the United States is not cool with it. We don‘t always side against military juntas, even though we like to think of ourselves as a country that does.

But in this case, we‘re really not OK with it. We refuse to recognize the new military government that ousted the president. We revoked the visas of members of this de facto government and its supporters. As one of the 47 nations of the U.N. Human Rights Council, we call for the president that was ousted by the military to be returned to office. Our government makes it really clear that we do not recognize this coup. We do not recognize the legitimacy of this military takeover of another country‘s government.

Now, consider that a United States senator has decided that he‘s on the side of the coup. He‘s on the side of this military that‘s overthrown its own government. And, in fact, as a United States senator, he‘s going to visit that country and his own country be damned. He‘s going to encourage the military government that ousted their government in that other country to resist us. To resist what our government—what his own government—is trying to do there.

What would you call that? Is it maybe a word that starts with T and rhymes with reason? I don‘t want to jump to conclusions here but I‘m just not sure what else to call this. Whatever it should be called, it‘s what Senator Jim DeMint has just tried to do. The South Carolina Republican today bragged—via Twitter of course—that he was headed out to Honduras tomorrow. Members of his staff also talked to “The New York Times” for a story in today‘s paper.

Quoting from “The Times”: “One of the de facto government‘s main supporter in Washington, Senator Jim DeMint has denounced plans to visit the capital of Honduras on Friday. Staff members said he intended to encourage the military leader of the coup and his supporters to resist.”

To resist the policies of the government of the United States of America? That‘s what he‘s advising a foreign country to do?

Continue reading »

Thanks to the BBC, the missile defense debate can be greatly simplified.

Here's what Bush proposed and what the neocons are hyperventilating over the ending of plans for:

And here's the coverage of the AEGIS ship-based system proposed by Obama:

As you can see, coverage against actual, rather than imaginary, threats is marginal at best, and under the Bush plan was almost non-existent - unless you're worried about Russian missiles. "A better missile defense for a safer Europe," my ass. Contrary to both Bush and Obama's statements, the Russians were right to be "paranoid" about missile defense all along.

Recall, too, that Iran has no current nuclear weapons program according to both the IAEA and US intelligence. It would take at least three to five years for it to develop a nuclear-tipped missile from the day it kicks IAEA inspectors out, if it ever does.

We should be asking whether we need such a multi-billion boondoggle at all.

Crossposted at Newshoggers

Two political pundits on opposite sides of the aisle found themselves agreeing Sunday on ABC's "This Week." Both George Will and Katrina Vanden Heuvel favor a withdrawal from Afghanistan. In his Washington Post column, George Will said it was time to get out of Afghanistan. In another column, Will said that that US work in Iraq is done.

Vanden Heuvel agreed. "I think there's a coalition, George. We can go on the road. A coalition for realistic foreign policy. But for these neocons attack you, these people should not be in our political life. They have no credibility. They should be held accountable for the Iraq debacle."

(C. Douglas Dillon - bringing the date to the prom)

With the recent news of Sec. of State Clinton's defense pact with Colombia, I was thinking about how our foreign policy has been something of a hit-and-miss situation with regards to Latin America in recent years.

Historically, Latin America has always seemed like the girlfriend you had under the bleachers but never took to the prom (h/t Susie!) - someone you needed in a pinch, but never took very seriously. We had the Good Neighbor Policy during World War 2 and the Alliance for Progress during the Cold War. Both overtures were made out of fear. Certainly fear the Axis would establish a beach head during World War 2 and definitely a fear of Cuba's close association with the Soviet Union during the Cold War would lead to a communist sweep of the Southern Hemisphere.

We have usually always pledged undying love and support but only in crisis - not on the day-to-day. Because of that, I don't think the average American really knows anything about the vast expanse of land just south of us - nothing about the people, the culture, the politics. We know all about the drugs, immigration and NAFTA - but nothing of the inner-workings of a continent so close to us. And that is ultimately our problem.

So, in an effort to put some historic perspective on what we do overseas - not only in Latin America but Africa and the rest of the world, I'm going to regularly include some of our Foreign Policy issues of the past so hopefully some light can be shed on what we need to do if we're planning on staying the super-power we so much like being. On top of that, ignorance of your culture and the world not only isn't cool - it's dangerous.

Here is a Press conference from August 22, 1961 featuring Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon, giving an outline of the events at the Punta del Este Conference in Uruguay.

C.Douglas Dillon: “No matter how good their intentions, no matter how much national effort is brought to bear upon their enormous problems, the leaders of Latin America cannot translate their ambitious plans and dreams for their peoples into reality without financial and technical assistance from the United States. And on the long term basis, which is indispensable to sound programming. We must recognize the questions about the future of the Alliance for Progress are not our prerogative alone. They’re also being asked in Latin America about us, about our intentions, about our capacity to help make The Alliance for Progress a success. These questions were raised in open meeting at Punta del Este by the representative of the Castro regime. Who boasted that only their monolithic form of statism could produce progress."

(Nixon in Caracas - It wasn't kisses they were throwing)

A look back at our previous stabs at foreign policy tonight. This one has to do with the ill-fated Vice-President Nixon Goodwill tour of Latin America in 1958.

The reaction was particularly hostile towards Nixon and it came as something of a surprise to the White House.

Initial reaction was Communist sympathizers whipping up anti-American sentiment, and targeting Nixon during his visit as a show to the world that the U.S. was losing support in the Southern Hemisphere.

But it seems the Anti-American sentiment had very little to do with Cold War posturing - we were simply the bad guys and no one in Washington wanted to admit it.

Shortly after the visit was cut short, CBS Radio ran a special edition of their "Radio Beat" discussion series and asked the question "what went wrong?"

The broadcast, from May 15, 1958 featured Moderator Stuart Novins and Galo Plaza, former President of Ecuador. Adolf A. Burleigh, former Assistant Secretary of State. Serafino Romualdi, Inter-American Representative for the AF of L/CIO (and also, it was later found, a long time CIA agent). Robert Alexander, Associate Professor of Economics at Rutgers University, Frances Grant, Secretary General of the Inter-American Center for Democracy and Freedom and CBS news correspondent Wells Church, who was traveling with the Nixon party.

This one hour panel discussion focuses on why the U.S. presence in Latin America has cultivated such a degree of hostility, and what has happened to U.S./Latin American relations since the end of World War 2.

Stuart Novins:

“ Vice-President Nixon is back in Washington. He and Mrs. Nixon have had a grueling personal experience. It’s not pleasant, to the say the least, when what starts out as a goodwill trip ends in booing, stone-throwing and a situation dangerous enough to cause the White House to alert Marines and paratroopers. It’s fair to say, I think, that this also was an unpleasant experience for most Americans. The realization that we are not liked is always shocking. But sober second thoughts follow the initial impact. Is it that we are not liked by large segments of South American, or is it simply that the Communists don’t like us? Does it matter whether we’re liked or not? Do we need to reexamine our national policies relating to South America? Is there a real communist threat there?"

Attytood: What's 100,000 or so deaths "to retain political and professional credibility"?

We are Respectable Negroes: A new low for Glenn Beck (for now), and the discreet charm of Ayn Rand.

Beggars Can Be Choosers: GOP Politicians are okay with tax-funded health care - but only for themselves.

Group News Blog: Reviewing my presidential wish list.

Majikthise: Wilkins Coffee ads as a metaphor for U.S. foreign policy.

SteveAudio: R.I.P. Bob Bogle.

Guest post by Batocchio. Temporarily e-mail tips to batocchio9 AT yahoo DOT com. Thanks!

(We weren't too popular then either.)

Seems not a whole lot has changed the last 40 years, with regards to our standing in the eyes of the world. We have been liked as a people, but despised as a government. How we've managed to trash allies and solidify movements against us. How we've been actively engaged in mutual alienation of every country around us. I was thinking about that as I watched the BBC coverage of President Obama in Cairo this morning. How the right wing so desperately wants us to be isolationist in our foreign policy while at the same time embracing cheap sources of overseas labor in the name of Free Enterprise. And how much work needs to be done in the area of diplomacy just to put things on even keel again.

I thought maybe the problem was the result of the last 8 disastrous years. No. It goes back a lot further than that. According to this documentary from the Second Sunday Radio series "A World Reflection: How they see us", it's been going steadily downhill since the mid-1960's. A long time for a lot to go wrong. And a snap of the finger isn't going to make it right.

As with everything that's been done the past 8 years, repairing damage and surveying the wreckage is going to take a long time. Maybe even decades.

But here is how it was viewed on September 12, 1971.

Former Bush State Dept official Philip Zelikow testified today about the closing of Guantanamo Bay. He compared it to the former prison known as Alcatraz, which was closed because of its horrendous reputation. He also feels that the U.S. could easily hold any prisoner from Guantanamo Bay, while Republicans are trying to claim otherwise with their usual fearmongering.

Zelikow: Guantanamo, in world public opinion, had become a toxic problem for the United States of America, and so we needed to address that as an issue in our foreign policy.

Dick Durbin asked if we could hold any transfers from Gitmo to federal correctional facilities in the United States safely, Zelikow answered:

Zelikow: Sir, we hold people who are far more dangerous in such institutions including quite dangerous terrorists like Ramzi Yousef, who's currently residing in a maximum security facility inside the US now. I'll also add that I've had the opportunity on behalf of one of the federal judges who have been working through the habeas petitions to be asked to examine classified files and provide expert advice on holding these folks and one of the things that strikes me now and struck me then is we have a vast amount of experience in how to judge the continued incarceration of highly dangerous prisoners since we do this with thousands of prisoners every month all over the United States including some really quite dangerous people. We routinely make these decisions...

I think the United States knows something about prisons, since we hold the most prisoners in the world. Sen. Jim Webb is setting his eyes squarely on reforming the prison system in America. Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece on Webb's proposal. Good for him.
And by holding Guantanamo detainees here, it would create more jobs for corrections workers wherever they are held.

On Face the Nation today, Dick Cheney said that he chooses Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell when it comes to the debate about the future of the GOP.

"If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd choose Rush Limbaugh," Cheney said when asked about whose vision of the GOP he'd side with. "My impression was that Colin was no longer a Republican."

"I don't think the Republican Party ought to move far to the left," Cheney said. "The suggestion our Democratic friends always make is, 'Well, if you Republicans were just more like Democrats, you'd win elections.' Well, I don't buy that."

I'm glad Dick Cheney continues to put his face out there as a spokesmen for the "new" GOP and as a torture apologist, but this brief part of the show demonstrates that Cheney is more impressed with a peddler of GOP propaganda and entertainment than he is defending one of his own and a man who sold the Iraq war to the American people.

Cheney always got into it with Powell over foreign policy so it's not a shock that he would be outspoken against him either.

Powell wanted to stay the course that took the diplomatic route as BushCo. went after Iraq, but when Bush told him we were going to war he signed on without giving his honest opinion. Many people forget that Colin Powell didn't even want to go to the UN for a resolution when they all decided to go to war with Iraq, but since Blair told Bush to get UN approval, he was forced to give a presentation they hoped would swing the country and the world against Saddam. And that presentation has tarnished his record more than anything. It's very fitting. Woodward's book Plan of Attack, reveals all this in detail. And as Digby and Bob Somerby have written, we have to be careful how Colin Powell is described because he's had his hand in a lot of very bad things.

Colin Powell is not only not a war hero, he's actually implicated in war crimes from two different wars --- as one of the "White House Principals" who watched the CIA act out torture techniques for their approval and as one of the men who tried to cover up My Lai. (He was involved in Iran-Contra too.) And that's not even taking into account his pivotal role in energetically selling the Iraq war with bogus intelligence. Certainly, the man cannot be separated from Dick Cheney on that issue.

He was one of the most powerful people in the Bush administration and he failed time after time to step up and use his vast personal popularity to stop them or slow them down. He is, in fact, the worst chickensh*t of the bunch since he had a separate power center and a special authority as an ex-general. Cheney may have been the chief architect, but Powell was the chief salesman and cover artist.