Thanks be to "UP with Chris Hayes" for being the only Sunday outlet willing to take the time to have a nuanced and informed discussion on what's happening in Egypt. When newly elected Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi took advantage of the wave of world admiration for helping to broker a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel to declare that there would be no challenges to his presidency, there was a collective gulp in the media. Were we looking at yet another ruthless dictator-for-life in an area that was just starting to sow the seeds of democracy? Looking for signs of dissent, the media reported that Egypt's supreme judicial council condemned the action and the all-important stock market plummeted. From Foreign Policy blog:

Had Morsi stopped there, there would have been a clear narrative of a pragmatic, effective new Egyptian government. But of course, he did not. Instead, he made his unprecedented bid to centralize power in the office of the Presidency, a bold Calvinball move redefining the rules of the game in mid-play which immediately ignited a new political crisis. Opposition politicians ceased their bickering for the moment to unify around a denunciation of the power grab. A larger than normal crowd descended on Tahrir and protest broke out around the country, along with depressingly familiary violent clashes between security forces and the opposition. Meanwhile, Muslim Brotherhood supporters mobilized in counter-demonstrations. Rumors ran wild about coming moves to prosecute political enemies, purge the media, and more.

A case could have been made for Morsi's Constitutional Decree had he not pushed it too far. The judiciary has played an erratic, unpredictable and politicized role throughout the transition, with its controversial decisions such as the dissolution of Parliament. Its Calvinball approach to the rules, in the absence of either a Constitution or a political consensus, introduced enormous and unnecessary uncertainty into the transition and badly undermined the legitimacy of the process. Morsi was not the only one who despaired of Cairo's political polarization and institutional gridlock. But none of that can justify his assertion of executive immunity from oversight or accountability, declaring his decisions "final and binding and cannot be appealed in any way or to any entity." And then there was Article VI, asserting the power to do literally anything "to protect the country and the goals of the revolution." That Morsi was elected has nothing to do with his attempt to place himself above the law. Nor does the expiration date of his extraordinary powers (after Parliamentary elections and the Constitutional referendum) reassure in the slightest. The pushback which is now taking place on the streets and in the courthouse and in the public sphere is exactly what needs to happen, even if the increasing turn towards existential opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood rather than toward specific political issues is disturbing. For all the polarization and ugliness of the street clashes, this intense engagement with politics and unwillingness to accept Morsi's diktat are positive signs of the vitality of Egypt's vibrant, ornery and contentious new politics. It shows yet again that there is no going back to the old patterns of Egyptian or Arab politics.

It's ridiculous and arrogant to predict at this point how these events will resolve. Then truth of the matter is that Egypt is a nation without a rule of law at this point and Morsi's actions may indeed be the stop-gap he claims as a new constitution is being written. But moreover, any interference by the US to fight the notion of dictatorial powers for Morsi may end up giving us the exact opposite result that we want. The Egyptian people are fighting for democracy on their own. But like the Iranians who re-elected Ahmadinejad after he was declared one of the "axis of evil", the Egyptians will not likely sit still for American interference and will view us--not a dictator--as the force to fight.

It clearly doesn't take too many cocktails for Rupert Murdoch to sound like the crazy wingnut at the bar, shouting at the teevee.

But seriously, what does this even mean?

Why would we "listen" to a Russian oligarch about anything? And how can the US simultaneously be hated and "a joke"?

The problem for Murdoch -- and Mitt Romney tonight -- is that Obama is a hawk. He surged in Afghanistan, widely expanded drone strikes, killed bin Laden and drove the nail in Gaddafi's coffin. All to the dismay of the left, I should add.

This causes a great deal of cognitive dissonance for Republicans since they JUST KNOW that Obama's a weak, feckless appeaser. So, when they try and discuss his foreign policy, they're reduced to babbling complete nonsense like the above.

(h/t Karoli)

Here's Mitt Romney a few short months ago telling donors all about how the only real strategy in the Middle East is...hope.

Via Mother Jones:

Romney was indicating he did not believe in the peace process and, as president, would aim to postpone significant action: "[S]o what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem…and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it."

Contrast that view to the one in his big foreign policy speech today, where he not only advocated starting what sounds like World War III, but also taking a proactive role in the Israel-Palestinian peace process:

I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.

As usual, what he says in public and what he says in private are two entirely different things. About the only thing you can count on from Romney is that he'll say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.

DOWNLOADS: (194)

PLAYS: (1979)

Embed

Mitt Romney gave yet another foreign policy speech today, in which he articulated his vision for the direction of United States foreign policy. Once again, Romney proved himself clueless on the actual state of the world as it exists today, preferring to look back at the last century and pretend Cold War policies would actually benefit this country. In Madeleine Albright's opinion, the speech was "full of platitudes, devoid of substance."

For an example of just how clueless the Romney campaign is, watch Romney spokesperson Tara Walls stammer and sputter as she tries to articulate the campaign's simplest foreign policy positions to Soledad O'Brien. You could watch that segment and take a pass on the speech, to be honest, because there was no "there" there.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright joined a press call afterwards to offer her thoughts on Romney's speech, and she was blunt. Speaking on Libya, she said "first he was for intervention, now he's against it," and went on to say that she's concerned that he "doesn't have a sense of what tools to use" in today's world.

Expanding on those remarks, Albright said that she knows the people advising Governor Romney on his foreign policy positions, and they would simply reinstate Bush foreign policies. She wondered aloud whether anyone would ever ask Romney what it was he would have done differently, since he seems to be long on criticism and short on actual ideas.

One of the ongoing questions I have is why Romney seems so fixated on Russia. Albright spoke to that question as well, noting that while Russia has not been helpful with Syria, they've been very helpful with Iran and sanctions enforcement. She called Republicans' (and Romney's) fixation on Russia "truly out of date" and went on to say that if we were living in the 20th century he might have more basis for it, but not today, characterizing his remarks as having a "Cold War tone" to them which echoed his remarks earlier this year about Russia being our "number one ideological foe." And then today, this:

There is a longing for American leadership in the Middle East—and it is not unique to that region. It is broadly felt by America’s friends and allies in other parts of the world as well— in Europe, where Putin’s Russia casts a long shadow over young democracies, and where our oldest allies have been told we are “pivoting” away from them … in Asia and across the Pacific, where China’s recent assertiveness is sending chills through the region … and here in our own hemisphere, where our neighbors in Latin America want to resist the failed ideology of Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers and deepen ties with the United States on trade, energy, and security. But in all of these places, just as in the Middle East, the question is asked: “Where does America stand?”

Indeed, one has the impression that Mitt Romney's foreign policy is to police the entire planet and bring military force to bear against countries that differ from his vision for what they should be. That's a dangerous game, one that has cost us dearly, both with respect to lives and finances. It's particularly dangerous when you blend that policy with his promise to cut taxes by trillions, leaving everyone in this country hanging out to dry while the military-industrial complex sucks up what's left of our own resources and more of our people die in other countries.

What would a Romney speech be without at least one outright lie? Not a Romney speech. Here is today's lie o' the day:

Continue reading »

So, Mitt Romney gave a big foreign policy speech today. You can read it here, but let me summarize: Obama, bad. American Exceptionalism, good. Also, freedom. Ed Kilgore has some typically insightful thoughts.

But as far as this SRWT from K-Lo goes, who in America doesn't want a "leader" who haz a sad? But with a vision.

And a wink.

DOWNLOADS: (162)

PLAYS: (1288)

Embed

All of these Republicans raging against President Obama's foreign policy, calling it 'apologism' and 'weak' is driving me nuts. You cannot simply point to Obama's last three years as President and ignore our actions and short-sighted policy shifts over decades to the reason there's unrest in the Middle East.

Fareed Zakaria posits a radical and inconvenient notion for those neo-cons (who by all rights, have shown that their understanding of foreign policy is destructive and hurts America's long term interests) eager to puff up their chests and swing that big metaphorical stick: It's not about US.

The images of the American embassy burning in Benghazi might have conjured up memories of Tehran in 1979 but the analogy is false.

In Libya, the government is not fomenting Anti-Americanism, it is fighting it, openly declaring America an ally and friend. The country is pro-American by a 2-to-1 margin, and the violence there appears to have been the work of small, extremist elements that lack much popular support. But the storm has spread from Libya.

Across the Middle East, there have been protests railing against the United States and the West in general. Even in these places, however, keep in mind that these crowds number in the hundreds - perhaps thousands - in countries with tens of millions of people. They make for vivid images, but they do not tell the whole story.

What can we say about these places and protests? First, in many of these countries - particularly those that have toppled dictatorships - the most important reality is not of bad government but of weak government.

Would that we stop viewing these events less through the lens of the all powerful US exerting their will and might on undeveloped savage nations and more through the lens of encouraging democracy for all persons.

Video 1, courtesy of Mother Jones. Go to 4:00 for relevant portion.

This fundraiser video is the gift that keeps on giving. Josh Marshall picked this little nugget up first:

...Romney starts to talk about what he refers to as “the Jimmy Carter election”, i.e., 1980. He then goes on to talk about how the hostage crisis and the failed rescue mission Desert One were pervasive issues through the 1980 election. Then at the end he says that “if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.”

Let me just reiterate this very important point for you: Mitt Romney is saying that if another international crisis occurs that results in the deaths of Americans, he plans to use that for his advantage. While Josh notes that he hems and haws a bit so it's possible this is another one of those "inelegant" statements, I think there's little doubt when you listen to it within the context. Puts his statements on Libya in a whole new light, doesn't it?

Last week, the Romney campaign was accused of exploiting the crisis at the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans — and this little-noticed section of the bombshell video has already drawn attention in that connection.

The man who thinks you should elect him as Commander in Chief is hoping for American deaths for his political gain. That makes the congressional Republicans hoping to tank the economy just to sink President Obama's re-election chances look like such small potatoes.

DOWNLOADS: (189)

PLAYS: (1064)

Embed

Here's what I'd like to see: the man who is known as the godfather of the Iraq War (a overly kind euphemism coined by an enabling media for an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us) to be reminded every time he dares to show his face in public that he is responsible for the deaths of 4,804 service members and somewhere in the neighborhood of 118,000 Iraqi civilians as well as creating millions of Iraqi refugees and that what he should be doing is facing a tribunal in the International Court in The Hague rather than a friendly anchor asking for his opinions on foreign policy.

Because Paul Wolfowitz -- for being so murderously and un-Constitutionally wrong -- deserves no such platform to criticize any other administration's foreign policy, especially as it sought to protect the lives of the diplomatic service members. And shame on Fareed Zakaria and GPS to think Wolfowitz should have anything useful to contribute to the discussion. His notions on Middle East diplomacy, on understanding the intricate, complicated and dangerously fragile state of democracy in the Middle East and of the US role in any of this are utterly disqualified.

So I don't really care what Paul Wolfowitz thinks President Obama "should've said." I think that Paul Wolfowitz should have kept his own treasonous mouth shut.

Transcript via CNN below the fold.

Continue reading »

Oh boy, Mitt Romney stuck his foot in his mouth big time. You can see what a novice he is when it comes to foreign affairs.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said today that Mitt Romney’s characterization of Moscow as the United States’ “number one geopolitical foe” has actually helped Russia.

The Russian leader said Romney’s comments strengthened his resolve to oppose NATO’s plan for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, a system Russia believes will degrade its nuclear deterrent. The U.S. insists the system is aimed at Iran, not Russia.

“I’m grateful to him (Romney) for formulating his stance so clearly because he has once again proven the correctness of our approach to missile defense problems,” Putin told reporters, according to the Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

“The most important thing for us is that even if he doesn’t win now, he or a person with similar views may come to power in four years. We must take that into consideration while dealing with security issues for a long perspective,” he said, speaking after a meeting with Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic, according to Interfax news agency.

You can see why John McCain's staff was right about Mittens.

Romney knew little about foreign policy when he ran for president in 2008. An internal dossier of John McCain’s presidential campaign said at the time that “Romney’s foreign affairs resume is extremely thin, leading to credibility problems.”

If you recall, the GOP presidential primary field was chock full o' nuts.

Rick Perry labeled the Turkish government “Islamic terrorists.” Newt Gingrich referred to Palestinians as “invented” people. Herman Cain called Uzbekistan “Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan” and memorably blanked when asked what he thought of NATO’s incursion into Libya. Michele Bachmann pledged to close the US embassy in Iran, which hasn’t existed since 1980. Rick Santorum gave a major foreign policy speech at a Jelly Belly factory in California.

I never had so much fun on Twitter as I had during the Republican debates.

And because Romney is so green on foreign policy, he has surrounded himself with Bush-era neocons. John Bolton leads his team, but there are many more Bushies littering his crew.

Of Romney’s forty identified foreign policy advisers, more than 70 percent worked for Bush. Many hail from the neoconservative wing of the party, were enthusiastic backers of the Iraq War and are proponents of a US or Israeli attack on Iran. Christopher Preble, a foreign policy expert at the Cato Institute, says, “Romney’s likely to be in the mold of George W. Bush when it comes to foreign policy if he were elected.” On some key issues, like Iran, Romney and his team are to the right of Bush. Romney’s embrace of the neoconservative cause—even if done cynically to woo the right—could turn into a policy nightmare if he becomes president.
--
Romney’s team is notable for including Bush aides tarnished by the Iraq fiasco: Robert Joseph, the National Security Council official who inserted the infamous “sixteen words” in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union message claiming that Iraq had tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger; Dan Senor, former spokesman for the hapless Coalition Provisional Authority under Paul Bremer in Iraq; and Eric Edelman, a top official at the Pentagon under Bush. “I can’t name a single Romney foreign policy adviser who believes the Iraq War was a mistake,” says Cato’s Preble. “Two-thirds of the American people do believe the Iraq War was a mistake. So he has willingly chosen to align himself with that one-third of the population right out of the gate.”

The Nation has much more on these remnants of the cold war still grasping at windmills.

Pretty soon Iran's Supreme Leader will thank Romney for revving up his followers at the U.N.

DOWNLOADS: (152)

PLAYS: (2352)

Embed

Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is one of the stupidest members of the House of Representatives, and here he proves it again by touting George W. Bush's awesome management of the war in Afghanistan.

To Gohmert, it's all Obama's fault that George W. Bush failed to achieve victory in Afghanistan after seven years (twice as long as World War Two!). And forget those those Republicans in Congress who voted to send more troops to Afghanistan after Bush's failure. Nevermind. The negro isn't cleaning up Bush's mess fast enough.

Look, there are legitimate criticisms of Obama's surge in Afghanistan. But "George Bush did it better" isn't one of them. And Since Obama's such an obvious bumbler who shouldn't be sending our troops to Disneyland, let alone a battle field, why did Gohmert vote against bringing the troops in Afghanistan home?