As we try to separate the wheat from the chaff in this extended Presidential election season, chock-a-block with candidates on both sides, it is a time-consuming exercise to parse all of the allegations made in the media and the candidates explanations of same.
I am extremely grateful to Tim Russert and Meet the Press for running a full-hour interview with every candidate who will accept his invitation to be on the show. Russert distills many of the charges leveled by the press (or in some cases, government reports) and gives the candidate an opportunity to respond that cannot compare with the fox-hole crouching that takes place in the debates.
As a New Yorker who lived under his regime, up to and including his so-called “heroism” on September 11, 2001, I am not a fan and was loathe to have to sit through another hour of his sanctimonious, ego-maniacal posturing. However, I consider it extremely important to understand the positions, personality and intelligence of each of the candidates, so when high-profile disputes arise in the one-on-one that is the main election event, it is far easier to place it all in context. For example, watching how W. dealt with McCain during the primaries in South Carolina put the “Swift-Boat” attacks on John Kerry in perspective. You can always learn something new, even about someone you already think you know very well.
Giuliani’s “security” consulting firm has done work for some clients with questionable ties to regimes that we might consider undemocratic. There have been calls for Giuliani to expose his client lists (both at Giuliani Partners and at the law firm he joined, Bracewell and Giuliani) so that the voting public may factor in any influence his high-paying clients may have on him. Of particular interest are the clients who arguably have connections to the very disaster that escalated Giuliani to national political status.
Giuliani Partners, which Rudy casually refers to as GP does unspecified “security and training” for an unspecified department of the government of Qatar. A Wall Street Journal article cited by Russert alleges that in 1996, the FBI sought to apprehend Khalid Sheik Mohammed (perpetrator of the destruction of the World Trade Center) within Qatar for his participation in a plot to blow up as many as a dozen airliners, only to lose him because he was tipped off by an Al Qaeda sympathizer within the government itself.
Russert additionally cited an article by Joe Conason of Salon.com, that alleges that the Emir of Qatar appointed as Minister of the Interior, Abdullah al-Thani, a strict Wahhabist, who has been identified by government reports and by the media as a protector of Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
The icing on this particular conflict-of-interest cupcake is the accusation of a CIA officer that Giuliani Partners (and by extension Giuliani) is taking money from the same accounts as people who protected Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Giuliani’s defense, aside from outright laughter at similar allegations that he has done business with close associates of Kim Jong-Il and with a company run by Hugo Chavez, was to say that Qatar was an ally, who we should be cultivating. He denies working for the Interior Ministry, but declines to say which department he is working for. He denies any contact with al-Thani, but provides no guidance on who in the Qatari government did sign the contract.
He insists his work revolves around security and teaching the government of Qatar how to prevent terrorist (his word, not mine—I don’t believe in using this word in this context) attacks from Islamic Fundamentalists. He asserts that American companies, and particularly his, are being sought out on these matters because: a) Qatar was bombed “once, a while back”, and b) his firm employs many of the ex-FBI agents who tracked down and imprisoned the bad guys like KSM the first time around. He insists we should be partnering with anyone on the idea of security from terrorism, and that this provided his firm with good experience on this.
Setting aside the irony of Giuliani’s claim to be an expert at preventing acts of terrorism attacks when the SAME building in New York was successfully attacked TWICE by the same radical group, you have to wonder at the gall of someone who serves up this additional irony: we are selling you the expertise of the FBI who failed to catch the bad guy who masterminded the attack on my city, and was hiding out in your country, because a member of your government managed to outsmart my FBI and help the bad guy give them the slip. I mean really, how can anybody pitch this with a straight face? This is like Clyde helping Bonnie evade the sheriff and then asking the sheriff to teach him how to protect himself from getting shot by Bonnie.
This isn’t even a successful “protection” racket. This isn’t about Giuliani’s boys going in and trashing the store and then showing up later to charge the store owner to keep it from happening again. Why would Qatar need to pay GP to protect them, when they are busy doing “favors” for members of the Al Qaeda mobsters like KSM. They’re already earning their protection. It’s an insane logical proposition, unless you consider it an attempt to influence a future American President with a chip on his shoulder for Islamic Fundamental “terrorist” supporters and harborers to keep them out of it once the shooting starts.
So, I did learn something new about Giuliani after all. In addition to his fascist tendencies, his unsympathetic social policies (as evidenced by his actions, not his public support), his amoral private behavior (Bernie Kerik and Judith Nathan), and his desire to take credit for things he has not done (protecting the city from crime and terrorism), he is clearly fully experienced in the fine art of quid pro quo in politics. I’m so glad he is willing to turn his cheek for a third time to the radicals that struck New York. The only question is, what will they bomb this time, since there is nothing left of the World Trade Center?
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Sunday, December 02, 2007
The Stupidest and Second Stupidest Arguments – December 2, 2007
There is something about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy that brings out the rage in some people, like tension brings out the Hulk. And, like the Hulk, when these people get enraged, they get stupid.
Two of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever heard in politics are currently being made in connection with Hillary.
The stupidest argument is the “alternating Bush-Clinton dynasties” argument, which says that we shouldn’t elect Hillary Clinton because that would mean either 24 or 28 years with either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House.
Why this should matter is never explained, and I suspect it is not explained because its nonsensical on its face. The administrations of the Bushes, senior and junior, and that of William Clinton represented different political parties, traditions and methods. Bill Clinton was no more a continuation of Poppy Bush’s reign than W’s was of the Teflon President’s. If you were making the argument that the two came from the same family, party or even political approach, cooperating in an attempt to pervert the institutions of democracy, or resulting in declining effectiveness, or increasing scandal and corruption, then the argument makes sense. But that is not the case here.
Clinton, a work-aholic, studious and thoughtful, if dysfunctional man, presided over a stellar economy (fueled by an internet stock bubble and fraudulent stock-option profiteering accounting practices at public companies), declining unemployment, and democratic “big” government proposals, like NAFTA and universal healthcare (with varying degrees of success). He also presided over multiple scandals (Whitewater, Lewinsky), distracting legal disputes (Paula Jones suit) and front page peace initiatives (Northern Ireland and Israel).
Leaving aside the first Bush presidency because it was only four years long, Bush, a lazy, uncurious and judgmental, if dysfunctional man, presided over a tanking economy (fueled by an real estate bubble and fraudulent accounting practices by war-profiteering private contractors), escalating unemployment, and undemocratic “big” government proposals, like pulling out of treaties and privatizing social security (with varying degrees of success). He also presided over multiple scandals (Abu Graib, Alberto Gonzales), distracting legal disputes (Scooter Libby suit) and front page peace initiatives (Syria and Israel).
It is clear that neither of these administrations needed the continuity of following the other to make mistakes, and that the country had no problem switching to a diametrically different leader when the time came. It is unclear how electing Bush after Clinton represents a preference for a dynasty, or electing Hillary after W for that matter.
It would have made far more sense to raise this argument about W, who represented not a continuation of his father’s four-year reign, but arguably a continuation of the 12 year Reagan term that Poppy was a part of. At the time that W. was running, something like 1 in 9 Americans was already being governed by a Bush at the state level. There is a far clearer case to be made for a Bush dynasty than for that of the Clintons (unless Chelsea starts making trips to New Hampshire and Iowa next year).
In addition, if you are worried about continuity of a political dynasty, then it makes more sense to argue against the common practice of having the Vice President of a two-term President become the presumptive nominee of the party.
That last leads me to the second stupidest argument ever made about Hillary, which is that she has no experience to be President, because she was First Lady, not President, and she’s never run anything on her own.
For starters, she is a U.S. Congressperson (a seat she was all but assured of winning, when after being opposed by the ever-so-popular Giuliani, he withdrew from the race with a medical excuse known as tail between legs), which is the same “experience” brought to the table by McCain, Obama, Thompson, Edwards, Gravel and Kucinich, to name a few.
Also in the race, with no more experience at holding a national executive office than the handful of legislative office-holders, are a couple of governors (Romney, Huckabee, Richardson and a couple of ex-mayors (Kucinich and Giuliani).
Throw in all the “experience” that I think makes a person uniquely unqualified to be President—that of the military, and religious training (McCain, Romney, Huckabee). Military and religious training require you to subdue critical thinking faculties to obedience—producing excellent followers, but very few leaders.
What should we make of this argument that a spouse does not obtain training by watching? I think the same exact argument can be made for the Vice President. This is a job that can be as ceremonial and uninvolved as the President chooses it to be—like that of First Lady.
I would argue that “watch me” experience can count for a lot. We used to require all of our trade training to be of the “watch me” variety in the form of apprenticeships. Who would you rather have cutting your diamonds: a stone-cutter, a wood-cutter or the apprentice who spends all day watching the diamond cutter?
If you accept that a highly involved political spouse can be learning the ropes just as a Vice President does, then Hillary, along with having been a governor’s spouse, a legislator and a member of the Board of Directors of a major corporation, is the only candidate in the race who does have White House experience. All this should be turning the other candidates green with envy, instead of being green and stupid like the Hulk.
Two of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever heard in politics are currently being made in connection with Hillary.
The stupidest argument is the “alternating Bush-Clinton dynasties” argument, which says that we shouldn’t elect Hillary Clinton because that would mean either 24 or 28 years with either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House.
Why this should matter is never explained, and I suspect it is not explained because its nonsensical on its face. The administrations of the Bushes, senior and junior, and that of William Clinton represented different political parties, traditions and methods. Bill Clinton was no more a continuation of Poppy Bush’s reign than W’s was of the Teflon President’s. If you were making the argument that the two came from the same family, party or even political approach, cooperating in an attempt to pervert the institutions of democracy, or resulting in declining effectiveness, or increasing scandal and corruption, then the argument makes sense. But that is not the case here.
Clinton, a work-aholic, studious and thoughtful, if dysfunctional man, presided over a stellar economy (fueled by an internet stock bubble and fraudulent stock-option profiteering accounting practices at public companies), declining unemployment, and democratic “big” government proposals, like NAFTA and universal healthcare (with varying degrees of success). He also presided over multiple scandals (Whitewater, Lewinsky), distracting legal disputes (Paula Jones suit) and front page peace initiatives (Northern Ireland and Israel).
Leaving aside the first Bush presidency because it was only four years long, Bush, a lazy, uncurious and judgmental, if dysfunctional man, presided over a tanking economy (fueled by an real estate bubble and fraudulent accounting practices by war-profiteering private contractors), escalating unemployment, and undemocratic “big” government proposals, like pulling out of treaties and privatizing social security (with varying degrees of success). He also presided over multiple scandals (Abu Graib, Alberto Gonzales), distracting legal disputes (Scooter Libby suit) and front page peace initiatives (Syria and Israel).
It is clear that neither of these administrations needed the continuity of following the other to make mistakes, and that the country had no problem switching to a diametrically different leader when the time came. It is unclear how electing Bush after Clinton represents a preference for a dynasty, or electing Hillary after W for that matter.
It would have made far more sense to raise this argument about W, who represented not a continuation of his father’s four-year reign, but arguably a continuation of the 12 year Reagan term that Poppy was a part of. At the time that W. was running, something like 1 in 9 Americans was already being governed by a Bush at the state level. There is a far clearer case to be made for a Bush dynasty than for that of the Clintons (unless Chelsea starts making trips to New Hampshire and Iowa next year).
In addition, if you are worried about continuity of a political dynasty, then it makes more sense to argue against the common practice of having the Vice President of a two-term President become the presumptive nominee of the party.
That last leads me to the second stupidest argument ever made about Hillary, which is that she has no experience to be President, because she was First Lady, not President, and she’s never run anything on her own.
For starters, she is a U.S. Congressperson (a seat she was all but assured of winning, when after being opposed by the ever-so-popular Giuliani, he withdrew from the race with a medical excuse known as tail between legs), which is the same “experience” brought to the table by McCain, Obama, Thompson, Edwards, Gravel and Kucinich, to name a few.
Also in the race, with no more experience at holding a national executive office than the handful of legislative office-holders, are a couple of governors (Romney, Huckabee, Richardson and a couple of ex-mayors (Kucinich and Giuliani).
Throw in all the “experience” that I think makes a person uniquely unqualified to be President—that of the military, and religious training (McCain, Romney, Huckabee). Military and religious training require you to subdue critical thinking faculties to obedience—producing excellent followers, but very few leaders.
What should we make of this argument that a spouse does not obtain training by watching? I think the same exact argument can be made for the Vice President. This is a job that can be as ceremonial and uninvolved as the President chooses it to be—like that of First Lady.
I would argue that “watch me” experience can count for a lot. We used to require all of our trade training to be of the “watch me” variety in the form of apprenticeships. Who would you rather have cutting your diamonds: a stone-cutter, a wood-cutter or the apprentice who spends all day watching the diamond cutter?
If you accept that a highly involved political spouse can be learning the ropes just as a Vice President does, then Hillary, along with having been a governor’s spouse, a legislator and a member of the Board of Directors of a major corporation, is the only candidate in the race who does have White House experience. All this should be turning the other candidates green with envy, instead of being green and stupid like the Hulk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
