Centerfield

Right. Wait... no I don't.

Look, a flaming elephant.

Look, the other kind of flaming elephant.

And on that note, I shall now return to lurking.

There is a lot of commentary around on how much damage has been done to America's reputation by the practices of the current administration. So it seems reasonable to as: what might the next administration do to mend the damage? (Note that this is entirely independent of the question of whether we should care what the rest of the world thinks. Merely IF we care, what could be done to mend the situation.)

While arrogance and high-handedness have not endeared the Bush administration to our neighbors, allies, or anyone else, I would argue that they are not really the major source of the problem. Our invasion of Iraq was not a source of great popularity either, but the invasion was not, in itself, an insuperable problem. The major damage to America's reputation has been done by the treatment of prisoners -- in short, torture, disappearing prisoners, etc.

The next administration can, and probably will, announce that there will be no more torture. But since the current administration maintains that we are not currently using torture (substantial evidence to the contrary notwithstanding), such a statement is unlikely to do much good. The only thing which would actually demonstrate to the world that we are stopping would be for those responsible to be held publicly accountable. Which would mean trials for war crimes for, at absolute minimum, the commanding officers of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and George W. Bush. (Trials of others involved would be necessary, too. But far less controversial.)

Do I expect that to happen? No. On the other hand, every week seems to bring events which make it seem less and less impossible that it would happen.

Would it work? I submit that the impact would be massive.

P.S. There may be those who wonder at the absence of Dick Cheney from the list. Simply put, while he may have argued storngly for the policies in question, as Vice President he has no authority to give anyone orders in this matter. Nor, unlike Gonzales and Yoo, has he been in a position to give (nominally) expert legal counsel on the subject. Which I suspect would make holding him responsible a major legal challenge. On the other hand, perhaps the President will simply decide to designate him an "enemy combatant."

They won't, wj, they'll just find different things to damage.

Bloomberg was the quintessential RINO. A lifelong Dem who changed party to get elected, and now that he's term-limited, bails out of both for an indie run.

I actually find the party-switching bit refreshing. If YOUR party goes off track, go drag the OTHER party towards where you think a good party should be. Big Hint to the party bosses there.

Your hint will probably fall on deaf ears.

Bloomberg did not dump his Liberal values to run as a Republican and I give credit to leadership for that. He was tired of the Democratic approach to city finance and Rudy was seen as a patronizing divider before 9/11. People did like the cleaner streets and the drop in crime. Democrats at the time misunderstood how much people appreciated that improvement. It is funny the debate now has become who will Bloomberg hurt more. That probably depends on who runs, but I think he helps Hillary. Nader may run and that might offset Hillary's advantage. I also hear many talking about Fred's skimpy record and less than feverish work ethic. Bloomberg can afford to stay fresh and wait to enter, but Fred has to join the fray and be questioned now.

I think Bush will close Gitmo. Out of all the mistakes the administration has made, I don't think torture is the major problem. Yes, some ass should roll over Abu Graib because of the shear stupidity of using a Saddam torture landmark for similar (well, not really) behavior. I think lack of judicial review and incompetence/corruption are much more serious mistakes. The failure of taking advantage of opportunity and an arrogant disregard for blowback is more galling than actual failures in general strategy.

I have a problem with arrogance being used out of context. Is Putin more arrogant? Is Ahmadinejad or Kimmie more arrogant? Is Chinese behavior arrogant? Is Syria's behavior arrogant or Hams'? Is Chavez arrogant or the Taliban? Is building a third plutonium plant by Musharaf arrogant while refusing to allow the worst nuke proliferator to be questioned by international experts? Are the Democrats being arrogant by declaring the Middle East not worthy of defending or relying on linear conjecture as foreign policy?

So arrogance needs some context. Just look what the CIA was up to under Democratic and Republican Presidents and Congress. A new report is out today.

We are faced with some startling arrogance by many in the world from Darfur to Gaza which cannot be blamed on our own mistakes. I certainly do not want to go up against foreign arrogance as a whimp.

What treaty is there that bestows what privilege on illegal combatants? What logic is there for France to allow safe passage for terrorists? What kind of absurd arrogance blinds Europe to the activity of terrorists making Algeria a leading transit point into Europe for jihadists? What kind of arrogance does it take to let America carry the weight in Afghanistan while talking tough about liberty and Democracy in Central Europe and Africa? What kind of arrogance is required to tell your citizens that Iran with a bomb is no real problem or that battle hardened terrorists coming here is either Bush's fault or more likely, a fantasy. What kind of arrogance believes a security wall can build itself? What kind of arrogance calls the science of global warming complete and certain or that conflict can be resolved without reasonable parties to negotiate peace?

Thus I think the intellectual arrogance on the Left rivals the once overly confident arrogance of the Republicans and executive privilege.

The Bottom line is that roasting the administration will be seen by the world as a repudiation of American strategy rather than correction and accountability for mismanagement of tactics in a very real struggle. One cannot kill the message because you fry the messenger. Make no mistake, jihadist go from Iraq through Syria to North Africa and Europe. CBS claimed tonight that having survived Iraq, these terrorists cannot be defeated. Now there is some arrogance. There is little others have done to resolve conflict before 9/11 and after the fact. It forces unilateral action and without someone willing to force the issues by threat of force, UN resolutions go unheeded while genocide and proliferation continue.

Now I feel much better.....

Hope you all had a good week.

Max, I agree that the administration has made lots of major mistakes. But strictly from the perspective of the rest of the world (which I was trying to consider) the general incompetence, and the corruption, and the lack of judicial review are comparitively small potatoes.

Certainly any actions to hold the administration accountable would need to be balanced by actions to maintain the battle against the fanatics. But, please God, actions which do not involve taking large steps down towards their level. (Note that I do not say that we have sunk anywhere near that level. Yet. Just that this administration's actions have taken us a large step in that direction.)

As for arrogance, I think people are more tolerant of arrogance which is posturing from weakness. If the Russian government is arrogant it is somehow easier to tolerate (no matter how bad its consequences in the real world) than arrogance from the government of the strongest country in the world. Just as the arrogance of the far left, however irritating, is not as hard to bear as if they had any real power in the world. If they got it, of course, that would be a whole different story.

Would it work? I think it might have some positive effects in those areas most directly affected by our nation building arrogance. But those areas are not where we've most lost reputation, we had little to begin with. It's the more developed nations, the "coalition" nations who I think might not be swayed, or might even react negatively.

What do I know, I'm just a working stiff.

But I do know that reputation is something that is built up over many years, a much slower process than losing it. Whether we punish those responsible for the mistakes that have been made or not, what we do after and what we continue to do is what will define us.

---

As to arrogance, I agree, that born of weekness is tolerated. But I also think justified arrogance is respected.

Heh, "justified arrogance" is an oxymoron, let's pretend I used "confidence."

Welcome, Ziusudra.

The Profesora's mom - one of the few easy-to-get-along with Mothers-In-Law in the world - just left. She will be missed, as, among many other fine things she did, she's provided plenty of her great cooking.

Right now I'm blogging with baby attached by a BabyBjorn a friend gave us, while the Profesora gets some food and a nap.

If she has left permanently, my sympathies for your loss. I think you meant she has left for a break and of course, she will return. Nothing can keep a Grandma away from her grandchild unless she has really departed…..

I agree with Ziusudra's comments.

I understand how the weak can use arrogance to conceal insecurity, but Iran is acting from imagined strength. And Nassar was arrogant, but his generals sworn they could crush Israel. Much of the arrogance is not deflective tactics of weak despots for we see the coordinated efforts of Syria, AQ and Iran bringing chaos to Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon and Afghanistan. Russia is sounding tough bolstered by oil money and anti-Americanism in the world. China arrogantly lectures us for lecturing them about human rights and Democracy. This is not bluster without a confidence behind it. How arrogant is it to test ASAT weapons while declaring a desire for a weapons free space? Hamas is given space in the NYT to blast the US for not respecting Democracy. They arrogantly distort history bolstered by an imagined power of defeating Abbas in Gaza. Hizb'Allah arrogantly tells Lebanon that it takes orders from Iran. This too comes from the perception that Israel lost the last war. I would not discount the strengths of our foes or the arrogance rising from their interpretation of recent trends. It wasn’t arrogance that removed the Taliban and Saddam. It was arrogance thinking strategic success is certain without maximum effort and planning. I am concerned about foolishness which would be calling the Muslim Brotherhood our friends or not heeding Iran’s declaration that they will build new secret facilities.

I suspect stupidity is a more dangerous flaw of past policy than arrogance and is hardly limited by Party affiliation.

Unfortunately, the global arrogance and threat levels are harder to fix than Gitmo.

Ziusudra is absolutely right, of course. Rebuilding a reputation is an enormously longer and slower process than losing it. Continuing behavior over a lot of years will be required. But so, too, will a big move -- to make the point of a change of direction as well as for its own sake.

P.S. What's wrong with being "just a working stiff"? Many of us are -- for all that we tend to pay a little more attention to the greater world around us than many.

Agreed, as long as repairing reputation is not a repudiation of human rights in offending countries or ignoring the growing threats abroad. To note: Bush started after the last election to change tactics on several fronts. He went from going along with Shia revenge in Iraq to arming some Sunni tribal leaders. He has shown some patience with NK, talked with Iran and pushed Israel to offer talks with Syria (they refused and moved more missiles to their borders). Despite this change, other countries continue to spout arrogance.

Nothing wrong with being a working stiff besides the pay grade. I am.

There's nothing wrong with being a "working stiff", I was just using it as an excuse for not knowing what I was talking about and as a segue into the second paragraph. Though I have only very recently begun with the paying attention to the greater world bit. Anyway, back on topic.

War crime trials would certainly be a big first step and a sort of bellwether. But it would be an even greater divisive force here at home than the war itself. Would that be worth the gains abroad?

I think only if the very top were found culpable, anything less would be seen as a farce by those we'd most hope to convince. And if the odds of trials are miniscule, the odds of Bush being found guilty are infinitely so.

Admittedly a war crimes trial would be vastly less divisive if the next President were a Republican. Just to avoid cries of "partisanship!" But suppose, for the sake of discussion, that it were McCain, who has personal experience. Still, the odds of trials are admittedly, as you say, miniscule. Albeit rising.

I'm not so sure that the odds of convictions are as low. If it actually came to a trial, demonstrating that waterboarding constitutes torture should not be that difficult -- just take the official American position when North Viet Nam was doing it. Ditto for any other actions for which we convicted Nazis of war crimes after WW II.

Then it becomes a matter of showing that the individuals concerned authorized/ordered the use of such techniques. For that, if memory serves, there are their own statements. Would simply showing that they knew they were being used and failed to order them stopped? I don't know.

Finally, it becomes a matter of the jury (assuming a jury trial) not refusing to convict, despite of the evidence. How often have juries taken that route? Maybe one of the lawyers can enlighten us there. But I certainly wouldn't want to bet the ranch on it.

Remember the context. We presently do prosecute violations of law. The courts have not been kind to the administration and foreign nationals and legal combatants, as well as American citizens can take the US government to court. Please explain the criminal charges. Negligence? I think Tully can tell you what suspected crimes might be worth court time.

The polonium episode and the refusal of the Russian government to cooperate reasonably in investigating the event is far more scary than Gitmo. That member nations can commit genocide or threaten others with destruction is scarier than Gitmo. Plots have been discovered at Gitmo. Again, you can't impeach the “stretch” of power during a security crisis. Presidential power has been a soccer ball from Truman to Bush. WMD, terrorism, multipolarity, technology and a criminal network doing 9 trillion annually does provoke some extraordinary measures. See Global Strike. The nature of this emerging security threat however, does require judicial review, the soundest strategies with metrics, effective advertising and sufficient bi-partisan cooperation. So while I agree that present accountability sucks and it would be great to clean house (and launch a great new vision for the world), the greater struggle is taking place on the ground between distinguishable moral and ideological markings.

This is what Bobby must be up to, We can't lose sight that our adversaries are still very much a different mindset. They consider retreat and negotiations a sign of weakness unless they are sinking faster than their adversaries are. If you read what our adversaries are doing and saying, our discord to them is encouraging. Even talking to the Brotherhood has potential negative effects. Half the struggle, as Brian has mentioned is the mind game and its PR. The Republicans blew that for years. Arrogance and political retribution are relative to the big picture. If America has done (doing) what Russia has, China has, NK, Iran, Syria, Sudan and others,. there would be a military coalition forming against us. We are still judged by the King of the Hill standard.

Yes, the ends don’t justify the means and our Free World leadership places a premium on our good behavior (why we need criteria for action), but unfortunately the opposite of ideal often occurs because of our particular problem of being forced to act alone. I mentioned before that international apathy, jealousy and overt hostility forces us to act in the dark. In such a spot, it is hard to purge mistakes and negligence. And is stupidity a crime? If there is a smoking gun, petition the court, but the villainy of the administration is a tad overblown. I mean, come on, with the show 24 airing in NYC next season, what high heads are going to roll over enhanced interrogation of illegal combatants? What jury will convict? There will be more trials and releases from Gitmo, but systemic criminality authorized by the White House is hardly what McCain or Pelosi have uncovered. Put some real meat on the table before we have witch trials. Ever hear of just firing? Bad intelligence, negligence, stupidity, incompetence are not criminal acts as far as I know. But I’m no expert.

What if time will vindicate many of the observations of this administration? That is the sad part. Even today, the Democratic alternatives are a joke. With real threats and bad alternatives, cleaning house will leave us with what? No policy and on going trials? Watch as the candidates debate policy. No one will mention national ID cards or trials.

I assume cleaning house and repairing our reputation means having a reputable and coherent policy. Let's hear more about that first, before we place trials before winning the battle. It is a paradox of sorts. Sometimes you have to solve the problem before you can crucify those you believe got it wrong. The purging has little to do with finding the right plan. History may show many of our failures were just bumps in the long road and the lull in attacks, the momentary rearming of a determined enemy.

Saturday Night Live had a great political animation of all the candidates being asked their darkest secrets. Obama had me in tears. Kusinich said his secret was that he didn’t exist and puff, he disappeared. McCain decked Rudy. Richardson declared he was 100% Mexican and Romney said he had eight wives and did meth.....

I see how this relates to the question of reputation and restoring it. SLN suggests we are going in the wrong direction.

The course to reestablishing a reputation starts with four things that we haven't exactly been world class at for a while: "assessing carefully, speaking clearly, acting wisely, and implementing skillfully" in all things. And the overlay for all of it is "genuine sincerity" ... which assures consistency.

It's not complicated. It's not so hard to know what we need to do and how to act. Doing it is, for our political leaders, has been akin to mission impossible.

Max, certainly there are lots of things wrong in the world at the moment. And the Bush administration has done lots of things that could and should have been done differently. None of which are relevant to the two very narrow question we have been discussing:
- would war crimes trials help repair the American reputation in the world?
- is there a viable case for a war crimes trial?

So far, the discussion on the first question seems (to me) to have concluded that a war crimes trial and conviction would be a start, but only a start. We may be wrong about that, but that seems to be where we got to.

On the second question, you are right that there first has to be a violation of the law. Last I looked (and no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong) a treaty which the US has signed, and which has been ratified by the Senate, has the force of law. At least until and unless we formally withdraw from it.

The Geneva Conventions fall into that category, and if we formally withdrew from that treaty I must have missed it. All I recall is that the administration asserted that either a) the Convention did not apply (for totally unconvincing reasons) or b) the actions taken did not constitute torture (even though the US position on those actions, when applied to to American prisoners in the past, was that they did indeed constitute torture). And all that is before considering any US law, other than the Geneva Convention treaty, which may address the subject.

I may be doing you a massive injustice here. But to me, your argument seems to be that the fact that Russian is assassinating people in other countries, and Sudan is committing genocide, justifies ignoring what we have done. Which is rather like saying that, because murders have been committed by some people in my city, nobody else should be arrested, let alone convicted, for assault and battery. I disagree, and I can't see any sign that it is a legally viable argument.

Last I looked (and no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong) a treaty which the US has signed, and which has been ratified by the Senate, has the force of law. At least until and unless we formally withdraw from it.

Yes and no. That's a very simplistic statement that ignores some very tricky ifs, ands, and buts. For example, a treaty cannot oblige or enable Congress to violate the Constitution.

"War crimes" are by definition the province of the ICC, and the US is not a ratified "state party" signatory to the Rome Statute that established the ICC. There is no treaty jurisdiction there. The specific objection of the United States was that signing the Rome Statute could subject US citizens to political persecutions by international courts--and it's a valid objection. (We prefer to pursue political persecutions of our own citizens under own laws, of course.)

"International law" is itself a posturing oxymoron. If it's international, it's politics unless all the parties involved have agreed to the terms by enforceable and enforced treaty. And then it's ultimately only "law" by the singatories' domestic applications of same under their own national statutes. Treaty obligations are ignored all the time, and the only enforcement available is through domestic laws, and international politics.

I was under the impression that part of our justification/rationalization for not joining the ICC, in addition to the valid concerns about political prosecutions, was that our own laws already adequately covered the matter of war crimes, etc. Is my memory failing me? Or was it a mis-statement of what our laws already covered?

P.S. It occurs to me that, were I one of those involved, I would probably not want to travel to or thru any of the countries which are signatory parties to the Rome Statute.

Your memory fails you not. Our own laws do indeed codify federal penalties for crimes under the Geneva conventions, and we do prosecute people under them. They define the actual crimes per OUR law. Not someone else's definitions, which tend to be somewhat flexible when international posturing politics is involved. For OUR people, what counts is OUR definitions, and OUR codifications. Which must fall inside the parameters of OUR constitution.

Treaty law is a convoluted subject. Even lawyers don't like going there. Diplomats love it. Arguing about it pays their salaries. So they keep it as vague as possible, leaving lots of room to argue.

What Tully said and remember, the Geneva Convention applies to legal combatants. To give everyone some perspective on international "arrogance" and whether putting Cheney on trial will have a meaningful message in light of this circus of arrogance, see the following links:

Iran's role in Gaza

Syria's role in Lebanon

More AQ arrogance

Chavez's arrogance

Putin's arrogant game

I did not say that because others violate law, we should do the same. I said that other nation's threats and behavior show us how serious the problem we face largely alone. One cannot defend international consensus and rule of law when nothing gets done and then blast unilateral actions pressing the boundaries of "enhanced interrogation" or violating the privacy of communications involving suspected terrorists. There is a big difference between punishing those seeking to punish our adversaries (prove it) and punishing our adversaries. Without effective punishment in the latter case, the signal from punishing the former is lost. Most of the Left that’s calling for trials are seeking the repudiation of US policy in general. The policy crimes they believe Republicans have engaged in (please list) require a perspective quite different from our NSS. Show reasonable evidence for crimes, show a policy that does not make pre-emption or self-interest a crime and then perhaps trials are in order. Accountability is another matter I would like to see more of, but this often does not rise to the level of criminal trials.

Isn't it odd that we struggle with our reputation while many nations and groups dish out nothing but garbage? In this climate, I doubt any public correction here will matter much. The best way to restore our reputation is to honor alliances, be more bi-partisan and transparent and do the kinds of things Terry and others like Jon And Brian have already mentioned. The aftermath of Viet Nam did not make us safer and despite trials and new policy, did little to restore the Left's view of America.

Oh, one link I forgot. As Muslims protest clothing restrictions in the West claiming such bans prevent their religious expression, here is what really goes on in Iran. Shall we call this arrogance? Again, if we put Rumsfeld on trial for abuses others did at Abu, what message will resonate in Iran? And if Europe or other allies don't really care about behavior in Iran and other places, what new energy will they have by us putting Gonzales on trial?

"Ditto for any other actions for which we convicted Nazis of war crimes after WW II."

Yes, we are witnessing abuses the Nazis did every day we read the news. I suggest the culprits do not reside in the US. If the US did not invade Iraq, Chemical Ali would be preparing his next batch of CW for export as insurance against retaliation for more agressive Iraqi behavior. The Chinese, Russians and French would have thousands of their nationals on the ground in Iraq helping him and his two sons.

Certainly the challenges/threats we face are serious. The Left may refuse to see that, but those of us on the Right cannot let that blind us now, can we? Nor, however, can we categorically reject something, merely because the Left suggests/demands it. "Even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then."

As for Rumsfeld, abuses done at his command are his responsibility. Not to excuse those who physically did the deed (the "I was only following orders" defense having been rejected in such matters long since). But those who give the orders are certainly responsible when those orders are carried out.

As for European attitudes towards America vs. those towards Iran: We might wish to distinguish between the bulk of the population and the self-identified elite. (The far Left in Europe, just like the far Left here, will not be influenced by facts.) The fact that we cannot convince everyone, especially those who are focused on their personal material/power gain, does not mean that we should not bother to try to reach anyone. Not to mention that Europe is not the whole of the rest of the world.

P.S. On the other hand, Chemical Ali has (just this week, and admittedly belatedly) been sentenced to hang. Some measure of justice, eventually.

I agree that one wrong does not justify another. I am not a conservative. I often sound like one when babbling about foreign policy and national security though I am far from expert on these subjects. I’m just a working stiff. I don't want to diminish the importance of accountability or success as a measure of soundness of policy. Pressuring the French to let the Grand Mufti escape the gallows was a critical mistake in 1946. The man should have swung for what he had done promoting the massacre of Jews and Allies. We made a bad gesture to appease Arabs and allowed Nazism to spawn with Fundamentalist Islam.

I appreciate the anger over incompetence and the abuse of power. We don’t want mistakes or crimes to go unchecked. I am concerned about the health of Civil Liberty and truthfulness in reporting. I think we have been discussing the context of justice and the effectiveness of "trials" (were you to find a crime) in promoting our reputation.

In the present climate, I would argue that we need wisdom and strategy. While it is wise to work to promote our reputation, when the international media is rigged against us, the effectiveness of trials (which would be divisive here) is questionable. Would putting Nixon on trial have helped our reputation and made the world more peaceful? Nyet.

I have many problems with Bush domestic policy. I would love to see corruption punished and incompetence tarred and feathered. Brown was a joke as well as Miers as a Supreme Court judge. The mess in Iraq involves everyone from Saddam to Iraqis, Administration officials, the military, Republicans in Congress, Russia, France, China, Iran, Syria, intelligence agencies, our allies, our enemies etc.

As far as accountability, why focus on political shows? I knew about the air quality the moment the WTC came down. I handed out several respirators to friends going downtown. I warned all about the likely danger of breathing WTC vapor. The EPA was silent over the pollution threat from the disaster. What heads rolled over the poor bulletins? We all saw people standing on the smoldering rubble without protection.

Clinton has fought for medical review of first responders. She had to argue with Republicans. Now Republicans are squabbling over who messed up.Where was Rudy and Pataki? This is pathetic. We need to send a message we are sharp and prudent. We need to show there is a punishment for incompetence and negligence. We need to show our decisions are measured and debated. Voting is justice to an extent. We need to showcase our strongest Conservative and Liberal values, not our illiberal Liberal, unconservative conservative ones. The political dynamic is splintered and sends a weakened signal. This is why America is seen as reckless and dangerous, not that we render terrorists or removed Saddam and the Taliban. We don't send positive signals by plunging into a divisive fight here (see Clinton impeachment), while our adversaries escape punishment and laugh at our self-destructiveness somewhere "over there".

A partisan, devisive fight would not be good. Which is one of the reasons that I suspect nothing like this will happen.

On the other hand, suppose (just as a thought experiment) McCain, for example, were President and ordered the DoD and DoJ to put together cases. Plenty of personal experience with torture to explain his motivation. No partisan fog to confuse things. Still some really unhappy people, of course, but . . . .

Well, I think you over estimate the free pass McCain gets from the military. If there were real smoking guns the Democrats would already have petitioned the court. McCain would sink any chance he had for President.

My first post here at Centerfield talked about the need for criteria. Instead, the Republicans took a father-knows-best attitude while many Democrats called invading Iraq an illegal act. Many Dems consider pre-emption illegal too. What is done is done as far as blaming whoever polarized the discourse. I personally find Bush's manner of conversation polarizing, but most of the problems were not outright criminal acts. Perhaps the most significant effect of 9/11 was to change our military response from confronting nations to stopping IMDIVIDUALS. Our Constitution does not make individual acts against another, the liability of government. After 9/11 we had to stop individuals and individual groups (and find cells in America). The mood was more 24ish leaning in regards to preventing attacks ON AMERICANS. The normal legal standards were bent and it is hard to draw the clear line you seek to restore reputation without some bi-partisan standard or criteria in a post 9/11 world. Look how divided we still are.

I do have faith in Americans. If a memo is discovered or a new fact is uncovered, we will petition the court. Plumbing the shadowy world of counterterrorism for crimes must be weighed against the divisive nature of questionable trials and the message you think it would send. As I said, the officials who pressured France to release the Grand Mufti in 1946 should have been chastised for the harm they caused. I wonder where Churchill stood on that count. The world is not really listening anymore. Turks still don't want to talk about Armenian genocide. The Arabs don't want to talk about their Nazi proclivities, the Russians don't want to talk about their less than Liberal society and the Chinese don't want lectures on their use of torture. Nope, the world isn't listening.

My hope is that as we approach the general election, our candidates will offer criteria for action and a review process we can have faith in again. The simple truth is that Americans don't want to defend Liberty abroad if it means sacrifice. We want Freedom without understanding the new world we are living in. We have succumbed to politics rather than informed reason. This has in my eyes, created illiberal Liberalism and a strange brew of Conservative ideas often running counter to themselves.

The Clinton and Bush eras show political self-interest fostered at the expense of national security and general prosperity. In a perfect world, I would put them all on trial. As Tully said. what is, is. So we have to deal with political and security realities. I remember Democrats and Republicans standing on the smoldering remains of the WTC (without masks) and wondered how long solidarity would last. What has transpired has not been pretty, but it could have been worse. I suggest solutions to the deadlock be progressive, constructive, bi-partisan and above all, the friggin smartest, vetted strategies experts can create.

Presently, that is lacking from both sides. We working stiffs have only our cash and votes to use. Well, some of us use the internet. If Tully and Pat say a particular case will never fly on legal grounds, I lean towards believing them. One cannot use the Republican yardstick on Clinton as a measure of criminality. Hopefully, we will not use Bush’s understanding of international dynamics to push tactics. The question is what leader is there that has learned and can promote the unity and intelligence we need to prosper in security. We cannot clone Washington’s mind.

P.S. If McCain became President, being more of a hawk and leader of the Republican Party, he could set out a new criteria and way of formulating national security strategy. This could be a boon to our "reputation", but I suspect ground conditions will determine who is listening to what. The positive long-term effect will come from how competent and correct McCain’s policy is witnessed by the success it achieves. And should McCain pardon Libby, then what? Should he bomb Iran, then what? Should he back Blair up in the Middle East, then what? You see the problem of course: multiple signals and many unstable dynamics to deal with. Each have impact on our reputation as well as our continued security. How interested will we be in Rumsfeld’s trial if a new strike by AQ on America or another nation takes place?

It is disgraceful that we won’t take in more Iraqis that have stood beside us in Iraq. The Democratic signal seems focused on Mexicans. What message does it send without trials to "restore our reputation"? Just a thought....

And a fine thought it is, your last one there. I've had it myself more than once.

Those who call for immediate withdrawl would be vastly more impressive if they even made a pass at addressing what we owe to those Iraqis who have supported us. (But at least raising the issue tends to shut them up when they are pontificating in my presence.) Of course, they don't tend to suggest letting in refugees from Dafur, either.

And this from a "Liberal" judge. I suppose you weren't suggesting a secret trial, were you?

I think the ground you believe has been harmed and in need of redress publically, is still muddy waters.

The signal people are sending Chavez today in Caracas is quite loud, far louder than those preaching civil liberty here. I think either Party's new President can send a restoring signal, but the supporting act will determine the effect.

The immigration bill's failure does not bode well for clear American messages.