President Bush Strikes From Behind

At the G-8 summit, President Bush grabs German Chancellor Angela Merkel from behind and gives her a quick massage before rushing off. Chancellor Merkel is not amused.

While the Middle East burns, our fearless leader is busy with his frat boy pranks. Click here for the video. (A major hat tip to my German friend.)

UPDATED VIDEO AND COVERAGE: CNN has posted a longer, and clearer, video here. (The story is here). In the video, President Bush appears to suddenly speed up, veer right, and go in for the blitz-massage. ABC News also has a story on the incident here. Various local ABC and NBC TV affiliates are also carrying the story. Countdown with Keith Olbermann covers the story on tonight’s show (7/21/2006).

 

Bush on the move

 

Moving in fast...

Scaring the crap out of Angela Merkel...

Fear!!!

Merkel is repulsed...

Bush makes his getaway

 

UPDATE: The LA Times reports on the incident in this article. But according to the LA Times, Chancellor Merkel "smiled". I don’t know about you, but it does not look to me like she is smiling. (Hat tip to NegSpin from Daily Kos for providing the LA Times link in a comment from my cross post there.)

UPDATE II: Watch Jon Stewart comment on the Blitz-Massage on YouTube or watch it on my post here.

UPDATE III: Will Femia of MSNBC’s Clicked has picked up on this story. He has analyzed the video and concluded that it was tantamount to a harmless hair tussle (you know, the kind girlfriends give each other! sheesh!):

I clicked a few links worked up about the President groping or feeling up the German chancellor.  The still photo does give that impression, but watching the clip on Crooks and Liars, I don’t think I agree.  It looks more like he gives her the equivalent of a hair tussle as he walks by.  Her reaction doesn’t look like she’s being violated so much as making a somewhat awkward gesture to get him back.

But he can be forgiven for the hair tussle analysis. He does such stellar work when discussing important conflicts in the world too. Check out this bit of informed journalism from the same post:

Speaking of military equipment, "To  appreciate the thorny, complex, multi-layered difficulties Israel confronts –from house to house battles to the highest levels of international diplomacy– one needs to understand the rather simple Katyusha rocket Hezbollah shoots at Haifa and other Israeli cities."  It’s so weird that with each armed conflict we learn about new missiles.  Remember the scud? [Emphasis added by me.]

I haven’t the heart to remind the hair tussle genius that Katyusha rockets have been around since World War II and Hezbollah’s been using them for a long long time. Katyushas may of course be new to Will but I think the rest of the world probably is a little better informed. Weird indeed! Sometimes facts never get in the way of the story.

 UPDATE IV: The Blitz-Massage is creeping into mainstream media like a virus. MSNBC covers the power of YouTube in spreading the video. As usual, the blogs get cursory mention. My recollection is that this story was and is being driven by the blogs.  I should know – the hits that nearly took my blog down came from the high traffic blogs who really gave the story life. Almost every blog I know is linking to Crooks & Liars for the video, if not the original Bild video.

The article does contain an interesting quote from Professor Larry Sabato:

Larry Sabato, professor of politics at the University of Virginia, agrees that today, public figures have to be more careful in “a thousand ways.” But he maintains sites like YouTube can be revealing.

“If they’re not doing something that’s embarrassing, they have nothing to worry about,” he says. “A president ought to know enough not use an expletive in a fairly open meeting, and almost any male alive today knows that you don’t offer uninvited massages to any female, much less the chancellor of Germany.”

I think I will have to agree with Professor Sabato on this one.

It’s interesting that, much like the Stephen Colbert WH Correspondence Dinner story, this story is being covered by the MSM not directly but rather as a story on the reaction of the blogs, YouTube, etc. to a Presidential embarrassment. I think this is what they call plausible deniability.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Humor | 97 Comments

Guest Blogging At Taylor Marsh’s Blog

I am pleased to announce that I will be guest blogging at Taylor Marsh’s blog every Sunday. I am very thankful that Taylor has given me this opportunity to reach a larger audience. I will be adding my perspective on foreign policy and torture issues to her regular posts. My first post on North Korea went up today. Please head on over to Taylor Marsh’s blog when you get a chance.

 

Posted in General, Personal | 13 Comments

Dear Leader 1, Decider 0

 

The Decider vs. Dear Leader

 

On Saturday, the United States and Japan finally got a UN Security Council resolution condemning North Korea. After much tough talk and bluster since North Korea launched ballistic missiles on July 4th, the United States and Japan backpedaled hard to save face at the United Nations. It is an indication of the weakness of the Bush Administration on the world stage that vis-à-vis the most isolated regime on the planet the United States is impotent.

The UN Security Council passed Resolution 1695 condemning North Korea’s missile launches without invoking Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. China had insisted that any resolution with the force of Chapter 7 would be met with a veto. After a week of negotiation, the French and the British brokered a resolution that does not contain reference to Chapter 7, but instead includes the following phrase:

Acting under its special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security…

Chapter 7 of the UN Charter provides the Security Council the legal authority to act, militarily if necessary, to "maintain or restore international peace and security." Without reference to Chapter 7, a Security Council resolution has about the same force as a UN General Assembly resolution, which is to say none.

Kim Jong Il will feel emboldened after receiving a slap on the wrist for his missile tantrum. Mr. Bush on the other hand has been reduced to nonsensical musings about North Korea – a far cry from the heady days of bravado in the spring of 2001. Last week at a press conference, Mr. Bush had this to say about the Dear Leader:

Look, I don’t know — I don’t know what the man’s intentions are. I don’t know what they are. It’s an interesting question: Is he trying to force us to do something by defying the world? If he wants a way forward, it’s clear. If he wants to have good relations with the world, he’s got to verifiably get rid of his weapons programs like he agreed to do in 1994, stop testing missiles, and there is a way forward. Part of the discussions in September were, here’s a way forward. Here’s a way for — he’s worried about energy, and our partners at the table said, well, here’s an energy proposal for you to consider. And so the choice is his to make.

Clearly Mr. Bush is in need of some face time with Kim Jong Il so that he can look into his soul and find out what the man’s intentions are. It is not surprising that the Bush Administration does not understand North Korea’s intentions, but it is nonetheless quite alarming. It is also a direct consequence of Mr. Bush’s lack of a policy vis-à-vis North Korea.

Mr. Bush has not had a North Korea policy since he unceremoniously disposed of the Clinton Administration’s policy of engagement with the communist nation. In 2001, the new Republican Administration decided that America needed a new tougher policy toward the world and decided to put its blinders on. In doing so, it abandoned significant progress made by the Clinton Administration:

Toward the end of his term, Clinton made what officials said was significant progress toward an agreement under which North Korea would have abandoned its long-range missile programs in return for foreign help with launching North Korean satellites. But he ran out of time to clinch a deal.

The Bush Administration had decided to review (suspend) the Clinton Administration’s North Korea policies in favor of doing nothing. In a somewhat prophetic statement, a senior administration official was quoted at the time:

On the missile talks, the aide said before Bush took office last month: "We made clear to the Clinton administration that it was their decision to go forward and that we would then come back and take a fresh look at the entire policy.

"We don’t have a policy yet on whether we want to restart those discussions." [Emphasis added by me.]

In a sign of what was to come, Colin Powell, the chief American Diplomat, found himself advocating a policy his boss did not subscribe to. On March 6, 2001, Secretary Powell felt that the United States had a North Korea policy based on those of the previous administration:

Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday the United States has "a lot to offer" North Korea if it curbs its missile development and missile export programs.

Powell said future U.S. contacts with Pyongyang would become clearer after South Korean President Kim Dae-jung’s visit.

"We do plan to engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off," Powell told a State Department news conference.

"Some promising elements were left on the table and we will be examining those elements," he added.

On March 7, 2001, President Bush publicly humiliated Colin Powell by informing the world that the United States did not have a North Korea policy:

"We look forward to at some point in the future having a dialogue with the North Koreans but … any negotiation would require complete verification," Bush told reporters in the Oval Office with Kim at his side.

"Part of the problem in dealing with North Korea is there’s not very much transparency. We’re not certain as to whether or not they’re keeping all terms of all agreements," Bush added.

Since the decision in 2001 by the Bush Administration to suspend negotiations with North Korea, many experts have urged the United States to reconsider such a head in the sand approach to foreign policy. However, this Administration has always considered diplomacy to be tantamount to appeasement. The Bush Administration did not then, nor does it now, understand that diplomacy and discussions have many purposes. Discussion is not a sign of weakness nor is it appeasement. One major benefit of discussion with your adversary is that it gives you insight into your adversary’s motivations. That insight is essential to a successful foreign policy. Without such insight, Mr. Bush today is confronting a major international crisis without any sense of what North Korea’s motivations are.

In place of diplomacy, the Bush Administration has engaged in a war of words with North Korea that has led to the crisis we face today. Under Mr. Bush’s watch we have seen North Korea withdraw from the NPT, build nuclear weapons, and test fire nuclear capable missiles. Without any coherent policy, the Bush Administration pays lip service to the Six-Party Talks while insisting that the other parties to the talks share the same interests as the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only country which has similar interests as the United States vis-à-vis North Korea is Japan. The other 3 countries, China, Russia and South Korea, have in some cases contrary goals to those of the United States. North Korea’s July 4th missile gambit exposed some of these deep divisions. One rather clear example of the divisions that exist was South Korea’s reaction to Japan’s threat of a pre-emptive strike on North Korea:

South Korea "will strongly react to the Japanese political leaders’ arrogance and outrageous rhetoric that further intensifies the crisis on the Korean Peninsula with dangerous and provocative rhetoric such as ‘pre-emptive strike,"’ Jung said.

The spokesman also accused the Japanese of using the missile tests as "a pretext for becoming a military power."

Jung said the Japanese remarks expose Tokyo’s tendency for aggression, noting Japan used the protection of its nationals on the Korean Peninsula as an excuse for past invasions. The Korean Peninsula was ruled by Japan as a colony from 1910 to 1945.

While the Bush Administration does its best to do nothing, North Korea continues on its march to becoming a regional nuclear power.

Mr. Bush has famously said that he does not do nuance. Diplomacy however is all about nuance. Instead, Mr. Bush has relied on his Doctrine of Preemption to counter threats to the security of the United States. However, as Iraq has rather amply demonstrated, Mr. Bush’s doctrine has been a spectacular failure. The consequence of this grand failure has emboldened adversaries such as North Korea. American diplomacy is at its weakest since World War II and the whole world has taken notice. Mr. Bush has no policy and very few options with regard to North Korea. A toothless UN Security Council resolution is the best American diplomacy can buy these days.

So, while Mr. Bush wonders what the Dear Leader is thinking, North Korea continues to gate crash the Nuclear Club.

 [Crossposted at Taylor Marsh]

Posted in Foreign Policy, North Korea | 1 Comment

Casus Belli

 

A family in Lebanon

 

The only saving grace of this moronic pissing contest in the Middle East for me is that at least they had the decency to wait until the World Cup ended. The rest of this nasty business is an exercise in stupidity. Israel has now declared that they will no longer be satisfied by the return of their soldiers. Their goal now is to destroy Hezbollah, they say. Well, good luck with that. Seeing how successful Israel was in destroying Hezbollah during the 22 years it spent occupying Lebanon, I won’t exactly hold my breath.

History and common sense have never been barriers to rash action in the Middle East. This time is proving to be no different. In response to the taking of 2 of its soldiers, Israel felt compelled, like it did in Gaza, to exact revenge on the people of Lebanon. The logic appears to be that somehow Hezbollah will cry uncle if Israel bombs enough bridges, destroys every inch of Beirut’s International Airport, blows up a random civilian or a dozen. The hope appears to be that somehow Hezbollah will buckle after seeing the suffering of the Lebanese people – a feat that 22 years of Israeli attacks on Lebanon failed to achieve. So in that vain hope Israel is methodically sending Lebanon back in time one 500-pound bomb at a time. Apparently, Hezbollah did not get the memo. They have responded by declaring "Open War" against Israel and have blown up an Israeli warship using a poor man’s Tomahawk missile.

Almost exactly a decade after the last massive Israeli-Hezbollah spat, the same game plan is playing out. On April 11, 1996, CNN reported the following:

Israeli aircraft launched an intense military assault against the militant Islamic group Hezbollah Thursday, striking targets in Beirut as well as in eastern and southern Lebanon.

It is the first time since 1982 that Israel forces have attacked Beirut.

At least one civilian was killed and at least five were wounded in Thursday’s raid as Israeli helicopter gunships blasted Hezbollah areas in Beirut’s southern suburbs.

The Beirut raids came hours after Israeli aircraft pounded Hezbollah headquarters near the Lebanese cities of Tyre and Baalbek.

Israel officials said all aircraft have returned safely.

The attacks follow weeks of growing tensions between both sides. On Tuesday, about 30 Israelis were injured when Hezbollah rocketed villages in northern Israel.

The situation had deteriorated significantly by April 14, 1996:

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) — Artillery and rocket attacks continued to pound both sides of the Lebanon border Sunday as Israel and Hezbollah militants bombarded targets in south Lebanon and north Israel.

In the United States, the White House called on Hezbollah to cease its "provocative" actions, but the militants vowed to turn northern Israel into "fiery hell" and launched more rockets.

One Hezbollah rocket hit an empty lot at the United Nations peacekeeping force headquarters in Naquora, Lebanon. The Katyusha rocket, believed to have fallen short of its target, caused no casualties.

Israeli forces, attacking areas in Beirut and surrounding suburbs for the fourth day, knocked out a power station, and at least three Lebanese civilians were killed in the air raids on south Lebanon. Some 400,000 people in the area have been forced to flee.

Hezbollah’s rockets, falling at a rate of one every 20 minutes on Sunday, also struck a school, but no casualties were reported.

Hezbollah also announced an expansion of its bombing efforts. Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, said that squads of suicide bombers from a "brigade of martyrdom-lovers" will attack Israeli targets to retaliate against the bombings.

That particular spat came to an end after the United States stepped in to mediate a cease-fire. Years later, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon and subsequently swapped prisoners with Hezbollah.

Some in Israel and the United States viewed the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as a humiliating defeat and as an act of betrayal. It is a defeat that Ehud Olmert has now set about to rectify, much to the glee of the neo-conservatives in the United States.

During the escalation of 1996, there were grown ups at the White House who delicately talked Israel and Hezbollah (through proxies) off the ledge. There were moderating forces who were able to put the brakes on an all out conflagration. No such forces exist in Washington today. Instead of trying to cool the rhetoric the Bush Administration has been adding fuel to the fire with pronouncements emanating from the White House and from the anti-diplomat John Bolton at the UN Security Council. President Bush blamed Syria for instigating Hezbollah:

And having said that, Israel has a right to defend herself. Every nation must defend herself against terrorist attacks and the killing of innocent life. It’s a necessary part of the 21st century.

Secondly, we — whatever Israel does, though, should not weaken the Siniora government in Lebanon. We’re concerned about the fragile democracy in Lebanon. We’ve been working very hard through the United Nations and with partners to strengthen the democracy in Lebanon. The Lebanese people have democratic aspirations, which is being undermined by the actions and activities of Hezbollah.

Thirdly, Syria needs to be held to account. Syria is housing the militant wing of Hamas. Hezbollah has got an active presence in Syria. The truth of the matter is, if we really want there to be — the situation to settle down, the soldiers need to be returned, and President Assad needs to show some leadership toward peace.

Mr. Bush’s UN Ambassador took it a step further today at the Security Council and blamed both Iran and Syria:

Syria and Iran must be held accountable for their role in international terrorism, he said.  Syria supported Hamas, while Iran supported Hizbollah.  No reckoning with Hizbollah would be adequate, without reckoning with its sponsor, Iran.  He again called on Syria to arrest a Hamas leader and recognized terrorist that resided on its territory.  He welcomed the decision to send a United Nations team to the region.  His country was engaged as well, with senior officials in the region.  He called on all parties in the region to accept their responsibility for security in the region. 

Israel claims both Iran and Syria are behind the Hezbollah kidnapping. With Washington reinforcing that view, a real possibility exists that Israel will take this opportunity to strike targets in Iran. Israel has repeatedly threatened preemptive strikes on Iran to prevent it becoming a nuclear power. With this latest spat with Hezbollah and Israel’s insistence that Tehran instigated it, Israel can now be seen as defending itself if it chooses to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Already Israel has struck the international airport in Beirut ostensively to prevent the shipment of arms from Iran and to prevent Hezbollah from flying the abducted Israeli soldiers to Iran. The next logical level of escalation is a strike on Iran.

A strike on Iran may sound awfully good on paper to conservative pundits in Washington and in the charged atmosphere in Tel Aviv. However, in the Middle East, actions seldom result in proportionate reaction. In a culture of escalation the likelihood of a major regional conflict looms large. With some in the Bush Administration and neo-conservative circles in Washington salivating at the prospect of an attack on Iran, common sense is in short supply. The United States is likely to sit this one out until it is too late.

Bush may yet get his war on Iran. But as in the case of Iraq, he has probably not thought through the consequences of a feel good attack on the mullahs in Tehran.

Americans should look forward to another nice war brought to us through the lenses of CNN. It would all be great fun except for the inconvenient truth that every thrilling blast that we see on television usually results in the end of many unfinished lives.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East Conflict | 8 Comments

Write Your Own Caption

 

President Bush in Germany
President Bush and his German counterpart agree to disagree on the situation in the Middle East.

 
So, what’s your caption?
Posted in Humor | 11 Comments