One would think that President Bush might have learned something from President Clinton’s refusal to get involved with the Rwandan genocide. But it is becoming evident that his administration is intent on running out the clock (however, one does that), using a lot of verbal gymnastics. Colin Powell says that “The burden…for providing security, rests fully on the shoulders of Sudan's government.” The Washington Post aptly notes that “Asking a government like this to provide security in Darfur is like calling upon Slobodan Milosevic to protect Albanian Kosovars.”

The most recent reference from the White House I can find related to Darfur is this exchange during the July 16 press gaggle with Scott McClellan

Q At the NAACP yesterday, Senator Kerry criticized the administration's approach to Darfur, saying it wasn't aggressive enough. He said there should be humanitarian intervention, and there should be a clearer label of genocide. He says you're equivocating.
MR. McCLELLAN: It's nice that he's decided to talk about it in an election year, and -- because this administration has been acting on this humanitarian and security crisis. We have been -- we have been -- for quite some time, we have been -- the United States is leading the way when it comes to addressing this situation and bringing the international community's attention to it.
Secretary Powell went to the Darfur region to see, first hand, for himself, the situation there. We've seen some mixed results from the government. We have urged the government to take action to address the security situation and to help allow for the aid to get to the people who need it. And we are continuing to lead the way for the international community in addressing this issue. We are pursuing a resolution at the United Nations that will continue to focus attention on this issue and make sure that the -- that it is addressed.
We welcome -- we welcome him, all of a sudden talking about it in an election year. But we've been acting on this for quite some time, and the United States is leading the way to address this situation.
Q He says you're equivocating on the question of whether it's genocide.
MR. McCLELLAN: He's saying a lot of things in an election year, but look at the actions that we are taking.
Q Well, do you believe that it's genocide in Sudan?
MR. McCLELLAN: We've addressed that issue previously. Secretary Powell has talked about it, I've talked about it in briefings. Regardless of what you want to call it, it is a humanitarian crisis and a security crisis that needs to be addressed immediately. And that's why Secretary Powell visited the region at the direction of the President to bring attention to this issue, as well as to urge the government of Sudan to follow through on what they have committed to doing.
Q But it's not genocide?
MR. McCLELLAN: I just addressed that, Maura.

So the White House response is, if John Kerry brings up the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians, it’s politics and the White House has addressed the issue of whether the crisis constitutes genocide, even though it really hasn’t. The British are ready with at least 5,000 troops to launch a humanitarian intervention. The U.S. is playing Rwanda-era semantic games again. So sad.

From Samantha Power’s book A Problem from Hell

The Clinton administration opposed the use of the term. On April 28 Christine Shelly, the State Department spokesperson, began what would be a two-month dance to avoid the g-word, a dance that brought to mind Secretary [Warren] Christopher’s concurrent semantic evasion over Bosnia. U.S. officials were afraid that the use of the stinging terms would cause demands for intervention that the administration did not intend to meet. When a reporter asked for her comment on whether Rwanda was genocide, she sounded an awful lot like her boss: “Well, as I think you know, the use of the term ‘genocide’ has a very precise legal meaning…Before we webbing to use [the] term, we have to know as much as possible about the facts of the situation, particularly about the intentions of those who are committing the crimes…I’m not an expert on this area, but generally speaking there – my understanding is that there are three types of elements that we look at in order to make that kind of a determination.”

On second thought, maybe the Bush administration did learn something from the Rwanda episode.

And speaking of Bush doing nothing about Iran for the past 3 years...

So it turns out that some of the 9/11 hijackers traveled through Iran after leaving Afghanistan and that the “Iranian government” (is that the democratically elected moderate Khatami, or the unelected hardliner Khamenei? You’ll get no distinction from the mainstream media). At least the Bush administration is consistent. It seems that the “Iranian government” facilitated the transit but likely didn’t have any knowledge of what these guys were up to. But the Bush people are nonetheless going to “to look and see if the Iranians were involved” in the 9/11 attacks. GWB is on the case personally – and he has been all along. 
 

As to direct connections with September the 11th, you know we're digging into the facts to determine if there was one," he said. "We will continue to look and see if the Iranians were involved."

He also said: "I have long expressed my concerns about Iran. After all, it's a totalitarian society where free people are not allowed to, you know, exercise their rights as human beings." He said, “This has been an issue that I have been concerned about ever since I've been the president."

The president has really been concerned about Iran all along. See? Don’t you feel better? Okay he hasn’t done anything about their burgeoning nuclear program and according to Richard Clarke, on September 12 he didn’t ask any questions about any countries other than Iraq (not even Afghanistan). But he’s had a secret plan all along to wait until after an invasion of a country that had nothing to do with September 11 and after the 9/11 Commission reported on possible links between Iran and al-Qaida, to let us in on what he implies he’s suspected all along. I’m comforted.
 
But in all seriousness, this seems like an interesting story from the Iranian angle. However, there should be vigorous debate (for the first time) about W’s fixation with Iraq immediately after 9/11. Dick Cheney continues to spout of unsubstantiated “ties” between Iraq and al-Qaida, thus moving the goal posts on why it was okay to invade. But too many of the debates devolve into semantic games over what “ties” means (although that is an important discussion). Let’s put the president under the spotlight. His rationale that the invasion of Iraq has made the U.S. safer has never held water as far as I’m concerned. The Iran revelations are just the turn in the game of distraction this administration is playing with the war on terrorism.
 
 
Update: This Newsweek article continues some vague semantics I think are essential to this story. "According to a December 2001 memo buried in the files of the National Security Agency, obtained by the commission, Iranian officials instructed their border inspectors not to place Iranian or Afghan stamps in the passports of Saudi terrorists traveling from Osama bin Laden's training camps through Iran [emphasis added]," the article asserts. My question is, who is doing the labeling of terrorist? U.S. intelligence after the fact? Did the Iranians know these were terrorists or simply assume that coming from Afghanistan they were likely up to something nefarious? I think the distinction is important and the latter explanation while not speaking highly of Iran is much less damning than the former. But which is it? Could someone at least answer the question of who's doing the terrorist labeling?

Okay. After much consideration I have decided to go with my plan of a few months back to cut my posts down to two longer (750 -1000) word pieces per week. They will generally be posted on Monday and Thursday. The reasoning is two-fold. One is lack of time to generate the daily posts that so many blogs do. The second is that I'm frankly bored with that format. Perhaps the political blogs are in a rut, but I'm finding them increasingly uninteresting and incestuous. I don't claim to have any more on the ball than they do, but I don't want to become part of that. So additionally, I will try to write more about the policy side of politics rather vice versa.
 
That's that. Thanks for reading. Stay tuned.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism has a new report out about character and the 2004 presidential campaign. It’s a really interesting report, take a look at it. But one of the really great section is on how the late night comedy shows portray the candidates. Here’s part of what it says about my man John Stewart

In a way, comparing John Stewart's Daily Show to Leno and Letterman is like comparing apples to Asian pears. One is mainstream. The other is a more exotic fruit. To begin with, Stewart's show has a different approach, that of a mock newscast that tailors to a niche cable television audience. The news format keeps the program very topical. And the audience, apparently full of more news junkies aware of the subtleties of the day's events than the other shows, means the Daily Show deals less in the broad political messages or even the main protagonists. While Leno and Letterman aim their broadsides at Bush and Kerry, Stewart and his crew will mock cabinet figures and others in the Bush Administration that many network audiences might not be able to identify.

When the Daily Show does stories about Iraq, the jabs it takes are often not aimed at Bush in particular, but on the Administration as a whole or at specific member of the Bush team. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, for example, took some hits when the Abu Ghraib story broke. Vice President Dick Cheney is also a frequent target. This is another advantage the Daily Show has. Jokes about Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Armitage may not be picked up by Leno or Letterman viewers. But Stewart seems to feel his show's format and its audience allow him to play with a broader list of names from the Bush administration.

In taking shots at the President, though, the jokes are sharp. When news broke that long-time U.S. ally Ahmed Chalabi may have been passing U.S. secrets onto the Iranian government Stewart did a long bit on June 2 attacking Bush's credibility cutting back and forth between video from the president and Stewart's comments.

STEWART (in studio): I'm sure an honorable man like our President will admit he was wrong about Chalabi and will not try to minimize the relationship our country had with him.
BUSH (on tape): My meetings with him were brief. I think I met him at the State of the Union and working the rope line. He might have come with a group of leaders.
STEWART (in studio): He sat behind your wife. Those seats don't just go to the eighth caller. You knew he was the guy feeding us all the information about Saddam.
BUSH (on tape): I don't remember anyone walking into my office and saying Chalabi says this is how it's going to be in Iraq.
STEWART (in studio): Really, you don't remember that. Because that's what happened. Didn't you read any of the articles about how the war started? I want to go on vacation again.

On tonight’s Daily Show, John completely took apart his guest Wolf Blitzer. It really does appear that much of the mainstream media is in denial of their piss poor job covering not just the Bush administration, but international politics as well. Thankfully we have John Stewart to remind them of that. I’ll link to the interview when it becomes available.


Update: See Wolf Blitzer get hammered by Jon Stewart here.

Everything hasn’t changed since 9/11. Get over it. It sounds great and perhaps is cathartic. But it really isn’t true, nor should it be. The same terrorists with the same motives that attacked the U.S. existed on 9/10. Fewer people died than in some the world’s major earthquakes in the last 5 years (this is not in any way to diminish the loss of life on 9/11; merely to put the death toll into perspective). No weapons of mass destruction were used (because despite the scary headlines, none likely possess any). We also seem to forget or overlook how lucky we were that Ramzi Yousef, through poor placement of his bomb in 1993, didn’t kill in one WTC tower more than the total death toll on September 11th.

Today’s Washington Post editorial commenting on John Edwards’ arrival on the Democratic ticket as VP candidate, was cautious on whether John Edwards is ready for the “new” world we live in

“[W]e must also assess Mr. Edwards on his own and by the grave question that has to be asked of any vice presidential nominee: Is he ready to assume the presidency? This is a question that, since Sept. 11, 2001, has become both more thinkable and more important -- and it's one that, when it comes to Mr. Edwards, we can't yet answer with a resounding affirmative.”

This question is important, in my mind especially as a foreign policy analyst. But it’s no more important since 9/11 than any other year. George W. Bush has been successful in planting the notion, that “everything has changed” since 9/11. He needs greater power; we need to compromise on our civil liberties; we have to restrict the rights of people we’ve plucked out of foreign countries; and because terrorist can strike anywhere, anytime, using a variety of techniques, we must suspend our notions of what represents credibility and logic.

But this is entirely bogus. If everything had changed, then the 130,000 plus troops now stationed in Iraq would be in Afghanistan hunting down al-Qaida and its leadership. Then we’d be fully engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, attempting to settle what is a powerful catalyst for Muslim and Arab angst in the Middle East. That taken care of, we’d be getting Israel to abandon its nuclear weapons program, thereby persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions as a prelude to a treaty establishing a Middle East nuclear weapons free zone. Subsequently, the secretary of state would set out on a global tour touting U.S. efforts to make the world a safer place and describing exactly how that had been done.

None of those prescriptions is rocket science beyond the comprehension of John Edwards. They might be beyond the capacity of GWB, who famously flunked his foreign policy quiz during the 2000 campaign (the mainstream media shamefully let him off the hook for this). Nonetheless, that is irrelevant, because the mainstream American media has let the Bush administration hypnotize them into this notion that everything has changed. Now John Edwards is forced to be evaluated according to these fallacious standards – standards which the president himself does not meet. If the media is consistent in its ambivalence towards actually policy debates and critical thinking, John Edwards has nothing to worry about.

This is both hilarious and telling. The simple question is: does the White House ask interviewers of George W. Bush for their questions in advance? Here is Scott McClellan’s “answer”

Q Did anyone in the White House or the administration ask Irish television or its reporter, Carol Coleman, to submit questions in advance of her interview with the President last Wednesday?

MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, a couple of things. I saw I guess some reports on that. I don't know what every individual office -- whatever discussions that they have with reporters in terms of interviews. But obviously, the President was -- is pleased to sit down and do interviews with journalists, both from abroad, as well as here at home, and to talk about the priorities of this administration. And I think anytime that there is an interview that's going to take place, obviously there are staff-level discussions with reporters before that interview and to –

Q -- what are the –

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, to talk about what issues might be on their mind, and stuff. That's -- but, reporters –

Q That's not the same thing as asking for –

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish. Let me finish.

Q -- and my question is, were questions asked for.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me finish. Reporters, when they meet with the President, can ask whatever questions they want. And any suggestion to the contrary is just –

Q Right, but that doesn't answer the question. Did somebody in the administration ask her for questions in advance, and is that your policy?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, in terms -- you're talking my policy?

Q No, the administration's policy.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what an individual staffer may or may not have asked specifically of this reporter, but some of these interviews are set up by people outside of my direct office and control.

Q Well, will you say from this lectern that it is not the policy of this White House to ask for questions in advance?

MR. McCLELLAN: Will you let me complete what I'm trying to say? Thank you. Just hold on a second. As I said, and you know very well from covering this White House, that any time a reporter sits down with the President, they are welcome to ask whatever questions they want to ask.

Q Yes, but that's beside the point.

MR. McCLELLAN: And certainly there will be staff-level discussions, talking about what issues reporters may want to bring up in some of these interviews. I mean, that happens all the time.

Q Indeed, it does.

MR. McCLELLAN: So reporters are able to ask whatever questions they want, Bill.

Q Right, but that wasn't my question. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll be glad to look into this further.

Q Is it policy to ask for questions in advance?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I don't know what some individual staffer may have done in another office, specifically in terms of this question that you're asking. I'll be glad to look into it. But reporters can ask the President whatever questions they want. I think we've addressed this question.

Q Is it your policy to ask for questions in advance?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, it is not my policy. In fact, if reporters would give me their questions, this press briefing would be a whole lot easier, I'm sure. But that's not my policy.

Q Sometimes you might answer them. (Laughter.)

Q I'll be glad to give you a question –

Q Just before I get on to my question, what you're saying is, you didn't ask anyone, but someone in the press office might have asked, and you're not sure –

MR. McCLELLAN: Not in my office.

Q But someone in media affairs or communications –

MR. McCLELLAN: These interviews are set up by another office. I'll be glad to take a look into it. But regardless, the reporter can ask whatever question they want. This interview is past us.

Of course Ron Suskind is on the record saying that the Bush people ask for questions in advance before press conferences, so I won’t even do the journalist dance of trying to say that one can’t decide from McClellan’s non-answer. This is a yes or no question and McClellan’s bob and weave is an obvious “yes.”