Beinart of TNR on Al Franken's show

Right now.  Just to let y'all know..

Beinart: "I don't think there is a passion among liberals today for winning the war on terrorism."

More updates to follow.  Worth tuning in for.

Franken and Beinart agree that moral values is an issue and Franken points out that the war on terrorism has a values dimension to it.

Franken thinks we can fight a smarter war on terrorism and hurt the WoT by going into Iraq.  And that Kerry spoke to this.  Mentions the issue of nuclear proliferation and Beinart agrees that it's a "scandal" that BushCo has done little about the problem of loose nukes.

Franken asks what happens when our liberal candidate makes an issue of nuclear proliferation and the Bush administration, for all their talk about fighting terrorism, does nothing about it.

Beinart repeats for the fifth time that he "couldn't agree more," but thinks we have to grapple with why we aren't perceived as the party of national security.  

Update [2004-12-7 13:17:17 by daria g]:

Now talking about "soft" liberals like Michael Moore who opposed the war in Afghanistan. Franken replies that Moore's view on Afghanistan was a "very, very, very marginal view," and Beinart replies by bringing up MoveOn.org's opposition.

Franken: "So, let's talk about an effective war on terror," and says warlordism is still ongoing not to mention the drug trade, and that we totally blew it in Afghanistan.

Beinart: The Democrats' alternative should be modeled on what Truman did, and include a new Marshall Plan for the Muslim world - that we should have a passion for the war against totalitarianism in the Muslim world. That Democrats must do this in order to convince the American people that we can be trusted with national security, and that in fact we need to support a bigger military - while Bush's tax cuts have underfunded the government to the extent that we can't pay for national security.

Update [2004-12-7 13:29:36 by daria g]:

Beinart repeats that MoveOn and Moore undermined our cred on defense by opposing the Afghan war, and Franken responds that most liberals supported it & that Kerry was the first to really bring up Tora Bora and problems there.

Beinart repeating from his article that like in the late 40s there is a concern about who is allowed to speak in liberalism's name. Says Dems must handle the issue of security with more care if they're going to start winning elections.

Franken replies that the war on terror may not be "as big a deal" as the Cold War + war against communism. And repeats that we nominated a guy who would fight a more effective war against terrorism, and goes back to the argument (mentioning a piece by Ted Kennedy a couple years ago) that the war on Iraq has undermined the war on terrorism. Quotes Kennedy saying that a war in Iraq would "swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers" and increase terrorism.

Beinart tries to explain "the evolution" of his position on Iraq & mentions the history of Saddam's attempts to develop a nuclear weapon as a great concern, and says the "crumbling" sanctions lead TNR to support the idea of changing regimes. Claimes they had no idea the war would be as bungled as it was.

Update [2004-12-7 13:47:1 by daria g]:

More talk on Iraq, especially on how incompetently the Bushies handled reconstruction and ignored everything Clinton's people learned in the 90s. I summarized it all and hit "Delete" and lost it.. but.. now on Kerry's comment that we're closing firehouses in the US and opening them in Baghdad. Beinart thinks Kerry suggested there was a zero-sum situation and that we couldn't do both - Franken adamantly disagrees and says Kerry's point was simply that we should pay for it by taking the funds out of the tax cut, and that we shouldn't only make our soliders & their families & our firefighters sacrifice. Beinart said Kerry and Edwards were simply wrong - while Biden and others were right - on voting against the final $87 billion. They both agree the way the money was spent was an absolute scandal.

Beinart says he wrote the article to provoke a debate among liberals because "I'm a liberal." Franken's co-host (name escapes me) asks Beinart to define a liberal. Beinart: "Human rights and democracy are the prism through which you view your efforts to build a better world." ... paraphrase: Economic growth must help the poor.. liberalism does best when America is a benevolent force in the world. Cites Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton in this tradition.

•  One reason

  I can't hear this from work, but I would suggest the main reason liberals are perceived as soft on defense is because we are not inclined to worship the military. I think many regard the military as a necessary evil, whereas many conservatives take deep joy and pride in all things militaristic - from understanding the details of various weapons to studying military philosophies and tactics. I think people so inclined are more likely to gravitate to an overall Conservative perspective, because it deifies this kind of knowledge and interest. The problem, never mentioned, is that many who obsess about these matters are not particularly healthy individuals, example being Timothy McVeigh, or any random freeper for that matter.

  That's one reason I'm fascinated by a West Point validictorian like Wes Clark. I very much admire the concept of a military student and professional who can thoroughly accept the position that the military must always take a backseat to civilian government. This takes a kind of humility and service mindedness that does not, I believe, come naturally to the average candidate for military leadership.

  by Hrubec on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:13:33 AM PDT

•  Al is

  really working him over.

  Does Beinart remind anyone else of Andrew Sullivan?

  by Omar on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:14:59 AM PDT

•  I Know It's Not Popular...

  But I agree with Beinart.  I supported (and still do) the military action we took in Afghanistan.  But instead of finishing the job there (not so much in a "find and kill OBL" sense, but in a Marshall Plan) and deciding instead to go amble off to Iraq.

  Like the Cold War, the "War on Terror" is going to be won not through bombing the shit out of little countries, but through economic and cultural exchange and progress.  Show them what democracy looks like--don't bomb them into "being democratic."

  by profmatt on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:20:00 AM PDT

  •  Not Fucking Popular!!!

    That is the Fucking Dem Position!!!

    Lord have mercy.

    by Armando on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:21:34 AM PDT

    •  Should Have Been Clearer...

      It seems there's a substantial percentage of Kossacks who would agree with one or both of the following two statements:

      1.  Attacking Afghanistan was a mistake/bad.
         
      2.  Peter Beinert and/or TNR are idiots who should never be listened to.

      TNR is not what it once was--it's been going downhill ever since the Stephen Glass incident--but it's still a place where you can find some exemplary writing and argument.  I may not agree with what's being written and advocated there, but the publication can be counted out to make (most of the time) a cogent argument.  

      by profmatt on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:31:42 AM PDT

      •  2 I Agree With

        1 is Beinart's caricature - evidence in support of 2.

        by Armando on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:46:36 AM PDT

      •  I dunno

        1.  Afghanistan a mistake? -- it depends on how you want to ask the question.  I think a majority here say that it wasn't a mistake in terms of the goals that guided US policy in the fall of 2001.  But there have been lots of bad mistakes made since.  And where have we heard that?  Hmmm, maybe from ... John Kerry?

        2.  Beinart an idiot? -- well, obviously, he's not helping himself out a lot with this latest piece

        by Hprof on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:50:21 AM PDT

      •  Hmmm...

        I'm gonna be nuanced here and say that in a way, I agree with those two statements, for the same reason: BushCo are almost 100% incompetent.  Given that, on the whole right now I still think attacking Afghanistan was better than not attacking Afghanistan, but my initial worries were all based on my view that BushCo would screw it up and make things worse.  (Jury still out on that, maybe?  Yes, helped vs Al Qaeda, but the drug runners are making a killing..)  

        Likewise, I don't think the TNR guys are idiots but it was pretty dumb of them to not even seriously consider the possibility Bush would totally screw up things in Iraq and make the whole situation worse.  Also, in tone they are usually sour, and often ferociously negative, and they seem much more ready to bash fellow Dems/liberals than to stand up for anything.  If the objective is to build ourselves a clear set of principles to stand on, I don't see why that cannot be done without - as Beinart does here - going after some other segment of the left in the process.  If you support a Marshall Plan approach to fighting terrorism, than surely you can talk about that effectively without bringing up whatever Michael Moore supposedly thinks, or whatever MoveOn's people said four years ago.  (They probably forgot about the Afghan war thing themselves!)

        by daria g on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:52:47 AM PDT

        •  Defensiveness due to their support for

          the Iraq Debacle. It's hard for them to deal with the fact that Moore was better than them on foreign policy.

          by Armando on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:58:36 AM PDT

      •  You'd have to poll for #1

        (#2 is an issue of a few inflammatory remarks and overall tone as it is about complete agreement or disagreement over substance)

        However, I think Bush waited too long to go after Afghanistan. And I think he did that because he really wanted to attack Iraq all along and had trouble shifting gears.

        Any competent president, Democrat or Republican, would have gone after AQ in Afghanistan, then stuck around to do as well as they could with reconstruction, while using other resources (esp. non military) to flush out and arrest the remaining AQ members.

        As someone who thinks Howard Dean's position (Afghanistan yes, Iraq no) is the only sensible one, I don't know, but I'd suspect that's a pretty common position around here.

        That is, the people who opposed Afghanistan probably oppose all wars, and while there are chunk of people like that here, they aren't in the majority.

        by JMS on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 11:01:16 AM PDT

      •  There is no way

        that a substantial majority did not support attacking Afghanistan.  

        by johnny rotten on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 11:21:30 AM PDT

    •  He won't have mercy

      The Lord is a Republican, as we found out on November 2nd.

      by Ed in Montana on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 12:59:09 PM PDT

  •  I agree too

    I don't think Beinart took enough time to explain this in his article, oddly - being too occupied with setting up Moore and MoveOn as a foil for his own views, as if this were necessary and not likely to distract people from the really important points.

    by daria g on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:24:04 AM PDT

    •  Agree with what?

      Now you lost me.  The post expresses the conventional Dem position.

      by Armando on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:28:15 AM PDT

      •  Oops

        Was saying I agree with "not so much more wars but a Marshall Plan type deal."  Beinart didn't really talk many specifics about what that might entail.  

        by daria g on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:44:09 AM PDT

        •  Course Not

          Cuz Beinart advocated the Iraq Debacle. Now he advocates the Marshall Plan.

          by Armando on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:47:31 AM PDT

          •  I'll Give Him This Much Credit

            Beinart has admitted his was wrong about the Iraq war in pretty unsparing self-criticism, I think back in May when TNR had their (sorta) mea culpa issue.  Most others hedged, but Beinart was pretty clear that while he thinks there were good arguments for going to war, it was his failing and the failing of many Americans to not recognize that those good arguments and good motivations for getting rid of a tyrant were not the reasons that Bush went to war, and that he and others failed to see account for the evidence that was clear enough for everyone to see.  He said too many people, himself included, failed to distinguish between their ideal of and ideals for the war and what was likely to be Bush's motives and conduct of the war.  IIRC, he even said that the best evidence was the failure of the US to properly deal with Afghanistan, both in terms of the conduct of the war and the post-war failure of reconstruction and nation-building.  

            And remember, Beinart is the editor of TNR, and despite having to deal with a Publisher/partial owner who's a warmongerer and has pretty shitty views of the Arab world--Peretz--it was TNR that published the first comprehensive collection, by Judis and Ackerman, of the rationales offered by the administration for going to war and the realities that contradicted just about everything they say.

            Beinart was wrong about the war, but it shouldn't be discounted that he's admitted it, accepted blame, and offered up a fairly withering criticism of why he fell for the illusion of Bush's war, and in terms that indicate to me that, moreso than Peretz, Beinart is probably more an ally than an adversary on the proper limits and obligations of American force and responsibility to the rest of the world.  

            by DHinMI on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 01:15:48 PM PDT

            •  Ahhh!

              There is an  argument that I have argued strongly against - that there was a good way to fight this war - that Bush screwed it up.  Or in Lieberman's phrase "Bush gave a good war a bad name."

              That, to me, is precisely NOT owning up, it is shifting the blame - well if Bush had done what I said . . .

              That argument is, in many ways, the most dangerous.  It invites repetition of a horrendous catastrophic mistake.

              by Armando on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 02:47:23 PM PDT

              •  Don't Really Disagree, Except...

                ...I think it's often legitimate to argue that a regime is a threat, either to the US, or its neighbors, or its own people, and should therefore be confronted and possibly even toppled.  The war in Kosovo wasn't specifically to topple Milosevic, but it was to overthrow his regime in terms of the area it controlled in Kosovo.

                Now was Saddam the same as Milosevic?  In some ways he wasn't as bad, in others he was worse.  Did he pose a threat to the United States?  Directly, no, but he possessed the potential to threaten the United States, possibly through WMD--which he certainly wanted, but was thwarted from developing after the first Gulf War.  He possessed the potential to once again invade an oil producer, throwing the world economy into a shambles; but that threat was greatly diminished because of his previous defeat and the permanent presence of US troops and materiel, the increased bellicosity and capacity of the Saudis and the UAR, etc.  Was he a threat to his people?  Yeah, but not all, and while it's a good thing in the abstract that he be toppled and brought to justice, things don't happen in a vacumn, and the net costs of replacing him--after the worst of his atrocities against Iraqis, which occurred mostly in the 1980s--are yet to be determined, and while they may come down in the positive, it's also quite possible they won't.  

                All of those discussions are valid, and I respect those who are more thoughtful--Beinart, Pollack, Remnick, Havel, Ignattiev, Biden, Holbrooke, etc--and the responsible arguments that they make, even if I find them wrong.  Where the real problem lies is in not being cautious and leaping at the first opportunity to "go get Saddam," and ignoring the costs and benefits, or thinking wishfully that an administration like Bush's would be concientious about the risks to not doing anything or doing something less than invasion and occupation, and recognizing the difference between potential blocked and potential realized, as in the case of Saddam's unrequited love of a viable nuke program.

                I think the equation leading to intervention--in terms of imminent threat to some American interest, be it regional stability, idealistic committment to human rights, desire to uphold our obligations to prevent genocide, a decision to protect the stability of the world economic system, whatever--is worthwhile to consider.  In Kosovo it required and justified intervention.  In Iraq, it didn't require and didn't justify intervention.  

                And here's the distinction I've been taking my time to get to: I think Lieberman's position, and that of many others, is that it was a good war, but Bush screwed it up.  I agree fully with you that that position is abominable and grossly irresponsible, and not one that I respect.  For others--and maybe i'm being too generous in including Beinart in this camp--the fact that the war looked probable and maybe even inevatable caused them to not ask those tough questions with enough honesty and rigor, and say, what the heck, I can think of may good ideas why we should go to war against Saddam, so I'll support the war.  That's a position I find more ambiguous and harder to dismiss when the self-criticism goes, as I believe it did for Beinart, beyond just saying "it was the right thing to do, but Bush screwed it up and was the wrong President to do it."  

                But why don't I quote Beinart, who I'm probably defending more than I need to in terms of ideology, because I think he's often too simplistic in skewering the left, but who I think is nonetheless a more interesting thinker and more fairminded guy than people like Peretz and Sullivan and their hero, Lieberman:

                In the run-up to the Iraq war, I tried hard not to be partisan. I distrusted the Bush administration and feared it would be politically empowered by the war. But such thoughts felt petty and limited at such an important time. And so I evaluated the arguments for war on their merits, irrespective of my feelings about the people making them. Doing so made me feel superior to the Democrats, who, I suspected, would have supported an Iraq war waged by Al Gore, and to the Republicans, who had opposed the Kosovo war because it was waged by Bill Clinton.

                But, in retrospect, my efforts not to be limited proved limiting. Partisanship, it turned out, was an extremely useful analytical tool in understanding the Iraq war. Had I not tried so hard to cleanse myself of it, I might have seen some of the war's problems earlier than I did.

                This was a partisan war. By partisan, I don't mean that it was led by Republicans. It was partisan in the sense that the people who formulated it prized group loyalty above all else. They divided the world, the country, and even their own administration into people who could be trusted and people who could not. And, unfortunately, the people who could be trusted knew much less about how to build democracy in Iraq than the people who could not...

                In the fall of 2002, I worried about the administration's aversion to nation-building. But I assumed that, because postwar Iraq--unlike Afghanistan--was crucial to the president's reelection, his administration would listen to the people who understood postwar reconstruction best. What I didn't realize was that, for top Bush officials and their conservative allies, there were no "best practices" that spanned administrations, parties, or nations. There was just their way and their opponents' way. And, if their way placed ideology above expertise, that was fine, because, despite all its denials, the other side did, too.

                For conservatives, the right lesson of Iraq is that, if you apply a loyalty test to this country's best sources of knowledge--the academy, the press, and the government itself--you'll lose the war on terrorism through sheer ignorance. For liberals, the lesson is to see conservatives as they are, not as you'd like them to be. I'll try to remember it next time.

                Now I think it's a fair criticism that Beinart still seems to judge going to war in Iraq based primarily on our abilities rather than the environmental and contextual factors that people like Juan Cole were so clear in pointing out.  But still, I'm not going to dump on the guy for his Iraq War mea culpa, because I think he's one of the few people to admit that the problem wasn't that the war was poorly executed, it's that he should have expected it to be, and therefore shouldn't have supported this war in this place at this time.  

                by DHinMI on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 03:25:29 PM PDT

                •  OK

                  But the guy you worked for and supported and the guy I supported explains this all so so well that you know what the arguments are - the General was right as right, every fucking step of the way.

                  And told us what was gonna happen too.

                  by Armando on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 04:05:06 PM PDT

                  •  Right as rain

                    that is.

                    by Armando on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 04:05:30 PM PDT

              •  Shorter Beinart v Lieberman

                Lieberman's position is that Bush's actions subsequent to getting Lieberman's trust have squandered that trust.  Beinart's position is that Bush's actions prior to betowing his trust on Bush and supporting the war show that Beinart was foolish to bestow that trust on a man and an administration that had already proven unworthy of such trust.

                by DHinMI on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 03:34:54 PM PDT

  •  Yep

    I think there a lot of straw men being set up on both sides of this little debate. I'll give Beinert credit for one thing, though - he's certainly generated some good blogging.

    Ben P

    by Ben P on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:26:31 AM PDT

  •  this Marshall Plan metaphor

    is bunk--just like all of Beinart's attempts to put lipstick on this pig via historical analogies

    the Marshall plan funded the economic reconstruction of Europe after the physicial and human devastation of WW2, and the recipients of our economic aid were (relatively) stable Western European govts that were already our allies

    How exactly does that apply to the current situation?  

    Iraq is the likeliest candidate for this kind of US economic assistance--and they need it in large part because of a US war that wrecked extreme devastation on an already weak economy and infrastructure
    

    by Hprof on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:35:36 AM PDT

  •  Disagree

    I'm all for trade and progress, or leading by example by you put it. That's not what Beinart is arguing for.

    Beinart espouses the imperialist position. His idea of exporting democracy is precisely by gunboat democracy, i.e. bombing the shit out of little countries until they adopt a U.S-aligned investment-friendly democratic-style government.

    NB:  I'm not a TNR reader, please correct me if Beinart or the TNR is against gunboat democracy.

    by zyx zyx on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:47:12 AM PDT

•  Beinart is a well

  idiot.

  by Armando on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:22:46 AM PDT

  •  Objection, Your Honor!

    by daria g on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:26:13 AM PDT

    •  On this

      Look obviously he's smart, but he's trapped by the bungle they made on Iraq - so he lashes out from his corner.

      Well, you read my diary last night.

      by Armando on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:27:32 AM PDT

      •  snark

        In a sense, you can say Beinart's point is, The New Republic crowd was totally wrong on Iraq -- and the solution is to ream out all those who were right.

        Look, Beinart's certainly correct that the Dems  can't be perceived as inherently hostile to military action (a point you've long made, Armando, with your Clark-support).  But to make thsi point, he selects a truly marginal group of people -- folks who likely aren't even Democrats -- and demands we scapegoat them to prove our collective manhood.  My guess: just denouncing most of these people would give them more visibility than they have with most Americans.  Plus, it would highlight what I think is the Dems' worst image problem: that they're always looking to apologize.  There are plenty of folks far more central to the GOP (Coulter, Falwell) who say ludicrously outlandish things every day, and there's never a ritualistic denouncing suggested for them.  Dems have to adopt a "never apologize/never explain" policy in certain areas, or they're going to be seen as wimps into infinity -- the biggest reason they fail among working class men.

        by demtom on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 11:58:12 AM PDT

  •  My response to Beinart's article

    Is here: Peter Beinart's Historical Goobledygook

    Didn't hear him on Al Franken; didn't have to.

    -- Stu

    by sdf on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 12:25:48 PM PDT

  •  Damnit

    Somehow I missed your excellent diary and discussion last night.  Just read it.  That'll teach me to, like, take care of real life stuff ...

    -- Stu

    by sdf on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 12:34:04 PM PDT

•  Beinart is not relevant to liberal dems

  I have long ceased following his pronouncements on whatever, because he doesn't get it. He is just as sucked in by the Repub propaganda as anyone.

  A "passion" for the "war on terror"?! Give me a break. The "war on terror" forumlation is part of the problem, not the solution. Accepting that the "war on terror" makes sense means accepting that the Republican playbook is the new bible. Once you're there, say hi to W. and Dick and stop kidding yourself that you are a progressive.

  Dems also shouldn't be pre-occupied about "being seen as the party of security". Wanna know something interesting? Trust leads to security. "Security" w/o trust leads to mistrust. Mistrust leads to lack of security. Dems should worry about making America secure by making America respected, admired, and trusted in the world.

  As for those who don't think Dems can be security-conscious types? Fuck 'em. They're also part of the problem, not the solution. Why waste time and energy trying to convince die-hard red voters to change allegiance instead of trying to stick to principles, thus attracting a lot more voters who are dying for a REAL alternative. The whole discussion as to who would make you, me or Ethel more secure is pointless, irrational and incredibly self-serving. That Beinart sees fit to seriously consider this question shows you how misguided he is.

  As usual, I could go on.

  by thingamabob on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:39:01 AM PDT

•  MoveOn was against the war in Afghanistan?

  First I've heard that. I don't recall MoveOn ever saying word one about it.

  by Chris Andersen on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:46:32 AM PDT

  •  They were and that's why I don't support 'em

    1.  Afghanistan was a terrorist producing assembly line

    2.  As a liberal woman -- how in the world could I NOT supporting taking out the sadistic Taliban?

    by PhillyGal on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 11:23:09 AM PDT

•  Last part is good

  Has nothing to do with the fact that the policy he advocated in the Middle East was absolutely idiotic from the day it was proposed through today and he has yet to acknowledge that.

  See, he has to do some introspecting of his own it seems to me.

  by Armando on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 10:56:45 AM PDT

  •  Last part

    Proves he's stuck where Tom Friedman used to be, but has sense had to recognize reality.  Friedman spent months saying things like liberals would support the expansion of democracy if they could reconcile that this liberal idea is coming from a very conservative president.

    by Cathy on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 11:27:01 AM PDT

    •  Ugh

      See, how come no one would believe us when we say the problem with the policy is it has no chance whatsoever of success and every likelihood of being a catastrophe?

      These people have so much to be ashamed of.

      by Armando on Tue Dec 07, 2004 at 11:34:22 AM PDT