Open Thread for Night Owls & Early Birds

Adrian Blomfield and Mike Smith of the The Daily Telegraph write:

^{Mikhail Gorbachev has accused the United States of mounting an imperialist conspiracy against Russia that could push the world into a new Cold War.}

Delivering one of his most scathing attacks on the US, Mr Gorbachev told The Daily Telegraph that a US military build-up was under way to contain a resurgent Russia.
From Nato's expansion plans in the former Soviet Union to Washington's proposals for a bigger defence budget and a missile shield in central Europe, the US was deliberately quashing hopes for permanent peace with Russia, Mr Gorbachev said.

"We had 10 years after the Cold War to build a new world order and yet we squandered them," he said.

"The United States cannot tolerate anyone acting independently. ...

"The problem is not with Russia," he said, speaking at a friend's château outside Paris.

"Russia does not have enemies and Putin is not going to start a war against the United States or any other country for that matter.

"Yet we see the United States approving a military budget and the defence secretary pledging to strengthen conventional forces because of the possibility of a war with China or Russia.

"I sometimes have a feeling that the United States is going to wage war against the entire world."

While Gorbachev has criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin in the past, he also has advised him on foreign policy for some time. Putin handed over the reins to Dmitry Medvedev Wednesday, but is expected to be an éminence grise in the new government.

Gorbachev's comments stand somewhat at odds with the Kremlin's stated position, which has softened recently and been redirected at getting security guarantees from the West.

Although the language was stronger this time, the Telegraph interview isn’t the only time the first and last president of the Soviet Union has expressed concerns about deteriorating U.S.-Russian relations. In December, the 77-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner was interviewed by Anna Badkhen of  the Ideas section of the Boston Globe

IDEAS: How do you view the latest developments of relations between Russia and the West? You said recently that you see the US plan to deploy a missile defense shield in Central Europe as targeting Russia, not Iran, as the United States claims. Do you see your achievements in ending the Cold War being depleted?

GORBACHEV: What we see is the beginning of a new arms race. The United States has a super-large military budget; its military budget is even larger than it was during the Cold War.

IDEAS: What about your comment regarding the true purpose of the proposed missile defense shield?

GORBACHEV: There is truth in this. It's too early to talk about Cold War, but I think we are seeing some frost.

The Overnight News Digest is posted.

•  Can't believe I am still up!

  :)

  by SarahLee on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:35:27 PM PDT

  •  It's only 2 a.m., right? n/t

    by Meteor Blades on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:37:22 PM PDT

    •  west coast early reading

      reading wright. he is right isnt he?

      http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

      "We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Iroquois, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism. We took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel; we bombed the black civilian community of Panama, with stealth bombers, and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard-working fathers. We've bombed [Moammar] Gadhafi's home and killed his child.

      god forgive america

      by Pattern Math on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:41:05 PM PDT

      •  Yes, but it's still part of the...

        ... Vast Wright Wing Conspiracy.

        by justiceputnam on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:57:58 PM PDT

        •  pwned

          Hillary supporters, kill yourselves immediately

          

          by billydanielus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:33:32 AM PDT

      •  I Gotta Wear Shades

        I once marveled at the inconsistency of Obama's screed to us after we bemoaned a certain Senatorial cave-in over a Supreme Court Justice or somesuch.  We all remember his post, I am sure!  I was taken aback at the time, and dismissive of his approach to the path forward, it seeming to be all conciliation and - to use a currently popular term - "cratering" (which I think is misused, but I digress).

        I am becoming aware of the power of the idea that we can have a dialogue amongst all Americans, and it can be positive, thanks to his consistent campaign, his dedication to principle, his trust in we, the American people.

        Perhaps the pendulum is rightfully swinging the other way, perhaps the helm is 'righting' itself, but the future looks bright!  Go my fellow American idealist, Go Barack!

        by Bluesee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:40:19 AM PDT

    •  Yeah and I am wide awake

      doing some really slow file transfers to a server.

      

      by SarahLee on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:46:53 PM PDT

      •  Me Too

        after taking a nap !

        by eeff on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:05:50 AM PDT

    •  On London time here.

      Beautiful spring morning, with good news about the election.  Looks like this long, brutal fight is finally over.  Time for us all to close ranks.  The swiftboaters are revving up their engines.

      Dean was right:  the 50 state strategy works.  The young people are right and this boomer is grateful for the vision and the hard work.

      by bloomer 101 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:56:55 AM PDT

      •  Well, it seems a lot of it is just a matter of

        showing up.  It seems that Republicans got into really bad habits because their positions went uncontested.  They got into the habit of not really even getting out and campaigning, relying on a pro forma media presence in the last month before the election.  Since they had no competition, nobody even noticed.  
        Republican incumbents are still playing that game in NH.  One might ascribe it to a haughty disregard for competitors.  I'm inclined to think it's just laziness.

        by hannah on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:37:58 AM PDT

        •  Respectfully disagree.

          I don't think they are lazy at all.  I think they will come after us with every single tactic they can.  They are disappointed that the Democratic candidate won't be Hillary, and disappointed that Obama doesn't have any really juicy baggage, but they will take whatever they can find and throw it at us.  Never underestimate them.  

          by bloomer 101 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:06:07 AM PDT

•  Shameless

  Diary Pimping, since I wrote this morning about how the next president will have to deal with war-related threats from Russia, especially an escalating tension with Georgia over Abkhazia:

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by Nulwee on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:36:53 PM PDT

•  Gorbachev is correct.

  by notquitedelilah on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:37:30 PM PDT

  •  I must've missed something

    I thought it was the Russian security forces that were terrorizing and murdering political opponents, even when they are abroad (this might be construed as an act of war in some quarters), extorting and threatening their former satellites' governments with energy supply cut-offs and Russian-supported insurgencies, along with poisoning of unfavored candidates in those countries, concluding nuclear supply agreements with Iran, threatening the economies of the European Union if they didn't fall in line. My mistake.

    by FischFry on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:46:45 PM PDT

    •  AAh, Pot meet kettle.

      by notquitedelilah on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:47:55 PM PDT

    •  Talk about extorting and threatening

      foreign countries.... Heard of Iraq?  No?  How about the threats made to Venezuela (not that the US was able to back those up)?

      Attacking unfavored candidates in foreign countries: heard of Hamas?

      Threatening the EU: didn't Bush do that first?

      Nuclear supply agreements with Iran: and what's wrong with that?

      I'll spot you poisoning and murdering political opponents.  Here, they just get thrown in prison and their supporters' houses get burned down....

      Pot, kettle is about right.  :-(  Putin's Russia sucks.  And Bush made it that way.  Remember, he looked into Putin's soul and liked what he saw....

      by neroden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:59:38 PM PDT

      •  ????

        "Bush made it that way."

        I'm quite sure that Bush had precious little to do with events in Russia, or Russian policy.

        As for Iran -- what's wrong with that is most of the people in this country agree it's a bad thing that Iran is processing nuclear fuel. That it might provoke a Third World War.

        I wasn't aware that the U.S. attacks Hamas -- I wasn't talking about metaphorically poisoned pens. I was referring to actual poisoning. Remember Yevtushenko?

        Nor do I recall the U.S. actually threatening Venezuela. There are unproven allegations of support for an attempted coup, but that's different, no?

        And, so what if it is the pot calling the kettle black? If the kettle is black....

        My point was that Gorby is as full of shit as he was 20 years ago...Putin's Russia isn't just despotic. That type of despotism truly worries its neighbors.

        by FischFry on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:12:24 AM PDT

        •  Ha... The Us attacks Hamas by Proxie

          Please at least let's be honest.

          by notquitedelilah on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:14:59 AM PDT

          •  and Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua again

            So much that doesn't make it onto the nightly news. And yes, we don't have to pull the trigger. Training death squads the world over makes up for lagging in the poisoned pen dept.

            by wmdrpa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:47:57 AM PDT

        •  As to Iran, do you mean that it might itself ...

          ...start a World War if it eventually uses that uranium it's centrifuging to make some Bombs, or do you mean that Israel or the U.S. might be "provoked" into starting another World War against Iran because they are determined that only certain countries will be allowed to have nukes and that those forbidden to have nukes will be stopped even if it requires nuking them to achieve that end?

          by Meteor Blades on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:19:22 AM PDT

          •  Either way....

            by FischFry on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:26:32 AM PDT

            •  In your view, should the U.S. (and/or Israel) ...

              ...pre-emptively attack Iranian nuclear facilities?

              by Meteor Blades on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:31:26 AM PDT

              •  My view?

                Neither you nor I know enough about the situation to have an informed view. We don't know what other countries desire, and we don't know what the intelligence shows. However, I would state that Israel made the world much safer by leveling Iraq's reactor -- even Iran may have been spared by that action. Last year's strike into Syria may also make the Middle East a less dangerous place. If there were a way to guarantee the result, I probably would approve of a conventional strike - assuming a convincing case could be made that the Iranians were embarking on an illegal nuclear weapons program. And, yes, it is illegal -- contrary to the nation's obligations under the NNPT.

                You want to complain because we arrogate the right to possess such weapons, but deny them to others? I guess you're not in favor of gun control in this country. In fact, you must believe that the gov't should allow criminals to carry and use weapons, in self-defense, against the police.

                Seriously, it's OK to make value judgments. There are good guys and bad guys. Some countries that can be trusted with nukes and others whose pursuit of them is provocative and unacceptable.

                by FischFry on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:43:43 AM PDT

                •  Haven't we learned our lessons

                  in Iraq. Even though some people in the US want to assert the US authority on another country and demand the other countries citizens to follow our rules, the fact is that it won't happen, no matter if we occupy it for 1 or 100 years.

                  A lot of people in the world don't hate Americans as individual citizens, but they won't like it when US drops bombs in their countries, or our men in uniform kick down their doors.

                  Iran hasn't attacked a country unprovoked for many decades. Opportunities still exists for constructive dialogue. It is only the neo-cons that are preventing that from happening.

                  by acnetj on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:01:21 AM PDT

                  •  There are many, different lessons

                    One of them is the lesson of Israel's attack on the Osirak reactor. Would Saddam have used nukes against Iran, if he had them? Would the world have rallied to liberate Kuwait, if Saddam had nukes? If they had, would any of the missiles that rained down on Israel contained a nuclear warhead?

                    The biggest mistake in Iraq continues to be the first Bush Administration's abrupt decision to cutoff fighting with Saddam still in power. There were perils with no clear plan for Iraq's future -- but the country stood a much better chance when the entire world was behind the action. Some argue that the fiasco in Iraq this time around proves that Bush the father was correct. I don't agree. His timidity and decision to follow the Saudi's counsel merely set the stage for the later struggles. He was stopping when he could declare a clear success, but there was going to be a messy aftermath, either way. He chose the one least problematic for him, and most problematic for the future.

                    by FischFry on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:57:30 AM PDT

                •  But, of course, you can't guarantee the result ..

                  ...of a conventional strike on Iran. I find it interesting that, even though you don't know what the intelligence knows, you're willing to stamp your approval on such an attack if a convincing case can be made. Like the convincing case made against Saddam's WMDs?

                  Certainly, the nuclear secrecy Iran engaged in over an 18-year period does not give one a good feeling about their intentions now when they claim they are not building nor do they intend to build nuclear weapons. But our own government, including its intelligence agencies, don't seem to be able to agree on what Iran is now doing. Who can be trusted?

                  If Tehran is building or preparing to build nuclear weapons,  there is no way to determine whether it has secret facilities in addition to those that are known. Natanz (or the Arak reactor scheduled for completion next year) can be blasted, but what if there are deeply bunkered secret parallel operations? A conventional attack would, of course, miss those. And that could spur an Iranian speed-up toward making nuclear weapons the same way the Osirak attack in 1981 sped up Saddam's efforts in that regard, though these never came to fruition.

                  As for the attack on Syria, we've yet to learn whether what was struck was a reactor in the making.
                  Maybe. Maybe not. Certainly there is a good deal of doubt in that regard, Israeli photos notwithstanding.

                  I'd be happy with a nuclear non-proliferation regime that didn't employ a double-standard for signatory nations that the U.S. has issues with and non-signatory nations that have made a mockery of U.S. fairplay by building nukes and being rewarded for it, e.g., the Bush-Singh deal with India.

                  There are real perils in the world. But arguing "good guys" vs. "bad guys" gets us nowhere when the U.S. behaves like Rome on steroids, without the territorial acquisitions, of course.

                  by Meteor Blades on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:10:21 AM PDT

                  •  Elephant in the middle east

                    I'd be happy with a nuclear non-proliferation regime that didn't employ a double-standard for signatory nations that the U.S. has issues with and non-signatory nations that have made a mockery of U.S. fairplay by building nukes and being rewarded for it, e.g., the Bush-Singh deal with India.

                    There are real perils in the world. But arguing "good guys" vs. "bad guys" gets us nowhere when the U.S. behaves like Rome on steroids, without the territorial acquisitions, of course.

                    Of course, Israel's strategic ambiguity is the greatest double-standard of all. On our way to disarmament and non-proliferation, we have to make it flatly illegal for any nation to withhold information about their nuclear weapons capability. Iran will never negotiate anything meaningful as long as it stands in the cross-hairs of Israel's missiles, while the world fails to even acknowledge its predicament.

                    by wmdrpa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:57:46 AM PDT

                •  There are good guys and bad guys,

                  Some countries that can be trusted with nukes and others whose pursuit of them is provocative and unacceptable.

                  And what country has actually used a nuke against another country?  We should be sure that country doesn't get it's hands on any more nukes, right?

                  by GMFORD on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:16:25 AM PDT

                  •  Simplistic, predictable answer

                    Here's a puzzler for you: The U.S. used those two weapons as a demonstration to Japan of what they could do. Policymakers rejected the pure staged demonstration (with advance notice and an unpopulated target) because they were afraid that a failure would only embolden Japan. But, what of the demonstration effect for the world. Those terrible weapons have not been used again, despite numerous wars involving nuclear powers. And, we have a regime in place that works to limit the number of nuclear powers. There might have been many other wars involving nuclear states, otherwise.

                    So, here's the puzzler: Isn't it possible that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did prevent far greater tragedies in the future? Not just saving lives by obviating the need to invade Japan -- but by showing the world the true awfulness of this weapon? [Remember that no one had any understanding of the effects of radiation, including the U.S. We didn't know have any idea just how bad it would be.] Without that example, isn't it highly likely there would have been a more terrible nuclear confrontation in the years since? Isn't it possible that Truman was wiser than anyone gives him credit for?

                    by FischFry on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:07:45 AM PDT

                    •  I do think it was a shock to us

                      just how devastating it would be.  Remember duck and cover...seems laughable in retrospect?

                      But while it acted as a deterrent from using 'the bomb' again, it has not worked to prevent countries all over the world from creating them...as a 'deterrent'.  Which leaves the entire world open to the potential of insane person, having a bad hair day or something, pushing a button and killing us all.

                      by GMFORD on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:48:02 AM PDT

              •  Sounds like a suicidal mission to me....

                not to mention that 'pre-emptive' is more Bushkabob talk.

                by deMemedeMedia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:59:26 AM PDT

                •  interesting note on "preemptive"

                  heard someone say that since "preemptive attacks" are now as American as apple pie, does that mean he can rob his local bank before they foreclose on his home? He pointed out that Jesse James is an American hero for supposedly destroying the mortgages held by carpetbagger banks against small homesteaders. (at least the movies said that he did)  

                  by entlord1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:49:57 AM PDT

                  •  Morality can be awfully subjective, complicated

                    Few things are as clear-cut as we'd like. We have laws and rules so that we don't have to decide the morality of every situation, after the fact.

                    by FischFry on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:10:29 AM PDT

        •  They are not "unproven

          allegations."

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

          http://query.nytimes.com/...

          http://www.cepr.net/...

          by palachia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:24:46 AM PDT

        •  As a side note

          I think it is Dubai TV that reports that new policies by the Afghan government are in effect for those prisoners released from Gitmo without charges.
          It seems five individuals who were held at Gitmo for six years without charges were released and returned to Afghanistan where they were arrested by Afghan authorities and charged with various crimes.

          The Afghan judge interviewed defended the trials on the grounds that they are usually legal (though some defendants appear in court without legal counsel or witnesses are not presented but have anonymous depositions entered into the record) but he also admitted that the prosecution in these cases is guided by the US military and the Afghan authorities rely on the US military to provide the evidence.
          So far sentences have ranged up to twenty years. The reporter stated that these trials were meant to refute any allegations by the detainees of innocence and also shields the US government against possible future legal actions.  

          by entlord1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:46:44 AM PDT

        •  au contraire

          You cannot forget the russian soul. Proud, vain, glorious, poetic,

          and paranoid.

          Never forget that we invaded Russia and supported anti-soviet troops in force. WE supplied troops, arms, food, and transport - and yet US textbooks seem to forget our involvement. We may not teach that fact in schools, but never forget that the Russians will NEVER, EVER forget it.

          The missile defense we  are building does not work. Has not been tested. yet, it represents the absolutely worst possible step we could take. Think of an angry old man, a sot, a drunk, who continually walks up to your property line and yells at you to shut the eff up. Then, instead of just shouting, he starts cleaning and loading a shotgun in his front yard, as he moves his chair closer and closer to your property line, all the time muttering about damned this, and effing them, and screw you, and sounding more and more out of control. At the same time, he grabs that bourbon bottle repeatedly and takes a slug every minute or so.

          You are the russian, that neighbor is the US  under Bush.

          WE have invaded two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan that Russia always had some ties to, not always good ties, but ties nevertheless. We are threatening Iran, a buddy growing closer to Mother Russia. We threaten China, which is growing closer to Russian, partly out of self-preservation, partly because they have their eye on Siberian oil and gas, and partly out of fear and loathing of US policies.

          In our myopic and pretty much useless reporting by US MSM, we tend to ignore the global realities. And in most ways, the US is fucking things up.

          by agnostic on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:59:13 AM PDT

    •  I must've missed the moral clause...

      that says if your critic is a hypocrite, you are absolved.

      by Troubadour on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:13:37 AM PDT

    •  maybe the problem is the quality of news

      which the average person in the US receives. As an example this morning and yesterday, Arab TV is reporting that the security chief at Beirut Airport is fired because of allowing Hizbullah to install cameras at the airport. Also, union requests for an increase in the minimum wage by 300% was limited to a 66% increase (request triggered by inflationary problems due to economy being in shambles more or less) and the government declared a communications network to be illegal and to violate the government monopoly. Protests in the Arab areas are reported as Hizbullah protests the "illegalization" of their communications because these are an integral part of their defense system and an attempt by the government to "disarm" them due to pressure from US and Western allies.

      US reports that the protests were triggered by the government's refusal to grant full amount requested for minimum wage increase and that Christian areas are quiet. There is a momentary mention of Hizbullah mounting its own security cameras at the airport. No mention of the problem surrounding the communications network.

      Which one is correct? I don't know yet as there are other sources to be checked but at the same time, it is interesting how the same 3 events are covered by various media.

      After all, the US engages in extreme rendition of individuals it deems a threat and some of those people do end up dead while in custody. Is this better than assassinating political opponents or even different?  

      by entlord1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:40:14 AM PDT

    •  Actually, in the case of Iran,

      the U.S. offer was for them to buy their enriched uranium from the Russo/U.S. consortium and then everything would be hunky dory.  Their mistake is in insisting that they want to process their own uranium into fuel.
      But, the whole thing may be an unnecessary kerfuffle motivated by the U.S. desire to have a rationale for setting up a new fuels monopoly and use nuclear weapons to make it stick.
      The U.S. has relied on the nuclear threat to get commercial concessions for a long time.

      by hannah on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:45:53 AM PDT

      •  Another point that is glossed over

        is that at least six nations intend or wish to enrich uranium at some point. Do we dictate their nuclear policy as well?  Pakistan and India (not to mention N Korea if they ever really had one) developing nuclear weapons undermined the authority of the US to dictate nuclear policy to the world and the loss of the USSR as an enemy also lost for us a partner in limiting nuclear proliferation. They preferred for only the big guys to have nukes, which also suited us.

        As we look towards an energy hungry future with more and more nations clamoring for their piece of the pie, nuclear is going to be the direction many nations choose. To what extent can our foreign policy control their actions or to what degree are we willing to go to enforce our national will?

        Iran's plans may make longterm since since it appears their plan is to develop nuclear and other alternate energy sources while leaving their oil and natural gas in the ground to be sold at ever increasing prices to the West or China or India. Oil is too valuable to use for domestic consumption for many oil producing nations.

        by entlord1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:56:39 AM PDT

    •  Where's the proof?

      What political opponents do security forces have? What insurgencies is Russia supporting? Do you have proof of those charges?

      by Sentinel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:49:39 AM PDT

  •  No, we fucked up a lot earlier than that.

    We fucked up when we didn't give Russia a Marshall Plan after the end of the Cold War. We fucked up when we didn't help rebuild their economy, and instead made them choke on IMF "shock treatment" supply-sider boogah boogah. We fucked up when we didn't invest in Russia's energy companies and instead allowed the Saudis to give it to us, up the ass, no vaseline. We fucked up when we kept Russia at arm's length instead of drawing them closer in. We fucked up when we allowed a KGB company clown to be Putin's successor instead of finding a pro-Democracy candidate we could get behind.

    The fact that we have a resurgent totalitarian Russia and an emboldened totalitarian but capitalist in all but name China is proof enough that we fucked up, big time.

    We should have listened to Frank Zappa when we had a chance. He told us that we fail to rebuild Eastern Europe at our peril. Did we listen? No. We fucked up.

    by Pris from LA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:53:01 PM PDT

    •  Fair, but I think Russia deserves a bit of blame.

      You're making it sound uncomfortably like it was our choice to make.  We certainly pressured Russia into economic shock therapy, but Russia has its own native strand of greedy oligarchy that made sure to crush whatever hope the country had.  Combine that with an intense nationalism that combines racist xenophobia with implicit (and sometimes explicit!) government support, and you've got all the makings of a disaster whether we got involved or not.

      That's not to say we didn't screw up, but let's not overstate it.

      by pico on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:13:19 AM PDT

      •  Absolutely. the Putton regime is dictatorial and

        murderous, no one is disputing that fact. Russia carries a lot of the blame for it's own woes. But the American posturing towards Russia in the past 7 years has been foolishly arrogant, and represented an imbecilic under estimation of Russian pride and power.

        by notquitedelilah on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:18:12 AM PDT

        •  Fun fact for the late night crew:

          part of Russia's antagonism to the West is that many Russians believe they're destined to follow their own special path (to the point of messianism - a cultural myth not too different then our own idiocies like Manifest Destiny).  "Path" in Russian is путь (put'), which is the root word in - you guessed it! - Путин (Putin).

          Putin's made this notion of "our own path" very clear, so the pun is especially pointed.

          by pico on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:30:10 AM PDT

          •  I didn't know that. Thank you.

            by notquitedelilah on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:34:42 AM PDT

      •  The question is how should we have dealt

        with Stalin or any of the Politburo following WWII? The main screw ups may have been in not providing assistance to Ho in French Indochina for example or any number of other countries that "went Communist" in the 50's and 60's.
        The biggest mistake may have been backing Chiang Kai Shek instead of backing Mao and continuing to back Taiwan for so long. It is almost as senseless as our Cuban policy.

        by entlord1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:59:50 AM PDT

    •  Putin is quite popular in Russia

      even though I don't approve the Iran style of denying certain candidates from competing, but in some ways these candidates are like Ron Paul with no chance of winning anyway.

      What we've done wrong is that we emboldened their nationalistic sentiment because we no longer treat them as equals.

      Whether a country is democratic or not is not the main issue here (Saudi Arabia is obviously not democratic and doesn't recognize Isreal), the issue is that whether the leaders in those countries may do things that are not consistent with the neo-con's strategic interests.

      by acnetj on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:30 AM PDT

•  So, what's the general feeling about

  HRC?  Is she staying or getting out?

  by BradF on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:38:18 PM PDT

  •  According to this

    WaPo story, her aides are pinning their hopes on somehow seating the FL and MI delegates.

    I have to say, as an Obama supporter but one less passionate than many here, that changing the rules at this stage of the game would make me really, really angry.

    In answer to your question, I think she withdraws very soon.

    by SadTexan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:41:22 PM PDT

    •  Chuck Todd said tonight even if you count

      MI and FL as is, BHO still comes out on top.

      by BradF on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:49:14 PM PDT

      •  OK, He Won, But Does SHE Know It?

        Will it stop her?  Geez, I hope so. My brain won't take anymore of this shit.

        by mattman on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:01:19 AM PDT

        •  It doesn't matter what she thinks...

          her campaign is broke. Even if she lends the campaign everything she owns, she still won't have enough money to compete. It's over.

          by sja on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:23:33 AM PDT

          •  They don't need money

            Unfortunately, Clinton doesn't need much money. In 4 weeks the primaries will all be over. Everything comes down to the super delegates, who can be contacted directly without spending a lot of money.

            by Wu Wei on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:55 AM PDT

            •  Don't believe it...

              It takes money, and lots of it, to run even a bare bones campaign, especially at her burn rate. Super-delegates know this and will consider it in their calculations. Moreover, elected officials who endorse, expect fundraising help from the presidential candidate. If they don't see it coming from Hillary, they won't endorse. Money is the mother's milk of politics.

              by sja on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:47:55 AM PDT

    •  We've been thinking sanity would return

      to Hillary for quite some time now, and every day she manages to surpass some new threshold of madness.  She has taken selfishness into hitherto unexplored realms of crystallized Strangelovean purity that I frankly haven't even seen from Republicans.  One is reminded of the line from Beetlejuice..."[She] does not work well with others."  In fact, listening to the way she and her people speak, I'm increasingly seeing her campaign as a kind of political murder-suicide - the crazed, shrieking headcase vowing "If I can't have you, no one will!" as she lunges at the protagonist with a butcher knife.  I appeal to all women who ever want to see a woman president: Hillary is making that less likely with every minute of her deranged, Susan Smith-esque performance.

      by Troubadour on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:35:55 AM PDT

      •  Ok I have got to differ.

        Elizabeth I
        Catherine The Great
        Victoria

        and on and on

        that was a minimizing statement about women and the USA.

        by woodstock007 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:10:18 AM PDT

        •  First impressions.

          The first viable candidate from a minority demographic shapes public perception about its general viability, and must either strongly discourage or, by default, end up reinforcing biases about it.  John F. Kennedy was so far from Rome that voters today wouldn't even entertain the notion that a Catholic candidate might be subservient to the Vatican, even though (at least on the right) some in politics clearly are.  

          Every future woman candidate will be confronted, at least in the minds of men, with Hillary Clinton - with an unbelievably, cartoonishly selfish and strategically incompetent nincompoop who tried to derail Barack Obama.  If Obama is even a good president, let alone great, he is guaranteed to be viewed as an icon if not American hero, so where will that leave Hillary's place in history?  She will be seen not as a feminist pioneer who came close to winning the White House, but as the incredibly frivolous, self-absorbed wife of a former president who felt her marriage and gender entitled her to an office more than someone who had since come to embody triumph and inspiration.  It'll be a "chromosome libel" that will persist in some men's minds, and raise the threshold for viability rather than lowering it as most seem to believe.

          "Minimizing statement"?  If you have other observations to offer, I would appreciate them, but to simply dismiss what I'm saying because its effect in your opinion is not politically correct doesn't help anything.  Hillary has already done incalculable damage - while Barack Obama was bringing racist-by-default country white folks out of their shells and into the light of a wider world, HRC has been epitomizing the absolute worst  stereotypes imaginable about ambitious women.  Her feminist supporters backed the wrong horse at the wrong time, so they can either deal with it or become parodies of themselves just as she has.  That's just the way it is.  

          by Troubadour on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:24:33 AM PDT

          •  She sets the goal of

            electing a woman to the White House back decades. There was already the prejudice that a woman would be too self-centered, fantasizing, and hysterical to be a good candidate; HRC's conduct will be seized upon to "confirm" that prejudice.

            Electing a woman is an important goal-- but important enough that it should be done right, with a candidate who can earn victory through her own talents and do women and all Americans proud. Hillary Clinton has never fit that description.

            by LanceBoyle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:09:20 AM PDT

          •  I don't think they'll be compared to Clinton much

            Clinton is no more "the woman candidate" than Barack is "the black candidate".  She's a Clinton first, then a woman.

            by IndieinVa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:19:02 AM PDT

            •  Who she is

              and how she'll be seen aren't exactly the same things.  Keep in mind how cheaply and frivolously she's used the gender card: While Obama has had frank and deep discussions about race - not to appeal for himself, but simply to lead - she throws around gender like Republicans throw around Christianity.  So she will be considered by many as the model of what a woman candidate is like, until a much better and more worthy contender comes along.  We can do without Hillary's Tracy Flick on crack.

              by Troubadour on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:01:41 AM PDT

              •  Right, but most successful female politicians

                don't even need to "go there" (pointing out sexism, planting poorly-disguised sexist hecklers, talking about wardrobe, crying).  M Albright, Condi Rice, Pelosi, M Waters, even the decades-ago M Thatcher -- none of those are women who hung their hats on being a woman, but rather on their leadership skills and issues.  To this moment I can't tell you what Albright's or Rice's everyday WARDROBE looks like, but Hillary made a huge deal about her "pantsuits".

                The first successful female Presidential nominee will be like the first female barrier breaker in any field:  one who makes you think of her qualifications first, and her gender as an afterthought.

                by IndieinVa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:17:44 AM PDT

        •  None were elected,

          but all three had world-class leadership skills.

          IMHO, Hillary doesn't lead, she pushes.

          by skwimmer on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:14:12 AM PDT

  •  "Best 183 out of 365! No, wait..."

    The pitifulness of Hillcain, oh what a sad (but also joyous) sight.

    by Troubadour on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:43:46 PM PDT

  •  Wesley Clark has reportedly called Hillary

    and asked her to drop out, according to Joe Sudbay of Americablog.

    by Sharoney on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:06:37 AM PDT

  •  Hillary will never quit

    I think Hillary is telling the truth when she says she'll never quit. Which means she's in until mathematically eliminated. That could either be at the convention, or if super delegates and a decision on FL / MI give Obama a majority. Even if Obama appears to have the nomination clinched, she may continue on because the super delegates could change their minds at the convention.

    Dropping out is becoming almost meaningless since all the primaries will be over in 4 weeks.

    by Wu Wei on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:01:23 AM PDT

  •  BBC reporter waffled on question

    if HRC had anyone in her camp who would have the guts to tell her when it was time to get out. Basic answer seemed to be that she called her own shots. There was even a rundown of the remaining primaries with which ones likely to go to which candidate along with a recap of the SDs. The point was then made that the convention rules committee was heavily pro-Clinton and would probably seat FL and MI delegates.

    The question then would be, giving her some of the primaries and giving her FL and MI, assuming a flood of SDs coming to her in the next couple of weeks as she carries the next couple of primaries, and assuming that some Obama SDs defect in the face of his weakness, this will put her in "striking distance" of the nomination.

    The other refrain this morning is that she is positioning herself to offer to withdraw in exchange for the VP spot but my personal observation is that if she does try for the VP, whe will wait too late to try to strike a deal.  

    by entlord1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:05:37 AM PDT

•  I'm still celebrating..

  

  by notquitedelilah on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:39:03 PM PDT

•  CRASHING THE GATES

  

  "North Carolina will be a GAME CHANGER!" ~ Hillary Clinton.

  .
  BWHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH!!

  

  A Sea of Orange:  approximately 2.5 million visits for Tuesday, May 6, 2008.

  by Al Rodgers on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:39:33 PM PDT

  •  It's a good thing we don't have to supply ...

    ...Port-a-Potties for everyone.

    by Meteor Blades on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:40:53 PM PDT

  •  half of them are mine

    refresh, refresh, refresh . . .

    by jlms qkw on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:42:01 PM PDT

  •  And who knew this little guy

    

    had enough power in that little tricycle to crash the gates?

    by begone on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:44:57 PM PDT

    •  I love that photo.

      It is so everyman.

      by Over the Edge on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:34:10 AM PDT

•  We MUST cut the military budget.

  Last I checked, the US military budget was larger than the total military budgets of every other country in the world combined.

  This is simply barking mad.

  Gorbachev is right.  The world should see the US as a dangerous imperialist threat -- because it is, after all, acting like one.  We should stop acting like one.

  by neroden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:39:47 PM PDT

  •  Ix-nay On the Entagon-Pay

    till after the election.

    And even then, don't even think about a quick re-prioritization.

    Unless you propose giving them something that would keep them all employed, like the the Manned Pluto mission.

    by Gooserock on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:45:46 PM PDT

    •  Ooh, I like it....

      Manned Pluto mission appeals to me a lot.  Perhaps not realistic though.

      Actually, it is really important to note that the largest hunks of cash are not going to the uniformed soldiery, but to the defense contractors.  If we stopped buying boondoogle arms-race weaponry, we could cut the military budget a lot very quickly without putting any federal employees out of work.

      I think putting the employees of military contractors out of work is politically a rather different thing -- it's still an issue, but surely those engineers and workers can get jobs building bridges, high-speed rail, and all the other infrastructure which is crumbling.  Right?  We can do that, can't we?

      by neroden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:03:50 AM PDT

      •  Yes we can.

        by Rex Manning on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:08:32 AM PDT

      •  Probably Not Even Ambitious Enough to Soak Up

        the whole MIC that's surplus to our real defense needs.

        by Gooserock on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:12:35 AM PDT

      •  sveral problems with that

        one is the lead time to get projects decided upon and up to speed.  This is made worse by most of that infrastructure being government owned, often with multiple jurisdictions involved.  A few weeks ago I was reading on a highway and bridge project, that "infrastructure which is crumbling", which is planned to start actual work in 2015, and has been in the study and planning stage since 1995.  There's only a handful of people involved, as that's all the work there is until actually ramping up to do the construction.

        The second problem is a mismatch of skills and resources. Someone schooled and trained to design supersonic aircraft may not be that useful in other areas, a worker from a munitions plant is going to need retraining.  And those plants are designed and constructed to produce what they do, in most cases a major expense to retool them.

        Which brings us to a third point.  It often is cheaper to shut the plant down and move to the developing world where low wages and looser regulations make both plant start-up and operation cheaper.

        That means the people working in those plants are going to vote your ass out of office the first chance they get.  And that means in most cases their representatives in Congress are going to oppose and vote against those cutbacks.

        by wondering if on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:25:23 AM PDT

      •  A problem with that

        is military contractor makes crappy civilian equipment/infastructure, an example would be the old light rail vehicles/streetcars in Boston and San Francisco made by Boeing Vertol.

        Europeans and Japanese make better civilian equipment/infastructure partly because they didn't have to commit as much resource and talent on military technology as we do here.

        by acnetj on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:25:17 AM PDT

  •  I agree.

    Cut the military budget to $75billion.

    Close all US military bases abroad.

    Withdraw all us troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Restrict all US military spending to defense of  US territory.

    by Rex Manning on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:55:08 PM PDT

    •  Start by giving Guantanamo back to Cuba. n/t

      by Meteor Blades on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:10:20 AM PDT

      •  How much time...

        ...is left on that lease anyway?

        by Rex Manning on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:15:44 AM PDT

        •  Well, that's the rub ...

          ...you see, since 1934, when the original rammed-down-Cuba's-throat treaty from 1903 was modified, this clause has meant the U.S. can stay forever:

          Until the two contracting parties agree to the modification or abrogation of the stipulations of the agreement in regard to the lease to the United States of America of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations signed by the President of the Republic of Cuba on February 16, 1903, and by the President of the United States of America on the 23d day of the same month and year, the stipulations of that agreement with regard to the naval station of Guantanamo shall continue in effect.

          Both sides have to agree.

          by Meteor Blades on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:27:49 AM PDT

          •  How convenient. eom

            by kulshan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:29:09 AM PDT

            •  lol n/t

              by kaye on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:20:33 AM PDT

          •  Don't see it happening, Putting together the

            news that we are allowed to get.

            Adm. Thad Allen calling for the US civilian navy to please monitor and report all suspicious activity on our coasts and ports. The Coast Guard [part of Homeland Security...what a Bushkabob name] has been 'bled' for equipment. The stated reason: sneaking in Nukes

            My take Pirates and smugglers of all sorts

            The reactivation of the US Navy's 4th Fleet. Interesting since there is no report of ships available for that Fleet.

            My take same as above.

            + a threat from Venezuela, yada backed by China. + the off-shore Brazilian oil reserves, yada. + sea lanes. + protecting our Gulf Coast. Panama Canal?

            by deMemedeMedia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:26:23 AM PDT

  •  only problem:

    too many jobs depend on it.

    All we really make are bombs and guns. And not very good ones, either.

    by limpidglass on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:01:39 AM PDT

    •  Not many jobs actually.

      A lot of the work is outsourced to foreign countries anyway.

      Military uniforms, for instance, are made in Central America.

      Most of the money goes to big profits for the military contractors.

      Military spending is a negative drain on our economy. Redirecting the majority of military spending to infrastructure spending would create many, many more jobs than military spending and infrastructure spending creates capital while military spending creates no capital.

      by Rex Manning on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:07:44 AM PDT

    •  I'm not keen on the inflated military budget ...

      ...but despite problems with certain weapon systems, a lot of those "guns" are extremely good, which is one reason the U.S. sells so many abroad, which in turn allows weapons-makers to send their ex-generals-cum-board members to the Pentagon to push for new weapon systems to meet the potential challenge from the ones the U.S. has sold. It's a racket. And it works beautifully.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:09:05 AM PDT

    •  uh huh. war machine is its own best reason

      for existence...?

      by beijingbetty on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:13:06 AM PDT

    •  Well We're Outsourcing That

      All we really make any more is financial fraud.

      by Gooserock on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:13:22 AM PDT

  •  WRONG. We need to eliminate wars of aggression

    and the use of MERCENARIES, contractors and Star Wars.

    We need to rebuild our military strength to maintain a 'defensive' position.

    Are we in worse conditions militarily than we were when Pearl Harbor happened? And we don't have the manufacturing segment that we had then to respond and rebuild.

    by deMemedeMedia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:09:59 AM PDT

    •  think you've got a good point

      bring essential support functions back inside the military, as well as some other areas of the Federal government.  Improve auditing to prevent waste, the biggest argument for contracting out (regardless of the actual savings).  Everyone involved in direct support of front line troops had best be trained for and willing to accept working near fighting.

      by wondering if on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:30:59 AM PDT

      •  The convoluted budget of the DoD and

        for that matter all federal functions is a major problem.

        Can't think of the guy in oversight that has addressed that every time he has a mike. Maybe, Walker.

        I'm having a late night brain fart, so if anybody can provide a link go ahead. I know I've heard him testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee. That the way the budget is constructed makes is horrifically cost ineffective and gives rise to all kinds of distortions and 'scams'.

        by deMemedeMedia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:43:22 AM PDT

    •  Against what threat?

      Is there a country that can invade the US?

      If Russia can defend itself with a military budget of $50billion and China can defend itself with a military budget of $20billion why does the US have to spend more than $500billion?

      $50billion + $20billion=$70 billion. If we spent as much as our two largest potential military adversaries combined wouldn't that be enough?

      by Rex Manning on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:46:26 AM PDT

      •  according to Lou Dobbs we are being invaded

        by Mexico. Hence the need to station troops on the border.

        by entlord1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:10:41 AM PDT

        <