Morning Stunningly Superficial

It'd be a good rename for Morning Joe.

Scarborough: "You cannot blame what's going on in Israel on the Bush administration."

Brzezinski: "You know, you have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it's almost embarrassing to listen to you."

Hysterical. And it gets better when JoeScar, his ego wounded, tries to use sarcasm, which really doesn't work on him. I think Zbig was about 10 seconds from asking Joey "What dead intern?" at the end there.

Stopping The March To Iran

Over the past couple days some big hitters have come out and warned the Administration not to continue to threaten war with Iran. Zbig Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft made the case in the Washington Post that war is unnecessary and the constant tough rhetoric is unhelpful.

"Don't talk about 'do we bomb them now or later?' " said Brent Scowcroft, adviser to presidents Gerald R. Ford and George H.W. Bush, during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the negotiations between the United States and Iran.

Scowcroft added that by mentioning that threat, "we legitimize the use of force . . . and may tempt the Israelis" to carry out such a mission. He said he thinks that negotiations must continue and that sanctions have had an effect on Tehran, noting that even with elevated oil prices, Iran, alone among oil producers, is having a difficult time economically.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, adviser to President Jimmy Carter, described the Bush administration's policy of maintaining the option of military action as "counterproductive."

"I don't want the public to believe a preemptive attack can be justified," he said. Repeating the possibility "convinces Iran it is being threatened . . . and maybe it ought to have a [nuclear] weapon."

He added that a U.S. attack on Iran would be a "disaster," suggesting it could result in the U.S. fighting "for at least two decades" on four fronts -- Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

We never have a conversation in this country about the consequences of both our talk and action. Clearly a country like Iran, which sees US troops on its borders in neighboring countries, which sees nuclear-capable nations treated with respect and incapable nations treated to bombing, understand the role nuclear weapons can play, especially given continued threats. And Scowcroft rightly explains that the Iranian economy is dependent on the world community right now and thusly more susceptible to a negotiated settlement.

Similarly, Gen. John Abizaid's comments were level-headed and reflected some actual thought beyond a knee jerk over how to respond to Iran.

Although he didn't say it outright, General Abizaid's implicit view seemed to be that the world would not be able to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that we would have to learn to live with it. He questioned whether war with Iran to stop that eventuality would be a wise idea "at this particular time" not only because world oil flows would be shut down and turmoil would spread across the Middle East where Iran's Shia allies hold sway, but also because the US armed forces lacked strategic flexibility, bogged down as they are in Iraq and Afghanistan with "our ground forces tapped out."

What, then, when they get the bomb? "I don't believe Iran is a suicide state," he said. "Deterrence will work with Iran. It is a country of many different power centers that are competing. Despite what their crazy president says, I doubt seriously whether the Iranians are interested in starting a nuclear war." [...] We should be talking to Iran, according to Abizaid, just the way we talked to our other enemies in the past. "We need to make it very clear to the Iranians, the same way we made it clear to the Soviet Union and China, that their first use of nuclear weapons would result in the devastation of their nation."

The pat conservative response to this is that people like Abizaid don't understand the nature of the threat (despite being on the ground in the Middle East for years) and that Iran is not a rational actor, but this is not borne out by their actions to this point. Their current first-strike capability doesn't exist, and beyond words there has been no meaningful action. I don't know if I agree with Abizaid that Iran will eventually get the bomb, but certainly we have the deterrence capability to deal with that if it happens, and even more capability to stop the threat through international pressure before we come to that.

The neocons, I believe, are of a different opinion. But the good news is that a bipartisan movement against pre-emptive war is building. H.R. 362, which would have called for a blockade around Iran, is stalling out in Congress, thanks to some better-informed legislators (Wexler, Cohen, and Frank) taking their names off the bill. The House leadership needs to put this to bed once and for all. J Street has a petition on this.

Bernie: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Bernard Kerik is going to go to jail for a long time. The charges range from tax evasion to conspiracy to commit criminal wiretapping. His rap sheet includes ties to the mob, banging Judith Regan in an office rented to the city to handle post 9-11 organizational duties, filing false information to the government when he was briefly President Bush's nominee to run the Department of Homeland Security (remember that)?, hatching a plan with former New York lawmaker Jeanine Pirro to wiretap her husband to see if he was having an affair, and about 300 other examples of dirty dealing.

And his old boss, Da Mayor, knew all about this.

Rudolph W. Giuliani told a grand jury that his former chief investigator remembered having briefed him on some aspects of Bernard B. Kerik’s relationship with a company suspected of ties to organized crime before Mr. Kerik’s appointment as New York City police commissioner, according to court records.

Mr. Giuliani, testifying last year under oath before a Bronx grand jury investigating Mr. Kerik, said he had no memory of the briefing, but he did not dispute that it had taken place, according to a transcript of his testimony.

Mr. Giuliani’s testimony amounts to a significantly new version of what information was probably before him in the summer of 2000 as he was debating Mr. Kerik’s appointment as the city’s top law enforcement officer. Mr. Giuliani had previously said that he had never been told of Mr. Kerik’s entanglement with the company before promoting him to the police job or later supporting his failed bid to be the nation’s homeland security secretary.

He specifically said that he doesn't remember, adding to the Republican culture of memory loss we've seen lately. It's a get out of jail free card; just blame everything on your darn junker of a mind. This didn't work with Scooter Libby, isn't working with Alberto Gonzales and won't wotk with Giuliani. His close association with what amounts to a common street thug speaks directly to judgment, and as the campaign continues that judgment will be called into serious question.

I don't know which lame Republican candidate I'm rooting for MORE at this point.

UPDATE: In the interest of fairness, I appreciated this from Rudy, though not for the same reasons:

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Thursday it was a mistake to coin the term "war on terror" because it allows enemies to redefine the United States incorrectly as a nation that prefers war [...]

But Giuliani told a gathering of newspaper reporters that "America is seen as a country by too many that wants to have war, or exercises its power too much, pushes its weight around too much." [...]

Later, in questions with television journalists, Giuliani explained.

"This is a terrorist war against us. We've got to keep reminding ourselves of the fact that they are in various parts of the world planning to come here and attack us or attack us overseas."

Uh, actually Rudy, it's a terrorist war where a small band of fundamentalists attacked us, and we hauled off and went after a country that had nothing to do with it. This is really "We didn't start this war, but we'll finish it" under different cover. The real reason to disavow the war on terror label is explained here.

The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us [...]

But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war."

It's not about how foreigners can smear us. It's about how we can smear the truth and use fear to justify literally anything.