|
|
|
|
December 23, 2003 REFUSEDNIK....I missed this while I was out stimulating the economy yesterday, but here's the latest piece of Chistmas cheer from Andrew Sullivan. First he quotes Wesley Clark: "And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we'll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have. We'll bring you in." Then he follows with this:
"Right of first refusal" doesn't mean "permission." It means that if I'm planning to do a deal, I promise to offer the deal to you first. If you refuse it, then I can do the deal with someone else. In this context, Clark is obviously saying that if we have security issues, we'll consult with Europe first and try to find a solution. We'll go elsewhere only if we can't reach agreement. This is perfectly consistent with the rest of Clark's statement and with everything he's been saying on this subject for over a year. And this is no innocent mistake on Sullivan's part. If there are readers of this blog who don't understand the meaning of "right of first refusal," that's understandable. But Sullivan has spent his entire life in the publishing industry, where the term is used routinely, and he knows precisely what it means. He's just deliberately trying to twist Clark's words into something they aren't. Which I suppose isn't a surprise. But what really makes me shake my head about stuff like this is why? If Sullivan truly doesn't like Clark's internationalist vision, there are hundreds of honest ways to criticize it. And if he does like it — as he rather unconvincingly says — then why bother trying to pretend it's something it isn't? I don't know. Maybe it's just habit with him. Posted by Kevin Drum at December 23, 2003 09:02 AM | TrackBackComments
Sullivan's not a lawyer - I thought he corrected this after someone pointed out that "first refusal" is a term of art at US law. Presumably, Clark means something else than what Bush did, but I have no idea what he meant. Posted by: J Mann at December 23, 2003 09:06 AM | PERMALINKAre we talking about the same Sullivan who didn't think that the phrase "handing over our heads" was a good definition for "imminent"? The guy's an inept and dishonest hack, pure and simple. Posted by: Jaquandor at December 23, 2003 09:07 AM | PERMALINKArgh! Not the "right of first refusal" means "consult" line again??? It certainly does NOT mean merely "we'll consult". Please read Volokh, Kevin! Posted by: Al at December 23, 2003 09:10 AM | PERMALINKJ Mann: Sullivan hasn't corrected anything. And like I said: it's a common term in the publishing industry and he knows exactly what it means. As for the difference between Clark and Bush, Clark is obviously implying that Bush didn't work with Europe seriously, and he would. Feel free to disagree with this. Like I said, there are plenty of honest criticisms. But don't pretend that Clark is saying we have to ask permission before we do anything. Posted by: Kevin Drum at December 23, 2003 09:12 AM | PERMALINKAl: it means exactly what I said it meant. Are you trying to tell me it means something else? Posted by: Kevin Drum at December 23, 2003 09:13 AM | PERMALINKThere are no right wing brownie points given out for telling the truth. The bigger the lie, the bigger the distortion, if you can make it work, the greater the kudos. Lies and distortions are the currency of their power, and they be damn proud of that since, in the end, all that matters is who holds the power, not who's right or wrong, or who has the better argument. Right wingers understand this in their bones. Liberals have a hard time dealing with the concept. Posted by: obe at December 23, 2003 09:13 AM | PERMALINKWhoops. Sullivan didn't correct - I must be thinking of someone else. I tend to agree with obe. I get a pain in my stomach when I see how this current crop of liars gets away with it so easily. I have all but given up hoping that my fellow Americans will come to their senses any time soon. There are so many reasons for this like having to work so many hours to continue to "keep up with the Jones" but it is hard for me to see people keep on feeling good about being bamboozled. Posted by: M. L. Foster at December 23, 2003 09:20 AM | PERMALINKActually, all Volokh says is that it's all very complicated and that Clark shouldn't have used the term. Posted by: praktike at December 23, 2003 09:21 AM | PERMALINKj mann is right. Bush gave Europe the right of first refusal. Britain, Spain, Poland and the Eastern bloc countries signed on. France, Belgium, Germany refused (and strove mightily against us, I might add). Posted by: rich at December 23, 2003 09:23 AM | PERMALINKSo the idea is that President Clark goes over to Europe, says "Okay, here's the deal: we need to get Assad deposed in Syria by the end of the year. I've already talked to my boys at the Pentagon, and they say they can do the job for $50 billion, no problem, so that's the price you have to beat. If you can, the contract's yours."? Posted by: Jeff at December 23, 2003 09:24 AM | PERMALINKKevin, "right of first refusal" certainly does NOT mean "consult". I don't know what type of business you ran, but if you gave someone a right of first refusal with respect to your business, you would not be promising merely to consult with that person. If Clark had wanted to say he'd "consult", he could have said exactly that. (In fact, he DID say exactly that, right before he said he'd give the Euros a "right of first refusal".) So what did Clark mean? I dunno; I think that both your AND Sullivan's readings of it are flawed. I think the phrase is simply nonsensical. But I think Sullivan has just as much reason to draw the inference from it that he does as you have reason to draw the inference you do. Posted by: Al at December 23, 2003 09:25 AM | PERMALINKKevin - You're right about the meaning of the term, and I agree with your view of what Clark probably met, but the meaning isn't obvious in an international diplomatic context. A perfectly reasonable interpretation might be: the US has security problem X, and we propose solution Y, Europe also has security problem X and proposes solution Z. Does the Right of First Refusal mean that we let Europe deal with X with Z and not have us deal with it with Y? I'm not sure, but ought that mean we let Europe do Z before we do Y? That's consistent --- it (and this position) also demonstrates the problem using imprecise terms and hoping that your various target audiences pick up on the nuance the speaker hopes for...
I'm sure that Wes Clark wanted more centrist folks to read it the way you did (a consult-and-participate) -- and more left of center folks to read it as a functional veto of US policy. It's a bad term to use because it doesn't really fit. J Mann, you may be thinking of Drezner, who (I think) ended up at the same point that I'm at: having no idea what Clark meant, since both the "consult" and the "permission" inferences are flawed. Posted by: Al at December 23, 2003 09:28 AM | PERMALINKSullivan's main problem is that while he claims not to be a Republican (untrue) he hates the Democrats with a passion. It is not possible for him to think that a Democrat is right, just go to his archives and read his criticism of the Dems on the gay marriage issue. The republicans want a constitutional amendment, but it's really the Dems who don't support his cause enough. This bias informs all of his rants. Posted by: David Perlman at December 23, 2003 09:29 AM | PERMALINKIf the "tinfoil helmet" Democrats want to believe "right of first refusal" is the same thing as "consult", more power to them! But even if Kevin Drum is correct that "right of first refusal" doesn't mean asking permission, wasn't that a clumsy statement on Clark's part? Most Americans do not want our president asking Jacque Chirac permission to do anything. By the way, President Bush went to the United Nations twice regarding Iraq. That is exactly two more times than Clinton went to the UN prior to the Kosovo war. Posted by: Kevin Gregory at December 23, 2003 09:34 AM | PERMALINKKevin, I've been studying diplomatic history for about a decade and I've never heard " right of first refusal " in that context. Sullivan might be right or he might be wrong because the meaning here is ambiguous which was probably Clark's intention when he made it. At this stage candidates for president ought to leave themselves some wiggle room in foreign policy because absolutist campaign statements will return to haunt them. Everybody: yes, it was a clumsy statement on Clark's part. But his meaning is clear unless you're deliberately trying to misunderstand him. He's obviously not suggesting a legally binding contract, he's just saying that we'll talk to Europe first on these matters. Honestly, what's so hard about this? It's consistent with the rest of Clark's statement and with everything he's said about Europe for the past year. Posted by: Kevin Drum at December 23, 2003 09:40 AM | PERMALINK...because if you can beat the other guy with trickery and lies, then doesn't that mean you are superior. The cowboy swagger is an expression of this belief. But when Andy Sullivan tries the cowboy swagger, he comes across more like he's sucking up than swaggering. He want's so badly to belong among those who believe he should burn in hell for eternity. (Just curious, if he was straight, would anyone even listen to him? He would be irrelevant, just another small-mindeed white guy republican.) It does not matter what Clark said. All that matters is what gossip can be spun out of it by small minds like Andy's, with one goal: scratch Clark's eyes out cause he makes Bush look like a phony and a loser just standing there. Posted by: obe at December 23, 2003 09:45 AM | PERMALINKCan I just say that this is typical of the most ridiculous misdirection plays that Republicans employ? You know the one: take out of context a phrase that a Democrat uses, overinterpret that phrase to make the Democrat look like a radical/incompetent/neurotic/evildoer, then launch the rest of us on a Easter egg hunt with the language to parse finely the meaning of the phrase, going back through legal texts and OED entries to see what the Democrat could possibly have meant. Bah! We all know what Clark's basic foreign policy views are. He has said in no uncertain terms that he doesn't want to give anybody veto power over America's ability to defend itself. He wants to return to the long tradition of working with our allies instead of pissing on them -- for both pragmatic and moral reasons. This is what he meant, nothing more and nothing less. Get over it, people! I also notice that nobody is standing up for Howard Dean. When, exactly, did Dean say he thought America always had to ask the UN for permission to take military action? He said he supported the Afghanistan invasion, and we didn't get UN permission for that, did we? He says over and over that he would not hesitate to send our troops into battle but that he would not do so on the wings of a lie. When I hear "would not hesitate to send our troops into battle," I don't hear him saying that we'd have to wait for UN approval first, even if there's an imminent threat. These are all absurd attempts by right wing nuts to smear the Democrats as dovish and out-of-the-mainstream, twisting their words and taking their quotes out of context. Kevin, these people do not play fair. Posted by: Dan Perreten at December 23, 2003 09:46 AM | PERMALINKI agree that Sullivan overreacted, but I have trouble believing he knows what it means. It may well be that President Clark could have built a larger coalition, but the question for the hawks is at what point President Clark will tell Europe that our national interest is more important to us than their concerns (in diplomatese, of course) and break out the 4th Infantry. Again, I agree that the "first refusal" statement doesn't answer the question. Posted by: J Mann at December 23, 2003 09:48 AM | PERMALINK"Honestly, what's so hard about this?" Absolutely nothing. Virtually everyone agrees that the phrase makes no sense. Only hardcore partisans like Kevin (pro-Clark) and Sullivan (anti-Clark) think they can make sense of it. And it's pretty clear that they only make sense of it by infusing into the phrase their own desires about what they WANT it to mean... Posted by: Al at December 23, 2003 09:49 AM | PERMALINKBut his meaning is clear unless you're deliberately trying to misunderstand him. He's obviously not suggesting a legally binding contract, he's just saying that we'll talk to Europe first on these matters. He's also clearly implying something more substantive than, in at least his mind, what Bush has done. This is indisputable. Since in the mind of many Republicans, Bush bent over so far backwards for the Europeans as to have done everything short of asking permission, clearly, to them, whatever Clark means must be equivalent to asking permission. Its really not necessarily all that "dishonest" -- although its still inaccurate, IMO -- if you understand the bias that may be informing the statement. But its a vague statement, and people will interpret it according to their bias. Those who think Bush did little to consult Europe will see it as merely meaning "substantive consultation", those who saw Bush as bending over backwards trying to accommodate Europe without giving up the essential defense of America will see it as offering Europe a veto. OTOH, its a vague enough statement that it serves his purpose in the primary without binding him tightly to a position that will be inconvenient in the general election, should he get the nomination, I think. Posted by: cmdicely at December 23, 2003 09:52 AM | PERMALINKKevin: It's a mistake to admit that it was a clumsy statement on Clark's part. Democrats and left-leaning commentators are always conceding, "Oh, we should have phrased that better" when in fact our candidate's meaning was perfectly clear -- as you have said -- and the only problem was the way in which wingers twist those words. This is related to the problem of joking, you remember joking, right? Madeleine Albright makes a joke, and the entire right wing Wurlitzer gears up to slam her, as if she had been serious. Dean jokes about wanting to shut Fox down, and Krauthammer deliberately deletes the "[laughs]" out of the transcript, and asserts that Dean has no sense of humor. Clark jokes that he might have run as a Republican if Rover had returned his calls, and he gets slammed in Newsweek as if he were serious. These people are using language to dominate the discussion in such a way that it becomes impossible for a Democrat to say anything at all. Let's take "America is no safer because of Saddam's capture" as an example. Some three-quarters of the American public believes this, but apparently nobody in the punditocracy does, and so Howard Dean is slammed and slimed for his "gaffe." Well, it wasn't a gaffe, and it wasn't out of the mainstream, and it was a great sound bite because it summed up in one sentence all that's wrong with the Iraq war. And yet here we have Sam Donaldson and Eleanor Clift wringing their hands because, well, Dean was right on the merits, but his words weren't diplomatic enough, or because they can be twisted, or because what-the-freak-ever! Can't we all get a little spine over here on the left and stop kow-towing to the absurd insinuations and misuse of language that emanates from the right? Posted by: Dan Perreten at December 23, 2003 09:54 AM | PERMALINKKevin Drum says Bush did this and got blasted as a unilateralist. I'm thinking that Clark means that his policy will then be guided by European thinking, or else his position is the same as Bush's. Now if Clark's position is really the same as Bush's, fine, Sullivan has nothing to complain about. But since Clark is trying to reach out to the left, do you think he is really proposing to follow in Bush's footsteps? Posted by: Ron at December 23, 2003 09:58 AM | PERMALINKClark, who went shopping for a political party and settled on the one who had an opening available, meant that the EUnuchs should have have at minimum strong input to U.S. foreign policy, which is anathema to most Americans of either party. President Bush gave them the opportunity TWICE at the UN to force Saddam to live up to the 18 resolutions that they passed trying to rein him in. They failed to do so because France, Germany and other Old World EU countries like poking the eye of the U.S. They had their chance to get on the right side of history, but blew it. It seems pretty obvious that Gen. Clark used a technical legal term inappropriately, which allows folks on the left (KD) or right (AS) to interpret his remarks as they wish. Posted by: DBL at December 23, 2003 10:01 AM | PERMALINKFor those who are interested, Volokh has a pretty good explanation of the technical legal meaning of the term "right of first refusal." Posted by: DBL at December 23, 2003 10:02 AM | PERMALINKNotice that all the sentence-parsing haters here are the same hypocrites who jump through flaming dogshit hoops parsing the meaning of "imminent threat"? I guess endless kvetching about hypothetical war is so much more important than why we went on a 500-soldier-dead $160,000,000,000 real war. Posted by: Ras_Nesta at December 23, 2003 10:08 AM | PERMALINKDan Parretan is right. Where do you get the idea that Dean says the US needs UN "permission" to do anything? That would put Dean in Kucinich-land, and he is far from that. Posted by: 537 votes at December 23, 2003 10:10 AM | PERMALINKI wonder why anyone would expect the very same man who threatened to beat "the shit out of them" when asked how he would respond if Bush attacked his patriotism and service record (as Bush attacked Senator McCain's) to now request allied permission to defend ourselves? Wesley Clark understands the language of war and diplomacy from having real world experience in both. Clearly we're talking about another pernicious attack on Clark's credibility by a man with a pre-existing and self-promoting agenda. I can only hope the warrior Clark occasionally bests the diplomatic Clark so we can see him in full shit kicking mode. Probably would be the Democratic answer to the Republicans Southern Strategy, and be a total rebuttal to the charge that Democrats are soft on defense. Heck, I would even have to rethink my Dean position. Posted by: James Emerson at December 23, 2003 10:11 AM | PERMALINK"Heck, I would even have to rethink my Dean position." James, You don't need to rethink your position - How about Dean/Clark, or Clark/Dean? Apparently, the word "tantamount" doesn't register in anyone's vocabulary here- particularly Kevin's, since he was compelled enough to write about Sullivan's "obfuscations." Sullivan isn't twisting Clark's words at all, he's equivocating them to something Dean said and simulataneously disagreeing with the notion. He certainly is NOT trying to say "right of first refusal" equals "permission" and anyone who does read it that way is guilty of misreading- or worse. As a matter of fact, the only one guilty of obfuscation here is Kevin- since he has successfully hijacked the paragraph and turned the discussion into a demonization of Sullivan. Nicely done I might add- as the comments section shows, everyone fell right in step with you. Of course, I'm not saying the Kevin is doing it deliberately, because that would mean that Kevin actually understood EXACTLY what Sullivan wrote, but CHOSE to misrepresent his words. I wouldn't want to accuse him of that kind of pre-meditated mischief. Perhaps in his zeal to convince readers that Sullivan is a no-good-dirty-conservative-hack-Bush-loving-sycophant-liar, he jumped the gun. Posted by: Gerry at December 23, 2003 10:20 AM | PERMALINKUh, 537 Votes, you may want to rethink your comment: "Dean said he’d have supported an attack on Iraq 'had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be part of a multilateral force.'" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3751147/ Posted by: Al at December 23, 2003 10:21 AM | PERMALINK"It may well be that President Clark could have built a larger coalition, but the question for the hawks is at what point President Clark will tell Europe that our national interest is more important to us than their concerns (in diplomatese, of course) and break out the 4th Infantry. " You seem to miss General Clark's obvious point that America is far stronger with her allies on board than she is going it alone, and bush's iraq mis-adventure is ample proof of that (as is Vietnam). The costs of going it alone have been staggering, financially and otherwise. Building a coalitions WAS in our national interest, and would have significantly helped achieve bush's stated objectives. And we went it alone in Iraq due to arrogance, incompetence and political perogatives, not because of any compelling need to do so. We were weaker and less effective as a result (as a country and a military). Had Bush been willing to wait 3 more months, he could have had France and Germany on board, and most everyone else. Had he let the inspectors complete the job, everybody would have been on board (assuming they found something). Just think of how much more effective we would have been with plenty of international troops, plenty of money, support in the Arab world. (But had Bush waited, it would have been more obvious that there were no grounds for an invasion, and there would have been no war, so Bush attacked while things were still ambiguous enough and after he had created the appearance of having engaged in diplomacy to get support.) In the end, though, it is disingenuous to claim that Clark was ambiguous. Only a complete idiot would ever take the position that Europe should have veto power over the US use of power. The proposition is absurd on its face, and so is suggesting that a general running for president of the USA would ever suggest something so far out and so perposterous. They failed to do so because France, Germany and other Old World EU countries like poking the eye of the U.S. It is at least as true to say "They failed to do so because the United States likes poking the eye of France, Germany, etc." There was a proposal that would have set a firm and short deadline and included war authorization on the table from Mexico and otherzs in the "middle" group, that had the support of a majority of the Council, that with US support would have passed unless France vetoed, which was less than certain, and would have given a stronger international imprimatur to US action and defused government, if not popular, opposition in a number of nations to the US position whether it passed or it failed on a French veto. The French and Germans weren't the only parties to busy poking other countries in the eye to work on a sensible international consensus on how to deal with the problem. Posted by: cmdicely at December 23, 2003 10:28 AM | PERMALINKThe assumption made by timmac and others in this comments section - that the american people don't want allies - is, of course, deranged. Study the polling data, which was produced in great abundance prior to the Iraq War, and you discover that having UN approval made all the difference in the world right up until the final run-up to the war itself (and since the polls showed that we would get 70% approval rating on the war once it started, there's a nice validating factor). I realize that saying damn the perfidious french equals a foreign policy for many on the right, but in the real world, allies count, and alienating allies is foolish, and that's all that clark is saying. everything as, as kevin (and dan) say, is merely a deliberate attempt to play word games and pin the "fifth column" on the donkey. Posted by: howard at December 23, 2003 10:29 AM | PERMALINKRon, Clark's position the same as Bush's?! Don't I wish! Think of where we would be if he had actually followed Clark's advice vis-a-vis Iraq:
- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway. - The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam’s weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam. If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear. Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations. Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as “preemptive.”
I used to really respect Sullivan. Over the past several years, he's really gone down in my estimation. Why? He's a hack, pure and simple. If you read him for awhile, you get the impression that everything he ever writes he feels is original with him. He's like Hitler that way. The poor guy refuses to acknowledge that others had the position that he happens to be espousing "du jour." He has a real tendency to denounce something, and then come back several years later espousing the same thing he's denounced. Sad and funny at the same time. Besides all this -- I have a sneaking suspicion that if he wasn't gay, he'd be right there in the same political bed as Gary Bauer and Pat Buchanan. Yep. He'd be the FIRST ONE out there opposing gay marriage. Or rights for gays and lesbians AT ALL. Poor guy. He also doesn't realize that he NEVER going to be accepted by the social right of the Republican Party. You can tell he wants to be, but I think he confuses the political situation in England (Tories) with that here (Republicans). We have the fire breathers. He allows himself to be lulled into the belief that over time they'll change their position. They won't. I know these people well -- hell, my old man's a minister of the social conservative variety. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at December 23, 2003 10:37 AM | PERMALINKKevin, you're playing the enemy's game. It is totally frickin' obvious what Clark meant -- we will ask Europe, first, if they want in on our military adventures. That is exactly what he meant -- I stake my name on it. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain -- if you don't see it, you are either not qualified to be analyzing political speech, or you are willfully or ignorantly twisting the man's words. But Kevin, don't bother trying to argue about what the term means. That is exactly what the wingers want! You'll notice how no one has mentioned seriously what Clark was talking about: is it a good thing to consult the Europeans, or closest allies, on our military plans? That is the whole point. Get people talking at great length about Clark's wording, then they will never get around to how the current admin. might differ from his view. Avoid issues at all cost -- unless they are completely fabricated ones that can easily be defeated ("Clark wants to ask the Europeans permission!") It is simply a tactic to poison the debate. Sullivan is not an idiot -- we are only left with the possibility that he is a dishonest, lying hack. Drop his bookmark and ignore the jerk. Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 23, 2003 10:40 AM | PERMALINKThe decision to invade Iraq was based on (tin foil hat removed) faulty evidence at best. Certainly America as the leading international military, economic, and cultural force in the world didn't need to damage its reputation in pursuit of a think tanked theory cooked up by a zealously idealogical crew with limited real world experience. In retrospect, it's excrutiatingly clear that inspections and sanctions had done their job thusly proving the war was an elective and divisive enterprise unworthy of a great world power and obviously counterproductive to the war against Al Queda. A more intellectually gifted and world experienced president would have seen the caution flags and would have worked to effect national goals in a way that would have brought the rest of the world along as partners in a common cause as opposed to a coalition of the bribed and brow beaten. If Clark brings those qualities to the fray, then we can only be better served as a nation. At any rate, it's more important to "term limit" the current occupant of the White House, than it is to quibble over a few words taken out of the context of a lifetime's national service, personal valor, and effective leadership. Apparently, the word "tantamount" doesn't register in anyone's vocabulary here- particularly Kevin's, since he was compelled enough to write about Sullivan's "obfuscations." Sullivan isn't twisting Clark's words at all, he's equivocating them to something Dean said and simulataneously disagreeing with the notion. Apparently, the word "equivocate" is not registered to this poster's particular vocabulary, either. Posted by: R. Porrofatto at December 23, 2003 10:50 AM | PERMALINKNeedless to say, the second paragraph above should also be in italics. Posted by: R. Porrofatto at December 23, 2003 10:51 AM | PERMALINKThere has been surprisingly little discussion in the blogosphere about the extent to which the Bush administration has squandered our credibility in the international community. The prestige and respect that the US enjoyed pre-Iraq was earned the hard way, by Presidents and Secretaries of State and other diplomats, over a period of many decades. The "screw you" approach of the ShrubCo people may come back to haunt us- the next time we need to assemble a consensus of nations to deal with an international crisis we might find that the coalition of the willing ain't so willing anymore. Posted by: peter jung at December 23, 2003 10:52 AM | PERMALINKSovok My point being, that if Clark meant what Kevin Drum said, then Clark's position would be the same as Bush's. This clearly cannot be true. Clark then, did not mean I promise to offer the deal to you first. If you refuse it, then I can do the deal with someone else. (Once again, this is what Bush did) The alternative, then, is for Clark to place more emphasis on European thinking. I will claim a fairly evenly divided Europe (with respect to Iraq) without doing a head count. So it seems likely to me that Clark thinks undivided European support is necessary. I find this close enough to Dean's position to make Sullivan's argument valid (even if you disagree with it). Posted by: Ron at December 23, 2003 10:52 AM | PERMALINK"It is totally frickin' obvious what Clark meant -- we will ask Europe, first, if they want in on our military adventures." Is the left so completely oblivious that that don't understand that this is EXACTLY what Bush did??? Britain, Spain, Italy, and Poland said "yes, we 'want in'"; France and Germany said "we'll pass". Somehow, Clark's remarks don't impress me as boiling down to: "I'd do exactly what Bush did". Posted by: Al at December 23, 2003 10:53 AM | PERMALINKI'm alternately puzzled and amused by the many arguments Bush's defenders make along the lines that one couldn't possibly make a greater or more competent effort to bring along allies than Bush made over the past couple of years, thus the only options are to (a) act as unilaterally as Bush, or (b) sit around with your thumb up your butt. I understand why this argument is satisfying to Bush supporters. That's about all it has going for it, as far as I can see. The antidote is simple: consider whether it is even remotely possible that someone other than George W Bush could be even marginally more persuasive than he, at least to certain people. If you answer this question, "No," then you may return to the previous argument...but you will be almost laughably wrong. If you ranked American presidents since FDR in diplomatic skills, where would George W Bush end up? His defenders implicitly argue that he would be first, or near it. I would put him at the bottom -- near Ford and Carter. The rest easily outshine him, in my opinion. Someone else (e.g. Clark among many others) could likely get much more from allies and neutrals, in exchange for much less. Bush is, in my opinion, a very bad bargainer. Posted by: Brandonimac at December 23, 2003 11:01 AM | PERMALINKQ: You insist that it would be better to turn military operations in Iraq over to NATO. Have you asked NATO about this? A new Atlantic Charter...mutually pledge...first choice? I wish Clark would elaborate; it comes across as gobbledy-gook. Posted by: pshaw at December 23, 2003 11:03 AM | PERMALINKBrandonimac I'll be willing to listen to you pound Bush's poor diplomatic skills when you include France's poor diplomatic skills. Posted by: Ron at December 23, 2003 11:05 AM | PERMALINKPersonally, I think Clark, on the spur of the moment (this was a tv interview when he said this) decided to use a phrase that sounded good to Dean-types, but didn't mean anything terribly controversial. If Clark was misunderstood to say something more left-wing than what he actually said, that was his point. It's a very politician thing to do. Gotta wonder if Wes has been taking verbal fencing lessons from his old Commander in Chief Posted by: appalled moderate at December 23, 2003 11:07 AM | PERMALINKA little retrospective added to Clark's comments about Europe. Dominique de Villepin speaking to the UN just before the vote that never happened said the adoption of Resolution 1441, along with the "converging positions by the vast majority of the world's nations, diplomatic action by the Organization of African Unity, the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the non-aligned movement, all of these common efforts are bearing fruit." Isn't Clark merely saying let's leverage the World's institutions, but give Europe nearly co-equal status ahead of the other alliance partners? de Villepin continues: "The American and British military presence in the region lends support to our collective resolve. We all recognize the effectiveness of this pressure on the part of the international community, and we must use it to go through with our objective of disarmament through inspections." Didn't this formula bring down Milosevic without losing a single American soldier, by threat of force coupled with world unity and exhaustive diplomacy? Speaking directly to the UN inspection reports de Villepin said: "What conclusions can we draw? That Iraq, according to the very terms used by the inspectors, represents less of a danger to the world than it did in 1991, that we can achieve our objective of effectively disarming that country. Let us keep the pressure on Baghdad." In retrospect, it's pretty clear de Villepin was on the money. The formula was working, and Clark's comments about foreign policy suggest he wants to take us where we were before Bush's War. Posted by: poputonian at December 23, 2003 11:16 AM | PERMALINK...thus the only options are to (a) act as unilaterally as Bush, or (b) sit around with your thumb up your butt. That's because they have problems counting past two. With us or against us, right or wrong, black or white: they seriously believe the world is not only simple but also simplistic. Posted by: Harry Tuttle at December 23, 2003 11:18 AM | PERMALINKpoputonian And Bush gets pounded for being hard-headed. Posted by: Ron at December 23, 2003 11:23 AM | PERMALINKI think it boils down to where you want the emphasis to fall in the statement: "And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we'll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have. We'll bring you in." vs. "And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we'll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have. We'll bring you in." Clark attackers are reading it the former way; Clark defenders are reading it the latter way. Posted by: FlipYrWhig at December 23, 2003 11:26 AM | PERMALINK(Also, attackers are lingering on "first refusal" without particularly accounting for the presence of "We'll bring you in.") Posted by: FlipYrWhig at December 23, 2003 11:28 AM | PERMALINKIs the left so completely oblivious that that don't understand that this is EXACTLY what Bush did??? Britain, Spain, Italy, and Poland said "yes, we 'want in'"; France and Germany said "we'll pass". Somehow, Clark's remarks don't impress me as boiling down to: "I'd do exactly what Bush did" Think about you just said there, Al. Clark seems to agree with Bush here -- that must be impossible. So I am going to invent a new meaning for the phrase he used. That's pretty pathological there, buddy. Yes, Clark would do what Bush did -- the only difference is that he says he would do it with good intentions, and he feels Bush did not. That's it. That's the whole story here. Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 23, 2003 11:29 AM | PERMALINKMy guess is that Clark used a term of art that he probably is unfamiliar with. I doubt he was saying he would do what W did. What would the point of that be? Nor would he have intended to be more "unilateral" than W. So what's left? That Clark intended for Europe to have some greater influence or some greater role. Trying to figure it out beyond that seems pretty speculative. I suspect he'll have to clarify this at some point. But this doesn't seem nearly as harmful or dangerous as Dean's statement. Posted by: spc67 at December 23, 2003 11:32 AM | PERMALINKRon, The pre-war evidence via the inspection reports indicated Iraq had disarmed. The evidence now, after the war, indicates that Iraq had disarmed. How much evidence do you need that Iraq had disarmed? We've spent more than $160 billion, lost American lives, and lost our world standing, over a country that had disarmed. Who's the hard-head? Posted by: poputonian at December 23, 2003 11:32 AM | PERMALINKI find it hilarious that people are discussing whether Clark, or some other president, would have had a better time persuading allies to join us on our Great Iraqi Adventure. This hypothetical is just balls-out silly because Clark wouldn't have gotten us into this war in the first place! Hello! If you haven't read it, I highly recommend WaPo's profile of Zinni today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22922-2003Dec22.html As for the notion that Dean would ask for the permission of the UN, this is also being wildly distorted by the wingnuts. Let's go over it one more time: War on Iraq was a war of choice, not one of necessary self-defense. He was speaking of this case, not making a general proclamation about US relationship to the UN. Dean has stated over and over that, in the case of self-defense, he wouldn't ask anybody's "permission." Those of you (like Sullivan) who assert this are debating in bad faith and twisting the man's positions. Posted by: Dan Perreten at December 23, 2003 11:36 AM | PERMALINKYes, Clark would do what Bush did -- the only difference is that he says he would do it with good intentions, and he feels Bush did not. Or, perhaps, in the same situation, Clark would have tried to get France and Germany to sign on for a coercive-inspection mission, rather than saying "f*ck Saddam, we're taking him out" and then pretending to negotiate. France's decision was that it didn't matter, that they would never support the use of force err. that's not true. Germany said it would never consider using force. France (via Villepin) said the use of force would be "inevitable" if Iraq did not comply with UN resolutions. what France and Russia disagreed with Bush on was the threshold required to trigger a war - Bush said it had already been met; France and Russia wanted proof of all the things W was claiming. slightly off-topic... i wonder why the right isn't spitting and frothing about China's refusal to play along ? China sided with France in all of this. Posted by: ChrisL at December 23, 2003 11:53 AM | PERMALINKIt's funny that last week Kevin said he couldn't understand the difference between could have and should have when Glenn Reynolds used the two phrases, but somehow Clark's odd statement is perfectly clear. I guess it must depend on where you're coming from. But this doesn't seem nearly as harmful or dangerous as Dean's statement Which is what exactly? That capturing Saddam didn't make America any safer? How is that harmful or dangerous? C'mon spc67, you're usually a pretty rational person, but are you implying that Dean's statement is unpatriotic, or treasonous? To one that believes that the invasion of Iraq did nothing more than take the focus off of Al Qaeda and divert US forces from serious trouble spots, the capture of Saddam means nothing momentous to national security. Posted by: ChrisS at December 23, 2003 12:15 PM | PERMALINK"By the way, President Bush went to the United Nations twice regarding Iraq. That is exactly two more times than Clinton went to the UN prior to the Kosovo war." Oh, stop with the comparisons between Iraq and Kosovo already. That horse won't run, Kevin Gregory, and I suspect you damn well know it. Unlike this latest misadventure in Iraq, Kosovo truly was a multi-national force. 19 countries participated; fully 60% of the sorties were flown by countries other than America. How many Poles and Spaniards are there over in Iraq, exactly? Furthermore, those 19 countries didn't get involved because there was a lucrative contract at the end of it for them; this was to stop a genocide-in-progress in a region spiraling out of control, threatening the stability of Europe. And all this talk about how the poor U.S. did all that was necessary to get the Europeans on board and the heartless fools just wouldn't listen! Hello? Weren't they proven right? Wouldn't giving the inspectors more time have been the prudent and wise thing to do? Where are the WoMD? Where is the imminent threat? Why, exactly, couldn't we have waited for a few more months? What was the goshdarned hurry? Shoot first and ask questions later. Very macho. Only trouble is, our soldiers are the ones getting shot at. General Zinni is right. These guys don't have a freaking clue. Posted by: Laura at December 23, 2003 12:21 PM | PERMALINK ChrisL spc67 Trying to figure it out beyond that seems pretty speculative. poputonian Equally poor diplomacy. I can't be the only one who noticed that Kevin Drum, writing on Wesley Clark's use of the term "right of first refusal", never once used the word "consult" to explain Clark's intent. And yet, very early on in this thread, [at 9:10 AM] Al jumps all over Kevin with: Argh! Not the "right of first refusal" Can you say "strawman"? Again, Kevin never used the word "consult". Go look. I'll wait.......... Unfortunately, Kevin doesn't seem to notice that Al is putting words in his mouth, so Keven never directly confronts Al's liguistic fabrication. Then just five minutes later, Al attacks Kevin's non-use of "consult" again, playing the same line of bullshit [as a matter of FACT, in the first twelve comments to this discussion following Kevin's original post, the word "consult" is used five times -- every one of them by Al!]: Kevin, "right of first refusal" certainly If Clark had wanted to say he'd "consult", So...Clark says he'll consult with the Europeans. Then he says they'll get "the right of first refusal on the security concerns we have." Then he says, "we'll bring you in." Sounds like three related yet slightly different concepts expressed in three separate sentences. They don't all have to mean the same exact thing, and Kevin certainly never claimed any such thing. But still we get a big discussion over just how wishy-washy Wesley Clark is? Gimme a fucking break! Al snookered all you bozos with his strawman. Especially you, Kevin. [I'm still a fan, though.] Be careful out there! Trolls are lurking! Posted by: Keanu Reeves (no, really) at December 23, 2003 12:39 PM | PERMALINKWhich is what exactly? That capturing Saddam didn't make America any safer? How is that harmful or dangerous? No, that was merely politically dumb. I meant the one about the US asking "permission." Posted by: spc67 at December 23, 2003 12:49 PM | PERMALINKChrisL: you are wrong about France. Your link was to statements in 2002. However, on March 10, 2003, Chirac said the following with respect to another UN resolution authorizing the use force: "My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq." http://www.info-france-usa.org/news/statmnts/2003/chirac_irak031003.asp Accordingly, Ron is correct: France threatened to veto any resolution authorizing the use of force with respect to Iraq. Posted by: Al at December 23, 2003 12:54 PM | PERMALINKUh, Keanu, reread Kevin's post. He wrote: "In this context, Clark is obviously saying that if we have security issues, we'll CONSULT with Europe first and try to find a solution." Nice try, though! You must have lost some brain cells doing Point Break, buddy... Posted by: Al at December 23, 2003 12:58 PM | PERMALINKIt is clear to me that I am either right, or wrong. I will now spread Holiday joy across this blog, and leave. Y'all have a Merry Christmas. The US thinks the war is necessary and refuses to back down (you will remember the Congressional authorization), and Germany et al do not think the war is necessary and refuses to back down. Equally poor diplomacy. I don't think so Ron. The evidence indicates that it was the US that didn't have a leg to stand on. Our allies insisted on proof of WMDs, and they are now shown to have been right. If we had also held to a higher standard, it wouldn't have been necessary for anyone to back down. Bush's resolute "I'm always right" mentality converted what was nothing but a strong hunch about WMDs into his own reality. There was no equivacation about it, Bush knew the WMDs existed and he knew where they were. Incidentally, the Congress didn't vote on the preemption doctrine, the real reason Bush took us to war. They trusted what they were being fed by the White House, just like most Americans did. Back to Clark; his approach is to work with the allies, exhaust diplomacy, and only use force as a very last option. Posted by: poputonian at December 23, 2003 01:15 PM | PERMALINKNo no! None of this is valid! You have no arguments, Drum! All non-traitors know that given the precedents of the 1860's Primogeniture, Right of First Refusal means that Clark will sell each American's firstborn son to Satan! No, I can't explain it. It's complicated! Complicated, I tell you, Complicated! Complicated is the magic word that makes your logic go away! Awaaaaaaay! COOOOMPLICATED! Posted by: rightwing numbskull at December 23, 2003 01:29 PM | PERMALINKI love it. According to the Instys and the Volokhs of the world, "Imminent" is a term of art, unfairly maligned by the narrow-minded definition seekers out there. But "right of first refusal" in the colloquial, "we'll talk seriously with you first before taking it outside the 'family'; we're sympatico, okay?" is TANTAMOUNT to pronating yourself on the floor and offering up the dagger at the same time. Gentlemen, how many times have you all kept 19 nationalities at a table in order to fight and win a war? Didn't think so. Is it done by being a dimwitted, fuzzy-principled pussy? Odds are against it say those who've been there. Let's hope Clark doesn't say he likes to "kick around a few ideas" to "get a fuller understanding" before "running it up the flagpole to see who salutes". Then, we'd have to take his "indecisive", "shallow", "fairweather patriot" ass outside the fort and break his saber over our knee, huh? Al, In the link you provide, Chirac is saying France will vote No on any resolution which sets an ultimatum to trigger a war:
[Q] And you don't want that? [C] France won't accept it and so will refuse that solution. [Q] If need be, she will threaten to exercise her veto? (...) That way you will scupper the resolution. [C]I repeat: France will oppose that resolution. that is what Chirac is saying he'd vote No on - not just any ol' resolution authorizing force, as Ron stated.
poputonian: oddly enough, two guys named Clausewitz and Sun T'zu agree. Go figure. Al and others of that ilk: There is no way to truthfully spin "right of first refusal" into a veto, which is what you are saying. Sullivan's and other's arguments on this are phony baloney becasue they simply rewrite what Clark says in order to trash something he did not say. Nor is his remark "murky." If you prefer not to understand it, don't use your self-induced confusion as proof that Clark should be criticized. Posted by: DMBeaster at December 23, 2003 01:46 PM | PERMALINKHere's how the mind of a right winger works: Clark says something: let's see, how can I distort or misread this statement to make it seem ridiculous. George W. Bush says something: let's see, how can I distort or misread this statement to make it seem reasonable. It's tough work. That's why they get the big bucks. Posted by: hack at December 23, 2003 02:26 PM | PERMALINKRegardless of what Volokh thought and Sullivan wrote, it is really rather simple: if Clark meant "we'll consult and work in earnest with our allies when we want to do something, and if they decline to go along, we may feel we have to go ahead anyway", that's a reasonable, defensible position for a president. And the same one that GWB had. Y'all did note the time frame from 9/12/01 right up to the start of the Iraqi War of Liberation that GWB was consulting with the Europeans, trying to get the French and Germans on board. Spent a lot of time on it to no avail. Posted by: Steve White at December 23, 2003 02:38 PM | PERMALINKtwo guys named Clausewitz and Sun T'zu agree Fouro, Bush got his witzes mixed up. ~ chuckle Posted by: poputonian at December 23, 2003 02:47 PM | PERMALINKI assumed Clark was actually speaking of a veto because in the context of general commercial contracts (I don't know about specifically about publishing) a right of first refusal ("rofr") operates effectively as a veto. In this context a right of first refusal requires the party bound by such obligation seeking a transaction with a third party (could be a transaction to purchase widgets from a third party, sell widgets to third party, seek an investment etc.) to strike the deal with the third party and then shop it back to the beneficiary of the rofr to undercut the third party. Once the third party is aware of the rofr they will typically decline to bid and thus the beneficiary of the rofr has a veto over transactions with third parties. Posted by: Chris at December 23, 2003 03:01 PM | PERMALINKAn amazingly obtuse thread. Sullivan is either a liar or an idiot or both. Takenin the abstract, a right of first refusal, is just what it seems to indicate, the right to refuse a opportunity - in Kevin's publishing example, to publish a work. In Cark's specific example, the European right of first refusal is theview that the Atlantic Charter (NATO) represents the most important security alliance the United States holds (or held?), therefore when the United States identifies what it believes to be a security problem, say the belief that a Middle Eastern tyrant (say Saddam) has weapons of mass destruction that he may deliver to a terrorist organization (say Al Queda) which can be delivered against members of the Atlantic Charter. Of course, my examples are deliberately sarcastic. This is exactly what Bush posited. Bush indeed did bring these concerns to the UN, having been dragged here by Colin Powell. Where did most of the world jump off - that is, exerise their right of first refusal? When Bush insisted that war was necessary immediately, DESPITE the fact that inspectors had been readmitted into Iraq! At that point, Bush lead the US to an unnecessary war that is most certainly a strategic blunder of monumental proportions. Most significantly because Bush has virtually destroyed the Atlantic Charter (NATO) which has been the central security alliance of the United States for over half a century. In my view, and in the view of most Europeans (including Blair), the removal of Saddam is not sufficient justification for the cost incurred -- the only potential justification for Blair was WMD. This has been a disatrous move for the wat on terror precisely because it has seriously weakened the Atlantic Charter. What Clark suggested was not "tantamount" to asking for "permission," it was understanding that going it alone has a cost, in this case an unacceptable cost for the benefit derived. Clark's point was precisely that, recognizing the iomportance of the Atlantic Charter, and working through that key alliance first and only abandoning it when absolutely necessary. Hence,the "first refusal" right. Now, what is so hard to understand about that? Posted by: Armando at December 23, 2003 03:02 PM | PERMALINKChris: I hope you are not a lawyer. (I am.) What you just wrote is wrong - that is a matching right, not a right of first refusal. Two different things. Make sure you hire one if you are doing a contract. Posted by: Armando at December 23, 2003 03:04 PM | PERMALINKOne last point on stupid Sullivan-- You should see the contortions he went through to sayBush did not support a Constitutional ban on gay marriages - rather, Sullivan arged that Bush said he would support such a Constitutional amendment "if necessary." I mean, how stupid can you get? Posted by: Armando at December 23, 2003 03:07 PM | PERMALINKClark's use of the term "right of first refusal" was inept. I bought some property about ten years ago. I told the seller, who owned another parcel next to it, if he ever decided to sell it, I would like the right of first refusal to buy it. A few years later I bought it. From this I would interpret Clark's meaning to be that, if we want to do something like bomb Serbia, we'll give them the choice to do it instead. That doesn't make sense. Andrew Sullivan may have put too much on it with respect to what it meant. To say, "And this is no innocent mistake on Sullivan's part. If there are readers of this blog who don't understand the meaning of "right of first refusal," that's understandable. But Sullivan has spent his entire life in the publishing industry, where the term is used routinely, and he knows precisely what it means. He's just deliberately trying to twist Clark's words into something they aren't." That is a bit much. I don't understand what Clark meant and I suspect he doesn't either. Posted by: Mike K at December 23, 2003 03:33 PM | PERMALINKWell, I guess the GOP Teamleaders collected all the "points" they could obfuscating our discussion here... Posted by: Ras_Nesta at December 23, 2003 03:41 PM | PERMALINKI think the right wing strategy for 2004 is to paralyze us into having these sorts of conversation to try and extract any kind of meaning from the ridiculously misdirected charges they levy. I think we should simply threaten to "kick the shit out of them" and move on to OUR topics. Posted by: JeffreyMaier at December 23, 2003 04:06 PM | PERMALINKThat is a bit much. I don't understand what Clark meant and I suspect he doesn't either. That might hold water if Clark made simply a one sentence comment containing the line Sullivan quoted. However, it was in context. The sentences before and after this one make it pretty damn clear what Clark was talking about. As Steve White says above, this is exactly the same position as Bush (putting aside the separate issue of whether or not we would be in this war at all if Clark were in charge). There is no argument here. Clark was saying he would do what Bush did -- except he implied would negotiate in good faith, and thus succeed where Bush failed. This whole thread is evidence of how stupid we all become when arguing politics. Sullivan, Al, Norman, et al are going to amazing lengths to contort Clark's words into something they disagree with, so they can rip down the straw man. Those of us on the left are being chumps, and letting the goal posts be moved. We aren't all this annoying in person, are we? Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 23, 2003 04:13 PM | PERMALINKY'all did note the time frame from 9/12/01 right up to the start of the Iraqi War of Liberation that GWB was consulting with the Europeans, trying to get the French and Germans on board. Spent a lot of time on it to no avail. Nah: he was spending 'a lot of time' smearing the positions of the French and Germans, sending Don Rumsfeld across to Europe to insult people to their faces, and undermining the NATO alliance by talking of 'Old' and 'New' Europe. That's not 'consultation': that's 'confrontation'. Your memory's suspect if you have recollections of Bush trying to 'get France and Germany on board'; most of that time was spent making the French and Germans look like obstructionists, misrepresenting their positions, and desparately trying to pay off members of the Security Council. From this I would interpret Clark's meaning to be that, if we want to do something like bomb Serbia, we'll give them the choice to do it instead. Not in the slightest. Think in terms of publishing, a business with which we'll assume Sully is marginally familiar, though he doesn't appear to have any books in the pipeline. (What a surprise.) Many publishing contracts have a 'first refusal' clause, which means that you'll go to that publisher with your next manuscript or project, and they choose whether or not to work together with you to publish it, or let you look elsewhere. It's a term which emphasises collaborative action, not 'doing it instead'. Bush did this and got blasted as a unilateralist. I'm thinking that Clark means that his policy will then be guided by European thinking, or else his position is the same as Bush's. No: Clark means that his policy will be guided by what he considers to be the primary strategic alliance of the US -- that is, NATO. (For 'Europeans', you should really think 'NATO', as Clark has made clear in several foreign policy speeches, when talking about his role as NATO Supreme Commander.) The point being that 'first refusal' means, for Clark, trying to act through the established alliance of NATO before looking elsewhere. And to compare it to Bush's 'UN route' is specious. Bush's actions in the run-up to invading Iraq actually worked to weaken NATO, and not because of European intransigence. It was because Bush doesn't value NATO as an alliance, even with lots of pliant Eastern European nations now on board. Posted by: ahem at December 23, 2003 04:41 PM | PERMALINKFrance threatened to veto any resolution authorizing the use of force with respect to Iraq. Um, no. "My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote 'no' because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq." That 'ce soir' was cut out from the US spin on Chirac's comments: he was saying that at that particular point in time -- when, you may remember, Hans Blix had said he could complete inspections in a matter of months -- there was no reason to push for a resolution that triggered military action. To Chirac, the US position was akin to saying: 'That guy's at a party, so we need an arrest warrant in case he gets drunk and drives home.' Chirac wanted a resolution saying something more like 'Ok, that guy has now had six beers, so if he steps into his car, you can arrest him.' Of course, Bush wanted his Spring War, so Chirac's position was considered unacceptable. Posted by: ahem at December 23, 2003 04:50 PM | PERMALINKerr...... I lost some brain cells doing Point Break. yeah. Course, I'm filthy rich, so it doesn't really matter any more. Armando, actually I am an attorney. I recognize that the term right of first refusal may have different meanings in different contexts. In the context that I see it (private equity/finance) it means just what I said in my previous post. In the same context there is a related term "right of first offer" which would require a party to offer a deal first to the beneficiary. Posted by: Chris at December 23, 2003 06:14 PM | PERMALINKKevin says: "Right of first refusal" ...means that if I'm planning to do a deal, I promise to offer the deal to you first. In other words, France would have the right to demand that the US invade them before we invaded Iraq. :) Posted by: David at December 23, 2003 07:37 PM | PERMALINKNow if Clark had said he would offer the NATO allies an option on the futures for the rights of first refusal, this discussion would have really gotten into interesting territory. Volatility, wasting assets, straddles, spreads...meaty stuff like that. There are also some interesting currency exchange risk angles to consider. Posted by: bobbyp at December 23, 2003 09:07 PM | PERMALINKTo return to what Kevin said, it really is almost impossible to imagine that Andrew Sullivan did not understand what a "Right of First Refusal" is, because every standard book contract contains one. The gist of it is that when you write your next book, you have to give your publisher first crack at it. That's all. If they say, "no," you can take it to any other publisher you want (there will usually be other bits and pieces in there about money, and competing offers, genre limitations, and the like; but the fundamental part of it is that they get first crack). This is absolutely bog-standard; it's an important aspect of the publishing industry, because -- obviously -- books by Author X tend to sell other books by Author X. If he's ever written a book, it's been in his contract; and if, for some reason, it wasn't in his contract, it's because he or his agent specifically negotiated to remove it from his contract, in which case he obviously would know what it meant. good catch on Sullivan...I had just read the same bit at his column and immediately sent him a rather sharp email. After I read your comments, I clipped them and sent a followup to Mr. S to the effect of "it ain't just me". This was particularly eye-catching, in that I'd just finsihed reading Sully critically parsing a Times article that left the qualifying words, "if necessary", off of a Bush quote to the effect that he'd support an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage. His "if necessary" was of course a reference to political expeciency and keeping the ultra-crazies in his base on board. The Times was actually doing Bush a favor - making him look like a guy who actually believed in something rather than simply The Creature From The Rove Lagoon. Sullivan is increasingly (?) a hack recycling the same tired stuff, over and over... Most bloggers suffer from too much exposure and too little actual expertise, but with Sullivan it's becoming terminal. His absolute predictability has devolved into boring redundancy. The worst sin on the blogosphere.... Posted by: brucds at December 24, 2003 07:03 AM | PERMALINKYou mean to say that his predictability and redundancy are worse than his barebacking? Talk about "The Death of Right and Wrong"! Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 24, 2003 07:42 AM | PERMALINKI try to stay out of issues that involve Andy's underwear.... I wish he would as well. His long piece (no pun intended) on his beloved "Bears" was...well, em-bear-assing. Or is that em-bare-assing? Oh, god...why did you have to bring this up, "David Ehrenstein"? Posted by: brucds at December 24, 2003 07:56 AM | PERMALINKChris: Was Clark's context in any way analogous to a private equity financing? Why would you apply your context to Clark comments? With due respect, that makes no sense. Mike K. wrote "Clark's use of the term "right of first refusal" was inept." His reasoning - "[He] bought some property about ten years ago. He told the seller, who owned another parcel next to it, if he ever decided to sell it, [he] would like the right of first refusal to buy it. A few years later [he] bought it. From this [he] would interpret Clark's meaning to be that, if we want to do something like bomb Serbia, we'll give them the choice to do it instead. . ." Your reasoning escapes me completely. What does your exercise of a right of first refusal on a [property purchase] have to do with Clark's comments? Do you pull phrases out of context as a normal course? Again, I am amazed by the obtuseness of this thread.
The question is what Clark meant by "right of first refusal." He seemed to mean "consultation", since he used that word in the adjacent sentence. But, we DID consult with France, Russia, the UN, etc. We just didn't get their concurrence. So, why did Clark say we were wrong to attack Iraq? The apparent reason is that he wanted us to get their concurrence before attacking. That was Sullivan's interpretation. I prefer a different interpretation, however. Bush favored the war. Dean opposed the war, with some good arguments. I think Clark was attempting to take a middle position. The trouble is, there is no middle position. Either we overthrew Saddam militarily or we left Saddam in power. You can't be partially pregnant. Posted by: David at December 24, 2003 10:01 AM | PERMALINKDavid You left out an option: We overthrow Saddam, but we do it with a broad coalition that includes most of our allies and a lot of international support ('a lot' being more than we have now, by a lot). I really think, from what I know of Clark, that that is what he means. If he was the boss, we would have kicked Saddam's ass, and we would have had the French, Germans, and damn near everybody else on our team while we did it. That may or may not have been possible. But it was not inevitable that we do this thing with the degree of international support that we did. Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 24, 2003 06:48 PM | PERMALINK"The prestige and respect that the US enjoyed pre-Iraq was earned the hard way" Yes it was. It was earned when we pulled out of Lebanon after the bombing of US Marines in Beirut; when we set back and did nothing while Sadaam brutally suppresed uprisings after the first Gulf war; when we pulled out of Somalia after Mogadishu; when we allowed genocide to occur in Rwanda (in part because we were afraid of another Mogadishu); when we pulled our warships out of Arabian ports after the USS Cole bombing. It was further earned when we made no meaningful military response when our embassy in Tehran was overrun and Americans were taken hostage; when we did virtually nothing after the Khobar Towers bombing; when we did nothing meaningful after the bombings of our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam; when we made no meaningful response to the USS Cole Bombing. Is that the prestige and respect for the US that you think we've squandered? I don't think we'll miss such respect very much. The question is what Clark meant by "right of first refusal." He seemed to mean "consultation", since he used that word in the adjacent sentence. But, we DID consult with France, Russia, the UN, etc. We just didn't get their concurrence. So, why did Clark say we were wrong to attack Iraq? The apparent reason is that he wanted us to get their concurrence before attacking. That was Sullivan's interpretation. It seems like there's this distorted idea of what "consultation" means. Bush did not "consult" with anybody over invading Iraq. He said what he wanted to do, then more or less told our allies they could sign up or go to hell. What I imagine Clark meant was that he would actually, in fact, consult - you know, listen to other people's suggestions, weigh alternatives, consider other points of view. The meaning of "right of first refusal" is very clear. It means Clark intends to listen to what the Europeans have to say, then decide whether their proposals are of merit, then decide on a course of action. It does not mean saying "Fuck it, we're takin' him out," then telling the Europeans to get on board. Posted by: agrajag at December 25, 2003 01:29 AM | PERMALINKdorm angels galleries dorm angels gallery dorm angels images dorm angels moive clips dorm angels moives dorm angels pics dorm angels pictures dorm angels trailers dormangels videos dorm angels videos dorm angels vids nicolenite Posted by: mikes apartment at June 30, 2004 06:44 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - |
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 |
||||
|
||||
