Ezra Klein: I'm With Andy

« Canada Middling, America Mediocre | Main | You, Sir, Are No Bode Miller »

February 27, 2006

I'm With Andy

February 27, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83425271553ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I'm With Andy:

» Sen. Clinton Says Rove Obsesses About Her from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
Reacting to a new book quoting Karl Rove as saying she will be the 2008 Democratic nominee for presi [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 27, 2006 7:16:01 PM

» Prestige in the Middle East=Clinton from Preemptive Karma
Thus spaketh Andrew Sullivan: For some reason that eludes my own judgment, Clinton has a great deal of cachet in the Middle East, and could defuse the anti-Bush and thereby anti-American obstacles to success. He was, by all accounts, superb at the Doha... [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 28, 2006 1:49:06 AM

» gallery of pretty babes from gallery of pretty babes
toon porn celebrities nude swimsuit models [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 23, 2006 7:31:50 AM

» nice pussy from nice pussy
massive cock celeb upskirt dog porn [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 23, 2006 8:00:09 PM

Comments

Wasn't part of Clinton's ability to get people to listen to him the fact that he was President and could throw his weight around with sanctions and rewards via the US government. Now, he has none of that. In fact, its pretty clear that any proposals he might come back would be spat upon. The Bushies would do just the opposite as is their knee-jerk reaction to all-things-Clinton.

No, Clinton would have no chance of success here.
Under a reasonable President, yes, definitely. But under Bush, if he's smart he should stay the f*ck away from it.

Posted by: pfc | Feb 27, 2006 11:15:23 AM

Hey, If Sean Penn can go, Clinton can go. If he wises to go, he can go, but don't hold your breath.
Clinton is out for Clinton and not for the Democratic party.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 27, 2006 11:16:05 AM

IF they were to ask him, I'd say it would show a renewed commitment to diplomacy. Even if Clinton doesn't get anything done, at least they all tried.

But its probably pointless to speculate. This IS Bush's legacy, his adventure. Its doubtful, nay "hard to imagine," him letting Bill even get the possiblity of taking any credit for it.

Posted by: Adrock | Feb 27, 2006 1:18:28 PM

I'm certainly comforted that freddie boy is concerned for the welfare of the Democratic party. Who knew?

The Sunni-Shia conflicts (and Shia-Shia conflicts as well) have a thousand or more years of history behind them, marked more for intolerant hatred, war and repression than sweet reason and shared faith in Islam. This isn't a situation that lends itself well to a Christian outsider, even one with great prestige in the middle east.

Any negotiator has to weight the possible good versus bad in intervening, the probability of success versus failure (and the ramifications of either), and whether an 'honest broker' can bridge the gaps between both the contending forces in that area and those here at home in the US regarding political positions. This is a losing deal on any of those counts.

If Clinton thought for a second about the quality of the support he'd receive from Bush/Condi/Cheney and Rove, he'd quickly see the sacrificial lamb quality to this idea. Not to mention the high probability that Bush would undercut or disavow any settlement progress made. One does not even have to resort to the Reaganist 'trust but verify' approach to the parties there in Iraq or Bu$hCo support here at home. Trust and honest dealing doesn't live in any of those hearts.

Bill, please stay home, or in some place more tractable, like Africa (laughing quietly to myself).

Posted by: JimPortandOR | Feb 27, 2006 1:22:31 PM

Man, Sully is hard to stomach, even when he's basically right. I wonder what Clinton did to be a "craven wuss" on the Danish cartoons. There are so many ways to fail the Sullivan Clash-of-Civilizations macho posturing test.

Posted by: djw | Feb 27, 2006 2:35:54 PM

I wonder what Clinton did to be a "craven wuss" on the Danish cartoons.

I think he refused to tattoo them on his naked chest.

Posted by: Iron Lungfish | Feb 27, 2006 5:25:50 PM

The real life version of "Go get David Palmer..."

Posted by: space | Feb 27, 2006 5:26:00 PM

Bill Clinton: Greatest. Republican. President. Ever.

Posted by: space | Feb 27, 2006 5:28:07 PM

djw -- Clinton made a speech (link to press report) the weekend after they were republished and the controversy exploded attacking them as intolerant and saying they shouldn't have been republished because they spread violent stereotypes about Muslems. And... he did it in Doha!!! This is, ah, a bit antithethical to Sullivan's take on the conflict, that we ought to be displaying the cartoons everywhere and buying Danish and blah, blah, and that anyone who takes a more nuanced position is, well, a craven coward.

Anyway, I dissent from the send-Clinton line. It's mildly insulting to the Iraqis to keep sending big-name diplomats to the country as if the right smooth-talking westerner might just get everyone to agree. Besides, Clinton has a lot of value when he goes to the various economic and development forums in the MidEast to speak for not-Bush America. Getting served with a (probably ineviatable) failure in Iraq, and being attacked by various sectarian partisans in the process, might if anything diminish that value.

Posted by: Laura | Feb 27, 2006 5:34:33 PM

They should send Clinton, but he should refuse. Why? Because if they asked him, it would only be to set him up for failure. They would fuck it up and blame it on him, just so that they could do some more posturing. There is absolutely NO way that the Bushies would ask him in earnest.

Posted by: Collin | Feb 27, 2006 7:12:42 PM

The Bushists would absolutely sabotage anything Clinton accomplished. They already did and always have, from the instant they walked into the White House.

He'd go, if there was any hope in hell of pulling the job off. I hope he's smart enough to realize, if they ask, they'll just be setting him up to fail.

Posted by: CaseyL | Feb 28, 2006 12:42:43 AM

Isn't Saddam still alive?

Couldn't we let him loose in downtown Baghdad with a new (cheap) suit and $100 walking around money and say "Okay, here you go, chief, clean it up for us?"

Wouldn't he be grateful, and kiss our asses for it afterward?

Then we could go back to business as usual, and pour millions of dollars into supporting yet another oppressive tyrannical prick who supports us against unfriendly regional interests.

I'm say good business is where you find it.

Posted by: Highlander | Feb 28, 2006 7:15:20 AM

Fuck it. You know what? Send ANDY. He can walk around like he boasted two years ago telling all the Iraqis "they're welcome."

Posted by: August J. Pollak | Feb 28, 2006 7:30:25 AM

Yeah, send Clinton. He can ride there on his new pony.

Posted by: JR | Feb 28, 2006 12:12:56 PM

I second the "send Andy" suggestion. Don't ask, don't care, don't come back.

Posted by: space | Feb 28, 2006 1:28:08 PM

Wow, not only did JR beat me here with exactly my intended comment, but s/he did it with my own initials.

Ezra, could you double-check my IP address? Was I already here?

Posted by: JRoth | Mar 1, 2006 11:48:55 AM

It's always revealing that those who don't like Bush and his supporters always have to call them something juvenile. "Bushies." "Bushists." What is this, 7th grade?

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot | Mar 1, 2006 8:21:29 PM

仓储笼
 仓储笼
 折叠式仓储笼
 仓库笼
 南京仓储笼
 上海仓储笼
 北京仓储笼
 广州仓储笼
 杭州仓储笼