This week’s editorial from the Nation is a real doozy. Here’s how it starts:
Ah, yes…why can’t Republicans today be more like Nixon? Well, conservatives at the time were none too thrilled about Nixon’s trip to China. Barry Goldwater famously quipped ”Well, if Nixon likes China so much, let him stay there.” And, of course, Goldwater also called Nixon “the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life.” So forgive today’s conservatives if they don’t look to the Nixon presidency for guidance on this particular question. The editorial goes on to say that “Pelosi, who affirmed US policy toward Syria in her conversation with Assad, was merely following the advice of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group…” The Iraq Study Group did recommend engagement with Syria and Iraq, but not by Congress. And the ISG also recommended a surge of U.S. forces into Iraq if ground commanders deemed it necessary–they have, though the editors at the Nation are unlikely to support that recommendation. They go on:
Conservative consternation seems entirely appropriate given that the February 13 agreement with the DPRK already appears to be falling apart–the North Koreans appear unlikely even to meet the first deadline for shutting down their main nuclear reactor. And no one on the right thinks that mere bullying and threats will prevent the Iranians from moving forward with their nuclear program, and no one on the left can seriously think that direct diplomacy with Iran will either. The Iranians are determined to build a bomb. International sanctions might offer a third way, but not without Russian and Chinese support–an unlikely development, especially if the United States pursues a policy of engagement rather than isolation. The editors further look to the behavior of the British government in the recent hostage crisis as an example for Bush and his “cowboy allies”:
The British brought their soldiers home, but only after Blair issued a vague threat about a 48 hour deadline. To assume that a credible threat of the use of force didn’t play a significant part in their release is naive. And yes, conservatives did a little deriding–Americans have been around that block before. There would have been no humble attempts at diplomacy if “Iranian military vessels surrounded an American ship instead of a British one”–one Carter administration was enough for us cowboys. And finally:
Which Congressional Democrats are looking to compromise? Certainly not the leadership, who have passed around a memo saying that the party “must not yeid” to the White House. So the guys at the Nation wish Bush would negotiate more? Not enough that we negotiated with Saddam for years while he flouted UN resolutions? That we negotiated with our Security Council partners to build support for action against Iraq–and that we assembled a coalition of the willing to support such action? Not enough that the Bush administration created the Proliferation Security Initiative, with dozens of partners? Not sufficient that we negotiated with European and Middle Eastern partners to imprison and try terrorist nationals? And to monitor terrorist financing? Not sufficient that we negotiated with Saddam through back channels in the days and hours leading up to the war? Not enough that the United States held together a coalition to address North Korea’s nuclear program? Not sufficient that we negotiated with Libya to abandon its WMD program (under British auspices, I believe). As for Congress, Bush negotiated with them on the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, extension of Trade Promotion Authority… just to name a few. The problem is that the folks at the Nation don’t believe that there’s ever a reason to stop negotiating. They believe in the old adage, ‘speak softly and carry a fluffy pillow,’ unless you’re dealing with George Bush. Their problem is that they don’t really like the things that Bush is negotiating on; they oppose them. So they cast about wildly, looking for some Republican they can throw up as a straw man. You can tell how desperate they are that the best they could come up with was Nixon.
