Correct The Record Tuesday September 9, 2014 Morning Roundup
Correct The Record Tuesday September 9, 2014 Morning Roundup:
Headlines:
Bloomberg: “Paul Misstates Clinton Record on Islamic State Risk”
“Clinton allies jumped on Paul’s claim. ‘We’ve always known Rand Paul’s erratic views, ranging from his belief in extreme isolation as a foreign policy principle to his absolute opposition to raising the minimum wage, are dangerous for our country and for the future of Americans,’ said Adrienne Elrod, communications director for the pro-Clinton group Correct the Record. ‘But now he’s taken it to a whole new level apparently, by flat-out making stuff up - a perilous tactic taken by someone who wants to be America’s next president.’”
Media Matters for America: “This Conspiracy Theorist's Benghazi Book Is Full Of Conspiracy Theories”
“But the book itself [The REAL Benghazi Story] contains major distortions of reality, including selectively-edited evidence and distorted facts, reconfirming Klein's commitment to pushing convoluted hoaxes.”
Associated Press: “Clinton Juggernaut Hits 2014 Campaign Trail”
“Hillary Clinton's time and political currency remains especially highly coveted.”
“Ready for Hillary, the super PAC laying the groundwork for Hillary Rodham Clinton's potential 2016 presidential campaign, has called a meeting of its top national donors to discuss its strategy following the November midterm elections.”
Politico blog: Joe Scarborough: “Obama right on ISIL response”
“Let Republicans and neocons like Hillary Clinton play the cynical game that politicians love to play by second guessing his lack of action in Syria and speculating about what might have been.”
Bloomberg View: Albert R. Hunt: “Could Jim Webb Mount Credible Challenge to Clinton?”
“What he does possess is a long-held and forceful opposition to U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya, and potentially Syria, as well as solid anti-Wall Street credentials. In Democratic primaries, these may be Clinton's greatest impediments to rallying a hard-core activist base.”
"And even if he does somehow run the Republican gauntlet and manage to come out at the head of the pack, he'd still have to face the Hillary Clinton juggernaut in the general election. Despite recent hype about a "libertarian moment," I tend to think Clinton would do quite well in such a match-up."
“Each of us has seen the high price paid when relations and dialogue between Washington and Moscow break down, as in the effort to prevent Baltic independence at the end of the Soviet era, the Kosovo crisis and the insurgency in Chechnya.”
Articles:
Bloomberg: “Paul Misstates Clinton Record on Islamic State Risk”
By Jonathan Allen
September 8, 2014, 4:43 p.m. EDT
Republican Senator Rand Paul falsely accused Hillary Clinton, a potential Democratic rival for the presidency in 2016, of underestimating the threat posed by Islamic State -- and he did it at least twice last week.
“Hillary Clinton has said ISIS is not a threat to the United States,” Paul said on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” on Sept. 3. The Kentucky lawmaker repeated that assertion about the former secretary of state to Fox’s Bill Hemmer two days later, noting his belief that those were Clinton’s “exact words.”
Trouble is, while secretary of state, Clinton sought to stop the rise of extremist groups such as Islamic State by calling for arming moderate rebel factions in Syria, according to her memoir, contemporaneous reporting by the New York Times and U.S. officials who were involved in the debate at the time.
Clinton allies jumped on Paul’s claim.
“We’ve always known Rand Paul’s erratic views, ranging from his belief in extreme isolation as a foreign policy principle to his absolute opposition to raising the minimum wage, are dangerous for our country and for the future of Americans,” said Adrienne Elrod, communications director for the pro-Clinton group Correct the Record. “But now he’s taken it to a whole new level apparently, by flat-out making stuff up - a perilous tactic taken by someone who wants to be America’s next president.”
Paul advisers declined to comment.
Last month, Clinton made headlines for saying that Islamic State arose because President Barack Obama failed to adequately back moderate opposition groups in Syria, a remark that drew criticism from the president’s supporters.
Media Matters for America: “This Conspiracy Theorist's Benghazi Book Is Full Of Conspiracy Theories”
By Hannah Groch-Begley
September 8, 2014, 1:38 p.m. EDT
WND reporter Aaron Klein's history of outrageous conspiracy theories has already cast serious doubt on the credibility of his new book, The REAL Benghazi Story. But the book itself contains major distortions of reality, including selectively-edited evidence and distorted facts, reconfirming Klein's commitment to pushing convoluted hoaxes.
Klein's book, which Media Matters obtained a copy of in advance of its September 9 release, claims to "expose" the "truth" about the 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Libya, revealing "What The White House and Hillary Don't Want You To Know." Included are a few of the more conspiratorial analyses that Klein has previously pushed at the birther website WND, such as the claim that Benghazi is linked to the Boston Marathon bombing -- because a handful of members of a jihadist group may have taken part in the Benghazi attacks, and that group also "is behind" a magazine "thought to have provided bomb-building instructions" for the accused marathon bombers.
Klein's book does include one seemingly "new" Benghazi theory, which is also entirely false. Klein attempts to attack former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for what he claims is her previously "unreported role" in Benghazi, by falsely claiming she must have personally approved security conditions at the Benghazi compound.
The Benghazi mission was unusual for government buildings overseas, as it featured a CIA annex that was separate from the diplomatic compound, roughly a mile apart. Typically government agencies are housed together in the same building, which is called "co-location." According to Klein, State Department regulations would have required Clinton to personally sign a waiver permitting the Benghazi mission to be set up like this, and thus provided "personal approval of security conditions at the compound":
“...it can now be said that Clinton personally provided the legal waivers for U.S. personnel to occupy that death trap of a mission. This largely unreported detail was confirmed in the Senate's January 2014 report on Benghazi. Senate investigators found the Benghazi facility required a special waiver since it did not meet the minimum official security standards set by the State Department.
“Some of the necessary waivers, the Senate affirmed, could have been issued at lower levels within the State Department. However ‘other departures, such as the co-location requirement, could only be approved by the Secretary of State.’ ... This means Clinton herself approved some aspects of the U.S. special mission, including separating the mission from the seemingly more protected CIA annex. In doing so, did Clinton know she was approving a woefully unprotected compound? If not, then at the very least she is guilty of dereliction of duty and the diplomatic equivalence of criminal negligence.”
But the fact is the Benghazi mission did not require this kind of waiver. The State Department regulations Klein is referencing lay out the responsibilities of the Secretary under the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act, or SECCA. But as the State Department Accountability Review Board (ARB) that investigated Benghazi explained, the Benghazi facility was exempted from SECCA. SECCA applies to diplomatic facilities, such as consulates, that are officially notified to the host government. Instead, the special mission in Benghazi was a "temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government," and as such SECCA rules -- waivable or not -- did not apply.
In fact, the document approving the set up and security conditions for the compound has been public since at least September 2013, when it was posted online by Al Jazeera America. It clearly shows the signature of Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy, as well as clearance from a number of other low-level officials.
State's ARB report acknowledged that the Benghazi mission's "'non-status' as a temporary, residential facility made allocation of resources for security and personnel more difficult." They recommended State develop minimum security standards for temporary facilities and encouraged co-location in the future. Clinton accepted the recommendation and began implementing it before leaving office.
Real flaws in security at Benghazi do not, however, justify Klein's attempt to ignore the facts and claim Clinton personally signed waivers approving the compound.
Beyond these details, Klein's book for the most part simply rehashes a number of the same debunked Benghazi myths conservatives have been pushing for almost two years.
For example, he devotes an entire chapter to the talking points controversy -- or what he calls the "duplicitous editing affair" in which the Obama administration "scrubb[ed] references to terrorism" while stressing the influence of an anti-Islam Youtube video. Klein claims that the inter-agency editing process that produced the talking points used by an Obama administration official during Sunday show interviews was not only "a large-scale, purposeful deception of the American public," but stirred "further riots across the Islamic world." In reality, it's long been clear that the talking points were edited to protect the ongoing law enforcement investigation of the attacks and that the video, which sparked worldwide protests killing at least 50 people, played a role in the attacks.
Klein also repeats the claim that the administration immediately had access to video footage of Benghazi which disproved their initial narrative that the assault had emerged out of a protest. But the protest claim originated with the CIA immediately after the attacks, while the video footage wasn't recovered from the site by the FBI for at least another two weeks. And he pushes the theory that the Obama administration didn't send in air support to assist the Americans when they came under fire because they "didn't want to draw more attention" to the U.S. mission. In fact, as military experts have repeatedly said, they did not have the capabilities to send in support, and doing so may have been more dangerous for Americans.
But one of Klein's shadiest tactics is to selectively edit claims from reputable sources to falsely suggest that they support his theories.
For example, Klein selectively quotes congressional testimony from Gregory Hicks, the foreign service officer who was second-in-command of the Libya mission to then-Ambassador Chrisopher Stevens on the night of the attack, to accuse Clinton of being "the very reason Ambassador Stevens was in the compound in the dangerous anniversary of 9/11." Klein uses Hicks' words to argue that Stevens visited the Benghazi compound because Clinton wanted to turn it into a permanent post, and thus is responsible for him being there. But Klein hides the key part of Hicks' testimony, in which the deputy specifically said Stevens "chose to go" to Benghazi himself.
Similarly, Klein selectively quotes from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation into Benghazi. As the investigation explained, in the hours after the attacks the CIA station chief in Libya had sent an email to superiors revealing the attacks were preplanned terrorism. Klein uses this point to rehash the false claim that the Obama administration purposefully ignored that email for political purposes, supposedly covering up the realities of terrorism in the region. But as the Senate noted in the very same report, "as a standard practice" the CIA does "not base analysis on emails and other informal communications from the field," so the email could not influence administration statements. Klein failed to include that crucial detail.
Reality is not a central focus of The REAL Benghazi Story, however. Given that Klein once suggested Obama was Satan because a fly landed on him during a press conference, perhaps that was to be expected.
Associated Press: “Clinton Juggernaut Hits 2014 Campaign Trail”
By Ken Thomas
September 8, 2014, 3:19 p.m. EDT
The Clinton juggernaut hits the midterm campaign trail this week as the power couple lends fundraising prowess and their seal of approval to Democratic candidates shunning an unpopular President Barack Obama. For Hillary Rodham Clinton, the events with Democratic donors and activists are keeping her profile high as she weighs a second bid for the presidency.
The Clintons are working to help female candidates and boost turnout in conservative-leaning states like Arkansas, where Bill Clinton was governor before becoming president, and Kentucky, where Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes talks up her alliance with the Clintons, not Obama.
Hillary Clinton's time and political currency remains especially highly coveted.
"She's a natural fit in any state at the moment," said Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, a longtime adviser to the Clintons.
The same can't be said of Obama, whose approval ratings have tumbled and who has kept his campaigning mostly at off-camera events with financial donors. He isn't expected to campaign in states like Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina where Senate control could be decided. Republicans are driving for the six-seat gain they need to grab the Senate majority, with their highest hopes in conservative states Obama lost in 2012.
Hillary Clinton, who recorded an automated get-out-the-vote call for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his running mate, Kathy Hochul, headlines a fundraiser for Senate Democrats at her Washington home on Tuesdayand a New York reception for Democratic governors on Friday. By Sunday, the Clintons will join thousands of Democrats in Iowa to honor retiring Sen. Tom Harkin in the state that helped propel Obama, at Mrs. Clinton's expense, to the presidency.
The shift to the Clintons, according to interviews with more than a dozen Democratic leaders and operatives, is part history, part circumstances. Party activists tend to look ahead to a successor during a president's second term and Mrs. Clinton's potential to become the first female president - without an obvious Obama-like primary challenger right now - has made that interest more acute. Obama's approval ratings remain stuck in the low 40s, forcing some Senate incumbents to distance themselves.
Obama's turbulent dealings with Republicans in Congress have fueled the shift, raising hopes that his successor will break the logjam, some of the activists say.
So the Clintons are extending their long history of helping their friends.
"There's a tremendous positive feeling for getting two for the price of one," said Mitch Ceasar, a Florida lawyer and member of the Democratic National Committee.
Obama can still raise millions for Democrats and aides say he'll assist candidates in states where he can be most helpful, in individual House races and places like Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Obama could make last-minute appearances in states like Georgia and North Carolina to boost turnout among black voters. But so far, many Democrats have avoided him in public.
During Obama's Labor Day rally in Milwaukee, for example, Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke did not appear at the president's side. And in North Carolina, vulnerable Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan had to appear with Obama during his visit to a convention of veterans- but first, she released a statement criticizing his record on veterans health care.
The Clintons, meanwhile, don't have the same issues. And help they provide now could benefit Hillary Clinton if she seeks the party's nomination in 2016.
Bill Clinton has campaigned with Grimes, a longtime family friend who calls herself a "Clinton Democrat" in her bid against McConnell, and two Arkansas allies, Sen. Mark Pryor and gubernatorial candidate Mike Ross, Clinton's campaign driver back in 1982.
Since Labor Day, Clinton has traveled to Connecticut to help Gov. Dan Malloy; Maine on behalf of Rep. Mike Michaud, who faces GOP Gov. Paul LePage; Miami to help former Gov. Charlie Crist, the ex-Republican who is seeking his old office, and New Orleans to raise money for Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu. The former president will be in Atlanta next weekend to raise money for Senate candidate Michelle Nunn before joining with the former first lady in Iowa.
During a New York fundraiser last week to support House Democrats, Bill Clinton told attendees that Republicans in Congress had stoked conflict and division instead of finding common ground, noting dozens of votes to repeal Obama's health care law. The former president also spoke of the need to raise the minimum wage, which he increased as Arkansas governor and as president, according to a Democratic official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the event was private.
The former secretary of state's campaigning comes with risks - her approval ratings have fallen in the past when she engages in partisan activities. Republicans are already looking to engage her at every turn.
When Mrs. Clinton called climate change the "most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face" at a Nevada energy conference last week, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was quick with a retort. "I don't think we really want a commander-in-chief who's battling climate change instead of terrorism," Paul told Fox News.
By Philip Rucker
September 8, 2014, 8:18 p.m. EDT
Ready for Hillary, the super PAC laying the groundwork for Hillary Rodham Clinton's potential 2016 presidential campaign, has called a meeting of its top national donors to discuss its strategy following the November midterm elections.
The super PAC has invited members of its National Finance Council to a daylong summit in New York City onNov. 21 to a discussion of the group's next steps as it prepares for Clinton's likely entry into the presidential race.
Clinton, a former secretary of state who would be the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination, has said she will make her decision about the 2016 race early next year. Meanwhile, Ready for Hillary has been building a grassroots infrastructure on her behalf and has signed up more than 2.5 million supporters.
Craig Smith, a senior adviser to Ready for Hillary and a longtime political adviser to former President Bill Clinton, invited top donors to the summit in an e-mail sent Monday night and obtained by The Washington Post.
"This meeting will be the premier opportunity to hear from those individuals who will be shaping the next few years in our Nation’s politics and a chance for Finance Council Members to come together and meet one another while we wait to hear what Hillary will decide," Smith wrote.
At least 222 donors have signed up as co-chairs of Ready for Hillary's National Finance Council — a commitment that requires donating or raising $25,000 each, according to a membership list obtained by The Post this summer. More than 600 other donors are considered members of the finance council, required to give or raise $5,000 each.
Smith invited the co-chairs to gather for a dinner on Nov. 20, the night before the broader meeting.
Politico blog: Joe Scarborough: “Obama right on ISIL response”
By Joe Scarborough
September 8, 2014, 1:23 p.m. EDT
I have been a consistent critic of President Obama's policy initiatives. I called the stimulus package a steaming pile of garbage, said his health care plan was bad for America, and said his massive spending programs would undermine American capitalism.
I repeatedly warned against tripling the number of troops in Afghanistan, I condemned the administration's expansive drone policy, and have always had concerns about a management style that leaves the president isolated in D.C. and inside his own White House.
But when it comes down to facing down the greatest threat since 9/11, I think this president has it just about right. Let Republicans and neocons like Hillary Clinton play the cynical game that politicians love to play by second guessing his lack of action in Syria and speculating about what might have been.
Let's not argue over counter realities and instead stick to the reality that confronted the White House and Congress. Neither Democrats nor Republicans would have supported a third war against a Muslim country in less than a decade even if Barack Obama wanted to launch a full-scale invasion into Syria. And as Dwight Eisenhower taught us during the Suez Crisis in 1956, less is usually more when it comes to military operations in the Middle East.
Because the president refused to rush in with guns blazing in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant crisis, when he goes before the American people on Wednesday, Mr. Obama will talk about launching a military operation that has the support of the Arab League, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and most of the Arab world.
And for first time in a long time, United States troops will be entering a battle against an evil force in the Middle East with the support of most Arab leaders.
It's only a start in our battle against ISIL, but it is a good start.
Bloomberg View: Albert R. Hunt: “Could Jim Webb Mount Credible Challenge to Clinton?”
By Albert R. Hunt
September 7, 2014, 11:00 a.m. EDT
Jim Webb could be Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare.
The former one-term Virginia senator and Vietnam War veteran is making sounds about running for president as a Democrat. He was in Iowa last month; a New Hampshire trip may be in the offing, and he's giving a major speech at the National Press Club in two weeks.
He seems an improbable candidate. He has taken illiberal positions, was President Ronald Reagan's Navy secretary, has few relationships within the Democratic Party, and has no serious fundraising network.
What he does possess is a long-held and forceful opposition to U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya, and potentially Syria, as well as solid anti-Wall Street credentials. In Democratic primaries, these may be Clinton's greatest impediments to rallying a hard-core activist base.
In 2002, Webb warned of the perils of invading and occupying Iraq; he has been proven right by the violence and sectarian strife of the post-Saddam Hussein era. As a senator, Clinton voted for the war and supported it for years. She recently acknowledged she had been wrong.
As secretary of state, Clinton was the chief advocate in the Barack Obama administration for intervening against Muammar Qaddafi. When the Libyan dictator was toppled and killed in 2011, she thought it would be her signature foreign-policy achievement.
Webb, then a senator, adamantly opposed this venture. The U.S. has since withdrawn its personnel from Libya, and radical jihadists now occupy a compound belonging to the U.S. embassy.
Clinton recently said she disagreed with Obama's decision not to intervene in the Syrian civil war. Webb warns that the Syrian opposition includes not only elements friendly to the U.S., but also the radical Islamic State forces that have wreaked mayhem there and in Iraq, murdering thousands and beheading two American journalists. Syria, he has warned, is "Lebanon on steroids."
Clinton has close ties to Wall Street, a source of campaign funds for her and the Clinton Foundation. Since leaving office, she has received large speaking fees from hedge funds, private-equity companies and big banks such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
Webb, 68, has long taken a populist, anti-Wall Street stance. In 2007, he delivered the Democratic response to President George W. Bush's State of the Union address. Webb declared that the health of American society should be measured "not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street."
He pushed a measure to slap a special tax on big bonuses paid out by Wall Street companies that received government assistance during the financial crisis. When it failed, he complained that Democrats, beholden to Wall Street, killed it.
If Webb decides to run -- fearlessness and unpredictability are his trademarks -- there's plenty of ammunition against him. He's against gun control, and he has made comments that angered feminists, many of whom consider Clinton a cause as well as a candidate, and environmentalists. He also has been involved in numerous personal controversies.
In a recent Virginia Senate debate, Republican Ed Gillespie sought to paint the moderate Democratic incumbent, Mark Warner, as too left, citing occasions when he didn't join Webb in voting along a more conservative line.
The maverick lawmaker had a few notable successes, passing a major veterans' education bill, putting criminal justice reform on the agenda, and calling for a pivot to Asia before Obama was elected. He has criticized executive overreach by both Bush and Obama.
A decorated war hero -- he received the Navy Cross for "extraordinary heroism" -- and author of nine books, he would run principally on the issues most likely to cut Clinton: opposition to an interventionist-centered foreign policy and softness toward Wall Street. He would bring more authenticity to these two issues than any other would-be Clinton challenger. In Iowa, he made no secret of his criticism of Clinton's tenure at State.
Clintonites will dismiss the Webb threat by pointing to his political weaknesses. But here's a safe bet: They will closely monitor his Sept. 23 Press Club speech.
By Damon Linker
September 9, 2014, 6:02 a.m. EDT
[Subtitle:] If you want an election that clarifies the choices facing voters, then you can't do better than a match-up between the centrist and the libertarian
I'll be honest: The prospect of Hillary Clinton winning her party's nomination without even trying and then coasting to victory in the general election against a lame Republican opponent leaves me feeling depressed, and not only because I'm paid to write about politics.
Our political system ought to do better than that — by giving the American people a genuine choice. But most of the likely match-ups wouldn't do that.
Clinton is a centrist Democrat all the way down. She's spent the past 22 years near the peak of power inside the Beltway. If she ends up squaring off against Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or (God help us) Mitt Romney, it will be a contest played out from deep within the reigning Washington consensus.
The candidates will pretend to disagree about foreign policy, but it will be an act, with neocon-ish Clinton perfectly matching her opponent's blustery bellicosity point for point.
On domestic policy, Clinton will promise to defend ObamaCare while reforming its least popular and successful elements. She'll also signal her intent to do what Democrats always do, which is to protect government programs and keep tax rates at their current level or raise them slightly on the top end.
The Republican, meanwhile, will do what Republicans always do, which is to rail against government and promise tax and spending cuts that everyone knows will translate into tax cuts for the wealthy alone, sending the deficit back into the stratosphere. (Despite what Republicans say in their speeches, their actions reveal that it is not the deficit that matters to them, but rather cutting taxes on the highest earners while protecting government programs that benefit the aging white voters who form the base of their party.)
There is only one realistic way to break out of this tired state of affairs. And no, it doesn't involve a run by Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, or any other candidate from the GOP's delusional there-are-more-general-election-votes-on-the-far-right-than-in-the-center caucus. If someone from that faction manages to land the nomination, I fully expect the median-voter theorem to be vindicated and Clinton to win in a historic landslide.
No, the only scenario that promises to deliver a genuine contest and spark a serious, important debate is one that involves an electoral smackdown between Clinton and Rand Paul. That is the presidential match-up America needs.
Let me be clear: I am not a libertarian. It's very unlikely I will cast a vote for Paul or any other Republican in 2016. I anticipate supporting Clinton in the general election.
But I nonetheless believe that American democracy would benefit from a contest that forces the establishment candidate (Clinton) to defend herself and her positions against a challenger who presents a genuine alternative — and one that confounds at least some of the pieties that have gripped the GOP through the last several election cycles.
The biggest contrast would be felt on foreign policy. Paul's expressions of support for a military response to ISIS have obscured just how skeptical he is of the GOP's reflexive, unmodulated hawkishness, which inspires nearly all of its leading figures — as well as a good many Democrats, very much including Hillary Clinton — to propose military force as an all-purpose solution to nearly every problem in the world. Paul appears eager to break from this consensus in favor of a stricter calculation of America's national interests, and with those interests defined more narrowly than neocons and liberal interventionists tend to do.
Paul's desire to reorient America's foreign policy extends to other aspects of the national security state that has emerged in the U.S. since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. As Americans learned from his blockbuster 13-hour filibuster on March 6, 2013, Paul strongly opposes warrantless surveillance and extra-judicial killings, especially when American citizens are targeted. Clinton's position on these issues, by contrast, is...somewhat more difficult to pin down.
Paul's libertarian suspicion of government police powers even led him to criticize the Ferguson, Missouri, police department in the wake of the shooting death of the unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown. In a column for Time, Paul declared that "it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them." That might sound like an uncontroversial position, but for a member of a party that has defined itself since the era of Richard Nixon as a champion of law-and-order and unapologetically tough on crime, it is.
When it comes to taxes and entitlements, Paul is closer to being a mainstream Republican — though his libertarian commitments give us reason to think he may be slightly more willing than other members of his party to match tax cuts with real reductions in spending. I don't support slashing either taxes or spending, but if we're going to have the first, it's far better to combine it with the second than to pay for the tax cuts by increasing levels of public debt.
Now none of this means that Rand Paul will have an easy time on the campaign trail. On the contrary, as Ross Douthat argued last spring, Paul will likely face long odds in the primaries precisely because his agenda simultaneously challenges so many elements of the GOP electoral coalition.
And even if he does somehow run the Republican gauntlet and manage to come out at the head of the pack, he'd still have to face the Hillary Clinton juggernaut in the general election. Despite recent hype about a "libertarian moment," I tend to think Clinton would do quite well in such a match-up.
But I could be wrong. And wouldn't it be clarifying to test the proposition?
By Jack F. Matlock, Jr., Thomas R. Pickering, and James F. Collins
September 8, 2014
The crisis over Ukraine has all but frozen official communication between the United States and Russia. The Russian reaction to the political upheaval in Kiev — the absorption of Crimea, and the armed intervention in eastern Ukraine — and the American responses to those actions have brought about a near-complete breakdown in normal and regular dialogue between Washington and Moscow. Relations between the two capitals have descended into attempts by each side to pressure the other, tit-for-tat actions, shrill propaganda statements, and the steady diminution of engagement between the two governments and societies.
Reports from the NATO summit meeting that ended in Newport, Wales, on Friday indicate that the United States and its allies will respond to Russia’s intervention and violence in Ukraine with an escalation of their own — including further sanctions, enhanced military presence in front-line states, and possibly greater support for Ukraine’s armed forces. This amounts to more of the same, with little if any assurance of better outcomes.
What the Western strategy lacks is an equally vigorous diplomatic approach to ending this conflict. Diplomatic efforts should aim to provide Ukraine and its neighbors with a future that can sustain peace and security for all countries in the area; re-establish respect for the core principles of Europe’s political order; and open the way for more productive American-Russian relations.
As three former United States ambassadors who served in Moscow, we believe that the time is right for American leadership in a serious diplomatic effort to achieve these ends. Each of us has seen the high price paid when relations and dialogue between Washington and Moscow break down, as in the effort to prevent Baltic independence at the end of the Soviet era, the Kosovo crisis and the insurgency in Chechnya.
Each time relations broke down, there was a high cost to the cause of peace and security for both the United States and Russia, as well as their allies. Our experience convinces us that creative, disciplined, serious active diplomacy — through both official and unofficial channels — provides the one path out of destructive crises and a reliance on violence and confrontation. So-called Track 2 dialogue between nonstate actors — experts and groups of individuals on both sides — can also play a useful role.
For now, fortunately, a cease-fire agreement announced on Friday by President Petro O. Poroshenko of Ukraine and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia appears to be holding. It is also encouraging that the parties have begun discussion about how to maintain the halt in fighting and address the political issues that will have to be tackled to bring about a lasting settlement.
There is ample reason to treat this opening with caution. But this potential opportunity should not be allowed to slip away. This is a moment when American leadership will be essential. The terms of any durable cease-fire must, of course, provide for adequate numbers of international observers, most appropriately from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, to ensure that no side exploits the halt in fighting.
Any lasting agreement must also build on the fragile political process begun over the weekend. That process must involve the search for agreement on fair and equal treatment, and adequate political representation, of all Ukrainians; on respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty over its territory; and on international cooperation to rebuild Ukraine’s economy.
Firm and unwavering support by the United States for these principles will be critical to the success of any negotiated outcome. The resumption of regular dialogue between Moscow and Washington will be central to the restoration of relations.
Fortunately, the arrival in Moscow of America’s new ambassador, John F. Tefft, provides an opening to enhance communication and dialogue. A seasoned career diplomat with previous service in Lithuania, Georgia and Ukraine, as well as Russia, Mr. Tefft brings to Moscow a capacity to express American views and positions clearly and to listen to and explain Russian thinking to Washington. His arrival gives both governments an opportunity to rebuild relations and to move away from the present path of confrontation.
Reinvigorating American-Russian diplomacy will be challenging. The negative effects of the Ukraine crisis are part of a broader downturn in relations over the last few years. The escalation of violence in Ukraine, and rising calls among Europeans and Americans for more forceful action and tougher sanctions to confront Russian military activity, have increased the prospect for further escalation and a further downturn in bilateral relations.
Although spokesmen and leaders in Washington have suggested that Russia has an “off ramp” to extricate itself from the present situation and the United States is ready to cooperate in that effort, this uphill path is strewn with rocks and largely uncharted. Additional sanctions, increased military pressure and battlefield escalation will not, by themselves, help define a way forward.
Only the use of diplomacy can help Mr. Poroshenko take advantage of new openings to define his country’s relations with its neighbors, restore Ukrainian sovereignty and effect a permanent end to the bloodshed. Sanctions and further efforts to escalate political and military pressure, and reliance on unilateral action without accompanying diplomacy, would all but assure continued suffering for the people of Ukraine.
It is time for the United States to use its diplomatic assets, including our new ambassador in Moscow, to take active leadership of diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis over Ukraine and set American relations with Russia on a new, more productive course.
Calendar:
Sec. Clinton's upcoming appearances as reported online. Not an official schedule.
· September 9 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the DSCC at her Washington home (DSCC)
· September 12 – Tokyo, Japan: Sec. Clinton, Christine Lagarde, and Caroline Kennedy speak at an event on improving the participation of women in the economy (Washington Post)
· September 12 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton headlines a DGA fundraiser (Twitter)
· September 14 – Indianola, IA: Sec. Clinton headlines Sen. Harkin’s Steak Fry (LA Times)
· September 15 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics Conference (CRF)
· September 15 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton speaks at Legal Services Corp. 40th Anniversary (Twitter)
· September 16 – New York, NY: Sec. Clinton headlines a 9/11 Health Watch fundraiser (NY Daily News)
· September 19 – Washington, DC: Sec. Clinton fundraises for the DNC with Pres. Obama (CNN)
· October 2 – Miami Beach, FL: Sec. Clinton keynotes the CREW Network Convention & Marketplace (CREW Network)
· October 6 – Ottawa, Canada: Sec. Clinton speaks at Canada 2020 event (Ottawa Citizen)
· October 13 – Las Vegas, NV: Sec. Clinton keynotes the UNLV Foundation Annual Dinner (UNLV)
· October 14 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton keynotes salesforce.com Dreamforce conference (salesforce.com)
· October 28 – San Francisco, CA: Sec. Clinton fundraises for House Democratic women candidates with Nancy Pelosi (Politico)
· December 4 – Boston, MA: Sec. Clinton speaks at the Massachusetts Conference for Women (MCFW)