a berlin blog
|
a berlin blog |
|
|
Saturday, January 31, 2004 Sleeping With the DevilWhy would Richard Perle even look like he's supporting terrorists? posted by Michael Scott Moore | 1:07 AMFriday, January 30, 2004 Mother's DayMarc points out by e-mail that he and Lisa over at Waterbones have both posted about their mothers today. To round things out I'll add that I was just in LA to see my mom for a kind of late Christmas celebration. Good to see you, mom! (Not that she reads this blog.) Mom's getting new cabinets in the kitchen and a spiffy new granite countertop. These improvements were supposed to happen two years ago, and Mom has staged a kitchen strike ever since, in a (now largely successful) effort to hurry my stepdad along. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 2:16 AMWednesday, January 28, 2004 Kerry-Dean?Steve answers my last post on Dean over at Golgonooza, and even complains about being misquoted. But I wasn't quoting! I was paraphrasing! Good God.After the Iowa caucus a few people speculated about a Kerry-Edwards ticket. But after Edwards' slump in New Hampshire, and Dean's modest comeback, why not a Kerry-Dean romance? Is there any serious reason why it should be impossible? Dean has too large an ego to be vice president, sure. Kerry has too many black eyes from him, and vice versa. They represent opposite wings of the Democratic party; they're both from New England. All splendidly conventional reasons. But what about an enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend rationale? An organize-all-Democrats-under-one-roof kind of deal? Just this once? I'd rather have the ticket read Dean-Kerry, myself, but either way it could be a powerful alliance. My heart thumped when I read Sullivan's posts on Dean, Kerry, and Bush (especially Bush). I couldn't agree more. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 9:19 AM Tuesday, January 27, 2004 Dean's ImplosionSteve at Golgonooza takes issue with my post about Dean. He says the outburst in Iowa is exactly as important as everyone says it is, because politics is 90% perception, and people now perceive Dean as a lunatic. Fine. I get that. I was just trying to stem the tide. I wanted to encourage my three or four readers in New Hampshire to keep their heads and avoid being swayed by the fickle old codgers quoted on Fox and the Newshour who cluck and preen and say they used to like Dean but now they're not so sure, my God, did you see him last week on the TV in Iowa?That's all I'm saying. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 6:05 PM Kay's ResignationThe most interesting part of David Kay's exit interview with the New York Times is his picture of Saddam as deluded by his own scientists. According to Kay, Saddam himself wasn't even sure if he had weapons of mass destruction:"Iraqi scientists realized they could go directly to Mr. Hussein and present fanciful plans for weapons programs, and receive approval and large amounts of money. Whatever was left of an effective weapons capability, he said, was largely subsumed into corrupt money-raising schemes by scientists skilled in the arts of lying and surviving in a fevered police state." The other interesting part is that Kay insists on beating the CIA over the head. Yes, the CIA missed important nuances of Saddam's weapons program. We had no agents inside Iraq: Embarrassing. But remember that George Tenet's advice to the White House in 2002 was that Saddam posed no immediate threat. Right now you find story after story about how the CIA had poor information; not long ago it was story after story about White House pressure on the CIA to bolster the case for war. Kay's attempts to shield Bush from scandal here seem a bit lame. Also, Marc at Misanthropicity blogs about Clinton's contribution to the war on terrorism. Suppose history looks back at that 1998 "Monicagate" raid on Iraq as a successful parallel to Israel's 1981 bombing of Osirak? (Memorable line quoted and re-quoted by Instapundit before the Iraq invasion: "Israel's raid on the Osirak reactor is the only really successful nuclear nonproliferation effort to date.") What if Clinton in 1998 actually made the Iraq war unnecessary? at least for the stated reasons? posted by Michael Scott Moore | 6:00 PM Monday, January 26, 2004 Hootin and hollerinI agree with this guy that Howard Dean's loud behavior in Iowa is a non-story. If he loses New Hampshire, his odd speech about storming the White House will be remembered as "the moment the Dean campaign imploded." We'll see it replayed four years from now; it'll be cited by pundits with longish memories. But all he did was raise his voice. The best reason for the shift toward Kerry is that Kerry can beat Bush, but remember that Dean still has the most money and the most substantial, detailed positions. I'm happy to report that relatives and other people I know in New Hampshire who supported Dean a month ago still support him. They're not as fickle as our newscasters. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 7:52 AMSaturday, January 24, 2004 BOOMThe old Radio Free Mike cover story, BOOM, is now archived in the Politics and Prose section. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 8:22 PMThursday, January 22, 2004 The Anti-Saudi TicketI have nothing to say about Bush's state of the union address except that the man is no longer my president; he's fired. All I have to say about Iowa is that a four-way race is more interesting than the one we had before. But for me the crucial difference between Edwards, Kerry, Clark, and Dean comes down to Saudi influence. Who understands it, who can resist it?Early answers are depressing. Edwards almost sold his house to a Saudi agent; otherwise he seems to have no real ideas. Kerry tries make the right noise about the Saudis, but then his campaign so far has been dedicated to the Right Noise, at the expense of hard specifics. Clark has a specific plan to work with Saudi intelligence and troops in the Middle East to roll up Al Qaeda. That sounds wrong, but in fact it may be the first serious step to take; I don't agree with this Dartmoth guy who accuses Clark of "getting in bed" with the Al Sa'ud. Remember that most of Washington is already in bed with them. I'd think winning a commitment from the royal family of soldiers and good intelligence would require leaning on them harder than Bush has managed. Howard Dean sounds the most aggressively anti-Sa'ud; he understands what needs to be done. But he resists hard specifics, too. "You use economic pressure," he tells Jann Wenner. "Like how?" says Wenner. "We're not going to go into like how," says Dean. "As a potential president of the United States, I prefer to make my threats privately." Yes, well, that's wise. Saudi cash does have a way of slopping into presidential campaigns. If Dean isn't careful he might find himself running against a well-funded Kerry or Edwards. So everyone gets the problem; almost no one has the faintest notion of what to do. The punch line is that yesterday Richard Perle and David Frum wrote an op-ed piece in the Times on this very question. The Democrats, they write, "need to propose a policy toward Saudi Arabia equal to the magnitude of the Saudi problem." Right! "Such a policy would be based on this direct challenge: either the Saudis put an end to the direct flow of money from the kingdom to extremist organizations or else the United States will no longer have an interest in the continued tenure of the present regime." Exactly! "Can the Democrats credibly convey this message to the Saudis? Will they fight terrorism rather than chase terrorists? These are tests that they have thus far refused to take." Unlike, I guess, our man in the White House? Does anyone else smell fertilizer? posted by Michael Scott Moore | 11:39 PM Wednesday, January 21, 2004 New Cover Story!Bowing to clamor from the gallery, our editor has posted his Hobbiton USA piece (with original photos) on the cover of Radio Free Mike. The old cover story, "BOOM," had been up for about two years. It was time to move on. Not to worry, though — in case you somehow missed it, "BOOM" should be in the archives by this weekend. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 7:24 AMBlogging in L.A.For the last few days I've been in Los Angeles, having a fine old time, thank you very much, and I can back up Matt Welch when he writes that the new station at 103.1 kicks KROQ's fruity little behind. Yesterday I heard the Johnny Cash cover of Bob Marley's Redemption Song in my mother's car. Every hour or so they play something by Elvis Costello. Rotation of a new Robert Smith song with Blink 182 is a little heavy — I hate anything that even sounds like The Cure — but they balance it with old punk, R.E.M. you never hear on the radio, and a little hip-hop. For reasons unknown they also play an audio clip of Howard Dean losing his balance.At my friend Greg McIlvaine's today I also heard the Corvids CD, which is why I'm linking so heavily to Matt Welch. Strong stuff. And Greg's son Sean is talking now; he charmed a couple of women at a local coffee shop and would have gotten their phone numbers if it had not been time for bed. I also have a reading scheduled at Skylight Books in Los Feliz, around the corner from Greg's and a number of blocks north of where the Tom kills Eric, on Vermont Ave., in Too Much of Nothing. So if you're in the neighborhood on April 10, no excuses. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 6:32 AM Friday, January 16, 2004 Angels in America 2I've taken some flak for my low opinion of Tony Kushner, but here's someone at the New Republic who agrees. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 9:12 AMSpalding Gray 2Brian tells an interesting story, and he's right -- it is a sad thing. A loss to American theater if he's gone. Here's an update. The "history of depression" mentioned in a bunch of articles on Gray is not some kind of lifelong sickness; it started after a car accident three years ago.Gray's impression of Athol Fugard in Swimming to Cambodia was my first inkling of what the great playwright sounded like in person. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 8:45 AM Wednesday, January 14, 2004 Liberal Hawks ReconsiderSlate has a terrific piece up today and tomorrow consisting of mini-essays by liberal hawks, or liberals who found themselves in favor of pitching Saddam, no matter how they felt about Bush. Paul Berman, Tom Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, Fareed Zakaria, et al. revisit their arguments, now that those pesky weapons of mass destruction have proven so undiscoverable. Regular readers know that the last few months have witnessed the massive reconsiderations at Radio Free Mike of our own, resident liberal hawk.On one point Tom Friedman is crystal clear: "The real reason for this war -- which was never stated -- was to burst what I would call the 'terrorism bubble,' which had built up during the 1990s. This bubble was a dangerous fantasy, believed by way too many people in the Middle East. This bubble said that it was OK to plow airplanes into the World Trade Center, commit suicide in Israeli pizza parlors, praise people who do these things as 'martyrs,' and donate money to them through religious charities. This bubble had to be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of the Arab world and smash something -- to let everyone know that we, too, are ready to fight and die to preserve our open society... "Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could -- period. Sorry to be so blunt, but, as I also wrote before the war: Some things are true even if George Bush believes them." Maybe so. But, one problem, Tom: Bush was never that blunt. He lied, shifted, and lied again. So why should we craft his arguments for him? posted by Michael Scott Moore | 5:27 AM Tuesday, January 13, 2004 Spalding Gray is MissingWeird. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 9:48 PMWhat are these people still doing in the White House?Marc blogs about Paul O'Neill over at Misanthropicity. It's not news that Bush and his advisors had ambitions for Iraq before September 11, but it's healthy to hear it again, especially on TV. The interesting thing is that O'Neill has so obviously pissed off his former boss, who tries to act all dismissive but wants legal action.And here's something to follow up my last post on the Saudis, from Anthony Swofford's Jarhead: "Defense Secretary Dick Cheney visits Saudi Arabia on August 5 [1991], and brokers a historic deal allowing U.S. troops on Saudi soil for the first time ever." I'd forgotten it was Cheney himself. Good God. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 7:59 PM Thursday, January 08, 2004 Sympathy for the DevilLast month my friend Marc asked this wonkish question: "If the Bush administration intends to pursue a policy of pre-emptive attacks, wasn't Iraq among the worst possible targets it could have chosen?"Here's my long-overdue, and just plain long, answer: Yes because public patience for another war should be at an all-time low, since Bush exaggerated, etc. But in a deeper way, no. Robert Baer's helpful newish book about Washington's relationship with Riyadh (Sleeping With the Devil) lets me see, more clearly than ever, that we went into Iraq because it stood out as the best possible target — meaning easiest, ripest, most strategic. We already had a military lock on the country, and it would look good to go in strong pretending to have some kind of revenge in the Middle East for September 11. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may have had links to al Qaeda, Mohammed Atta, and (in Pakistan's case) fully-developed nuclear weapons; but the sad and simple fact is that Bush lacks the cojones to challenge either one. Toppling Musharraf would be a bad idea. He's our friend, as far as he's allowed to be. But al-Qaeda and 9/11 are pure Saudi phenomena, encouraged and funded by the Sa'ud family. We keep the royals in place because they not only manage the world's largest oil reserves but also encourage, and fund, so many interests in Washington — "K Street lobbyists, PR firms, and lawyers," recites Baer, "... bluestocking charities, like the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the Children's National Medical Center, and every presidential library of the last thirty years," not to mention think tanks, the aerospace industry, even American farm subsidies. "Any Washington bureaucrat with a room-temperature IQ knows that if he stays on the right side of the kingdom, some way or another, he'll be able to finagle his way to the feed at the Saudi trough." Bush, as the world's most important bureaucrat, knows this well, and anyway his dad's Carlyle Group has been intimate with the Al-Sa'ud for decades. You don't make war on family friends. A democratic Arabia might also be fundamentalist, so "regime change" would be a disaster, and even I can see how letting fundamentalist madmen seize such massive reserves of oil might be a bad thing. (Baer envisions a worldwide depression.) Invading Saudi Arabia would also encourage Osama and his followers; one unspoken goal of toppling Saddam, after all, was to get U.S. troops out of the Holy Land. So. Facing the devil is daunting. I'm not sure what I would have done in Bush's place. But he's an oil boy, and therefore exactly the wrong guy to deal squarely with the Saudis after September 11. Instead, we got a war in Iraq, which may have trashed our credibility abroad but did place our military on the eastern edge of Saudi Arabia. In case of some bad emergency like the collapse of the house of Sa'ud we'll be in a strong position to grab those oil fields; which means, from a Machiavellian point of view, that Iraq was not a bad target at all. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 11:09 PM Wednesday, January 07, 2004 Top-five listI've decided that review coverage of my first novel has been pretty skimpy, especially in San Francisco. In Boston, on the strength of one good review, Too Much of Nothing wound up in the window of the Harvard Bookstore, and (I think) in the library system. There's been no such attention in San Francisco or L.A. It's as if people don't read. So here, to make me feel better, are the five most memorable things people have said so far about the book:5) "Moore's humor, despite its subtlety, provides some out-loud laughs: This reviewer was embarrassed on the bus several times." — Hiya Swanhuyser, in the paper I write for, SF Weekly 4) "From the melancholic grace of the opening scene to the haunting final image, Nothing rarely reads like an apprentice work." — J.L. Johnson, Boston Herald 3) "It brought [Southern California's] shallowness into a clarity that I sure didn't see growing up." — a friend of mine on Amazon 2) "You know, forty years separate us, but a lot of what happened in your book went on when I was a kid." — My step-dad, who grew up in L.A. in the 1940s. 1) "Thanks for writing about drugs without romanticizing them." — Total stranger at a reading in Emeryville. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 3:24 AM Saturday, January 03, 2004 The most important man in the worldThis week's Economist writes that America's 2004 election "is crucial -- and not just because it will choose the most important man in the world."Pfui. In the last few years I've noticed a general and growing disease that seems to put politics above any other human endeavor; this blog is not immune; but I always thought The Economist, for a news outlet, had maintained a genteel sense of balance. So it's a weird slip. The U.S., true enough, has grown so powerful that our president now outranks not just the American senate but also any leader in the EU or Russia. Got that. Fine. But I always thought of our president as the country's most important bureaucrat, maybe our most important public servant. If all of a sudden we're voting for "world's most important man," then the two-party system has been -- how can I put this politely? -- a catastrophic fucking failure. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 2:23 AM | |
|
|
 Too Much of Nothing, a novel  Politics and Prose  about our editor 
The Underground Grammarian  current Berlin blog page  |
