« Clinton position on Iran Resolution | Main | Out of Town »

01 October 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Ms. Clinton's laugh is tactical.

Laughter is a perfectly proper response to our o'erweening media radiculi.**

** radix (root) is colloquial Latin for the mv; -ulus -uli, the diminutive thereof - singular and plural.

Clifford Kiracofe

What we are talking about is "preventive war."

Normally, under international law, this is considered a war of aggression and hence illegal. Hitler etal. liked the doctrine as the generation of that era noticed.

wiki (but thin):
"In international law, preventive war has no recognized status as distinct from a war of aggression."

One reason the Nazi's liked the doctrine was because their legal theoretician Carl Schmitt legitimized it in his writings which also included legitimizing dictators and states of emergency.

Neocons owing to their guru Leo Strauss, and non-neocons who follow Strauss, love Schmitt. Why? Schmitt was Strauss's professor and mentor in Germany.

new translation of a classic Schmitt text, reviewed:

"Carl Schmitt. _The Concept of the Political_. Translated by George Schwab. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. xxxi +126 pp.
Table of contents, foreword. $15.00 (paper), ISBN 0-226-73892-2.

Reviewed for H-German by Robert D. Rachlin, Vermont Law School

A New Chicago Edition of Carl Schmitt's Seminal Work

Carl Schmitt (1888-1985), the so-called "crown jurist of the Third Reich,"
articulated a vision of politics dominated by the distinction between friend and enemy. For Schmitt, this distinction was not merely an attribute of the political. It was foundational; it served as a prerequisite, the condition _sine qua non_ of the political, which, in turn was a logical precursor of the state. This key concept is declared in the first sentence of _The Concept of the Political_: "The concept of the state presupposes the concept of the political" (p. 19). This foundational work is now available in an "expanded edition" from University of Chicago Press.
Readers are likely to bring to it not only questions about its status as a justification for National Socialism and as a reflection of the many contradictions in Schmitt's life, but may not be able to avoid making connections between his thought, the increasingly authoritarian nature of democracies, and events in contemporary politics. For Leo Strauss, whose comments on Schmitt are included in the book, Schmitt's critique of liberalism was itself "in the horizon of liberalism" (p. 122). Readers are challenged by the work, and indeed by Schmitt's life, to decide this matter for themselves.

The division of the world into allies and opponents is likely to resonate with many readers; it also squared conveniently with the notions of the National Socialists. Schmitt was, of course, not the first to understand the political utility of the friend/enemy antithesis. From Cato the Elder to the Crusaders, from the American demonization of the "Hun" to their criticism of "godless communism," extending to Islamicist use of the term "the Great Satan," moments of crisis lend urgency to such characterizations. As Oren Gross and Fionnuala Ní Aoláin have noted, "counter-terrorism measures often actively produce and construct a suspect community. One is either with 'us' or with 'them.' There is no middle way."[1] For Schmitt, however, the idea of the enemy was more than an instrument of politics or policy. It was antecedent to the very existence of the state.
Schmitt's significance for modern political thought includes his theory of the state of emergency (_Ausnahmezustand_), a condition that arises when the very existence of the state and its constitutional order are threatened by external or internal forces. In the state of emergency, legal norms are set aside as a new "sovereign" assumes power. Schmitt begins his other foundational work, _Politische Theologie_ (1922), with the famous statement: "Souverän ist, der über den Ausnahmezustand entscheidet."[5] The existence of states of emergency, _états de siege_, and other challenges to national stability and the effect that such a condition should or should not have on the legal order have been subjects of widespread scholarly interest for many decades. The relevance of the subject to current political debates about the powers of the national executive vis-à-vis the challenge of transnational terror organizations requires no elaboration."

And so forth. This is excerpted from an academic list, should anyone wish to get the full review:
From: H-NET List on German History [mailto:H-GERMAN@H-NET.MSU.EDU]

John Moore

I'd be happier with a Webb/ Clinton ticket than a Clinton/Webb ticket. Webb was a conservative Republican who is now essentially a conservative Democrat. He would be more palatable to Southern Democrats and former Southern Democrats who now vote Republican. Hillary not only has to defend her current policies and choices, but also her legacy as First Lady and her husband's legacy. Those are millstones for her. It's also amazing the emotional vitriol one sees at the mention of her name. People seem to either hate her or like her, and it's purely an emotional reaction.


John Moore:

"I'd be happier with a Webb/ Clinton ticket than a Clinton/Webb ticket."

I doubt that Webb has the temperament necessary to run for president...too much of a loose cannon, what with his aide transporting Webb's gun inside the Capitol and Webb dissing the President at that White House reception. For those reasons I think Hillary might worry about being upstaged by a Real Man.


An attack on Iran could lead to a free fall in the US$ - considering the precarious state it already is in.

Vietnam's central bank plans to remove the currency peg to prevent accelerating domestic inflation and to get ahead of the stampede for the exits. Our ME ally Qatar plans to significantly reduce its US$ holdings in its sovereign wealth fund. Our other petrosheikh buddy Saudi Arabia is also planning to delink its currency from the US$. The news of an air and cruise missile attack on Iran could be the spark for the Asians and the PetroSheikhs to hit the get out of dodge button. Without the $billions each week from them we could not be in the fight too long.


Off topic... but we mentioned the Liberty ship incident many times. Here is news about it.


Clifford Kiracofe

"America should seize every opportunity to force regime change in Syria and Iran, a former senior adviser to the White House has urged."

Cheney's guy Wurmser. His wife works at Hudson Institute. "[Meyrav]Wurmser’s acute knowledge of the Palestinian Authority’s tactics led her to realize that the Oslo process was doomed to failure from the outset." https://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=Wurmser

It's an inside the Beltway thing.



I see little practical difference between a vote for Clinton.... or anyone else America will be allowed to choose from.

Your kids will still get sent to the mideast wars and your job to Mexico.



This is the first that I've read this about the Clinton-Webb proposal:

It says that war with Iran must be authorized. Yet it specifies that authorization is not required to repel attacks, to thwart imminent attacks, or to engage in hot pursuit into enemy territory.

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/iran-the-decider-and-th_b_67706.html


Kyl-Lieberman simply does NOT authorize a strike against Iranian forces in Iran. It requests the use of military power against Iranian forces in IRAQ. There is simply no chance that our troops wouldn't exert such power against Quds Forces that were attacking them or aiding those who attacked them in Iraq in any case.
Designating the Quds Force as terrorist (which I believe Bush can do without Congressional authorization) doesn't empower Bush to strike Iran in Iran without Congressional Authorization. Iran is ALREADY designated a state sponsor of terror, and Bush has ALREADY stated that those who harbor, support, hug or kiss terrorists, will be considered terrorist themselves. So, if he's as eager to attack Iran as everyone supposes, and if the mere designation of a state or state entity as terrorist were sufficient justification for such an attack, he could ALREADY have done so. At the very least he could have used this argument to justify an attack. To my knowledge, he hasn't done so because he cannot. Finally, Bush argued that Saddham Hussein harbored terrorists, yet he still found it necessary to go to Congress for a use of force authorization against Iraq. I cannot see how Kyl-Lieberman obviates such an authorization against Iran.

Mimi Schaeffer

You picked up on the political aspect of the joint press release and the "interesting" timing.

By the way, did you have a chance to watch Webb on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"? He was very cagey when asked which candidate he would support. Nonetheless he did manage to slap down the Pelosi meme about superdelegates following the will of voters by saying that party leaders specifically gave superdelegates the power to vote for the person they thought would make the best candidate.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say it almost sounds like a talking point straight out of the Clinton campaign.

forex forum

you just have to love clinton.

forex forum discussion

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad