Pity Party for the Pardoned Liar

I have no pity for how Elliott Abrams was treated today:

Tense exchange between Ilhan Omar and Venezuela envoy Elliott Abrams over his support for US-backed coups in the 80s.

"I fail to understand why members of this committee of the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be truthful." pic.twitter.com/BeprHzPkfy

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 13, 2019

It is pretty basic: if you appoint someone who has pled guilty to lying to Congress, expect them to get some heat when they appear before Congress.  It is not that hard and definitely not surprising.  That it is a particularly controversial new Congressperson is really beside the point.  Someone has got to confront a guy who lied to Congress, especially if he didn't pay for it because he got a pardon.  Pardoning those who lie to Congress tends to give a signal to future folks in the executive branch that you can get away with it.  And, oh, yes, this new administration has been putting out the pardon carrot again and again, and then they appoint a guy who has a very checkered history--not just lying but subverting the will of Congress via Iran-Contra and condoning human rights violations by proxies.  So, the Trump Administration, by appointing Abrams, was telling Congress to fuck off.

So, one Congressperson noted that he has a record as a liar so why believe him?  Then she asked a basic and very important question--do the ends justify the means?  In fighting for democracy or whatever (this administration's record on being pro-democracy is just a wee bit, um, weak), will Abrams and this administration mind just a little bit of human rights violations.  Again, this is basic oversight stuff--Congress asking the executive if they will bend their responsibilities (to faithfully execute the laws of the US) to pursue a goal.  Has this administration given Congresspeople any cause to think they might not respect the law?

So, of course, given the very recent controversial where Congresswoman Omar tweeted about money and Israel (which I criticized), some folks are saying this is an anti-Semitic attack because Abrams is Jewish.  Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaase.  That is utter bs as Abrams did, indeed, plead guilty for lying to Congress (to avoid trial and perhaps bigger penalties) and was in office when proxies of the US committed human rights violations.  It is surprising that no one else asked these questions and would have been awful had no one done so.  Saying Abrams is being attacked is simply wrong--he is testifying and she is asking questions and put the whole thing in context by reminding folks that he lied to Congress and got away with it.

Maybe we forgot what oversight looked like because the GOP sucks at it. Omar focused on the facts and raised relevant questions about future behavior given past behavior.  What else would one expect of the co-equal branch of the US government, especially of an administration that lies often and does not seem to treat Congress as a co-equal branch?

So, yeah, all those making excuses for Abrams really have no leg to stand on.

Oh, and to bring in Harry Potter, maybe, just maybe, Abrams should show a little remorse.

Working with Neo-Nazis? Nyet

Congresspeople have imposed restrictions on training Ukrainian soldiers--that those associated with a Neo-Nazi unit would be prohibited from engaging in mil to mil efforts.  This raises questions in Canada where members of parliament have limited means to slap amendments onto bills that would impose such restrictions. 

This is causing some deja vu for me, as this kind of legislation is old news in the US.  In my year on the Joint Staff, whenever we worked on the possibility of engaging the local militaries in Bosnia, which we did as a major effort to try to build a single Bosnian military from three militaries (Bosniak, Serb, Croatian) we had to consider whether our efforts met the requirements set forth by the Leahy Amendment.  Senator Leahy of Vermont added an amendment that required any US funding for training to be conditional on vetting--that those who engaged in human rights abuses would be excluded. 

Since most of the Ukrainian army is not in the unit that is getting heaps of attention, it is unlikely that the small Canadian training effort will end up working with the Neo-Nazis.  Moreover, if the Canadians train at the same place as the Americans and train mostly the same people, it is likely that the American attention to this challenge will do the work for the Canadians--that the relevant unit will be left out of all of the reindeer games Western training.

One could call the US restriction a caveat, which goes to show that not all caveats are really so problematic.  Some are actually lined up well with the intent of policies and might actually foster the national interest.  Something to think about.

What Happened to the Senate?

I seem to remember from my American history lessons long ago that one of the justifications of having a Senate with longer terms is that it would not be as likely to be swayed by whims and passions of the mob.  Well, it now seems like one half of the Senate is the mob.  Writing a letter to a foreign leader to advise him of their stance?  It is not clear whether this letter is more superfluous (pretty sure Iran gets FOX, CNN and the NY Times) or just more outrageous for over-stepping the body's role in the making of foreign policy.

I got miffed, so I tried to develop a meme yesterday:

Bring Out the Dead!

I guess I am easily annoyed these days, but when I saw this tweet, I could only Spew:

Senate Foreign Relations Committee sets first hearing of Corker chairmanship. Subject: US world leadership. Witness: Henry Kissinger.
— Patricia Zengerle (@ReutersZengerle) January 7, 2015

My immediate reaction:

How about we resurrect John Foster Dulles and ask him how to grapple with 21st century? #ZombieNationalSecurityExperts*
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) January 7, 2015

* Which produced a twitter follower recommending this Carol Burnett song.
To be fair and accurate, there are all kinds of undead, not just zombies.  So, for guidance, perhaps we should consult the Liches, Wraiths, and Ghouls* from Republican Administrations past as we ponder the future of the United States.

*  It has been a long time so I barely remember the D&D categories of undead.  Liches might make the most sense here: "Unlike most other forms of undead creatures, the Lich retains all of the memories, personality, and abilities that it possessed in life — but it has a virtual eternity to hone its skills and inevitably becomes very powerful."  See here.  Sounds like Kissinger to me.

 I am pretty sure that Oliver North is available, so why not dig him up and ask him questions?  Where is Eliott Abrams?  Hey, if we need to dig up old GOP foreign policy folks, how about Scowcroft (same cohort as Kissinger but without the arrogance and far fewer war crimes)?

There are two problems with this proposed hearing:

1. US world leadership?  This is likely to be bait for discussion about how the US is retrenching or pivoting or not leading enough.  How many wars must the US be fighting at one time to qualify for being "sufficiently engaged" and not "isolationist"?  Because I am pretty sure we are over whatever threshold that might be.  If it is not just about war, then how about the US being engaged in hard bargaining with Iran, reinforcing the allies near Russia, leading the sanctions on Russia, bargaining with China, and on and on.  One can take issue with Obama's foreign policies (and should), but any discussion of US leadership is likely to be asking for more... more.... um, more leadership.  Whatever.
2. Kissinger?  Besides the fact that the man is OVER-RATED and always has been, what fresh perspective does he provide for 21st century international relations?  That we should play Russia and China off of each other like he did so long ago?  Got it.  What else?  

So, I ask my readers three questions today: which undead creature would you want to testify to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?  Which Republican would you prefer to wake up or dig up?  And what topic would you want the committee to examine?

What Am I Thinking?

This fall I spent much time on a grant application that, if successful, will find years of researching the role of legislatures in overseeing militaries.  Given how the "model" of oversight is operating these days, I think I am setting myself up for a world of hurt.

Thanks to Brian McFadden of NYT