Your substack articles were the first I ever read on substack, and they continue to be so. When I was on twitter, it was you that I looked forward to reading. Well, you and Tim Miller. ☺️ As many have said before me, you are extremely articulate.
Once I came out of the Republican tent, I considered you my "enemy". Now, I look forward to every word you have to write every day. And, I consider you my friend. Thank you for being YOU.
I love reading your substack articles. You are incredibly articulate and I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote. I wish the Dem party would take your words to heart. Why don’t YOU run for office? You’d get my vote!!!!
i concur, you have a great understanding of our history, where we came from and i think you would take this country in good directions. think about it, please. i am saying if you were to decide to run there are people that will support you, from both sides of the isle.
I agree with you, with one qualification, that anyone running for federal office understand how government works. It’s not a company, & can’t be run like a company. The government exists to benefit its citizens, not to make a profit. I would guess you feel that’s a given in anyone running for office, but I have talked with too many people who don’t seem to understand that.
I didn’t vote for Biden in the Primary, but I think he’s done a terrific job. I’ve been pleasantly surprised. Now it’s time for him to step aside & allow new blood to guide us into the future.
“I agree with you, with one qualification, that anyone running for federal office understand how government works. It’s not a company, & can’t be run like a company. The government exists to benefit its citizens, not to make a profit.” Agree with this wholeheartedly. I don’t believe candidacy should be up for the highest bidder. Just like in any other vital profession, the candidate must show education and knowledge of the position. We would not pick a doctor or a lawyer based on anything other than education and competence. I think those standards should be held for those seeking high office where life and death decisions are made. Thank you for bringing this up.
Whoa, Steve, i have to seriously disagree with you about Pres. G.H.W. Bush's entire approach to Iraq. Back in the mid-1990s I wrote a book-length piece on the criminality of launching that first Gulf war, widely shared among progressive friends (two different publishing houses wanted to publish it but wanted me to front the PR funds-- couldn't do it at the time).... Here's a one-page synopsis written in 2006:
Nov. 8, 2006
On the facts about Saddam Hussein and the USA: when Saddam committed various war crimes in the 1980s, he was fully supported by Pres. Reagan and Vice President and then President George H.W. Bush (the elder) as "our man in Iraq," a buffer against the Ayatollah-led Iran. Saddam and Iraq's 8-year long war with Iran exacted a terrible toll on both countries. There was never any interest by the White House in curbing Saddam until Aug 1990 when he invaded Kuwait (whose oil is a major investment for the entire Bush family, Jim Baker, et al.; that's where much of their family wealth has come from). And on that front, it's remarkable to learn, as many of us did back in 1990, that three of our own U.S. State Dept. officials, including our ambassador to Iraq (April Glaspie), all gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait, basically informing him that "your border dispute with Kuwait is none of our business."
The Associated Press's Robert Parry and other investigative journalists reported this at the time or shortly afterward. All those reports of "Saddam is like Hitler" were fabricated by the rightwing spin machine for Pres. Bush (the elder) and other Washington hawks and for the entirely corrupt Kuwaiti emirs, who had been economically strangling Iraq by deliberately overproducing oil (flagrantly violating OPEC policies) and thereby driving down the price of oil and preventing Iraq from gaining sufficient revenues to rebuild their country after the Iraq-Iran war.
The Bush clan of course sided with corrupt Kuwait in this dispute, against their old strong man ally Saddam, and Bush (the elder), with Margaret Thatcher goading him on, would not be dissuaded (even by his own State Dept.) from launching a horrendously punitive war against Iraq. Among other things, he exploited this war to overcome his perceived "wimp factor" (as Newsweek magazine termed it). And, as Bush himself said in the lead-up to the 1991 Gulf War and the day it ended, it allowed his regime to "kick the Vietnam syndrome"--Americans would now be happy and excited to send troops abroad. Thirteen years of sanctions, imposed by Bush against all advice from medical and humanitarian agencies, decimated Iraq and killed somewhere between 800,000 to 1.8 million Iraqis. (Which is one reason they didn't "welcome us with open arms" when we again invaded the country in Spring 2003).
To repeat a key point: in the 1980s, when Saddam actually committed the crimes for which he has now been tried and executed, Reagan and Bush were entirely supportive of the man, just as they, Nixon, Kissinger, and other U.S. leaders were quite supportive of a long string of cruel, murderous tyrants making life hell for too many of their citizens—e.g., Suharto in Indonesia, Mobutu in Zaire/Congo, Pinochet in Chile, Galtieri and his Peronist military dictator cronies in Argentina, Rios Montt in Guatemala, et cetera ad nauseam.
Far too many rightwingers supported Saddam when it served their interest, even when he was treating his own people miserably, and then when elite investment interests of the Bush clan and others were threatened, these same rightwingers turned on Saddam and ran the "Saddam=Hitler" publicity game to justify the first phase of destroying Iraq. Bush junior has simply continued the mendacity and cruelty, and has now destroyed all semblance of normal life for most Iraqis. Most surveys are showing that the quality of life now in Iraq for the average Iraqi is far worse than it was during Saddam's years of running a concentration-camp-like police state in Iraq.
And now, finally, after 6 years of W. Bush's misdeeds, and 12 years of GOP Congressional misdeeds and inaction, we will, starting in January, 2007, finally (it is to be hoped) enjoy a return to a semblance of sanity in our domestic and foreign policy if the Democrats legislate as true progressives, now that they have regained control in the House and Senate.
[Postscript in Jan. 2023-- the USA has done very little to improve quality of life in Iraq in these intervening 16 years.]
I am a huge fan of Steve Schmidt. Though I’ve expressed to him that I think he is one who should run for President. And I do think that. It confuses me when he gives accolades to those who’s personal interests - exacted war. Is there a precise historical moment when America became a Warmongering country? Perhaps it was our very beginning that made it so? We will never meet our full capacity until we become a nation who brokers and leads in Peace. Preventing wars (not supporting them) will have to be our edict, and we will have to be led into the philosophy. Who will that leader be? Perhaps Mr. Schmidt himself.
GHW Bush put together a strong coalition that stopped Hussein from taking over the Mideast. Don't confuse him with W who was essentially a war criminal. And dumb as he**.
As for your question about warmongering and when it started, one easy answer is Vietnam, a subject I've read a lot about. If you want to understand it at a deep level, read HR McMaster's "Dereliction Of Duty" where he makes it clear that our leaders - including JFK btw - knew as early as '63 Vietnam was a losing proposition. But we poured hundreds of millions of $$ and hundreds of thousands of men and women in anyway, simply because the Dems were afraid of looking soft on Communism.
We never learn.
Why George W Bush is a free man, I'll never know.
If any other country had done what we did to that country, W and Rummy and Cheney and Wolfowitz would have all been sent to The Hague
Agree with your points and commend you for bringing up Vietnam. The vilification of Ho Chi Minh and containing “Communism” were covers for our wanting to get in on extracting resources from that wonderful country. Political s were a screen, much the same a tbe ruses of W, Cheney and Rummy. Evil
I don’t know how old you are but I’m 69 (tomorrow). So in ‘68 when Tet was raging and protests were surging, while I wasn’t “knowledgeable” I was very aware of all the division.
I’ve never heard anything about extraction of resources. By far, the thing that fueled this enormous tragedy was the Cold War and related paranoia over the domino theory. “Gotta draw the line somewhere”.
No one wanted to look soft on Communism. Especially JFK who was still reeling from the Bay Of Pigs disaster and the successful stare down of Khrushchev in The Cuban Missile Crisis. We were scared to death of Russian aggression
Agree. I cannot recall the minerals in Vietnam that Eisenhower reportedly wanted to acquire. Molybdenum? I do not recall. So it was pre Bay of Pigs and during the reign of President Diem— our puppet.
Yes to domino theory but there was (as there generally is) more to it. I am just a bit older than you are, btw
My husband and I have traveled several times to Vietnam, if only because it has so much going for it, and it we are interested in “their take” on the American War. It was a complicated… and and shameful.. time.
We have concluded the Ho Chi Minh basically wanted to get the imperialists and resource-extractors out of his country. The French were notorious and the Japanese infinitely cruel. The we came along. What we did in Cambodia had nothing to do with more Communism. Our depredations opened the doors to Pol Pot.
Truth be told Steve, you are one of our great the thinkers. I hope your thoughts and words spread far and wide. A good writer like you motivates us to think and does not tell us what to think. I am torn about Biden. I din't think Kamala Harris is the top pick on many minds. I think Biden's experience has been what has enabled him to succeed in many aspects. But it is imperative that Democrats win this next election. I also know that the GOP should crash and burn and re-invent itself. These are troubling times - keep writing!
I have been a fan of your work for some time (including guest appearances on cable TV) and your writing since you began to appear in that medium more recently. That said, let me offer the following "bullet point" responses to some of the thoughts expressed in your post today:
1. Your assessment of the Republican Party and its prospects for partnering in the service of the American people is sadly correct.
2. Your assignment of responsibility of Democratic Party in light of #1 is also fundamentally correct.
3. I think you overweight the significance of President Biden's age in leaping to the conclusion that he needs to pass the baton before the 2024 election. I note you subtly add a year to the age at which he would be retiring in 2029. In January of 2029 he will have just passed his 86th birthday two months prior. I think the big issue for 2024 is how the Democratic Party and the President can fulfill their leadership and governing responsibilities while not increasing the prospect of seeing Trump or a Trumpist clone elected President. It may not be fanciful to anticipate that young phenom is likely to materialize on the political stage such as did Teddy Roosevelt or Jack Kennedy or Barack Obama, but at the moment there does not appear to be a compelling reason to bet the Republic on it. And while age and youth (as in too much of it) are not quite the same issue, I would also point out that the country not only survived but was happily surprised with its push to the edge of the youth envelope when it saw TR move into the White House and actually elected a 43-year-old tyro.
4. I won't attempt to lengthen the list of potentially, extraordinarily talented bench strength that may be out there in the Democratic Party. I will simply say I was surprised that you failed to give even a small hat tip to Hakeem Jeffries. It's hard to believe he doesn't belong on the list.
5. You probably voiced a number of sentiments about the senior Senator from California which many Democrats share but decline to voice -- out of charitable discretion and gentility. Does anyone -- including the one announced candidate for that seat -- believe that she is actually going to seek re-election. Only Chuck Grassley would be so completely egocentric one hopes. And while I'm on the subject of California, I admit to some surprise that you failed to give Katie Porter (49 years old) a hat tip among the potential next generation of Democratic Party leadership.
6. I am not a reader of Kareem's posts, but I am a longtime admirer of his career and his public personna. That said, I am also aware that he is in his mid-70s. I trust you were not suggesting that he is a likely candidate for anything in the political world in light of your apparent preference for age passing the baton to youth.
7. I agree there is a lot of talent and genius and capability out there in these United States. I am confident we will continue finding it as we have -- sporadically and haltingly -- over the more or less 25 decades of our existence. Some of those appearances -- especially those in times of dire need -- have been extraordinarily improbable and lucky for the country.
hi Steve, I agree with the way you’ve phrased this article. What I disagreed with in the past are positions that disqualify any candidate solely on age. I argued that none of us know Mr Biden’s health details except himself and possibly close family and friends. I trusted him to put the interests of the country over personal ambition. So his age will shamelessly be used by opponents in a derogatory fashion. Personally, I think he ought to stick to his original plan which served him well in 2019 of not running for a second term because I think the virtue of saying what you mean and sticking with it is important. But that has nothing to do with age.
Steve, as a life-long D, I hold dear to my heart Will Rogers claim he belongs to no organized party: I am a Democrat. No, Ds tend toward chaos The Rs tends toward more lockstep leading to the MAGA takeover. Only D I can think of who might have that level of demigod reverence is FDR.
I am also thankful the Ds bench is so deep. Newsome, Whitmer, Jeffries Ryan and a host of others are ready to go.
My issue is age as the sole determinant for unfitness for office. In some cases, as the Senator mentioned, and they are not the only one, there are issues. Two have already announced interest in the seat. Biden may forget a name but his grasp on policies and international issues is solid He has not, as reported last PM in unsealed testimony, mistaken a photo of his accuser for his second wife. Use capabilities and vision, not age as the determinant to continue or retire
I haven't seen "hysteria" when you insist that Biden shouldn't run again; I see strong disagreement.
I also haven't seen you suggest an alternative that isn't Harris, Buttigieg, or Newsom who could actually win.
There is already a MAGA-like (MAGA-ish?) figure on the left - not in the sense of being a fascist who wants to end democracy, but in the sense of leading a cult of personality without substance or accomplishments: Bernie Sanders. What have the Democratic party and Democratic voters done about him and his runs for President? Defeated him soundly, twice.
Sorry Steve, it's my non-hysterical opinion that you missed the mark with this one.
Yes, I have not seen 'hysteria' either in comments that counter Steve's insistence that Biden not run again based on his age. The word 'hysteria' is a disparaging term to use for those of us that have well-considered input on this topic. I don't feel mutual respect w Steve happening on this topic -that is my non-hysterical opinion. We need the BEST QUALIFIED person, regardless of age, to be POTUS.
Yes, “erupt in hysterical indignation” over respectful disagreement seems remarkably overstated.
A piece from The Guardian by the novelist and essayist Marilynne Robinson below might be of interest to our participants. It’s already almost a year old, but many of the problems it discusses are still relevant. It does not argue one way or the other that Joe Biden is entitled to a second term, but it is a meditation on age and enormous responsibility.
This article you posted is OUTSTANDING!! Robinson says, " President Biden has entered office at a time of unprecedented turmoil, and yet he is judged by the press as if these were normal times." Her refreshing pondering and insights on Age and 'political discourse' are highly relevant to this discussion on The Warning. Thank You!
That article is truly outstanding, as Lisa stated. I simply do not understand why politics is the one field of expertise (and it IS a field of expertise, contrary to current popular opinion) where having a lot of experience is seen as a bad thing rather than a good thing.
"I know I could have a world-renowned surgeon with decades of experience operate on me, but I'd rather have this other doc barely out of medical school," said no one ever.
Yeah, do you want to have a medical surgeon with no experience and/or lacking knowledge, "Uh, Geez, I thought that was your kidney, but guess I got somethin' else, duh...!" Or, do we want a football or basket-ball pro in charge of political decisions they know little or nothing about, that impact people's lives (life and death decisions for some), because they are 'passionate' and confident? This is ridiculous, as TFG has shown to the detriment and death of thousands of people. Separation of Church and State; Separation of Reality TV and Reality of Life in the U.S.A.
Wisdom, Knowledge, Experience, Courage, Dedication, Diplomacy, Vision and Care is what we need for qualities in our leaders, as Biden has shown us. Biden's term as POTUS saved the U.S.A. If a more qualified candidate arises, then that is just wonderful -if not, we have Biden (although he may step aside anyway) and he will need to use his time and energy and his ability to delegate responsibly as wisely as possible. I trust that Biden will make the right choice for the citizens of this country.
The Senator from California, is 89 years old born in 1933. She will be 90 this year. Honoring those who have been good stewards in their elected office of our country, should not mean they must remain in office beyond their capabilities. Thank you Steve for addressing issues not everyone agrees with.
OMG, not possible to choose. Thank you for responding. HOW DO YOU EVER CHOOSE BETWEEN KP AND AS? Not possible!!!! Fortunately, I won't be voting in CA!
I agree with you; we need people in office who come from all backgrounds (not just lawyering), and who want to SERVE THEIR CONSTITUENTS, NOT THEMSELVES! But, because it takes such insane amounts of $$ to run for any public office.. it makes that office (any office) basically 'for sale' to this highest bidder. I don't see a great future for our country, nor for my grandsons. It makes me very, very sad!
I agree. The Democratic Party should/must reach out to the best of us for representative for public service. In terms of President Biden, his achievements and leadership have been remarkably successful . That’s a factual assessment devoid of emotion. I’m not the least bit concerned if he were to run against the National village idiot, Donald Trump. Biden wins that election hands down. If Ron DeSantis achieves the GOP nomination, my concern is Biden’s campaign style, combined with the pretend DeSantis pivot to the center, combined with a nation replete with low information voters. Many will not know or care about DeSantis’ authoritarian-like tendencies and implemented policies. They will see an faux-angry, little, round, younger man who talks tough and pretends moderation. DeSantis is a first class buffoon, but the GOP bar is low and compared to Trump he’s a rocket scientist. The American people could very well fall for the charade. After all, they elected Donald Trump. Biden may not measure up during the campaign with energy and style. He’s got a hell of a record to run on, but that just may not matter. I would be very contented with four more years of President Biden. I’m just uncertain he has the charisma to defeat Florida’s babbling, Trumpian Mini-me in a head to head election. But, I could be very wrong.
I would disagree with you that DeSantis is a buffoon. A buffoon is a clown, a ludicrous figure, usually an ill-educated or stupid person. DeSantis is well-educated, with degrees from Yale & Harvard Law School. He joined the Navy shortly after graduation, & served as legal advisor to SEAL Team One. He is ambitious and focused on rising in the Republican Party to the office of President. His wife, a former television host, fully supports him & advises him in this goal. At the present time, DeSantis is fully MAGA, taking Florida to extreme positions in restricting civil rights & personal autonomy. He plays to the Trump supporters in his actions. The Republicans now have complete control of the Florida government, & DeSantis rules it with an iron fist. I consider him to be dangerous to our democracy, & hope that he never wins a Federal office.
Yes, I agree with you. He is a very dangerous man. But it is not because he has post-graduate degrees. A well educated person, highly even, is not the attainment of a degree for the politically ambitious, because degrees are often used as a parameter for political competence and instead have given us terrible representatives in government. If there are Floridians willing to have him, this demands a serious conversation about what Americans who follow this form of government want for America at large, were he to run for the highest position. The Republican PARTY in government is in shambles, it is outrageously incompetent, it is risking that many in the country who have no time nor interest to seek facts just follow the R unaware of the danger it poses for all. Its irrelevancy is becoming too obvious to ignore. It has become a threat, that is continuing to poison the country with hate, division and threats to the lives of those who oppose it. And it is attacking American democracy frontally. Since America does not have a history that includes autocracy, the politics in DeSantis' state is viewed as freedom. It is not. It is leaning heavily on autocratic principles.
I agree that De Santis is a very dangerous man, ruthlessly ambitious; he thought nothing of sacrificing Floridian lives to build his credibility with the MAGA orthodoxy by discouraging vaccine uptake. One of his degrees is from Harvard to be sure, but a Republican John Kennedy he is not. What is charisma? How does it work? De Santis seems to have the secret sauce to win over a large portion of a radicalized Florida; whether he could market it nationally is another question. If he’s the nominee, then we’ll beat him, with energy, relish, and the power of sheer decency which swept the board in 2020, whether with our president or, should he step back, another good candidate. We have actual achievements and ideas, all they have is a couple of fascists.
Yes, the US is loaded with qualified thoughtful leaders with solid hearts like Abdul-Jabber and many others.
Perhaps Jack Smith is another. A registered Independent and accomplished professional with impeccable international legal credentials who may very well bring down the house of cards that is the Trump/Repub conspiracies within the next couple of years which will make him a national hero.
If the Dems were to throw their weight behind a non-politician Independent/Dem ticket, it could corral an overwhelming voter pool that would squash the radical right like the annoyingly venomous bug that it is.
Hopefully you're not comparing the likes of Kareem to the pond scum that was squawking about wanting to run the world since his dysfunctional adolescence.
I like the idea of an Independent/ Dem Ticket. How that would come about is worth exploration and energy. I always wonder why Independents don’t just become Democrats, and bring their policies....but what you’ve mentioned could grow numbers, and minds. I think it is a stupendous idea.
As a 77-year old person in great health and, thank the Good Lord, in full command of my faculties I heartily agree with Steve on the age issue. I felt Hillary Clinton — a year younger than I — was too old to run for President when she ran. I see our very fine CiF speak on some days and appear to be listing towards incoherency. And I swear at his staff for not making absolutely sure that he is NOT tired when he stands before the microphone. On FOX, nightly, they say that Biden is senile. His gait is not helpful to his image either. But re-election? Even I as a supporter feel that he is too old, especially as I look to younger leaders like Zelensky, Macron and Trudeau. But — and it’s a big but — who can run if not Biden? Who can dominate? My answer was Andrew Cuomo until he ruined his own life through hubris and a gross lack of self-awareness. So who? Not VP Harris who needs to stop giggling. Not Buttegieg or at least not yet. So who? Who can beat Trump or DeSantis?
Your substack articles were the first I ever read on substack, and they continue to be so. When I was on twitter, it was you that I looked forward to reading. Well, you and Tim Miller. ☺️ As many have said before me, you are extremely articulate.
Once I came out of the Republican tent, I considered you my "enemy". Now, I look forward to every word you have to write every day. And, I consider you my friend. Thank you for being YOU.
I love reading your substack articles. You are incredibly articulate and I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote. I wish the Dem party would take your words to heart. Why don’t YOU run for office? You’d get my vote!!!!
i concur, you have a great understanding of our history, where we came from and i think you would take this country in good directions. think about it, please. i am saying if you were to decide to run there are people that will support you, from both sides of the isle.
I agree with you, with one qualification, that anyone running for federal office understand how government works. It’s not a company, & can’t be run like a company. The government exists to benefit its citizens, not to make a profit. I would guess you feel that’s a given in anyone running for office, but I have talked with too many people who don’t seem to understand that.
I didn’t vote for Biden in the Primary, but I think he’s done a terrific job. I’ve been pleasantly surprised. Now it’s time for him to step aside & allow new blood to guide us into the future.
“I agree with you, with one qualification, that anyone running for federal office understand how government works. It’s not a company, & can’t be run like a company. The government exists to benefit its citizens, not to make a profit.” Agree with this wholeheartedly. I don’t believe candidacy should be up for the highest bidder. Just like in any other vital profession, the candidate must show education and knowledge of the position. We would not pick a doctor or a lawyer based on anything other than education and competence. I think those standards should be held for those seeking high office where life and death decisions are made. Thank you for bringing this up.
I 100% Agree! "Just like in any other vital profession, the candidate must show education and knowledge of the position." Absolutely! Thank you.
Excellent points, Jean in Florida! All true.
Whoa, Steve, i have to seriously disagree with you about Pres. G.H.W. Bush's entire approach to Iraq. Back in the mid-1990s I wrote a book-length piece on the criminality of launching that first Gulf war, widely shared among progressive friends (two different publishing houses wanted to publish it but wanted me to front the PR funds-- couldn't do it at the time).... Here's a one-page synopsis written in 2006:
Nov. 8, 2006
On the facts about Saddam Hussein and the USA: when Saddam committed various war crimes in the 1980s, he was fully supported by Pres. Reagan and Vice President and then President George H.W. Bush (the elder) as "our man in Iraq," a buffer against the Ayatollah-led Iran. Saddam and Iraq's 8-year long war with Iran exacted a terrible toll on both countries. There was never any interest by the White House in curbing Saddam until Aug 1990 when he invaded Kuwait (whose oil is a major investment for the entire Bush family, Jim Baker, et al.; that's where much of their family wealth has come from). And on that front, it's remarkable to learn, as many of us did back in 1990, that three of our own U.S. State Dept. officials, including our ambassador to Iraq (April Glaspie), all gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait, basically informing him that "your border dispute with Kuwait is none of our business."
The Associated Press's Robert Parry and other investigative journalists reported this at the time or shortly afterward. All those reports of "Saddam is like Hitler" were fabricated by the rightwing spin machine for Pres. Bush (the elder) and other Washington hawks and for the entirely corrupt Kuwaiti emirs, who had been economically strangling Iraq by deliberately overproducing oil (flagrantly violating OPEC policies) and thereby driving down the price of oil and preventing Iraq from gaining sufficient revenues to rebuild their country after the Iraq-Iran war.
The Bush clan of course sided with corrupt Kuwait in this dispute, against their old strong man ally Saddam, and Bush (the elder), with Margaret Thatcher goading him on, would not be dissuaded (even by his own State Dept.) from launching a horrendously punitive war against Iraq. Among other things, he exploited this war to overcome his perceived "wimp factor" (as Newsweek magazine termed it). And, as Bush himself said in the lead-up to the 1991 Gulf War and the day it ended, it allowed his regime to "kick the Vietnam syndrome"--Americans would now be happy and excited to send troops abroad. Thirteen years of sanctions, imposed by Bush against all advice from medical and humanitarian agencies, decimated Iraq and killed somewhere between 800,000 to 1.8 million Iraqis. (Which is one reason they didn't "welcome us with open arms" when we again invaded the country in Spring 2003).
To repeat a key point: in the 1980s, when Saddam actually committed the crimes for which he has now been tried and executed, Reagan and Bush were entirely supportive of the man, just as they, Nixon, Kissinger, and other U.S. leaders were quite supportive of a long string of cruel, murderous tyrants making life hell for too many of their citizens—e.g., Suharto in Indonesia, Mobutu in Zaire/Congo, Pinochet in Chile, Galtieri and his Peronist military dictator cronies in Argentina, Rios Montt in Guatemala, et cetera ad nauseam.
Far too many rightwingers supported Saddam when it served their interest, even when he was treating his own people miserably, and then when elite investment interests of the Bush clan and others were threatened, these same rightwingers turned on Saddam and ran the "Saddam=Hitler" publicity game to justify the first phase of destroying Iraq. Bush junior has simply continued the mendacity and cruelty, and has now destroyed all semblance of normal life for most Iraqis. Most surveys are showing that the quality of life now in Iraq for the average Iraqi is far worse than it was during Saddam's years of running a concentration-camp-like police state in Iraq.
And now, finally, after 6 years of W. Bush's misdeeds, and 12 years of GOP Congressional misdeeds and inaction, we will, starting in January, 2007, finally (it is to be hoped) enjoy a return to a semblance of sanity in our domestic and foreign policy if the Democrats legislate as true progressives, now that they have regained control in the House and Senate.
[Postscript in Jan. 2023-- the USA has done very little to improve quality of life in Iraq in these intervening 16 years.]
I am a huge fan of Steve Schmidt. Though I’ve expressed to him that I think he is one who should run for President. And I do think that. It confuses me when he gives accolades to those who’s personal interests - exacted war. Is there a precise historical moment when America became a Warmongering country? Perhaps it was our very beginning that made it so? We will never meet our full capacity until we become a nation who brokers and leads in Peace. Preventing wars (not supporting them) will have to be our edict, and we will have to be led into the philosophy. Who will that leader be? Perhaps Mr. Schmidt himself.
GHW Bush put together a strong coalition that stopped Hussein from taking over the Mideast. Don't confuse him with W who was essentially a war criminal. And dumb as he**.
As for your question about warmongering and when it started, one easy answer is Vietnam, a subject I've read a lot about. If you want to understand it at a deep level, read HR McMaster's "Dereliction Of Duty" where he makes it clear that our leaders - including JFK btw - knew as early as '63 Vietnam was a losing proposition. But we poured hundreds of millions of $$ and hundreds of thousands of men and women in anyway, simply because the Dems were afraid of looking soft on Communism.
We never learn.
Why George W Bush is a free man, I'll never know.
If any other country had done what we did to that country, W and Rummy and Cheney and Wolfowitz would have all been sent to The Hague
Agree with your points and commend you for bringing up Vietnam. The vilification of Ho Chi Minh and containing “Communism” were covers for our wanting to get in on extracting resources from that wonderful country. Political s were a screen, much the same a tbe ruses of W, Cheney and Rummy. Evil
I don’t know how old you are but I’m 69 (tomorrow). So in ‘68 when Tet was raging and protests were surging, while I wasn’t “knowledgeable” I was very aware of all the division.
I’ve never heard anything about extraction of resources. By far, the thing that fueled this enormous tragedy was the Cold War and related paranoia over the domino theory. “Gotta draw the line somewhere”.
No one wanted to look soft on Communism. Especially JFK who was still reeling from the Bay Of Pigs disaster and the successful stare down of Khrushchev in The Cuban Missile Crisis. We were scared to death of Russian aggression
Agree. I cannot recall the minerals in Vietnam that Eisenhower reportedly wanted to acquire. Molybdenum? I do not recall. So it was pre Bay of Pigs and during the reign of President Diem— our puppet.
Yes to domino theory but there was (as there generally is) more to it. I am just a bit older than you are, btw
My husband and I have traveled several times to Vietnam, if only because it has so much going for it, and it we are interested in “their take” on the American War. It was a complicated… and and shameful.. time.
We have concluded the Ho Chi Minh basically wanted to get the imperialists and resource-extractors out of his country. The French were notorious and the Japanese infinitely cruel. The we came along. What we did in Cambodia had nothing to do with more Communism. Our depredations opened the doors to Pol Pot.
I believe Tet starts this Sunday, by the way
Thank you for sharing this important information with us, Timothy -highly relevant and timely!
Truth be told Steve, you are one of our great the thinkers. I hope your thoughts and words spread far and wide. A good writer like you motivates us to think and does not tell us what to think. I am torn about Biden. I din't think Kamala Harris is the top pick on many minds. I think Biden's experience has been what has enabled him to succeed in many aspects. But it is imperative that Democrats win this next election. I also know that the GOP should crash and burn and re-invent itself. These are troubling times - keep writing!
Kamala has been unfairly demonized practically into oblivion by Fox News and the GOP.
Just like Hillary before her. Like Whitmer. Like (fill in the name of any female Dem)
Decent, hard working, smart women who scare the hell out of the GOP
If she runs it will be more of the "there's just something about her" BS.
I have been a fan of your work for some time (including guest appearances on cable TV) and your writing since you began to appear in that medium more recently. That said, let me offer the following "bullet point" responses to some of the thoughts expressed in your post today:
1. Your assessment of the Republican Party and its prospects for partnering in the service of the American people is sadly correct.
2. Your assignment of responsibility of Democratic Party in light of #1 is also fundamentally correct.
3. I think you overweight the significance of President Biden's age in leaping to the conclusion that he needs to pass the baton before the 2024 election. I note you subtly add a year to the age at which he would be retiring in 2029. In January of 2029 he will have just passed his 86th birthday two months prior. I think the big issue for 2024 is how the Democratic Party and the President can fulfill their leadership and governing responsibilities while not increasing the prospect of seeing Trump or a Trumpist clone elected President. It may not be fanciful to anticipate that young phenom is likely to materialize on the political stage such as did Teddy Roosevelt or Jack Kennedy or Barack Obama, but at the moment there does not appear to be a compelling reason to bet the Republic on it. And while age and youth (as in too much of it) are not quite the same issue, I would also point out that the country not only survived but was happily surprised with its push to the edge of the youth envelope when it saw TR move into the White House and actually elected a 43-year-old tyro.
4. I won't attempt to lengthen the list of potentially, extraordinarily talented bench strength that may be out there in the Democratic Party. I will simply say I was surprised that you failed to give even a small hat tip to Hakeem Jeffries. It's hard to believe he doesn't belong on the list.
5. You probably voiced a number of sentiments about the senior Senator from California which many Democrats share but decline to voice -- out of charitable discretion and gentility. Does anyone -- including the one announced candidate for that seat -- believe that she is actually going to seek re-election. Only Chuck Grassley would be so completely egocentric one hopes. And while I'm on the subject of California, I admit to some surprise that you failed to give Katie Porter (49 years old) a hat tip among the potential next generation of Democratic Party leadership.
6. I am not a reader of Kareem's posts, but I am a longtime admirer of his career and his public personna. That said, I am also aware that he is in his mid-70s. I trust you were not suggesting that he is a likely candidate for anything in the political world in light of your apparent preference for age passing the baton to youth.
7. I agree there is a lot of talent and genius and capability out there in these United States. I am confident we will continue finding it as we have -- sporadically and haltingly -- over the more or less 25 decades of our existence. Some of those appearances -- especially those in times of dire need -- have been extraordinarily improbable and lucky for the country.
8. Thank again for your commentary.
I like Cory Booker.
hi Steve, I agree with the way you’ve phrased this article. What I disagreed with in the past are positions that disqualify any candidate solely on age. I argued that none of us know Mr Biden’s health details except himself and possibly close family and friends. I trusted him to put the interests of the country over personal ambition. So his age will shamelessly be used by opponents in a derogatory fashion. Personally, I think he ought to stick to his original plan which served him well in 2019 of not running for a second term because I think the virtue of saying what you mean and sticking with it is important. But that has nothing to do with age.
https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-12-11/joe-biden-suggests-he-would-only-serve-one-term-if-elected-president
Steve, as a life-long D, I hold dear to my heart Will Rogers claim he belongs to no organized party: I am a Democrat. No, Ds tend toward chaos The Rs tends toward more lockstep leading to the MAGA takeover. Only D I can think of who might have that level of demigod reverence is FDR.
I am also thankful the Ds bench is so deep. Newsome, Whitmer, Jeffries Ryan and a host of others are ready to go.
My issue is age as the sole determinant for unfitness for office. In some cases, as the Senator mentioned, and they are not the only one, there are issues. Two have already announced interest in the seat. Biden may forget a name but his grasp on policies and international issues is solid He has not, as reported last PM in unsealed testimony, mistaken a photo of his accuser for his second wife. Use capabilities and vision, not age as the determinant to continue or retire
"Use capabilities and vision, not age as the determinant to continue or retire"- Well said! Thanks
Every time I see your name pop up, I wonder if I wrote it... In fact it prompts me to go add a picture to my profile to stop confusing me. ;)
Impressive profile pic - eye-catching!
I haven't seen "hysteria" when you insist that Biden shouldn't run again; I see strong disagreement.
I also haven't seen you suggest an alternative that isn't Harris, Buttigieg, or Newsom who could actually win.
There is already a MAGA-like (MAGA-ish?) figure on the left - not in the sense of being a fascist who wants to end democracy, but in the sense of leading a cult of personality without substance or accomplishments: Bernie Sanders. What have the Democratic party and Democratic voters done about him and his runs for President? Defeated him soundly, twice.
Sorry Steve, it's my non-hysterical opinion that you missed the mark with this one.
Yes, I have not seen 'hysteria' either in comments that counter Steve's insistence that Biden not run again based on his age. The word 'hysteria' is a disparaging term to use for those of us that have well-considered input on this topic. I don't feel mutual respect w Steve happening on this topic -that is my non-hysterical opinion. We need the BEST QUALIFIED person, regardless of age, to be POTUS.
Yes, “erupt in hysterical indignation” over respectful disagreement seems remarkably overstated.
A piece from The Guardian by the novelist and essayist Marilynne Robinson below might be of interest to our participants. It’s already almost a year old, but many of the problems it discusses are still relevant. It does not argue one way or the other that Joe Biden is entitled to a second term, but it is a meditation on age and enormous responsibility.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/21/joe-biden-weight-of-world-on-shoulders
This article you posted is OUTSTANDING!! Robinson says, " President Biden has entered office at a time of unprecedented turmoil, and yet he is judged by the press as if these were normal times." Her refreshing pondering and insights on Age and 'political discourse' are highly relevant to this discussion on The Warning. Thank You!
That article is truly outstanding, as Lisa stated. I simply do not understand why politics is the one field of expertise (and it IS a field of expertise, contrary to current popular opinion) where having a lot of experience is seen as a bad thing rather than a good thing.
"I know I could have a world-renowned surgeon with decades of experience operate on me, but I'd rather have this other doc barely out of medical school," said no one ever.
Yeah, do you want to have a medical surgeon with no experience and/or lacking knowledge, "Uh, Geez, I thought that was your kidney, but guess I got somethin' else, duh...!" Or, do we want a football or basket-ball pro in charge of political decisions they know little or nothing about, that impact people's lives (life and death decisions for some), because they are 'passionate' and confident? This is ridiculous, as TFG has shown to the detriment and death of thousands of people. Separation of Church and State; Separation of Reality TV and Reality of Life in the U.S.A.
Thank you Catherine for this link I urge all to read this article about Biden’s age vs. his judgement and competence. Makes the point better than I.
You’re welcome.
Wisdom, Knowledge, Experience, Courage, Dedication, Diplomacy, Vision and Care is what we need for qualities in our leaders, as Biden has shown us. Biden's term as POTUS saved the U.S.A. If a more qualified candidate arises, then that is just wonderful -if not, we have Biden (although he may step aside anyway) and he will need to use his time and energy and his ability to delegate responsibly as wisely as possible. I trust that Biden will make the right choice for the citizens of this country.
The Senator from California, is 89 years old born in 1933. She will be 90 this year. Honoring those who have been good stewards in their elected office of our country, should not mean they must remain in office beyond their capabilities. Thank you Steve for addressing issues not everyone agrees with.
Yes and there are two who have announced to run. Pleased there are those ready to go
Katy Porter and ?
Adam Schiff but I don't think he has announced. Talk about quality candidates. Hmm. How would one choose?
OMG, not possible to choose. Thank you for responding. HOW DO YOU EVER CHOOSE BETWEEN KP AND AS? Not possible!!!! Fortunately, I won't be voting in CA!
I agree with you; we need people in office who come from all backgrounds (not just lawyering), and who want to SERVE THEIR CONSTITUENTS, NOT THEMSELVES! But, because it takes such insane amounts of $$ to run for any public office.. it makes that office (any office) basically 'for sale' to this highest bidder. I don't see a great future for our country, nor for my grandsons. It makes me very, very sad!
Let Biden declare an open primary and may the best person win and become our PRESIDENT in 2025.
I agree. The Democratic Party should/must reach out to the best of us for representative for public service. In terms of President Biden, his achievements and leadership have been remarkably successful . That’s a factual assessment devoid of emotion. I’m not the least bit concerned if he were to run against the National village idiot, Donald Trump. Biden wins that election hands down. If Ron DeSantis achieves the GOP nomination, my concern is Biden’s campaign style, combined with the pretend DeSantis pivot to the center, combined with a nation replete with low information voters. Many will not know or care about DeSantis’ authoritarian-like tendencies and implemented policies. They will see an faux-angry, little, round, younger man who talks tough and pretends moderation. DeSantis is a first class buffoon, but the GOP bar is low and compared to Trump he’s a rocket scientist. The American people could very well fall for the charade. After all, they elected Donald Trump. Biden may not measure up during the campaign with energy and style. He’s got a hell of a record to run on, but that just may not matter. I would be very contented with four more years of President Biden. I’m just uncertain he has the charisma to defeat Florida’s babbling, Trumpian Mini-me in a head to head election. But, I could be very wrong.
I would disagree with you that DeSantis is a buffoon. A buffoon is a clown, a ludicrous figure, usually an ill-educated or stupid person. DeSantis is well-educated, with degrees from Yale & Harvard Law School. He joined the Navy shortly after graduation, & served as legal advisor to SEAL Team One. He is ambitious and focused on rising in the Republican Party to the office of President. His wife, a former television host, fully supports him & advises him in this goal. At the present time, DeSantis is fully MAGA, taking Florida to extreme positions in restricting civil rights & personal autonomy. He plays to the Trump supporters in his actions. The Republicans now have complete control of the Florida government, & DeSantis rules it with an iron fist. I consider him to be dangerous to our democracy, & hope that he never wins a Federal office.
Yes, I agree with you. He is a very dangerous man. But it is not because he has post-graduate degrees. A well educated person, highly even, is not the attainment of a degree for the politically ambitious, because degrees are often used as a parameter for political competence and instead have given us terrible representatives in government. If there are Floridians willing to have him, this demands a serious conversation about what Americans who follow this form of government want for America at large, were he to run for the highest position. The Republican PARTY in government is in shambles, it is outrageously incompetent, it is risking that many in the country who have no time nor interest to seek facts just follow the R unaware of the danger it poses for all. Its irrelevancy is becoming too obvious to ignore. It has become a threat, that is continuing to poison the country with hate, division and threats to the lives of those who oppose it. And it is attacking American democracy frontally. Since America does not have a history that includes autocracy, the politics in DeSantis' state is viewed as freedom. It is not. It is leaning heavily on autocratic principles.
I agree that De Santis is a very dangerous man, ruthlessly ambitious; he thought nothing of sacrificing Floridian lives to build his credibility with the MAGA orthodoxy by discouraging vaccine uptake. One of his degrees is from Harvard to be sure, but a Republican John Kennedy he is not. What is charisma? How does it work? De Santis seems to have the secret sauce to win over a large portion of a radicalized Florida; whether he could market it nationally is another question. If he’s the nominee, then we’ll beat him, with energy, relish, and the power of sheer decency which swept the board in 2020, whether with our president or, should he step back, another good candidate. We have actual achievements and ideas, all they have is a couple of fascists.
Yes, the US is loaded with qualified thoughtful leaders with solid hearts like Abdul-Jabber and many others.
Perhaps Jack Smith is another. A registered Independent and accomplished professional with impeccable international legal credentials who may very well bring down the house of cards that is the Trump/Repub conspiracies within the next couple of years which will make him a national hero.
If the Dems were to throw their weight behind a non-politician Independent/Dem ticket, it could corral an overwhelming voter pool that would squash the radical right like the annoyingly venomous bug that it is.
Republicans threw their weight behind a non-politician. Remember how that worked out?
Hopefully you're not comparing the likes of Kareem to the pond scum that was squawking about wanting to run the world since his dysfunctional adolescence.
I like and respect Kareem. He doesn’t have the experience to make an effective president.
Not suggesting President. Steve was talking about Senator from California.
Ah.
He’s more than a non-politician- He WAS and IS a criminal. All possible candidates can’t be compared to that....
I like the idea of an Independent/ Dem Ticket. How that would come about is worth exploration and energy. I always wonder why Independents don’t just become Democrats, and bring their policies....but what you’ve mentioned could grow numbers, and minds. I think it is a stupendous idea.
Liz Cheney could be Secretary of Defense. :)
Scary.
As a 77-year old person in great health and, thank the Good Lord, in full command of my faculties I heartily agree with Steve on the age issue. I felt Hillary Clinton — a year younger than I — was too old to run for President when she ran. I see our very fine CiF speak on some days and appear to be listing towards incoherency. And I swear at his staff for not making absolutely sure that he is NOT tired when he stands before the microphone. On FOX, nightly, they say that Biden is senile. His gait is not helpful to his image either. But re-election? Even I as a supporter feel that he is too old, especially as I look to younger leaders like Zelensky, Macron and Trudeau. But — and it’s a big but — who can run if not Biden? Who can dominate? My answer was Andrew Cuomo until he ruined his own life through hubris and a gross lack of self-awareness. So who? Not VP Harris who needs to stop giggling. Not Buttegieg or at least not yet. So who? Who can beat Trump or DeSantis?