Daily Archives: October 19, 2003

Loving Your Opponent to Death

Posted on October 19, 2003 by Michael Froomkin

Not Geniuses has a pretty smart appraisal of California AG Bill Lockyer's otherwise bizzaro revelation that he voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Basically the theory is that it's a smart and cynical move,

Bill has never voted for a Republican before, he voted no on the recall, he couldn't bring himself to vote for a candidate Californians didn't like, and now he can start working with Schwarzenegger an ally? He's praying that his optimism isn't misplaced and setting up a context for Arnold to con him? He's setting up a whole [expletive deleted] storyline for Arnold to fit into if he missteps even once! And it gets better.

Arnold will [expletive deleted] up, this much is guaranteed. He may block some of Lockyer's liberal policies, thus angering Californians. He may cut services we don't want cut, he may play partisan politics, he may screw with environmental legislation, he may anger Latinos, he may fail. No matter what he does, Lockyer is going to run against him — and he is going to run against him as an experienced politician who was sucked into Arnold's aura of optimism and saw first hand that it was but a sham.

Posted in Politics: US | Leave a comment

Uzbekistan, Our Ally In the Iraq and Afghan Conflicts, Is Boiling Prisoners

Posted on October 19, 2003 by Michael Froomkin

Here's a candidate for humanitarian invervention (particularly if you belive Iraq was one): Uzbekistan. According to this article in the Guardain, Ambassador accused after criticising US, the government of Uzbekistan—an important ally in the war against whatever it is we are fighting, and which receives a US bribe subsidy of half a billion dollars per year, sounds like, well, Iraq.

The UK embassador to Uzbekistan was undiplomatic about certain local customs, like the jailing thousands of political prisoners, and the government boiling some of them to death. So, he's in trouble. His friends blame pressure from the US. The UK denies the pressure (but they would, wouldn't they?). The Guardian suggests that instead of being outspoken about the Uzbekistan's abuses, the US government supports the regime.

The important thing here is not the details of a British ambassador's career. The important thing is what this reminds us about the side effects of the Administration's obsession with Iraq. Add the entrenchment of the murderous regime in Uzbekistan to the calculus the next time someone explains how the world is better off without Saddam.

How many other murderous regimes is it worth entrenching to get rid of one?

Continue reading →

Posted in Politics: International | 2 Comments