Swing and Miss: Mitt Romney and New START Posted by The Editors

This piece is by Timothy Westmyer, an M.A. candidate at Georgetown University. Views expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and not necessarily reflective of the views of any organization or institution with which he is affiliated.

Mitt Romney’s foreign policy message centers on his promise to “never, ever apologize.” That is unfortunate, because he owes the American public an apology for his false predictions on New START.

The former Massachusetts governor took to The Wall Street Journal’s opinion page earlier this month to recycle complaints about New START he first aired in a July 2010 op-ed Fred Kaplan called the most “shabby,” “misleading,” and “thoroughly ignorant” editorial he has read in 35 years. Today, we can add one more modifier to that list: proven wrong.

New START entered into force on February 5, 2011 and is already a success. Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, called the treaty a “bright spot in the U.S.-Russian relationship.” Russian cooperation with tougher sanctions on Iran and North Korea, overland transportation routes to Afghanistan, and cancelling the sale of advanced air defense systems to Iran are just some of the national security benefits made possible by the “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations. 

The U.S. military would beg to differ with Governor Romney’s view that President Obama got “virtually nothing in return” for New START. On-site inspections and data exchanges to verify New START have already begun. The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, testified in favor of prompt ratification to restore the ability to monitor the Russian arsenal that was lost with the expiration of START I. A detailed picture of the Russian strategic force has since emerged – including viewing the new Russian RS-24 missile – which lets U.S. defense planners develop plans and budgets with a more accurate threat assessment. 

New START placed no major limitation on U.S. missile defense plans. Romney wrote that the treaty’s preamble was proof that Russian negotiators shackled U.S. flexibility on missile defense. The preamble merely highlights an obvious link between offensive and defense weapon systems. Even if Romney’s reading was correct, a treaty’s preamble is nonbinding. It has about as much legal obligation as a fortune cookie. 

The Obama administration is going full steam ahead with the Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense in Europe. Initial tests in September successfully demonstrated that the infrastructure would be able to defend America’s allies in Europe from ballistic missile threats in the Middle East. Spain recently joined the Netherlands, Romania, Turkey and Poland as hosts for key elements of the system. This momentum should put to rest any concerns about restrained U.S. flexibility.

Romney speculated that New START’s Bilateral Consultative Commission would use its “broad latitude to amend the treaty with specific references to missile defense.” Unsurprisingly there were no end-runs on missile defense at the commission’s inaugural meeting this spring. On the contrary, Gottemoeller suggests that the Treaty’s implementation has been a “pragmatic, business-like and positive” experience for all parties.

The Russians are wary of future U.S. missile defense plans, but the Obama administration has initiated a dialogue over their concerns. Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher visited Moscow earlier this month to reassure Russia that the system is not directed at the Russian nuclear deterrent. The missile defense system, Tauscher said, “would only chase the tail of a Russian ICBM or SLBM.”

The new bipartisan consensus that nuclear weapons play a shrinking role in defense puts Governor Romney outside the foreign policy mainstream. In a 2007 op-ed by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn, these statesmen encourage leaders to eliminate Cold War era nuclear arsenals and prioritize efforts to keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. In a major foreign policy speech he delivered last month, Romney remarkably overlooked the threat of nuclear terrorism.

The next president must not turn the “reset” in U.S-Russian relations into a “relapse.” In a White Paper released last month, Romney doubled down on his mistaken predictions and promised, as president, to “review the implementation of New START” to “determine whether [it serves] the best interests and security of the United States.” Abandoning New START and future reductions would only encourage Russia to build new weapons, decreasing American security.

Whether or not Governor Romney becomes the GOP presidential nominee, his disproven claims about New START will continue to resurface, as seen in his recent warnings about the need to “prepare for war” with Iran. Pundits and voters would be wise to remember these false predictions. The next time Mitt Romney tells you it is going to rain, think again before grabbing an umbrella.

Photo: White House

The GOP war on 'Smart Power' Posted by Jacob Stokes

I have a piece up at CNN.com's GPS blog entitled "The GOP war on 'Smart Power.'" Here's a quick excerpt:

On foreign policy, the platform shared by Republican candidates for president can be encapsulated in one phrase: the war on smart power.

The concept of smart power was coined in 2004 to describe the belief that trade, diplomacy, foreign aid and the spread of American values should be employed alongside military force to achieve U.S. goals in the world. It brings together a mix of soft power, the proverbial carrot, with hard power, the stick, in order to achieve aims. The concept is so basic, so elemental as to be almost cliché – it’s foreign policy 101. And yet the Republican field has dedicated itself to rejecting it.

In the first debate focused solely on foreign policy issues, Rick Perry promised to start the foreign aid budget at zero and make receiving nations re-justify their assistance every year; Mitt Romney and others agreed. That view shows a profound misunderstanding of the role aid plays in fighting America’s wars and of the miniscule proportion of the budget it consumes. Without the proper civilian trainers, nations who beat back insurgent forces find it hard to rebuild functioning societies. The U.S. has encountered this problem firsthand in Afghanistan, with tragic consequences.

Read the rest here.

While We're on the Subject of American Exceptionalism - Some Vox Pops Posted by David Shorr

Over at NYTimes.com's Caucus blog, Richard Stevenson wrote on Friday about the Republicans' "Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism" line as potent political weapon. I have written about this before, mainly to emphasize how out of touch and myopic it is. Actually, I suggested the more accurate name for the Republicans' idea would be American Infallibility or American Narcissism. (Within the Times family, op-ed columnist Charles Blow offers his own reply.) 

But with the topic being the supposed political appeal of the Republicans' argument, the best way to respond is to get views from the public. Thank goodness for The Caucus' comments section, where we can find a sampling of popular sentiment.

As you'll see, people realize -- perhaps more than they're given credit for -- that we live in a 21st Century world that demands more than shallow slogans. I only read about half of the nearly 400 comments (and some of the below are excerpts), but they strike me as the sentiments of good stewards of America's example and tradition.  

The Fresser (Forest Hills, NY) understands that America needs the rest of the world's sympathy rather than hostility:

The Republican definition of American Exceptionalism is seen around the world as American Arrogance, wins us no friends and gains us many enemies. 

These clowns think they understand global economics and business, but to compete in today's global economy, we need friends and trading partners, not more angry foreign nationals who refuse to purchase American goods.

Blue Deep in the Red States (Atlanta) knows that it's not exceptional to deny the challenges facing the country:

Exceptionalism is not waving a banner while such critical issues are before us. Rather exceptionalism acknowledges our challenges as well as our strengths. The GOP continues to live in a fanstasy world. 

King Cranky of El Paso calls BS on the GOP economic argument:

By trying to tie "American Exceptionalism" to our military and overseas debacles, the Republicans hope to hide another reality, that cutting government social safety net spending, pushing austerity on the vast majority of the people not already at the top of the financial ladder, and weakening unions has NEVER led to an increase in private sector, middle class jobs, and there's no reason to think that outcome will be any different this time around.

Tommy Tune writes in from Heartland, USA:

Exceptionalism and unilateralism were at the heart of the Bush II presidency, and look how that turned out. And most people haven't forgotten that. The candidates may be making the argument, but that does not mean that anyone is buying it. Voters are much more in tune with what is going on in government and are also more knowlegeable than they were from 2000 to 2008. The republicans have got their work cut out for them, and this exceptionalism argument will not fly. 

Succinctly from oncepermile in Katy, TX:

American exceptionalism, aka, hubris.

bcamarda of NJ:

"American Exceptionalism" is just the usual GOP code for "Anyone who disagrees with me is unpatriotic." I'm going on 56 and I've been hearing that from the GOP all my life. Boy, does it ever get old. And boy is it ever stupid. 

Phil in NY sets the bar:

The label "exceptional" is earned, not just inherited. Saving the world from Hitler: exceptional. Goldman Sachs: not so much.

Leon Panetta Has Officially Lost it Posted by Michael Cohen

Serial exaggerator and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta yesterday spoke in Groton, Connecticut to shipyard workers and said this (see if you can pick out the hidden crazy statement):

There are still threats out there. We face threats from Iran; we face threats from North Korea; we face threats from cyber. This is a whole new world in which cyber-warfare is a reality. It's the battlefield of the future. We face the threats from rising powers -- China, India, others -- that we have to always be aware of and try to make sure that we always have sufficient force protection out there in the Pacific to make sure they know we're never going anywhere. In addition to that, we've got a Middle East that remains in turmoil. We're always going to have to respond to the challenges in that part of the world as well. So when you look at the world that we're dealing with, we still have a lot of threats.

It wasn't the part where he called cyber warfare the battlefield of the future; or when he suggested that US still faces "a lot" of threats . . . it was the part where he suggested that INDIA IS A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES. India!?! In what alternate universe where Leon Panetta apparently has taken up residence is India a "threat" to the United States? 

Now before you ask if perhaps Panetta misspoke or got confused, which is today what his press office is claiming, keep in mind . . . he said basically the same thing a month ago:

From terrorism to nuclear proliferation; from rogue states to cyber attacks; from revolutions in the Middle East, to economic crisis in Europe, to the rise of new powers like China and India. All of these changes represent security, geopolitical, economic and demographic shifts in the international order that make the world more unpredictable, more volatile and, yes, more dangerous.

It's a gaffe when you say it once. It's something else when you say it twice. This all comes on the heels of Panetta's claim that returning the US to its fiscal year 2007 defense budget would "invite aggression." When I wondered at the time who that aggression might come from . . . apparently it's India.

And not only is Leon Panetta continuing to make hyperbolic statements about the US position in the world he is expressing some rather odd budgetary priorities for a liberal Democrat. Here's what else he said yesterday:

The federal budget is roughly about $4 trillion. About a trillion of that is in what's called discretionary funds on the domestic side and on the defense side. Three-fourths of the federal budget is wrapped up in entitlement programs. And I said, you know, you've cut the hell out of the discretionary side of the budget. You've taken steps; I'm going to implement those cuts. But the time has come, if you're serious about deficit reduction, you got to take on the three-fourths of the budget that has grown incredibly over these last few years, and you got to deal with revenues. 

To be clear Panetta is right that the discretionary side of the budget has been cut like hell . . . but not the defense budget, which rose annually by 9% from 2001-2009. Now granted the Pentagon is taking a budgetary fiscal and will be taking a more serious one if sequestration happens, but let's at least acknowledge that the DoD budget has been on quite the upward trajectory for the past decade. 

But that of course isn't the worst part of what Panetta said. That came when in urging the Congress to cut entitlement spending for old people and poor people he told Congress to "lead" on the issue:

I really urge the leaders in the Congress, I urge this committee: Suck it up, do what's right for the country. You know, I think the country wants these people to govern. That's why we elect people, is to govern, not to just survive in office. We elect them to govern. That involves risks, that involves tough choices, but that's what democracy is all about.

After all nothing says political courage like shredding the social safety net so that the US can preserve a bloated DoD budget to fight phantom security threats like India.

Congrats to DA Founder Suzanne Nossel Posted by Jacob Stokes

Suzanne Nossel, founder of this blog, was just named the new executive director of Amnesty International USA. Congratulations, Suzanne!

Josh Rogin has the details:

Amnesty International USA (AIUSA) has named State Department official Suzanne Nossel as its new executive director.

Nossel, who most recently served at the State Department as deputy assistant secretary for international organizations, will assume her new role at AIUSA in January. In the meantime, she is working as a visiting senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. A long time human rights lawyer and activist, Nossel's portfolio at State included multilateral human rights, humanitarian affairs, women's issues, and public diplomacy. She worked on U.N. resolutions related to Iran, Syria, and Libya, and played a leading role in U.S. engagement at the U.N. Human Rights Council.

She had previously served as Human Rights Watch's chief operating officer, deputy to the ambassador for U.N. management and reform at the U.S. mission to the United Nations, vice president at Bertelsmann Media Worldwide, and as a management consultant at McKinsey & Company. She is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and has also been a fellow and scholar at the Century Foundation, the Center for American Progress, and CFR.

Read the rest here.

Photo: U.S. State Department

Asia Trip Underscores the Need to Ratify Law of the Sea Treaty Posted by Jacob Stokes

While I was reading through the coverage of the president’s big month in Asia, the pressing importance of ratifying the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was underscored once again. Reuters reports on comments by Hillary Clinton about ongoing disputes in the South China Sea:

She said disputes in the sea lanes, a possible flashpoint in Asia, should be resolved through the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which defined rules on how countries can use the world's oceans and their resources.

That could embolden Southeast Asia's hand against China, which has said it would not submit to international arbitration over competing claims to the area, believed to be rich in natural resources and a major shipping lane…

"The United States does not take a position on any territorial claim, because any nation with a claim has a right to assert it," she said in Manila, while marking the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty. 

"But they do not have a right to pursue it through intimidation or coercion. They should be following international law, the rule of law, the U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea." 

Clinton went on to say that the U.S. sees the Law of the Sea Treaty as the framework through which all disputes should be settled. Such a claim would have a lot more resonance if the United States was party to the treaty. With less than a year until the election, it’s highly unlikely – nay, impossible – that the treaty will pass before voters go to the polls. But it should be high priority post-2012.

Members of Congress and senators from both parties should support it. Conservatives should get beyond their narrow concerns about giving up a small slice of sovereignty, as well as their dislike of international organizations broadly, and understand that UNCLOOS is a key treaty for standing behind Asian allies. It’s an important mechanism for ensuring their ability to resolve disputes like the ones in the South China Sea through a law-based process instead of succumbing to, as Clinton put it, intimidation and coercion.

As Adm. Thad Allen, Richard Armitage and John Hamre argued back in April in the New York Times:

Ratification makes sense militarily as well. According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the convention “codifies navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global mobility of our armed forces.” In other words, it enhances national security by giving our Navy additional flexibility to operate on the high seas and in foreign exclusive economic zones and territorial seas. This is particularly important in the Asia Pacific region and the South China Sea, where tensions among China, Japan and Southeast Asian nations have increased because of conflicting interpretations of what constitutes territorial and international waters…

…Last July, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton gained much respect by reassuring the Southeast Asian nations that the United States strongly supported multilateral efforts to address those territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and denounced China’s heavy-handed, unilateral tactics. But strong American positions like that are ultimately undermined by our failure to ratify the convention; it shows we are not really committed to a clear legal regime for the seas.

The Law of the Sea Treaty will help us back our allies in Asia and encourage China to rise responsibly – it should be a commonsense part of America’s pivot back to Asia.

Photo: GlobalSecurity.org

While We're on the Subject of Republican Foreign Policy... Posted by David Shorr

In all honesty, there is a perverse pleasure in watching everyone catch on to the utter inanity of the Republicans' foreign policy pronouncements -- a superficiality that's been our bread and butter at Democracy Arsenal for years. I have long argued that the right wing's talking-point-thin pot shots at President Obama's policy won't constitute a genuine debate until the opposition's arguments draw more scrutiny themselves. Glad we finally got here.

Aside from our own Michael Cohen's excellent (of course) scorecard of the candidates' performances Saturday night, I recommend Max Fisher over at The Atlantic on the GOP hopefuls' nine craziest statements. First off, most commentaries have remarked on the hot flashes of common sense that overcame a number of candidates, and in the lead-in to his piece Fisher noted one that got by me:

Mitt Romney suggested working through Saudi Arabia and Turkey to pressure Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad (which sounds an awful lot like "leading from behind")

This rings a bell for me because it's so similar identical to my own response when Shadow Government's Kori Schake slammed Secretary of State Clinton for saying, in Kori's words, "that it mattered more what Turkey and Saudi Arabia said about Syrian repression than the United States." My point was that in any political arena, a stance by any player who moves out of the usual alignment -- i.e. is surprising or newsworthy -- always carries more weight. This is the sad state of our foreign policy discourse, that even a respected expert like Kori cries "DECLINIST" with the flimsiest of pretexts.

But let's get back to the Fisher piece, which puts last Saturday's zero-based foreign aid budgeting boomlet at the top of his worst ideas list. Fisher rightly faults this demagogic craze for a failure to grasp the value and purpose of aid, and he links to this piece in The Economist which explains the folly of the idea at length. To which I only add Michael Magan's post over at Shadow Government, to give you the perspective of an insider who was involved in the George W. Bush administration's push for increased foreign aid.

Oh, and I should also mention James Lindsay's CFR.org post (a digest of his slightly longer piece), which highlights the buzzsaw of reality awaiting these slogans if a Republican president ever tried implementing them. To which I only add that Republicans shouldn't be so sure that will work any better in the election than in government. If we give the American voter any credit for having a BS detector for how the world really works -- and I certainly do -- they'll see through this stuff like the emperor's new clothes.

Photo: IowaPolitics.com

The Not-So-Great Debaters Posted by Michael Cohen

So I'm a little late to the game here (especially after the phenomenal work of my DA colleagues) but my take on each candidate's performance at the GOP national security debate is up at Foreign Policy this morning.

Here's some thoughts on Michele Bachmann's "interesting" performance:

Michele Bachmann -- The Loose Cannon: I've been having a tough time trying to figure out the nuttiest thing that Michele Bachmann said on Saturday night. Was it when she ludicrously argued that if the president had sent a surge force of 40,000, rather than 30,000, troops to Afghanistan, it would have ensured U.S. success in the war there? Was it when she said the Middle East "table is being set for worldwide nuclear war against Israel"? Was it when she said that Obama is allowing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to run the CIA (a comment that will undoubtedly come as a surprise to the ACLU -- and the CIA)? Was it when she praised the Chinese communist government because it doesn't have a modern welfare state and, in particular, "food stamps" or an AFDC federal program that the United States hasn't had for 15 years?

No, the nuttiest moment came when Bachmann said that Obama has decided to "lose" the war on terror (a comment that will undoubtedly come as a surprise to a certain resident at the bottom of the Arabian Sea).

 You can read the whole thing here

Leon Panetta Is Losing It Posted by Michael Cohen

As regular DA readers are no doubt aware Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has been saying some rather outlandish things about the impact of across the board defense cuts on the Pentagon . . . but on Thursday he went completely off the deep end.

Lawmakers, Panetta said, needed to understand that U.S. troops “are willing to put their lives on the line to sacrifice for this country; you sure as hell can sacrifice to provide a little leadership to get the solution we need in order to solve this problem.”

He went even further on Thursday, using arguably the strongest rhetorical weapon in his arsenal. Mandatory defense cuts, he warned, would weaken the armed forces to the point that enemies would be emboldened to attack the U.S.

“In effect, it invites aggression," Panetta said during the new conference, just his second since taking office in July . . .

Panetta said those cuts would leave the military "a hollow force" which "retains its shell but lacks a core." 

“It’s a ship without sailors. It’s a brigade without bullets. It’s an air wing without enough trained pilots,” Panetta said. “It’s a paper tiger.”

There are a few problems with this argument. First of all, cutting defense spending is a form of leadership. it's just not the kind Panetta prefers. Instead he'd rather see cuts in the "two-thirds of the federal budget that still has yet to be considered for deficit reduction" along with some higher taxes. Apparently in Leon Panett's world nothing says leadership like cutting services for older and vulnerable Americans so that the Pentagon doesn't have to make tough choices about spending priorities.

Second, as Ben Armbruster points out, the cuts being considered would not leave the US a hollow force . . . unless one believes that the US military circa FY 2007 was a hollow force because those are the spending levels that the Pentagon would be returned to if budget cuts go into effect (and let's again remember that those cuts wouldn't begin until January 2013 which would give Congress plenty of opportunity to reverse them).

Lastly, the notion that cutting defense spending back to 2007 levels would "invite aggression" is beyond ludicrous. Aggression from who? Al Qaeda; the same organization that Panetta declared over the summer to be practically kaput? How about China, which has shown no inclination to be anything but a regional power and has a defense budget that even after cuts would remain far smaller and less dynamic than the US force? Or maybe Panetta met Russia or Venezuela or the Taliban or North Korea or
who knows what country - after all Panetta doesn't bother mentioning what unspecified country would view US defense spending as a reason for unchecked aggression. He just throws it out there to frighten people into believing that large, but reasonable cuts to a bloated Pentagon budget will "invite aggression."

I understand Panetta's driving impulse to protect his agency from big cuts. I suppose any agency head would do the same thing; but the arguments and language that Panetta is using are completely out-of-bounds; represent the worst sort of national security fear-mongering; are indicative of the overall insecurity on defense matters that defines a generation of Democratic politicians; and are divorced from any sort of larger reality about US defense needs and the threats facing the United States in the 21st century.  In short they are a bunch of bull.

But look, the President was warned.

Republicans on National Security -- Is This the Best You Can Do, Really? Posted by David Shorr

If nothing else, devoting an entire GOP campaign forum to national security and foreign policy -- the CBS News / National Journal organizers called it the "Commander in Chief Debate -- helps accentuate the preparation and seriousness the candidates have devoted to international affairs. Or the lack thereof, since some candidates appeared utterly unserious and unprepared.

First, a quick best and worst. It was no contest for best: Jon Huntsman. Gov. Huntsman's quotient of substance to platitudes / cheap applause lines was way above everyone else. Of course, foreign policy seriousness is a pillar of his candidacy (bless him). And of course his poll numbers have been stuck in the basement. If there are any centrist Republicans among our readers, this man is trying to rescue you from the fire-breathers. (BTW, another very interesting moment was Rick Santorum's answers on Pakistan, where he seemed to employ the same strategy as Huntsman.)

Worst was also an easy call: Herman Cain. The man said almost nothing of substance tonight -- and "almost" might be too generous.  He keeps reaching for the same line about how presidents have plenty of advisors and don't really have to know anything.  "Herman Cain, the candidate who will make up for his ignorance by seeking a lot of advice."  Don't know if that's going to work. At one point, Cain tossed in the word strategically a couple of times because, you know, that sounds commander-in-chiefish.

To the extent that issues were debated (not all that much), the most interesting were Iran and China, which were the subjects of other posts here on DA.  On Iran, Kelsey explains that every idea raised by the candidates either is already an element of President Obama's policy of pressuring Iran over its nuclear program (particularly amusing were all the loud calls for covert action), or would have disastrous unintended consequences. When the debate moderator posed the Iran question, he specifically asked the candidates to name steps the Obama administration wasn't already taking. The moderators (bless them) made a game effort throughout the proceedings to spur the candidates to speak in practical terms.

Then on China, Jacob points out that a full-blown confrontation over their over-valuation of the Chinese currency is unlikely to work and could lead to a counterproductive trade war. Again, big points to Huntsman for calling Mitt Romney out on this. The larger problem for the discussion was indeed the major disconnect between the candidates prescriptions / slogans and the real world challenge of getting other players to comply with America's wishes. (For a similarly downbeat assessment of the debate, see Ron Fournier of debate co-sponsor National Journal.)

Most of the candidates are using the same foreign policy strategy: think of something that sounds tougher than President Obama's policy -- or tougher than what you can get people to believe about current policy -- and never mind whether your recommendation would fly in the real world. Thus we have Rick Perry's idea of taking US foreign aid back to a zero base for all countries and reassess whether the recipients deserve our aid, i.e. whether they support America's every move. Ruling out negotiations with the Taliban was another big idea tonight, which begs the question of whether you believe in the importance of a political solution in Afghanistan.

Then there were the full-throated defenses of American greatness. During one of Mitt Romney's answers I tried to count the number of times he said America. Rick Perry plowed those fields by attempting a hard-to-follow riff on President Reagan's "ash heap of  history line" (Fournier noted the same Perry moment). But seriously does anyone outside the 30% of Americans who make up the hard core of the GOP base believe that America's problem is that we don't throw our weight around enough?? I've been thinking about Teddy Roosevelt lately. These Republicans are only taking half of TR's advice about walking softly and carrying sticks.

Speaking of the Republican base, the debate audience once again proved its maturity aggressive self-righteousness. In past debates, people in the crowd have cheered for the death penalty and depriving people of health care or booed gays in the armed services or moderators pressing Herman Cain on his  problems with women. Tonight the big thing was getting tough with terror suspects, including a few candidates who see no problem with torture. (The candidates' statements on detainee treatment barely qualifies as a debate, but James gamely picks apart their nonsense.)