Worldview: Politics of War: 2007
by A Concerned Citizen
back to the Worldview Menu
Revised 31 December 2007
Table of Contents
January
Is Israel Planning Our Next War?
Bush's Televised Speech
Chuck Hagel for President!
The GOP's Black Hole
Dems Won't Cut Funds
Some Protest
February
This Month's Politics
Is America Becoming Militarized?
March
This Month's Politics
The Libby Trial
A Market for Apocalypse
Hawkish Stupidity Lives
What Drives the Democrats?
Pelosi and Dems Betray America
April
This Month's Politics
It's not just AIPAC
Does Congress Want To Be Impotent?
Hubristic Assumptions
May
This Month's Politics
Eleanor Clift Disappoints
GOP & Media Bash Ron Paul
June
This Month's Politics
War is Unstoppable
July
This Month's Politics
Richard Perle's Case for War
Cindy Sheehan Anti-Semitism Smear
August: This Month's Politics
September: This Month's Politics
October: This Month's Politics
November: This Month's Politics
December: This Month's Politics
Politics of War: 2007
Is Israel Planning Our Next War? (9 Jan 07): Don't get me wrong. I fully support Israel, and I agree that the virulently anti-Semitic Arabs are mostly to blame for the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Moreover, I feel that Jews, especially the liberal ones, are among the most welcome and beneficial of social groups in America. Without them, we might have lost some of our basic civil liberties to Republican theocrats a long time ago. (We may be losing them anyway, but let us not digress.) Even so, the following seems rather astounding, given the recent electoral rejection of pre-emptive war in the Middle East.
WHO IS PLANNING OUR NEXT WAR?
Pat Buchanan, 9 Jan 07
Israel angrily denies the report. But, on Dec. 30, retired Gen. Oded Tira, who headed up all Israeli artillery units, burst into print with this admonition:'As an American air strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help (Bush) pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and U.S. newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure.'
'Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran', writes Tira. Thus, Israel and its U.S. lobbying arm 'must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran.'
'The Americans must act', Tira concludes. 'If they don't, we'll do it ourselves ... (and) we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack.'
According to UPI editor-at-large Arnaud De Borchgrave, Tira's line tracks the New Year's Day message of Likud superhawk 'Bibi' Netanyahu, the former prime minister.
Said Netanyahu, Israel 'must immediately launch an intense, international public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the (U.S.) government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel.'
Israel's war, says Bibi, must be sold as America's war.
We are thus forewarned. A propaganda campaign, using Israeli agents and their neocon auxiliaries and sympathizers, who stampeded us into war in Iraq, is being prepared to stampede us into war on Iran.
We are to be convinced that Iran, with no air force or navy to speak of, an economy not 2 percent of ours, which has not started a single war since the revolution, 27 years ago, is about to give to terrorists, to use on us, a nuclear bomb it may be 10 years away from even being able to build.
COMMENT: Well, what the heck! We never had a real democracy anyway. Now I understand the Democratic waffling. Alles klar!
ANALYSIS: NEVER AGAIN?
Arnaud de Borchgrave, Washington Times, 2 Jan 07
Netanyahu then said Israel 'must immediately launch an intense, international, public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel'.There are signs this is already happening in Washington. Before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld troika decided the ousting of Saddam Hussein had to become an integral part of the 'war on terror'. Eventually 60 percent of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11, even though there was no link between the two. Today, the Bush-Cheney team faces the same spin scenario: how to weave the global war on terror and the Shiite powers that be in Iran. This one is relatively simple: Iran trains and funds Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories.
Anticipating the new line, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent-CT) referred to 'Iran and al-Qaida' on Wolf Blitzer's Sunday program on CNN. That Iran is Shiite and al-Qaida Sunni becomes irrelevant in the new game plan that will most probably lead to U.S. air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities in 2007/08. Can a Democratic Congress be bypassed under a blanket authorization already secured to hunt down transnational terrorists wherever they may be hiding?
The 'neocons' who work closely with Netanyahu on what could be the next phase of a nascent regional war in the Middle East, say Bush has the authority to take out Iran's nuclear threat. Because it has only one purpose — to take out Israel. One Hiroshima-type nuclear weapon and Israel ceases to exit.
[. . .]
And if Bush doesn't take on Iran, prominent Israelis are speculating that president Clinton 2 (Hillary) will do so. Oded Tira, the chairman of Israel's Association of Industrial Manufacturers, and former chief artillery office in the IDF, said, 'Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American air strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party, which is conducting itself foolishly, and U.S. newspaper editors'.
Writing in Ynet News (online Yedioth Ahronoth), Tira said, 'We need to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure. Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party (must) publicly support immediate action by Bush again Iran'.
As for target Iran, Tira voiced widespread belief in Israel that the Jewish state must coordinate strikes with the U.S. — 'and prepare for the Iranian response'. Fearless forecast: It will be formidable.
UPDATE (27 Jan 07): Thank goodness Matt Yglesias can speak honestly about a taboo subject! He is Jewish, liberal and antiwar. Here he comes to General Wesley Clark's defense, after the general expressed himself in a way that left him open to smears. I knew that American Jews were divided on topics such as Israel and the Iraq war, or what to do about Iran, but I'm glad to have confirmation of something I'd long suspected: that the majority of US Jews are liberal and against the Iraq war, while certain well financed hawkish (i.e. neocon) lobbying groups exert disproportionate influence, not only on Bush but perhaps also on Democrats like Hillary (and certainly on Senator Joe Lieberman). How come so few pundits can speak with Yglesias' candor? Even other liberal Jewish commentators seem to shrink from this honest admission — an admission which makes most American Jews look good, in my opinion.
Jerusalem Post: Candidates for 2008 courting Jewish support
Gideon Rachman: Israelis, America and Iran
Joshua Frank: Hillary Clinton, AIPAC and Iran
HYSTERIA AT HERZLIYA
Pat Buchanan, 30 Jan 07
Newt Gingrich also brought his soothing touch to the proceedings: ... 'Three nuclear weapons are a second holocaust. ... I'll repeat it. Three nuclear weapons are a second holocaust. ... Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany and more determined than the Soviets. Our enemies will kill us the first chance they get.'[. . . ]
Mitt Romney agreed. Ahmadinejad's Iran is more dangerous than Khrushchev's Soviet Union, which put missiles in Cuba. For the Soviets 'were never suicidal. Soviet commitment to national survival was never in question. That assumption cannot be made to an irrational regime (Iran) that celebrates martyrdom'.
Came then U.S. peace candidate John Edwards. Keeping Iran from nuclear weapons 'is the greatest challenge of our generation. ... To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. ... Let me reiterate — all options'.
Back to Table of Contents
Bush's Televised Speech (11 Jan 07): Nothing new. He wants to 'surge' (i.e. escalate). Everyone says it is too little too late. No matter. Why lose when you can drag it out and hand the problem off to the next president? The most humane and logical solution would be to start seeking a smooth partition. Not much talk of that unfortunately. Instead, everybody is simply assuming that the inevitable civil war is 'unacceptable', while doing nothing serious about it. Leaving aside humanitarian considerations, I wonder whether such a regional war would be so dangerous for us. Did we care about the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s? Perhaps this war would faciliate the most militant Muslims killing each other off. It could have a purgative effect, thus setting the stage for a possible democratic greening of the Middle East. But we're decent Americans. We don't talk like that. We just blunder a foreign country into an entirely predictable civil war, with the best of intentions, of course. Then, after being so irresponsible, those same blunderers get all pious about our 'responsibility'.
William Odom: Bush Needs to Learn When to Fold
Gerard Baker: Startling and Clear: Bush Defies Critics
Margaret Carlson: Bush Repeats Same Old, Fatal Mistakes on Iraq
Jonah Goldberg: At Least Bush Wants to Win
Terry Michael: Where Are the Democrats?
Sabrina Tavernise: Iraq wants no part of escalation
Sally Quinn: The Least Immoral Choice
David Corn: Bush's Speech Full of Reality-Based Desperation
BUSH'S SPEECH IS A SAD ATTEMPT
TO SALVAGE HIS REPUTATION
Robert Scheer, Alternet, 11 Jan 07
As for the speech's content, it is by necessity an exercise in the absurd, as the president previewed in his soliloquy for doubting Republican senators his conviction that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has had a profound change of heart. This radical Shiite leader, who only days ago turned over Saddam Hussein to the tender mercies of a mob chanting its allegiance to the even more fanatical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, now is expected to lead U.S. troops in battle against his chief political ally and sponsor of much of Iraq's most deadly sectarian fighting. Even Bush must know by now that those fellows with whom he is in bed over there bear us nothing but hate. Speak not of the pangs of despised love.[. . .]
'I don't understand what he thinks is going on in Iraq, but whatever it is, he doesn't care about politics, or the Congress or his successor, when it comes to Iraq', offered Richard C. Holbrooke, a veteran of foreign debacles authored by a rival clan. 'He wants to either win the war or, since that is an impossibility, pass it on to his successor.'
Bobby Muller (Veterans for America): Vietnam All Over Again
Srdja Trifkovic: Bush Plays Va Banque
George Will: Bush & Congress, Hoping for a Miracle
THE 'SURGE' IS A RED HERRING
Paul Craig Roberts, Antiwar, 12 Jan 07
Republican US Senator Chuck Hagel declared Bush's plan to be 'the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam'. In truth, it is far worse. It is naked aggression justified by transparent lies. No one has ever heard governments in Iraq, Syria, or Iran declare 'their intention to destroy our way of life'. To the contrary, it is the United States and Israel that are trying to destroy the Muslim way of life. The crystal clear truth is that fanatical neoconservatives and Israelis are using Bush to commit the United States to a catastrophic course.
Justin Raimondo: Bush's Last Stand
Eric Alterman: Think Again: The 'Surge' and the 'Purge'
Harold Meyerson: Polarizer Vs. Polarizer
BUSH'S NEW STRATEGY — THE MARCH OF FOLLY
Robert Fisk, The Independent, 11 Jan 07
No, I would turn to another, less flamboyant, far more modern politician for prophecy, an American who understood, just before the 2003 launch of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, what would happen to the arrogance of power. For their relevance this morning, the words of the conservative politician Pat Buchanan deserve to be written in marble:We will soon launch an imperial war on Iraq with all the 'On to Berlin' bravado with which French poilus and British tommies marched in August 1914. But this invasion will not be the cakewalk neoconservatives predict ... For a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of true believers will never accept George Bush dictating the destiny of the Islamic world ...The one endeavour at which Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon... We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before.
COMMENT: Yes, Pat. My secular vision of America is the opposite of yours, but your insight into human nature far outshines those of the well-known Washington insiders — more than a few of them Democrats — who got carried away by the democratization zeal and predicted none of this, though it now seems so obvious.
BUSH ADMITS MISTAKES, SENDS MORE TROOPS
MSNBC, 11 Jan 07
Democratic congressional leaders said shortly after Bush spoke that Bush's failure to impose a deadline on the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own security doomed the initiative to failure.'Iraqi political leaders will not take the necessary steps to achieve a political resolution to the sectarian problems in their country until they understand that the U.S. commitment is not open-ended', said the statement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democratic Whip Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. 'Escalating our military involvement in Iraq sends precisely the wrong message and we oppose it.'
Anticipating such reaction, Bush warned in his speech that 'to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale.'
[. . .]
Usually loath to admit error, Bush acknowledged in his speech that it was a mistake to have allowed American forces to be restricted by the Iraqi government, which tried to prevent U.S. military operations against fighters controlled by the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a powerful political ally of al-Maliki. This time, the president said, al-Maliki had assured him there will be no such interference and that 'political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated'.
COMMENT (11 Jan 07): As the Tavernise article indicates, the Maliki government wants the US to fight Sunnis, but otherwise leave the Shias and the (Shia) government alone. I wouldn't be surprised if, in order to get some semblance of 'victory' in Iraq, or even some modicum of order, the administration simply takes the side of the Shias. They become the 'good guys'. After all, they are the majority, aren't they? (It might be convenient to temporally forget minority rights in a true democracy.) Not only would taking sides be immoral, but it would probably suck us in further, as our troops start dying from a well-defined 'enemy'. There's nothing like a little moral clarity!
COMMENT (11 Jan 07): I'm repeating myself, but notice how nobody questions the assumption of a worse situation if we disengage. Will there really be a 'terrorist sanctuary'? The Shia part may go to Iran, which would make Iran incrementally stronger (or weaker) but won't change the threat to us by much. The Sunni part will go to the Baathists, and I doubt they wish to take orders from Al Qaeda. Would a civil war be so dangerous for us? I have discussed this at some length already. Basically, the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s was much worse, but we not only felt unthreatened but supported Saddam. A civil war might also lead to the most aggressive Muslims in the region liquidating each other. And if the civil war is inevitable, why not seek a smooth partition? Is it not inhumane to be ignoring this seemingly logical solution? Again, all the talk of morality and responsibility serves to suppress thinking about options. Is it that the war supporters are grasping for any cheap excuse not to lose? Is it ego masquerading as conscience? Perhaps this happens at a subconscious level so deep and convoluted that even the protagonists are unaware. Something similar happened with the WMD going in. It was taken for granted that a threat was imminent, and so on. Just assume a set of scenarios and options that will enable and gratify your gut instincts. So what? It's only 100,000 Iraqis who pay the price. Nobody in Washington pays any price whatsoever, from top politicians to sycophantic pundits.
COMMENT (12 Jan 07): A comment is in order on Roberts' article, since it gets to the heart of the matter. Was it ever right for us, even in principle, to try to 'democratize' the Middle East? Was this not a form of imperialism and neo-colonialism, as repeated even by a 'mainstream' voice such as Brzezinski's? Of course I believe that liberal democracy is far preferable to orthodox Islam, but do we have a right to invade and try to impose it by force? (Note that I say 'try', since the attempt has been a dismal failure so far.) How can we not expect them to consider us as invaders and enemies? Would we not feel the same, if anybody invaded us for any reason? Moreover, I don't think democracy can be imposed by force, as I have said many times. It must grow from within, from a change of heart and mentality. I have agreed with the conservatives on the aggressive nature of orthodox Islam, but I now see how this has been misused for a radical foreign policy. We have a right to defend our territory from enemies, but a pre-emptive war into someone else's territory can hardly ever be justified. That is what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. I do agree that the neocons are largely populated by pro-Israel hawks, who thought they would make Israel safer with some social engineering of Muslim countries. One is hardly 'anti-semitic' if one opposes them; indeed, most American Jews were against the Iraq war. And now Bush and the neocons appear to be trying to extend the war to Iran and Syria. They are reckless gamblers who know they can push some buttons, and once troops are dying in a new theater, Congress will feel obliged to go along, based on past experience.
Back to Table of Contents
Chuck Hagel for President! (17 Jan 07): This article by Robert Scheer sums up so much of what I think that I decided to reproduce it in full for the record. I can't understand why Scheer was fired by the 'liberal' LA Times, or why he doesn't get on Sunday morning TV more often. Could my worst liberal fears about an evil corporate stranglehold over America have some truth to them?
NOTE: Maybe I'd better be a bit careful about Scheer. This page says he once extolled the virtues of North Korean Communism! Then there is this and this, from David Horowitz. Well, Scheer may be older and wiser now. I can't find anything wrong with the following article.
CHUCK HAGEL FOR PRESIDENT!
Robert Scheer, Huffington Post, 17 Jan 07
Chuck Hagel for president! If it ever narrows down to a choice between him and some Democratic hack who hasn't the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have my vote. Yes, the war is that important, and the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic candidate, still can't or won't take a clear stand on the occupation is insulting to the vast majority of voters who have.Sen. Hagel is a decorated Vietnam War vet who learned the crucial lessons of that Democrat-launched debacle of post-colonial imperialism. Even more important, he has the courage to challenge a president from his own party who so clearly didn't.
'The speech given last night [Jan. 10] by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam', Hagel said. 'We are projecting ourselves further and deeper into a situation that we cannot win militarily. To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives to be put in the middle of a civil war is wrong. It's, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. It's tactically, strategically, militarily wrong', he added.
If Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, another Democratic darling, has uttered words of such clarifying dissent on the president's disastrous course, then I haven't heard them. Instead, too many leading Democratic politicians continue to act as if they fear that if they are forthright in opposing the war, they will appear weak, whether on national security or the protection of Israel, and so ignore the clear, strong voice of the American people that just revived their party's fortunes.
Ever since President Ronald Reagan painted foreign policy as a simplistic war of good versus evil, the Republican Party has been in the thrall of neocon adventurers. Yet, the national emergence of Hagel reminds us that, two decades earlier, it was Dwight D. Eisenhower, a war hero and a Republican, who was the only president to clearly challenge the simplistic and jingoistic militarism that most Democrats embraced during the Cold War. It was Eisenhower, in fact, who refused to send troops to Vietnam, and his Democratic successors who opened the gates of war.
True conservatives, going back to George Washington, have always been wary of the 'foreign entanglements' that our first general and president warned against in his farewell address. And it is in that spirit, recognizing the limits to U.S. military power, that Hagel spoke this past Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press.
Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, late of an oft-opportunistic Democratic Party that saw fit to nominate him as recently as 2000 for the vice presidency, had just finished accusing those who don't support President Bush's escalation of the war of being 'all about failing'. In his defense of the indefensible, Lieberman baldly repeated many of Bush's lies that launched this war four years ago.
'The American people ... have been attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we're fighting in Iraq today, supported by a rising Islamist radical super-powered government in Iran', said the fear-monger. 'Allowing Iraq to collapse would be a disaster for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, for us, that would embolden the Iranians and al-Qaida, who are our enemies. And they would follow us back here.'
Never mind the ridiculous image of 'super-powered' Iran invading the United States, or the fact that foreign jihadists — arriving after the overthrow of anti-fundamentalist strongman Saddam Hussein — make up only a tiny fraction of the combatants in Iraq. The question is how the apparently intelligent Lieberman doesn't understand that the main task of our troops for most of their stay in Iraq has been, de facto, to expand the power of Shiite theocrats trained for decades in Iran. Tehran couldn't have baited a better trap.
In any case, Hagel refused to bite on Lieberman's apocalyptic vision, which somehow manages to skip the hard truth that Iraq has collapsed because of our involvement, not despite it.
'[T]he fact is, the Iraqi people will determine the fate of Iraq', Hagel responded, in what amounts to a radical opinion in paternalistic, arrogant Washington. 'The people of the Middle East will determine their fate. We continue to interject ourselves in a situation that we never have understood, we've never comprehended [and] we now have to devise a way to find some political consensus with our allies [and] the regional powers, including Iran and Syria.'
'To say that we are going to feed more young men and women into that grinder, put them in the middle of a tribal, sectarian civil war, is not going to fix the problem',he added.
Words of wisdom that set the standard for anyone running for president.
COMMENT: Notice how it's not really a left vs. right or Republican vs. Democrat thing! The Dems have done more than their share of wasting blood and treasure on futile neo-colonial wars based on simplistic Machiavellian political slogans. What irony in the idea the true conservatives like Eisenhower or Hagel would be far better for us (and the world) than Democratic bigshots like Hillary or Lieberman or even the overhyped Obama. Isn't it amazing that the leading Dems seem disdainful of the clear mandate of the election? Perhaps that is because the public is fickle, and another terrorist attack could unleash the hysteria again. (I'm all in favor of protecting the homeland and screening immigration from Muslim countries.)
UPDATE (17 Jan 07): I'll add something else. I think that Hagel and Scheer are simply more intelligent than most politicians or pundits, respectively, at least on this war. Sorry for the elitism, but there you have it. Not sure what this says about democracy... Oh wait! I forgot! The American people sent a clear message in the midterms to get out of Iraq. OK, I get it, democracy gives us a Congress dumber than the American people! Or maybe the high-flying big-ego pols and pundits in D.C. have all drunk the superpower kool-aid. It's so intoxicating just being on Capitol Hill.
UPDATE (17 Jan 07): It is interesting to read the comments. One Democrat blasts Hagel for being 'against reproductive choice'. When I check online, I find out that Hagel has (i) voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives; (ii) voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime; (iii) voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life; and (iv) voted YES on banning human cloning. This doesn't seem too extreme to me. Anyhow, I have argued elsewhere that Roe vs. Wade is constitutionally flawed, and it wouldn't be such a bad thing if the issue reverted to the states. Other criticisms of Hagel are lightweight, such as voting for the flag burning amendment, or oil drilling in ANWR in Alaska, or holding back from the dubious global warming craze. As for not voting to raise the minimum wage, I am willing to listen to economist Robert Samuelson who says that the minimum wage benefits suburban teenagers more than the poor. The war supersedes all of this, not least because of the gargantuan economic cost. But I'll keep an eye on Hagel, and maybe decide he isn't so great. Chris Dodd looks pretty good, based on what I know so far.
UPDATE (17 Jan 07): Someone else mentions that Edwards is sincerely against the war but also liberal on other issues dear to Democrats. So why not him? Well, does he have enough experience and gravitas to win? Or to be a good president?
UPDATE (17 Jan 07): I also enjoyed this comment by an old Republican named Viper:
When you spend what the next 20 nations combined spend on their militaries and yet have trouble fielding another 20K men or a total force of of less than 160K... your military is weak and is broken. The Repugs are responsible for this weakening of a military by engaging with such incompetance, lies and corruption on a War of Choice... bad choice....We spend more on intelligence than China spends on its entire military and yet still went into Iraq and thanks to Vacation Boy could not even protect the Pentagon even 45 minutes after the first plane hit WTC! Good thing the Soviets had not launched an attack....
And to keep our economy going we have to borrow from a Communist Country... not much of an advertisement for capitalism or free market concepts.
Repugs appear to be for graft, lies, cronism, massive deficits for our kids, pollution and a banana republic style country with no middle class..
What happened to my old party for 30 years... It a religious new world order party with a touch of imperialism thrown in for measure.
Hagel is the only thing left of my old party. Even McCain has kissed the dark side.
Regards
UPDATE (17 Jan 07): Or how about this timely and classic quotation from Lincoln (perhaps) mentioned by another commentator? (I'm really getting off topic. Better stop.)
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.-- Unknown, often attributed to Abraham Lincoln
Think Progress: Hagel says Cheney criticism is 'Complete Nonsense'
Justin Raimondo: The Hagel boom continues.
Think Progress: 'Anti-Escalation' Senators Vote For Escalation
John Heileman: Hagel proves his flakiness by not announcing
Jim Pinkerton: Is Hagel 'hegemony lite' ?
Back to Table of Contents
The GOP's Black Hole (18 Jan 07): Earlier, I argued that the Democrats were showing a curious and dismaying lack of principle in not taking a more vigorous stance against escalation, now that the midterm mandate is in. I wondered whether perhaps the Democrats were cynically hoping the war issue would continue to help them in 2008. Well, that may be the case! When even arch Republican Robert Novak calls the war a 'black hole' for the GOP, then it must be! I'm a moderate liberal, but I could believe that the Dems are sacrificing American lives to enhance their future political prospects. I'm that cynical. However, we must remember that politicians have a well-developed ability to submerge their true intentions under a veil of piety and responsibility, even in their own internal thinking.
THE GOP'S BLACK HOLE
Robert Novak, Real Clear Politics, 18 Jan 07
This hastens the desire of Republicans, who once cheered the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East, to remove U.S. forces from a politically deteriorating condition as soon as possible. 'Iraq is a black hole for the Republican Party', a prominent party strategist told me this week. What makes his comments so important is that he is not a maverick Republican in Congress but one of Bush's principal political advisers.As they adjust to the 2006 election returns, Republicans recognize that this was no isolated bump in the road. The loss of 323 state legislative seats across the country to the Democrats classifies last year's election as a midrange electoral disaster.
The internal Republican debate concerns how much Iraq contributed to this outcome. The White House and Republican members of Congress who voted for intervention in Iraq contend many issues led to their defeat: incompetent management of the Hurricane Katrina crisis, widespread cases of corruption and abandonment of spending restraint. But at the grass roots, Republicans tell me that Iraq was the central problem and must be erased.
[. . .] The conservative elite of the House of Representatives, members who had 100 percent positive voting records as measured by the American Conservative Union (ACU), gathered Wednesday morning for an ACU breakfast on Capitol Hill. They still talked about 'winning' in Iraq and deplored the consequences of 'surrendering'.
But they do not know how that victory can be achieved if the Iraqi government is tied to the Shiite militia, a political dilemma in Iraq that no increase in U.S. troops can solve. Republicans can only hope that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her sidekick, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, overplay their hands by cutting off funds to U.S. troops in the field. It is a slim hope for now.
COMMENT: Notice that last paragraph. To be fair to the Democrats, it is true that cutting off funds abruptly might come back to haunt them, politics being what it is. The Republicans would then hang the albatross of 'defeat' around their necks. Or maybe Novak is just trying to trick the Dems into wimping out! Who knows? At any rate, it does seem most unlikely that Maliki will discipline the militias on whom he depends, which means it is futile for us to remain. That is probably true under all likely circumstances.
UPDATE (18 Jan 07): There has been a specious argument coming from pro-war Republicans such as Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky that Congress must not interfere with 'tactics' during a war but should leave that to the Commander in Chief. The question of whether to continue or withdraw from a war is hardly a 'tactic'! This bit of verbal trickery is as transparent as substituting 'surge' for 'escalation'.
Jacob Weisberg: Republicans and the Bush dilemma
Jacob Weisberg: Republicans abandon an failing presidency
Sen. John Warner To Introduce Resolution Opposing Iraq Escalation
Eric Alterman: The madness of President George
Back to Table of Contents
Dems Won't Cut Funds (18 Jan 07): Here's a bit of a surprise, given Pelosi's strong rhetoric on the war and on the Republicans.
PELOSI WON'T BLOCK FUNDS TO STOP TROOP SURGE
ABC News, 18 Jan 07
Pelosi: Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way.It is, I think, very difficult for the president to sustain a war of this magnitude without the support of the American people and without the support of the Congress of the United States. That's why Congress will vote to oppose the president's escalation, from the standpoint of policy. We will have our disagreement.
Sawyer: But short of that — questions posed, resolutions passed — short of that, are you acquiescing in the surge if the pocketbook is the only other control mechanism?
Pelosi: The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way. But we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war.
Well, that's it! The Democrats are toothless paper tigers. I don't buy this. They could have blocked funds before the troops were ordered into combat. It has been widely reported that it would take months for the 'surge' to get from here to there. Or they could have placed stipulations on the funds. Would the President really be so callous as to order men into combat anyway? It would be an unseemly game of chicken, but I doubt he would. In fact, I doubt that he even could, if the funds were not allocated.
If even so liberal a Democrat as Pelosi won't exert the power of the purse, then Congress is impotent when it comes to war. The President can do anything: get us into a war and keep us there. What's the difference between that and dictatorship? (OK, maybe I'd better say 'monarch' instead of 'dictator'.) Does democracy mean anything on so important a matter? That bothers me a lot more than all this cant about 'harming troops'. Either Pelosi is a hypocrite, or she has had her arm twisted.
I'm not against a slow reduction in force to give the Iraqis some time to adjust and get their act together. But I disagree very much with the hypocrisy behind this cheap rationale, as well as with the implication that Congress is impotent on matters of war and peace. That's not how it's supposed to be. It's not a partisan issue but a constitutional issue. Our Constitution is gravely flawed, or is being ignored. Welcome to politics and to our pseudo-democracy! As for 'holding him accountable', that is as lame as all the hearings they will now hold. Basically, it's all an admission of defeat, especially given the midterm mandate. The voice of the people has simply been ignored.
UPDATE (19 Jan 07): Last night, Hillary Clinton gave an interview on the NewsHour. She is considered the most hawkish Democratic front-runner, so she too is against cutting funds for the escalation or doing anything other than of a symbolic nature. I was struck by how she kept saying the phrase, 'We have interests in the region'. This sounds mature enough, but it is with words like these that the American Empire has spread its tentacles into every corner of the globe. The ancient Romans used this same language.
My theory is that politicians who want to be heavy-hitters, unlike Pelosi, are careful to use the language of gravitas. They are only partly concerned with public opinion; equally important is the opinion of the elites, the think tanks, and so forth. And these elites are sold on our manifest destiny, to lead the world and poke our nose into everybody's business. You just don't seem 'serious' otherwise. After all, extensive American foreign policy 'interests' make the politicians and think tanks feel important too. It's not enough to form discrete, respectful alliances with other true democracies and leave it at that. Also, there is a desire to please the more hawkish members of the Jewish lobby.
One example of an 'American interest' mentioned by Clinton was 'Al Qaeda in Anbar province'. I have already argued that this is overblown. Al Qaeda are a miniscule fraction of the Sunni population, and I cannot imagine that the emerging Sunni state would tolerate their presence. Further, I think the concern over 'breeding grounds' of terrorism does not proceed from careful thought. Terrorists can 'breed' anywhere, including in the US and the UK. But Clinton just swallows the common wisdom of the think tanks, so that she sounds like them and is taken seriously by them.
By contrast, Pelosi now seems to me like a somewhat naive nice Catholic girl going along for the ride. When she only represented wacky San Francisco, she could feel she was her own woman. But now that she has been elevate4d by the big boys as window dressing — the first woman speaker and all that — the big boys have made it clear who is in charge. And Nancy duly obeys and forgets all about her stop the surge fervor.
Something else Clinton said was quite tricky and shrewdly calibrated. She said that she does not want to see an administration as incompetent as this one invade Iran. That language leaves open the possibility of a competent Democratic administration, perhaps under herself, invading Iran. The hawkish Jews will pick up on this discrete signal, while many less acute liberals will think she is opposed to invading Iran. Very clever! She might as well be a neocon. She is a consummate politician, which is a good reason to dislike her no matter what her position. At the moment, her polls seem to be plunging, which is gratifying. That is no doubt why she looks rather irked and tired on the show.
UPDATE (19 Jan 07): War enthusiast William Kristol gloats that Hillary might have to risk being another McGovern in order to survive the primaries, as though the general public still supports the war. He is conveniently ignoring the polls that show more than half of Americans saying they want U.S. troops out of Iraq within a year. Not very honest of Kristol, but then he is one of the neocons who spun us into this disaster in the first place. He's right on one thing: Al Gore is looking better and better. I discarded Gore at one point, because of his boring and overbearing manner, but maybe it's time to pull him out of the closet and spruce him up a bit. Even if he's a global warming nut!
UPDATE (20 Jan 07): The Pelosi story may be wrong!!!
ABC FALSELY CLAIMS PELOSI
OPPOSES CUTS FOR ESCALATION
Think Progress, 19 Jan 07
In fact, Pelosi said nothing of the sort on Good Morning America. She merely repeated her stated view that she does not support cutting funds to U.S. forces already in Iraq.Pelosi told Sawyer, '[W]e will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war. He has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy. It's a historic blunder.'
Asked about reports that President Bush has already begun increasing U.S. troop levels by 3,500 soldiers, Pelosi said, 'The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way.'
Hmmm. I read this too. Should I have been more perceptive? Probably, but ABC is still to blame for giving a misleading impression. Most readers just scan headlines and trust the paper to get the basic idea right. Anyway, most Democrats won't be cutting funds, at least not for a while yet. Was ABC playing politics? Or indulging in a cheap attention-grabbing headline, as alleged by Think Progress?
WHY WOULD CONGRESS SURRENDER?
Fred Barbash, WP, 31 Jan 07
In these matters, there is no such thing as inaction. In a contest between two branches over separation of powers, silence speaks as powerfully as words.That's because the Supreme Court rarely involves itself in disputes between Congress and the executive, expressly making it a two-way conversation — a 'shared elaboration' or 'shared dialogue' in the words of scholars — between the elected branches. When one branch drops out by failing to respond, the other branch effectively sets the precedent, which is passed along to the next generation and the generation after that.
Inaction, indeed, strengthens that precedent. Over time, inaction is taken as acquiescence, a form of approval, and the precedent becomes entrenched until it's as good as law.
IMPEACHMENT BY THE PEOPLE
Howard Zinn, The Progressive, Feb 07 issue
Still, there seems to be a special viciousness that accompanies the current assault on human rights, in this country and in the world. We have had repressive governments before, but none has legislated the end of habeas corpus, nor openly supported torture, nor declared the possibility of war without end. No government has so casually ignored the will of the people, affirmed the right of the President to ignore the Constitution, even to set aside laws passed by Congress.[. . .]
I know I'm not the first to talk about impeachment. Indeed, judging by the public opinion polls, there are millions of Americans, indeed a majority of those polled, who declare themselves in favor if it is shown that the President lied us into war (a fact that is not debatable).
Back to Table of Contents
Some Protest (24 Jan 07): President Bush asked for 'another chance' in Iraq in his State of the Union speech last night, including the famous 'surge', and today the Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee dismissed Mr Bush's request as 'not in the national interest' in a 12-9 nonbinding vote. Don't expect the war to end anytime soon, though it could wind down a bit sooner that some might have expected. That is, unless Bush decides to attack Iran, in which case all bets are off.
Joseph Biden & Chuck Hagel: A first step in Iraq
BBC: US Senate panel rejects Iraq plan
Andrew J. Bacevich: Going for Broke
HAGEL HAS GUTS
Peggy Noonan, 26 Jan 07
Whenever the camera shot broadened to show the other senators, I wondered what they were thinking. For a few it might have been, Well done, Chuck. For others, Hey, righteous indignation is my act. And some would have been thinking, That's good, ol' buddy, and no matter how long I have to wait, I'll get you for putting me on the spot, for making us look bad, for getting on your high horse and charging.But Mr. Hagel said the most serious thing that has been said in Congress in a long time. This is what we're here for. This is why we're here, to decide, to think it through and take a stand, and if we can't do that, why don't we just leave and give someone else a chance?
Mr. Hagel has shown courage for a long time. He voted for the war resolution in 2002 but soon after began to question how it was being waged. This was before everyone did. He also stood against the war when that was a lonely place to be. Senate Democrats sat back and watched: If the war worked, they'd change the subject; and if it didn't, they'd hang it on President Bush. Republicans did their version of inaction; they supported the president until he was unpopular, and then peeled off. This is almost not to be criticized. It's what politicians do. But it's not what Mr. Hagel did. He had guts.
Back to Table of Contents
FEB 07: This Month's Politics: Zbigniew Brzezinski starts off the month by giving a damning indictment of administration policy to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Unfortunately, I doubt it will have more than a marginal effect. In Baghdad on the Potomac?, Pat Buchanan ably sums up the political situation in Washington, D.C. regarding the war: everybody is trying to pass the hot potato of blame. He thinks disaster is inevitable, with incalculable consequences to our security and prestige, but Robert Dreyfuss takes a more optimistic view of our withdrawal. I did not quote his article at length, since it should be read in its entirety. Right now, it seems to me that his view is as likely as any, so let's start to get out, and help Iraqis manage the disaster as well as possible (i.e. partition).
I also note some ambiguity in the polls. It is not so clear that a large majority of Americans wants to get out, regardless of the consequences. Some portion of the November 'mandate' may indeed have been mere dissatisfaction with the war, rather than a call for withdrawal. The public may be confused or of two minds, and I don't trust all the polls either. It depends partly on how the questions are asked. One USA Today poll says, '63% want all troops home by end of 'A08'. But then another says, 'a slim majority of Americans were against the war in Iraq, but 68% said they opposed shutting off funds to fight it'. Not entirely consistent.
BRZEZINZKI'S TESTIMONY TO THE
SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
1 Feb 07
The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.Only a political strategy that is historically relevant rather than reminiscent of colonial tutelage can provide the needed framework for a tolerable resolution of both the war in Iraq and the intensifying regional tensions.
If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a 'defensive' U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the 'decisive ideological struggle' of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.
This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran — though gaining in regional influence — is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.
[. . .]
The quest for a political solution for the growing chaos in Iraq should involve four steps:
The United States should reaffirm explicitly and unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq in a reasonably short period of time. ...
DEMISE OF GOP JUST TOOK TURN FOR THE WORSE
Joe Scarborough, 2 Feb 07
Republican senators are now turning their rhetorical guns away from Democrats and toward one another. A few conservative Republican senators, whose votes usually cheer me up during bleak political times, are actually accusing Virginia's senior senator, John Warner, of providing comfort to terrorists.[. . .]
The question now is how long will Republicans stand by this war that has cost over 3,000 lives? Is it worth the $1 trillion dollars that will be added to our national debt? Is it worth undercutting our ability to strike at Iran and North Korea? I would say 'yes' to all three questions if there were the slightest chance victory was around the corner. But it is not. If you don't believe me, ask any general to tell you about the Bush surge. They will roll their eyes.
Think Progress: 'Anti-Escalation' Senators Vote For Escalation
Joshua Frank: Clinton, Obama and Edwards: Strike Iran!
Paul Craig Roberts: Criminals Control the Executive Branch
Think Progress: GOP operatives: 'Don't debate Iraq'
BBC: US House rejects Bush Iraq plan
BBC: US Senate blocks vote on Iraq war
EMBRACING DEFEAT MAY BE DISASTER FOR DEMS
Brendan Miniter, WSJ, 20 Feb 07
In mid-January an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that public support for President Bush's troop surge increased to 35%, up from 26% a few weeks earlier. The same poll found that a slim majority of Americans were against the war in Iraq, but 68% said they opposed shutting off funds to fight it, and 60% said they would oppose Congress's withholding funds necessary to send additional troops.
USA Today: Poll: 63% want all troops home by end of 'A08
Ivan Eland: Iraq: Enough Blame to Go Around
BAGHDAD ON THE POTOMAC?
Pat Buchanan, 20 Feb 07
Both houses of Congress have now gone on record opposing Bush's dispatch of 21,500 more troops to Iraq, yet neither house is willing to end U.S. involvement by cutting off funding for the war.Transparently, this is not a strategy for victory. It is a hold-the-line, stay-the-course strategy until America concludes that the price in blood and treasure of averting defeat is too high and demands that U.S. troops be brought home, no matter the consequences.
Absent a deus ex machina, we are on the road to defeat. The timing alone remains in doubt.
[. . .]
Democrats, realizing what happened to their party when they tied Nixon's hands and cut off Saigon, and South Vietnam was overrun and Cambodia fell to the genocidal rule of Pol Pot, want to end U.S. involvement but not be held responsible for what follows. For what will surely follow is a crushing defeat for U.S. policy in the Middle East, a humanitarian disaster and a wider, bloodier war.
[. . .]
A sure sign this war is unlikely to end well is the scavenger hunt in the War Party to fix responsibility for failure on anyone but themselves. In Vanity Fair, the 'cakewalk' crowd renounces Rumsfeld and Bush. The war was an integral part of our brilliant strategy, they say. But we cannot be held responsible for the incompetence of those charged with carrying it out.
The John Edwards Democrats say: If only we had known then what we know now, we would never have voted for war. And they apologize. But questions remain unanswered. Why did you get it wrong and vote for Bush's war, when Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy and half the Democratic Party got it right and voted no?
And if Edwards & Co. were fatally wrong on the critical vote of their careers, approving the greatest blunder in U.S. history, without doing due diligence, how are they qualified, and why should they be rewarded with the White House?
The McCain Republicans blame the failures on Rumsfeld for not stopping the looting in Baghdad, or on Paul Bremer for disbanding the Iraqi army and purging the Baathists, or on the generals for fighting the war the wrong way, or on the Pentagon for not demanding the troops needed to win.
The White House is preparing a case that the war has gone badly because Syria and Iran have provided terrorists free passage into Iraq and the most lethal of the weapons killing Americans. And not only the U.S. naval and air buildup in the Gulf, but reports of attacks on the Republican Guard in the non-Persian, non-Shia regions of Iran suggest someone has decided that Tehran will pay a price in blood for meddling in Iraq.
The Iraq Study Group blames no one for the disaster, but urges that we turn around and get out, the idea being that if we cannot save Iraq, as least we can save the American establishment from a political civil war breaking out here in the USA.
The real regime crisis that is coming may be right here in River City.
David Corn: The Democrats' Iraq Civil War
Fox: Obama Mocks Cheney for Admiring U.K. Troop Drawdown
Poll: Americans Strongly Support Murtha's Iraq Plan
MSNBC: Majority in poll favors deadline for Iraq pullout
Lieberman: Criticism Of Administration's Iran Intel Is 'Unwarranted'
Justin Raimondo: Murtha plan won't work
Shmuel Rosner: Dems same as Bush on Iran
Gallup Poll: Jewish Americans Most Strongly Oppose War
Senator Clinton: Remarks to AIPAC
Back to Table of Contents
Is America Becoming Militarized? (14 Feb 07): Paul Craig Roberts is a rare voice, a 'conservative' who vehemently opposes the war. (He does have Pat Buchanan to keep him company.) I will lay aside his strong claim about Presidential war crimes to focus on the striking point he makes, namely, that leading Democrats like Biden and Hillary Clinton seem more concerned with losing the war than with its justification:
CRIME OF THE CENTURY
Paul Craig Roberts, 31 Jan 07
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden declared on ABC's This Week that 'it's the failed policy of this president, going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely, going to war without enough troops, going to war without enough equipment'.Sen. Hillary Clinton, a likely Democratic candidate for president, says, 'This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy.'
The Democrats are damning Bush not for his monstrous crime but for failing at it! ... A moral, humane, decent, honest person would define 'the height of irresponsibility' as the act of taking two countries to war on the basis of lies and deception.
[. . .]
While Bush prepares in public view his war on Iran, the Democrats turn a blind eye. For the Democrats the only issue is whether or not Bush should send 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq.
Indeed, these leading Democrats sound like 'moderate' Republicans — those who aren't entirely gung-ho about the war! By now, I have been persuaded that the WMD evidence was flimsy and doctored, which makes a world of difference. Nobody really contests this anymore, except for the die-hard hawks. So aren't Biden and Clinton rather immoral and opportunistic to speak as they do? I say 'opportunistic', because like many 'moderate' Democrats, they know that public opinion is fickle when it comes to war, and could turn around with a vengeance if we start winning (something many Republicans no doubt are counting on).
Yet the fact remains: If there was anything less than an imminent threat from Saddam, then we violated the rules of war. We would surely be screaming bloody murder if the Russians or Chinese did any such thing. So I must wonder: Is the American public being slowly militarized and brainwashed to think in terms of empire? Or are the top Democrats still spooked by past Republican propaganda about the weakness of the Democratic party when it comes to defense? Let us remember that most Democrats voted for the Iraq war, along with the Republicans. As I said, it is not irrational to suppose that the American public has learned no deep lesson and is simply peeved that the war has not been going well. The implications for our democracy and for the future of the world are rather staggering. On a recent BloggingHeads TV episode, veteran leftist journalist and professor Eric Alterman says his research shows that Americans always vote for the more 'belligerent' candidate, despite what they may say to pollsters. A 'conundrum' for liberals, even responsible ones who accept war as a true last resort. (You'd think any decent person would say that!)
Then again, to be perfectly honest, some would argue that Iran is the real nuclear threat that Iraq was supposed to be. (We just got the last letter of the country wrong!) I have argued against invading or even striking Iran (see here and here). Basically, I think an invasion would be suicidal, far worse than Iraq, and even aerial bombing would be counterproductive, to put it mildly. Furthermore, there is doubt about the Iran intelligence, and we have recently snubbed serious attempts by the Iranians to smooth things over. We still refuse to talk to them! All of this leads me to think it would be immoral to bomb Iran. We lived with a nuclear Russia and China; indeed the danger was far worse. The twist this time is that Israel will supposedly be exterminated by fanatical Iran. I don't think the Iranian mullahs are that crazy, and loudmouthed Ahmadinejad has no real power. Fortunately, liberal Jews like Matt Yglesias tend to agree. As I have said before, I view liberal Jews as one of America's greatest assets, but I am starting to see the neocon wing of the Jewish Lobby as rather dangerous and sinister, though really the same could be said for all neocons and conservative Republicans.
UPDATE (14 Feb 07): There is much more one could say on this. For example, I have noticed how much emphasis the Republicans have placed on 'supporting the troops', which always seems to mean escalation. That is one path to empire. The President has the power to inject troops anywhere to contain some 'emergency'. Then those troops need more troops, and so on. Also, I was shocked by all the cheap rhetoric of 'cut and run', when the war was obviously going so badly and was so ill-conceived. That kind of rhetoric sounds militaristic and jingoistic to my ears. But the question remains. Did the midterm elections mean that Americans were simply upset that we are not winning, or have they truly developed a revulsion for unnecessary wars? No doubt there are people on both sides, but who prevails will determine the soul and destiny of our nation. I am not optimistic.
Andrew Bacevich: The New American Militarism [more]
Justin Raimondo: How close are we to a fascist America?
Paul Craig Roberts: The Brownshirting of America
John Dean: Are we on the road to fascism?
Joe Conason: It could happen here
Anthony Gregory: The Rise of an American Dictatorship
CQ: Fine Print in Defense Bill Opens Door to Martial Law
Big Eye Links: National Socialism in the USA
NEOCONS FUND AL-QAEDA GROUPS
AND NO ONE CARES?
Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com, 17 Mar 07
In this country, it's a no-brainer that the Iranians have no right whatsoever to put their people, overtly or covertly, into neighboring Iraq, a country which, back in the 1980s, invaded Iran and fought a bitter eight-year war with it, resulting in perhaps a million casualties; but it's just normal behavior for the Pentagon to have traveled halfway across the planet to dominate the Iraqi military, garrison Iraq with a string of vast permanent bases, build the largest embassy on the planet in Baghdad's Green Zone, and send special-operations teams (and undoubtedly CIA teams as well) across the Iranian border, or to insert them in Iran to do 'reconnaissance' or even to foment unrest among its minorities. This is the definition of an imperial worldview.
Google Video: Why We Fight
Naomi Wolf: Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps
Justin Raimondo: Blueprint for Dictatorship
This topic will be continued here.
Back to Table of Contents
MAR 07: This Month's Politics: Andrew Bacevich starts us out with a suggestion: Rather than interfering with the 'surge' and other ongoing operations, it would be more productive for Congress to ensure through 'legislative action' that 'preventative war' never recur. Our invasion of Iraq was a clear case of 'preventative war', which was a highly seductive idea to a frightened American public in the aftermath of 9/11. He argues that such war has long been viewed as 'immoral, illicit, and imprudent'. Yet it is all too easy for an American president to plunge us into such a conflict, given the present constitutional and legal realities. Note that both parties of Congress acquiesced in giving Bush a blank check for Iraq, 'to their everlasting shame', as Bacevich puts it. Of course, he has no desire to see this repeated with Iran, as seems all too probable. Thus, he suggests that Congress pass a 'binding resolution' ensuring that the President seek their authorization before attacking Iran.
Unfortunately, Pelosi's shocking capitulation (due to AIPAC pressure) later killed that bit of belated respect for the Constitution. Take note of Buchanan's article of 27 March, where he cites a Gallup poll showing that the American public is strongly against an interventionist policy. But who controls US foreign policy? The public? Or AIPAC?
ANDREW BACEVICH'S PROPOSED
CONGRESSIONAL 'BINDING RESOLUTION'
AGAINST PREVENTATIVE WAR
Paul Craig Roberts: Americans Have Lost Their Country
Joe Conason: Last Throes of Cheney's Credibility
Bill Kristol: Why Republicans Are Smiling
Feingold: Dems must stop war or they'll start owning it
Reuters: House Dems seek more war funds than Bush
Taki Theodoracopulos: America's Secret Motive for War
ABC: Dems to Seek Withdrawal From Iraq by 'A08
Jacob Weisberg: The Four Unspeakable Truths about Iraq
Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (ret) blasts Republicans (video)
Stephen Cohen: Conscience and the War
IRAQ: PULLED OUT OR PUSHED OUT
Robert Dreyfuss, 09 Mar 07
Two parliaments, half a world away from each other, struggled with calls to end the war in Iraq yesterday. In Washington, Democrats in the U.S. Congress ended weeks of squabbling to settle on the outlines of a legislative plan to end the war no later than August, 2008, and perhaps sooner. Meanwhile, in Baghdad, a new constellation of political parties is beginning to take shape in the Iraqi parliament, united around the idea of asking U.S. forces to leave Iraq as soon as possible. Tremendous obstacles stand in the way of pro-peace forces both in Congress and in Iraq's parliament, but if I had to guess, I'd bet that the Iraqis will ask the United States to get out of Iraq long before Congress can force the issue.[. . .]
But the harsh reality of the American political system, in which the White House holds most of the cards — from its veto power to the president's role as commander in chief — means that Congress is playing politics, not making policy. To be sure, it's good politics: over the next 18 months or so, the Democrats can draw a sharp distinction between their support for a withdrawal deadline and the president's obsessive insistence on escalating the war. That, in turn, can help guarantee that the November 2008 election results in another Democratic landslide. A recent USA Today poll showed that a stunning 77 percent of Americans favor bringing U.S. troops home if the Iraqi government fails to end the civil-war violence there. But the House legislation isn't likely to become law. Nor is an anti-war resolution in the Senate, where the Republicans are planning a filibuster to stop it.
60 Minutes: Iraqis who helped US are abandoned
Justin Raimondo: Hagel Against the War Party
Gareth Porter: Dems' Me-Too Iran Talk
Charles Goyette: Interview with Seymour Hersh
Patrick Buchanan: Bush's Thermidor
Justin Raimondo: Pelosi's Betrayal
John Nichols: Pelosi's Disastrous Misstep on Iran [more]
Yahoo News: Dems abandon war authority provision
Kathleen Parker: America's Clear and Present Danger
Website: Committee on the Present Danger
Bloomberg: Gloomy Mood Partly Tied to Income Levels
Joshua Frank: Obama's Israel Pose
TP: Report: Public Support for Iraq War In Fast Decline Since 2003
Harold Meyerson: The Long Slog (on ending the war)
YouTube: Angry antiwar Rep. Obey teaches facts of politics to liberals!
John Heileman: The GOP's Iraq PTSD
Video: Sestak, Andrews dominate debate with DeLay and Perle
Justin Raimondo: Iraq, Iran, and the Lobby
Peter Wehner: Iraq, Democrats, and the Return of McGovernism
E.J. Dionne: The Post-Bush Awakening
Pat Buchanan: Pelosi's Capitulation
Terry Michael: Where are the Democrats?
WHY WON'T MOVEON MOVE FORWARD?
PR Watch, 18 Mar 07
So why has MoveOn begun to blow hot and cold at the very moment when the political winds are seemingly blowing in favor of a speedy U.S. withdrawal? The answer boils down to some breathtakingly cynical political calculations by the leadership of the Democratic Party, with which MoveOn has aligned itself.By now even the politicians in Washington, and certainly their advisors, understand that Iraq is a lost cause. Even the Bush administration understands it. Its much-touted current 'surge' is a delaying tactic, not a serious attempt to bring order to the chaos that now exists in Iraq ...
The Democrats, however, do have a choice, and the choice that they are making is to offer symbolic statements of opposition, while in practice allowing the war to continue, and funding it. This choice is based on their realization that the war has become a political liability for Republicans. If the war ends this year, the debate during the 2008 congressional and presidential elections will turn to 'who lost Iraq'. If the war continues into next year, however, Democrats will benefit as the de facto 'anti-war party', no matter how feckless their opposition in the meantime. ...
In the short run, a U.S. withdrawal followed by the expected Iraqi national implosion will be spinnable by conservative pundits as proof that the war should have continued, and this is what Democratic politicians fear. Instead of campaigning as the party that will end the war, they are afraid that they may be labeled responsible for allowing a bloodbath to happen. But the bloodbath is happening anyway, and the longer U.S. troops stay, the worse the ultimate reckoning.
WHY THE DEMS SHOULD GO FOR IT
Peter Beinart, TIME, 22 Mar 07
Despite today's conventional wisdom, Democrats didn't suffer in the 1970s for opposing Vietnam. And they're even less likely to pay a political price for trying to end the war in Iraq. In 1973 the Senate voted to suspend funding for American military operations in Vietnam; the next year, Congress voted to cut off aid to the embattled government in Saigon. Some of today's commentators argue that those votes devastated the Democratic Party in the mid-1970s. But if so, the Democrats had a strange way of showing it. They won the 1974 midterm elections in a landslide. Two years later, Jimmy Carter grabbed the White House. To be sure, Watergate played a major role in those victories. But if the party's efforts to end the war weren't the primary reason for its success, they certainly didn't hurt.It's true that in 1972, antiwar crusader George McGovern suffered one of the biggest political wallopings in American history, losing 49 states to Richard Nixon. Surely then, Democrats suffered for opposing Vietnam? Actually, no. People forget that in 1972 Nixon ran on a peace platform too. In his convention speech, he boasted that he had ended the draft, withdrawn American troops from ground combat, pursued a negotiated settlement with North Vietnam and reduced U.S. casualties 98%. The fall was marked by feverish diplomacy between Washington and Hanoi, culminating in Henry Kissinger's declaration, less than two weeks before the election, that 'peace is at hand'.
PELOSI'S IRAQ BILL IS SMOKE AND MIRRORS
Justin Raimondo, Antiwar, 23 Mar 07
The bill she is trying to strong-arm though the Democratic Congress, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act, gives the President more money to expand the military than he asked for. It also establishes benchmarks that would supposedly regulate the number of troops in Iraq and their mission, leading to a complete withdrawal by the summer of next year. The only problem is that these benchmarks can be unilaterally waived by the President, with Congress in only an advisory role.The Pelosi bill, in short, is the most partisan, most dishonest piece of legislation possible, under the circumstances. With one hand it proffers a veritable cornucopia of goodies — benchmarks on 'troop readiness', an end to extended deployment, 'rest periods' between deployments, and, most delectable of all, a deadline of October 1, 2007, for the Iraqis to get their act together, or else we're out of there.
With the other hand, however, the Pelosi-crats hand the ball back to the Bush administration, ensuring that nothing will come of it but a campaign issue for the Democrats. It's all smoke-and-mirrors. News accounts insist the Pelosi bill requires a complete U.S. withdrawal, except it just isn't true: as currently written, the legislation provides for the stationing of considerable forces in Iraq provided they are (supposedly) going after al Qaeda, or other terrorist organizations with 'global reach'. We're just going to have to take this administration's word for it if — or, rather, when — the President makes short shrift of Pelosi's feeble benchmarks.
WP: Liberals Relent on Iraq War Funding: No pullout date
Doug Bandow: Leviathan on the Right
WP editorial: Retreat and Butter
John Nichols: House Backs Pelosi's Iraq Spending Bill
Eleanor Cliff: Jim Webb on the Warpath
David Rieff: But Who's Against the Next War?
E. J. Dionne: An Antiwar Tide on The Rise
Howard Zinn: Are We Politicians or Citizens?
Rep. Tauscher: Progressive Politics And The Netroots (video)
US PUBLIC NOT INTERVENTIONIST
Pat Buchanan, 27 Mar 07
In a Gallup poll this year that posed the question, 'Should the United States try to change a dictatorship to a democracy when it can, or should the United States stay out of other countries' affairs?' — by near five to one Americans said, 'Stay out'. Fifteen percent said 'yes' to the Bush commitment. Sixty-nine percent said to stay out of the internal affairs of other countries.Columnist David Broder cites a Penn, Schoen poll conducted Jan 30 to Feb 4. By 58 percent to 36 percent, respondents said, 'It is a dangerous illusion to believe America is superior to other nations; we should not be attempting to reshape other nations in light of our values'.
'By an even greater proportion — almost three to one', adds Broder, 'they say the main goal of American foreign policy should be to protect the security of the United States and its allies, rather than the promotion of freedom and democracy'.
By 70 percent to 27 percent, Americans agreed, 'Sometimes it's better to leave a dictator in charge of a hostile country, if he is contained, rather than risk chaos that we can't control if he is brought down.'
By 58 percent to 38 percent, American agreed with the statement that 'if negotiating with countries that support terrorism like Iran and Syria will help protect our security interests, the U.S. should consider negotiating with them'.
'Practicality trumps idealism at every turn', writes Broder.
Joe Lieberman: Things are looking up in Iraq
Michael Healy: Mindful of Past, Clinton Cultivates the Military
TP: Military sources ridicule McCain's optimism
TP: Gen. McCaffrey much more pessimistic than a year ago
Poll: Only 29 Percent Of Americans Believe The Escalation Is Working
Hardball: Sen. Joe Biden on Iraq (video)
Hardball: Gov. Bill Richardson on Iraq (video)
Americans Would Back Sanctions, Not War, Against Iran
Alexander Cockburn: That was an antiwar vote?
THE REAL 'EXISTENTIAL' THREAT
Justin Raimondo, 30 Mar 07
It's amazing that the War Party, after delivering a body blow to our military and American interests throughout the world by invading Iraq, can mobilize its forces to make yet another go of it — this time on a much larger scale. That they are doing it without much political opposition, is even more astounding — and that speaks volumes about the corruption and betrayal of our 'democratic' system, which is no reflection of the popular will. ...Where are our intellectual, political, and religious leaders? Will no one arise to end our national nightmare and lead us to safety? Both political parties are equally complicit: not a single major declared presidential candidate has spoken out against this crazed course, which seems unalterable, and, at this point, inevitable. I throw my hands up in despair at the terrible power of the Lobby, and wonder, aloud, why no one of any stature dares stand up to them.
Back to Table of Contents
The Libby Trial (7 Mar 07: Yesterday, 'Scooter' Libby was convicted for obstruction of justice in the Valerie Plame leak case. I had been assiduously avoiding this topic as a complicated time-wasting issue not directly relevant to foreign policy. That may not quite be true, as it is in fact related to the whole question of hyping the intelligence that got us into war. So I will collect some relevant articles as I find them, starting with today's reaction to the verdict. It is interesting how 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are in such disagreement over what would seem to be 'facts', and these voices are often those of prominent officials with power and responsibility. This is worrisome, to put it mildly. For example, Victoria Toensing, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Reagan, is reported to have said that the 'outing' of Valerie Plame was of little consequence, since she was just a 'desk jockey', to use Larry Johnson's words. Yet, according to Johnson, a former CIA agent himself, Plame was in fact an undercover CIA agent up until being publicly revealed, and that revelation put many other agents and sources at risk. If even a former Justice Department official can take such a casual approach to security, then we must be concerned. It would seem that what constitutes a breach of security is a matter of opinion. Must politics and foreign policy be a mostly subjective affair? I still haven't mastered the details of the case, but I would bet that David Corn gets it about right. Would that make the WSJ something other than an honest opposition?
Before the Verdict
Ray McGovern: John Bolton's Yellowcake
Justin Raimondo: Scooter Libby and World War III
Larry Johnson: The Big Lie About Valerie Plame
Since the Verdict
WP: Libby Verdict Deals Blow to Bush Administration
Sydney Morning Herald: Cheney unlikely to escape Libby verdict fallout
David Corn: Libby Trial: CIA Leak Case Ends with Guilty Verdict
David Corn: Placing Libby Above The Law
Justin Raimondo: Libby trial verdict points the way for future probes
Clarice Feldman: Libby trial an outrage from beginning to end
Ben Johnson: Libby's 'Guilty': So What?
Pat Buchanan: Martyr of the War Party
Charles Krauthammer: Time to End Fitzgerald's Folly
Michael Kinsley: The Case for Pardoning Libby
Ray McGovern: Why Cheney Lost It When Joe Wilson Spoke Out
Antiwar Radio: Ray McGovern on why Cheney went after Valerie Plame
Mark Steyn: Perverse Libby trial was revealing
Jeffrey Toobin: Case against Libby was straightworward
Jon Basil Utley: After Libby, All Roads Lead to Feith
Ray McGovern: July 14, 2003: Ill-Starred Day (recap)
Back to Table of Contents
A Market for Apocalypse (10 Mar 07): There's a new movie out called '300', about the heroic resistance of 300 Spartans against the massive Persian army at the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. It captures much the same mood as the website of John McCain, the ultra-hawkish presidential contender. Evidently, there is a market in America for apocalyptic militarism, helped along by various Biblical prophecies and badly behaving Muslims (the modern Persians), not to mention certain center-right quarters of the Jewish Lobby. I still say that the rational solution to ragtag gangs of terrorists is police and intelligence work, combined with a wise and informed foreign policy (if that is possible), and not a Global Apocalypse, however much that may satisfy the raw instincts of a certain type of Caucasian.
Back to Table of Contents
Hawkish Stupidity Lives (15 Mar 07): The following editorial shows that the brain-dead hawkish thinking of the administration still resonates with much of the country, the midterms notwithstanding. (Note: I have tried to retain a genteel tone of voice in my articles, but my frustration is getting the better of me!)
CHENEY SPEAKS TRUTH TO PELOSI ON AL QAEDA
Kevin Ferris, Philly Inquirer, 15 Mar 07
During a trip to Asia last month, Vice President Cheney, in an ABC News interview, said the troop withdrawal ideas promoted by some leading Democrats were similar to al-Qaeda's plans for Iraq:If we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy. The al-Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people — in fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit... .How does he know the enemy's intent? They tell us.You can't look at Iraq in isolation. You've got to look at it in terms of its impact, what we're doing in Afghanistan, what we're doing in Pakistan, what we're doing in Saudi Arabia. All those areas are part of the global battlefield... and you can't quit in one place and then persuade all your allies who are helping you in all those other theaters ... to continue the fight.
COMMENT: This is a (or perhaps the) typical knee-jerk conservative argument for perpetual and ruinous war. Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda when we invaded Iraq on false pretenses. Our invasion has inflamed hatred of America in the Muslim world and split Iraq along sectarian lines. We can't fight terrorism by invading the Muslim world; it's like swatting flies with a sledgehammer. We can't fix the Muslim world through social engineering. We fight terrorism through police and intelligence work, and by having a wiser and more restrained foreign policy. Fighting Al Qaeda is not like fighting an army, and it doesn't matter what they think of us. The Al Qaeda strategy is to draw us into quagmires and bleed us to death. It's not a question of will but of intelligence, where we have failed miserably. Moreover, the 'breeding ground' argument is fallacious; terrorists can 'train' anywhere (say in a New Jersey basement). And our 'friends' Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are chief promoters of terrorism. They play us much better than we play them. Yet this idiotic thinking is typical of Republicans and will still works with many Americans. (Oh, and I forgot to mention what this bovine panic has done to our civil liberties and budget...)
John Mueller: The Exaggerated Terror Threat
John Mueller: Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?
Robert Scheer: Cheney, Cornered
Jeff Huber: Al-Qaeda Is Coming!
Back to Table of Contents
What Drives the Democrats? (18 Mar 07): This YouTube video is great! A marine mom accosts liberal Congressman David Obey in the hallway and asks why the Congress doesn't just defund the war. After all, the Democrats won the last midterms because the public has soured on Bush's mideast adventure. 'We can't get the votes', he shouted. 'Do you see a magic wand in my pocket? We don't have the votes for it.' I'm so glad Obey erupted! This display of emotion has convinced me of his sincerity to end the war. I am now willing to cut the other antiwar Democrats some slack.
However, I still have a secret suspicion about the politics of the issue. Now, I fully support the existence of Israel, and I believe that the bad attitude of the Arabs is mostly responsible for the present mess. Moreover, American Jews are more strongly against the war than any other religious group. God bless them! But the all powerful AIPAC lobby seems to have a neocon slant. Not only prowar Republicans, but also the leading Democratic presidential contenders rushed to a recent conference at Herzliya to promise that Iran would never get a nuclear weapon. Such words strongly imply attacking Iran if diplomacy fails, as it probably will. I can understand Israel's fears, but the Iranian bomb is a ways off, and the US lived through decades of hair-trigger potential nuclear genocide with the Russians (and still does). Most of all, I simply don't think bombing Iran would work, and it would greatly exacerbate our problems in the Middle East. Yet I fear that the Democrats are just as likely as the Republicans to start another Iraq in Iran.
These fears are compounded by recent reports of Pelosi scrapping a provision from a funding bill that would have barred the president from attacking Iran without congressional approval. It is reported that she caved in to pressure from AIPAC. Does Pelosi suffer from amnesia? Was her arm twisted? It was precisely the foolish blank check for war that Congress gave to Bush in 2002 that has led to the present disaster in Iraq. How can Congress repeat this idiotic mistake? One wonders whether the Democrats have not mostly bought into the neocon philosophy after all, at the private level, while spouting hypocritical antiwar rhetoric to their liberal supporters. Let us remember that Democrats have traditionally been as enthusiastic as Republicans about 'spreading democracy', or simply spreading American influence under the pretext of democracy. Just think of Wilson, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson ... even Clinton.
So the situation is complicated, and some Democrats may be talking out of both sides of their mouths, trying to please both their liberal antiwar and hawkish Jewish constituencies. Nevertheless, Obey's candid anger convinces me that he is sincerely trying to stop the Iraq war and the votes really are not there. As Harold Meyerson puts it, 'In effect, what the protesters are doing is making the unattainable perfect the enemy of the barely-attainable good.' But have the Democrats really tried hard to educate the public?
The possible Iranian nuke is a very difficult issue. If one is convinced that Iran is likely to use, say, Hezbollah terrorists to plant bombs in NY and DC, then it would seem that any means must be employed to prevent them from getting the bomb. What if the probablility is only 30%? I don't think they would set a bomb off just to express their hatred. Rather, it would be part of a policy to force a reduced US presence in the Middle East. Frankly, I am in favor of that, which is another reason not to bomb Iran. And we did invade Iraq on false pretenses, which is enough reason for the nasty but otherwise rational mullahs to seek a deterrent (not to mention all the behind-the-scenes machinations of the US against Iran, which the Iranians would be justified in calling 'terrorist' sabotage). By the way, notice that the Iraq invasion has accomplished nothing but to hand a victory to Iran. Yet another reason not to bomb. We just don't know what the hell we are doing.
Justin Raimondo: Iraq, Iran, and the Lobby
George Soros: On Israel, America and AIPAC
PR Watch: Why Won't MoveOn Move Forward on Iraq?
BUT WHO'S AGAINST THE NEXT WAR?
David Rieff, NYT Magazine, 25 Mar 07
Earlier this year, Vice President Cheney insisted that the administration had not 'taken any options off the table' as Iran continued to defy United Nations calls for it to abandon its nuclear ambitions. The response from Democrats was not long in coming. Senator Clinton helped lead the charge, reminding the president that he did not have the authority to go to war with Iran on the basis of the Senate's authorization of the use of force in Iraq in 2002. But what Senator Clinton did not say was at least as interesting as what she did say. And what she did not say was that she opposed the use of force in Iran. To the contrary, Senator Clinton used virtually the same formulation as Vice President Cheney. When dealing with Iran, she insisted, 'no option can be taken off the table'.Speaking to a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobbying group, on March 2, Senator Obama said pretty much the same: the Iranian regime was 'a threat to all of us', and 'we should take no option, including military action, off the table'. John Edwards has been even more categorical. In a January speech in Israel, he said, 'Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons'. And he added, 'We need to keep all options on the table'.
Members of the Bush administration can surely be excused for wondering why, when he uses such language, Cheney is accused of saber-rattling, whereas when the leading Democratic presidential candidates use the same language, there are virtually no complaints within the Beltway or on the major editorial pages, and there is widespread support from the Democratic Party's foreign-policy elite.
Indeed, the national-greatness conservatism advanced by neoconservative figures like William Kristol, and in large measure adopted by the Bush administration as it prepared for war in Iraq, finds its echo in a national-greatness liberalism among leading Democrats. National-greatness liberalism, the argument goes, was the foreign-policy signature of Democratic political predominance from Truman forward; any step away, toward more modest ambitions, is seen as McGovernite weakness destined for defeat.
In this context, and despite what many antiwar activists who voted Democratic in 2006 must have expected — they continue to challenge all the candidates, but especially Clinton, to sharpen their opposition to the Iraq war — the three front-running Democratic candidates seem to base their logic for a drawdown in Iraq not on the desirability of bringing troops home but of being able to deploy them elsewhere. They and their policy analogues (figures like Richard Holbrooke and Ivo Daalder) argue that Iraq is a distraction in the global fight against the jihadists and that leaving Iraq will free up forces to pursue that struggle more effectively elsewhere.
Unqualified Offerings: Hillary really is a hawk
THE DEMOCRAT'S WAR FUNDING DEBACLE
John V. Walsh, Counterpunch, 26 Mar 07
Under pressure from the peace movement and a handful of antiwar legislators, Speaker Nancy Pelosi had inserted a few poison pills into the supplemental for war funding — in the form of restrictions and deadlines for the war. However these dollops of poison had many antidotes in the form of the numerous loopholes provided to Bush. And so it was basically a bill to make the Democrats look good without terminating the war. In this way the Democrats could satisfy their real constituencies, AIPAC and other pro-war forces, while posturing for peace. Look good to the people, bash Bush and satisfy the real constituency. This was the plan.As predicted, the phony poison pills were not acceptable to the stubborn pro-war Representatives and to the champions of a 'Unitary' Executive, that is an emperor. They vowed to vote it down. That was the moment of sweetness. If but a handful, literally, of the 'anti-war' Democrats voted against the bill, there would be no war funding. A crisis would be precipitated and a real debate over the war would have to begin in the Congress.
IN BATTLE OVER WAR, PELOSI WINS
E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 27 Mar 07
Last week's narrow House vote imposing an August 2008 deadline for the withdrawal of American troops was hugely significant. So was the Senate's 50-48 vote Tuesday afternoon to keep a call for pulling out of Iraq in its version of the supplemental appropriations bill to finance the Iraq War. In both houses of Congress, anti-war sentiment is strong, and growing.The House vote was a test of the resolve of the new House Democratic leadership and its ability to pull together an ideologically diverse membership behind a plan pointing the U.S. out of Iraq.
To understand the importance of the House's decision, one need only consider what would have been said had it gone the other way: A defeat would have signaled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's powerlessness to create a governing majority from a fragmented Democratic membership. In a do-or-die vote, Pelosi lived to fight another day by creating a consensus in favor of withdrawal that included some of her party's most liberal and most conservative members.
UPDATE (9 Apr 07): Maybe it's not just AIPAC! See here.
Back to Table of Contents
Pelosi and Dems Betray America (21 Mar 07): I've covered this a bit already, but it now seems like such a 'watershed' event to me that I will devote a special section to it. Basically, Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi capitulated to the more hawkish Democrats by stripping the new military spending bill of language that would have required the President to seek approval from Congress before attacking Iran. As Raimondo and Buchanan both note, keeping the language would not have weakened Bush in dealing with Iran; it simply implements the intention of the Constitution in matters of war. It was a similar provision after 9/11 that got us into the disaster in Iraq. Bush rightly interpreted it as a blank check.
How could the Democrats make this blunder again? It seems that Pelosi caved in when she got booed by AIPAC. As I discussed in the previous article, the vast majority of American Jews are antiwar, so this has nothing to do with Jews per se. But the power of AIPAC over the Democrats is really frightening. Basically, the popular will counts for nothing when it comes to war, and the 'sole superpower' has been hijacked by a handful of pro-Israel hawks and the interests of another nation. Quite amazing! Partly we have the general ignorance of the American public to blame for this, but also the mainstream media has utterly failed in its duty to report the truth, as it also treats Israel and AIPAC as a sacred cow.
Our democracy is dysfunctional; war is unstoppable; and most of us fools don't even know it! Don't count on the Democrats to be anything like a real opposition party when it comes to Israel and war. It is not too much to call this a 'betrayal', given the strong antiwar rhetoric from the Democrats during the last midterms, when the public clearly signaled its intentions. This is truly a watershed event for me! For the first time, I realize how futile it is to place any trust in the Democrats when it comes to the most important issue: war. The implications for democracy in general are profound. Democracy can be killed by corruption. That's the only way to explain Pelosi's shameless capitulation to a handful of major donors.
UPDATE (21 Mar 07): This development casts a cynical light on other news events, at least in my eyes. For example, when an AIPAC-friendly Senator like Chuck Schumer (D-NY) makes a big fuss about the Gonzales 'scandal' (the firing of US attorneys that smells of politics), I wonder if he and other such Democrats aren't really glad to have a diversion away from the war bill betrayal. And perhaps all their antiwar rhetoric is hypocritical, which might be the real reason they don't actually stop the Iraq war. (It is said that cutting the funding for the troops would be political suicide, but is there really no way to strangle the war without hurting the troops? By attaching provisions to the spending and so forth? I really wonder.) Then we have the ridiculous spectacle of the left getting enamored with the dubious science of global warming, which only helps the hawks, by again diverting attention from the crucial issues. I guess the fundamental problem is overall stupidity. Maybe democracy was a bad idea to begin with.
PELOSI'S BETRAYAL (ON ATTACKING IRAN)
Justin Raimondo, Antiwar, 14 Mar 07
From a report:Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a l