Tuesday, March 30, 2004
"Oops, I forgot, I'm a total freakin' hypocrite."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist joined in the general melee of Clarke bashing that was orchestrated by TeamBush last week. His speech on the Senate floor in which he accused Clarke of perjury (a charge subsequently toned down) also included this chestnut:
"I am . . . troubled that someone would sell a book, trading on their . . . service as a government insider with access to our nation’s most valuable intelligence, in order to profit from the suffering that this nation endured on September 11, 2001."
One must assume that Senator Frist had forgotten about a book titled When Every Moment Counts: What You Need to Know About Bioterrorism from the Senate's Only Doctor. It was penned by. . . oh, yeah, Dr. Senator Bill Frist and hit the streets shortly after 9-11 when random anthrax attacks killed several, closed entire Senate office buildings, and had average Americans zapping their junk mail in the microwave.
Luckily, Hesiod over at Counterspin Central reminds him, and the rest of us, while adding some nice commentary to boot.
Utterly shameless, these folks.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist joined in the general melee of Clarke bashing that was orchestrated by TeamBush last week. His speech on the Senate floor in which he accused Clarke of perjury (a charge subsequently toned down) also included this chestnut:
"I am . . . troubled that someone would sell a book, trading on their . . . service as a government insider with access to our nation’s most valuable intelligence, in order to profit from the suffering that this nation endured on September 11, 2001."
One must assume that Senator Frist had forgotten about a book titled When Every Moment Counts: What You Need to Know About Bioterrorism from the Senate's Only Doctor. It was penned by. . . oh, yeah, Dr. Senator Bill Frist and hit the streets shortly after 9-11 when random anthrax attacks killed several, closed entire Senate office buildings, and had average Americans zapping their junk mail in the microwave.
Luckily, Hesiod over at Counterspin Central reminds him, and the rest of us, while adding some nice commentary to boot.
Utterly shameless, these folks.
Life During Wartime
The 'real deal' on the ground in Iraq continues to be poignantly detailed by Riverbend, the girl blogger of Baghdad.
Her story about uncovering a tale of corruption, woe and brutality comes to light during a mundane visit to a family friend.
Indeed, much of what she conveys is so deeply meaningful because of the absurdity of blackouts, mistaken arrests, kidnappings, and terror politics that surrounds the mundanity of people celebrating birthdays, sending kids off to school for the very first time, and negotiating life with pesky, nosy neighbors. Kind of like your and my life, but with Humvees, carbombs, power outages, and lots and lots of automatic weapons thrown in to spice things up.
This particular episode she recounts about a young girl's arrest, along with her mother and five brothers (most of whom are still being detained), highlights the problems we will continue to have as long as we are in Iraq. Here's how this miscarriage of justice came about:
"M. and her uncle later learned that a certain neighbor had made the false accusation against her family. The neighbor's 20-year-old son was still bitter over a fight he had several years ago with one of M.'s brothers. All he had to do was contact a certain translator who worked for the troops and give M.'s address. It was that easy."
We detain these people and we get the blame, even though it was clear that the US troops were as duped as anyone in this whole affair. But does anyone think that is absolving the US military or US government in the eyes of those wrongfully accused or their families?
Riverbend concludes that the US has got a long way to go when speaking of the girl's Iraqi guards in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
"By the end of her tale, M. was crying silently and my mother and Umm Hassen were hastily wiping away tears. All I could do was repeat, "I'm so sorry... I'm really sorry..." and a lot of other useless words. She shook her head and waved away my words of sympathy, "It's ok- really- I'm one of the lucky ones... all they did was beat me."
Think about this girl's story the next time you hear folks ask, "Why do they hate us?" "How could they strap on bombs and kill themselves and other innocent people?" Ask yourself, and maybe those folks asking the questions, how much could you take, how much could you experience, and how much could you witness before anger, anguish, and despair would push you into utterly irrational action?
That's by no means an excuse, but it starts toward an explanation and an understanding. Contrary to TeamBush opinion, if we don't try to understand, we're never going to be able to win, no matter how much will and sheer power we manage to exert across the world.
The 'real deal' on the ground in Iraq continues to be poignantly detailed by Riverbend, the girl blogger of Baghdad.
Her story about uncovering a tale of corruption, woe and brutality comes to light during a mundane visit to a family friend.
Indeed, much of what she conveys is so deeply meaningful because of the absurdity of blackouts, mistaken arrests, kidnappings, and terror politics that surrounds the mundanity of people celebrating birthdays, sending kids off to school for the very first time, and negotiating life with pesky, nosy neighbors. Kind of like your and my life, but with Humvees, carbombs, power outages, and lots and lots of automatic weapons thrown in to spice things up.
This particular episode she recounts about a young girl's arrest, along with her mother and five brothers (most of whom are still being detained), highlights the problems we will continue to have as long as we are in Iraq. Here's how this miscarriage of justice came about:
"M. and her uncle later learned that a certain neighbor had made the false accusation against her family. The neighbor's 20-year-old son was still bitter over a fight he had several years ago with one of M.'s brothers. All he had to do was contact a certain translator who worked for the troops and give M.'s address. It was that easy."
We detain these people and we get the blame, even though it was clear that the US troops were as duped as anyone in this whole affair. But does anyone think that is absolving the US military or US government in the eyes of those wrongfully accused or their families?
Riverbend concludes that the US has got a long way to go when speaking of the girl's Iraqi guards in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
"By the end of her tale, M. was crying silently and my mother and Umm Hassen were hastily wiping away tears. All I could do was repeat, "I'm so sorry... I'm really sorry..." and a lot of other useless words. She shook her head and waved away my words of sympathy, "It's ok- really- I'm one of the lucky ones... all they did was beat me."
Think about this girl's story the next time you hear folks ask, "Why do they hate us?" "How could they strap on bombs and kill themselves and other innocent people?" Ask yourself, and maybe those folks asking the questions, how much could you take, how much could you experience, and how much could you witness before anger, anguish, and despair would push you into utterly irrational action?
That's by no means an excuse, but it starts toward an explanation and an understanding. Contrary to TeamBush opinion, if we don't try to understand, we're never going to be able to win, no matter how much will and sheer power we manage to exert across the world.
Friday, March 26, 2004
The Draft?!
This article from Dateline Alabama talks about the role of women in a bill currently before the Congress that seeks to reinstate. . . the draft.
Excuse me?
Fear not, the piece states clearly that the proposed legislation has little chance of passing. But that it has been run up the flagpole at all speaks to the desperate straits that our military now finds itself in.
As this Charles Pope article from last November shows, the military has been concerned for some time now about our nation's diminishing troop capability.
The main thrust of the article is this:
"Whether or not a draft is reinstated, debate about troop strength and the commitment to Iraq will continue. The United States has more than 130,000 soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, a deployment that has virtually drained the Army of its troops. One division remains in the United States."
Perhaps, like me, you've noticed a much larger than normal number of military ads on Tv these days. This Stars and Stripes article(another 'liberal media' outlet) reveals that even last year there was a good deal of mixed feelings even among troops on the ground about the war effort.
The real issue has to do with the National Guard. Back during Vietnam joining the Guard was a way to 'get out' of going into combat. Today, 40% of our current strength on the groung in Iraq comes from Guardsmen. This Boston Globe article noted that:
"(T)he U.S. Army fell short of its re-enlistment goals this fiscal year, "largely the result of a larger than expected exodus of career Reservists, a loss of valuable skills because such staff members are responsible for training junior officers and operating complex weapons systems."
Weekend warriors are no longer buying that tale the military has been peddling successfully for a while now, leaving a new draft as a real possibility to fill our current and growing need in Iraq.
This article from Dateline Alabama talks about the role of women in a bill currently before the Congress that seeks to reinstate. . . the draft.
Excuse me?
Fear not, the piece states clearly that the proposed legislation has little chance of passing. But that it has been run up the flagpole at all speaks to the desperate straits that our military now finds itself in.
As this Charles Pope article from last November shows, the military has been concerned for some time now about our nation's diminishing troop capability.
The main thrust of the article is this:
"Whether or not a draft is reinstated, debate about troop strength and the commitment to Iraq will continue. The United States has more than 130,000 soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, a deployment that has virtually drained the Army of its troops. One division remains in the United States."
Perhaps, like me, you've noticed a much larger than normal number of military ads on Tv these days. This Stars and Stripes article(another 'liberal media' outlet) reveals that even last year there was a good deal of mixed feelings even among troops on the ground about the war effort.
The real issue has to do with the National Guard. Back during Vietnam joining the Guard was a way to 'get out' of going into combat. Today, 40% of our current strength on the groung in Iraq comes from Guardsmen. This Boston Globe article noted that:
"(T)he U.S. Army fell short of its re-enlistment goals this fiscal year, "largely the result of a larger than expected exodus of career Reservists, a loss of valuable skills because such staff members are responsible for training junior officers and operating complex weapons systems."
Weekend warriors are no longer buying that tale the military has been peddling successfully for a while now, leaving a new draft as a real possibility to fill our current and growing need in Iraq.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Conservatives get tough on TeamBush Iraq policy
We've known for a while now that members of the GOP's core coalition have been splintering in their support for TeamBush going into this election cycle. Fiscal conservatives are really worried about the ballooning deficit driven by huge spending increases and ill-timed tax cuts. Rank-and-file GOP congresspeople must also be getting a bit chafed about how the administration (and the GOP leadership on the Hill) has consistently manipulated, lied, cajoled, and withheld key information to get TeamBush legislation such as the Medicaid reforms (aka, The Pharmaceutical and Insurance Industries Assistance Package) passed. Attempted bribery and intimidation on the House floor, both serious felonies, have been alleged by Republicans and are currently being investigated. And remember, these are their own teammates who suffered through this treatment, not some Democratic pinko from Taxachusetts or rag-wearin' camel jockey from somewhere bad over there.
Karma being karma, however, it would appear that conservatives are starting to take issue with this 'war president's' foreign policy (read war policy) as well. This is a critical rebuke for TeamBush, which is basing its electoral strategy on portraying W as a decisive and incisive leader on foreign affairs.
A quick aside: That his handlers have already chosen to put their eggs in one basket speaks volumes about the general failure of his domestic policies. As if one needed any more evidence after his doomed sop of an anti-gay marriage amendment that has no chance of even getting a simple majority in either chamber but is there to appease his fundamentalist base.
Back to our regularly scheduled rant: There is increasing evidence that conservatives are coming out to question Bush's foreign policy, namely his decision to attack Iraq in the midst of a struggle against terrorism. Richard Clarke is just the most famous at the moment. Despite TeamBush attempts to paint him as a petulant, vindictive, misinformed, politically motivated peacenik whiner, his record speaks for itself. He is a registered Republican who worked at the highest levels of our nation's security apparatus under four presidents (three of whom were also Republicans). As his memoirs should make clear, he was considered a war hawk in the Clinton cabinet. His critique of Bush policy (and where he's run afoul of TeamBush's loyalty provision) is that he went after Iraq and didn't concentrate his resources on al Qaeda--a move which in fact weakened, not enhanced, our nation's and western society's struggle against militant fanatics.
And he's not alone in that assessment. Eric Margolis, writing for The Conservative magazine, writes about the nearly optionless morass in Iraq, saying:
"(T)he Bush administration is faced with a basic contradiction between its claims of forging a truly democratic Iraq and U.S. strategic ambitions in the region. A free vote in Iraq will produce a Shia-dominated government sympathetic to neighboring Iran. And the ultimate test of any genuine democracy in Iraq will be its ability to order U.S. forces out of Iraq, something the Bush administration will not allow."
He is left to conclude that the US must:
"(H)and Iraq to the UN and pull out. This would produce intense neocon wailing about loss of credibility and giving in to terrorism. But in fact, the longer the U.S. stays in Iraq, the more credibility it loses, and the more it stokes terrorism."
Another strong voice from the right against TeamBush foreign policy has emerged from Admiral James Webb, ret., who in the 1980's was Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. Webb, like Clarke, is no peacenik assailing Bush's policy with give-peace-a-chance pleas. Instead, he strikes at the heart of Bush's folly. I apologize for the long quote, but it's just so well stated. Webb writes:
"Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace.
Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.
There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment he deserves."
If for that reason alone, this man simply does not deserve a second term.
We've known for a while now that members of the GOP's core coalition have been splintering in their support for TeamBush going into this election cycle. Fiscal conservatives are really worried about the ballooning deficit driven by huge spending increases and ill-timed tax cuts. Rank-and-file GOP congresspeople must also be getting a bit chafed about how the administration (and the GOP leadership on the Hill) has consistently manipulated, lied, cajoled, and withheld key information to get TeamBush legislation such as the Medicaid reforms (aka, The Pharmaceutical and Insurance Industries Assistance Package) passed. Attempted bribery and intimidation on the House floor, both serious felonies, have been alleged by Republicans and are currently being investigated. And remember, these are their own teammates who suffered through this treatment, not some Democratic pinko from Taxachusetts or rag-wearin' camel jockey from somewhere bad over there.
Karma being karma, however, it would appear that conservatives are starting to take issue with this 'war president's' foreign policy (read war policy) as well. This is a critical rebuke for TeamBush, which is basing its electoral strategy on portraying W as a decisive and incisive leader on foreign affairs.
A quick aside: That his handlers have already chosen to put their eggs in one basket speaks volumes about the general failure of his domestic policies. As if one needed any more evidence after his doomed sop of an anti-gay marriage amendment that has no chance of even getting a simple majority in either chamber but is there to appease his fundamentalist base.
Back to our regularly scheduled rant: There is increasing evidence that conservatives are coming out to question Bush's foreign policy, namely his decision to attack Iraq in the midst of a struggle against terrorism. Richard Clarke is just the most famous at the moment. Despite TeamBush attempts to paint him as a petulant, vindictive, misinformed, politically motivated peacenik whiner, his record speaks for itself. He is a registered Republican who worked at the highest levels of our nation's security apparatus under four presidents (three of whom were also Republicans). As his memoirs should make clear, he was considered a war hawk in the Clinton cabinet. His critique of Bush policy (and where he's run afoul of TeamBush's loyalty provision) is that he went after Iraq and didn't concentrate his resources on al Qaeda--a move which in fact weakened, not enhanced, our nation's and western society's struggle against militant fanatics.
And he's not alone in that assessment. Eric Margolis, writing for The Conservative magazine, writes about the nearly optionless morass in Iraq, saying:
"(T)he Bush administration is faced with a basic contradiction between its claims of forging a truly democratic Iraq and U.S. strategic ambitions in the region. A free vote in Iraq will produce a Shia-dominated government sympathetic to neighboring Iran. And the ultimate test of any genuine democracy in Iraq will be its ability to order U.S. forces out of Iraq, something the Bush administration will not allow."
He is left to conclude that the US must:
"(H)and Iraq to the UN and pull out. This would produce intense neocon wailing about loss of credibility and giving in to terrorism. But in fact, the longer the U.S. stays in Iraq, the more credibility it loses, and the more it stokes terrorism."
Another strong voice from the right against TeamBush foreign policy has emerged from Admiral James Webb, ret., who in the 1980's was Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. Webb, like Clarke, is no peacenik assailing Bush's policy with give-peace-a-chance pleas. Instead, he strikes at the heart of Bush's folly. I apologize for the long quote, but it's just so well stated. Webb writes:
"Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace.
Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.
There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment he deserves."
If for that reason alone, this man simply does not deserve a second term.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Doth they protest too much?
Attacks against former counterterrorism-czar Dick Clarke by TeamBush have been the most aggressive and most all-hands-on-deck in the history of this administration. Timed to coincide with Clarke's interview on 60 Minutes last Sunday in advance of his book release for Against All Enemies literally every person from the administration who might have something to say about this guy has been on the tube, in print, and giving interviews to vigorously rail against him.
As Knight-Ridder's William Douglas detailed, the attacks ranged from his ability as NSC counterterrorism expert (Condi Rice), to his minor role in high-level meetings (Cheney), to plain old ad hominem mocking by Press Secretary Scott McClellan, who goofed on his name by saying, "This is just Dick Clarke's American Grandstand--and he just keeps changing his tune." Get it? Get it?
In fact, McClellan's silliness was probably the best display of TeamBush's overall strategy toward Clarke (and also, Kerry): Get out in front early with multiple disparaging remarks that tear him down across a wide front. Paint him as a misguided waffler with an ax to grind. They know that accuracy is barely relevant in these offensives, so it is given the short shrift.
Hoping to stem that tide, Josh Marshall has taken administration refutations point-by-point, and has found that they are either:
"saying things that are either demonstrably false or highly debatable. Along the lines of little discipline, note the contradictory nature of the attacks. In some, we did everything Clarke wanted; in others, he was out of the loop. Hard to figure both are true. It's scattershot because they're desperate and don't have the facts on their side."
One thing TeamBush has not done is provide any direct evidence that what Clarke is saying is actually wrong.
It's hard to believe that the administration hasn't been shaken by these revelations, coming as they do just the day before Clarke and TeamBush luminaries such as Powell and Rumsfeld among others are to speak before the 9-11 Commission.
Here's another view. Clarke is just one person on a growing list of people (Karen Kwiatowski, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, John Snow, and many others) who has served our country in a variety of roles, under both Democratic and Republican administrations going back thirty years who was so shocked by the single-minded moral bankruptcy of this administration (in finance, industrial policy, taxation, war, and diplomacy) that he had to come forth and tell what he witnessed.
The intense and, as Marshall argued, somewhat scattered nature of these attacks is more reminiscent of desperate lashing out than disciplined rebuttal. Storm clouds are gathering over the administration, and it clearly fears that the outcome won't be managed to its favor or benefit.
Attacks against former counterterrorism-czar Dick Clarke by TeamBush have been the most aggressive and most all-hands-on-deck in the history of this administration. Timed to coincide with Clarke's interview on 60 Minutes last Sunday in advance of his book release for Against All Enemies literally every person from the administration who might have something to say about this guy has been on the tube, in print, and giving interviews to vigorously rail against him.
As Knight-Ridder's William Douglas detailed, the attacks ranged from his ability as NSC counterterrorism expert (Condi Rice), to his minor role in high-level meetings (Cheney), to plain old ad hominem mocking by Press Secretary Scott McClellan, who goofed on his name by saying, "This is just Dick Clarke's American Grandstand--and he just keeps changing his tune." Get it? Get it?
In fact, McClellan's silliness was probably the best display of TeamBush's overall strategy toward Clarke (and also, Kerry): Get out in front early with multiple disparaging remarks that tear him down across a wide front. Paint him as a misguided waffler with an ax to grind. They know that accuracy is barely relevant in these offensives, so it is given the short shrift.
Hoping to stem that tide, Josh Marshall has taken administration refutations point-by-point, and has found that they are either:
"saying things that are either demonstrably false or highly debatable. Along the lines of little discipline, note the contradictory nature of the attacks. In some, we did everything Clarke wanted; in others, he was out of the loop. Hard to figure both are true. It's scattershot because they're desperate and don't have the facts on their side."
One thing TeamBush has not done is provide any direct evidence that what Clarke is saying is actually wrong.
It's hard to believe that the administration hasn't been shaken by these revelations, coming as they do just the day before Clarke and TeamBush luminaries such as Powell and Rumsfeld among others are to speak before the 9-11 Commission.
Here's another view. Clarke is just one person on a growing list of people (Karen Kwiatowski, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, John Snow, and many others) who has served our country in a variety of roles, under both Democratic and Republican administrations going back thirty years who was so shocked by the single-minded moral bankruptcy of this administration (in finance, industrial policy, taxation, war, and diplomacy) that he had to come forth and tell what he witnessed.
The intense and, as Marshall argued, somewhat scattered nature of these attacks is more reminiscent of desperate lashing out than disciplined rebuttal. Storm clouds are gathering over the administration, and it clearly fears that the outcome won't be managed to its favor or benefit.
Monday, March 22, 2004
The northern perspective, one year on
While I know that our President is chiding some Americans for worrying about the opinion of foreigners, I think this article by Paul Heinbecker, the former Canadian representative to the United Nations, really hits a couple of very cogent points.
The most telling paragraph to me follows, italics mine:
"The most obvious consequence is that the United States and its posse are caught in a morass. They cannot end the occupation precipitously without triggering a civil war and undoing the good they have done in removing Saddam Hussein. They cannot stay in Iraq without losing more soldiers and more money. Echoes of Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Iraqi toll also rises. As one Arab ambassador at the United Nations put it, the Americans have swallowed a razor and nothing they do now will be painless or cost-free."
Worth a read indeed.
One last note I thought of while pondering this piece. In the States it seems we are most feverishly gripped by the morality of our policy actions--was the war right or was it wrong? I would only offer that I can't think of a single instance where really sound policy was also immoral policy. It's only when one gets into justifying one's actions regarding bad, unsuccessful policy does one have to run the morality gauntlet.
While I know that our President is chiding some Americans for worrying about the opinion of foreigners, I think this article by Paul Heinbecker, the former Canadian representative to the United Nations, really hits a couple of very cogent points.
The most telling paragraph to me follows, italics mine:
"The most obvious consequence is that the United States and its posse are caught in a morass. They cannot end the occupation precipitously without triggering a civil war and undoing the good they have done in removing Saddam Hussein. They cannot stay in Iraq without losing more soldiers and more money. Echoes of Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Iraqi toll also rises. As one Arab ambassador at the United Nations put it, the Americans have swallowed a razor and nothing they do now will be painless or cost-free."
Worth a read indeed.
One last note I thought of while pondering this piece. In the States it seems we are most feverishly gripped by the morality of our policy actions--was the war right or was it wrong? I would only offer that I can't think of a single instance where really sound policy was also immoral policy. It's only when one gets into justifying one's actions regarding bad, unsuccessful policy does one have to run the morality gauntlet.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Who is playing into whose hands?
The ongoing TeamBush media offensive to again link Iraq and al Qaeda and the War on Terrorism as the election approaches was made clear by Rep. Tom DeLay, who spoke out against those who think terrorism is just another matter to be handled by policeman instead of by a military fighting it like the war it is.
A great up-is-downism in action. Of course we're all torn about this issue because we want to do the best thing but also want to be safe. The GOP answer since September 12, 2001 has been that we are "at war," which misses the point on several fronts.
First, every nation that has successfully dealt with regional and cross-border terror groups has done so as police actions with occasional support by military troops when appropriate--Spain with ETA, England with the IRA, and most of Western Europe with the Red Brigade, Bader-Meinhoff Gang, PLO and a host of off-shoots.
These groups all saw themselves as self-styled warriors, all of them demanded to be treated as soldiers and all saw their bombing, assassination, and kidnapping activities as combat actions. The success that these nations had came in part from the fact that they steadfastly refused to treat them as anything more than common criminals, albeit ones with socio-political ideologies. To date, what success the world community has had against this round of Islamic terror has come from the police and from intelligence, not military might.
The fact is that terrorists of this ilk desperately want to be considered soldiers. It helps their wounded psyches and certainly helps their causes. In any culture it's far less romantic to be a backer of criminals instead of freedom fighters or religious warriors.
The idea put forth by David Brooks and others comparing the Spanish vote to the appeasement of Hitler is thus more than a bit off the mark, as Jonathan Freedland noted:
"The Spanish electorate were not voting for a cave-in to al-Qaida. On the contrary, many of those who opposed the war in Iraq did so precisely because they feared it would distract from the more urgent war against Islamist fanaticism. (Witness the US military resources pulled off the hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan and diverted to Baghdad.) Nor was it appeasement to suggest that the US-led invasion of an oil-rich, Muslim country would make al-Qaida's recruitment mission that much easier."
To take the point further it is Bush, rather than the Spanish electorate, who is playing to the tune called by al Qaeda.
All militant fundamentalists share two traits: a belief in the unerring righteousness of their actions and a vision for the end of times--a violent conflagration that precludes a glorious period of peace and justice where their beliefs will be universally accepted and their actions in this time of strife glorified and justified. In short, they know how the world will end, and they know they will come out on top--living or dead.
From the very beginning what bin Laden wanted most of all was to provoke the US into David and Goliath style military conflict in which the sheer brute power and strength of our military would sway opinion in the Islamic world against our 'wicked' nation. As Elizabeth Sullivan noted in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
"In the Feb. 11, 2003, audiotape, the person purporting to be bin Laden predicts the coming Iraq war will let the faithful cast off Iraqi "apostates" and "hypocrites," including the socialist infidel Saddam, and afford a new opportunity to embarrass and bloody U.S. forces."
So here we are one year from the start of this mis-adventure. I'll close with two items. The first is a quote from our leader as he announced the start of the war. You can score its accuracy for yourself. The last item is a spot poll of Plain Dealer readers I found as I was linking to Sullivan's excellent analysis. They seem to have some definite opinions about how to score Mr. Bush's card. And let's recall that Cleveland, Ohio ain't exactly Berkeley.
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, March 17th, 2003.
Q. One year later, has the war in Iraq been successful?
Latest Poll Results:
Yes 16.0%
No 80.9%
Not sure 3.1%
The ongoing TeamBush media offensive to again link Iraq and al Qaeda and the War on Terrorism as the election approaches was made clear by Rep. Tom DeLay, who spoke out against those who think terrorism is just another matter to be handled by policeman instead of by a military fighting it like the war it is.
A great up-is-downism in action. Of course we're all torn about this issue because we want to do the best thing but also want to be safe. The GOP answer since September 12, 2001 has been that we are "at war," which misses the point on several fronts.
First, every nation that has successfully dealt with regional and cross-border terror groups has done so as police actions with occasional support by military troops when appropriate--Spain with ETA, England with the IRA, and most of Western Europe with the Red Brigade, Bader-Meinhoff Gang, PLO and a host of off-shoots.
These groups all saw themselves as self-styled warriors, all of them demanded to be treated as soldiers and all saw their bombing, assassination, and kidnapping activities as combat actions. The success that these nations had came in part from the fact that they steadfastly refused to treat them as anything more than common criminals, albeit ones with socio-political ideologies. To date, what success the world community has had against this round of Islamic terror has come from the police and from intelligence, not military might.
The fact is that terrorists of this ilk desperately want to be considered soldiers. It helps their wounded psyches and certainly helps their causes. In any culture it's far less romantic to be a backer of criminals instead of freedom fighters or religious warriors.
The idea put forth by David Brooks and others comparing the Spanish vote to the appeasement of Hitler is thus more than a bit off the mark, as Jonathan Freedland noted:
"The Spanish electorate were not voting for a cave-in to al-Qaida. On the contrary, many of those who opposed the war in Iraq did so precisely because they feared it would distract from the more urgent war against Islamist fanaticism. (Witness the US military resources pulled off the hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan and diverted to Baghdad.) Nor was it appeasement to suggest that the US-led invasion of an oil-rich, Muslim country would make al-Qaida's recruitment mission that much easier."
To take the point further it is Bush, rather than the Spanish electorate, who is playing to the tune called by al Qaeda.
All militant fundamentalists share two traits: a belief in the unerring righteousness of their actions and a vision for the end of times--a violent conflagration that precludes a glorious period of peace and justice where their beliefs will be universally accepted and their actions in this time of strife glorified and justified. In short, they know how the world will end, and they know they will come out on top--living or dead.
From the very beginning what bin Laden wanted most of all was to provoke the US into David and Goliath style military conflict in which the sheer brute power and strength of our military would sway opinion in the Islamic world against our 'wicked' nation. As Elizabeth Sullivan noted in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
"In the Feb. 11, 2003, audiotape, the person purporting to be bin Laden predicts the coming Iraq war will let the faithful cast off Iraqi "apostates" and "hypocrites," including the socialist infidel Saddam, and afford a new opportunity to embarrass and bloody U.S. forces."
So here we are one year from the start of this mis-adventure. I'll close with two items. The first is a quote from our leader as he announced the start of the war. You can score its accuracy for yourself. The last item is a spot poll of Plain Dealer readers I found as I was linking to Sullivan's excellent analysis. They seem to have some definite opinions about how to score Mr. Bush's card. And let's recall that Cleveland, Ohio ain't exactly Berkeley.
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, March 17th, 2003.
Q. One year later, has the war in Iraq been successful?
Latest Poll Results:
Yes 16.0%
No 80.9%
Not sure 3.1%
Spain, Spin, and Opinion
The election of a Socialist government (which campaigned on an anti-Iraq War platform) following on the heels of the horror of the Madrid train bombings, now being called 3-11 around Europe, has sent quite a shockwave throughout the world's capitals.
Washington spinmeisters are using this event to reframe the issue to the benefit of TeamBush in advance of the election. Although too early to say for sure, I think they're having some success--although it is success based on faulty logic and comes, of course, at the cost of accuracy.
The line coming out of TeamBush and its media allies is that Spain, by threatening to pull its meager troop contingent out of Iraq, is 'letting the terrorists win.' They have managed to frame the language of the debate in a crucial way, the first good score for Rove, et al for months now. The rub is this: The Spanish did not say, as is being construed across the board by the US media, that they were going to pull out, per se. Quite the opposite, they said they were going to pull out if the US refused to internationalize the occupation and turn over control to a group with broader interests, eg the United Nations.
Of course, one could say, "six of one, half a dozen of the other." Certainly the US would not let some other entity run the show until it chose to let it do so, but the distinction is a critical and vastly underreported one. What the incoming Zapatero administration is saying quite clearly to TeamBush is that you screwed up the occupation, are running the country like a mess, and we're no longer going to be part of it with you at the helm.
A few things about the vote itself. Clearly, the big issue here for our allies is that almost all of them backed Bush in his war drive against the wishes of their population. In Spain, 90% of the electorate was against the war. Yet, because of homefront issues like a strong economy, Aznar's Popular Party was expected to squeak by against the Socialists.
In fact, when word of the bombings came, the Socialists expected to even lose seats on a sympathy/rally-around-the-flag vote. But Aznar made the mistake of pushing the homegrown Basque ETA terrorist connection to the exclusion of all others. The Spanish CIA-types went on record as saying it was '99% certain' that ETA was the culprit. It became clear, however, that there were links to Islamic fundamentalists that were being ignored or quietly pursued quite contrary to the public statements. Finally, the dam broke open when the Socialist campaign was given word that the current primary suspect was in fact already in custody in a region near Madrid known to be a stronghold of conservative PP support. The campaign contacted the local authorities and reportedly said, "We know you have him, go public now or we will."
Only then did the ETA story begin to crumble and the actual events of the investigation begin to emerge. Spaniards of all stripes begin to look at the election-focused deception being maintained by the Aznar campaign in a time of national tragedy and mourning as worthy of dumping his government. Exit polls clearly show this phenomenon. Turnout was very high (77% over the low-50s expected) and most of those who came out at the last minute to vote out Aznar did so because of his lying as much as his unwavering support of Bush in the face of the current reality. It was simply the last straw.
And Aznar might well not be the last victim of his support of TeamBush to the exclusion of his compatriots. As Byron Williams noted in his analysis of Bush's growing international credibility gap:
"(L)arge majorities in every country, except for the U.S., hold an unfavorable opinion of Bush. The president was rated unfavorably by 57 percent of respondents in Britain, 60 percent in Russia, 67 percent in Turkey and Pakistan, 85 percent in France and Germany, 90 percent in Morocco and 96 percent in Jordan."
What's more, Josh Marshall quoted Ivo Daalder saying that:
"This is the third election of a major ally in which the party running against George Bush won. Look at Germany in '02, South Korea in '03, and now Spain. The message is: If you want to get re-elected, don't go to Crawford. Bush is a political liability -- in Europe, in particular. His foreign policy has trampled on the European views and it's now resulting in the election of governments that do not support his approach."
Italy's Burlesconi must be momentarily thankful that the Italian left is so fragmented that it can't come to terms on how to oust him. But he's likely troubled that they are more willing to put aside their historical animosities to achieve that goal than at any time in the past thirty years.
The election of a Socialist government (which campaigned on an anti-Iraq War platform) following on the heels of the horror of the Madrid train bombings, now being called 3-11 around Europe, has sent quite a shockwave throughout the world's capitals.
Washington spinmeisters are using this event to reframe the issue to the benefit of TeamBush in advance of the election. Although too early to say for sure, I think they're having some success--although it is success based on faulty logic and comes, of course, at the cost of accuracy.
The line coming out of TeamBush and its media allies is that Spain, by threatening to pull its meager troop contingent out of Iraq, is 'letting the terrorists win.' They have managed to frame the language of the debate in a crucial way, the first good score for Rove, et al for months now. The rub is this: The Spanish did not say, as is being construed across the board by the US media, that they were going to pull out, per se. Quite the opposite, they said they were going to pull out if the US refused to internationalize the occupation and turn over control to a group with broader interests, eg the United Nations.
Of course, one could say, "six of one, half a dozen of the other." Certainly the US would not let some other entity run the show until it chose to let it do so, but the distinction is a critical and vastly underreported one. What the incoming Zapatero administration is saying quite clearly to TeamBush is that you screwed up the occupation, are running the country like a mess, and we're no longer going to be part of it with you at the helm.
A few things about the vote itself. Clearly, the big issue here for our allies is that almost all of them backed Bush in his war drive against the wishes of their population. In Spain, 90% of the electorate was against the war. Yet, because of homefront issues like a strong economy, Aznar's Popular Party was expected to squeak by against the Socialists.
In fact, when word of the bombings came, the Socialists expected to even lose seats on a sympathy/rally-around-the-flag vote. But Aznar made the mistake of pushing the homegrown Basque ETA terrorist connection to the exclusion of all others. The Spanish CIA-types went on record as saying it was '99% certain' that ETA was the culprit. It became clear, however, that there were links to Islamic fundamentalists that were being ignored or quietly pursued quite contrary to the public statements. Finally, the dam broke open when the Socialist campaign was given word that the current primary suspect was in fact already in custody in a region near Madrid known to be a stronghold of conservative PP support. The campaign contacted the local authorities and reportedly said, "We know you have him, go public now or we will."
Only then did the ETA story begin to crumble and the actual events of the investigation begin to emerge. Spaniards of all stripes begin to look at the election-focused deception being maintained by the Aznar campaign in a time of national tragedy and mourning as worthy of dumping his government. Exit polls clearly show this phenomenon. Turnout was very high (77% over the low-50s expected) and most of those who came out at the last minute to vote out Aznar did so because of his lying as much as his unwavering support of Bush in the face of the current reality. It was simply the last straw.
And Aznar might well not be the last victim of his support of TeamBush to the exclusion of his compatriots. As Byron Williams noted in his analysis of Bush's growing international credibility gap:
"(L)arge majorities in every country, except for the U.S., hold an unfavorable opinion of Bush. The president was rated unfavorably by 57 percent of respondents in Britain, 60 percent in Russia, 67 percent in Turkey and Pakistan, 85 percent in France and Germany, 90 percent in Morocco and 96 percent in Jordan."
What's more, Josh Marshall quoted Ivo Daalder saying that:
"This is the third election of a major ally in which the party running against George Bush won. Look at Germany in '02, South Korea in '03, and now Spain. The message is: If you want to get re-elected, don't go to Crawford. Bush is a political liability -- in Europe, in particular. His foreign policy has trampled on the European views and it's now resulting in the election of governments that do not support his approach."
Italy's Burlesconi must be momentarily thankful that the Italian left is so fragmented that it can't come to terms on how to oust him. But he's likely troubled that they are more willing to put aside their historical animosities to achieve that goal than at any time in the past thirty years.
Friday, March 12, 2004
Will Bush be 'fragged' in November?
In 2000 Governor Bush counted on military votes to (almost) win the election. As with other elements of Bush's core constituency, it looks like support for TeamBush among our nation's military in 2004 is also flagging. Of course, the reason goes back (once again) to our 'splendid little war' in Iraq. Veterans are upset about the cuts in benefits to retired military, as well as the ongoing struggle to gain the upper hand in Iraq.
James Fallows looks at the problems our military is facing as the war drags on.
In 2000 Governor Bush counted on military votes to (almost) win the election. As with other elements of Bush's core constituency, it looks like support for TeamBush among our nation's military in 2004 is also flagging. Of course, the reason goes back (once again) to our 'splendid little war' in Iraq. Veterans are upset about the cuts in benefits to retired military, as well as the ongoing struggle to gain the upper hand in Iraq.
James Fallows looks at the problems our military is facing as the war drags on.
Of Truth and Lies (and Consequences?)
Add yet another example to the growing list of ways TeamBush misleads and distorts. In this case it has been revealed that the Chief Actuary for the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Systems was told not to provide accurate numbers to the Congress about the actual costs of the legislation as it was going to a vote. Richard Foster's analysis showed that the actual cost of the program would likely be $551 billion over ten years. The President and the bill's sponsors assured legislators, especially entitlement-skittish fiscal conservative Republicans, that the program would absolutely cost no more than $395 billion. That figure was crucial since the administration knew the measure would likely face bipartisan defeat if it cost over $400 billion.
Of course, two months after the bill narrowly passed, administration sources recalculated the cost at $534 billion, far more in line with Foster's suppressed analysis and vastly more than would have passed muster during the vote.
A recently revealed series of emails from last June between Foster and his colleagues indicates that he felt his job was threatened if he provided accurate figures--a threat that was traced back to his supervisor, then-Medicare Director (and Bush appointee) Thomas Scully.
Scully has since resigned and now works for a law firm handling big insurance and pharmaceutical companies (the biggest purported beneficiaries of TeamBush's poorly-crafted Medicare drug benefit plan). Prior to his government posting he was a lobbyist for (surprise!) the health-care industry.
Tony Pugh's article includes this exchange:
"I don't think he ever felt - I don't think anybody [in the actuary's office] ever felt - that I restricted access," Scully said. "... I think it's a very nice tradition that [the actuary] is perceived to be very nonpartisan and very accessible, and I continued that tradition."
Scully said Liz Fowler, chief health lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, could confirm the actuary's independence. Fowler didn't.
"He's a liar," she said of Scully."
Oh well. At least TeamBush got it's bill passed. And as I just noted, that's all that matters to this administration.
You'd think that those wildly misinformed and misled GOP legislators would be upset about this whole thing, but they appear to still be drinking the Kool-Aid being served by Tom Delay, et al. up on the Hill. Or at least that's their public face.
Last lie item: Kudos to John Kerry (still not my favorite pick) for not backing down from his comments that Republican attack-dogs were,"the most crooked... lying group I've ever seen."
For the record, the media team being assembled by TeamBush '04 is dominated by the same hired-gun hacks who orchestrated much of the smear jobs pasted on Clinton during his term (culminating in his charade impeachment). Quite literally, the Arkansas Project has been revived, but this time they're not working as far-right fringies being funded by lunatic Scaife and Coors money--in 2004 they form the core of the Committee to Re-elect the President.
Add yet another example to the growing list of ways TeamBush misleads and distorts. In this case it has been revealed that the Chief Actuary for the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Systems was told not to provide accurate numbers to the Congress about the actual costs of the legislation as it was going to a vote. Richard Foster's analysis showed that the actual cost of the program would likely be $551 billion over ten years. The President and the bill's sponsors assured legislators, especially entitlement-skittish fiscal conservative Republicans, that the program would absolutely cost no more than $395 billion. That figure was crucial since the administration knew the measure would likely face bipartisan defeat if it cost over $400 billion.
Of course, two months after the bill narrowly passed, administration sources recalculated the cost at $534 billion, far more in line with Foster's suppressed analysis and vastly more than would have passed muster during the vote.
A recently revealed series of emails from last June between Foster and his colleagues indicates that he felt his job was threatened if he provided accurate figures--a threat that was traced back to his supervisor, then-Medicare Director (and Bush appointee) Thomas Scully.
Scully has since resigned and now works for a law firm handling big insurance and pharmaceutical companies (the biggest purported beneficiaries of TeamBush's poorly-crafted Medicare drug benefit plan). Prior to his government posting he was a lobbyist for (surprise!) the health-care industry.
Tony Pugh's article includes this exchange:
"I don't think he ever felt - I don't think anybody [in the actuary's office] ever felt - that I restricted access," Scully said. "... I think it's a very nice tradition that [the actuary] is perceived to be very nonpartisan and very accessible, and I continued that tradition."
Scully said Liz Fowler, chief health lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, could confirm the actuary's independence. Fowler didn't.
"He's a liar," she said of Scully."
Oh well. At least TeamBush got it's bill passed. And as I just noted, that's all that matters to this administration.
You'd think that those wildly misinformed and misled GOP legislators would be upset about this whole thing, but they appear to still be drinking the Kool-Aid being served by Tom Delay, et al. up on the Hill. Or at least that's their public face.
Last lie item: Kudos to John Kerry (still not my favorite pick) for not backing down from his comments that Republican attack-dogs were,"the most crooked... lying group I've ever seen."
For the record, the media team being assembled by TeamBush '04 is dominated by the same hired-gun hacks who orchestrated much of the smear jobs pasted on Clinton during his term (culminating in his charade impeachment). Quite literally, the Arkansas Project has been revived, but this time they're not working as far-right fringies being funded by lunatic Scaife and Coors money--in 2004 they form the core of the Committee to Re-elect the President.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Are we big enough to let that shoe drop?
Approaching the one year anniversary of our nation's invasion of Iraq it's time to seriously begin asking questions about the story TeamBush told us about the origins of this war and how it would be playing out come March 2004.
Jonathan Schell, printed in Tom Englehardt's essential blog TomDispatch, recalls things much the way I do:
"By now, we were told by the Bush Administration before the war, the flower-throwing celebrations of our troops' arrival would have long ended; their numbers would have been reduced to the low tens of thousands, if not to zero; Iraq's large stores of weapons of mass destruction would have been found and dismantled; the institutions of democracy would be flourishing; Kurd and Shiite and Sunni would be working happily together in a federal system; the economy, now privatized, would be taking off; other peoples of the Middle East, thrilled and awed, so to speak, by the beautiful scenes in Iraq, would be dismantling their own tyrannical regimes."
Sadly, as we all know, that's not turned out to be the case.
"Enough liberal whining, we're all better off with Saddam gone, the world and America are safer now," has been the typical Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter response. Indeed, a still sizeable portion of the American electorate believes going into Iraq was the right thing for TeamBush to do, according to current polling.
I'm certain that Saddam was a despicable character, but I'm equally certain that he is only one of many such rogues out there today. In fact, as Schell details in his abovementioned article (dense but worth a read), some of those nuts pose a far bigger risk to US and even world stability than Saddam ever did.
So how did Saddam end up in our sights after 9-11? Again, history is slowly giving up its secrets, and each analysis points to the same basic conclusion: TeamBush settled on a game plan and then went about justifying it to themselves and the world. One of the more interesting 'insider' accounts of the run up to the Iraq War comes from Karen Kwiatkowski, whose article in Salon really is a must read--because she was there.
As a 20-year military lifer and longtime Penatgon staffer, she hardly fits the mold of the anti-war, pinko, vegan lefty trying to pin something on our patriotic president. Rather, appalled by the absolutely unprecedented pattern of deception, fabrication, and misinformation coming out of the Pentagon and its very politicized Office of Special Plans, she finally cashed out, took her pension, and is now telling all that she witnessed.
Regardless of how dubious one may have thought TeamBush's arguments were leading up to the invasion, this still makes for shocking, at times jaw-dropping reading.
Like any good military analyst, Kwiatkowski holds back her opinion over whether the invasion was morally right or wrong. Instead, she is horrified by the manner by which we got to this point. She noted:
"War is generally crafted and pursued for political reasons, but the reasons given to the Congress and to the American people for this one were inaccurate and so misleading as to be false. Moreover, they were false by design. Certainly, the neoconservatives never bothered to sell the rest of the country on the real reasons for occupation of Iraq -- more bases from which to flex U.S. muscle with Syria and Iran, and better positioning for the inevitable fall of the regional ruling sheikdoms. Maintaining OPEC on a dollar track and not a euro and fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision also played a role. These more accurate reasons for invading and occupying could have been argued on their merits -- an angry and aggressive U.S. population might indeed have supported the war and occupation for those reasons. But Americans didn't get the chance for an honest debate."
And therein lies the rub--TeamBush had no intention of being honest to the American people about this huge undertaking they were asking us to shoulder, because honest debate might not have gone its way.
The initial cracks in TeamBush's fabled iron-discipline were first revealed by John DiIulio months before September 11, and in large measure confirmed and amplified by John Snow's recent best selling memoir. They are politicians first and policy makers a distant second. Hatch a plan, stick to it, and ram it through; no need to worry about how things will turn out as long as you win that day's vote or debate. Not just Iraq, but the Medicare "benefit" with the huge pricetag that helps no one but Big Pharma, like the shams of 'No Child Left Behind," and the Clean Skies Initiative and the Healthy Forest Initiative. That the crime against humanity that was September 11th helped TeamBush push some of their most outrageous schemes, such as ousting Saddam, was just icing on its cake.
So what I really need to know is, do we as Americans plan to hold them responsible? Not just for Iraq, but all of it?
The outcome is unclear, as the Magic Eight-Ball tells us. As a nation have we matured to the point where we can say that we were terribly mistaken and unconscionably misled, and radically change our course?
It's a very hard call. Especially with soldiers dying this very day in Iraq. Frankly, most countries haven't owed up to their mistakes and misdeeds, especially not ones at the height of their empire. I can't think of a single one. Did Britain give any mea culpa for its ill-fated Suez Canal occupation in 1956, let alone the Boer War?
The only nations that do admit mistakes on this scale are those beaten into crumpled, lifeless pulps, such as Nazi Germany after World War II. And even then, there remains a streak of humanity in Germans, and all of us, that wishes to deny the enormity of our mistakes, or clamours for a less-painful statute of limitations on shame and guilt.
Instead, like the French after World War II, we prefer to portray ourselves a nation of heroes, and bury down deep the memories of collaboration and co-optation.
Letting the shoe drop on this morally bankrupt Bush administration will be a good start for all of us.
Approaching the one year anniversary of our nation's invasion of Iraq it's time to seriously begin asking questions about the story TeamBush told us about the origins of this war and how it would be playing out come March 2004.
Jonathan Schell, printed in Tom Englehardt's essential blog TomDispatch, recalls things much the way I do:
"By now, we were told by the Bush Administration before the war, the flower-throwing celebrations of our troops' arrival would have long ended; their numbers would have been reduced to the low tens of thousands, if not to zero; Iraq's large stores of weapons of mass destruction would have been found and dismantled; the institutions of democracy would be flourishing; Kurd and Shiite and Sunni would be working happily together in a federal system; the economy, now privatized, would be taking off; other peoples of the Middle East, thrilled and awed, so to speak, by the beautiful scenes in Iraq, would be dismantling their own tyrannical regimes."
Sadly, as we all know, that's not turned out to be the case.
"Enough liberal whining, we're all better off with Saddam gone, the world and America are safer now," has been the typical Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter response. Indeed, a still sizeable portion of the American electorate believes going into Iraq was the right thing for TeamBush to do, according to current polling.
I'm certain that Saddam was a despicable character, but I'm equally certain that he is only one of many such rogues out there today. In fact, as Schell details in his abovementioned article (dense but worth a read), some of those nuts pose a far bigger risk to US and even world stability than Saddam ever did.
So how did Saddam end up in our sights after 9-11? Again, history is slowly giving up its secrets, and each analysis points to the same basic conclusion: TeamBush settled on a game plan and then went about justifying it to themselves and the world. One of the more interesting 'insider' accounts of the run up to the Iraq War comes from Karen Kwiatkowski, whose article in Salon really is a must read--because she was there.
As a 20-year military lifer and longtime Penatgon staffer, she hardly fits the mold of the anti-war, pinko, vegan lefty trying to pin something on our patriotic president. Rather, appalled by the absolutely unprecedented pattern of deception, fabrication, and misinformation coming out of the Pentagon and its very politicized Office of Special Plans, she finally cashed out, took her pension, and is now telling all that she witnessed.
Regardless of how dubious one may have thought TeamBush's arguments were leading up to the invasion, this still makes for shocking, at times jaw-dropping reading.
Like any good military analyst, Kwiatkowski holds back her opinion over whether the invasion was morally right or wrong. Instead, she is horrified by the manner by which we got to this point. She noted:
"War is generally crafted and pursued for political reasons, but the reasons given to the Congress and to the American people for this one were inaccurate and so misleading as to be false. Moreover, they were false by design. Certainly, the neoconservatives never bothered to sell the rest of the country on the real reasons for occupation of Iraq -- more bases from which to flex U.S. muscle with Syria and Iran, and better positioning for the inevitable fall of the regional ruling sheikdoms. Maintaining OPEC on a dollar track and not a euro and fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision also played a role. These more accurate reasons for invading and occupying could have been argued on their merits -- an angry and aggressive U.S. population might indeed have supported the war and occupation for those reasons. But Americans didn't get the chance for an honest debate."
And therein lies the rub--TeamBush had no intention of being honest to the American people about this huge undertaking they were asking us to shoulder, because honest debate might not have gone its way.
The initial cracks in TeamBush's fabled iron-discipline were first revealed by John DiIulio months before September 11, and in large measure confirmed and amplified by John Snow's recent best selling memoir. They are politicians first and policy makers a distant second. Hatch a plan, stick to it, and ram it through; no need to worry about how things will turn out as long as you win that day's vote or debate. Not just Iraq, but the Medicare "benefit" with the huge pricetag that helps no one but Big Pharma, like the shams of 'No Child Left Behind," and the Clean Skies Initiative and the Healthy Forest Initiative. That the crime against humanity that was September 11th helped TeamBush push some of their most outrageous schemes, such as ousting Saddam, was just icing on its cake.
So what I really need to know is, do we as Americans plan to hold them responsible? Not just for Iraq, but all of it?
The outcome is unclear, as the Magic Eight-Ball tells us. As a nation have we matured to the point where we can say that we were terribly mistaken and unconscionably misled, and radically change our course?
It's a very hard call. Especially with soldiers dying this very day in Iraq. Frankly, most countries haven't owed up to their mistakes and misdeeds, especially not ones at the height of their empire. I can't think of a single one. Did Britain give any mea culpa for its ill-fated Suez Canal occupation in 1956, let alone the Boer War?
The only nations that do admit mistakes on this scale are those beaten into crumpled, lifeless pulps, such as Nazi Germany after World War II. And even then, there remains a streak of humanity in Germans, and all of us, that wishes to deny the enormity of our mistakes, or clamours for a less-painful statute of limitations on shame and guilt.
Instead, like the French after World War II, we prefer to portray ourselves a nation of heroes, and bury down deep the memories of collaboration and co-optation.
Letting the shoe drop on this morally bankrupt Bush administration will be a good start for all of us.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Gotta Serve Somebody
In this case we're not talking about Bob Dylan's spiritual ultimatum, rather our economic system. Simply put, there is a great conflict between whether the economy and its fruits serve the owning class or the working class, the elite or the vox populi. And despite being a major fault line in worldviews, it has been almost unspeakably taboo to bring it up.
Republicans hurl the accusation of 'class warfare' if Democrats even mention issues of equity and class, and they've done so with great success over the last quarter century. So much so, that we have to get to a point where our economy is this shaky, this dire for average people, that talk of equity and fairness can even be raised, albeit timidly.
The reality of course, is that GOP standard bearers and TeamBush have been waging class warfare very effectively--gutting tax provisions for the wealthiest to the detriment of the common good, providing subsidies and loopholes for those who can afford enough lawyers and accountants to exploit them while increasing IRS scrutiny on families taking the Earned Income Credit, people who earn a step above the poverty line.
Warren Buffett has long railed against such excess, and in his last letter to shareholders he again noted, "Tax breaks for corporations -- and their investors, particularly large ones -- were a major part of the administration's 2002 and 2003 initiatives," Buffett said. "If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning."
He went on to note that, "Corporate income taxes in fiscal 2003 accounted for 7.4% of all federal tax receipts, down from a post-war peak of 32% in 1952. With one exception (1983), last year’s percentage is the lowest recorded since data was first published in 1934."
But despite his wealth and influence, Buffett's voice is drowned out by the shouts of those financial managers and corporate CEOs urging us to relax and to buy in to (quite literally) the current system. Each day since February's very disappointing jobs numbers came out Friday I've read rosy analyses about a strong economy and a strong market--as if those two are inexorably linked. Even somewhat neutral articles higlighted positive chestnuts such as this:"If nothing else, the jobs figure shows that companies are keeping costs down, and that'll help earnings," said Peter Dunay, chief market strategist at Wall Street Access. "At least in the near term, corporate profitability will be a key driver in this market."
Note what's really important here: earnings. That people are losing jobs at an incredible rate just doesn't matter to the doyens and benefactors of Wall Street, as long as stock prices are strong. And therein lies the rub of our 'jobless recovery'--labor is hurting but capital (owners) remain strong.
Contrast the above view with that of Peter Kellman, who urges us to begin again to value the words of Abraham Lincoln, who said, "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never exist if labor did not exist first. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Kellman's article is a fine quick synopsis of the crisis facing workers in our country. We have gone so far that we lack even the ability to discuss such issues. He notes that, "It's difficult for people today to think about labor and capital - better understood as wealth - in terms that people did in Lincoln's time. The shadow capital casts is so strong, the juxtaposition of labor and capital has all but disappeared from our language. The influence of that wealth now dominates in the press, in the courts, in the legislatures, and on the campaign trail. Sadly, when a society loses the words to express a concept - such as worker rights - the society loses that concept."
A far more detailed analysis of where we've come from, where we are, and what choices lie in our future can be gleaned from Kevin Phillip's excellent book Wealth and Democracy. The Publishers Weekly offered this review:
"The influence of money on government is now, more then ever, a hot political issue. With a grand historical sweep that covers more than three centuries, Phillips's astute analysis of the effects of wealth and capital upon democracy is both eye-opening and disturbing. While his main thrust is an examination of "the increasing reliance of the American economy on finance," Phillips weaves a far wider, nuanced tapestry. Carefully building his arguments with telling detail (the growth of investment capitalism in Elizabethan England was essentially the result of privateering and piracy) and statistical evidence, he charts a long, exceptionally complicated history of interplay between governance and the accumulation of wealth. Explicating late-20th-century U.S. capitalism, for instance, by drawing comparisons to the technological advances and ensuing changes in commerce in the Renaissance, he also discusses how 18th-century Spanish colonialism is relevant to how "lending power began to erode... broad prosperity" in 1960s and '70s America. Finding detailed correspondence between the giddy greediness of America's Gilded Age (complete with a surprising quote from Walt Whitman "my theory includes riches and the getting of riches") and the "great technology mania and bubble of the 1990s," Phillips (The Cousins' War, etc.), noted NPR political analyst, notes that "the imbalance of wealth and democracy in the United States is unsustainable," as it was in highly nationalistic mid-18th-century Holland and late-19th-century Britain both of which underwent major social and political upheaval from the middle and underclasses. Lucidly written, scrupulously argued and culturally wide-ranging, this is an important and deeply original analysis of U.S. history and economics."
In this case we're not talking about Bob Dylan's spiritual ultimatum, rather our economic system. Simply put, there is a great conflict between whether the economy and its fruits serve the owning class or the working class, the elite or the vox populi. And despite being a major fault line in worldviews, it has been almost unspeakably taboo to bring it up.
Republicans hurl the accusation of 'class warfare' if Democrats even mention issues of equity and class, and they've done so with great success over the last quarter century. So much so, that we have to get to a point where our economy is this shaky, this dire for average people, that talk of equity and fairness can even be raised, albeit timidly.
The reality of course, is that GOP standard bearers and TeamBush have been waging class warfare very effectively--gutting tax provisions for the wealthiest to the detriment of the common good, providing subsidies and loopholes for those who can afford enough lawyers and accountants to exploit them while increasing IRS scrutiny on families taking the Earned Income Credit, people who earn a step above the poverty line.
Warren Buffett has long railed against such excess, and in his last letter to shareholders he again noted, "Tax breaks for corporations -- and their investors, particularly large ones -- were a major part of the administration's 2002 and 2003 initiatives," Buffett said. "If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning."
He went on to note that, "Corporate income taxes in fiscal 2003 accounted for 7.4% of all federal tax receipts, down from a post-war peak of 32% in 1952. With one exception (1983), last year’s percentage is the lowest recorded since data was first published in 1934."
But despite his wealth and influence, Buffett's voice is drowned out by the shouts of those financial managers and corporate CEOs urging us to relax and to buy in to (quite literally) the current system. Each day since February's very disappointing jobs numbers came out Friday I've read rosy analyses about a strong economy and a strong market--as if those two are inexorably linked. Even somewhat neutral articles higlighted positive chestnuts such as this:"If nothing else, the jobs figure shows that companies are keeping costs down, and that'll help earnings," said Peter Dunay, chief market strategist at Wall Street Access. "At least in the near term, corporate profitability will be a key driver in this market."
Note what's really important here: earnings. That people are losing jobs at an incredible rate just doesn't matter to the doyens and benefactors of Wall Street, as long as stock prices are strong. And therein lies the rub of our 'jobless recovery'--labor is hurting but capital (owners) remain strong.
Contrast the above view with that of Peter Kellman, who urges us to begin again to value the words of Abraham Lincoln, who said, "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never exist if labor did not exist first. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
Kellman's article is a fine quick synopsis of the crisis facing workers in our country. We have gone so far that we lack even the ability to discuss such issues. He notes that, "It's difficult for people today to think about labor and capital - better understood as wealth - in terms that people did in Lincoln's time. The shadow capital casts is so strong, the juxtaposition of labor and capital has all but disappeared from our language. The influence of that wealth now dominates in the press, in the courts, in the legislatures, and on the campaign trail. Sadly, when a society loses the words to express a concept - such as worker rights - the society loses that concept."
A far more detailed analysis of where we've come from, where we are, and what choices lie in our future can be gleaned from Kevin Phillip's excellent book Wealth and Democracy. The Publishers Weekly offered this review:
"The influence of money on government is now, more then ever, a hot political issue. With a grand historical sweep that covers more than three centuries, Phillips's astute analysis of the effects of wealth and capital upon democracy is both eye-opening and disturbing. While his main thrust is an examination of "the increasing reliance of the American economy on finance," Phillips weaves a far wider, nuanced tapestry. Carefully building his arguments with telling detail (the growth of investment capitalism in Elizabethan England was essentially the result of privateering and piracy) and statistical evidence, he charts a long, exceptionally complicated history of interplay between governance and the accumulation of wealth. Explicating late-20th-century U.S. capitalism, for instance, by drawing comparisons to the technological advances and ensuing changes in commerce in the Renaissance, he also discusses how 18th-century Spanish colonialism is relevant to how "lending power began to erode... broad prosperity" in 1960s and '70s America. Finding detailed correspondence between the giddy greediness of America's Gilded Age (complete with a surprising quote from Walt Whitman "my theory includes riches and the getting of riches") and the "great technology mania and bubble of the 1990s," Phillips (The Cousins' War, etc.), noted NPR political analyst, notes that "the imbalance of wealth and democracy in the United States is unsustainable," as it was in highly nationalistic mid-18th-century Holland and late-19th-century Britain both of which underwent major social and political upheaval from the middle and underclasses. Lucidly written, scrupulously argued and culturally wide-ranging, this is an important and deeply original analysis of U.S. history and economics."
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Real Solution No.1: Electoral Reform
With political acrimony at near record levels, it's good to know that there are a lot of very do-able, cost effective ways to fix what ails our country.
Too often we lefty types are pinned with the charge of shouting too many complaints and suggesting too few solutions. Sadly, there's some truth to that--although I feel that we tend to get a bit defensive because our ideas are never actually given a full and free chance to succeed in the first place.
Nevertheless, let's move to ideas of electoral reform. Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel (spell that with a belly full of Heineken!) takes up a valid criticism of the current and past Nader campaign, which champions electoral reform but gives it little voice outside of a mention on a web site. Vanden Heuvel outlines some common sense reforms that Democrats and Republicans alike should have no trouble getting behind--Instant Runoff Voting, Proportional Representation, Honest Redistricting, and Multi-Seat Districts. What's great about this March 2nd post is that it is very well linked, so topic titles lead to organizations that are working hard on each of these issues.
And in the end, that's what it will take--it's more a basket of ideas rather than a single solution well-tailored to a sound bite that will start to fix our ills.
The problem is that we are voting less and less, and have less and less real electoral choice with each passing election. I urge everyone to take a look at these simple proposals and consider calling a representative about them. These aren't glamour topics and it's unlikely that there will ever be some real crisis to bring them into quick focus. Therefore, it's incumbent upon all of us to consistently keep these topics in our minds and in front of our elected officials. They are the building blocks of stable and enduring deep democracy that our nation needs to engender.
For a far more thorough analysis of these topics, please see Kevin Hill's thoughtful book Fixing Elections.
With political acrimony at near record levels, it's good to know that there are a lot of very do-able, cost effective ways to fix what ails our country.
Too often we lefty types are pinned with the charge of shouting too many complaints and suggesting too few solutions. Sadly, there's some truth to that--although I feel that we tend to get a bit defensive because our ideas are never actually given a full and free chance to succeed in the first place.
Nevertheless, let's move to ideas of electoral reform. Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel (spell that with a belly full of Heineken!) takes up a valid criticism of the current and past Nader campaign, which champions electoral reform but gives it little voice outside of a mention on a web site. Vanden Heuvel outlines some common sense reforms that Democrats and Republicans alike should have no trouble getting behind--Instant Runoff Voting, Proportional Representation, Honest Redistricting, and Multi-Seat Districts. What's great about this March 2nd post is that it is very well linked, so topic titles lead to organizations that are working hard on each of these issues.
And in the end, that's what it will take--it's more a basket of ideas rather than a single solution well-tailored to a sound bite that will start to fix our ills.
The problem is that we are voting less and less, and have less and less real electoral choice with each passing election. I urge everyone to take a look at these simple proposals and consider calling a representative about them. These aren't glamour topics and it's unlikely that there will ever be some real crisis to bring them into quick focus. Therefore, it's incumbent upon all of us to consistently keep these topics in our minds and in front of our elected officials. They are the building blocks of stable and enduring deep democracy that our nation needs to engender.
For a far more thorough analysis of these topics, please see Kevin Hill's thoughtful book Fixing Elections.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Au Revoir Jean Bertrand
So what to make of the recent activities in Haiti? One thing is clear--The big boys like France and the US (ol' pals again, it would seem) once again put a slap down on some misguided foreigner.
Whether or not the US kidnapped Aristide, or at least misinformed him about his destination, is now a matter for good reporting and history. Far less muddy is the fact that Aristide had been bucking for a slap down ever since the US re-installed him in 1994 following a bloody three-year interregnum during which the military prevented him from taking his rightful position as elected President. Aristide's true sin in the eyes of Washington was being such an ingrate that he refused to buckle to complete 'free-market' privatization for Haiti's water, power, and school systems. He also insisted on raising the minimum wage for Haiti's impoverished workers. Quite simply, there was money to be made and this pinko ex-priest was whining about democracy and social justice.
A few good recent articles about Aristide's struggles in Haiti have surfaced, one by Jeffrey Sachs and another in the UK Guardian.
The most thought-provoking comments came from people trying to reconcile this 'arrogant dictator holding on to power' with the gentle, peace activist they had known.
As a personal note, reading some of his written works, I was quite moved by his genuine human decency and positive nature. He wrote very much like a priest giving a good homily, with lots of scripture quotes and exhortations to walk with poor. It's hard to see how a guy who wrote like the Dalai Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh could end up a brutal petty dictator like Papa Doc Duvailier or Manuel Noriega, as he has recently been portrayed.
A quick postscript pointing to the 'Shape of Things to Come:'
The frontman for the rebellion was the former Police Chief of Cap Haitien, Guy Phillipe. He must have been pretty surprised when his comments to the effect that he was now in charge of the Haitian army and government were met by US and French officials with a big 'Whoa there, Fella!"
In fact, the US, who was powerless to stop the coup (against a government which had abolished its standing army, by the way) now seems quite happy throwing its weight around in the island nation. When asked for comment by the BBC this morning about Mr. Phillipe's claims, a US military representative in Haiti said that he expected Mr. Phillipe to be increasingly irrelevant in coming days.
Really?!
I, and no doubt Louis the Casablanca Police Chief, were "Shocked! Shocked!" to find that the big boys were quick to shunt aside this lackey now that his dirty work was all done.
When you're haulin' water for 'The Man' you've only got so long of a life span. Just ask Ahmad Chalabi. Or Saddam Hussein.
The fact that Aristide refused to pick up a bucket in the first place practically doomed him years ago to an all too quick exit.
So what to make of the recent activities in Haiti? One thing is clear--The big boys like France and the US (ol' pals again, it would seem) once again put a slap down on some misguided foreigner.
Whether or not the US kidnapped Aristide, or at least misinformed him about his destination, is now a matter for good reporting and history. Far less muddy is the fact that Aristide had been bucking for a slap down ever since the US re-installed him in 1994 following a bloody three-year interregnum during which the military prevented him from taking his rightful position as elected President. Aristide's true sin in the eyes of Washington was being such an ingrate that he refused to buckle to complete 'free-market' privatization for Haiti's water, power, and school systems. He also insisted on raising the minimum wage for Haiti's impoverished workers. Quite simply, there was money to be made and this pinko ex-priest was whining about democracy and social justice.
A few good recent articles about Aristide's struggles in Haiti have surfaced, one by Jeffrey Sachs and another in the UK Guardian.
The most thought-provoking comments came from people trying to reconcile this 'arrogant dictator holding on to power' with the gentle, peace activist they had known.
As a personal note, reading some of his written works, I was quite moved by his genuine human decency and positive nature. He wrote very much like a priest giving a good homily, with lots of scripture quotes and exhortations to walk with poor. It's hard to see how a guy who wrote like the Dalai Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh could end up a brutal petty dictator like Papa Doc Duvailier or Manuel Noriega, as he has recently been portrayed.
A quick postscript pointing to the 'Shape of Things to Come:'
The frontman for the rebellion was the former Police Chief of Cap Haitien, Guy Phillipe. He must have been pretty surprised when his comments to the effect that he was now in charge of the Haitian army and government were met by US and French officials with a big 'Whoa there, Fella!"
In fact, the US, who was powerless to stop the coup (against a government which had abolished its standing army, by the way) now seems quite happy throwing its weight around in the island nation. When asked for comment by the BBC this morning about Mr. Phillipe's claims, a US military representative in Haiti said that he expected Mr. Phillipe to be increasingly irrelevant in coming days.
Really?!
I, and no doubt Louis the Casablanca Police Chief, were "Shocked! Shocked!" to find that the big boys were quick to shunt aside this lackey now that his dirty work was all done.
When you're haulin' water for 'The Man' you've only got so long of a life span. Just ask Ahmad Chalabi. Or Saddam Hussein.
The fact that Aristide refused to pick up a bucket in the first place practically doomed him years ago to an all too quick exit.
