Half-Bakered
After winning the elections 10 days ago, Congressional Democrats looked to be taking political cover underneath the upcoming policy report from Jim Baker’s Iraq Study Group. The thinking has been that the report would be sufficiently ambiguous that Democrats could embrace it simultaneously with the White House and not have to go out on a uni-partisan limb to call for withdrawal from Iraq. Each side, the Dems and the White House, would be free to enact the usual sort of Kabuki; each pretending to not having capitulated to the other but eventually and quietly agreeing on the same policy of disengagement.
Hence, all of the current Democratic fudging about “phased redeployment” along this or that totally imaginary and un-necessary timeline.
But the news that Baker’s handful of magic recipes will include not an immediate drawdown but rather an initial escalation of some 20,000 U.S. combat troops, a “final push” as its being termed, ought to be a shrill wake-up call.
Dragging behind as Baker’s tail could wind up being a suicide strategy for Democrats and the sooner they detach themselves from Bush 41′s Best Buddy, the better. If not, they risk painting themselves into the corner of supporting the proposed escalation and thereby proving, in spades, to the American population that their “change of course” in Iraq is but a lightly perfumed version of business-as-usual.
As I said last week, and will no doubt continue to repeat, the Democrats –one day or another– are going to have to move from their ambiguous whining about the “management of the war” to directly criticizing “the war” itself. The current tap dance ain’t gonnna cut it.
Moral considerations and the human cost aside, who can guarantee that Iraq, as we know it, will even hold up for another four, six or a dozen months? Actual experts (as opposed to bloviating politicians from both parties) are loudly warning that Iraq currently teeters on the edge of self-destruction:
“We’re not talking about just a full-scale civil war. This would be a failed-state situation with fighting among various groups,” growing into regional conflict, Joost Hiltermann, Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group, said… “The war will be over Iraq, over its dead body,” Hiltermann said.
“All indications point to a current state of civil war and the disintegration of the Iraqi state,” Nawaf Obaid, an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and an adviser to the Saudi government, said last week…
Evidence of just such a failed-state in the making has piled up ominously high this week. A day after Gen. John Abizaid warned the Iraqi government to rein in its Shia militias, the militia-laden government security forces kidnapped scores of victims in broad daylight from the Ministry of Education. Twenty-four hours later, the sectarian fires were further stoked when the Shia-led government issued an arrest warrant for Iraq’s top Sunni cleric — an act that could be tantamount, in American terms, to the shelling of Fort Sumter. Meanwhile, from a part of southern Iraq in which the same Shia militias are dominant, we get reports of the ambush and kidnapping of 14 people including 4 American contractors.
How in good conscience can we ask for any more American soldiers to die for this? Waiting for Baker seems a particularly awful idea. The Democrats have already pissed away their first week as the majority-to-be by stumbling into a distracting debate over congressional ethics.
When’s the big Hill press conference coming to announce the Congressional plan to get the U.S. out of Iraq? Wouldn’t it be preferable to move before Baker does and force him to react instead of vice versa?
November 17th, 2006 at 12:14 am
I am very happy to see this post, Marc, having warned about the Baker commission in an earlier thread myself. In some ways I would welcome an announcement from the White House that 20,000 more troops were going to be sent over, because it would be a wakeup call to Democrats and the anti-war movement that pussy-footing around about “redeployment” and “phased withdrawal” really amount to stay the course. The Democratic cheering section on this blog should have some strong opinions about how Pelosi et al should react to such a move.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:50 am
More people are killed everyday that the Democrats keep secret and fail to push their plan from the campaign to end the Iraq war. Will we hear “Democrats lied. People Died?”
November 17th, 2006 at 4:50 am
Glad you asked! First I would note that “The” thinking, as noted above, would tend to be Marc Cooper’s thinking. So, the reader is left with the distinct, novel suggestion that the Baker Group was cooked up to provide cover for Dems. How rarely mentioned it is that sitting on said in noted Middle East expert Sandra Day O’Conner. Wait a minute, isn’t there some Baker, Bush, O’Conner connection……something seems a little fishy….. ah ABSCAM!!
Anyway, none of us Dem bitches have failed to note that there is little consensus on The Dem posisition and no definative bad,
depressing unpopular answer about what to do there. The call for absolute, unequivical pull out started to show up around these parts right around the time The Dems looked like shoe ins to take back the house. I wish our host could be as uniquivical on tagging Bush with his rightful responsability for the war as he is on the pull out. I have a feeling when it all comes down, our host will be buying Liberty Dad a beer.
That said, some of this is worth considering.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:11 am
The Baker Commission appears to be to be a major step forward if it is based on a serious diplomatic effort to bring regional players together to at least attempt to stabilize an increasingly disastrous situation. I’m for withdrawal, no permanent bases and the rest of it. But as I’ve said before, I am absolutely opposed to the notion that a Code Pink placard is the solution.
A serious diplomatic initiative that involved Syria and Iran shouldn’t be dismissed. Like “20,000 more troops”, even on it’s own terms it’s too little too late and probably won’t succeed, but it absolutely deserves consideration. I didn’t think any significantly strategic diplomacy was possible with Bush holding the reins, but it may be given the new balance.
We’re deeply tangled in Iraq’s catastrophe, and making how quickly we can get our soldiers out the sole metric – as opposed to attempting to use whatever leverage we’ve still got to increase the possibility of averting even worse disaster – is irresponsible. This cannot be done militarily – not a chance – although putting a proposal of “more troops” on the table might be a smart tactical move if a real diplomatic initiative were to be launched.
There’s absolutely no contradiction between opposing the war and wanting to get our troops out of the middle of this mess with all reasonable speed and being willing to consider whether there are any more strategic ways to both draw down and influence what we’re leaving behind than just to arrange the transportation and be done with it.
And of course my approach to this is tempered by the Democrats holding Congress – because anything Bush does now must be in response to recognizing that so far as the electorate is concerned his war policy has failed. I don’t believe for a minute that any sane observer believes 20,000 troops are going to turn the situation around. This piece is a charade, but until I see some more I’m not going to dismiss the first serious opportunity for a shift in emphasis from an impossible “military victory” to regional negotiations that might impact a disaster of our creation and, perhaps more important, open up some doors on broader issues.
I’m not particularly hopeful about any of this and there’s probably a better than 80% chance that nothing we do will allow for a better outcome than just hightailing it out ASAP. But I’ll leave it to others to brandish rather rusty swords against the Beltway selloust or engage in earnest rants about how the Dems, whose perfidy apparently ranges from Murthaesque verbal obfuscations to Bidenesque attempts to search every inch of Baghdad for the pony that was promised, refuse to put Cindy Sheehan in charge of defining the totality of their response to this crisis.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:15 am
Thanks for your serious contribution to this discussion, Woody. What a humane, thoughtful guy. Too bad the rest of us don’t have Christian values and just play politics with the war.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:33 am
For anyone who wants to characterize my comments as “cheerleading from a mouse for the wrong horse”, my thinking on Iraq has never been static. I vehemently opposed going in. Hoped for a swift victory once the dice were rolled. Thought disbanding the Iraqi army was foolish. When the situation quickly began to deteriorate believed that significantly more U.S. troops and a reconstruction effort in which the Iraqis themselves, rather than big outside contractors, might help stabilize the situation. Opposed any “immediate withdrawal” for a long time and was willing to consider more troops as late as 2004. And for the last 2 years pretty much thought things were hopeless and that we had some of the worst, most incompetent leadership in American history digging an ever deeper hole. Now things have changed somewhat in terms of leverage – both domestically and, possibly according to noises being made by certain governments, regionally. So, no, I’ve never been an absolutist on Iraq – except when this damned fool mission was first being hatched – and I’m not about to join the ANSWER corner because now the Democrats also hold a rein or two and haven’t come up with a solution to this festering problem in 10 days. That one of the most confused, retrograde minds to ever grace these threads has, while predictably juvenile, wasted no time in echoing Marc and Michael should be enough to give pause to anyone with a political, strategic or moral IQ above room temperature.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:58 am
And of course the very existence and composition of the Baker Commission was conceived as a last resort in the context of a dysfunctional problem child in the White House surrounded by an aggressively incompetent war council. That was the whole point…
November 17th, 2006 at 6:24 am
I’ll admit that the Study Group invites derision – Ed Meese ? I didn’t know he was still alive. Assuming that his presence indicates he is. But then, even embalmed Ed Meese couldn’t do a worse job of evaluating the situation in Iraq than the folks currently in charge.
November 17th, 2006 at 6:28 am
The reality is that there is no clear good answer.
Withdrawal, with or without partition? A recipe for a civil war (not just a low-grade one) that will make Bosnia look like patty-cake, and just might involve regional conflicts, plus an exodus of people who trusted us and to whom we owe a debt. Remember China vs. Vietnam, Vietnam vs. Cambodia, Cambodian genocide, boat people?
More troops? Too little, too late. Hard to find them anyway without a draft, which isn’t happening.
Staying the course? Hmm. Bang head against wall. It hurts. Bang again for different result. Damn! Didn’t work.
Timetable, “redeployment,” phased withdrawal, etc., etc. all share the vices of immediate withdrawal and staying the course, and will encourage all those who expect to inherit power. We could redeploy to Kurdistan, which has a been a relative success, and let the Arabs slaughter one another, but Kurdistan is landlocked and Turkey is restive.
Arrange a coup? By whom? I don’t see a man on horseback, or in a Humvee, who will save our apples.
There’s nothing wrong with talking to Iran, Turkey, Syria, with our eyes open, but Khamenei and Baby Assad are improbable riders to the rescue.
And meanwhile, perhaps then our friends in the “Zionist entity” will decide that it’s time to bomb Iran. It’s not 1938, it’s more like 1914.
We suffer the curse of living in interesting times.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:10 am
reg, I think you misunderstand at least the comments I have made in the last couple of threads, because you misunderstand the significance of the Democratic victory. You have consistently been one of the most passionate and eloquent voices here in your opposition to the Bush administration’s disastrous policies, as well as in your skewering of clueless dolts like Woody who would try to find justification for them. Where you go wrong is in failing to use your formidable critical powers to see the Democrats for what they really are: Politicians who play the game pretty much the same as the Republicans do, even if their political positions on the average are more progressive (although not always, as their votes for the war and other Bush admin measures demonstrate.) The Democratic victory was not a victory for the forces of righteousness, but for the American people who have seen through the Bush madness at last and have expressed their disillusionment by voting for the only other party that we are allowed to vote for–since any third party candidates are always and automatically considered spoilers for the Republicans. So you make the mistake of thinking that if Nancy Pelosi wants Murtha as majority leader then somehow that is a progressive, anti-war position, rather than seeing it for what it really is and for what you would easily recognize it if a Republican Speaker of the House did it: Cheap politics.
The way this failure of your critical powers, and that I might add of the normally astute and witty rlo, comes out here is in your astonishment that people like Marc or my good self would be so brazen as to criticize the Democrats only TEN DAYS after the election. No, wrong, I have been criticizing them all my adult life, and so has Marc during the more than 20 years I have known him.
The Democrats will NOT take leadership on the war in Iraq unless they are forced to by the constituencies that elected them, and they will not rise to any higher ethical levels either unless they are held to those promises. That doesn’t happen when sincere folks like your good self uncritically support their every move. You are in for some serious disillusionment big time and quick time, reg.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:33 am
And as some of us wrangle over the infighting as Dems choose there leaders, the President visits Vietnam, and reminds us of it’s lesson: stay the course.
We need go back only of a fraction of the time between here and Murtha’s follies to remember the bill of goods being pushed by the Nader Dems in 2000; and consider how many lives have stopped on a dime.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:53 am
reg, you have a lot of nerve saying that I’m playing politics with the war after the Democrats did just that during the entire 2006 campaign, touting that they had a plan to end the Iraq occupaton. I didn’t hear you complain about them playing politics.
It turns out, surprise!, that the Democrats didn’t have a plan at all and are waiting on studies and committees and are delaying while people continue to be killed. I think that the American people were suckered. As usual, besides lying, the Democrats are making every effort to avoid being decisive because it forces them to accept responsibility.
The body count started over with the election and the numbers are piling up on the Democratic side of the scale.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:03 am
reg: “I’ll admit that the Study Group invites derision – Ed Meese? I didn’t know he was still alive.”
Au contraire, reg. Anyone who could coin a phrase like “If it takes a bloodbath, let’s get it over with” (about my restive hometown of Berkeley, shaken by Vietnam War protests) would be indispensable to a commission like this, don’t you think?
The likely ISG recommendations do make a peculiar kind of sense. Here’s why I think so.
Saudi Arabia is building a 560-mile wall on its border. This is presumably to stem an expected tsunami of Iraqi refugees–and with them, incognito, Zarqawi stalwarts, inevitably. Let’s not forget that, after Gulf War I, shellshocked Iraqi veterans were moved from U.S.-run POW camps where they hadn’t been very well treated to Saudi refugee camps where they were treated far worse. No love lost there–moving to Saudi Arabia would just *relatively*, *temporarily* safer. To the extent that the refugees would be Shi’ites, they’d probably head for Shi’ite regions in Saudi Arabia–coincidentally, oil-bearing regions. What King Hussein called “the Shi’ite Crescent” would begin to roil. The Saudis know this. That’s why they want that wall.
This, and the many statements of alarm about Iraq’s disintegration coming from surrounding Arab capitals, Turkey and Iran, are quite telling. In a funny way, their fears give the U.S. some serious leverage in the region, leverage that it didn’t really command before. Iraq didn’t *have* WMD, but now Iraq (sort of) *is* WMD. Iraq wasn’t an Al Qaeda hotbed, but we’ve turned it into one. And Al Qaeda is far more of a threat to Arab/Muslim states than to us. So the current U.S. troop presence is somewhat like a fist around a grenade, holding down the lever, after the pin has been thrown irrevocably down a sewer grate. Is the grenade a dud? No way. Will it fizzle, and carom around but eventually come to rest with only some ceiling plaster smashed? One can hope. But it would be folly to assume so, especially if you run a neighboring state.
So we hold the region hostage. We wear a dynamite vest–but we can magically teleport away from the explosion instantly (or soon enough, anyway). And all this, I think, explains what we’ve seen leaked by the Baker-Hamilton group.
20,000 more troops? That’s an offer to these neighbor states to more firmly grip Baghdad, for a while longer, just after the fist seems to have been weakened by this recent election and the new Democratic majority in congress it yielded. And what’s this supposed talking to the neighbors going to be about? Substituting, finger by finger, regional forces for American forces. (Except in Kurdistan; the Pesh Merga can take care of their own.)
The region has been in something like this kind of hostage situation before. When the UN asked Saddam to leave Kuwait, he didn’t. He could have, but he didn’t. Why didn’t he? Here’s how I see it: Not leaving was a big favor to the U.S. and to the surrounding states, and that explains a lot about why Saddam was allowed to stay in power (weakened, in a tighter box). Think about it. What if he’d shrugged and said, “OK, it was just a punitive raid anyway” (as he claimed originally)? And then ordered his troops to leave Kuwait, not even bothering to collect all their arms before leaving. Who would have picked up those arms? Not the Kuwaiti Royal family–they were all gone. No, the recipient of Kuwait’s state apparatus would have been its state apparatchiks: its bureaucracy, its technocrats, its technicians, its functionaries–the people who knew how to actually DO things. And who were these people? Mostly Palestinians.
A Palestinian oil state. Think about it. That would have been a scary prospect to most of Kuwait’s neighbors. Definitely scary for Israel. And just imagine if this new Palestinian state had announced plans for elections? Could the U.S. have run them off, and reinstalled a *monarchy*, claiming it was more legitimate, somehow? I don’t think so.
So here we are again: another nation-state-scale hostage crisis, and another power-realignment deal to made based on resolving it. On a far larger scale this time, of course. Call it the “birth pangs of the New Middle East.” Condi would. So would Cheney. And I notice they are still around. Baker wouldn’t be so impolitic as to say so. Neither would Gates, I suppose. But these people really are out to change things in a big way in the Middle East, even if they aren’t exactly Wolfowitz-style idealists anymore.
What’s slouching towards Baghdad to be born? It won’t be a nice beast, nor a pretty one. But all the beast has to do is keep a lid on things, now that the previous convenient servant-beast–Saddam–is expected to hang.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:07 am
“It turns out, surprise!, that the Democrats didn’t have a plan at all and are waiting on studies and committees and are delaying while people continue to be killed.”
They had a plan? Can you point me to it?
“I think that the American people were suckered. As usual, besides lying, the Democrats are making every effort to avoid being decisive because it forces them to accept responsibility.”
Hm, yes, I guess it would be better if they just let the responsibility rest where it currently does.
“The body count started over with the election and the numbers are piling up on the Democratic side of the scale.”
Oh, this is cute: Bush & Co are not responsible for any Iraq-related deaths that happened before the election! Even though the Dems can’t pass any legislation that Bush couldn’t veto (unless they recruit an awful lot of Republicans), whatever bad things happen now are all the fault of the Democrats!
Woody–did you get that nickname because of a certain texture noted for the contents of your cranium?
November 17th, 2006 at 8:26 am
“Woody–did you get that nickname because of a certain texture noted for the contents of your cranium?”
There are no contents, the nickname refers to the container.
Be that as it may, the Democrats won because of Iraq and if they don’t come up with viable alternatives they will indeed have betrayed the trust of the voters. Why so quick to say that the Democrats aren’t responsible, when they campaigned on the platform that they could do a better job? And if in fact they do figure a way out of this mess, that will be the best answer to the Woodys of this world.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Dennis Kucinich – interviewed recently on Democracy Now and at the Huffington Post – has the only real antiwar plan…..and he has allies – the plan is to cut off funding to the war. This is, at this point, the only solution.
November 17th, 2006 at 9:09 am
“the plan is to cut off funding to the war.”
This may indeed be an effective strategy, but Democratic leaders assured us all through the midterm campaign that they would not do this. Why? Because they were afraid of being accused of undermining our troops or putting them in harm’s way. This is, of course, a ridiculous argument, since only those who left the troops in Iraq without guns, bullets, body armor and food would be guilty of that, rather than bending to the popular will and just pulling them out. Now that the Democrats have Congress, will they still be afraid of shadows that aren’t there or will they exercise some muscle? Oh, wait, just raising the question means suggesting that the Democrats might now bear some responsibility for Iraq. I take it back, how unfair of me.
November 17th, 2006 at 9:19 am
There is no end to the Iraq war without a settlement in Palestine. Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other states must take part in stablizing the situation on a regional basis, and they will not help unless Israel takes real steps toward easing the occupation. Europe knows this, which is why Spain, France, and Italy are offering a new “plan” to “jump start” the “peace process.”
November 17th, 2006 at 9:20 am
MIchael B – I don’t have any illusions about the Democrats (although my estimation of them isn’t as totally dire as yours-which you may consider delusional) but I equally don’t have any illusions about what you call “the anti-war movement” having any leverage – or even in it’s most tangible manifestations providing a credible or desireable alternative (most of the politics that move what I see as the self-defined anti-war movement are, IMHO, at least as delusional as the neo-cons and in some cases even worse.)
For the record, I think Pelosi supported Murtha in his run for an elected House leadership position because (1) he’s been a key ally of hers in her own moves up the leadership ladder and (2) because she agrees with him on the war and likes having an old coot with rough edges who’s more reminiscent of Mayor Daly than Kristina van den Huevel holding the biggest anti-war megaphone. I’m certain that Nancy Pelosi herself has no illusions about Murtha and supported him partly as a matter of courtesy and didn’t see any particular political or personal advantage in ratifying Hoyer. Perhaps she believed her support of Murtha would play (slightly) bold in the eyes of a public that’s soured on the war and was willing to suffer the slings and arrows of such giants as Cokie Robertsl, David Broder and Andrea Mitchell. She may well have some real affection for Murtha, given her own deep roots in old-school Dem politics. I’d bet she knew that Hoyer would likely win but was confident enough not to feel compelled to have to side with a sure winner in what amounts to cloakroom politics. I’d call this episode “inexpensive politics” as opposed to “cheap politics”.
And as a Democrat hoping to see my party effectively champion consistently more progressive politics, my skin is pretty thick and my ability to cope with disillusionment is well-practiced.
November 17th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Of course, the rest of it aside, we can all take heart from the fact that Woody has finally learned a valuable and enduring lesson from the debacle of the Iraq war – “The Democrats didn’t have a plan after all.” Enormous political courage and high standards of accountability are inherent in that statement although it must be difficult for a man with Woody’s past passionate advocacy to make such a bold admission. A new day dawns…
November 17th, 2006 at 9:48 am
If the Baker Commssion doesn’t recommend resuming talks with Iran and Syria, then all the hubhub about a new, less ideological approach is a tub of crap. I’d like to see our troops withdrawn, but I’m not opposed to all other solutions, just the ones that worry more about sacred cows than solving problems.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Bush’s comments from Vietnam show how delusion becomes fact if it’s repeated often enough. Yes, after surrendering Vietnam the U.S. catastrophically rebuilt its international reputation, created an stunningly proficient professional army and won the Cold War by mercy rule. And to think this tragedy could have been avoided with a little more resolve. The real lesson for Iraq war supporters from Vietnam is that the only victory to be found is in revisionist history, and the sooner you get out Iraq the sooner you can start declaring you were on the verge of victory when the peaceniks stabbed you in the back.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:08 am
I read the article on Bush in Vietnam this morning and was also struck by how bizarre, ironic and ultimately meaningless they were. The question facing the American people, although rarely asked: “Is our Presidents learning?”
November 17th, 2006 at 10:11 am
shoulda bin “…meaningless HIS PRONOUNCEMENTS were”
(Iz me learning ?)
November 17th, 2006 at 10:54 am
http://tinyurl.com/yfyno8
BAGHDAD, Nov. 16 — The government issued an arrest warrant late Thursday for Sheik Harith al-Dhari, one of Iraq’s most prominent Sunni Arab clerics, on charges of inciting terrorism and violence, officials said.
Mr. Dhari, head of the influential Muslim Scholars Association, has been an outspoken critic of the foreign military presence in Iraq and has said he approves of the armed resistance in the absence of a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops.
—————————–
Asking for a timetable is equivalent to inciting violence. I thought the violence was supposed to get worse if we American troops were withdrawn. It sounds like the opposite to me.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
I’m sure the Dems will fail. After all its been ten whole days since the election and we’re still in Iraq! I know they don’t take over Congress till January but that’s no excuse. So Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Dick Durbin all say they want us out but who are they kidding? We know better don’t we. I mean if they were serious they would have staged a sit-in when they had their WH lunch with the “Decider-in-chief”.
I still have a feeling that the Baker boys are there to provide the fig leaf for junior to allow daddy to bail him out again. I too have heard the rumors of a “final Push” with 20,000 more troops (John McCain’s wet dream). But, trouble is we don’t have four brigades laying around doing nothing – unless you want to get out of Korea (Now there’s a great idea! Boy that will make Lil’ Kim piss his pants!) or call up some more guard units. Since both of them are non-starters I think the logic of withdrawal will prevail. Of course I could be wrong since there is evidence that Shrub is the only one left who is a true believer and has that “Evil Genius” Henry Kissinger whispering in his ear but, sooner or later, even Republicans in Congress will lay down the law.
Look, does anyone here really think either party wants this fiasco on their plates in 2008?
Enuff said!
November 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
I’d suggest folks go take a peek at Atrios’ “Speaking of Silly People…” post currently near the top for a dose of perspective on what’s dominated these threads in recent days…
November 17th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
If the Dems don’t haven’t unified around a plan for speedy withdrawal by at least a month before they take control of Congress, I think we should start calling for resignations.
Incidentally, the difference between the weak, divisive Dems and the strong, unified GOPers is that Big John McCain managed to help squeak Trent Lott back into a minor leadership position by one vote. That’s the kind of manly, principled, straight-talking decision-making and attention to issues the American people are going to demand in ’08. Why are Dems such wankers and GOPers so tough and cool ?
November 17th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Looked at Atrios, reg, he seems to be saying that since the Reps do it we shouldn’t criticize the Dems for doing it too. Yeah, that sure convinces me I have been wrong all this time–not!
November 17th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
I think what he’s saying is that certain things are part of the normal housekeeping business and contention of Congressional delegations and that anyone who needs to dwell on Nancy Pelosi’s penchant for divisiveness, failure or defeat at this point needs a reality check.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Also, most of this discussion was predicated on the completely fantastic notion that Nancy Pelosi can simply intervene and choose someone to be majority leader. Or, barring a coup by the new speaker, she should have shown her strength by ignoring the two guys who were actually in the running and cast her lot with, oh I don’t know, maybe Dennis Kucinich or Barbara Lee. That would have proven to the country that there’s an entirely new game in town. I think it’s called Nickle Slots back where Harry Reid hails from.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
And may I recommend both KOS and Dighby today for comments on the Pelosi “Screw-up” madness. As Dighby rightly points out we are now going to play by “Clinton Rules” once again. That means never give the Dems an even break. Read the column and see if you dissent.
(sorry Marc – I promise no more today so you won’t feel too put upon)
November 17th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Sorry Marc, I lied.
Actually I just read a transcript of Bush’s remarks in Hanoi, Stay the course!!!??? Vietnam as an example???!!!
And we’re worried about Pelosi’s judgement?
November 17th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
The man is a nitwit and needs help fast.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
“And we’re worried about Pelosi’s judgement?”
We sure are, that is, if we are counting on the Democrats to be effective in ending the war in Iraq. We should care plenty about what they do. How can you not realize that?
November 17th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
The majority leader election has come and is gone. The party is approaching a Moment of Truth, though: will its members support/resolve in favor of the ISG plan, or will it argue against at least any provision/phase that would increase personnel in harm’s way? Will the party in fact advocate withdrawal, with or without redeployment?
The Guardian, in its article yesterday announcing that the Baker-Hamilton plan will include an expansion of the force by 20,000, primarily to protect and intercede in Baghdad. The Guardian said something like: “the Democrats should support the Study Group’s recommendation for the 20,000 additional troops.” And politically it probably is safe, because in fact there is little reason to expect this to actually work….What are they going to do? Invade Sadr City? Guard the process servers bearing the arrest warrant for Dhari?
This issue is going to come at the Dems very quickly, with a lot of spin because it’s being pitched by a “bipartisan” committee. I think we have to say “no more”, not “how many more?” But it’s time to take a stand.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
I think it is time, btw, for the antiwar movement to reload and prepare for a massive “final push.” In fact, that is probably what it should be called. The Citizens’ Final Push Out of Iraq or something like that. There really should be something ready to respond to the ISG recommendations, and Bush’s response to them. The antiwar movement should be able to articulate a partial consensus: “Begin Withdrawal Now,” needs to be prepared for an intense battle over our future involvement in Iraq.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
I think the problem is this. Even though the leaders of the Dems in the House and Senate are all saying that they have heard the voice of the people in this election and want to end the war now, plenty of folks here doubt their committment. Pelosi and company can’t do anything until January and Bush sure won’t change on his own. It is, perhaps, justified, to be sceptical but at some point you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. At least until they have the levers of power. I mean the current Speaker of the House is Dennis Hastart and that won’t change for another six weeks. Since when did we want instant gratification? This is not a Parlementary Democracy where the control shifts immediately.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
On what I just said see Nancy Pelsoi on HUFFINGTON POST:
“I am more committed than ever to put an end to this war.”
November 17th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
To regurgate a point from yesterday; if sudden outrage over a twenty six year old beef with Muthra is utterly appropriate, I look forward to his enthusiastic backing of congressional hearings on the Presidents dump of Harkin stock, for openers. If all is fair in political warefare, it’s time to spread some of all that sweet fairness around. The same press that championed Whitewater in all it’s epic nothingness sat on it’s hands and let Tom Delay turn Congress into the last ten pages of The Weekly. (O.K., that’s the last one, I promise.)
It’s important to note, in fairness and shame, that Bush’s comments in Vietnam yesterday should surprise no one. The politicans lost Vietnam stuff is part of right wing scripture, though until Bush became President no one in real power believed it (only a cross section of the neocon “Vulcans” would really be down with it) or would have acted using it as a guide.
It helps to be a bumpkin who never read books.
The fact that someone that stupid in such fundamentaly important ways became President is the fault of Democrats and Jounalists. At least that was the case in 2000. The Dems, because they are too frightened or clumsy to challenge such vunerable points. The Journalists, because they dumb down the process in every way, shape or form, and are scared of the Liberty Dad lobby to challenge a Republican candidate on such nonsense.
Of course, as the years went by, bad mouthing the Vietnam War became assosaited with “bad mouthing the troops.” This con was not what not bravely answered even in the liberal press.
Anyway, I wonder if Bush, who was so moved to pass by the lake where they captured McCain, visted any of the victims of Genetic disease created by Agent Orange, or maybe the statue at My Lai.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Pelosi.mov
November 17th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Michael Balter on“the plan is to cut off funding to the war.â€:
“This may indeed be an effective strategy, but Democratic leaders assured us all through the midterm campaign that they would not do this. Why? Because they were afraid of being accused of undermining our troops or putting them in harm’s way.”
Shouldn’t they be?
“This is, of course, a ridiculous argument, since only those who left the troops in Iraq without guns, bullets, body armor and food would be guilty of that, rather than bending to the popular will and just pulling them out.”
I see you’ve never worked for any branch of the Federal government, Balter. Some of us have vivid memories of going without paychecks when Congress got deadlocked over appropriations. It’s really rather surreal when it happens. You’re sitting there, amazed: “If it were a company doing this to us, it would be lawsuit city!” When a private sector employer stops paying you, you can file a wage claim. Not so with the Federal government. But at least you’re not pinned down under sniper fire.
If the money stops, the supplies stop, and if the supplies stop, the troops are out there, hanging. The war supply-chain isn’t going to keep running because the companies involved feel its their patriotic duty to go bankrupt, if necessary, to keep our troops supplied.
Just to get out of Iraq, a lot of our troops might have to take Iraqi service station attendants hostage to refuel their vehicles, probably coming under fire from Iraqis who themselves had hoped to get their cars gassed up before they headed for the Jordanian or Syrian border. Our troops would of course keep firing back until they … ran out of bullets. Oops, it seems Congress neglected to buy us more ammo ….
And you think this wouldn’t make the vast majority of Americans very angry with Congress, and especially with the congressional majority that stopped the money?
“Now that the Democrats have Congress ….”
No, what the Democrats have is a slim majority in Congress. They don’t have enough to overwhelm a presidential veto, unless they can get something like half of Republicans in Congress behind a bill.
” …. will they still be afraid of shadows that aren’t there or will they exercise some muscle?”
They don’t have much muscle. They have a slim majority. On the other side: a Republican president who is also still the leader of his party, a party that still holds something close to a majority of congressional seats. American democracy weights power toward the executive.
“… wait, just raising the question means suggesting that the Democrats might now bear some responsibility for Iraq.”
The only way they could NOT bear some responsibility for Iraq would be if they hadn’t been holding office. The questions are: how much responsibility have they had? (not much), and, how much control do they have now? (not much).
“I take it back, how unfair of me.”
While you’re at it, why don’t you take back that snide bit about how reg’s critical-thinking ability seems impaired on certain subjects? Yours is no prize.
November 17th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
I have to say, one thing that really irks me is this assumption among many Dem activists that the election was a referendum on immediate withdrawal. It was not.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
The percentage of Americans favoring immediate withdrawal is not even at an all-time high. That point was reached in March of this year (50%). Those favoring immediate withdrawal are not a majority now–it’s at about 48%. We’ve still got a long way to go before we hit levels of discontent and revulsion reached during the Vietnam War–if we ever get that far.
November 18th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Michael Turner shows us once again that he lives in his head rather than the real world.
November 18th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Actually when the Government “Shut Down” essential services – and that included the military got monies from accounts. You see there is always stuff in the pipline and it would take a really, really long time for it to pinch. But Turner’s point is well taken. It would be easy to portray the Dems as “stabbing in the Back” our brave men and women and they know it. It wouldn’t be Bush beating them over the head. It would be John McCain, the media’s favorite “maverick” doing the honors.
November 18th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Michael Balter, I haven’t been reading this site for several months, but I’m surprised at your very uncharacteristically snide response to Michael Turner, and earlier to reg.
I agree with virtually all of Michael T’s most recent two comments, which — far from being the product of ‘living in his head’ — cites real-world experience, facts about the scale of the Democratic majority, and current polling.
For encouraging participation in the United for Peace & Justice demo back in September 2005, I took heat here. Marc and others mocked the demands of the march (“Out Now”). I tried to defend the commonsense notion that people who support something a bit more nuanced than that when it comes to actual legislation and policy can still rally behind a clear demand, especially when the only alternative is more of the same.
UfPJ has moved up to January 27 a demo originally scheduled for March, in hopes of generating massive, visible popular support explicitly for withdrawal from Iraq, to create pressure on Congress. Now that Marc disparages nuance, and wants clear, non-focused group messages from Carl Levin and Harry Reid, can we get a little support for that demo? My experience is that we get as much ‘leadership’ from politicians as we demand from them.
More info about the January 27-29 events:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3436
November 19th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
“Michael Turner shows us once again that he lives in his head rather than the real world.”
Yeah. Like, last night I had this bizarre dream about expensive military helicopters being pushed into the sea from the deck of an aircraft carrier off the coast of Vietnam, because the means to transport them back to the U.S. were unavailable. Where do these surreal, feverish images come from, anyway?
You’ll notice that Reid just proposed an extra $70 billion or so for rearmament. Even a phased U.S. military some of our troops shooting their way out of some situations. The party line among the Shi’ite militias is to go a little easy on U.S. troops until it’s time for them to leave. The highway from the airport into Baghdad is still a scary transit, after several years. If this is what Iraq is like when most forces are holding back, imagine what it will be like if Shi’ite militias see every attack on our troops as an opportunity to pick up arms and materiel abandoned by our forces in all suddenly-necessary haste.
You want a fantasy world to live in, Balter? OK, here you go: we skedaddle outa there in three weeks (somehow unmolested), and with the supposed proximate cause of the violence removed, the Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds all calm down, retire to games of dominos over coffee, and work out their differences like reasonable mature adults. The insurgents all start using remote-control garage door openers for opening garage doors again, instead of for triggering IEDs. The Shi’ite militias decide that electrical drills are really better used for repairing schools in the New Iraq, rather than for torturing Sunni kidnap victims. The Kurds wake up and notice that Kirkuk’s population is a kind of potential rainbow coalition of ethnicities and religious faiths, living together in harmony.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
I wrote this in October 2006. It seems no less relevant today.
From Sea to Shining Sea, American Politics
Beginning particularly with the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, a global shift in world power configurations began with the ascendancy of an Islamic regime that was willing to reject American hegemony in the Middle East. The 444-day standoff saw 66 Americans held inside the American embassy in Tehran by revolutionary students under the new regime. In the aftermath, the American right discredited President Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan was installed as the new US President, and a systematic and methodical dismantling of FDR’s social safety net of programs to ameliorate some of “free enterprise’s†more glaring inequities was initiated. Ronald Reagan set his union-busting sights on the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), the majority of whose members he fired in the summer of 1981. It was to spell the death knell of collective bargaining as a legitimate device for working people to ensure themselves some modicum of control over their own economic destiny.
Over the course of the ensuing 25 years, America has seen corporations close thousands of manufacturing facilities and relocate them in underdeveloped nations, where there were no troublesome regulatory constraints and labor was plentiful and dirt-cheap. The US citizens who used to work in those facilities saw their livelihoods disappear before their very eyes. McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, Target and a host of minimum-wage employers moved adroitly to fill the vacuum, further marginalizing American workers and creating a huge permanent underclass of “working poorâ€, people who labor 40-plus hours per week and still find themselves barely able to survive economically. All this was done in the name of “free enterprise†and “globalizationâ€. Basically, these code words connote massive shifts of wealth to the upper stratum of the elite, always at the expense of the mass of the population. Always these ploys are couched in terms of promoting “free tradeâ€.
By June 1990 the East German Government had officially dismantled the Berlin Wall and a year later, on Christmas Day of 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev resigned from power and the USSR officially dissolved. These events were to have a significant impact upon the American population, but not the one they expected. The projected windfall that, by right, ought to have accrued to the citizenry of the USA never materialized. Americans felt that, finally, the financial and material resources that had for 75 years been diverted to “fighting communism†would now be applied towards improving living conditions for millions of American citizens. They were about to be bitterly disappointed.
The reality of “politics” in the USA today, a quarter century later, is that there has been a massive rightward shift in public discourse that significantly predates 9-11-01. It started with Clinton’s attacks on welfare “cheaters” and has continued unabated ever since. Clinton immediately abandoned most of his progressive agenda as soon as his “handlers” convinced him he needed to move to the right in order to win re-election in 1996. The vicious and unrelenting Republican hatred for Clinton notwithstanding, the two “sides” were not then and are not now substantively different in their views on how to “govern” the nation.
Basically a new external enemy has been created, cultivated and proliferated…a much-needed distraction to supplant the COMMUNISM that so effectively served wealthy elites for 75 years until the demise of the USSR. After all, nothing would anger the wealthy more than having to direct such massive budget surpluses as existed before 9/11 towards the health and welfare of the American general public. War always enables those in power to usurp democratic freedoms and aggrandize executive power. A cursory review of presidential behavior during every American war will point this out. One of many examples from the George W. Bush Administration is highlighted below:
On August 17, 2006 a Federal judge ruled that the government’s warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. The judge, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit, ruled that the National Security Agency’s program violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
Exacerbating these usurpations of power by the executive branch of government is the unfortunate demise of a truly independent free press. In a modern first world democracy, the function of the vaunted Fourth Estate (the press) is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. American history is replete with examples of genuine muckraker reporting that exerted a restraining influence upon otherwise unbridled corporate greed and abuse. The population was at least minimally protected by the media’s willingness to expose particularly heinous abuses of power and public trust. Not so any longer. Especially since 1979 and the Iran hostage episode, the media has assumed a particularly obsequious and subservient role in the political arena.
If there is any question about media bias, one need only ask oneself this: “Is there any difference between (A) the manner in which the media treated Bill Clinton over a sexual dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and (B) the manner in which the media treats George W Bush over his lies to the nation about weapons of mass destruction in order to drag the country into a war with Iraq?†One offense did no harm to the nation. The other offense has caused ongoing, possibly irreversible damage to the USA as well as Iraq. Yet the Republicans appointed Kenneth Starr as special prosecutor and spent over $40 million to investigate and try to impeach Bill Clinton. No such outrage is being directed at George W. Bush and his Administration even though thousands of civilians have died since Bush’s decision to take the path to war with Iraq based on lies. Let the reader be the judge. Is the media really “Liberal�
Attacks on “liberal media” are a convenient ploy by the elite who run the nation. After all, one need only consider that the “media” are owned by, and completely serve the interests of, very large corporate structures, which are, in turn, owned and controlled by very wealthy elites within American society. Nevertheless, labeling the “media” as “Liberal” creates a sham debate among the general populace…a debate in name only, never in substance. In fact, the terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” no longer have any substantive meaning in American political discourse.
Just as both major parties marched in tragic lockstep towards the horrendous misuse of American power in Southeast Asia from 1957 to 1975, so now also have they done vis a vis the Middle East. Then the external enemy was Marxism. Now the external enemy is Terrorism. The current “ISM” is a far more effective tool for focusing the attention of the masses. The “threat†is ongoing, ubiquitous and ever changing. An example is this story headlined on CBS News:
Bush: America Safer, But Not Yet Safe
US will be fighting terrorists for years to come – Bush
WASHINGTON, Aug. 15, 2006
First of all, this “ISM” is not confined to any one readily identifiable nation state. This enables the elite to project its military power with impunity wherever it sees fit.
Secondly, this “ISM†lends itself to constant change in definition, depending on the current needs of the elite. Thirdly, it can just as easily be applied against internal as external “undesirables”. An impervious assault upon long cherished Constitutional rights and liberties is being aggressively pursued. Unwarranted wiretaps, the questionable election results from 2000 and 2004 (the first of these having predated 9-11-01 argues in favor of elite scorn for democratic practices BEFORE terrorists gave them a convenient bogey man), and “rendered†prisoners are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Michigan men released from jail; terrorism charges dropped Columbus Dispatch
US Drops Terrorist Charges Linked to Cell Phone Purchase
Voice of America
Fourth, new “terrorists” are easy to “create”, based on the definition fed to the populace. There are many more parallels between the two “ISMâ€s that have dominated public discourse since 1917. I will not bore the reader with further detailed enumeration. Suffice to point out that, once again, the elite has effectively found a “cause celebre†to distract the masses and allocate society’s wealth and nature’s resources in such a way as to massively benefit the few at the expense of the many.
Historically this is not new. What IS new is the degree to which the powerful can get away with outright lies to justify what they want to do. Witness the article by David Corn included below:
Better Saddam Than Dead
David Corn
August 16, 2006
David Corn writes The Loyal Opposition twice a month for TomPaine.com. Corn is also the Washington editor of The Nation and is the author of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). Read his blog at http://www.davidcorn.com.
Better dead than Red. During the Cold War, that was the rallying cry of the diehard anti-communists, many of whom never had to face the choice. During those years, hundreds of millions of people—in the Soviet Union, in China and elsewhere—did not adhere to such an extreme slogan. They may not have fancied living in lands without freedoms, but they believed it was preferable to reside under repression than to die trying to topple tyranny.
There have always been brave souls—the rebels of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the members of Solidarity in Poland, the dissidents of the Soviet Union, the champions of Tiananmen Square—willing to sacrifice their own existence to achieve freedom for their fellow citizens. But let’s face it; most of us would rather be red—or any other color—than dead. And that’s hardly an irrational choice, for even in a dictatorship, one is often free to enjoy family and friends and some of the mundane pleasures of life.
Which brings us to Iraq. The chaos and mayhem there has reached (or surpassed) a point when it may not be unsound to say that Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein. Think of it this way: in the years since George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. The most recent statistics are staggering. In May and June, according to the United Nations, six thousand Iraqis were slain. Recently, the health ministry noted that 1,850 Baghdad residents were killed in July alone and 3,438 civilians were killed throughout the country. That is, in a three-month period, about 10,000 Iraqis have lost their lives in the troubles the invasion—and the poorly planned occupation—gave birth to. Yet despite these harrowing numbers, President Bush, according to The New York Times, is befuddled by the lack of public support among Iraqis for the American mission in their country.
As we all are aware, pre-invasion Iraq was a nasty place in terms of human rights and political freedoms. But in the years prior to the invasion, there was not this level of slaughter. Amnesty International’s 2002 report (PDF here ) notes that “scores of people, including possible prisoners of conscience and armed forces officers suspected of planning to overthrow the government, were executed.†Scores of suspected government opponents were arrested, and their fates and whereabouts were unknown.
Scores of people killed—that’s what now happens on a daily, rather than annual, basis. Of course, there were brutal and horrific acts of mass murder during Saddam Hussein’s reign. The Anfal campaign of the late 1980s—which included chemical weapons attacks on Kurdish villages—led to the deaths of tens of thousands and the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands. Saddam’s repression of the Shiite rebellion of 1991—which came at the end of the first Persian Gulf war after President George H.W. Bush called on Iraqis to overthrow the dictator and then did nothing to support the uprising—resulted in about 30,000 Shiite deaths. Since the invasion, the discovery of mass graves has reminded the world of these atrocities.
But the United States took no action at the time of these nightmares to stop the killings. And in the years since the Gulf War, a weakened Saddam had not repeated such genocidal acts. That is hardly praise. But let’s be blunt: Far many more Iraqis have died due to the war Bush started than were killed by Saddam in the years prior to the invasion. The total number of civilian Iraqi deaths may well be more than 100,000. (The equivalent loss for the United States would be more than 1 million people.) This is much more than the recent death counts in Lebanon and Israel—which spark justifiable outrage on each side.
I imagine that hardheaded advocates of the war will say that such is the price of liberty, that eggs must be broken. Yet here’s the rub: The Iraqi people did not decide that such a cost was worth bearing. They had it imposed upon them. In the examples of anti-communist rebellions cited above, freedom fighters in those countries were willing to take the risk and put their own lives at stake. They could determine if they wished to be dead rather than red. In Iraq, there was no such indigenous calculation. People in another country decided they knew what was best for Iraqis. And they then botched the job.
The Saddam regime is gone; that’s true. But given what has taken its place, it would not be an irrational choice for many Iraqis to prefer the Iraq of 2002 rather than the Iraq of 2006. Think about it. Most Iraqis before the invasion—like most citizens in most repressive states—managed to get by. They may not have had freedoms, but they had their friends and relatives. They still fell in love, had sex, had families, played with their kids, followed sports. The lucky ones—like the lucky ones in all countries—had meaningful work. Now millions of Iraqis have lost a loved one. And in return, they have a country that is unstable and on the brink of collapse, and their daily lives are marked by crime and deep uncertainty involving life and death. It’s a different sort of terror than what George W. Bush speaks of.
Is it better to be free in an environment of violent chaos than safe in circumstances without freedom? I’m not arrogant enough to say that I know the answer. I might well choose a life without political freedoms rather than lose my wife or children. Live free or die, they say in New Hampshire. But how many people really believe that? In any event, that choice should be left to those who are actually willing to die to make the point. The 100,000 or so dead Iraqis cannot tell us what they would prefer.
Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and the other supporters of this war are responsible for the consequences of their actions—or they ought to be. One result is that tens of thousands of Iraqis are now dead who would not have been had the invasion not happened. Given that Bush hails the preciousness of each life when the subject is embryonic stem-cell research, I wonder why the Iraq war is not judged—and acknowledged—an abysmal failure by its creators. Do they not believe Iraqi lives are as valuable as frozen embryos?
Before the war, Bush and his aides said the primary rationale for the war was neutralizing a direct WMD threat to the United States. That turned out to be bogus. They also claimed that bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq would have a positive effect on the entire Middle East. Strike that, too. Additionally, they claimed the war would save the Iraqi people. Instead, it has created a hell for many Iraqis. The carnage that has come about due to Bush’s invasion is unforgivable. In defending the war, Bush often points to the fact that a brutal dictator has been removed from power. But so profound is Bush’s failure in Iraq that there is increasing merit to the argument that this single positive achievement was not worth the cost.
Let’s ask all the dead Iraqis what they think.
The total lack of American leadership accountability is extremely blatant and obvious. The weakened condition of democracy within the USA has been an ongoing process. One might easily argue that this process is a direct outcome of elite rule. After all, power hates accountability or restraint, and privilege disdains oversight. Democratic principles are inconvenient to those who wield enormous power and privilege. Witness the concerted propaganda campaign that was unleashed upon the American citizenry to justify military attack and invasion of Iraq. Witness the massive discrepancy between what the Bush Administration said about the likely duration of that “war†and the bleak reality of what the world sees now in the Middle East. Of course, both American political parties fully supported Bush’s march into the current military insanity. No entity seems willing or capable of holding the Administration accountable for its actions.
In the meantime, the powerful in the USA have contributed mightily to massively destabilizing the Middle East and, therefore, the entire world. Such destabilization, of course, plays directly into their hands and serves their interests. After all, if enough people can be significantly terrorized and frightened, they will grant any and all power to the “authorities†that hold out a promise to “protect†them. How convenient that these “authorities†have not been able to find, capture or kill Osama Bin Laden or his lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahiri. How convenient that, only when Bush suffered a huge decline in his “approval†ratings, suddenly the “authorities†were able to find and kill Abu Musab al Zarqawi. The list of outrageous crimes committed by the powerful in America, in the name of a powerless citizenry, has earned scorn, ridicule and hatred worldwide.
On August 11, 2006, headlines regarding the terrorist plot to explode several airplanes uncovered by the British government have been accompanied by additional headlines that read:
Democrats assail GOP fundraising effort Jordan Falls News
Terror Plot Could Have Impact on US Elections Voice of America
Politically, a chance to score points Boston Globe
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago. WASHINGTON – Democrats assailed the Republicans Friday for e-mailing a fundraising appeal mentioning the war on terror hours after British authorities disclosed they had disrupted a plot to blow up aircraft headed to the United States. “In the middle of a war on terror, we need to remain focused on furthering Republican ideas more than ever before,” former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a letter that asked for donations to the Republican National Committee. “Once the RNC learned of this error we ceased distribution of the e-mail,” said Tracey Schmitt, a party spokeswoman.
The point here is not to deny that groups exist in the world at large, groups that are willing to resort to dastardly, heinous acts to inflict harm on innocent citizens to achieve their goals. Terrorism exists, to be sure. One must bear in mind, however, that one group’s terrorists are another group’s freedom fighters. The ability to define the terms dictates how these different groups are perceived. When the first world nations perpetrate a bloodbath against less powerful states, the perpetrators invariably couch such actions in terms of promoting “freedom†and “liberationâ€. When the much less powerful states respond with suicide bombings or other equally pathetic attempts at redressing the massive grievances they have, these people are labeled “terroristsâ€. When the USA bombs and slaughters millions with impunity, this is “liberationâ€, whether in Vietnam or Iraq. When 2 planes kill 3000 American citizens, this is “terrorismâ€.
This is only one small example of how the elite create the world they want and then use what they have created to further their interests, always at the expense of the masses. The one thing that they cannot do is control events globally. Once having unleashed the insanity of global military conflict, the powers in Washington now are at a loss to rein in what they have started in motion. Witness the total unpredictability of events in Iraq, followed by more of the same between Israel and Lebanon. The world may now be witnessing the opening battles of what might very well become WWIII. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Andrew Card, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, George W Bush, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and all the other people who have played a significant role in these developments will be held to account only by a distant history written by minds that have perspective. Meantime, we all have to live with the results these people have given us. Whether the human species can survive what has been set in motion remains to be seen.