Showdown
Who's gonna blink first?
Wednesday night President Bush, against all odds and in spite of all expert advice, will announce his escalation of the war in Iraq.
Meanwhile, leading Democrats continue to crabwalk toward confrontation, suggesting more openly that they might, maybe, perhaps will try to block funding for Bush's move.
We at least have to give Bush credit for inadvertently forcing the question. As soon as he shoots his wad on national TV it's gonna be a time-to-get-off-the-pot moment for the Congressional Democrats.
Curiously absent from the fray is an organized, visible, and credible anti-war movement. This seems like a great time to have a couple of hundred thousand people out in front of the White House -- a good old-fashioned candle-light vigil demanding a troop withdrawal. There is a DC demo planned for January 27 from one of the two coalitions that has organized previous similar protests. UFPJ is the more moderate of the two, but still -- and not merely by its own fault-- remains too politically narrow.
We know the many reasons why there isn't a broader grass-roots movement: widespread ambivalence about the original stated goals of the invasion; the usual excessive expectation invested in elected officials as substitutes for street level civics; and the disastrous after-effects of having early on ceded much of the anti-war movement's leadership to alienated and alienating fringies. On that last point, Ian Williams takes another pick at Ramsey Clark to remind us of some of the morally ambiguous tomfoolery of some war critics, foolishness that is now paying off some very negative dividends (i.e. lack of a broader movement).
Blogging from me might be light the rest of this week. I'm heading off on Wednesday, departing the smoky environs of Malibu and heading into the snows of Colorado to do some reporting on the recent ICE meatpacking raids.
Discuss among yourselves...
January 8th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 2,997 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans this week:
ALLEN, Charles D., 28, Staff Sgt., Army; Wasilla, Alaska; Second Infantry Division.
LONCKI, Elizabeth A., 23, Senior Airman, Air Force; New Castle, Del.; 775th Civil Engineer Squadron.
MILLER, Daniel B. Jr., 24, Senior Airman, Air Force; Galesburg, Ill.; 775th Civil Engineer Squadron.
WEINER, Timothy R., 35, Tech Sgt., Air Force; Tamarac, Fla.; 775th Civil Engineer Squadron.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Far as I can tell, only one Democratic presidential hopeful has come out in favor of cutting funding for the war: Dennis Kucinich. Yet, this truly is a moment of truth for the Democratic leadership (and indeed the nation). Bush’s “New Way Forward” is a direct slap in the face. The only option Congress has is to play the funding card. But I don’t see it happening. Even Obama appended his appeal for an investigation into “all available options” this afternoon with a caveat that those options not undermine the “resources” of our troops–a euphemism for continued funding. And you’re absolutely right, Marc. Putting our faith in elected officials is a poor substitute for direct action. Negotiations always seem more fruitful after a good wildcat strike, don’t they?
January 9th, 2007 at 1:25 am
Tick tock….gimme a break
January 9th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Or better yet -
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=weXsSoAd6Bs
January 9th, 2007 at 7:38 am
UFPJ more moderate? See, WWP vs. Commitee of Correspondence, ultra-Marcyism vs. old-style American Leftism? Who ceded leadership? Do you really want to go in this direction again, after your fanastic antiwar article in the Nation? ANSWER have no influence at all, and only scribes even notice what they are. There is, as you wrote, a huge grassroots movement in the military itself. Americans are predominantly antiwar. No, the reason there haven’t been so many MOBEs is that neither UFPJ or ANSWER call enough of them.
January 9th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Welcome to Colorado Marc. Be aware we have yet another substantial snow storm headed our way. Hope you get into DIA before it hits. Pack for roller coaster temperatures (-10 to 45 degrees). Keep you head down when you get to Greeley. It’s butt ugly here on the immigration issue. Having lived here for 20 years, I’m darned careful who I say what to. I’ll be curious to hear your take when you get back.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:11 am
I see you are still getting blamed for the failures of the antiwar movement, Marc, despite being proved right in criticizing the Slobodanophile leadership of the original mobilizations. You are so powerful! (Can I feel your muscles?) If you would just stop saying mean things, hundreds of thousands of right-thinking people (no longer confused by your crafty syntax) would be pouring into the streets. In fact, I think you should just face reality and take the blame for the whole war, which would have ended long ago were it not for your incorrect ideas.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Marc -
I’m surprised you don’t mention the absence of a military draft among your ‘many reasons why there isn’t a broader grass-roots movement’. I think that’s the most important reason.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:57 am
We know the many reasons why there isn’t a broader grass-roots movement:…
“And that, I think, was the handle – -that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark – that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.” Raoul Duke, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
January 9th, 2007 at 10:02 am
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002307.php
January 9th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Marc you don’t like A.N.S.W.E.R. or UFPJ? Too Narrow? The “Wrong” kind of people? WELL YOU DON’T GET TO CHOOSE!!!
Start your own demo if you don’t find the people involved now fastidious enough for your tastes. Maybe Norman Geras or Dave Ignatius or any of the Euston people will get off their duff and march. I’ve said before that I don’t believe in demos since this WH crowd doesn’t listen to anybody but be my guest.
You want to influence people? How about doing what COUNTERPUNCH suggests and threaten to sit-in and disrupt their offices if the Dems don’t act? Too Radical? Then this is the internet age. Let us flood their offices with E-Mails demanding action. Hearings (oh wait, they’re doing that), riders on appopriation bill placing ceiling on troop strength in Iraq, “Fences” and even funding cuts foir any purpose but withdrawal. And mention the “I” word! That is the ultimate weapon against an unaccountable and unresposive executive. Be Creative! Remember Bush will veto any bill and the overides ain’t there. And he has shills like Lieberman to make it look “Bipartisan.” So be creative.
There, that isn’t so hard is it?
And to everyone else what is your plan? That would work?
January 9th, 2007 at 11:11 am
I don’t think we can continue to blame a lack of a “movement” right now. What if we had the ideal movement? Would anyone participate?
NOPE. It should be evident (outside of the blog and journalism world) that the average person is more interested in god, electronics, porn, and celebrity culture. The US is simply a country in decline.
Look at who we elect for gods sake. That should be a wake up call.
Just hope that it all ends quickly.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Thanks for posting that, Mavis. This may be Kennedy’s day in the sun. While we talk and blog and bullshit, people really are trying to do something–people really are treating this like the emergency it is. MoveOn had 160,000 signatures on a petition in the first 18 hours it was online, they will get millions before they are done.
So while some say nothing can be done, others are doing it. Bravo.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Ted Kennedy today moved the resistance to escalation forward. He placed Bush’s plans to escalate in proper historical context, quoting Lyndon Johnson in the mid and late 60s, and referring to Nixon’s secret plan to at once end and extend the war into neighboring nations. I think it was brilliant, as it not only provided a basis to reject “surgery”, it also anticipated plans to move into Iran in support of the military action in Iraq by reminding us how well that worked in 1971.
In other words, Marc, he also reminded us what Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon told the nation, and what resulted: vastly greater investment of lives and dollars, and vast devastation of the land and people we were pledging to save. It could indeed happen in Iraq.
That said, Kennedy’s bill apparently only would require advance Congressional approval of money to implement the escalation, not the overall action. But I think it is what Americans want the Dems to do now–grab the reins and slow Bush’s breakaway war-wagon down. Once the precedent of congressional approval is set, then we can begin a meaningful debate as to how we can begin to end US military involvement at the least cost to Iraqis and to global stability.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I think MB is right to point to the MoveOn effort as it keeps the pressure on. A note, Someone wrote a letter to the WaPo the other day pointing out that a minority supported escalation and most wanted out in a reasonable time. The POST’S answer was “Well do you want Orthodontists making Policy?” This is the kinbd of arrogance that the Great and the Good give out every day. See Joe Klien’s piece in which he says he is against the “surge” but “serious” people like General Keene and Fred Kagan(!) are for it so it gives him pause. By the way Klein says Paul Krugman isn’t serious because he ignores these guys! And then there is the “Last Honest Man” the Senator from CT whomk Dave Broder finds so “Sensible!” If the dems vacillate maybe its because they read these bozos. So more power to MoveOn and more power to those people who interrupted Rahm Emmanuel’s “Victory Dance” the other day by chanting “Deescatalate! Investigate! Troops Home Now!” lead by “unserious” types like Cindy Sheehan. Rude? Yes. So was a tea party in Boston a few centuries ago.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Arrogance is the bon mot, rlo. As Brecht put it in one of his poems, paraphrasing now, those who would lead us into the abyss call governing too difficult for normal men (I assume he meant women too.)
January 9th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
And for the record I’m glad that Ted Kennedy (and Jack Murtha and Nancy Pelosi) are trying to find ways to grab the reins, as MC puts it. And I’m glad that Joe Biden’s Foreign Relations started Hearings today by summoning Condi Rice and plans to hear from present and former National Security Advisors and Sectretaries of State among others in the ensuing weeks. And the fact that Biden is running for President – and potential candidates like Obama, Kerry, and Hagel are on the committee as well as Jim Webb – ought to make for some interesting questions that I bet the WH won’t like answered.
There is a debate in Washington as to just what the Congress can do to curb the President.S ome even doubt anything short of a complete cut off of funds to the entire military would be Constitutional. And before we poo poo this we should remember who decides -SCOTUS and I can think of at least four votes from former Federalist Society members that would say Congress can’t. Course they might be worried that someday a , gasp!, Democrat could sit there but – as they showed in BUSH v GORE, they are not averse to “one time only” decisions.
Then what? The “I” word is warming up.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
MB I prefer to think of his famous remarks on the East Berlin uprising of 1953 that the people had lost the confidence of the Government and a new people must be found. I sometimes think that is the credo of the Great and the Good in DC and has been since they were totally flummoxed by the great unwashed lack of interest in running Clinton out of town for a blowjob!
January 9th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Yes, that was a good one.
Anyone heard from Hillary on the escalation? She must not want the presidency all that bad if she is willing to let all the other candidates take the lead on this.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Agreed. I think she may have “Triangulated” herself right out of the nomination and it would be fascinating if this is her fault or if she was listening to Bill on this. Course Bill might have told her otherwise and I’m sure sooner or later Bob Woodward will tell us in a book.
But I do find it interesting that several recent polls showed her beating John McCain and Rudy but the source of the poll – NEWSWEEK – didn’t publish that because it got in the way of a cover story asking if America was ready for a woman or a black (Obama). Simple answer: They were, or at least said they were and that ruined all that lovely prose.
I think what it showed – apart from name recognition – was the bloom coming off the McCain rose. Maybe people out there don’t like his strong pro-war stance and I note other measures of public opinion show both his approval numbers down (by up to 15 points) and his negatives rising from 5 to 35 where Hillary is. Course that may be different in GOP land as they seem to be the only believers left for this fiasco. But we just learned that may than Republican votes are needed to win.
We live in interesting times.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
And mark this on your calendar. On 19 January Bill O’Reilly and Steven Colbert wil;l appear on each other’s shows.
Must see TV indeed!
January 9th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Lindsey Graham really has the ultimate teflon suit; at least round these parts. While Hillary’s silence draws endless conjecture, any reason Graham’s fanciful grandstanding passes without notice? Grrr…. I just don’t CARE what those people think! … snars Balter.
Alas, there are TWO poliitcal parties, and it just MAY be that politics enters in on the Republican side as well. Ariana thinks Lindsey is delusional, our host has praised him as “quirky” ( those who seek the great white Bubba seem to form a special bond), but it seem to me he may be he may be nutty or quirk ridden like a fox. Anybody notice his double reverse on the torture bill, how it disabled the Dems and played perfectly into W’s Waterboarding hands?
Take a look at his ruthless antics in the SC conformation process and you can see class A Mayberry Macavelian. When this nonsense bottoms out in the Fall his story will be how the Dems deserted the troops. Round here we will read such talk is the Dems on fault because, ah, they’re Dems. Result: McCain/ Graham, 08. You heard it here first.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
I set my anti war letter to my “liberal” who voted for the war Congressman Henry Waxman. I am not encouraged, though.
lease, no more Clintons
I agree with what Josh said 100%:
[it's]…evident (outside of the blog and journalism world) that the average person is more interested in god, electronics, porn, and celebrity culture. The US is simply a country in decline.
And don’t forget this countyr/dying Empire is also addicted to cheap foreign oil, and is willing to sacrifice a few poor kids in the military every day for it.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 2,998 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American yesterday:
JOHNSON, Jeremiah J., 23, Cpl., Army; Vancouver, Wash.; 25th Infantry Division.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Andrea analogizes with wildcat strikes, rlc with Boston tea parties. Work stoppages and destruction of inventory hit your opponents where it hurts, though. Candlelight vigils will be very touching and inspiring, but they are only peaceful preaching, and only to a peaceful choir, a choir that can only sing. What you need is zingers, not singers.
Much as I hate to sound like some namby-pamby process-oriented liberal, I think your best hope of a rapid change of policy toward pullout, any time soon, is either from congressional inquiries suddenly turning up major skeletons in the closet, or from Iraq suddenly taking an uncontainable turn for the worse. I’d prefer the former. But that’s because I actually like *being* a namby-pamby process-oriented liberal, even if I don’t particularly like admitting that I am one.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Since Marc opened another thread, I’m going to post something off-topic here on one of my “favorite” subjects – the Hate America Right.
An upcoming forum at the Heritage Foundation features Hoover Institution Fellow Dinesh D’Souza who (QUOTE ) argues that the cultural left is responsible for 9/11…fostering a decadent and depraved American culture that angers and repulses other societies – especially traditional and religious ones…Muslims and other traditional people around the world allege that secular American values are being imposed on their societies and that these values undermine religious belief, weaken the traditional family, and corrupt the innocence of children. D’Souza contends that it is not “America†that is doing this to them, but the American cultural left. What traditional societies consider repulsive and immoral, the cultural left considers progressive and liberating…D’Souza argues that the war on terror is really a war for the hearts and minds of traditional Muslims – and traditional peoples everywhere. (END QUOTE)
Nice. These fucks are openly on the side of Islamic fundamentalism and are making excuses for al Qaeda.
ALSO: views from the ground on a “surge”…
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16421080.htm
January 10th, 2007 at 1:13 am
“it would be fascinating if this is her fault or if she was listening to Bill on this.”–rlo
Maybe Bill is deliberately giving her bad advice. How badly does he really want her to be president, anyway? Think about it.
January 10th, 2007 at 3:51 am
Reg comes up with this, from Dinesh D’Souza: “… the cultural left is responsible for 9/11…fostering a decadent and depraved American culture that angers and repulses other societies – especially traditional and religious ones…Muslims and other traditional people around the world allege that secular American values are being imposed on their societies and that these values undermine religious belief, weaken the traditional family, and corrupt the innocence of children. D’Souza contends that it is not “America†that is doing this to them, but the American cultural left. ”
Hm, was it the “cultural left” that created prom night, an American institution that Sayyid Qutb found pathetic and disgusting in the 40s? (A story Dinesh knows about, and wrote about in this book, according to the review at the American Conservative). How far would we have to bend over backwards (or forwards, for that matter) to be considered sufficiently innocuous to your typical al Qaeda recruit?
This isn’t just from some single nutty talk Dinesh is giving, it’s one leg of his road promotion for an entire 352-page book.
http://tinyurl.com/y2zd3f
You can get an introductory excerpt by clicking on “All editorial reviews”, in which Dinesh claims that the raison d’etre for 9/11 has been an enduring mystery that he alone has solved. “They did it because they hate us” (simplistic) begs the question “Why do they hate us?” And he has the answer: we let the “cultural left” paint a bullseye on our backs.
The more obvious answer doesn’t seem to have occurred to him: maybe because 9/11 would provoke America into a counter-productive reaction (for purposes of “defeating terrorism”, anyway)? And indeed it has. If Al Qaeda had been after some Axis of Evil Cultural Leftism, why did they pick financial (WTC), political (the Capitol) and military (the Pentagon) targets? Why didn’t they send their lethal message to the belly of the beast: Hollywood?
It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but it doesn’t have to. If Ezra Klein is right, the point is keep upping the ante of attention-getting weirdness on the Right:
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/09/how_evites_expl.html#comments
Mark Warren at Esquire nails it:
“Dear Dinesh: Just read your new book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 (Doubleday, $27). Here’s your blurb—I think it works: “Dinesh D’Souza does for liberals what The Protocols of the Elders of Zion did for the Jews!” Put that one up high, D, because with your crowd, that’s going to move some serious books.”
http://tinyurl.com/yyjljn
Admittedly, Warren’s easy to dismiss. After all, he works for a magazine that’s part of the problem, doesn’t he? Models who show not only their entire bare faces, but considerably more, much more, *dangerously* more! Think of that, guys, next time you’re furtively leaving through the pictorials at the magazine rack — some jihadi might slit your throat and be off around the corner before your body hit the ground.
James Wolcott lays into Dinesh rather amusingly as well:
http://tinyurl.com/ylknro
Then again, I guess the only reason Wolcott is even still alive is that Vanity Fair didn’t make Al Qaeda’s shortlist when they were selecting Cultural Left targets. But why not? Those terrorists — they are mad, I tell you, mad!
January 10th, 2007 at 7:55 am
It fun to look at Balter’s posts and consider who’s been accused of being obsessed with Clinton. Actually Balts, that’s the kind of thing only you and Shawn Hannity think about; though to be fair, he get lots and lots of money for it.
I’m wondering were the likes of Cummings is on Ramsey Clark, as the post we link to here is terrible. If we believe in a just society the worst and most guilty must have comptent representation, what’s wrong with Clark pursuing the idea on an international level? It’s sheer demogogary to suggest Clark LIKES these people or even wants them to get off; though that’s never stopped our host before. Somehow I think the fact that previous Republican adminastrations being spared embarrasment by a full accounting of what happened with Saddam is not going to bother our host here.
The sophestry of Williams comments about Clark being a lousy lawyer blow his harangue. So he wanted Saddam to have a GOOD lawyer? If his hearts in the wrong place and he’s doing a terrible job, then Williams should be happy with him. If that’s not the case, then all the attacks on Clark are just KFI radio fodder, and leftys who join in should be ashamed.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:05 am
You know, I’m flattered that K Nardy thinks my posts are worthy of notice and comment, although I’m sorry I cannot return the compliment; his (or hers) are notable only for their incoherence.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Ominious Quote From WaPo: Tonight, this (senior White House official) said, the president will explain “that we have to go up before we go down.”
WTF ?
January 10th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Not a dime’s worth of difference…
Well, first we are treated to grousing that it took the Democrats an entire 24-hour news cycle after becoming the majority in a new Congress to directly challenge Bush on the war/escalation and the nay-sayers are reduced to questioning how far they can or will go – which, of couse is a good question, but it wasn’t even remotely on the table a few months ago. Next up we’ve got the Senate Majority Whip proposing major legislation for public funding of elections. I don’t expect Durbin’s proposal to pass in ’07, but I do think it’s incumbent upon Dem-hating naysayers to at least adjust that “dime” for inflation of their rhetoric.
(“Dem-hating naysayers” as opposed to “Dem-loving/hating showmewhatelseyagotsayers” such as myself.)
January 10th, 2007 at 9:57 am
oops…link
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002312.php
January 10th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Balter, I would bet most of us got it but I’ll try again: You, much more than supposedly blindy loyal Dems, seem to be the one obsessed with the Clintons. But don’t let me spoil you’re fun, it’s kinda funny.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I was going to ignore K Nardy’s latest remarks but on second thought they are so idiotic that I think I will respond after all. Hillary Clinton is running for president in 2008. She should be judged by her stands on the issues among other things. We are facing a crisis with Bush’s plan for escalation, and this is the main issue of the day, and so Clinton’s position on this is of course relevant to a voter’s evaluation of her. Elementary, no?
btw is K Nardy a bad speller or is his typing as sloppy as his thinking?
January 10th, 2007 at 11:55 am
I’ll obsess a little too. Maybe Hillary ISN’T listening because she hatre the prospect of Bill running loos in the White House planning parties!
January 10th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
HHHmmm…. Well, I will point out again, it’s a pretty crowded field for that race, still two years away…. and Hil isn’t even polling very well. Yet none of the other candidates seem to interest you at all, including those who are SUPPORTING Bush and his war. Well, maybe it’s women you have a problem with….
But even if you WERE interested in them as candidates, would you be as interested in their prospects on such a nakedly tabloid level? What’s Mrs. McCain think about his entering the race? Sorry about the crude level of my writing and or spelling. I’m better playing verbal paddy cake.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
HUFFPO is reporting that TEN GOP Senators oppose the “Surge”. AMERICABLOG has a wonderful oldie from BBC’s “Blackadder” that may be the best rebuttal of Bush. FOX News calls Ted Kennedy an “Enemy” for threatening funding and now Bush give the Dems a rope by requesting $6.8 Billion to fund his escalation. I want to see that go down and then see what kind of tantrum he throws since he says, via his Press Secty, that he can ignore Congress if they vote “Wrong”.
Showdown indeed. Bush goes all in. Time to call, eh Marc?
January 10th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
“What’s Mrs. McCain think about his entering the race?”
Which one ?
January 10th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I’ve got a better one Reg. What does Mrs. Guiliani (take your pick) think?
The GOP – Family values are for sissies!
January 10th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Here’s why you got to love them and cuss them out at the same time. Max Baucus (D-MT) caved in committee to small business lobbyists by adding tax goodies to the Senate Minimum wage bill. Bad! BAD! But he also announced today that he will introduce legislation to get all troops out of Iraq in Six Months. Baucus lost a nephew in fighting there – I think he’s the only legislator who has lost a close family member. So it has hit home for him and he now says “NADA” and announced that he never should have voted for the war in the first place and wouldn’t today if he knew then what he knows now.
It does make a difference when you have a personal stake. But good for the Senior Senator from Montana.
January 10th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weXsSoAd6Bs
January 10th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
This is from an old Chomsky essay on the status of the antiwar movement in 1971. If you can get past some of the “big picture” Chomsky fixations, there are a lot of parallels. A lot.
At the start of section II we read:
I shall not consider here the chances for success in the effort to achieve a military victory in Indochina. Rather, I shall return to the question of “the cooling of America,” an essential component in US strategy. There are several segments of American society that must be pacified if the Nixon-Kissinger plan is to succeed. There is, first of all, “the system.” It is reasonably clear that the courts will not consider the question of the legality of the Indochina war, at least so long as it is in progress. In that case, the judicial branch of “the system” imposes no constraint on executive power.
But what of Congress? During the past months there has been much talk, but little action. The mass protests and other kinds of pressure may lead to some efforts in Congress to stop the war as some knowledgeable commentators believe. Richard L. Strout, for example, writes that “a peace group in a restive Congress is going, in effect, to take up where the anti-war demonstrators left off, and it looks like the big issue for 1971.”
It surely didn’t look like a “big issue” before the demonstrations, and it will not again, if popular pressures decrease. As Strout observes: “The mood of the country is crucial in this developing battle.” Although critics of the “noisy disturbances” claim that they impede Congressional action, nevertheless “the tumult that filled headlines and TV emphasized the new state of the drama,” and there are some indications now that “the pressure on the White House will increase, not diminish.”[35]
It is a fair guess that the events in Washington and elsewhere did succeed in conveying a sense of urgency to Congress, just as they showed the Administration that the country is far from “cooled.” Two senators, Mike Gravel and Harold Hughes, have announced that they will attempt a filibuster against the draft.[36] Senate war critics have also decided, according to UPI reports, to press for a quick Senate vote on an “end-the-war” act.[37]
The full essay is at
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10519
January 10th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Well, we just heard the Bloviator-In-Chief go for “Victory” (even though he doesn’t expect a surrender on a battleship) in what, I guess, is our new “long Twilight Struggle” with them dirty Islamofascists. And only 20,000 more will do it! And without body armor (see the Baltimore SUN) and by taking vital troops from Afghanistan (ditto) but that’s all right our resolve is great. Great I tell you!Yes, by all means let us cue up our Tom Paxton LPs but this time Marx was wrong. The second time around is just as tragic as the first and I fail to see the farce in any of this.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:38 am
Michael Turmon gives us a Chomsky Blast from the Past: “It is a fair guess that the events in Washington and elsewhere did succeed in conveying a sense of urgency to Congress, just as they showed the Administration that the country is far from “cooled.†”
A fair point, but the ferocity and sheer size of anti-Vietnam demonstrations was but the tip of an iceberg, perhaps counterproductively leftist and violent, when almost half of of the submerged ice was Republican. It was when Nixon’s Silent Majority started grumbling ever more loudly about the lack of progress that Vietnam had to be resolved in favor of withdrawal. Chomsky’s thermal metaphor might be backward: It was coldness toward the war more than heat that got us out. GOP voters at times exceeded Dem voters in their antipathy to the Vietnam involvement, and closely lagged at most other times, from the mid-60s to the early 70s. (No doubt it helped that they could see it as LBJ’s war much of the time.)
The situation now is quite different: there is probably no greater point of division in the country between Dem and GOP voters than on this war in Iraq. It’s been that way since the beginning. The majority of GOP voters that favors continuing in Iraq is smaller now, but it’s still a majority. The overall percentage of those who are disappointed with Bush’s policies (75% now?) include those who have favored more troops (17-18% last I looked, and on the increase for around a year). It’ll be interesting to see what happens to that number in the coming weeks.
rlc: “… this time Marx was wrong. The second time around is just as tragic as the first and I fail to see the farce in any of this.”
If you see it as a repeat of Vietnam on every level. But it’s significantly different on every level — except insofar it’s a drawn-out, flagging American foreign adventure overall. And that it’s a tragedy, of course. But what war isn’t?
It’s interesting to hear that the “surge” (some want to call it a “wave”; can we split the difference with “mini-surge”?) is underway as we speak. Smart move on Bush’s part. That makes it much harder for Congress to pull the plug on it, a potentially very unpopular move if it leaves troops shivering 24×7, under-armored on the streets of Baghdad. No more blank checks, maybe, but the checks will keep on coming, I bet. Believe me, I’m as tired of all this shit as anybody out there, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush could string it out for another year in the face of current trends, before a decisive smackdown. And trends will change — after all, we didn’t see sectarian violence tantamount to civil war until the middle of last year. It’s just a question of whether the dice have any game left in them for BushCo. These people are gamblers, if nothing else. Compulsive ones, too.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Just read Michael Turmon’s posting and the Chomsky piece (well, much of it…). Thanks for that. As a planner and participant in Mayday actions, as we called them, I wasn’t much aware of the media responses, though I think I would have expected the McGrory sort of response, at least from those late for work in the beltway on May 3rd. For those who weren’t around then, Mayday was w/o doubt the oddest of the antiwar actions of the 60s and 70s. Interestingly, it was reprised a couple of years ago by the antiglobalists, whose meetings planning the shut-down of DC were telecast on CSpan. I found myself yelling at the screen, “don’t you understand, you are telling the police your tactics, even your time-schedule, so that they can break it up?” Of course we didn’t have the burden of CSpan, just government agents and provocateurs.
There are so many stories in my head, but I would just echo one part of Chomsky’s report: the people of Washington, even some of the police and conscripted military from Ft. Meade, were tremendously supportive of Mayday as well as the other mass actions of the time. I don’t think any demonstrator had to pay for a cab ride after 1967, ever. Certainly I never did. Residents, black and white, opened their doors and floors and refrigerators to us, and, in the case of Mayday, were arrested themselves (in the Georgetown apt I was staying, when I returned from a few days in the DC Coliseum as a prisoner, I learned that the baby-sitter had been arrested on her way to work, just for being on the streets).
The story of our day in court, as John Does 1-238 and Jane Does 1-134 (or something like that) was comical, as Judge Johnson had the unique opportunity to grill Dep. AG Kleindienst, who graciously appeared to prosecute us. Judge Johnson clearly relished the oppty to watch the arrogant AG squirm when he couldn’t identify who the accused were, where they were arrested, or what they were doing that was wrong. His response was, “well, if they weren’t doing something wrong, they wouldn’t have been arrested….” to which Johnson responded, “well, General Kleindienst, do you think you can manufacture proof beyond a reasonable doubt out of that assumption?”
Genl K sputtered and Johnson dismissed all charges.
The joke was on those of us Does, though. There was a class action on behalf of all who were interned during the week, and we did not receive our part of the settlement because there was no record of our arrests. Hoho.