The Restive Dead
The putrid stink of death hung all over the PR-electoral pronouncements of the Bush administration of the last few days. No escaping the pungent, throat-cloying odor of a White House mired in its own political and moral rot. And add to that the stench of the 3000 cadavers of 9/11 once again excavated and flayed before the public for narrow, partisan ends (and might we add for venal commercial purpses by those supreme cynics over at ABC).
Let’s rehearse just a few of the highlights. The unbelievably brazen peformance Sunday by Dick Cheney on Meet The Press. I have to hand it to the normally pliant Tim Russert who on this outting fired one uncomfortable truth after another at the sneering and mumbling Vice-President. I guarantee you, folks, that when the whole history of this administration is written, this episode of the MTP will occupy a seminal position — right up there with the Nixon “I am not a crook” broadcast. Confronted directly with a series of his own patently false declarations (that there was an Iraqi/9-11 connection, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that the corner had been turned in Iraq etc.), the Vice-President of the United States looked right into the camera and lied again and again again, never fully accepting any responsibility for his words and declarartions that have embroiled us in an endless war.
Whenever Russert would press, the shameless Vice-President would recur to the same two-bit trick claiming he has not yet read, or not yet seen, or not yet reviewed whatever report, statement of facts, or numbers that were being talked about.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me stay on Afghanistan, because the front page of The Washington Post today, bin Laden, the trail is stone cold, according to intelligence officials. Do you agree with that?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I don’t. I, I, I haven’t read the article, I saw the headline.
…………
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. There are, there are two totally different propositions here, and people have consistently tried to confuse them. And it’s important, I think—there’s a third proposition, as well, too, and that is Iraq’s traditional position as a strong sponsor of terror.
So you’ve got Iraq and 9/11, no evidence that there’s a connection. You’ve got Iraq and al-Qaeda, testimony from the director of CIA that there was indeed a relationship, Zarqawi in Baghdad, etc. Then the third…
MR. RUSSERT: The committee said that there was no relationship. In fact…
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I haven’t seen the report; I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but the fact is…
The fact is 48 hours after the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee published its long-awaited report on what went wrong in the run-up to the war, one of our chief sprinters, the second-in-command of the U.S. government, claims he has not yet gotten around to reading it.
Then, after Cheney sorta, kinda but not really says there is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, the President of the United States — the next day– commemorates the attacks on the Twin Towers with a prime time speech focusing on the need to support the war in Iraq! No connection, you seem except the connection in blood and treasure that the President makes.
Talk about the same-old, same-old. This war is “the calling of our generation” said the President. But a calling, of course, with no sacrifices, no taxes, do draft and most importantly, no articulated goal of what victory would look like. Nor any ability any longer to clearly justify the pretexts on which is being waged.
Unfortunately for President Bush, a clear majority of Americans have already rejected his ploy. They now know very well that invading Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9/11, other than the latter providing a flimsy rationale for the former. Bush can make all the speeches he wants, but he’s not going to be able to reverse the trend of public opinion. The American people are not nearly as confused as he wishes them to be; nor are they as stupid as the President’s handlers and speech writers who are guiding the President and his party directly into an historic political Waterloo.
All I can say is that I am damn pleased we are done with another September 11th. The disrespect for our intelligence, the trampling of the memory of the victims, the rank political exploitation of a national tragedy is just a bit too much to bear.
September 11th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
“the President’s handlers and speech writers who are guiding the President and his party directly into an historic political Waterloo”
Oh god, I hope. But the Beltway Dems shouldn’t be underestimated for their ability to pull defeat from the jaws of victory. I’m also, frankly, not looking forward at all to the next two-plus years, even if Dems achieve the ability to hold hearings, push policy, etc. The kind of stuff that’s gonna surface once the lid is completely off will probably drive someone such as myself – who’s been nothing but frustrated and despairing over this mess for four years plus change, after an honest attempt to play follow the leader in the wake of the attacks – even crazier.
September 11th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Right-Wingers will do everything to protect the Alpha-Male of The Party.
September 11th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
I’m sorry – I can’t help myself. Since it’s still 9/11 Memorial time out here on the West Coast, I’ve got to post a Tribute To The Insanity of the Neo-Cons – the most nausea-inducing column by a right-wing hack I’ve come across in the 5 years since we were attacked. Ralph Peters is the winner, writing in the New York Post this past July. It’s the Neo-Con version of coming to terms with what they have wrought, but eagerly producing lemonade from their lemon. Peters is, incidentally, BIG STUFF in the pro-war blogosphere. Sort of a poor man’s Michael Yon. A Victor Davis Hanson who’s actually gotten off of his ass in Fresno and traveled to Iraq.
Money Quote:
“Here’s the brutal reality: If Iraq is destined to become yet another monument to Arab failure, there could be far worse outcomes than a bloody civil war – as long as our troops are out of it. We should be drawing up contingency plans to move a reinforced division and adequate airpower to the Kurdish provinces in the north, to withdraw the remainder of our forces to the south, and then to let Iraq’s Sunni Arabs and Shias go at it.
Yes, Iran and Syria would be drawn in, through proxies or directly. Not necessarily a bad result, to be frank. At present, Iran and Syria ally against us. An Iraqi civil war would drag them into a military confrontation. Bad news for Hezbollah, not for us.
Let’s raise another ‘impossible’ issue: If the Arab world can’t sustain one rule-of-law democracy – after we gave Iraq a unique opportunity – might it be a useful strategic outcome to watch Arabs and Persians, Shia and Sunni, slaughtering each other again?”
This is a weird mix of Peter Galbraith’s realism and the Neo-Con’s very own “In Love With Our Fiasco Story”.
You know: “Fiasco means never having to say you’re sorry.”
Ain’t these folks wonderful.
Complete Link:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/back_to_baghdad_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
September 11th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Ralph Peters is … OK, I’m speechless for once.
Almost speechless.
If there’s any legitimate reason to stay in Iraq, it’s to prevent precisely what he’s talking about. Ironically, Peters’ op-ed closes with a plug for his book entitled “Never Quit the Fight.” (Just declare victory and retreat, I guess.)
Where Peters really goes around the bend for me:
“…. here’s what President Bush should have told Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, yesterday: “You are failing your country. We’ll give you six months. If your government can’t produce a unified response to sectarian violence that treats all sides impartially, we’ll withdraw our troops and our support. Then you can fight it out among yourselves.”
Yeah, but Maliki *can’t* treat all sides impartially–there are so many in his own current coalition who would just have him assassinated if he tried. He knows it. Bush knows it. Why doesn’t Ralph Peters know it? (Or maybe he does, sees the writing on the wall, sees all he’s written so far, and is now scrambling for a cover position.)
Somewhere, Saddam is probably watching Iraq smoldering on Al Jazeera in his prison cell and mubling to himself, “I just don’t get these New American Century people. You run a country like Iraq *not* with the vicious scoundrels you have, but with the vicious scoundrels you’d *like* to have; you just kill the rest.”
September 11th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Marc Marc…Such anger. If one didn’t know better they’d think you’re feeling a next election threat by the performance of these political right weights.
September 11th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
In response to Jim R: This might be a time to be a little Zen about the upcoming elections. If the Democrats do not take back either house, then those of us on the left will be stuck with the role of hounds baying at the moon and all the smug self-satisfaction right wing bloggers on this and other sites have been expressing all these years might be justifiable. But if the political tide turns, you folks will be turned into a bunch of whiners as we begin to unravel the horrible mess your boys in Washington have created for America and the world. So let’s just see what happens, and let the chips fall where they may.
September 12th, 2006 at 12:13 am
I have a slightly different view. If the Republicans lose it not only gets them out of power, but also allows some of us to directly whack the Democrats. A real twofer!
Frankly, Jim, I rarely sweat elections — being neither a Repub or a Dem. If I were a Republican, however, I’d be very afraid. 20 years of political hegemony has been squandered by your boy.
September 12th, 2006 at 12:13 am
By the way, if American civilization depends on winning in Iraq, we can kiss our asses goodbye. Just the first graphs of this Times piece on how well things are going:
September 12, 2006 NYT
Grim Outlook Seen in West Iraq Without More Troops and Aid
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 — The political and security situation in western Iraq is grim and will continue to deteriorate unless the region receives a major infusion of aid and a division is sent to reinforce the American troops operating there, according to the senior Marine intelligence officer in Iraq.
The assessment, prepared last month by Col. Peter Devlin at the Marine headquarters in Anbar Province, has been sent to senior military officials in Iraq and at the Pentagon.
While the American military is focused on trying to secure Baghdad and prevent the sectarian strife there from escalating into a civil war, the assessment points to the difficulties in Anbar, a vast Sunni-dominated area of western Iraq where the insurgency is particularly strong. The province includes such restive towns as Ramadi, Haditha and Hit.
Marine commanders have been mounting a campaign to secure the province in the face of a virulent insurgency. But they have had to cope with seriously short-handed Iraqi Army units and a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad that has tended to view the area as a low priority for government spending and programs.
Elements of the assessment were reported Monday in The Washington Post. Military officials familiar with the document disclosed additional material and provided several quotations from the assessment.
One factor that has hampered the American counterinsurgency effort has been the limited number of American troops. As a general rule, a substantial number of troops are required in a counterinsurgency campaign to protect the population from attacks and intimidation by insurgent groups.
There are about 30,000 marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors in Anbar, a region that borders Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and is roughly the size of Louisiana.
American forces can generally maneuver where they want and are fighting to regain control of Ramadi, the provincial capital, neighborhood by neighborhood. But there are areas of the province where the Americans have not established a persistent presence, the assessment says.
Without the deployment of an additional division, “there is nothing MNF-W can do to influence the motivation of the Sunni to wage an insurgency,†the report states, according to a military officer familiar with it. MNF-W stands for Multinational Force-West, the formal name of the Marine command. A division numbers about 16,000 troops. The limited number of troops, however, is just one problem in countering the insurgency there, the report says. The assessment describes Anbar as a region marked by violence and criminality. Except for a few relatively bright spots, like the towns of Falluja and Qaim, the region generally lacks functional governments and a respect for the rule of law.
September 12th, 2006 at 12:38 am
Iraqi oil must stay under the control of western companies and Iranian-backed Shias must not be allowed thier inevitable triumph in an “Iraqi civil war”.
Otherwise, the next battleground will be in northern Saudia Arabia. And the pretexts of ‘democracy’, the ‘war on terrorism’, ‘WMD’, will be untenable even to Fox News…
Are the Dems gonna start talking about ‘oil’ as the salient reason for all this fuss in the middle east?
I DON’T THINK SO!
They’re gonna talk about “being duped by bad intelligence”, the need to be firm with the intransigent Iranians, and the need for ‘re-deployment’ of American ground troops.
Control of “oil” will continue to be the ‘elephant in the livingroom’ except for the ‘true’ left pundits and the young, ‘no blood for oil’ protestors who took to the streets at the outset of the neo-con’s opening of the Iraqi ‘can of worms’.
September 12th, 2006 at 12:44 am
Saw Russert interview Cheney. Truly remarkable. Both for Cheney’s complete and utter disconnect from the many errors of his ways — and for Russert’s impersonation of a real live journalist. All the questions were tough and direct, with good follow-up. And the obviscation was as bold-faced and unrelenting as any performance I’ve ever seen by a politician.
The DNC should run it as an infomercial over and over again on cable, with breaks for an 800 to pledge money to elect Anybody-but-the-Republicans. Would be a killer fundraiser — provided no one says the word “democrats.”
September 12th, 2006 at 12:45 am
As my loyal fans know, I am very hostile to the Democrats. But I do think that a political repudiation of the Bush adminstration is critical to moving forward in any way, and liberating progressive forces to argue for a new course for the country. This just can’t happen unless Americans begin to cut the Republicans loose. There are some signs that this might happen, although not a sure bet at all. We desperately need a change of political climate, which a Democratic victory in either house would help to create. I am not at all suggesting that we should then sit back and let the Democrats be their usual selves. In fact, as Marc implies, unless the Democrats win some victories, we have no influence on them at all.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:36 am
I think what I said just above is clear, but let me put it slightly differently: The American people as a whole must be seen to repudidate the Bush administration before we can move forward. They were not ready to do it during the 2004 election, and so the Bushites could claim a mandate no matter how much opposition they had and continue to have. Thus while I have no time for the Democrats, we are in the paradoxical situation where only Democratic victories can deny Bush and his cronies of the credibility that they continue to have despite the terribly wrong course they have charted.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:58 am
The war on stingrays! Now here is something we can all get behind, avenging the senseless terrorist attack by an evildoing stingray on Steve Irwin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5338118.stm
September 12th, 2006 at 6:04 am
Talk about same old, same old. The same accusations of lying – because you are so sure that your assessment of the situation is true that anything contradictory must be a lie.
And no clear message of what would be better.
This reality that administration is supposedly ignoring, which gets its opponents angrier and angrier, so that they twist themselves into comical excesses of “trotting out cadavers…putrid,” etc. Do you not see, even now, that if going into Iraq was the right thing to do, even badly, then there is nothing left standing of your argument?
The inability of the general left to self-observe and question its own assumptions is dispiriting.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:10 am
That was illuminating. Certainly nothing of “the same old, same old” that Marc desperately clings to in his profound inability to “self-observe” or question assumptions.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:20 am
Here’s an excellent example of self-observation from the Right that I consider pathbreaking. We need more of this from all sides.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.buckley.html
September 12th, 2006 at 6:31 am
Why is it exciting when a Republican opposes the war, and even more exciting when a Democrat pretends to oppose this particular war that happens to be a distraction from the real threat from those Anti-Semitic Mullahs? I am being facetious of course…but I hope that all of the Democrats who have been complaining about American Empire uner Bush don’t suddenly, if subtly become a supporter of said Empire under Democrats.
I kind of doubt it.
Ralph Peters wrote a piece recently that freaked out the right wing = he (rightfully) accused them all of Islamophobia with the memorable phrase “protocosl of the Elders of Mecca.”
September 12th, 2006 at 7:08 am
For everything there is a season Reg. This is not the season for self-observation.
Can you imagine our leaders taking a time out in the 2nd World War to hang their dirty laundry out for Mossilini, Hitler, and Hirohito to view and propogandize before the war was won? And we had plenty to hang out as you well know.
It is just crazy, and we cannot win a war that needs winning with these sort of feel-good, moral relevancy, self-flagellation, self-blame ideas. And it has already hurt us plenty.
But, of course this attitude makes no sense if one believes the war we are trying to win is best done by withdrawal from the middle east, letting nut jobs have their way in that region…… hoping they will leave us alone as some have theorized.
September 12th, 2006 at 7:43 am
Well said and on the money Marc. Must admit though, I hadn’t noticed you were all that shy about ‘directly whacking the Democrats’. You’ve managed to administer some pretty hard indirect whacks. What if they get into power and do something right?
September 12th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Assistant, you are due for a promotion! Can’t you see, if going into Iraq was the WRONG thing to do, the endless catostrophic results are all the responsability of a debauched American right who should rightfully be banished from power for a generation?
And that’s just for starters….
“Whack” in Mr. Cooper’s case, would be the operative word. Mr. Balter, the progressive left were as good friends as Karl Rove ever had; and as self examination SHOULD be the order of the day, they ought to start admitting it( before Iraq, many of them did, with pride). The Irony of reading a Ralph Nadar diatribe against Bush at Counterpunch ought to sting as much as one of W’s malapropisms.
Broken record time: We have the most reactionary goverment in modern history at the helm in Washington. If you blame Barney Frank more than Ralph Nadar, you’re hopeless.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:07 am
To blame Nader for an election that nearly all Americans and esp. Democrats believe was absolutely stolen is ludicrous. Barney Frank, on the other hand is a centrist middle-of-the-roader who has progressive credentials simply because he’s gay.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:16 am
JR – WWII parallels are part of the problem. Frankly, they are a symptom that the “pro-war” faction is mostly brain dead. Certainly not candidates for “self-observation”.
Of course, the initial call for “self-observation” wasn’t mine but one of your apparent comrades. And, of course, “blame-America” is the last refuge of this administration, now that a restive citizenry that no longer trusts their leadership – quite rationally – is being defined as the problem. That’s, of course, when GOPer creeps like Dinesh D’Souza aren’t blaming 9/11 on loose women and fags.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:31 am
I can’t believe the Nader canard is being brought up again, but since it is, here is my answer: only a closet fascist would try to force someone to vote for a particular party by denying them the right to vote for their first choice. That is what all the Nader bashing amounts to. As Marc has said, if you didn’t like Nader, you didn’t have to vote for him. But to deny others the right to do so, and to tell third party candidates they can never run for office, is worthy of the old Soviet Union and Cuba today, with the one difference that there are two official approved parties instead of just one.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:33 am
“For everything there is a season Reg. This is not the season for self-observation.”
When would that season be, Jim R — after the war has been formally lost? If FDR had waged war as criminally ineptly as this one, believe me, he would have engaged in a little self-relection.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:52 am
“unless the Democrats win some victories, we have no influence on them at all.”
Michael, what you stated there is the essence of the issue. “Voting for first choice” doesn’t matter if the practical political result is impotence or worse. And you’re being more than a bit disingenuous and hysterical when you talk about Lib-Dem pragmatists pissed off at Nader voters wanting to deny anybody their rights like the USSR, no less. We’re making an appeal to what we consider common sense and common interests – as you did with your other comment. That said, I wouldn’t be reluctant to play by the book when it comes to ballot access with a left third party candidate who’s gettiing support from the right in order to syphon votes from Dems. But that’s a question of being legalistic rather than loosey goosey.
What I would prefer is a system that allowed people to register votes in order of preference, which would allow for more expression of democracy than a bunch of fringe parties vying for winner-take-all votes against the Big Two, which is a losing game almost inevitably. Frankly, I would like to let this whole issue go emotionally at this point because I believe we’ve got larger common cause staring us down – just like I’m ready to let go which Dems supported the war vote, etc., as long as they are ready to push forward with something, anything that makes more sense than “stay the course” and an incoherent “Global World War III On Terror With Civilization In The Balance” that epitomizes imperial over-reach, paranoia and hubris with resulting totally ill-defined goals and strategy that actually are a detriment to our national security, by any rational definition.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Reg, you and I agree on a lot of things, but we are not in total agreement here. My fire is aimed at those who BLAME Nader and those who voted for him for the Bush victory, which to me is absurd. You can argue with those who want to vote for a third party that they are helping the Republicans, but if you can’t convince them that YOUR GUY is worth their vote, you cannot BLAME them for voting otherwise. But so many Democrats and progressives have done so, and all it does is deflect attention from the defects of their candidate. Al Gore may seem like a big environmental hero now, but he was useless back in 2000 and ran a useless, uninspiring campaign. That’s why he lost.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:32 am
I should add that I agree preference order voting would be a great idea, but how is it going to be brought about? See if either the Democrats or Republicans will go for it, my bet is not a chance! But they might if third parties were a much stronger force.
September 12th, 2006 at 10:36 am
And since I am leaving on a trip until Tuesday, let me have one more word on this. The same logic that was used against Nader could be used against a Democrat who opposed the war in Iraq more strongly than centrist Democrats are comfortable with. They would argue that such a candidate was going to hand the election to the Republicans because he or she was too far “left,” and in fact this is just the kind of thing the DLC argues. Watch this argument used against anyone who tries to block the Hillary steamroller.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:21 am
“The same logic that was used against Nader could be used against a Democrat who opposed the war in Iraq more strongly than centrist Democrats are comfortable with. They would argue that such a candidate was going to hand the election to the Republicans because he or she was too far “left,†and in fact this is just the kind of thing the DLC argues.”
This logic, in general, happens to be sound (not speaking necessarily about this case in specific). There’s a reason to avoid running unelectable candidates. The two-party system forces us into these uncomfortable black-white decisions. Under a parliamentary system, a vote for someone like Nader could serve a pragmatic and constructive purpose. In our system it simply denies a vote to your 2nd favorite. Unless you have equal (or very damn near) distaste for both the major parties and their candidates, that seems a waste. I suppose you can argue that voting for someone like Nader advances the discussion, but haven’t seen much evidence of that happening. If you really see no daylight between Bush-Gore, Dem-Repub etc. then more power to you — I guess Nader makes sense.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:39 am
First of all Ralph Peters is a retired LTC (Army Rangers and Special Forces) so the fact that he now seems to endorse the Murtha-Galbraith position just adds another military man to the growing list of former uniformed personnel who have publically had enough of this farce. Reading the books and articles that have come out leaves me with the positive impression that if there are any good guys here they are to be found in the ranks of the Army and Marine professionals who opposed this war and have come forward.
Second, on the 9/11 “Celebrations” did you notice that once again these criminals took a national day of rememberance and turned it into a partisan political message. I hope everyone noticed that when Bush layed that wreath at ground zero he was accompanied by Gov Pataki and Mayors Bloomberg anf Guliani. But missing were the two US Senators from NY and the Congressman whose district includes the site. I’m sure the fact that all three haves “D’s” after their name had nothing to do with their not being invited. Oh, and the fact that one of them is named Clinton was just coincidence!
And speaking of Hilary, Michael Balter, she is getting a lot of static these days for hoarding her huge warchest while several congressional candidates in the Empire State could use some more money. There are SIX seats in play in NY that could go Dem and, when added to the Three in next door CT, you’re already talking about more than half the seats needed to regain the House. And Hil is not helping, anymore than “Holy Joe” in the Nutmeg state. I mention this because activists have long memories and if the effort comes up short in NY she will hear about it in 2008.
Ralph Nader told people in 2000 that he would not campaign in “Battleground States” and then he went right ahead and did so in Florida. After polls showed that roughly half of his voters would have gone with Gore if they thought he could lose. Add those extra 1.5 million votes and the GOP could not have stolen that election, Gore would be President, and Marc would have some other issue to kick around but not Iraq. And maybe not even 9/11 since Gore, presumably, would have listened to Clarke and Berger who told Shrub that the biggest threat he would face internationally was from a felllow named Osama.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:47 am
And I really can’t let that remark about WWII and Hitler and Hirohito go by. Mr Cummings should know that, after the same amount of time in that conflict the US had defeated Germany and Japan was on the ropes. But then FDR knew what he was doing and surrounded himself with people like Knox, Stimson and Marshall. See what a little competence can do?
September 12th, 2006 at 11:48 am
I’m pretty tired of this Nadar conversation, but it’s worth reminding everyone that if you vote for Nadar from California, it is in no way like voting for Bush. That’s what I did and I don’t regret it one bit.
Evets, Michael Balter’s point is not that Democrats should run far left candidates in deep red states, but that just because a candidate is closer to the center does not make her more electable. There are other factors including the make-up of the state, the candidate’s ability to navigate issues of local importance, and her rhetorical prowess. Yet often DLC Democrats can’t see any of that and warn us that only centrists are electable and anyone else throws the election to Republicans. Not only is this false, DLCers argue it almost every time, ensuring that no strong progressive positions are taken on any issue. The only time where Democrats are allowed to take a leadership role, to shape public opinion when the majority isn’t already totally on board, is in taking a hawkish or fiscally conservative stance. I don’t believe that attitude is the key to electoral victory nor do I think it will lead to good policy.
September 12th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
I said nothing about Hitler and Hirohito. And maybe its true that if Nader’s 1.5 million votes went to Gore then Bush couldn’t have stolen the election, but yo know what? Tough shit. I don’t believe Gore would be better (at least in his old persona) let alone prevented 9/11, but even if he could, past is prologue. Nader deserved more votes – and remember, I can’t stress this enough – Gore was campaigning to be FAR more imperialist than Bush.
September 12th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Mavis -
I agree with you on the DLC’s often flawed and tendentious calculus and therefore agree with Michael if that was truly his sole point. I’m only arguing that taking electability into account, is, regrettably, quite important. I don’t believe that Hillary vs. an anti-war but electable Dem is analogous to Gore vs Nader. I think Michael was claiming that the two cases are analogous.
September 12th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
“I suppose you can argue that voting for someone like Nader advances the discussion”
Nader in the Dem primaries would have advanced the discussion. As for “blaming Nader”, it’s perfectly legitimate to point out what one set of dynamics (not the whole enchilada, obviously) were that contributed to Bush’s ability to take Florida. It’s one fact, among several. Bashing Gore doesn’t change the fact that had Nader passed on the Florida ballot, Bush would be a footnote to history.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Sorry I got confused and attributed the “Hirohito’Hitler” statement to the wrong person. Must be my brain is in its last throws.
But I really think that it is past time to say that Gore would have been more “Imperialist” than Bush. After all he did give a speech in SEPT 2002 (!) laying out the case for not invading Iraq and the likely consequences that have been right on the money. Yes, he did support the invasion of Afghanistan but so do I since that is where the people who attacked us were and I think getting Osama would have been a good thing. Don’t you? And since we now have a videotape of him with some of the 9/11 hijackers (courtesy of Al Jazzera) can we now put to bed the idea that this was a plot by Bush and the Mossad?
September 12th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
I don’t think I even believe the term “imperialism” is particularly relevant. jcummings uses it to mean any military endeavor outside our borders. To him, and many on the hard left, even a purely humanitarian mission is imperialist. It’s such a large word that it works only as a smear – he’d have a tough time finding a measurable percentage of Americans who support his anti-In fairness, to return to my premise, relevence is not the mission of jcummings and his ilk.
Jcummings, is there any use of American force you’ve supported in the past 20 years? If not, what’s your answer to Rawanda?
September 12th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
I supported Clinton’s placing Aristide back in power in Haiti, though I think that the price Aristide had to pay vix the IMF.
I think the idealism behind people who back “humanitarian interventions” is real and comes from an honest place, but for the life of me I don’t know when the United States has ever been humanitarian in practice.
Rwanda? I probably would not have protested, but I’m willing to bet that the United States would have exarcerbated problems and created new ones. A rapid reaction force under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and without “nationally” oriented command structures would be a good step.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Sept 2002 was a new and improved and chastened, perhaps radicalized from being robbed Gore. There’s no doubt he’s moved to the left in private life.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
I messed up the first paragraph of my first post above – it should read “I think that the price had to pay vix the IMF was very unfair and contributed to instablity.”
September 12th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Wall, yes of course. If it was the wrong decision, then all the blame and consequence should flow from that. So right decision/wrong decision is the only argument with substance. The “they’re not listening to us” maundering is a complete irrelevance. And defining “not seeing what I’m seeing in the GWOT” as dishonesty is a distraction.
In that light, few foreign policy decisions by any nation are ever complete successes or unmitigated disasters. Military and economic decisions can come close, but foreign policy is played on so many instruments at once that it is difficult to see how successful things are while they are occurring. We have hints; analyses differ as people highlight different trends.
Thus my complete rejection of anyone claiming either complete success or failure. Except in the most extreme circumstances – and none occur to me offhand – such black/white assessments are always just silly. On this site, especially in the comments section, there are any number of people who can assure us that they know that the Bush policies have been a disaster. They are not arguing the more moderate position of “on balance, we’ve lost more than we’ve gained,” which is at least a discussion intelligent people could have. No, there is implacable self-confidence of summing up complicated, far-reaching events in an insulting sentence or two.
It is that attitude that I am referencing when I refer to no self-observation by liberals. What every reasonable person knows – what they themselves know in other contexts, discussing bioethics or education – has completely evaporated in any discussion that has George Bush or Iraq in it. It’s just nuts. There are gains and losses in all decisions in the GWOT. People who cannot acknowldge that don’t deserve to be listened to.
Before anyone says it – no, the right side of the blogosphere is not making the opposite unrealistic claim that everything has been comic-book success in the GWOT. I can point you some very sophisticated plus/minus analyses if you like.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Of course the right side of the blogosphere – cued by this administration – has overwhelmingly played Iraq as a sucess in consistently reductionist and unrealistic terms. It started with “Mission Accomplished” and has devolved into the ironic charade of pro-warriors calling for more troops and dumping Rummy, when they’re not blaming the American people for lacking resolve. Not long ago, anyone who painted the picture that is now accepted as conventional wisdom by such pro-war freakazoids as Rich Lowry and Bill Kristol regarding just how bad things are in Iraq was being denounced as a defeatist and deliberately sabotaging the war effort by the right-wing blogosphere. It was all the media’s fault. Frankly, your line about the “self-observation” needed by liberals is a total crock of shit in this context. Look in the mirror. Meanwhile, you haven’t made a single solid argument from evidence or analysis regarding the war. Just recycled assertions and unhinged generalizations that have been, frankly, far from illuminating. The people who don’t deserve to be listened to at this point are the apologists who’ve been consistently wrong – and, in their course of being rather drastically wrong, hubristic and vicious in their treatment of war critics. You, sir, are shooting blanks.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Jim R,
During World War 2, American progressives learned that American right-wingers in the Republican Party would always, when threatened, revert to protecting and promoting fascism.
The USA was bitch-slapped on 9-11. Bush couldn’t go after the Saudis and Pakistanis, the real nations behind 9-11. Since “The Base†can’t tell them darkies apart, and darkies had to suffer for their transgressions, Iraq had to go.
Arab Sheiks and the WASPs who love them like it this way.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:04 am
AVW: “It is that attitude that I am referencing when I refer to no self-observation by liberals.”
… who are always making sweeping statements and absolute judgments. All the time. Every one of them. Not like those nuanced, balanced, consistent conservatives, god bless ‘em every one.
Oh wait a minute, AVW: before, you said “the general left”, not “liberals”. Hm. Not very consistent. I smell something funny about this argument. Let’s review it.
“Do you not see, even now, that if going into Iraq was the right thing to do, even badly, then there is nothing left standing of your argument?”
Not exactly. After all, as you follow up yourself, “[People here] are not arguing the more moderate position of “on balance, we’ve lost more than we’ve gained,†which is at least a discussion intelligent people could have.”
Unfortunately, we don’t have a parallel universe in which the U.S. did not invade and occupy Iraq. Bush can talk all he wants about how bad it would be if Saddam were still around, but what was so bad about him being around? That dozens of Iraqis were being slaughtered on an almost daily basis, and tortured, their mutilated bodies dumped?
OK, sorry, I see it now: on balance, having Saddam was probably slightly better than what we have now, because the mutilated bodies of the tortured and slaughtered were then deposited in sanitary landfills. Whereas the militia minions of various duly-elected leaders of the New Iraq have a dismaying tendency to leave those bodies littered on river banks.
But that’s a rectifiable situation, isn’t it? We can get these militias trained for better cadaver disposal, and supply them with bulldozers for the real heavy-duty jobs.
Whew! I’m relieved. It’s good that we can have an intelligent discussion now, based on weighing considerations that any reasonable person (but not a “liberal” or a member of “the general left”, whatever that is) can put in the balance pans. Or at least, it’s good that *I* can. The rest of you, clean up your act!
Oh, by the way: yes, I think Assistant Village Idiot *does* need a promotion. I second that motion. All in favor? Say Aye.
September 13th, 2006 at 6:56 am
My, what relativists the right become when sizing up Bush! What ever happened to good and evil?!
Every significant aspect of the right’s case for the invasion have come up goose eggs; unless you remove the phase “the Iraqi people” and substitute “a certain segment of the population” from all those promises.
Had a few more centralist middle of the roaders been able to hang onto power in 94 and 2000, tens of thousands of lives in Iraq would have been spared. And that, to say the least, is for starters……
September 13th, 2006 at 11:10 am
I guess mr Cummings would have been an “America Firster” since the US was intervening in Haiti and Niceragua and the Brits were supressing the Indians. And our ally was Stalin! I agree with the comment above that military adventures are never 100% pure (or 100% evil for that matter – I shed no tears that Saddam is gone) and we should recognize that nations have to use the credible threat of force to get their diplomacy across.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
I shed no tears for Saddam being gone either, except that very establishment people are now acknowledging that things were BETTER off under Saddam than they are now. To say I’d be an “America Firster” in WW2 (as opposed to being against how ww2 was prosecuted, like many leftists such as Irving Howe and other Trots, Norman Thomas, etc. – an honorable position) is slanderous. I think its a logical fallacy to know what position one would take on a conflict before one’s lifetime, but to me, World War 2 was a just war – far before America’s invovlement – and we both know how the corporate establshment like Prescott Bush, etc. were appeasers.
Canada was involved far before the States. I also would have supported the left in the Spanish Civil War. Generally I support conflicts on the left side. Insofar as WW2, from the perspective of partisans and from family members ofm ine who were in camps, was a left/people’s war, of course I’d have supported it. But the critique made by pacifists and leftists (in contrast to Lindbergh, etc.), over Dresden, Hiroshima, etc. stands. America, even in a just war, commited crimes.
September 13th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Which Left in the Spanish Civil War? The Communists or POUM. And what Left in WWII? Prior to June 1941 the CPUSA denounced the war as, yes, “Imperialist.”
As to “America First” not just Prescott Bush but Joe Kennedy, Kingman Brewster and Gore Vidal (and his Grandfather – Sen Thomas Gore) opposed the US entry in WWII. All Appeasers?
But look, the point is there are times to use force and I believe Afghanistan was one of them and a quick capture at Tora Bora of Osama combined with a real effort to restore the state there – with International help – would have gone a long way toward reducing Islamic extremists by sghowing that the West had a long arm and that there was a better way. I have yet to hear reasons why not.
But that is not what was done and we know the result. And the final chapter won’t be pretty but we had better get the history straight so that when the inevitable question of “Who lost Iraq?” is raised we don’t get Vietnam Redux – i.e. the stab in the back.
September 13th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
“we had better get the history straight so that when the inevitable question of ‘Who lost Iraq?’ is raised we don’t get Vietnam Redux – i.e. the stab in the back.”
The Right has already trotted out the foundations of this argument…blaming “the left”, Democrats, the media and, ultimately, “America First” for the failure of most of the citizenry to continue to support their misdirections and failures. What other choice do the hard-core have ?
There are a few voices of relative reason on the Right – see this month’s Washington Monthly (on the web) for an interesting chorus of conservatives who believe the GOP deserves to lose at least the next election because of their foreign and domestic profligacy – but the desperate smear crowd dominate GOP politics and the Right Blogosphere.
September 13th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
So, reg, Michael Turner, and wall all give evidence of my point. Thank you. Sorry you can’t see it.
Others can make the even-handed “success in Iraq” case better than I. Bill Roggio, AJ Strata. I would merely be repeating my betters. But here are a few, for those who might be interested.
A five part series beginning here:
http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2006/08/reasons_for_opt.html
or here: http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/04/reconsidering-victory-conditions-in.html
If you have similar plus/minus articles from a leftist perspective (other than the New Republic, which I’m already onto), I’m game.
September 13th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
I specifically made the point that people who opposed the war were not all appeasers. Even if he didn’t think of himself that way, Vidal’s stated dissent against WW2 is clearly from the left.
I would have supported the anarchist and republican forces, not the communists. I wouldn’t however, have made certain errors to which I dn’t really want to argue, that were made by anarchists. Fundamentally, there is no political movement that I have more idol worship towards than the anarchists of the Spanish civil war.
The left – not the CPUSA at first who I may defend some as individualsbut think positions they took were often horrible aping of Soviets – wasi n favor of defeating fascism. The CPUSA bought into the theory that Stalin was buying time to build up his defenses, and were still Anti-Fascist. I know this from personal anecdotes from party members.
September 13th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Joe Kennedy was not only an appeaser, he was ProNazi.
September 13th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Richard Locicero,
Say what you will about Kingman Brewster. His granddaughter is seriously hot
September 13th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Assistant Village Idiot refers me to a rather windy five part series written by a retired intelligence analyst who favors us with an anecdote about his dog’s health problems before slowly, gingerly wading into the issues.
Try reading his prescriptions for diplomacy–and specifically, how to work with our allies–bearing in mind Musharraf’s recent capitulation to separatists in Pakistan who are almost certainly harboring bin Laden, and who are *definitely* supporting the resurgent Taliban. Or with Iraqi PM Maliki’s recent warm embrace of Iran as a backdrop. Take time to consider that the Bush’s response to these developments has been distinctly muted.
And here we have our noble informant’s take on Information Warfare (IW):
“Our enemies have been conducting their IW in a direct assault mode. Their IW strategy is much more explicit than ours; terrorism is in the broad sense an IW tactic. Combined with the rest of their IW strategy, it is intended to convince us to abandon the fight — in effect to surrender.”
How brilliant of him, to leave out the more likely possibility that the intent is to provoke us to action, because almost any action we take actually works for them. In fact, Zawahiri counseled bin Laden to drop the 20-page Jihadi manifestos and go straight for showdown rhetoric, to appeal to the cowboy self-mythologizing of Americans.
http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2006/08/reasons_for_opt.html
Don’t read the whole thing. Read just enough to convince yourself that it’s in five parts rather than one because the guy has too much time on his hands, and is too much in love with the sound of his own voice. When he finally gets around to a point, the point is usually simplistic, however lovingly adorned in stately prose. If it seems short on specifics to the point of oxygen-starvation, it’s probably because the guy doesn’t have any specifics. (Specifics, that is; I guess he’s doing OK on oxygen.)
September 14th, 2006 at 12:49 am
“So, reg, Michael Turner, and wall all give evidence of my point.”
Of course. What other point could we possibly give evidence of than yours ?
September 14th, 2006 at 12:58 am
Those links give “blather” a bad name.
September 14th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Thank you for reading the link, Michael.
The general argument – here, at least – seems to be that the Bush Administration predicted and has continued to maintain that the GWOT would go well, even rosily. I think that is answerable, but more importantly, that’s a separate issue from the question of how well things are going.
The appearance here is that what Bush says about the GWOT is more important than the GWOT itself. That’s the stereotypical accusation that the right makes of the left, that it cares more about getting Bush than about how America is doing, and I wonder that you would hand me that stereotype so readily. To me, what the administration says has always been of secondary importance. Each public statement has many audiences, and what each of us would like to hear for our own questions may not be the point of every statement.
Look, reverse the situation. Whether John Kerry or Marc Cooper or Frank Rich ever admits that they’re wrong is of little interest to me. When we intervened in Bosnia, I gave no thought to whether Bill Clinton was ever going to say “We shoulda gone later; we shoulda gone earlier; we had too many cooks; we shoulda started with more elephants†or whatever. That sort of analysis comes much later. I wanted to know whether we were gaining or losing ground military and diplomatically from each piece of the strategy.
September 14th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Randy I guess that makes up for his being President of Yale when Shrub was there.
September 14th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Almost
September 18th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
A.V.I.:
“The general argument – here, at least – seems to be that the Bush Administration predicted and has continued to maintain that the GWOT would go well, even rosily.”
Yes, somewhere between “Bring it on!” and “Mission Accomplished” I did get that impression. I think it was the aircraft-carrier-sized banner headline that put the idea in my head, come to think of it.
A.V.I. continues –
“I think that is answerable, but more importantly, that’s a separate issue from the question of how well things are going.”
I don’t changing the subject from “rosy prediction” to “deepening miasma” is really working in your favor, is it?
You’re not going to seriously claim that the balance sheet on Iraq or Afghanistan (say, 2001 to date) is positive at this point? Nor that either is on an improving trend?