Shalrirorchia
25-04-2007, 01:50
The Flying Rat
Political Commentary From An American Progressive
The Bush-led neoconservatives in the U.S. government continue to pile on the pressure regarding the Iraq war. The President himself seems content to try and re-frame the public debate in terms more to his liking.
This should not be a terrible surprise to anyone who has been observing the events of the last seven years. This is a President who has literally made his political fortune by "controlling the message". The ability to influence the political debate in the public eye is a subtle but powerful tool...Bush's political career is littered with victims who could not match the prowess of his Sultan of Spin, Karl Rove. Ann Richards, Al Gore and John Kerry are all examples of the power of the message-driven campaign, as Bush managed to win elections that he probably should have lost.
But the President's efforts have become increasingly obvious as the tide of war and public opinion have turned against him. He is now left attempting to make the case that the Democratic Party is attacking the generals and the soldiers by refusing to give him a blank check to continue waging the war in Iraq. Bush claims that if the Democrats send him a funding bill with anything resembling a timetable or a benchmark system that he will veto it and that it will be the Democrats' fault if the funds for the troops dry up.
Let me be adamant. Nobody wants to see the troops go without necessary funding or supplies. The Democratic Party does not hate the troops. Indeed, we want to bring them home because we feel that their lives should not be cast away carelessly...especially when their sacrifice buys us no apparent gain. Bush's efforts to redefine the war in this light are representative of the hard-knuckled politics that have defined his entire Presidency. When he says that he believes that the decisions about Iraq should be made "by generals instead of Washington politicians", you are almost compelled to forget that the commander-in-chief is himself a Washington politician.
Let us, then, proceed to some facts. The situation in Iraq remains highly unstable, despite the troop surge. A recent spate of violence has left hundreds dead and illusion of progress shattered. Among the dead were American serviceman and Iraqi parliament members in the heavily-fortified Green Zone, which is supposed to be the safest part of Baghdad. If we cannot even secure the Green Zone, then what are our chances of controlling the rest of the country?
Disturbing, too, are the signs that our stay in Iraq might be longer term than even the Bush Administration is admitting. American military bases have sprung up all around the country, and many of them are beginning to look rather like permanent installations rather than the temporary lodgings of an army that is supposed to be transitioning out of Iraq as soon as possible. Given what we were told about Iraq prior to the war, given what we have been told all the way up until now, and given what reality has actually conjured up, one must sooner or later ask the obvious question: Is the Bush Administration lying to us?
I originally strongly supported the invasion of Iraq, as did many of my Democratic representatives. We did so based on the notion that Saddam Hussein's Iraq represented an imminent threat to U.S. national security. It was a perception fed by years of suspicion about Iraqi intentions, and was exploited a Bush Administration eager to establish a credible casus belli. In this lies one of the Administration's greatest failings; it is not an impeachable offense to lie to the American public, but it is the responsibility of an elected official to tell the truth to his or her constituents even when that truth might not be politically helpful for the official. Few politicians actually meet this obligation, but fewer still actually sink to the level the Bush Administration has. The Administration's actions have directly led to the deaths of thousands of American servicemen, and have jeopardized the War on Terror. Even worse, the Administration's actions have torn the delicate fabric between governor and governed. Federal law has been abused or outright ignored in the name of political expediency. Branches of the government may have actually been subverted in order to further the political aspirations of the Republican Party (Alberto Gonzales' current woes are only one of a litany of charges regarding abuses of power by the Administration). Case in point: Philip Cooney. Cooney, a former American Petroleum Institute lobbyist AND chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, admitted in congressional testimony this year that he altered three government reports to eliminate or downplay links between greenhouse gases and global warming. He now works for Exxon Mobil Corp. (Washington Post).
If I thought impeachment would solve anything, I would applaud Dennis Kucinich's effort this week to pass impeachment proceedings against Bush Administration officials. But these efforts have no chance of succeeding...the Republicans in Congress are, for the moment, sticking to their guns. They have come to resemble to ideological fanatics occupying the White House a few blocks away...party loyalty trumps all other considerations, even those regarding the welfare of the country. It makes me proud to be a Democrat; with all of our infighting and petty squabbles, we can at least rest with relative ease knowing that our Party will not be dictated to by the more radical fringe (or anybody else, for that matter). Who would have thought disorganization and disagreement could be so comforting?
That said, we have a decision to make about Iraq. The fundamental question is this: Are we deriving some type of benefit from staying in the short term? The notion of the impact of a long-term stay in Iraq is less important, as theoretically we are not going to be in Iraq for a very long time. Iraq is, after all, supposed to be a sovereign country. At some point, they must take responsiblity for themselves. If a majority of Iraqis do not desire our presence, they can demand that we leave. If the country breaks apart because the various factions cannot put aside their guns and their differences, then that is not only a failure of Mr. Bush's policies, but also of the Iraqi people themselves. The United States cannot realistically be expected to hold Iraq together indefinitely.
Ironically, the troops in Iraq are being held hostage...not by the Democratic Congress (which defied the President and approved the spending bill today), but rather by the President of the United States. The President has now had seven years of blank checks issued to him by a Republican Congress that simply refused to hold the Administration or the Iraqis accountable for results. The era of the blank check for Iraq is now over. If the troops go unfunded, it will be because President George W. Bush vetoed their spending bill. It will be George W. Bush who prevents those funds from reaching them, not the Democratic Congress. To represent the situation as anything different is a blatant attempt at political spin on Mr. Bush's part.
How will this end? I do not know. But I do know that Mr. Bush's "plan" is a recipe for another Vietnam-style, "slow-bleed" strategy. Any victory in Iraq must come from within their own social and political systems, not American firearms and warplanes. As evidenced by the violence there, the prospects for such a political settlement are not encouraging. To say so is not defeatist. It is an acknowledgment of just how dire the situation in Iraq really is.
And we have perhaps the worst man for the job to fix it.
Political Commentary From An American Progressive
The Bush-led neoconservatives in the U.S. government continue to pile on the pressure regarding the Iraq war. The President himself seems content to try and re-frame the public debate in terms more to his liking.
This should not be a terrible surprise to anyone who has been observing the events of the last seven years. This is a President who has literally made his political fortune by "controlling the message". The ability to influence the political debate in the public eye is a subtle but powerful tool...Bush's political career is littered with victims who could not match the prowess of his Sultan of Spin, Karl Rove. Ann Richards, Al Gore and John Kerry are all examples of the power of the message-driven campaign, as Bush managed to win elections that he probably should have lost.
But the President's efforts have become increasingly obvious as the tide of war and public opinion have turned against him. He is now left attempting to make the case that the Democratic Party is attacking the generals and the soldiers by refusing to give him a blank check to continue waging the war in Iraq. Bush claims that if the Democrats send him a funding bill with anything resembling a timetable or a benchmark system that he will veto it and that it will be the Democrats' fault if the funds for the troops dry up.
Let me be adamant. Nobody wants to see the troops go without necessary funding or supplies. The Democratic Party does not hate the troops. Indeed, we want to bring them home because we feel that their lives should not be cast away carelessly...especially when their sacrifice buys us no apparent gain. Bush's efforts to redefine the war in this light are representative of the hard-knuckled politics that have defined his entire Presidency. When he says that he believes that the decisions about Iraq should be made "by generals instead of Washington politicians", you are almost compelled to forget that the commander-in-chief is himself a Washington politician.
Let us, then, proceed to some facts. The situation in Iraq remains highly unstable, despite the troop surge. A recent spate of violence has left hundreds dead and illusion of progress shattered. Among the dead were American serviceman and Iraqi parliament members in the heavily-fortified Green Zone, which is supposed to be the safest part of Baghdad. If we cannot even secure the Green Zone, then what are our chances of controlling the rest of the country?
Disturbing, too, are the signs that our stay in Iraq might be longer term than even the Bush Administration is admitting. American military bases have sprung up all around the country, and many of them are beginning to look rather like permanent installations rather than the temporary lodgings of an army that is supposed to be transitioning out of Iraq as soon as possible. Given what we were told about Iraq prior to the war, given what we have been told all the way up until now, and given what reality has actually conjured up, one must sooner or later ask the obvious question: Is the Bush Administration lying to us?
I originally strongly supported the invasion of Iraq, as did many of my Democratic representatives. We did so based on the notion that Saddam Hussein's Iraq represented an imminent threat to U.S. national security. It was a perception fed by years of suspicion about Iraqi intentions, and was exploited a Bush Administration eager to establish a credible casus belli. In this lies one of the Administration's greatest failings; it is not an impeachable offense to lie to the American public, but it is the responsibility of an elected official to tell the truth to his or her constituents even when that truth might not be politically helpful for the official. Few politicians actually meet this obligation, but fewer still actually sink to the level the Bush Administration has. The Administration's actions have directly led to the deaths of thousands of American servicemen, and have jeopardized the War on Terror. Even worse, the Administration's actions have torn the delicate fabric between governor and governed. Federal law has been abused or outright ignored in the name of political expediency. Branches of the government may have actually been subverted in order to further the political aspirations of the Republican Party (Alberto Gonzales' current woes are only one of a litany of charges regarding abuses of power by the Administration). Case in point: Philip Cooney. Cooney, a former American Petroleum Institute lobbyist AND chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, admitted in congressional testimony this year that he altered three government reports to eliminate or downplay links between greenhouse gases and global warming. He now works for Exxon Mobil Corp. (Washington Post).
If I thought impeachment would solve anything, I would applaud Dennis Kucinich's effort this week to pass impeachment proceedings against Bush Administration officials. But these efforts have no chance of succeeding...the Republicans in Congress are, for the moment, sticking to their guns. They have come to resemble to ideological fanatics occupying the White House a few blocks away...party loyalty trumps all other considerations, even those regarding the welfare of the country. It makes me proud to be a Democrat; with all of our infighting and petty squabbles, we can at least rest with relative ease knowing that our Party will not be dictated to by the more radical fringe (or anybody else, for that matter). Who would have thought disorganization and disagreement could be so comforting?
That said, we have a decision to make about Iraq. The fundamental question is this: Are we deriving some type of benefit from staying in the short term? The notion of the impact of a long-term stay in Iraq is less important, as theoretically we are not going to be in Iraq for a very long time. Iraq is, after all, supposed to be a sovereign country. At some point, they must take responsiblity for themselves. If a majority of Iraqis do not desire our presence, they can demand that we leave. If the country breaks apart because the various factions cannot put aside their guns and their differences, then that is not only a failure of Mr. Bush's policies, but also of the Iraqi people themselves. The United States cannot realistically be expected to hold Iraq together indefinitely.
Ironically, the troops in Iraq are being held hostage...not by the Democratic Congress (which defied the President and approved the spending bill today), but rather by the President of the United States. The President has now had seven years of blank checks issued to him by a Republican Congress that simply refused to hold the Administration or the Iraqis accountable for results. The era of the blank check for Iraq is now over. If the troops go unfunded, it will be because President George W. Bush vetoed their spending bill. It will be George W. Bush who prevents those funds from reaching them, not the Democratic Congress. To represent the situation as anything different is a blatant attempt at political spin on Mr. Bush's part.
How will this end? I do not know. But I do know that Mr. Bush's "plan" is a recipe for another Vietnam-style, "slow-bleed" strategy. Any victory in Iraq must come from within their own social and political systems, not American firearms and warplanes. As evidenced by the violence there, the prospects for such a political settlement are not encouraging. To say so is not defeatist. It is an acknowledgment of just how dire the situation in Iraq really is.
And we have perhaps the worst man for the job to fix it.