August 29th, 2005
As many of you may know, General Clark is a guest blogger all this week over at TPMCafe.com; and, as we’ve come to expect from Josh Marshall and his readers, the level of discussion is worthy of a graduate level course in Political Science. Go and read General Clark’s initial post there, though if you’ve read his Before It’s Too Late in Iraq Op-ed, which originally appeared in the Washington Post, you’ll not find much that’s substantially new — though General Clark does fill in some details that don’t appear in the Op-ed. As it often occurs in the blogsphere, some of the most provocative truths can be found in the comments left to a post — which is where I found a comment that I thought worth sharing with a much wider audience.
I quote the original comment fairly extensively, though if you want to read it in its entirety I encourage you to read it at TPMCafe.com:
Re: Changing course in Iraq requires leadership
by Sunny on Aug 29, 2005 — 08:19:44 PM PST
I’m amazed how politically correct almost everyone is in 100+ posts. Here we have an opportunity to actually communicate with a political hopeful for the ‘08 election and we feed the same softly cushioned, politically correct words back that we scream about on other boards. Maybe having been around famous people in my life has removed that blinding luster that dazzles many because no matter what our position in life we’re still all people.
I do thank you for your service to our country General Clark and I thank Josh Marshall for making this discussion possible.
I’d like everyone to reflect for a minute about why Cindy Sheehan has had such a great impact and why we admired Paul Hackett in his Ohio race. Both have struck a chord in millions of Americans because they speak truth to power and to the American people and do so passionately. This is what we’re looking for in leadership. Dean has it as well and it scared the opposition so much they had to neutralize him.
First, in regard to the question at hand. You answered it General Clark when you closed your WashPo oped with
“If the Administration won’t adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that the Administration bring our troops home.”
One of the lies fed to us is that this administration has a “winning strategy” of stabilizing Iraq. The goal is instability which is to be reached with our continued presence in Iraq. That’s why we need all those permanent bases. (General, you can’t be serious to suggest that a base the size of Sacramento isn’t designed to be permanent.) You infer otherwise, which makes me question your grasp on what’s going on. I’m sure you’ve read the stated goals of the neocons running this train wreck in the Project for A New American Century. The next target is Iran after another 9/11 type attack and it won’t matter who’s responsible because the war plans are ready. So yes, demand that the troops come home, appeal to the UN and NATO to take the leadership role for Iraq to establish a federation of states in Iraq that shares the oil wealth equally.
[...]
So let’s get back to leadership. I’m going to be candid with you. In the ‘04 primaries you lacked the passion and the communicative skills, which led me to vote for Edwards in the primaries. He was passionate and wasn’t controlled by the corporations, but he needed to broaden his vision. I then supported Kerry totally only to be disappointed at his total lack of calling Bush out in the debates when the opportunity was in his hands. He always stopped short, making me uncertain if he really wanted this presidency. His campaign was inept making me question his leadership ability. He folded his cards immediately making me question his judgment.
I like your ideas generally. I know you must have courage. I bet that when you’re talking privately about your country and what you see happening that you’re passionate and honest about your thoughts, ideas, and feelings. Bring this to the public. While you’re communicating better intellectually, you really need to work on the other - a sense of conviction and truth.
When you’re out there in your public appearances this is what we’re looking for in a leader. We’re out here, passionate and caring deeply about our country, our troops, our future. We’ve all contributed money we couldn’t afford, but did without to help save our country. Only to be disappointed. Only to start feeling that we now are being exploited with request upon request for every cause and every organization. And yet - we still don’t have a leader who tells the truth. Without Conyers, the Black [Caucus] and Boxer we’d be totally discouraged.
We are hungry for a leader and all we find is the same pablum coming from both sides. The right starts screaming about a truth that’s been said and like Durbin they all fold and apologize.
If you want to be that leader, then damn take a lesson from Cindy Sheehan and Paul Hackett. Speak from the heart, speak with passion and resolve, speak the truth. Call for a congressional investigation on this administration. Last I looked high crimes and misdemeanors were still impeachable and in our Constitution.
When those in our administration have their first allegiance to the national security of Israel and jeopardize the national security of the United States, it’s treason. Notice how the neocons cry out anti-semitism whenever it comes up (which it does on C-Span), totally overreacting to logical questions - all designed to strike fear into any dissenter of being politically incorrect. There’s a major difference between the Jewish religion and the state of Israel.
At the heart of the investigation are two people who work at The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington.
The FBI investigation, headed up by Dave Szady, has involved wiretaps, undercover surveillance and photography that CBS News was told document the passing of classified information from the mole, to the men at AIPAC, and on to the Israelis.
CBS sources say that last year the suspected spy, described as a trusted analyst at the Pentagon, turned over a presidential directive on U.S. policy toward Iran while it was, “in the draft phase when U.S. policy-makers were still debating the policy.” This put the Israelis, according to one source, “inside the decision-making loop” so they could “try to influence the outcome.” [CBS News]
Those not on the neocon bandwagon are war profiteers who are stealing money from the Iraqi and the American people.
I think treason is evident and the next move should be impeachment and any other legal remedy available to right the wrongs.
The immediate goal to any solution in Iraq is regaining seats in Congress by insisting on transparency in our election process. The rest will follow. We need leadership to reach that goal. Are you ready to put yourself on the line to be that leader?
[Emphasis in original.]
There are various points that “Sunny” makes which I find provocative. However, the most immediately salient one for me at this point is the candor and directness with which “Sunny” advises General Clark to forcefully pursue his convictions — which is precisely what we do admire about Mrs. Sheehan and Mr. Hackett. Not only do they have truth on their side, but they know it and are not afraid to go after the administration with truth behind them. Unfortunately, as many have recently pointed out, far too many elected Democrats are simply too afraid of invoking truth and are simply content to watch, hope and wait that Bush & Co. will crash and burn. I guess that these elected Dems hope that then they’ll be able to ride in and “save the day.”
Again, as “Sunny” and others have pointed out: We — and the American people in general — are eager for a leader that’s not afraid of his or her own tongue, ideas and beliefs; and, too, a leader that’s readily willing to forcefully point to the lies and, and yes, crimes of the Bush administration. I frankly don’t think that a Democratic presidential hopeful in 2008 can get the nomination without first standing up to Bush & Co. — the grassroots support will simply not be there for such a timid and weak candidate.
Elected Dems, your constituents simply ask that you STOP BEING AFRAID!
August 27th, 2005
Those that have mapped the twisted and winding road that Bush & Co. set America on when their cabal set their sights on Iraq know that we’re a longs way off from the original course: finding and destroying Hussein’s WMDs.
However, it comes as no surprise to those of us that saw through Bush & Co.’s smoke screen, and recognized that, as the Downing Street Memo puts it, “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy [of invading Iraq].” However, while the original pretext for going to war against Iraq was obviously based on hype;during moments of self-doubt one could imagine that Bush & Co. truly did believe on the righteousness of their crusade to “change the climate of the region” by establishing a beachhead in Iraq for “Liberal Democracy” (i.e., Western styled rule of law). Of course, such a prospect was an overly optimistic long-shot at best, or just another smoke screen at worst.
Well, at last, we appear to have an answer and, once again it would seem, Bush & Co. have abandoned the road map they set for us, and are taking America (and Iraq) on a road to who knows where:
Iraq secularists denounce “Islamist” constitution
24 Aug 2005 13:50:28 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Andrew Hammond
BAGHDAD, Aug 24 (Reuters) - Secular Iraqis said on Wednesday a proposed new constitution left no room for doubt about the Islamist path the country was heading down two years after a U.S.-led invasion was supposed to produce greater freedoms.
The document presented to parliament on Monday is suffused with the language of political Islam in defining the state, and assigns a primary role to Islam as a source for legislation.
“The draft aborts the democratic process Iraqis hoped for and is a big victory for political Islam,” said writer Adel Abdel-Amir. “Islamic law, not the people, has become the source of authority.”
The draft says Islam is the official religion of the state and there can be no law that contradicts the “fixed principles of its rulings”. The preamble says the constitution responds to “the call of our religious and national leaders and the insistence of our great religious authorities”.
[...]
“Human rights should not be linked to Islamic Sharia law at all. It should be listed separately in the constitution,” said Safia Souhail, Iraq’s ambassador to Egypt.
[...]
“When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened — we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years. It’s a big disappointment.”
So, Mr. President, our public servant, how do you respond to Cindy Sheehan’s question?
I came [to Crawford] two and a half weeks ago for one reason, to try and see the president and get an answer to a very simple question: What is the noble cause that he says my son died for?
August 27th, 2005
Gary Hart has written a column that appeared in the Washington Post which is worth quoting in its entirety. Mr. Hart raises the very questions that many grassroots Democrats, myself included, have been asking themselves since Bush & Co. first hinted at their intent to pursue their “war of choice” in Iraq (emphasis added):
Who Will Say ‘No More’?
By Gary Hart
Wednesday, August 24, 2005; A15
“Waist deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool said to push on,” warned an anti-Vietnam war song those many years ago. The McGovern presidential campaign, in those days, which I know something about, is widely viewed as a cause for the decline of the Democratic Party, a gateway through which a new conservative era entered.
Like the cat that jumped on a hot stove and thereafter wouldn’t jump on any stove, hot or cold, today’s Democratic leaders didn’t want to make that mistake again. Many supported the Iraq war resolution and — as the Big Muddy is rising yet again — now find themselves tongue-tied or trying to trump a war president by calling for deployment of more troops. Thus does good money follow bad and bad politics get even worse.
History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war that is draining the finest military in the world, diverting Guard and reserve forces that should be on the front line of homeland defense, shredding international alliances that prevailed in two world wars and the Cold War, accumulating staggering deficits, misdirecting revenue from education to rebuilding Iraqi buildings we’ve blown up, and weakening America’s national security.
But what will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on? My generation of Democrats jumped on the hot stove of Vietnam and now, with its members in positions of responsibility, it is afraid of jumping on any political stove. In their leaders, the American people look for strength, determination and self-confidence, but they also look for courage, wisdom, judgment and, in times of moral crisis, the willingness to say: “I was wrong.”
To stay silent during such a crisis, and particularly to harbor the thought that the administration’s misfortune is the Democrats’ fortune, is cowardly. In 2008 I want a leader who is willing now to say: “I made a mistake, and for my mistake I am going to Iraq and accompanying the next planeload of flag-draped coffins back to Dover Air Force Base. And I am going to ask forgiveness for my mistake from every parent who will talk to me.”
Further, this leader should say: “I am now going to give a series of speeches across the country documenting how the administration did not tell the American people the truth, why this war is making our country more vulnerable and less secure, how we can drive a wedge between Iraqi insurgents and outside jihadists and leave Iraq for the Iraqis to govern, how we can repair the damage done to our military, what we and our allies can do to dry up the jihadists’ swamp, and what dramatic steps we must take to become energy-secure and prevent Gulf Wars III, IV and so on.”
At stake is not just the leadership of the Democratic Party and the nation but our nation’s honor, our nobility and our principles. Franklin D. Roosevelt established a national community based on social justice. Harry Truman created international networks that repaired the damage of World War II and defeated communism. John F. Kennedy recaptured the ideal of the republic and the sense of civic duty. To expect to enter this pantheon, the next Democratic leader must now undertake all three tasks.
But this cannot be done while the water is rising in the Big Muddy of the Middle East. No Democrat, especially one now silent, should expect election by default. The public trust must be earned, and speaking clearly, candidly and forcefully now about the mess in Iraq is the place to begin.
The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war. The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating “Stay the course” even when the course, whatever it now is, is light years away from the one originally undertaken. The truth is we’re way off course. We’ve stumbled into a hornet’s nest. We’ve weakened ourselves at home and in the world. We are less secure today than before this war began.
Who now has the courage to say this?
###
The writer is a former Democratic senator from Colorado.
August 19th, 2005
I love it when Jesus blogs — he’s funny:
BREAKING: Jesus blogs LIVE on Intelligent Design!
Thanks a lot, you dingleberries.
No, not you . The people who were supposed to meet me when I returned to Earth. Sure, they’re fundy morons, but they’re also my ride. So here I am, posting on your blog from a bus station in Kansas because they’re apparently so self-absorbed that they have no idea I’ve returned.
I know, I know. You’d expect me to announce my comeback at Powerline or Little Green Footballs or even on the 700 Club. They’re “my people.” Or at least they use my name more often than anyone else. The New Testament was written over 100 years after I died and they think they know me. Jerks.
I’m posting here because, unlike them, your minds aren’t hardened like cement, and your testosterone levels aren’t jacked up to 11. I may actually have a chance of getting through to you.
Anyway. Can I tell you something about Intelligent Design? Like, real insider stuff? I know, it’s like passing out a cheat sheet for a final exam, but my dad is so pissed with all the crap going on down here that he’s threatening to put his fist through the time-space continuum. Try living with that. You have no idea.
Let me see if I can tell you this without blowing your mind. Okay. The Clifs Notes version for your short attention spans:
Water = intelligent. Air = intelligent. Ozone layer = supremely intelligent (and it kept the fire marshal off Dad’s back). Polar ice caps = intelligent. Plankton = brilliant. The natural food chain = intelligent (and delicious). Plants = intelligent. Swiffer = off the intelligence scale.
Read the rest at DailyKos.com.
August 18th, 2005
We do envy Republicans sometimes, it’s true.
Well, Liberals and Democrats don’t envy their policies, much less their policy results, just look at some recent Republican accomplishments: failed Iraqi nation building project, a nuclear armed Iran and North Korea (remember the “Axis of Evil” line?), record deficits, the 6′4″ Osama Bin Ladin still plotting against the U.S., the Taleban is regrouping in Afghanistan, multiple Republican officials are under investigation for accepting brides, money laundering, leaking a CIA agent’s name and for many other illicit schemes betraying the public trust.
And yet, we suffer of Republican Operative/Strategist envy — otherwise known as Rove/Gingrich envy. In these two men, Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich (and, actually, let’s add a third man, Grover Norquist), we have the architects of the Republican electoral successes of the past 10-15 years. Meanwhile, as these men, with the eager help of their allies in conservative circles, impeached a Democratic president, stole a presidential election (2000 and, some argue here and here and here, 2004), and exploited a national tragedy (i.e., 9/11) to advance their conservative/Republican agenda, the Democratic Party establishment largely stood by — too afraid to punch back, and punch back hard.
Unfortunately it’s not just the Democratic Party establishment that’s too afraid to got toe-to-toe against these Republican thugs. Sometimes we of the grassroots are too afraid to hit back with all we’ve got. Now, clearly, more of us, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, have grown tired enough to not want to take it any more and have started to punch back. That said, I recently came across a post at DailyKos.com where a diarist suggested that members of the Bush administration should be routinely described as:
[I]ncompetent, Liars, or both.
[and, too]
The Republican congress is unAmerican because it is not performing its constitutional duty to be a check and balance to the executive.
The executive branch continues its unAmerican activity by any number of activities that are not supported by the constitution or bill of rights.
The diarist’s suggestions may be completely wrong headed, I frankly don’t know. However, what struck me was the response the diarist’s suggestions illicited from another user:
What good does it do to name-call?
[...]
[Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration will] be gone with the lame duck President soon enough, and [they'll] not be on the ballot, so there’s no point attacking [them].
The unAmerican line lost its popularity a long time ago, and I’d rather not be the party to bring it back. And I’d rather not have this charge brought against us when we have the House and the Presidency and they work together.
I was so struck with the reflexive dismissal of the diarist’s suggestions by the other user, that I responded to the dismissal with the following:
This is just a quick reaction after reading your response: you sound like a Democratic party insider (or at least with direct ties to an elected member’s office in some capacity), more interested in the immediate tactical gain; rather than on the long term goal of building a “progressive movement.” Again, this is my immediate reaction to your reply, without taking too much time to “ponder and digest” your take on the diary. Now, the diarist’s talking points I’m sure can be refined and retooled; however, the diarist premise and main point is sound: negative language used to tarnished the opposition does work — just ask Newt Gingrich to provide his list of words he suggested be used in association with Democrats:
“Anti-flag, anti-family, anti-child, anti-jobs, betray, coercion, collapse, consequences, corruption, crises, decay, deeper, destroy, destructive, devour, endanger, failure, greed, hypocrisy, ideological, impose, incompetent, insecure, liberal, lie, limit(s), pathetic, permissive attitude, radical, self-serving, sensationalists, shallow, sick, they/them, threaten, traitors, unionized bureaucracy, urgent, waste”
Now, I’m not a supporter of Gingrich, but the man is a visionary and a transformational “movement” leader, adept at using all tools at his disposal to provide his party with a political advantage — unfortunately for us Liberals and Democrats, Republicans seem to have monopolized the market on Gingrich’s type of party activist and leader (willing to reach into the operative’s tool bag for whatever is necessary to gain advantage over the opposition). Now, your point about not wanting to revive certain attack lines (i.e., un-American) is well taken; regrettably we, Democrats and Liberals, don’t have a choice on that matter, since the enemy (Republicans and conservatives) consistently pelt us with that very epithet. It seems to me that our only recourse is to wrestle the very notion of what it means to be American away from the opposition, and restore it to its rightful heirs: Liberals and Progressives that, with sweat, tears and blood, have welcomed previously excluded citizens into the American family — and, of course, all the while, the enemy blocked school house doors, blocked workers from organizing and generally could be heard from the sidelines chanting We don’t care, We don’t care.
Again, I’m sure that the diarist’s suggestions can be refined so that they are more than mere “personal attacks” against the administration; however, as I intimated in my response to the user that objected to “personal attack”: negative or attack language used to frame the opposition does work — just see how well it has served Rove and Gingrich, and their Republican/conservative causes.
Perhaps this is why some Liberals and Democrats, myself included, sometimes feel Rove/Gingrich envy: because these men don’t stop to ask themselves, Uh, perhaps we’ve gone too far. We don’t really need to attack them. In stead, these men and their Republican allies are always willing to go for the jugular to advance their cause. It’s about time we do the same; besides, it certainly isn’t a stretch to say that the Bush administration lied us into war, and it certainly is un-American for our Congress to ignore their Constitutional duties.
