Excuse me, but is this article a negative critique of the Democratic Party or is Hartmann suggesting the Republican's have out smarted the Dems again? Sounds more like an ad man's defense of the status quo. Democratic apologetics at its best, and Hartmann again shows where his loyalties lie.

Nondescript:

And Nixon out-did them all when it came to escalating things in Southeast Asia.

I agree with you completely. But war is very difficult to maintain at a low level over long periods of time; escalation is almost inevitable. So, my point was that the Democrats are in danger of doing the same thing.

RESPONSE TO SIOUXROSE RE MARGINALIZATION OF "PROGRESSIVE VOICE[S]"

You wrote:

Siouxrose May 30th, 2007 10:53 am

"in spite of our efforts to change lives & minds, the progressive voice has been so deeply marginalized, unable to touch enough minds to rally the force for a change in direction."

I understand the sentiment of marginalization, believe me - but the 'lack of reach' many of us progressives bemoan is connected to the historical weakness of American labor movements and unions. Of course a parliamentary system would give progressives a government voice, however marginal; but middle class and intellectual, 'free-floating' progressives need a strong labor movement to be effective, imo. And that the US has rarely had, least of all now.

My point? It's not just a matter of struggling against the power of money or corporations - those exist in Western Europe too; it's a matter of opposition grounded in labor that non-labor (but labor-sympathetic) forces can attach themselves too.

Buck up! Let's do our best - and maybe the continent wide changes in Latin America can give us heart and in some measure oppose the US empire we and much of the world suffer!

The gnat in Hartmann's latte here is "Why didn't Bush just implement Baker-Hamilton in January?" Why the SURGE and a full YEAR of 1000 American DEATHS pursuing something they KNEW WOULDN'T WORK???

That's just as much an albatross to hang around the Bushies' necks as the Dems screaming "Abandon ship! All hope is LOST!"

Who knows if Baker-Hamilton WILL work? I actually hope it DOES. I was thinking, along with Colin Powell in 2003 about the "Pottery Barn Rule." I think we OWE the Iraqi people a CHANCE at a stable, though contentious, Democracy.

If "Plan B-H" actually:
1) Pulls American troops out of harm's way.
2) Into positions where they can fight ACTUAL terrorists and foreign fighters in Iraq, along with the Iraqi government.
3) Reduces sectarian violence and restores some sense of normalcy and allows the Iraqi government to become a real governing body.

Well, then, God Bless, Baker-Hamilton!!! Cutting and Running was WRONG.

But the onus is on the Bushites for not recognizing the value of Baker-Hamilton a full YEAR earlier and not sending 1000 troops to their DEATHS to serve TALKING POINTS and BULLSHIT SPIN (as well as countless Iraqis). Their DEATHS (and countless WOUNDED) are ON THEIR HANDS!!!

If the Bushites accept B-H, they will only do so by ADMITTING they were WRONG about the SURGE. They had the RIGHT plan and they CHOSE the WRONG one. And Democrats should drive this point home.

The Bushites have shown that they will SPIN any situation to their advantage. ("Making real PROGRESS." "Last Throes." "9/11! 9/11! 9/11!!!")

When Democrats live in FEAR of Republican SPIN, they will ALWAYS LOSE. (Witness the last funding vote.)

If the Bushites implement B-H and it WORKS, BULLY FOR THEM! Why didn't you do it A YEAR AGO!

It seemed back in Nov. of 2006 that the people of this country had won a major battle in who makes the decisions around here and it ain't G.W. Bush. Since the recent 'sellouts' of the democrats, I am starting to wonder who we can turn to next. Something has seriously gone wrong here folks. Help!

Response to those thinking the Repugs didnt realise Iraq would turn out this bad.

1. Did they sleep thru Vietnam?
2. Did they not notice when the USSR broke up that all the member nations went back to square one on their previous hates and blood feuds of long ago?
3. Perhaps they have never read a history of the World.
3a. Forgot the Iraqies (Persians, Arabs, Jews)have been doing their thing together for THOUSANDS of years, not 200+.
4. None of them has been in a war.
5. Havent reached the stage of "plays nicely with others."
6. Still in stage of grab it because it there.

Since the Dems missed reading the first Republican plan - now in full flower - perhaps each of us should send Thom's article to our Dems, House and Senate, as well as the White House hopefuls.

Could it hurt???

A well-written, considered article. Are the Dems listening or does anybody really care. Gore Vidal described the current political laughingstock situation thusly: (paraphrased) there is only one party and it has two right wings. It will be a challenge for Shrub to be seen as anything but an unlovable, dangerous buffoon, even with Rove's help though. 28% popularity? Nobody's has told him, or, more likely he doesn't even care. After all, God talks to him.

Thank you for clear, insightful writing. Whatever destabilizing strategies the Republicans have used in the Middle East, it's clear they have succeeded at home. The only antidote is evidence -- constant, sure, committed -- of Democratic backbone. If the Dems in Congress lack direction, then we, the people, need to stand up, speak out, get real and act on our convictions. Democracy is too important to lose while we argue and wring our hands.

Though disgusted with the Dems, most of us here still vote for them and even contribute money to them. I think it is time to turn the heat up. For months, whenever I get a phone call, e-mail, or letter from the DNC or the State Democratic Party or even local Dems, I simply state "I will not give another penny to the Democrats until Impeachment is aggressively back on the table."
I'd love to see MoveOn or TrueMajority or CommonDreams or an umbrella group put together a campaign such as this. This would have a chance to get their attention. We need to hit the Dems where it counts. Refuse to give them any money, until Pelosi and the leadership seriously submit articles of Impeachment.

Hey, dude, don't be so upset about the possibility of Republicans outsmarting Democrats. Theirs is a struggle for power, and has nothing to do with you. The only time you as 'people' come into their equation is: Who will ultimately hold power to screw the 'people'.

It's not so far out to imagine that the two parties may come to a secret agreement such as: We will allow you to have this many Senators and House Reps elected, in turn you should let us have this many… It's kind of like agreement between East Side and West Side Mafias.

The people's only solution is: Cancel your party affiliation and vote independent, have a multi-party system, abolish campaign financing, trash lobbying, and get out of that outmoded electoral college and enroll in a better university—the University of Common Sense.

Good commentary, and thanks Robert Settgast, and Robert Goldsbrough. Your points support what Karlof1 suggests and why it is that in spite of our efforts to change lives & minds, the progressive voice has been so deeply marginalized, unable to touch enough minds to rally the force for a change in direction. Given the grip on power by "the death" party as Karlof refers to them, it will take agencies of great magnitude to release their hold. Nature is going to play a significant role.

I have a very deep respect for Thom Hartmann and rely on his for a wealth of information he provides regarding the founding fathers' original intent. However, I do not agree with what he said in another essay about 'both sides wanting what is best for our country'. The other side which I call the neonazicons want only what is best for their own interests. They care as much about our country as they do any other one - they have no interest at all. Thom's comments were almost naive regarding this.

Troops will begin coming home in the Fall. Gen. Petraeus will see to that. CNN and Fox will cover them. Newsweek and Time will do cover stories.

Troops will come home - but not all of them.

The show will go on ... and on and on.

Look for a big redeployment on Sept 11, 2007

Meanwhile Dems bent on withdrawl will be muted. Candidates who talked about more than Iraq will be "dead in the water" by then ... killed by their own party. Republicans will have regained their footing. Big money will flow to the Republican party. Mitt and Rudy will sew it up ... independently or together ... and take the white House.

Is there any reason to think otherwise?

Hmmm...sorry, Thom, I don't think so. I'm with you on the part about shifitng responsibility for the downside to the Democrats -- they've been trying to do that all along. But I don't believe there will be anything but a token draw down of forces. Perhaps for different reasons, neither the Republicrats or the Demublicans have the will or the interest in bringing this occupation to an end. It's all been one big farce: all talk and no action.

My prediction is that Petraeus will claim modest improvement in September, and all the Republicans that have been pretending to be impatient with the occupation will claim the surge worked and must continue another six months. They'll throw the public a bone by bringing back a few troops or some other meaningless gesture that looks like a draw down merely for the consumption of the mass media, who will dutifully trumpet it as the beginning of the end of the war.

This puts the Democrats in precisely the same position they were for this spending bill: not willing to step up and assume responsibility by defunding for fear of consequences on the ground that would risk 2008. So Bush will get what he wants -- again.

I'd actually be willing to accept real redeployment on the terms you describe. I'd be willing to accept redeployment under most any terms at all. But unless Democrats find a few vertebrae lying around somewhere, it just isn't going to happen, period.

Thanks, Ralph for YOUR comment. I'm adding the one I meant to send last night and didn't hit the SEND button, but I like your frame, "spend and charge Republicans". But as for surge, can one escalate an occupation? We must keep stressing that the war (or more correctly the illegal invasion but the rightists wouldn't understand that) is long over -- it is an OCCUPATION. Let's keep reframing that one correctly. But back to last night's unsent but still valid comment....

Come on gang -- you/we gotta take over the Democratic party. Get active at the district levels and thow out the DLC (corporatist) Democrats. That said, we need a strong Green Party too, but what we especially need is campaign finance reform so pols don't owe their souls and seats to the corporations. We need more populists in Congress who care about America of We the People.

I'm at the end of the day out here in Hawaii and you guys keep me up to damn late with your great discussions and lively comments. So much so that that I have no energy for any real contributions....

Though I will say that Hartmann's conclusions aren't intended to be written in stone but to challenge each and every one of us to look for real solutions to this messy corner we have allowed ourselves to be painted into. Naturally this involves large political issues but we also have to think about our own day to day actions (what we eat, drive, consume, etc.) which are the also small personal political choices.

One more thing, stop playing by Roves word games book. It is not a SURGE, it's and ESCALATION! pure and simple. Tough talk on Iran.... a DANGEROUS ESCALATION, etc. .... Again it's not " tax and spend Democrats" .... it's "spend and charge Republicans." There's virtually dozens an dozens of these word traps that need to be expossed.

The only way I can now "honor" the vast majority of politicians from the Democratic Party--Republican too--is with the "knife."

Some time back, I tried to put forth the concept of the "Death Party"--a grouping/faction of politicians who promote policies that result in increased levels of mortality among those affected by such policies. Think IMF, World Bank, GATT/WTO and other such traditional forms of "Dollar Diplomacy" "International" bureaucratic extensions of the Commerce and Treasury Departments and the tremendous damage they've caused through the polices/ actions taken since WW2 to enrich a very tiny segment of elites. This was a mechanism started by Republicans and honed by Democrats into the National Security State by 1947. After Truman, Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers continued the outbuilding of Empire and refining the military-industrial-complex; "Massive Retaliation" was the mantra. Ike may have intervened at Suez, but he toppled governments in Guatemala, Iran, initially helped Castro, waged a "secret" invasion of Indonesia in 1958, amongst other deeds. The remaining Death Party history is sketched briefly by others above.

Any person with any REAL principles and a knowledge of current and past events OUGHT to give the Death Party the "knife" based upon their historic behavior. No longer can I promote any politician affiliated with a party whose stated policy goals promote death and Empire. Currently, both the Republican and Democrat policy positions related to Iraq, Iran, Cuba, and Trade promote death and destabilization worldwide--and here--and too many other examples exist.

Most humans cannot tolerate Empires, an historical fact, and they rebel. To understand US history is to know why a majority of the planet's commoners are revolting against the US Empire, its allies and puppet international institutions.

Who are you going to side with: the planet's commoners, or the Death Party? In other words, who are the real terrorists?

People seem to forget that corporations are bigger and more powerful than most nationstates. And who does Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice worked for,duh, international corporate oil. And what do transnational corporations want? Privatization, privatization, they want - - privatization. Strategic structural adjustments that's what they call it and that's what they want. They want to all the water soaked Coca-Cola can bottle water in India. The water table goes way down a small farmers can't farm anymore so they go to the city and die. In some countries, people have to pay for the water they collect from their rooftops. The first thing Paul Bremmer did was to start handing out contracts to corporations: for Iraqi water, for Iraqi electricity, for Iraqi sewage system. And who got these contracts, not the Iraqi engineers (who knew how these systems worked) but Halliburton, Bechtel. And the first thing, of course, that was taken was the oil ports.

Transnational corporations our vice President with his cheerleader puppet Bush work for transnational Corp.'s. They want to turn the United States into another Third World country: no taxes for the rich, and no more social needs for the society. Privatize the pharmaceuticals, privatize hospitals and not just here the whole world round. No more new universities instead private prisons - no rehabilitation put them back in jail have them make lingerie for Victoria's Secret.

Our elected leaders don't work for us we don't have the money that transnational corporations have. Transnational corporations are racing around the world trying to gobble up every natural resource they can find: Redwood forests, Yosimity, Yellowstone, the Arctic, the Amazon River. They want the damn the Grand Canyon. And,the Yangtze River and rivers in India. We don't have the money to elect our representatives. Democracy means to them the ability to buy things including people: body parts from South America and China.

If they want to globalize the world we need to globalize it first. A livable wage starting at $30 an hour for five hour day, no unemployment, no child labor world wide. And, if a corporation builds things are not good confiscate their assets take away their license keep the workers and have them make something that's good for people. This is what globalization should be about.

I'm sure that you can expound on this if you put your mind to it.

Yours for peace, love and justice.

Brokenbear_renegades

Hartmann said,"It was a war for political power. That had to be first."Was? It's STILL a war for political power and Bush is that much closer to having absolute power by signing NSPD 51 and HSPD-20:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

When you own all the media including
The Times
Conditioning is easy.
Play the same tape endlessly
And
Fool most of the people,
Most of the Time.
Democracy is DEAD.
What we have is a Demockery.
The Farce
The Illusion:
That we live in
"The Richest and Strongest
Country on the Earth"
What BU__! SH__!
Allot of good it does us, with all the poverty, overfilled prisons, sick & uninsured!
What about all the;
GI's: Running around Iraq with targets on their backs.
What is a War without casualties and sacrifice?
Especially yours.
And for who?
Bushzarro and The Oil Con-glom-Pirates.
Saudi Arabia
Dubai
Now we must Honor these futile Deaths with
even more!
What a farce.
It's all in vane.
Fauxtian, Rovian, Hypno,Physco-Paths
Rap and Dance
At
The Washington Press Club Dinner
It's all a show.
While Rich Piddle
Does his Dead President Impressions
Turn it off.
Shut it down.
!!!!REBOOT!!!!!
They are all bad actors in a Bad play
For their own benefit.
To fool you.
We are the main coarse.
Fools!
Served
Medium Rare.

Privatization has been the cash cow of both parties.

"Steal from the common good for the private good."

Notice the pigs at the trough.

Little pigs they come back to the trough; the big ones go to slaughter.

It is passed time the we the people demand the return of the rights and property that have been taken in the corrupt dealings in federal, state, and local governments.

About the war: Henry Ford said, "show me who makes a profit from war, and I'll show you how to stop the war."

Its unfortunate that all Americans must bear the consequences of the most corrupt & brutal administration in our history. The thoughtless and unlearned voters who helped his machine steal both elections and the five Supreme Court Justices who violated all trust and placed him in office deserve the consequences. Instead those who oppose his policies are labeled unpatriotic-- such Senator Max Cleland , a triple veitnam amputee who was unseated because he sponsored a bill to implement an investigation t odetermind the causes of 9/11.

There is one state sanctioned party in The FUSA and that party is The Corporacracy.

I agree.
I think we have a one-party system pretending to be a two- party system

Got Ruppert? Mike Ruppert, that is...
in the form of his book, Crossing the Rubicon.

If that doesn't put you through a spin cycle big time, perhaps you have died, but just haven't noticed, you know, like in that Bruce Willis movie...what was it called?

"What the...Hey dude, where's my BODY!?! FAR OUT!... I musta dropped the body somewhere, I was just in it a moment ago. But hey, look on the bright side. No body means, no more ulcers! VERY COOL!...But, hmmmm, I still do seem to 'have' a body of Light...How *EXTRA - OR - DINARY!*"

Or if you prefer the shadows, picture the gal in the Exorcist - the one with the head spinnig all-the-way-around-on-top-of-her shoulders. But if you'd rather a milder story, then it's Alice Through the Looking Glass. Unreal.

I have yet to find Ruppert's data, arguments, or conclusions refuted (though part of me wishes someone would do just that). Attacked or ignored yes: Too much, too hot and way too dark: couldn't be true......could it?

"Kids, can you say DEN-IAL? - Mr. Rogers wants you to know that it's not just a flowing body of water in a far off country called Egypt."

As long as Thom Hartmann and other respected and listened to people continue to play the "red/blue" game, the more the people of The Former United States of America will be hurt.

There is one state sanctioned party in The FUSA and that party is The Corporacracy.

Michael Bonanno

But remember Iran Contra, NO ONE CARED? REPUBLICAN POWER GREW. The illegal activities of Reagan/Bush lead to the totally screwed up country we're living in today. We need a NEW New Deal. Unfortunately, we know what will have to happen before voters CHOOSE such a course. Plus, the progressive president will have to increase the Supremes from 9 to 11. ;-)

>>It wasn't just a war for oil - cheap oil was just a useful secondary >>benefit.
The goal was HIGHER OIL PRICES. See Greg Palast's _Armed Madhouse_ for a good explanation.

>>It wasn't just a war against terrorism - that was just a convenient >>excuse.
Read and listen to Barack Obama. He explains how Bush and the U.S. helped create terrorists. His particular campaign speech (repeated often) talking about how we are fighting on both sides is very clear. Barack Obama understand the EVIL of U.S. government backed terrorism, I have only heard watered down versions of the same speech from Dennis Kucinich. Why those on the Malloy left continue to love Dennis and hate Barack makes no sense to me.

>>It wasn't just a war to enrich Bush's and Cheney's cronies - those were >>just pleasant by-products.
It was the PRIMARY PURPOSE, power was the by product.

>>It was, pure and simple, well planned years in advance, a war to solidify >>Bush and the Republican Party's political capital.
This is true, but it was about the MONEY, not just the power.

>>It was a war for political power. That had to be first. Everything else - >>oil, profits, ongoing PATRIOT Act powers, easy manipulation of the media >>- all could only come if political power was seized and held through at >>least two decisive election cycles.

Who benefits from these things? How're wealthy folks' portfolios looking?
:-)

And people still say that if I don't vote Democratic, things will get really bad.

I think they really mean "worse," but since the Dems have done nothing but capitulate on issue after issue, I find it hard to imagine how having even more of them up there would bring much improvement.

They won't stop the war, they won't fight appointments, they won't impeach — they won't do anything!

So when 2008 rolls around and I am forced to vote Green (because I will NOT vote for fucking Hillary!), don't whine about it. You support a party of pigs, whores and cowards. Go vote for them. But don't expect those of us who still retain some standards to join you.

If there are plans down the pike to withdraw from Iraq, how come the United States is just about ready to open a $1 billion Embassy the largest in the world in Baghdad? I believe that this most corrupt administration in history will finally self destruct. We lived through Watergate,Iran Contra and we can survive the fool from Tesas. I'm a WWII veteran and my generation doesn't know what quit means so it really desturba me to see all of these people giving up without a fight.We need to be putting preasure on Al Gore with Russ Feingold as his running mate to run and win in 08. That will stop this nonsense of dictatorship and get this great country back on the right track.Give up never

REPLY TO JJOHNJJ RE HARTMANN'S VIEW THAT BUSH AND CO. INVADED IRAQ TO GET DOMESTIC POLITICAL POWER

jjohnjj May 29th, 2007 6:13 pm
"I disagree that political power is an end in itself. The power comes from money and the money comes from corporate profits, which is the prize."

No, political power is not an end in itself, but Hartmann doesn't say it is; he says it has helped the right wing advance a greater conservative agenda:

"We know that Bush wanted to massively cut taxes on his corporate sponsors and people, like himself, with substantial inherited fortunes. He wanted to weaken government protections of the environment, children, the poor, the elderly, the ozone layer, and our nation's forests. He wanted his oil-rig and mining-interest friends to have more access to public lands."

Corporate power is one important goal of that agenda, but not the only one; there is a mass right wing base that identifies with its corporate masters but whose agenda is not identical to theirs. Yea, the Republicans are the party of big money, but they're also the party of angry little men with their own ugly little agenda in the wings...

To Dunnyveg

JFK escalated things, but Eisenhower sent the first US troops to Vietnam. LBJ lost because he escalated things even more. Gulf of Tonkin occured after JFK was killed.

And Nixon out-did them all when it came to escalating things in Southeast Asia.

Finally: Our current system was designed to make it nearly impossible to do anything as a third party. About the only thing possible is what Nadar and Perot did.

Just think, if we had a parliment, Bush would have been gone last November.

"I have friends who are Greens, I admire Raph Nader tremendously, and we all gotta follow our conscience… but really, can't you promote the superiorty of your third party's ideas, instead of just knifing the Dems?"

We're trying. The more folks who register Green, volunteer for the Green Party, or run for office as Greens, the easier it becomes.

Thom Hartmann writes less frequently than others, but he always gives us the bigger picture. Like Gore Vidal, he loves our nation's founding principles, and renews my understanding of "patriotism" with each new essay.

This Hartmann essay seems a little too sure of itself. Maybe he's trying to scare us into action, but I think that the waters have become too murky even for Thom to see through. War is chaotic - even for a superpower.

His scenario is plausible, but not inevitable. The 'Cons took a huge gamble when they bet that the Iraqis would accept U.S. occupation and reconstruction. What transpired must have been as big a suprise to them, as it was predictable to the rest of us.

What Hartmann describes is a deft "end-game'" intended to retain power despite the failure to conquer Iraq. Their plans might even allow for a "Jimmy Carter" to serve one term in the White House, before they unleash a new "Reagan" upon us.

I disagree that political power is an end in itself. The power comes from money and the money comes from corporate profits, which is the prize. The motives are and the methods of power are hard to distinguish.

We can avoid this scenario, but it is going to be a "hearts & minds" struggle back in the home districts, not in D.C.

Karlof1 -

I campaigned actively against open primary initiatives in 1998 and 2004. Open primaries sound good, but they are bad for democracy. They force "outside" candidates to use up all their funds and volunteers in a "do or die" primary. They compress the campaign season and increase the candidates' dependency on mass media advertising. They might appear to help third parties, but they only help the candidates with biggest budgets. Instant Runoff Voting is much much better.

California is not currently an open-primary state. That's not what needs to be changed. To insinuate that Pelosi is not a "Real Democrat" because some Republicans voted for her in one out of ten elections is just wrong.

According to Thom Hartmann here, those of you who have been blasting the craven Democrats recently are doing the Republican's work for them.

I have friends who are Greens, I admire Raph Nader tremendously, and we all gotta follow our conscience... but really, can't you promote the superiorty of your third party's ideas, instead of just knifing the Dems?

Only one person in Washington tried to - and actually did - withhold funds from the troops last week - George W. Bush. It was never the intention of the Dems to withold funds - never. They struggle was over the conditions to be attached to those funds.

But all week the talk-show hosts were asking, "Gee, do you think the troops are nervous about Congress cutting off their ammo?".

Bush won the stare-down because his party controls the message reaching the voters back home, not because the Dems are "complicit".

From what I've heard, Pelosi's election was more of an annointing of a successor.

John Burton, longtime Congressman died. Then his wife, Sala, took the seat. Several weeks before she died, she enlisted Nancy to run for the seat. Nancy, not knowing that Sala was really going to die that soon,agreed to run, did, and won.

So, Pelosi really came out of that party-insider network that endorses those inside and shuts out the rest(mostly the progressives who ARE gaining in strength in spite of this). Watch when you see a ton of endorsements from the already-electeds, and you know who's been drafted into the circle.

As far as the election law, I've talked to a friend who is a poll worker and she says that if you are registered in a party, that you have to vote in that party's primary. If you are an independent (and we have A LOT of them here now), then you CAN THEORETICALLY VOTE for any party that allows you(and some of the smaller parties do not).

HOWEVER, the instructions they receive from the County Registrar-Recorder apparently tell the poll workers that they are NOT ALLOWED TO TELL independents this. It sounds bizarre, I know, but she assures me this was true the last time she did it.

We're going to check into this further tomorrow, because I do recall hearing that Republicans had supported her and put her in too. Maybe someone from SF can help clarify in the meantime.###

"It was, pure and simple, well planned years in advance, a war for political capital. A war planned to solidify Bush and the Republican party's political capital. It was a war for political power."

While I've been attracted to the oil theory (although I don't believe LBJ's decision to send troops to Vietnam had squat to do with protecting Indonesian oil from the domino effect), and have also liked the empire theory (anchor US military bases from Turkey to Seoul, out of which the black ops boys can use hi tech police state tools to keep the natives in line indefinitely), the more time passes, events unfold, and the more facts leak out into the public domain, I find that Thom Hartmann's consistent bottom line major motivation for the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq is the best single explanation of the myriad suggested: It's all about building the GOP base through demagoguery, and using the war to divide the Democratic Party internally against itself, much like Tricky Dick was able to finesse for six and a half years.

I also admire Thom's candid willingness to go out on a limb and predict how the surge will be billed a success in September '07, so that many of the US troops can be rotated back with great fanfare by the fall of '08, still leaving behind an opaquely classified, paramilitary contractor presence hunkered down in their enduring bases to keep an eye on the oil resources and the puppet Iraqi regime - a "victory" of sorts, at least partial victory enough for purposes of stage managing the 2008 Republican Presidential campaign message.

In terms of the human misery index, I sincerely hope Thom Hartmann's bold predicted scenario comes true. It's certainly far better than my alternative nightmare worry that Bush plans to attack Iran or Syria first before leaving office, or that a second 9/11 attack will hit setting off a stampede to reinstate the draft.

But I am highly skeptical of Thom's prognostication. I just don't think the anti-occupation insurgency, Moktada, or the other big anti-American players in the Middle East will ever permit George Bush to get away with such a graceful draw down of forces into a continued, somewhat disguised indefinite occupation presence on Iraqi soil.

If Thom is right, and de-escalation is now the GOP brain trust's game plan, then I think these arrogant jerks still just don't get it.

There will be no cakewalk. No dancing in the streets. No Iraqis standing up while we stand down. No sign off of Iraqi oil rights to Exxon by a compliant puppet regime. No transition from Maliki and the Shiite death squad government into Chalabi or Illawi or some other US-backed, multi-sectarian junta that will magically wind down or end the spiraling civil war that Bush's invasion has caused. Let slip the dogs of war, and you can easily get bit in the ass.

An orchestrated non-withdrawal withdrawal is yet another neo-con pipe dream. And if Karl Rove, McConnell, Sessions, Guiliani and the rest of the boys think there's still time to pull off a Richard Nixon peace with honor stunt, then I say bring it on.

If "the only question is how placidly the Democrats will continue to play their assigned role in this little drama", then don't bet the ranch. George Bush's inability to write scripts that actually control events constructively on the ground in Mesopothamia has already had its abysmal track record thoroughly exposed. Why should that dynamic change now?

Blaming Baker-Hamilton, or blaming the Democrats, or blaming the peace wing of the Democratic Party, or blaming the antiwar movement generally, for the bloodletting that most surely looms on the horizon yet to come is like trying to blame the Fire Department for deliberately starting the fire.

I'm not willing to take the bait and jump ship to a third party movement as the only alternative. Just yet.

It's very, very true that from Goldwater and Nixon to Reagan through Bush the elder and unto Little George that the right wing of the GOP has long clamored and schemed (while in power and out) to parlay war abroad into partisan gain on the home front. And it's also true that far too often the Democratic leadership in Washington has failed to live up to the task, getting sucked into a sabre rattling contest they were destined to always lose. As Ike so eloquently warned in his farewell speech, militarism for profit is the fundamental evil, the great consistent danger to our democracy and remaining liberty, that needs to be squarely addressed.

It's sure getting late. But if the Dems can regain a grip on a sense of their party's own history - a good neighbors' policy rather than dreams of empire, the use of international law rather than knee jerk militarism to deal with real world threats like nonstate terrorism and nuclear proliferation - 2008 could seal the deal that was begun in the grassroots Congressional revolt of 2006.

The Russell Baker-Herskowitz anecdote rings true to me. The Bushies just could never get over how a draft dodger like Bill Clinton could possibly come out of nowhere and beat the victorious Commander in Chief of the Persian Gulf War.

So Little George reached out and grasped and drank deeply from the poisoned chalice.

Be careful what you wish for.

Bill from Saginaw

PJD: I doubt it'll take 50 years, nor do we necessarily possess the luxury of that quantity of time given the givens. This is where Poweroflove raises good points. I totally agree with Sessions, ditto Baska, and Karlof1. When an accident occurs and police interview witnesses, it's interesting how they view the EXACT same event, but interpret it quite differently. Hartman definitely lays out an accurate track of the motivations behind the Bush Junta, but I do NOT agree with his conclusions. Americans may have been duped, but the difference between "winning" and losing, while currently cloaked by the assistance of a truly Orwellian media are NOT able to be hidden. And the wild card is Iraq; and as far as I'm concerned, they did plan an all-out overthrow of our system, and knew they needed a trigger. 911 was just TOO convenient (or coincidental); and since the Bush family legacy and its chief assistants all have CIA ties (or those to dark plots against foreign leaders), they would certainly--like Ghostbusters--know who to call to get the job done. It sounds so "un-American" to raise this contention, but we are dealing with forces that ENJOY torture, think they can white out portions of the Constitution which THEY find inconvenient, show a complete and utter disregard for living soldiers AND the Iraqi people AND the environmental ecosystems which all future generations rely upon. In a court of law such behavior has various names like depraved indifference, homicide, murder, reckless endangerment, etc. This crew is guilty as charged, and probably because the dirt is known about them, many democrats are accessories to crimes against humanity, too. What a mountain of shit to have to clean up... for all of us!

1. Shift "ownership" of the downside of the "war" and occupation of Iraq to the Democrats.

This was the same strategy Democrats used to lay Vietnam at Nixon's feet--a war actually started by JFK, and that cost LBJ his re-election bid. This strategy worked because Nixon implicated himself by continuing where the Democrats left off. I'm not hopeful, but unless the Democrats divorce themselves from Iraq, this is exactly what will happen, and it should happen.

It wasn't just a war for oil - cheap oil was just a useful secondary benefit.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. If we consider that fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and if we consider that many of the newest oil producing regions are coming under the Chinese sphere of influence, this is very much a war about oil. The prevalence of Saudi terrorists suggests an unstable regime, and with Iraqi supplies offline, the elites in Washington thought this war might stabilize things. And with Iraq's huge reserves, the elites saw the need to ensure that Iraq stayed firmly in the Western sphere of influence. Increased demand by China only deepens the sense of urgency. The elites are fully aware of the West's dependence on foreign oil, and they wanted to ensure a steady supply.

But here's the problem, and one unforgivable for conservatives not to recognize. Most conservatives disliked Bill Clinton intensely. But if, say, the Chinese had decided to engage in a little regime change of their own, and threw Bill Clinton out of office, the conservatives would've been outraged and screaming for blood. Bill Clinton was a problem for conservatives. But he was our problem. I just don't understand why it's so difficult for so many conservatives to understand that Iraqis felt the same about Saddam Hussein.

I don't buy into the notion that this is an "illegal" war; illegal would imply not only that a law has been broken, but a law higher than US law. But I do think that it's wrong to be invading somebody else's country just to control their resources. To Western elites, this is an economic war; to Iraqis it's a war of liberation.

I hope the Democrats do better with this issue than the Republicans.

Hartmann writes "the average person in our nation now thinks Democrats and Bush are jointly responsible for the current "mess" in Iraq". That's because they are.

I respect Thom as a fellow Historian Against the War and much of his work is top-drawer. Unfortunately, there is one element of the equation he omitted--the Iraqi Resistence and their now highly radicalized Iraqi Nationalism. Combined, they have the power to defeat the occupation, although they will be unable to defeat US airstrikes. Given the current Iraqi political situation, the primary "benchmark"--the "oil law"--will never be passed as it is THE rallying point for the increasing Iraqi nationalism--read unification. The Kurds may remain bought, but with Sunni and Shiia increasingly seeing the futility of fighting each other instead of their mutual enemy--the future reality for the occpiers is increasingly grim. For Thom's Rovian scenario to work, the media must lie quite overtly about the degree of success the surge is enjoying, a lie which is easily refuted. Furthermore, the rising rate of inflation caused by the war will send many families into "recession," as the macro indicators are manipulated to show positive domestic economic performance. The overwhelming reality of rising costs cannot be hidden and the FED will be obliged to raise rates in response to its owners' wishes.

There are other wild cards that will impinge on Thom's scenario. Like the positive feedback loops now accelerating climate change, these other factors are unpredictable but will certainly force change in some direction.

Thank you, Thom. It is said that:

"The Truth will set you free...but first it may well make you miserable."

You are a Seer and Speaker of truth.

I'm enormously grateful for your work.

... And, although you have said it with crystal clarity - this was one piece I did not want to read or "get." Because you are right on. I've had a clear intuitive sense of these realities from the start.
However, you have just laid them out in stark black and white. (shudder)

This food has left me with an unsettled stomach. Even now, a part of me wishes I had forgone this meal.

All kidding aside, have you spoken with Mr. Obama about this?

I TOTALLY understand how angry everyone is about the BETRAYAL. Independents joined with the Democrats last election to put them in power and END THE WAR.

Unfortunately, there are too many of what we call "blue dog" Dems who are more Democrats in name than in vote. Most often, you find them voting along with the Republicans. These are the ones who provide the majority to Bush.

So, while it LOOKS like the Democrats are in the majority, they really aren't.

Consider Joe Lieberman in the Senate. Beaten in the primary by an anti-war Democrat, he whirls around and runs as an independent, cutting a deal with the Republicans who disavow their own party's primary winner. Falling head over heals, they embrace Lieberman (remember the Bush KISS???) and take him back to the Senate with them. Does anyone really believe he isn't beholden to those who rescued him from the DEFEAT by his own party???

In the Congress, we have gerrymandered districts and incumbents who have been there FOREVER!!! NO ONE can run against them. Well, most of the time. Jane Harman found out differently last spring when anti-war activist Marcy Winograd (president of PDLA) ran against her and took over 40% of the vote in a last-minute campaign with a fraction of the money that Jane spent. While she did not win, Harman has definitely modified her voting pattern and was on the correct side this time around.

So, the moral of the story is GET REAL PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS ELECTED!!! In California, we have a special election in the 37th CD--Long Beach and Compton. Peter Mathews, who ran a strong campaign against the incumbent last fall, got over 10,000 votes, so he goes into this race with significant name recognition. mathewsforcongress.com is the website for more info and the ACTBLUE link(pdamerica.org is strongly endorsing his candidacy and is sponsoring a major call-in effort so anyone can help win this).

I do NOT believe that a third party is the way to go now, although I recognize the frustration many feel. We have an entrenched old-line DLC group that controls the party from the inside and certainly doesn't want to give progressives a seat at the table. It threatens their power. On the other hand, if they don't, they will STAY the minority party that they,IN FACT, still are today.

In California the progressivecaucuscdp.org is the LARGEST and FASTEST GROWING of all the caucuses in the Democratic Party. There's a reason. They have the SPINE to stand up for peace and do it regularly.####

Not much hope left.

Here's my scenario. There will be republican victory in '08 as fed-up former Democrat voters stay home or write in mickey-mouse for their president, senators, and reps. Then, in another 50 years or so, when the US resembles a jumbo-sized Nicaragua, or pre-Castro Cuba, the populace will finally be sufficiently destitute and desparate to start an armed revolution.

Just as Clinton focus on "It's the economy stupid" the dems could now focus on "It's the deaths and unimaginaeble destruction, stupid"

REPLY TO SESSIONS

"disagree with Hartmann. I don't think the Cons realized what a disaster Iraq would turn out to be."

Agreed - their ambition to invade at all costs caused them to lie to themselves, as well as others, about both the supposed danger of Iraq and the impact of invasion.

"And I just don't see how the American public would buy the huge spin that the Repubs won the war."

Agreed - Hartmann assumes the right wing strategy will succeed.

RESPONSE TO HARTMANN:

"It wasn't just a war for oil....It was, pure and simple, well planned years in advance, a war to solidify Bush and the Republican Party's political capital.....It was a war for political power.

Yes, the right wing exploited 911 to invade Iraq; and yes, the right used the invasion to gain political power and shut up opposition to its domestic agenda. In this way, the American right has sought to retool the Cold War. With the emphasis on oil, this is a point that has not been sufficiently recognized - the right exploited 911 to gain power.

However, I do not agree that it was "planned years in advance" for the purpose of gaining political power. Yes, neocons Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Libby had, years earlier, called for invading Iraq as part of a post-Cold War takeover. But they needed 911 - among other things - to be taken seriously. In my view, the conspiratorial overtones of Hartmann's remarks weakens a strong essay.

The Dems blew it as usual. Why? Are Repugs smarter? We've seen just the opposite: oligarchs leading the gullible of both parties by fear and greed, like lambs to slaughter. Legions of dutiful, Mammon-worshipping, God fearing conservatives on both parties following the corporate MSM fear machine as it accomplishes its mission of killing democracy and instituting theocratic fascism with imperial designs on the world.

Almost two centuries ago, the Swiss figured out that to protect democracy from the money-power they needed a direct public hands on approach. They chose pure democracy, direct democracy. As a result, the Swiss have the highest per capita income in the world despite haveing few natural resources and no wars in over 150 years though surrounded by warring nations among many other benefits.

Mike Gravel wants to bring direct democracy here. He is the only candidate to even mention this solution because no other politician wants to lose power, influence and Big Money "contributions". The Greens are the only grassroots party where people make the decisions, not the politicians. Mike and the Greens should get together.

We have two choices: We the people become lawmakers, or the money-power will continue to make the rules.

Excellent article.

Should be required reading for all democrats.

The 2 party system sucks. America needs more voices in the political arena. More parties are the only way to change the game.

I'm as paranoid as most Dems these days, but I respectfully
disagree with Hartmann. I don't think the Cons realized what a disaster Iraq would turn out to be. And I just don't see how the American public would buy the huge spin that the Repubs
won the war. I don't think the public is (yet) that Orwellian brain dead.

The Democrats are always good a dancing to the tune the repugs play. Still, the best plans of mice and men . . . I don't think they will be willing to pull the troops out without a puppet government in full control and that isn't going to happen by 2008.

Another aspect of Repug policy is that weather we are out in '08 or not, the cost of the Iraq debale has ensured that money for the social programs they hate has been blown. Even if elections are possible on a national leeve and the Dems manage to win, they will make the ugly cuts.

Linda Sutton,

Pelosi was put in office in the same manner as Lieberman. This is due to California primary election's law that allows cross-affiliation voting in primaries: The SF Republicans vote Pelosi in the primary because her Democrat opponent is ALWAYS left of her and more acurately relfects the position of San Franciscans. So, Pelosi is another of those republicrats, or "Blue Dog" as you say. Change California's election law, and Pelosi and her ilk will be out.

I dont think the war was part of some master plan to have a one part system(that's already in place)--why assume conspiracy when incompetence explains it?

They wanted to take control of Middle East oil to prevent China and others from controlling it--they expected that it would be easy--Bush the moron was hoodwinked by Cheney and others--now they just are stuck and hope they can bluff their way out and blame the democrats for it.

No matter what they do, the Dems are screwed. If they had said "out now!" the Republicans would have said: quitters, and used that against them.

If they support Bush then the Republicans will just transfer it to them and when the Dems are forced to withdraw the Republicans will say: the Dems lost the war.

Even if a Republican president replaces Bush and they are still in iraq they will say: the dems lost it.

Unfortunately--the republicans play off the belief that they are more violent than the dems and therefore better at dealing with threats. For an american public as uneducated as it is--this sort of thinking works.
Especially without a draft.

Get the draft back--and this war wouldnt have even started.

"It wasn't just a war for oil - cheap oil was just a useful secondary benefit."

Small correction - the result was more expensive oil, not less, which lead to record profits for the oil corporations. There's a good argument that the war was all about controlling the oil - and any cursory analysis of the oil industry over the past 100 years reveals that their goal was typically to restrict the supply glut, which drove prices down, while stimulating demand at home and abroad.

Iraq is the world's biggest oil reserve, with the lowest costs of production. Thus, this played a far more prominent role in events than this article indicates. Wars in the 20th century always included the 'quest for oil' - in World War I, the goal was to prevent Germany from getting access to their own colonial oil outpost. In World War II, Hitler's invasion of Russia and Africa was all about capturing control of MidEast oil for the 1000 yr Reich, and Japan's invasion of the Dutch East Indies, now Indonesia (and the bombing of Pearl Harbor) was all about securing an oil supply for the Home Islands. In Vietnam, the theory was that the Communists would sweep down through Southeast Asia and capture Indonesian oil (the domino theory).

The fact is that wars are generally fought for economic reasons, which is not a good way to sell a war to a domestic population, so propaganda is employed to make the case for war. In iraq, the propaganda was that Saddam had ties to 9/11 and also that he had nuclear and biological weapons and the means to deliver them to the US.

As Chalmers Johnson says, the combo of a foreign empire and a sham domestic democracy is historically unstable - and what Bush, Cheney and Rove were gunning for was the end of democracy and a blatant empire run by Republicans and their corporate cronies - now we are back to the schizophrenic 'norm'.

the only problem with this is that you have to have a candidate with which to run a winning race.
of all the current pretenders to the crown none are capable of winning a majority of the votes.
Rudy? McCain? MITT FUCKIN' ROMNEY?
are you kidding me?

sorry the Republicans are d-e-a-d. put a fork in 'em.

Ultimately, the general public are the ones who will pay for Bushes mistakes not the democrats in Congress nor the media.

We, the people, have to come up with our own strategy to make Capitol Hill and the White house more accountable. It is our tax dollars that is funding these wars.

Tony Blair had to step down. Why not Bush? Shouldn't the strategy of Americans be to impeach Bush and anyone who seeks to support him? Why are we all sitting on the fence or writing articles or writing books or making movies...but nobody is doing anything that can stop the machine!!

Thom sounds logical. BUT their is one factor that everyone fails to concider. Their now PO'd anti-war democratic base. Just to keep that base from 'just sitting home' or worse when the elections comes the dems may now try something with a back bone that could upset the repubs plans to keep them happy.

What they do to achieve this I don't know.

Bush and Rove have the Democrats under control, but not the Iraqis. Republicans have become overconfident because of the ease with which they have been able to dominate the domestic scene, forgetting that the Democrats are easy prey because of their own entangling alliances with the military industrial complex and AIPAC, and that the corporate media along with the rabid right media has been doing its part by biting at the ankles of any non-submissive Democrats for years.

Thom, thank you for putting the daily events in perspective. It is usually hard to connect the dots and difficult to see the over all 'big picture.' It is all very confusing, too hard to reach any conclusions from what little information we are fed. You can not imagine how much the information that you and your collegues provide is appreciated. At this point, I agree with other readers that the only solution to restore our country is for a new viewpoint, a new outlook, a new party to start with a fresh slate. The old parties are too self involved to have any interest in what is good for America and Americans.

Welcome to Orwell World...Thom warned us all about this a long time ago. The reason this agenda is going to work and drag the world down into a gray, authoritarian, oligarchic nightmare is because the thrice-damned korporate so-called "media" has drugged the American people into a stupor in which all they give a damn about is the next "American Idol" or the latest exploits of Lindsay Lohan (WHO is that, anyway?)

There is a possibility that using the power of the Internet, we MIGHT get a viable third-party candidate in office (think KUCINICH), but it's looking like the FCC, Big Money Korporate Media and their whores in Congress are getting ready to take THAT away from us as well...

I can't read now, but I love Thom, primarily because he is one of the few who talk about labor, and he does it so eloquently.

Yep, the Democrats just got snookered bigtime by their own cowardice. But of course we have to remember that Bush has no intention of ever leaving Iraq - the permanent bases and the oil are still part of the plan. All they have to is to muddy the waters by saying "We are withdrawing the troops" just as Nixon did with his "Secret Plan"
to end the Vietnam War and just drag it out forever.
However in this case there is one major danger -
so long as the US is in Iraq they will be attacked and Al Sadr has come out of the shadows again. There has already been one bombing in the Green Zone and mortar attacks on it have been increasing. It seems to me likely that just as these incompetents have mismanaged everything else they have ever done they are again too arrogant to understand the true risk-
that the Green Zone too goes out of control and
that a major Chicken-hawk is killed there sooner or later.
That will not look very much like victory....

It doesn't take much intelligence to know that by September, no matter what the situation is, Bush will declare that his surge is a great success and begin withdrawing troops. That would be a good thing, though not soon enough. The Democrats had their opportunity. They've blown it. That's why we need a new party. One with the guts to act.

Good article. Mr.Hartmann writes:

" The only question now is how placidly the Democrats will continue to play their assigned role in this little drama."

Wouldn't it be nice to see a mass exodus of Democrats to a third party?

But sadly, I predict that they continue to play very "placidly" indeed.

Edgar Morin is a systems theorist, widely regarded in France as a "National Treasure." He is likely one of the greatest minds of our time. His book "Homeland Earth" (2000) provides another very clear and nuanced look at many of the predicaments facing our own species and the biosphereas a whole. And how we might respond. Better still, he is available for consultation (but delightfully in his 80's: catch him while you can!).

I agree with karlof1 re- "wild cards," that can in no way be predicted for '08. Schizmogenesis, ie, out-of-control positive feedback processes) will undoubtedly have an impact and a role to play in livening things up (or down.)

Given the scope of the planetary drama in which we are starring (as well as playright, director, and audience) - may we take heart and envision and skillfully cooperate with favorable winds of change - those guiding us toward the goal of at last "humanizing" of humanity. Our immense potential for love, beauty, compassion, and creativity await.

On the other hand, let's not forget that willfully blind, ultrarational/irrational forces focused on domination (and often revealing a perverse brilliance) are still very much alive --- and working with great focus --- in the shadows.

That's the way it is, or at least the way it appears to me.

--------

Below, I pasted a few of Thom's points that stood out for me...

It's difficult to watch Democrats play checkers while Republicans play Chess with Iraq...

The political calculus being pursued by Karl Rove and the Republican Party with regard to Iraq and the 2008 elections is a simple four-step process:

1. Shift "ownership" of the downside of the "war" and occupation of Iraq to the Democrats.

2. Begin to wind down American involvement in the occupation of Iraq no later than mid-2008.

3. "Claim victory and get out" of direct combat in Iraq by the early fall of 2008.

4. Win big in the 2008 elections by having "won" a "war."

Bush will now follow nearly exactly the script the Democrats wrote in the bill Bush vetoed, reducing and redeploying out troops over the next 15 months, all in anticipation of the 2008 elections. Except that the Democrats, having failed to override his veto and having "caved in" to him, can no longer claim any ownership whatever to the successes that will come from it - Republicans in Congress and Bush will claim all of that.

This is the end-game of a political equation that was begun the day after Bush was sworn into office.

...Russ Baker noted in October, 2004, that Mickey Herskowitz, the man Bush had originally hired to write his autobiography ("A Charge To Keep: My Journey To The White House"), told Baker that George Bush was planning his Iraq invasion - to seize and hold political power for himself and the Republican Party - during his first presidential election campaign.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," Herskowitz told Baker. "It was on his mind. He [Bush] said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.'

...It was, pure and simple, well planned years in advance, a war to solidify Bush and the Republican Party's political capital.

It was a war for political power. That had to be first. Everything else - oil, profits, ongoing PATRIOT Act powers, easy manipulation of the media - all could only come if political power was seized and held through at least two decisive election cycles.

...Meanwhile, the Bush plan is imminently clear to the Republicans in Congress. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, about the same time Reid was speaking, was telling reporters that "the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it." Republican Senator Jeff Sessions openly said that same day that the "war" in Iraq is no longer a "war," but an occupation, setting the stage for a withdrawal that won't be perceived as a defeat.

California's "open primary" only lasted for one election (1998). Then the State Supreme Court knocked it down as a violation of political parties' constitutional right to free assembly.

Another initiative to establish an open primary was defeated in 2004.

Nancy Pelosi has been re-elected ten times since 1987.

'nuff said...

jjohnjj,

Try reading this, http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0925-28.htm because "'nuff said" is incorrect.

the real face of the democratic party machine can be seen in cindy sheehan's column today. w/the 2 party system, you have "fascism" and "slightly less stupid fascism." fox news in the setup b/n right and "left", rethuglicans vs wimpocrats, has it right on hannity and colmes as a mirror of the 2 party system. who the hell would vote for colmes to do anything?

Here's a strategy that hasn't been tried yet - lets all stop opposing President Crazy and let him do what he wants. Eventually, things will get so bad, real revolution will become inevitable. In the meantime, for "us" anyway, things are so bad already, we'd hardly notice.