Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Endless, Meaningless Blather From The Washington Establishment
It has been extremely difficult over the past several months to pay any attention at all to the discussion of Iraq from our political and media stars. It is all just complete blather, and never means anything. All of these stern and worried and tough words spill endlessly from their mouths -- they all proclaimed in May that September was the Day of Reckoning: there would be bipartisan, forced withdrawal if the political benchmarks weren't met -- only for the same thing to happen over and over. The conditions are not met; Bush proclaims we are staying; and the Washington Establishment submits.
Just look at the Serious behavior of The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt in the last week alone to see how barren and worthless their words are. Last Sunday, Hiatt came closer than ever before to admitting failure in Iraq, ending his Editorial by asking:
If Iraqis are not moving toward political reconciliation, what justifies a continuing commitment of U.S. troops, with the painful sacrifices in lives that entails?
Thus, argued Hiatt, if the President cannot answer that question, and "if there is to be no political accord in the near future," then we must change our Iraq policy to "limit troop levels to those necessary to accomplish" very specific and more modest goals. But today, Hiatt admits that what he said just five days ago were pre-conditions for supporting Bush's Iraq policy have not been met: "the president failed to acknowledge that, according to the standards he himself established in January, the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq has been a failure -- because Iraqi political leaders did not reach the political accords that the sacrifice of American lives was supposed to make possible."
Thus, by Hiatt's own reasoning on Sunday, it means that there is no justification for "a continuing commitment of U.S. troops." So does he embrace that conclusion? Of course not, because nothing he says matters; all that matters is that we stay in Iraq and do what the President wants:
Mr. Bush's plan offers, at least, the prospect of extending recent gains against al-Qaeda in Iraq, preventing full-scale sectarian war and allowing Iraqis more time to begin moving toward a new political order. For that reason, it is preferable to a more rapid withdrawal. It's not necessary to believe the president's promise that U.S. troops will "return on success" in order to accept the judgment of Mr. Crocker: "Our current course is hard. The alternatives are far worse."
This is how it goes endlessly with people like Hiatt: (1) If X does not happen, there is no justification for staying; (2) X has not happened; (3) we must stay. That is why nothing they say has any meaning. Staying in Iraq is always the only real goal. Everything else is just pretext and blather to continue to do that. Just look at the virtually unanimous consensus among our political and media class from last May, just four months ago. They all banded together to assure Americans that, come September, if the benchmarks were not met and there was no political reconciliation, that would be the end of the line for the war. Worried and principled Republicans were willing to wait until September, but come September, they would join with Democrats and end the war, or at least force a significant withdrawal.
Yet regardless of one's views regarding the latest claims of "military progress," everyone agrees that this allegedly necessary condition -- benchmark fulfillment and political reconciliation -- has not happened. It is not even a close call. As Hiatt himself said today, even Petraeus and Crocker "emphasized that political accords will be slower in coming than Washington has expected, if they are achievable at all."
Yet it does not matter. Even though the condition they all proclaimed must be met in order to stay has not been met, they still all insist we must stay. It's always the same:
(1) If X does not happen by Y date, there is no justification for staying, they proclaim; (2) X has not happened;
(3) We must stay.
Here is but a tiny sample of the consensus that the political Establishment spewed in May. If you listened to any of this, you wasted brain cells, because it all proved to be completely meaningless, as always: David Gergen, CNN, May 10, 2007:
But I think, overall, Anderson, what we're seeing is what we talked about last week. And that's the emergence of a consensus on both sides, and in Congress and in the White House, that, probably, Congress will go ahead and fund this, put some benchmarks in. They will fund it until September. But that's going to be the critical month, when there's going to be a resolution by both Democrats and Republicans on two things: Are we making enough progress on the battlefield? And has the Maliki government and Iraq made enough progress to justify going on?
If either one of those tests fail, that's when we're going to see the moment of starting to disengage. Republicans are -- clearly do not want to go over the waterfall with this president, if, by September, things haven't cleared up. . . .
It sent a very clear signal to the whole country that the Republicans are not going to stand by. And they're not going over this waterfall together with him. He's got to get this thing straightened out by September, both on the military side and with the Iraqi government.
National Journal, May 5, 2007:
Congressional Republicans are increasingly looking to September as the deadline for political progress in Iraq before their support for the war starts to buckle, and Senate GOP leaders have been conveying that message to the White House, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., told National Journal. By September, Republicans want to see evidence of stability in Iraq, including a more effective army, a working oil-revenue-sharing agreement, and government control over the militias that are attacking opposing factions, Hagel said.
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who has complained about a lack of dialogue between the White House and Congress on the war, said that the Bush administration is hearing out Republicans' worries about the Iraqi government. "I think the administration is listening more in terms of what's being done behind the scenes," Voinovich told NJ. "There's a lot more going on than what's out." . . .
Republican patience could run out even earlier than September if the Iraqi parliament takes a scheduled two-month summer recess in July and August, especially if it has made little headway on political reconciliation among the country's factions.
If the parliament recesses anyway, GOP support on Capitol Hill could dissolve, according to Voinovich, a key swing vote. "One thing [President Bush had] better make sure is that that parliament doesn't go on a two-month vacation," he said. "If that happens, the stuff is going to hit the fan, big-time. I think all hell will break loose, here, all over."
David Broder, The Washignton Post, May 31, 2007:
Meanwhile, a significant movement is developing in the Senate to make Baker-Hamilton's recommendations the official policy of the government. A resolution to that effect, co-sponsored by Democrat Ken Salazar of Colorado and Republican Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, will be introduced in early June, with at least six other senators -- three from each party -- endorsing it. . . . These senators are centrists -- the kind who can exert leverage on their colleagues. But the man who can do the most to catalyze the shift among Republicans is Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the widely respected former chairman of the Armed Services Committee. . . . If Warner shifts, many other Republican senators will move with him, and the policy will change. I think that time is coming soon.
Anne Flaherty, Associated Press, May 25, 2007 -- "U.S. Democratic, Republican leaders predict change in Bush's Iraq war policy":
Republican and Democratic congressional leaders both forecast a change in President George W. Bush's Iraq war policy as the president prepared to sign legislation Friday providing funds for U.S. military operations through Sept. 30. "I think the president's policy is going to begin to unravel now," said the Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi. . . . At a separate news conference, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell predicted a change, and said Bush would show the way. "I think the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall and I think the president is going to lead it," he said.
U.S. News & World Report, May 21, 2007:
A Gallup Poll last week showed that while the approval rate for the president's handling of the war is a low 30 percent, congressional Democrats, at 34 percent, don't score much higher. Republicans, at 27 percent, rate even lower. That means that come September, when General Petraeus must deliver his own progress report to Capitol Hill, Republicans may be more ready to talk about withdrawal.
National Journal's "Insider Poll" of D.C. Democrats - May 12, 2007:
Q: If the political and military situation in Iraq has not significantly improved by September, will Congress enact legislation to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq? Democrats (32 votes)
Yes: 59 percent
No: 41 percent
Sen. Olympia Snowe's Press Conference, May 10, 2007, in Iraq:
Our legislation provides for within 120 days that General Petraeus would come before the Congress and report in terms of whether or not the Iraqi government has met these benchmarks. And if they have not achieved them, then General Petraeus would be required within 14 days, to submit a plan on phased redeployment of the troops associated with the Baghdad security plan, as well as a change in mission for all the other troops, consistent with the stated objectives that were set forth in the Iraq Study Group plan.
Voice of America, May 9, 2007 -- "SEPTEMBER LOOMS AS KEY MONTH IN U.S. DEBATE OVER IRAQ":
September is looming as a key month in the U.S. political debate over the war in Iraq. Congressional Democrats and a growing number of Republicans say they will take a hard look at how President Bush's military surge strategy is working in Iraq by then and whether changes will be needed to the U.S. approach. . . . "If by September we do not see clear signs of progress, then I think we have to face reality and start planning for a complete change of mission," said Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine.
Another moderate Republican, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, told NBC's Today program that other Republicans may press for changes in Iraq if the president's surge strategy does not produce quick results.
Smith was one of only two Senate Republicans to support a Democratic funding bill that included a troop withdrawal timetable.
"I only speak for one Republican senator, but I know what I hear from many Republican senators, and that means that many of them will simply change their votes and Chuck Hagel and I will not be the only ones calling on the president to put the troops in a new place," he said.
The Washington Post, May 8, 2007 -- "September Could Be Key Deadline in War":
Congressional leaders from both political parties are giving President Bush a matter of months to prove that the Iraq war effort has turned a corner, with September looking increasingly like a decisive deadline. In that month, political pressures in Washington will dovetail with the military timeline in Baghdad. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq, has said that by then he will have a handle on whether the current troop increase is having any impact on political reconciliation between Iraq's warring factions. And fiscal 2008, which begins Oct. 1, will almost certainly begin with Congress placing tough new strings on war funding. . . .
"September is the key," said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds defense. "If we don't see a light at the end of the tunnel, September is going to be a very bleak month for this administration." . . .
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who has taken a hard line in Bush's favor, said Sunday, "By the time we get to September, October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B." . . .
"There is a sense that by September, you've got to see real action on the part of Iraqis," said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). "I think everybody knows that, I really do."
"I think a lot of us feel that way," agreed Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
And on and on. Everything they said in unison was completely false. And they do not even have the defense that it was difficult back then to see that it was false. Go read what virtually every blogger was saying back in May and it was painfully obvious that the Establishment was both deceiving itself and deceiving the country yet again. What they fear and hate more than anything is withdrawal from Iraq because staying at least allows them to avoid their own Day of Reckoning: when they are forced to accept how disastrous was the war that they all enabled. That is why what they say -- all of their sober prognostications and warnings and analyses -- is meaningless. All of the talk about "worst options" and alleged fears of what will happen if we withdrawal and our "strategic interests" all just mask the simple truth that we are going to stay -- even when their own premises amount to an acknowledgement that there is no point in staying -- because we are staying to protect the reputations and credibility and egos of the Washington Establishment.
As much as our political class disgraced itself with its obsequious support for the invasion itself, and further disgraced itself with its complicity in the endless claims (including from the General Whose Credibility Must Not Be Questioned) that things were going well when the opposite was true, their behavior over the last twelve months -- when even they admit that the war is a failure and keep promising to support withdrawal only never to do so -- is the undeniable evidence of how corrupt and worthless they really are.
We continue to wage one of the most absurd wars in history -- one in which all of the original justifications have long ago vanished and nobody can identify any specific purpose in staying, yet one which continues with no remote end in sight. Put another way, we have exactly the war that befits our political establishment.
UPDATE: The Beltway Three-Step, as danced by Fred Hiatt:
(1) Hiatt on Sunday: "If Iraqis are not moving toward political reconciliation, what justifies a continuing commitment of U.S. troops, with the painful sacrifices in lives that entails"?
(2) Hiatt today: "It's impossible not to be skeptical that the necessary political deals and improvements in Iraqi security forces will take place."
(3) Hiatt's conclusion: "Mr. Bush's plan offers, at least, the prospect of extending recent gains against al-Qaeda in Iraq, preventing full-scale sectarian war and allowing Iraqis more time to begin moving toward a new political order. For that reason, it is preferable to a more rapid withdrawal."
Translation: Nothing justifies the continued loss of U.S. lives by staying. But we should sacrifice their lives anyway so we don't have to withdraw.
© 2007 Salon.com
43 Comments so far
Show AllLast December I wrote to my local newspaper that we would stay in Iraq a long time.
This December I will write the same thing.
No person in power is brave enough to get us out.
No brave person has enough power to get us out.
We will remain stuck in the Iraqi quicksand, sinking lower and lower, eyeing the mirage of victory, until the inevitable catastrophe occurs.
Great article and hit the nail squarely on the head. Ive gotten to the point of utter disillusionment with the Democratic Party that when I enter the voting booth in the next election, I will be pulling the NO lever (against Democrats) and for any third party or Independent candidate available. I am mad as hell, and I won't take it anymore. I know I heard that line somewhere else, but where?
Very Serious Person David Gergen told us all this morning on NPR that we must rely on the wisdom of Gen. Petraeus and wait 'til next summer to see if the strategy is working or not. 'Cause it would be irresponsible and Very Unserious to make any conclusions right now.
Oh, and MoveOn.org, all three guests agreed this morn, are a big bunch of Very Unserious poopyheads for DARING, DARING I SAY, to criticize General Petraeus for being a shill for the White House. (He's on his THIRD tour in Iraq, y'know!)
Of course there is no real improvement. If we had improvement, the US would have to leave... and what would happen to all that precious oil? The US is arming both sides (that's a fact), fomenting sectarian violence, creating turmoil precisely so that it can have an excuse to stay in Iraq and get the oil. After the oil is gone or significantly diminished (say 10 or 20 years) we will leave. And then we will say "Oh, we've tried so hard to bring "democracy and peace" it's too bad they are going up in flames in a civil war we instigated. When viewed with the clarity and honesty of the oil factor, everything we have done and said (as incongruent as it seems) makes perfect sense. We are there for oil. When is is secured or drained, we will leave. Until then, both Democrats and Republicans see a presence in Iraq as important to our "national security". What they fail to tell us is their definition of national security: Plentiful Oil. I'm sad they don't see further than 10 years. It would be nice if our leaders were leading us to a sustainable future instead of global, financial and political suicide.
TO THE DEMS
I have been meaning to write something like this for awhile because of your feckless responses and kowtowing to a president who is out to destroy this country. Why? Because you are cynical and political to an extreme. It is either that or you want to have all the stuff that is on the books now plus a war that you think will help you and without the blame. This is neither humanistic or morally defendable. Petraeus got what he deserves and cutting off funds for this war is the way to go because when it comes to priorities for this occupation it is contractors first and troops last. You can see this from any facts that you look at. So who cares for the troops? Some of you have been doing a lot of talking but nobody has thrown a rock at this glass house of an administration. Leave it to the people thru MoveOn.Org to do the heavy lifting for what you are supposed to be doing. You will not get my vote because you are no better than the repubs. Is there any difference in dictators, if one is a dem. or a repub? The way that you are acting you just want the whole pie for yourselves and forget the people again. I'm 71 and cant help but wonder what of the younger people? Because of your feckless nature it is a bleak future for them. Tony
Since it appears our elected legislative body will continue to be an enabler to this president's fixation with "staying the course" of this illegal and unprovoked occupation -- citing the lack of votes to stymie a certain veto if they were to proceed with definitive troop withdrawal schedules and other benchmarks. Many in congress have already made this profoundly and pointedly clear, and I fear they will be providing the "get-away car" to allow Bush to enjoy an unblemished and clean legacy, and passing the problem on to the next sitting president, without donating culpability and affixing blame for dishonestly and illegally placing our country in this predicament.
There needs to be retribution, so therefore any additional funding should concurrently require full impeachment proceedings, if for no other reason than to expose the criminality and barbaric ideology that this administration has imposed upon Iraq, and our nation, for the past four years running.
Only then could I barely tolerate the absurdity and senselessness of continuing this unjust occupation into 2009. No other recourse would be acceptable.
All Right Windhorse . . . I'm with you . . .
Anything would better than what we have . . . and I do mean ANYTHING!
Most people have written off Congress. Most people WILL write off any type of anti-war movement - too much thinking needed to get their point. What the majority WON'T and CAN'T write off is the military. There's still general high regard for ouor military and "the troops", as well there should be. What we need is for one active, and one retired military official (Fallon and Powell that is) to begin a real and ernest military coup, American style - no bloodshed. We need Fallon and Powell to stop being mere good soldiers, and start being real soldiers, protecting our country.
Can't the Democrats see that cutting off the funding now is less politically risky than waiting until a Democratic president is in office and then pulling the troops out? If they wait, then Democrats will get all the blame for the likely bloody aftermath and for the whole failed enterprise. If they cut off funds now, Bush will get most of the blame, in spite of the inevitable loud and unrelenting protestations from the right.
If not for humanitarian reasons or in the interests of justice, can't the Democrats do it for their own naked political interests?
Nancy P needs to take a look at Tom DeLay's tactics (even though my opinion of TD is too awful to write). She needs to crack the whip and get her party behind her 1000%. Any Democrat who can not show support for ending this ugly war and vote accordingly is a traitor to their party and to their constituents and to their country. If they do not show some backbone the next election for them is going to be a sorry disaster.
It is time for action, real progressive action that produces results. No more words.
If congress members had a good alternative scheme for U.S. foreign policy, and if it was shared by enough colleagues to make a caucus, then the other congress members would have a choice. The log jam might be broken, and a meaningful path out of this oil-"war" established.
One such scheme would be developing solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and other sustainable and local-based sources of energy. Everybody could get into that act. Military contractors could get big bucks for developing portable energy systems other than fuel-cells which really depend on fossil fuel. Agribusiness, which should be taxed for threatening our food supply in order to grow biofuel materials, could drop that and promote 100% organic. Manufacturers could develop the next generation beyond Prius. Local and state officials could go ahead with regional integration which cuts transportation and storage costs and saves fuel. Children and older people could have meaningful local roles.
The critical roadblock is media bias. We need some brave TV producers to connect the dots, including potential dots. To embolden them we might organize regional job insurance groups outside the conventional nonlocal insurance industry, to support TV people whom the TV giants would fire. Those TV producers need to show an alternative world that could work within maybe 5 years. Then, along with rules-reform in Congress, maybe politicians could be emboldened to end the middle-east war demanded by the oil barons in the White House and on J Street.
The new foreign policy would be based on collaboration, not domination and myopic suicide.
I posted just a few minutes ago on another Article. It applies here. Excellent Article on the non stop ducking and Weaving by MSM.
"This is definitely now the WORST Foreign Policy disaster in American History…."
Bu$hCo's legacy, [alternatively an excoriated legacy of casuistry] will be a CHARNEL house in ME and a 'CONSUETUDE FRAUDE' left in the American Kleptocracy and Multi-Generational Public Debt of unimaginably massive proportions….Addison Wiggins last estimate $74 Trillion Dollars!
Whats truly horrifying in this, is after waiting for General BetrayUs's Fealty Report, we get more specious legerdemain…
and absolutely no actionable contrition from any of the participants…..
Put simply, if they were being truthful they would follow Dennis Kucinich's balanced reasoning and withdraw the Troops NOW….NOW….NOW….NOW….NOW….NOW….
KaneJeesves,
"There's still general high regard for our military and "the troops", as well there should be." Why should there be? Do you have the same admiration for non-US occupying troops? If not, why not? Why do people admire people who kill, especially for such an ignoble cause as Iraq?
"What we need is for one active, and one retired military official (Fallon and Powell that is) to begin a real and ernest military coup". Are you joking? Mr. War Criminal in charge of a coup? He ADVOCATED for the war, lied to the UN, why do you still think he's a man of honor?
G.W. Bush and the American Imperial govt. are like child rapists when it comes to iraq. think of iraq as an innocent child and bush as a pedophile child rapist.
Ok, he's broken into the house after killing the parents. His intent is on making a porno sex video with the children, and all he has to do is get them to cooperate.
Now, Bush already has buyers waiting for his new child porn video so he must make it work. However, the children are not cooperating in Bush's sexcapades.
So now Bush has a choice, either A. he can continue trying to get the children to cooperate with him in making his sex video for his potential customers or B. he can leave the home and forget the plan altogether.
Bush will always stick with play A because that's where the potential money is. He will never opt for plan B because he knows that as soon as he leaves the children, he will be caught. And if he gets caught, that will mean a big coverup by ma and pa bush, and lil georgie knows better than to bug mommy and daddy. he knows they've had to cover up more than their share of scandals for him.
I saw War Made Easy, the film from Norman Soloman's book, last night. HIGHLY recommended.
It featured a long,long parade of media pundits, Kondrake, O'Reilly, Scarborough, Hannity, Mathews, Blitzer, etc with their comments on the war, back in '02, 03, 04.
There can't be any more important issue than war or peace and on this issue every one of these commentators was wrong, dead wrong. Every one of them still has a job.
Where else, except the Bush administration, can such a consistent record of failure produce rewards and the fact that people still take you seriously? Our task is not only political. We also have to fight and fight hard the miserable MSM.
Cindy Sheehan for Congress!
The absurdist in me delights in seeing Bush having to pretend that Petraeus came up with this all by his lonesome self in order to appear to be that he wasn't changing his mind, but that he was following a general's recommendation, when the general's recommendation was neither the general's nor a change. All in order to project an image -- successful with the Droolpublicans -- of STRENGTH and DECISIVENESS, while people whose cerebral hemispheres are still functional look on with disgust, rage, and ennui all at once. . .
I have been reading a lot of blogs lately. In general, they all follow the same thought process-pull the troops out, Bush's a crook and liar, The powers that be are destroying America. Now, I don't disagree with any of this, but it's not the end of all by a long shot. The average American that runs like hell to maintain their position on the treadmill deserves a healthy allotment of the blame for the sorry state of affairs in this country, not to mention the World as a whole.
If there were no market for the oil, or it did not provide the tempting profits, Iraqi's could go back to camel and sheep herding, and we Amerikans would be worshiping the Amish for their wisdom and understanding of Thoreau's admonition to "simplify, simplify." No profit, less corruption.
After so many years of occupation, one must assume that the desire to "stay the course" comes from the benefits already obtained by those who profit. These are the unspeakable goals held by oil industry and military supply corporations. As long as there is profit in the conflict, it will continue. While Iraqis continue to fight on, their population bleeds away, in deaths and exodus. The final process is then genocide and depopulation, leaving complete control to those oil corporations, and burdening other middle eastern states with a refugee problem. As long as profiteers don't directly pay the cost, they don't see how the US or the Middle East are harmed. The Congress and President are fully complicit in this. The US as no real intention of reducing internal Iraqi conflicts, because they assist the primary process, and provide an excuse for continuing occupation.
I really appreciate the effort this author applied to cite these examples. We need more of this type of thing to prove the absurdity of an claim of any pundit or journalist to any integrity or logical continuity.
mirf59, Glenn and Tom Tomorrow are the only reason I subscribe to Salon, and frankly that's plenty of bang for my buck.
Glenn cranks out this kind of stuff consistently, and practically 24/7.
bidelo - Reread my last sentence: "They need to stop being good soldiers" i.e. lying on command, "and start being real soldiers", i.e. defending our country from ALL enemies, even if the enemy turns out to be the commander in chief. I do believe Powell is honorable, but to quote the movie "American President", he was so busy doing his job, he forgot to Do his job.
The problem is, it was all a setup. Now that's its played out, its easy to see.
Why the choice of September? Any Democrat thinking strategically would have wanted this debate divorced from 9-11 discussions? So September was always and obviously the worst possible time to have a debate on the Iraq war. Yet the Democratic leadership deliberately steered everything to exactly this result.
The other is that given the nature of the pro-war spin\pr\propaganda\lie machine, if you give them months of advance notice to set up a campaign, they'll of course have everything planned, prepped and ready to go. The generals will have their medals shined and their uniforms pressed and their packs of lies well-rehearsed. When you make them react and think on their feet, they make mistakes. When you give them months to plan and prepare, they put on a show that's impressive (unless you barf knowing the lies).
So, again the worst possible thing to do was to deliberately say months in advance that the debate will happen in September. And again, the Democratic leadership steered everything to exactly this result.
For years I've heard the Dems lose because they make stupid tactical mistakes. And I've stopped believing it. Its easy to fire tacticians and strategists and hire new ones. Mistakes can be corrected. But when time after time the Democrats deliberately take actions that lead to results that are the opposite of what they say they want, you begin to wonder just how accidental this is.
The key fact. Reid and Pelosi promised the day after the last election that war funding would not be cut or restricted by the Democratic Congress. If you read any of the interviews in the days just after the last elections, they both say almost identical and obviously rehearsed statements to this effect.
The trick was always going to be how on earth would they deliver on this pledge that is the opposite of what massive majorities of Americans and especially Democrats wanted? What they needed was round after round of political theater that creates the false impression they were opposed to the war while they really were continuing the funding.
Now that we've seen it played out, we can see that this is what all of this is. Back when the first stage of bs political theater (non-binding resolutions, votes on bills they knew would be vetoed. false statements about timelines being in the bills before they were pulled at the last minute, etc) led to the passage of the first bills continuing the funding of the war, the negative reaction of Democrats and Americans demanded that they needed some breathing room and time before they did it again.
Thus the large, but completely bogus campaign that created the phony belief that the Democrats would act in September. Now we can see that this date was deliberately set to play into the pro-war forces hands. No better date could have been set by the Democrats to ensure their defeat. So, now that the Democratic leadership has bought several months of time, during which thousands of people have died, now they can pretend that they've been rolled and defeated and that they have no choice but to give in and once again vote to give Bush and the Pentagon all their war money.
But you've got to remember that Reid and Pelosi publicluy promised this result long ago. They haven't caved, collapsed, retreated or anything like that. What they've done is skillfully delivered on exactly what they promised ... full funding for Bush's wars ... while creating enough lies and bs to convince at least some of the brain-dead types that still support the Democratic party that they really don't support this war.
Mr. Greenwald has excellent research. But he misses the point. Its not that these talking heads were wrong. Its that these talking heads were a part of a strategy that was deliberately laid out to help continue a war that massive majorities of the American people want to see ended.
It will not end until the people put a stop to it. It will take marching in the streets, in EVERY city to stop it. The Congress is useless. The adminstration is useless. The MS media is useless.
What will it take for this to happen? $10 a gallon oil? Starting the draft? The collapse of the dollar? A blow job? I do not know. But it will not stop until the people rise up and demand it.
It looks like the people are going to continue to get screwed. And the media is letting Bush trump up another war with Iran.
A year from now is only going to be worse. And I am generally an optimist.
All this criticism of Bush and his administration starting and continuing an immoral and illegal war in Iraq is just "meaningless blather" unless Bush is prosecuted for being the war criminal that he is.
i think the war is incidental to bush. its kind of hard to accept, but i don't think he really cares about how the war is going. his war is going fine, no fears no problems.
it provides a lot of people something to talk about, that is incidental.
the big thing going on in iraq is the construction of the american military bases, throughout the region actually, around 40 of them. how can anyone talk about withdrawal from iraq before they are finished being constructed given the hundreds of billions being poured into them. given the disregard of the political consequences.
they will require, i believe, around 300,00 personell to man them. and that will be forever.
so where is the withdrawal?
the bases circumnavigate the oil fields.
years from now, if we have them to live, looking back at the result of the iraq war (and presumably the iran war) it will be seen as the time/era in which we took psychical possession of the oil fields.
its the old bait and switch. you watch the pea and i'll build the base.
we pine on about the war and then poof the bases are done.
who cares about democracy in iraq. we got the oil and the chinese didn't.
i think that is how bush sees it.
"Because we are staying to protect the reputations and credibility and egos of the Washington Establishment."
This is also blather. You are just as stupid as the blathing newspeople, Greenwald, by believing that Bush has anything to say in this unprecedented neoconservative corporate experiment. You (I am not American, luckily) are staying there with a reason and that is certainly not one of ego--certainly not Bush's. Bush is just a masterpuppet in a damned smart plan, but not the puppetmaster. Read Klein! This whole war is a facade held up by the government officials and soldiers, a hollow occupation behind which mercenary corporations and the war industry is looting you, the American people, in your own name. This is what it is about! No more taxes, read my lips! We will loot you instead forever during an endless war!
I'm not an intellect by any means, but then too I'm not stupid. What has always bothered me here is, we attack a country which was gulty of NOTHING in respect to the United States. It was well documented and even admitted by President Bush, that Saddam never did have any WMDs, the first reason Bush demanded we attack Iraq and depose Saddam.
We attacked Iraq, totally destroyed their cities ifastrucures, have killed more than a million, have caused another four or five milion innocent people out of their homes, have forever polluted their entire country with atomic waste and destroyed their government. There is much more, but those are some of the principal crimes against Iraq, we as a nation have committed.
With that said, NOW the Bush administration and most of our spinless elected Democrats, have the audacity to blame the Iraqi government for the continuing mess OUR government and our military created. The truth is, that is as childish as can be imagined and why our 'free' press does not address that issue is as childish and criminal as the Bush/Cheney actions. Our press and media had every opportunity to tell the whole truth, they are fully aware that the pen is truly mightier than the sword, ___ if properly wielded.
The powers that be have no intention of leaving Iraq and never did. As pointed out above, they are not building forty permanent military bases around the oil fields for nothing. The only stumble they've had so far is that they thought that Iraq would be a cakewalk and they'd already be in Tehran.
Empires always blame failure on the client state government. It's never the fault of the empire because the empire is beyond reproach. Oh man, would I love to be the presiding judge of the World Criminal Court when Bush and all the neocons were brought up on war crimes charges, and charges of crimes against humanity. My life would be fulfilled and I could move happily into the next life.
only thing is, YOUR country and YOUR military are owned by the same people who own YOUR media. So don't look to them to tell the story of YOUR country's crimes against humanity. Americans can't even get to the point of even debating the issue of CRIME. They are stuck on the concept of MISTAKE. NUREMBERG, and WAR CRIME are not in the vocabulary of Americans.
This is analogous to the plea deal where the United States Attorney for Washington DC gave a convicted serial rapist custody of four of his previous victims in May 2007, based on a promise to "make it all better" by September.
Pre-trial investigation revealed that the same convicted serial rapist had been licensed to operate a shelter for battered women in March 2003, on the basis of "credentials" clumsily forged on toilet paper with a Crayola #2 Blue crayon.
It seems the only way for this war to end is for the US troops to just get on a bus or a plane home regardless what Washington says.
Perhaps we ought to start Air Miles to Support the Troops:
Send our troops home. Give your Air Miles for the troops to come home
DAVEPEPPER. We know who owns the press, it is our press and media. It's our fault, we are spoiled and have been stupid. Yet I do believe we fully understand WAR CRIMES, most of us do. At the present, we don't quite know yet what to do to correct the situation. It's much like the German citizens when Hitler came into power. The Bushies don't know shit about the history of Mesopotamia, but they are very wise to the history of Nazi Germany. We are in serious trouble, and yes, we as a whole, are to blame.
This "blather" is what you get when people cannot face up to their own actions. WE ARE THERE TO STEAL THEIR WEALTH---is that plain enough for you? That is how America's "prosperity" was built from the beginning, and now it's our turn to join the modern real world where "colonies" are FINISHED....Say it again: WE ARE THERE TO STEAL THEIR WEALTH....
The real casualties of war are the not only the innocent Iraq people murdered (some claim of 1 million) but the US Troops asked to bear the unreasonable burden of continued deployments. As a Viet Vet (and a historic reminder) the US govt. could not send anyone back to Vietnam more than for one, one year tour in Vietnam. You think Viet Vets had emotional problems? Wait till these guys are home for a couple of years and start to loose it! These deployments are criminal and any Republican or Democrat who continues this endless war ought to be thrown in prison for crimes against humanity. This is the most outrageous waffling and political righteousness on can find on the planet; for elected officials to keep this going ought to be met with outrage...
Jack37, you are also very ignorant, apparently. It is not about Iraq. That has already been destroyed, but not for the sake of oil or other wealth to be looted. This war is a facade to let war profiteering companies, mercenaries, and industries loot YOU in the name of YOU. How much of the taxes you have paid during the last years is now somewhere in the poaches of war corporates? Calculate it and you understand who is forcing this puppet government to let this war to go on forever. Read my lips! No more taxes! We will loot you instead!
Great article. A few random thoughts: (1) Withdrawing the troops is not enough. No one talks about the occupation, except for Bush on occasion, when he says we'll be there for decades as in South Korea. Not a word out of the Dems on the big picture. Progressives must insist on an end to the OCCUPATION, the bases, and the contractors, as well as the troops. It's a load of crap that we need to be there for any legitimate reason. I remember the Republican ads from 2004 in which they said, we don't need to occupy a country for oil, WE CAN BUY IT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE! More BS for the little people. The oil companies know they can count on the government to do the heavy lifting for them before the oil ever gets to market. (2) Interesting that that sheik who was just killed wears an Arab getup. Looks very Saudi to me. Find the oil connection here. (3) How come the press never plays Cheney's interview from 1994, in which he says what a bad idea it would be to invade Iraq for all the reasons that have come to be? (rhetorical question) (4) I stopped watching TV "news" and pundits in the spring, although I am a hard-core political junkie. I get my news from the blogosphere and Air America. (5) The worst thing is betrayal by those you think are on your side. It's time to stop wasting time petitioning the government (a truth that must be relearned every generation) and time for a massive Ghandian revolution. We can stop this government. As long as we don't speak out, they will continue to treat us like the chumps we are. (6) Bush/Cheney need to be charged for war crimes and to pay the price. How do we get going?
Things would be very different today if America's mainstream news media had challenged Bush's lies, insider schemes, and unconstitutional actions from the beginning.
Mere objective reportage by the media would have left congress and citizens little alternative except to deal with facts instead of propaganda.
It can't be overstated how crucial it is that citizens demand reform of media ownership regulations.
A financially and geographically decentralized mainstream news media, achieved thru statutory law and licensing regulation, obviously wouldn't guarantee that bandits and madmen couldn't hijack representative government, but it sure as hell would make it about 1000 times harder.
Cyberspace news media expansion will never achieve this kind mass-forensic power in time, if at all.
If we average citizens ever manage to regain functional sovereignty over our congress and executive, mass news media ownership reform, plus public financing of federal elections, will need to be demanded by citizens as 1st Priority, non-negotiable alterations in how our 'system' operates.
Without these systemic changes, the enabling causes of corrpution and oligarchy will remain in place.
Alembic points out:
Things would be very different today if America's mainstream news media had challenged Bush's lies, insider schemes, and unconstitutional actions from the beginning.
------------------
this is true but i think that we can agree now, i hope, that the media, like most things in the states, such as the congress, the senate, the press, are bought and paid for. that is why they put katie couric on the news. they want to show you how hopeless it is.
i think they got a good laugh out of that. she is such a fool.
hum along if you know the tune:
georgie's in the whitehouse
and katie's on the news
cheney's in the bunker
and we all got the blues
if we decide not to watch - those corporations bleed cash and they will change overnight, but i say, to hell with them
our last best shot is the internet. it is under siege right now and i would ask everyone who wants to continue to post their musings on this site and others as they will, please read about this issue and get involved. it is our last best hope.
if you sat out the resistance to the iraq war - its time to get off the bench and in the game.
here is the google primer on net neutrality, please read:
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
I have this one observation. Why is anyone even remotely suprised at this result? As Joe Scarborough said this week and Pat Buchannon and himself(two Republicans) said back in May, the moron in chief will win this battle, and he has. What the people of America want doesn't matter. As long as we have that moronic 30% approving of this war, we will stay there. We are held hostage by 30% of Americans who are stupid and immoral. It would be funny if it weren't so sreious, to see our so-called Democracy held hostage by absolute morons. Anyway, when you have a blind raging bull in the White House and cowards in Congress(both parties), all you can have is a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately while these cowards continue this political game of chicken, more soldiers die needlessly and more Iraqis die from our blunder. And can we finally now say, all of the deaths from this misadventure have been in vain. I think that is plainly obvious now. Oh! by the way, say hello to this occupation of Iraq for the next 5 to 10 years.
All this mindless blather from both Republican and Democrat career politicians is boring. None of them are honest about the illegal attack and occupation of Iraq. If the U.S. should never have been in Iraq in the first place, why is the military still there??
well i woke up today to see a refreshing bit if honesty in the news headlines, obviously something went awry.
alan greenspan has come right out and said, in his new book, his long awaited memoirs:
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows. The Iraq war is largely about oil."
http://itn.co.uk/news/4bf861a8849633f63d83659ca09cb689.html
this from fox news: "Greenspan, a lifelong Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired," http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296938,00.html
fox goes on to say: "Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil."
then to say: "Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam's support for terrorism."
fox of course is lying their asses off their because saddam had no wmd and hated aq, which bush, cheney and co knew full well. so those are not the reasons, not surprised to see fox drop the "reality" ball once again..
let me help them, these poor bastards at fox who can't keep the lies coming any more with any sense of professionalism;
we went to war to get revenge/pay back for 9/11 and to get bin laden.
that is what bush was saying.
that was before he was saying that bin laden was only one man and he "wasn't thinking about him too much."
when discussing bush its not hard to believe he was thinking about anything too much.
today's revelation by chairman al should put to rest a lot of the debate on why we went in.
now sit back and watch the whitehouse, jewish lobby and gop wannabes eviscerate the guy who was "their man in amsterdam" for what - 18 years.
dershowitz may be lead mutt on this.
i predict it will be a large assault but their problem is that greenspan was/is pretty well respected and at 81 years of age it may seem unbecoming to put the boots to an old man.
Who in their right mind would have ever been paying any attention to MSM and the nonsense that the TV turns out every day?
When did any of this ever have any meaning?
It wasn't until we saw JFK, MLK, Malcolm X on TV that we knew that TV could say something!
It's been a long time since . . . .