Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democrats Live the Lie—to Their Peril and to the Nation's
The timid, equivocating, and compromising behavior of the Democrats today-in Congress and among the "top tier" presidential candidates-is despicable, arguably criminal, and gravely dangerous to their political ambitions and to the nation's future.
The Democrats will not confront and discredit the most comprehensive and egregious of the Bush Administration's countless untruths: the utterly fraudulent "War on Terror." Instead they buy into the mega-lie, trying to outdo the Republicans in "keeping America safe from terrorism," or outbidding them in praising "our brave men and women in uniform." The Democrats have anxiously granted each of the President's funding requests for the war and have acquiesced twice on the domestic spying issue, in the name of "national security."
The Democrats benefit no one in claiming to be better fighters in a bogus war. We need them to cease totally their engagement in it and to expose the sham instead.
The violence called the "War on Terror" did not spring from the horrors of 9/11, as the Bush Administration falsely and consistently asserts. The aggressive militarism we witness in Iraq and Afghanistan was preordained years earlier in the crackpot ideology of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a group of neoconservative rightwing extremists. They came to power in the Administration of George W. Bush, and undertook immediately and successfully to transform a misguided concept into catastrophic reality.
These people advocate, in their own words, "global hegemony" and preemptive war to sustain it. They seek to maintain with military superiority America's status as the world's lone superpower, unchallenged and unchallengeable, and to attack any nation threatening it. Included explicitly is the need to take control of the vast oil and gas resources in the Middle East.
This retrograde strategy of bald imperialism was often expressed in tactical terms. On four different occasions, in formal, written, signed, and published documents, PNAC people sought the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. The first threat was issued in 1992-in Richard Cheney's Defense Department under George Bush I (who publicly denounced it)-and the last in September of 2000, four months before George Bush II was inaugurated.
For 18 years, "global hegemony" remained at the radical fringe of mainstream political thought; it was ridiculed, rejected, or ignored. But in 2001 it was injected intact into the structures of U.S. foreign and defense policy, when 29 PNAC ideologues moved into pivotal positions in the Bush Administration. Richard Cheney as Vice President, Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Richard Armitage, and 23 other secretariat-level officials quickly dominated the policymaking process in the areas of energy security, defense, and foreign affairs.
The decision to invade Iraq was formalized in the first ten days of the new Administration, and operational planning was begun soon thereafter. Weeks later Afghanistan was targeted as well.
The premeditated wars had nothing to do with terrorism: 9/11 was still six months in the future. The wars had much to do with "global hegemony"-and the oil and gas resources of Iraq and the Caspian Basin.
The attacks on the Trade Towers and the Pentagon provided a fortuitous and spectacular opportunity. After the months of planning and preparation for hegemonic, preemptive wars, here was a unique and credible means of disguising and launching them. The opportunity was seized in a heartbeat, and a monumental fantasy, the "War on Terror," was born. It was and remains a calculated smokescreen.
The mainstream press, true to its notable and noted irresponsibility, has yet to disclose this epic deception, but the story is indisputable: it is fully documented elsewhere. (For merely the most recent example, see The Mega-Lie Called the War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda.)
If the Democrats are not fully aware of this, they are criminally negligent. If they are aware of it and choose to ignore it, elevating partisan political advantage over the rule of law, they are criminal accomplices.
Either way, they are placing in immense jeopardy a Democratic victory in 2008. Rank-and-file Democrats-and many decent, thinking citizens of other political persuasions-are appalled and outraged by the inertia in Washington, by the prancing superficial politicking while dozens of Americans, Afghanis, and Iraqis die each day in immoral, illegal, and useless violence. Few of these voters are likely to be enthusiastic about waffling, triangulating Democrats.
The Democrats have a recent record of demonstrated brilliance in losing Presidential elections, and the Democratic Congress at the moment is held in lower esteem than President Bush. A Democratic sweep in 2008 is by no means a given.
But the Democrats' flaccid accommodating poses a far greater hazard: it imperils our nation's institutions of governance and the character of our public life. The lying, deception, and distortion practiced by the Bush Administration, its secrecy, corrupt cronyism, tragic incompetence, repeated violations of Constitutional norms, and unmatched fiscal profligacy simply cannot stand unchallenged if our nation is to survive as we know and cherish it. George Bush has reconstituted the res publica , the "public thing," into a state of crypto-fascism; absent a conscious disclosure and rejection by the Democrats, what can return us to decency and sustainable democracy?
The Democrats seem willing, however, only to issue softball rebukes to the Bush Administration and its counterfeit war. They offer non-binding resolutions and hopeful deadlines for troop withdrawals, applaud the shameful testimony of General Petraeus, and hasten to chastise MoveOn.Org for calling it that.
If the Democrats expect a clear-and deserved-victory in 2008, the Bush Administration and its "War on Terror" must be repudiated, not merely rebuked. The crypto-fascism Mr. Bush has created must be stopped dead in its tracks and vigorously reversed.
In the minds of millions of Americans the grounds for impeachment are superabundant. That would accomplish the repudiation, but the Democrats refuse, whining "We don't have the votes."
That alibi is laughably specious. How can you count the votes in the jury before the trial begins, before the evidence is marshaled and presented? No, the Democrats don't lack the votes: they can't possibly know if they do or don't. They lack courage and integrity. But let us for the moment yield to Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, and the others and leave impeachment off the table.
We must believe the partisans in the Congress today all share a genuine dedication to the nation's long-term well being. We must believe they would be well served by the truth about the "War on Terror," and would not back away from acting on it.
The Democrats have an inescapable responsibility-and the indisputable power-to provide that truth, and they don't "need the votes" to do so. The chairs of every committee in both houses are Democrats, and they can orchestrate investigations and hearings virtually unrestrained, with full powers of subpoena and the ordering of testimony under oath.
We were promised inquiries when the Democrats recaptured Congress, and yes there have been some-into such trivial issues, by comparison, as the clumsy political firings of U.S. attorneys. Yes, there has been sworn testimony-that the witnesses' memories had lapsed. Yes, subpoenas have been issued-and ignored. If the Democrats can do no better than this, they do not deserve to sweep the elections in 2008 and to govern the country thereafter.
We need two vigorous and sharply-focused inquiries, and we need them now: one into the Administration's warmaking activities in the early days of its tenure, long before 9/11, and the other into the facts and true circumstances of that horrendous day.
There is substantial, credible, and responsible disbelief about the Bush Administration's official explanation of 9/11. Dismissing the skeptics, however, as "conspiracy crazies" has become a popular sport.
This is extremely unfortunate. The issue demands not to be trivialized, and deserves more than acrimonious debate and sarcastic accusations. If there is serious and widespread doubt about any one of the elements of 9/11-the failure of our air defenses, the nature of the collapse of the several buildings, the Administration's initial refusal and subsequent delay and obstructionism in seeking the facts, the conflicts-of-interest in the 9/11 Commission, the rigor and veracity of the 9/11 Report-then there is ample reason to call for a new inquiry, one of unquestioned rigor and integrity. And no one can doubt there are doubts: we must have that inquiry.
We must also learn the truth of the covert war planning underway in the first six months of the Bush Administration: how and why the National Security Council virtually declared war on Iraq in January of 2001; how and why the Security Council and Richard Cheney's Energy Task Force were directed, in a memorandum dated February 3, 2001, to "meld" their policies; how and why that memo spoke of "the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields"; how and why the Cheney Task Force was studying maps of the Iraqi oil fields in March of 2001; how and why the privatized structure of Iraq's postwar oil industry was designed in the U.S. State Department a year before the war began; how and why the secret White House Iraq Group was directed by the President to market the war, through its skills in perception management; how and why the Bush Administration continued negotiating Afghan pipeline rights-of-way with the Taliban (unsuccessfully), until weeks before the Trade Towers were hit; whether in fact 9/11 served as the "new Pearl Harbor" called for and anticipated by the PNAC people exactly a year earlier; how and why the military invasion of sovereign nations trumped the demonstrated efficacy of international police action in apprehending terrorists; how and why President Bush twice refused offers from the Taliban to surrender Osama bin Laden; how and why the Bush Administration was ready with financing to build a Trans-Afghanistan pipeline and with permanent military bases to defend it 16 months after invading the country; how and why five permanent "super bases" are nearing completion in Iraq to accommodate up to 100,000 troops; how and why the U.S. Embassy under construction in Baghdad today is ten times larger than any other American embassy in the world.
The "War on Terror" is the signature accomplishment of the Bush Administration. Secrecy and subterfuge are the signature processes of its governing. Before we can choose intelligently our next President, and our next Congress, we need to know the truth about this war, in all its dimensions.
The hesitating, timorous Democrats don't need to "have the votes" to provide this truth. They need only the dedication to the survival of the rule of law, and to their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
If the Democrats refuse to seek the truth, they will not deserve nor can they expect the financial support, the votes, or the respect of patriotic and concerned Americans.
Richard W. Behan lives and writes on Lopez Island, off the northwest coast of Washington state. He is the author of several books and is working on his next book, To Provide Against Invasions: Corporate Dominion and America's Derelict Democracy. He can be reached at rwbehan@rockisland.com.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
22 Comments so far
Show AllMr. Behan,
Finally, an article that outlines what I think are the major factors in America's immediate Constitutional crisis. Thank you.
It's really difficult to reach a conclusion about the Democrats in Congress. At times I see them as utterly evil, consciously cooperating with Bush's destruction of America. Other times, I see them following Nancy Pelosi's tea-party approach to politics (cooperation with the opposing party, negotiating, giving up parts of one's own party principles, attempting to get consensus across party lines, etc.). I think that approach might work well in a non-emergency time of American politics.
But we're in an emergency, with a president hell-bent on destroying America's Constitutional fabric.
So I agree with the title of your article: the Democrats are living the Bush lies to their own peril and that of America's. This is a hellish time to be living and seeing what's happening.
Nobody knows what the 2008 elections will bring us, though I fear that if any of the Democratic or Republican frontrunners win, we'll hit bottom calamitously soon after, simply because the Democrats, RIGHT NOW, are the only hope we have to stop Bush's agenda. He very much wants the next president to be a war president, too, and he'll get his way if he bombs Iran. A January 2009 inaugurationof a Democrat or Republican is too late to stop it.
RichM,
Thanks for your observations, which I cannot by any means reject. I'm holding out at least a faint hope, though, that your defeatism is not quite, or yet justified. Otherwise I'd not bother writing.
No, I will not vote for any of the top tier candidates. My choices at the moment are (1) Dennis Kucinich and (2) Ron Paul.
Best,
RWB
P.S. Thanks to anney, as well.
The Dissemblacrats won't impeach or resist because they long to exercise the same uncheckable powers that they've granted the Smirk by their kabuki-opposition.
As usual, RichM has come along and knocked it out of the park, reducing me to the status of enthusiastic dittohead.
I am particularly gratified to read Mr. Behan's validation of the abiding truth that there is still much that must be learned, and unlearned, about the events of September 11, 2001 and their causes, proximal and distal. It's tragic that genuine skepticism and curiosity over this momentous catastrophe has been squeezed in a vice of ridicule, contempt, and hostile dismissal from both right and left, for lack of a less moribund metaphor.
But there is still the unknown, and perhaps unknowable, question as to whether the Democrats are craven, co-opted, or complicit. If "all of the above", what is the exact warp and woof of this diabolical shroud? And is it truly escape-proof? The lesser-evilists claim they are attacking it like moths, but they're just sticking to it as if it were moth-paper.
With a unitary consent-manufacturing corporate media generating a virtual reality of self-contained infotainment, and no independent authority empowered to conduct dispassionate and rigorous inquiries into the crucial areas noted, it's hard to see where those disinfecting rays of sunlight will break through the overcast and fog.
What will happen with this widening chasm between the vast majority of American people and the government which represents a small minority who control the vast mjority of the resources--globally?
What happens when US corporations consolidate, move offshore to avoid what is left of environmental and labor regulations and taxes and the stockmarket only represents the health of global corps with a US address but no obligation to country? Or when US politicians wage war on their behalf--along with other powerful lobbies, at the expense of the standard of living, future and survival of ordinary Americans?
What happens?
Mr. Behan...very well written and thank you.
"Find out what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." Frederick Douglass
So what's new? They've been doing this even before they went from minority to "majority" status. And why aren't you mentioning all those FAILED economic policies such as tax cuts for the wealthy, bankruptcy overhaul, confirmation of corporatists Scalito and Roberts, etc ...?
In fairness to some Dems, the forces of Mammon hold all the cards. It's tenacious hold on public opinion might be loosened by the Internet (G.O.D. for Global Online Democracy). But since people will only look at whatever confirms their pre-conceived notions, maybe not in my lifetime.
"The hesitating, timorous Democrats don't need to "have the votes" to provide this truth. They need only the dedication to the survival of the rule of law, and to their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Even if we were to put the best construction on their motives, the oath of office doesn't say that they will uphold and defend the Constitution "if we have enough votes", which is the hollow creed of hollow men & women. On that reasoning, FDR should've taken Joe Kennedy's advice & cut loose England -- there just weren't enough votes.
I don't thing that the Dems are living a lie. They are doing the bidding of their constituents: military industrial complex, big oil and the Israeli lobby. Unless Americans see the reality there is no hope of change.
"The timid, equivocating, and compromising behavior of the Democrats today-in Congress.."
Deception from the first line! Stop APOLOGIZING for crooked Democrat scum! They are not "timid". They are traitors.
I have to throw in with Paul from Texas. Treason is what this is. These folks have broken their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Lessers would be in prison or worse for what both the Democrats and the Republicans have perpetrated. Timidity is no pass when one breaks such an oath.
Where is the People's tribunal? Well, in other countries we've seen where that lies.
Mr. Behan is correct in leveling harsh criticism upon the Congressional Democrats but I believe they are even worse than we suspect. Folks complain about the "impeachment off the table" policy of Pelosi & Reid and it is inexcusable as well as their feeble attempts at congressional oversight! However, remember they would't even vote a to censure Bush two years ago. What did they have to lose to not even support the censure? At one time this year Senator Feingold was going to bring another censure resolution up. I've not heard what may have happened to it. Maybe Reid wouldn't let it come to the floor.
However, when the R's hurridly cobbled together a Condemnation Resolution against MoveOn.org it flew through the Congress with approval. Heavily supported by the Democrats. Oh, yes, they are a treasonist lot! I agree with the comment, they are worse than the R's. The R's are smash mouth, boot on your neck evil and they make no bones about it. The Dems are just devious.
Quit wondering about the election; it won't take place. Bush will bomb Iran (this morning he called it WWIII!) declare martial law and stay in office. No matter who is there, this country is economically teetering on the brink of disaster (war or no war) and China holds the chits!
Face it! Somewhere down the line an armed, open revolt is going to have to take place because no one--NO ONE--in government is listening to the people and our democracy is under attack by both parties. Actually, the people's business is merely a sideline. There's another war going on and it's a Washington power struggle with the government the prize. The one who wins will form the Fascist dictatorship.
The writter says "The attacks on the Trade Towers and the Pentagon provided a fortuitous and spectacular opportunity" I would say that some fortunite people were much more involved than most people realize. All one has to do is look at the facts to find out that aluminum planes cannot cut steel. All 4 buildings that fell that day were due to fire, which has never happened in all recorded history, especially building 7 which was not even hit by a plane, and had a few small fires! Silverstien said himself, "we had to Pull it!" All the herioc first reponders said they heard bombs going off in the basements. I have heard them, and seen the clouds of smoke rising from the basements. Where is flight 77 that supposedly hit the most highly surveiled builing in the country? When is the media going to wake up to these facts? When is the writter going to face these facts?
Behan likes Ron Paul?
He should consider:
Just because Ron Paul opposes the war in Iraq does not mean he is an acceptable candidate for president. For example, comments such as these have been attributed to him, which appeared in his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report:
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,"
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
Paul also claimed former President Bill Clinton not only fathered illegitimate children, but that he also used cocaine which "would explain certain mysteries" about the President's scratchy voice. "None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting," he said.
When challenged on those remarks he blamed them on an aide that supposedly wrote them for his newsletter over a period of years. Are we to assume that he hadn't read his own newsletter? His newsletter with his name on it?
It isn't just Blacks that Paul has a problem with; it's also Asians, homosexuals, Jews, women, fornication, gambling, and the stock market.
This is presidential material? No, thank you!
More on Ron Paul:
Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president, has an outstanding record as an ultra-conservative. For example, taken from his congressional website, he opposes federal funding for stem cell research; he is anti-UN taxation; he favors tax cuts, nearly all of which go to the rich; he is against corporate accountability; he glorifies Ronald Reagan; he attacks gun control in DC; and he is anti-union. He is the perfect candidate--for the 19th century.
Ron Paul is the favorite Internet candidate for president. Obviously, there is a great deal that the Internet bloggers don't know about him. They don't know that he is adamantly against Roe vs. Wade; he introduced a bill to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on issues of religion, privacy, and gay marriage; he is anti choice; he voted to allow the bigoted Alabama judge to post "Ten Commandments" on the courthouse lawn; he opposes hate crimes laws; and he voted for an amendment that attempted to block the DC Government from allowing same-sex partners to adopt. Ron Paul--the epitome of a right-wing conservative and a worthy successor to George Bush II.
Today's Democratic party is the Clinton Democratic Party - bought and paid for by corporate america. As long as Billary Clinton and Rahm Emasculated are running things it will not change.
Billary does not care, one bit, about the constitution or individual rights. How often have they sold us down the river for corporate profits, State of Fear police policies and unencumbered Executive powers?
"If the Democrats refuse to seek the truth, they will not deserve nor can they expect the financial support, the votes, or the respect of patriotic and concerned Americans." - they deserve scorn!
The Democratic Party has been "living the lie" since they had the balls to convince the last decent Republicans to get rid of Nixon.
How many countries did Bill Clinton illegally invade or bomb? How many civil rights were protected by the Clintonistas? How much civil unrest in the world was caused by their social/economic experiments?
The Democratic party is run by the same type of Bush/Kerry/Pelosi punks that think the vast majority of Americans (and people of the world, in general) are still too stupid to run their own affairs. We must get out of their way - because they know better.
It has been 35 years since the democrats have done anything for the "people".
The "top tier" should be the "bottom tier" instead. I'll take Kucinich and Gravel any day! I won't vote for any of the war mongering, AIPAC lapdog, "top tier" corporation shills.
truthforall et al.:
Please excuse my wisecrack about supporting Ron Paul. It was flippant and ill considered. I hardly know the man, and truthforall's information is appalling.
It seems to me that Kucinich and Paul are at least honest and candid, forthright in their convictions and stating them BEFORE the polls have been taken on their popularity. I respect that.
I detest what truthforall has exposed.
So: my statement is no longer operational. (Remember that one?) I won't vote for Ron Paul.
It is quite obvious that none of you are living a real life. By real i mean that you are like myself, a lower-middle class american who is not so caught up in minute deatails that you seem to miss the bigger picture of the whole thing. I think you all need to grow up and realize that democrats are no better than republicans, they all just try to pass their own bullshit propagand and that you will all die.
By the very fact that Pelosi offered up "no impeachment" as her first act is telling as to its importance and as to a remedy taken from the American public.
Why let Pelosi off the hook for this?
There's very little of progressive movement in the Democratic Party where it is being held in check by the DLC and Emmanuel and their continuing war on Howard Dean.
The progressive population over decades not fooled by the confusions about the Democratic Party conflicting others has simply stopped voting. Again, improving chances of Republican wins by limiting the vote.
Obviously, we have also had decades of VOTESCAM as reported by Jim & Ken Collier in their book "The Stealing of America" which you can read on line. This began in the late 1960's with the entrance of the computers and they studied the hacking of elections for more than 25 years.
Neither have Pelosi and the Democratic majority done anything to combat the stolen elections and we are again on our own as we face 2008.
Thanks for the info on Ron Paul ---!!!!