The pundits are brimming with advice and warnings for the Dems today. Let’s start with a warning. At the Los Angeles Times, Greg Grandin cautions Dems to remember Iran-Contra.
It was 20 years ago this Nov. 3 — the day after the Democrats regained control of the Senate in 1986 — that a Lebanese magazine revealed that the Reagan administration sold missiles to Iran. The sale (brokered by a National Security Council staffer named Oliver North) violated a U.S. arms embargo against Iran and contradicted President Reagan’s personal pledge never to deal with governments that sponsored terrorism. Soon after, it was revealed that profits from the missile sale went to the Nicaraguan Contras, breaking yet another law, this one banning military aid to the anti-Sandinista guerrillas.
The Democrats rejoiced. They had taken back the Senate after six years in the minority, and Reagan’s poll numbers plummeted as follow-up investigations uncovered that the National Security Council was waging an off-the-books foreign policy using rogue intelligence agents, neoconservative intellectuals, Arab sheiks, drug runners, anticommunist businessmen, even the Moonies.
The Democrats, now with majorities in both congressional chambers, gleefully convened multiple inquiries. From May to August 1987, televised congressional hearings offered a rare glimpse into the cabalistic world of spooks, bagmen and mercenaries. Fawn Hall, North’s secret shredder, told of smuggling evidence out of the Old Executive Office Building in her boots, and she lectured Rep. Thomas Foley that “sometimes you have to go above the written law.”
One year after the hearings, though, Iran-Contra was a dead issue. Reagan’s poll numbers rebounded, and his vice president, George H. W. Bush, won the White House despite being implicated in the scandal.
Grandin says the Dems were tripped up by Oliver North, who somehow came across as heroic and patriotic in spite of, well, the facts. I think there was more going on to squelch the investigation. However it happened, Iran-Contra slipped out of public consciousness without leaving a trace. Grandin continues,
Just last December, Vice President Dick Cheney pointed to the Republican “minority report” on Iran-Contra — written, not coincidentally, by Cheney’s current chief of staff, David Addington — to justify the White House’s insistence on the primacy of the executive branch in matters of national security. At the time, that report, which blamed the scandal on Congress for “legislative hostage-taking,” was considered out of the mainstream. Today, it reads like a run-of-the-mill memo from the Justice Department outlining the legal basis for any of the Bush administration’s wartime power grabs.
Cheney and Addington are not the only veterans of the scandal who have resurfaced to help President Bush fight the war on terror. So have Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Otto Reich, John Negroponte, John Poindexter, neoconservative Michael Ledeen and even Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian arms dealer who brokered one of the first missile sales to the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s regime.
Iran-Contra, then, wasn’t just a Watergate-style crime and a coverup. It was, rather, another battle in the neoconservative campaign against Congress and in defense of the imperial presidency. Though Iran-Contra might have been a draw — the 11 convicted conspirators won on appeal or were pardoned by George H.W. Bush — the backlash has become the establishment.
Already there are reports that if the Democrats take over Congress in November, their agenda will have a 1986-ish look: hearings and calls for more congressional oversight of foreign policy.
But if they want to avoid again snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, they must do what their counterparts 20 years ago failed to do. They must challenge the crusading ideology that justified the invasion of Iraq and has made war the option of first resort for this administration.
Otherwise, no matter how many probes they convene — or congressional seats they pick up — the Democrats will always be dancing to Ollie’s tune.
Even gloomier are Michael Lind’s projections for a post-Bush America:
But if the US extricates itself from Iraq and Afghanistan and stays out of other Muslim countries, then the already feeble incentive for American politicians to try to balance support for Israel with appeals to Arab and Muslim public opinion will be even weaker. The abandonment of the US attempt to be the hegemon of the middle east, and US withdrawal from Iraq, might actually empower those in the US who make the simple claim that the US and Israel are allies in world war four (Norman Podhoretz’s term; he considers the cold war to be world war three) against the hydra-headed menace of “Islamofascism.”
The strengthening of the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim right in the US following an inglorious retreat from Iraq would strain US-European ties even further. In the second decade of the 21st century, Europeans may be surprised to find themselves denounced by some liberal Democrats as well as by conservative Republicans as “Eurabian” appeasers.
In US domestic politics, the long-term beneficiaries of the Iraq war may be the Republicans who waged and lost it, rather than the Democrats who (mostly) opposed it. This is less paradoxical than it seems. Countries that win wars are relaxed about their security and more open to parties of the left—think of Clinton’s two terms after the cold war and before 9/11, or Britain’s rejection of Churchill after the second world war. Defeated countries tend to seek strong men on the right, as France did after Algeria and the US did after Vietnam, which was followed by a series of Republican presidencies.
I have a bad case of brain mush because of a head cold, and I’m having trouble coming up with pithy commentary today. Silver linings, anyone?
If… If the Dems win, they should put the rogue Republican dogs to rest instead of them weaseling out of accountability. Because they were not held accountable 1988 we have to deal with these same old dregs again. It is time to label the dregs of Nixon( Cheny and Rummy) and the dregs of Reagan named above as the washed up ,wrong way rogues that they are. the public has been allowed to think they are heroes and they are not.
If the Dems win I want to see Oprah interview the girlfriend of Mohammed Atta, his landlord and flight instructors also for Jarrah. Why is it we could hear endlessly from the girlfriend of Scott Peterson but never from anyone who interacted with the 9/11 crew like the dealers on Abramoffs Casino boat Sun Cruz. In other words I want the gloves to come off instead of all media tiptoeing around pretending that some people and coverups are ok and respectable.
We must attack, attack, attack! At this point it is important that we take hold of the House in order to put the breaks on the imperial Executive. Then there must be investigations and an all-out assault on the -foundations- -of- -conservatism-. Not a notion of removing rot from an otherwise healthy plant. Not bad apples or points of corruption. We and our representatives must wage an ideological war against conservatism. The brand must be ruined, or it is going to keep coming back.
Conservatism are sort of like Freddy Kreuger: they can’t ever seen them kill him in one episode so he keeps coming back for shittier and shittier sequels.
So- the silver lining is that this is just the beginning. There must be a full frontal assault on what it means to be a conservative, both as a politician and as a regular American. We must attack them and force them to explain themselves off of the cuff, because once that ideology is threatened and forced to explain itself it comes off as a bunch of nonsense.
Notice how the whole thing is presented in the “horse race” frame. This frame says that the only possible reason Democrats want investigations (and wanted them in Iran-Contra) is as part of a horse race, not at all because it’s the right thing to do, and in fact is the duty of Congress as set out in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Trivia note on Ollie’s testimony. I listened to it on radio, and heard an shifty guy with evasive answers. I was shocked (as I am no longer) when the commentators who watched on TV saw a straight arrow straight talker, all because he wore a neatly pressed uniform. This was an early example of how and why the press falls in the tank for things like the “Mission Accomplished” set and dressup. These things are what’s important to our press (channeling Bob Somerby here): visuals and horse races.
Of course we’re often told that this is due to ratings; people (us) just won’t sit still for issues, yet the highest rated cable TV show ever (Monday Night Football is second) was Ross Perot and Al Gore debating NAFTA.
Notice how the whole thing is presented in the “horse race†frame.
I didn’t read either piece that way at all. Perhaps it just seems that way from the parts I quoted.
All I want is Rove, under oath, in front of some congressional committee to answer this question…Did he really schedule meetings with Abramoff on random street corners??? If yes, why????
I think there is a danger that if the Democrats win one or both chambers of Congress and try to take over foreign policy, they will lose again in 2008. If the Democrats win in 2006, they should forcefully push a domestic agenda that a majority of Americans want-lower taxes on the poor and middle class, higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, increased minimum wage, real immigration reform, real port security, investigations of corruption, and low key calls to change our position in Iraq. Force Bush to veto legislation that most Americans support and at the same time do not give him cover–“we would have won in Iraq if only the Democrats had not retaken Congress”. Of course stopping the loss of American blood and treasure in Iraq is important, but in the larger scheme of things there is no “good” solution to Iraq and that is why it is so important that Americans of all ages learn and remember that the horrible blunders of Dumbya and his cronies mean they should never vote Republican in their lifetime. I thought that Vietnam would have taught that lesson, and to some extent it did for 30 years, but both parties shared that fiasco with equal numbers of American dead under the Democrats as under the Republicans so the lesson did not really punish either party. The Democrats should not let the Republicans off the Iraq hook. I would also suggest that the U.S. should be on very high alert for a terrorist attack if the Democrats retake both chambers of Congress, because I am convinced that the only reason the terrorists have not struck since 9/11 is that Dumbya has done more to advance their cause then any terrorist attack.. What better way to prop up the terrorists biggest ally than to attack again as soon as it looks like a competent party is coming back into favor?
I thought so from the first sentence of Grandin’s piece “…a resurrected Democratic opposition, sure it can capitalize on public outrage.” and later, referring to the Iran-Contra scandal breaking “The Democrats rejoiced” and “The Democrats, now with majorities in both congressional chambers, gleefully convened multiple inquiries.” and “How did Democrats fail to inflict serious damage on an administration…”
Where’s the mention of the fact that what the Democrats did was what the congress is supposed to do according to the constitution? The assumption or implication is that the only reason the Democrats convened hearings and would like to do so again now is to gain political advantage. No suggestion whatever that doing so is the right thing to do and that such oversight is in fact required by the constitution. This helps reinforce the idea that no politicians, from either side, care at all about doing what’s right, only political advantage, and that in turn says that what the GOP has been doing is — if not just fine and dandy — no worse than what the Democrats did/will do. That’s a GOP frame, swallowed whole.
Only had time to scan the piece until after birdie bed time….but the one thing everyone forgot to say was….I hope your feeling better asap…do us all a favor and sneeze on the door at GOP headquarters?…Please get well soon!…
I thought so from the first sentence of Grandin’s piece
I got an impression that’s where he was going, too, but then I read to the end and that isn’t where he went. He didn’t explicitly mention the Constitution, but Constitutional “separation of powers” issues are there, nonetheless.
Then later,
GOP frame, you say?
If you don’t want to misinterpret Grandin’s take on this, read his book about Reagan in Central America being the dress rehearsal for failure in Iraq, with all the same cast of (bad) actors. Grandin’s no “pundit”– he’s a serious and pretty radical academic (to the left of me, anyway) whose specialty is Latin America. Not a typical LA times columnist. His point is not that Democrats should be afraid of what will happen if they investigate and hold hearings, his point is that they have to go for the jugular and tear this evil up from the roots– scorched earth, not photo ops. Otherwise, the vampires will come back stronger than ever.
This is why the overriding focus for any investigations should be impeachment. Everyone in the Iran-Contra affair was pardoned. Only when we have President Pelosi in office can we go after the smaller fry.
They must challenge the crusading ideology that justified the invasion of Iraq and has made war the option of first resort for this administration.
I take it that would be the Project for a New American Century?
Yes, frame in that there is little or no hint that there is any possible reason the Democrats will, or have ever, done these investigations for anything other than political advantage, and that feeds into the idea that “they’re all the same”. I certainly agree that we can do it better than it was done then (who wouldn’t?), but I think we also need to get across the idea that these things can be done either merely for political advantage or because it’s needed and in fact required by the constitution… and that what we see historically is the GOP doing these things merely for political advantage while the Democrats do them — at least partly — because it’s the right thing to do — that would turn the present “they’re all the same” idea on its head.
QQ — I agree with what you say, but you are flogging the wrong guy. I suspect Grandin agrees with you, also.
All too often we talk about the elections as if they were an end in themselves. Yet, if history teaches us anything it’s that both political parties are basically useless, if useful is defined as doing anything at all for the overwhelming majority of Americans, as well as having a foreign policy that is even marginally ethical.
The reason for that is stark. There is just no powerful countervailing force on the left to counteract the right-wing corporate death-grip on power.
Thus, the Democrats get fired up about taking control over the Congress, but even if they do nothing will change.
What is obvious is that much more organizing and networking on the left needs to take place. More primary challenges need to be mounted. The fear of God needs to be put into the minds of the Democratic party so that they will fear to sell us out on important issues.
Much more information spreading and sharing, and so on.
As this movement outside the mainstream political system spreads and grows more powerful, then we can expcect some real victories.
Just stopping the total destruction of the planet by the Bush cabal is hardly a victory. More like a stay of execution.
But, whenever I feel depressed I simply go online and look at what people are doing in other countries. In most of :Latin America people have to face down death squads even to organize politically or demand anything (labor rights, indigenous tribal rights, environmental protection, social justice, etc.).
Yet they’ve managed to win a significant string of victories in the face of overwhelming force.
What we face is child’s play by comparison. What’s our excuse?