Tomorrow — attend a Moveon rally near you.
Category Archives: Iraq War
Manisfesto
I started out to write a letter to the editor, and (you know me!) went on way too long. But here’s a first draft, submitted for your correction and comments. I’ll do a podcast version and maybe tidy it up and whittle it down for the newspaper letter editors later this afternoon.
As I write this, Congress is debating the President’s proposed troop escalation. And pundits are debating whether attempting to stop escalation is politically smart. But there are larger issues here than politics or even the war itself. The debate over escalation in Iraq is also a debate over the integrity of our Constitution and the system of government that has sustained this nation for 218 years.
Even a sloppy reading of American history should tell us that the Founding Fathers never intended one man, even one with a title so lofty as Commander-in-Chief, to have the power to deploy the military any way he wants for as long as he wants at his own discretion.
History had provided many examples of one man with control of an army seizing dictatorial powers. For this reason, the authors of the Constitution divided authority over war and the military between Congress and the President. Consider that an early draft of Section 8 gave Congress the authority “to make war,†not just to declare war. The change was made to allow the President some leeway to act quickly without congressional debate when enemy troops are landing on our shores. It was not intended to strip Congress of all but a ceremonial role in approving the President’s war plans.
Most of the authors of the Constitution were loathe even to maintain a standing army. For that reason, the Founding Fathers decided to keep only a minimal federal force and primarily rely on state militias for the nation’s defense (Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 and 16). The militias were to be under the command of the several state governors until called into federal service (with a governor’s permission) by Congress and the President, which further divided control of the military between the state and federal governments.
The original militia system proved inadequate for the nation’s defense, and in the 20th century the state militias became today’s National Guard. But the National Guard was never intended to be the President’s personal plaything, and the citizen soldiers of the Guard cannot – must not — be kept in a foreign war merely at the President’s pleasure.
It was not until the Cold War that the United States chose to maintain a formidable federal military at all times, war or no. Our military might requires more, not less, vigilance that the nation’s war powers not fall into the hands of just one man.
President George W. Bush has embraced a controversial theory called the “unitary executive†to justify his increasingly autocratic powers. In issues from warrantless surveillance to stripping a citizen of the right of habeas corpus at his discretion, President Bush has pushed the powers of the presidency far beyond what any President has assumed before. And this includes wartime presidents such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.
President Bush justifies these powers by evoking the threat of terrorism. I was in lower Manhattan on September 11, and I have seen the worst that terrorism can do with my own eyes. I know that terrorism destroys precious lives, landmarks, and vital infrastructure.
But terrorists cannot destroy the United States. Terrorists cannot occupy our territory and force us to abandon our political institutions to despotism. Only we can do that.
Today many television and newspaper pundits warn our senators and representatives that trying to stop the escalation is politically risky. Why stopping the unpopular acts of an unpopular President should be politically risky isn’t clear to me, but we are told it is. Today the men and women we elected to represent us struggle to find the courage to enact the will of We, the People. Instead, they tiptoe about in fear of the White House and will not use the power the Constitution gives them. The system of checks and balances has withered away, and a single secretive, autocratic man who has shown us little else but bumbling incompetence and moral cowardice for the past six years rules the nation like Caesar. How did we come to this?
I ask our senators and congresspersons to please look beyond their personal ambitions and whatever heat they might take from the President’s apologists. Instead, please think of the nation. Think of the soldiers whose lives are forfeit to President Bush’s stubborn refusal to face reality. And think of preserving the Constitution and the integrity of the separation of powers for generations to come.
Buckpassing Already?
Looks like the President is in pre-emptive butt-covering mode. Just posted on the New York Times site — John O’Neil writes,
President Bush will announce tonight that the additional American troops he plans to sent to Baghdad will act only in support of Iraqi forces, and that they are being sent only because the Iraqi government has promised a “fundamental†change in policy, a top White House official said this morning.
Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, said that as a “precondition†for the increase in American forces, the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has agreed to assign more Iraqi troops to the capital and to remove restrictions on their operations that had protected Shiite militias tied to his political allies.
“President Bush would not commit one additional troop to Baghdad if it weren’t based upon a new strategy,†Mr. Bartlett said on Fox News this morning.
Translation: If the pooch gets screwed, it’s Maliki’s fault.
In an interview with an Arab television station on Tuesday, Mr. Maliki gave a different picture of the agreement reached with Mr. Bush on the new strategy during a two-hour videoconference last week.
He said that Mr. Bush would announce measures “to speed up the building and arming of Iraqi forces, increasing Baghad’s security in order to stabilize it and supporting the government in the economic field,†according to The Associated Press.
Mr. Maliki said that Mr. Bush “wanted to express his continued commitment to support†his government.
Maliki and Bush — perfect together. Someday they should share a cell.
No Escalation
There’s buzz building about a speech by Senator Ted Kennedy at the National Press Conference Club this morning. The Senator is sponsoring a bill requiring congressional approval of Bush’s planned escalation in Iraq.
Eventually I hope to post a YouTube video of the speech. Raw Story has a transcript.
In a conference call to bloggers, the Senator reminded us that the resolution of October 2002 that authorized use of force in Iraq was predicated on three assumptions: (1) That Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction; (2) that Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship with al Qaeda; and (3) that Saddam Hussein had broken UN resolutions. Well, the first two turned out to be false, and the third is now moot. President Bush cannot assume to continue military action in Iraq without further authorization.
But time is critical. If Congress doesn’t speak right now, Bush could have more troops on their way to Iraq the day after tomorrow. And then Congress would be put on the spot to refuse appropriations for actions already taken and troops already deployed.
The idea that Congress doesn’t have the authority to limit Bush’s actions is refuted by history. The Center for American Progress has a list of caps and limitations imposed by Congress in military adventures past.
Robert Greenwald forwarded this email from the Senator and asked it be disseminated:
Thank you so much for your concern and involvement on the issue of Iraq. I deeply believe that Iraq is the defining issue of our time. I am proud to have voted against the authorization for war in 2002, but the issue now is what we do going forward. Tomorrow night, President Bush is going to outline for the nation his “way forward” in Iraq. And from all reports, his way forward involves escalating American involvement by sending up to 20,000 more soldiers and Marines to fight in the middle of what has become a civil war. Every American, no matter what their political stripe, knows that the current strategy isn’t working and that we need a better way forward. I believe that President Bush’s plan is the wrong way forward. It’s just stay the course under a different name, and I strongly oppose it.
Today, I will introduce legislation that requires Congress to vote before the President escalates troop levels in Iraq. My legislation will provide that not one additional soldier can be sent and not one additional dollar can be expended until Congress debates and approves the President’s proposed escalation of American forces in Iraq. If the election in November was about anything, it was about accountability and the need for a changed policy in Iraq. Most Americans oppose this war, and an even more oppose sending more troops to Iraq. The American people deserve to be heard before we appropriate additional funds for additional troops in Iraq. In October 2002, Congress authorized (1) a war against the regime of Saddam Hussein because (2) he was believed to have weapons of mass destruction and (3) an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, and (4) because he was in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution. Today, Saddam Hussein is dead and we know that there were no weapons of mass destruction or operational relationships with Al Qaeda and there is a new, elected government in Iraq that is not in defiance of a Security Council Resolution. No one can dispute that the mission of our armed forces today in Iraq no longer bears any resemblance to the mission authorized by Congress.
Instead of continued mistakes and shoot-from-the-hip policies, it’s time to get this right. The President must make clear the mission of our troops and lay out a path to bring them home, and Congress must stop being a rubberstamp for failed policies and stand up and act.
We know from history that an escalation of troops into a civil war won’t work. Our leaders tried it in Vietnam, and each surge of force lead to the next. It escalated the war, instead of ending it. Like Vietnam, there is no military solution to Iraq, only political. It seems that the President is almost the last person in America to understand that.
An escalation of American forces would only compound the original misguided decision to invade Iraq. A military escalation in Iraq will not strengthen our national security; rather, it would further weaken it by enabling the Iraqis to avoid taking responsibility for their own future. And an escalation will not lead us to victory. American troops can’t force the Iraqis reconcile their internal differences.
Our service men and women in Iraq have served with distinction and valor. They’ve done everything we’ve asked them to do, and they’ve done it well. More than 3,000 of our best and our brightest have been killed in Iraq and more than 22,000 more have being wounded, many of them seriously. Our troops deserve a policy worthy of their sacrifice and their bravery, and I will continue to fight until we have one.
I urge every American to ensure their voice is heard in this critical decision. When the President speaks tomorrow night, he must be reminded that accountability and responsibility are no longer extinct in Washington ? they are alive and well.
Thank you, Robert, for always being involved in what Olive Wendell Holmes called the passion and action of our time. You continue to make an enormous difference. All the best,
Ted Kennedy
So, right now, contact your congressperson. Contact your senators. Write letters to newspapers. Do whatever you can to show support for Congress to stop more useless slaughter.
Update: Gallup Poll says the public opposes troop escalation by 61% to 36%.
Getting Colder
Following up the last post — Just to show How Far the Righty Have Fallen — rightie bloggers are whoopin’ and high-fivin’ it up over the missile strike in Somalia. For example, Curt at Flopping Aces celebrates payback for the U.S. troops killed in the 1993 “Blackhawk Down” firefight in Mogadishu. “God knows we would never get it when Clinton was in office,” he says.
I assume the Bush Administration plans a retaliation for the U.S.S. Cole bombing of 2000 sometime in 2013. I guess we’re taking the old saying “revenge is a dish best served cold” literally.
The Pentagon says the recent attack was not about what happened in 1993. However, one of their justifications for blitzing the Islamists involved the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania by al Qaeda in 1998. Suspected perpetrators of those acts of terrorism are being harbored by the ICU, the Pentagon said.
In 1998 the Clinton Administration waited only 13 days after the embassy bombings, not 13 years, to launch cruise missiles that struck an al Qaeda training complex in Afghanistan and destroyed a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in the Sudan that allegedly produced nerve gas. You might remember that subsequent news stories said the facility in Sudan was a legitimate pharmaceutical plant and that the missile attack killed an innocent night watchman. Republicans verbally bludgeoned President Clinton about the dead night watchman and the “aspirin factory” for, well, a long time. I think they’re still at it.
Still, you’d think that they would have approved striking and destroying an al Qaeda training facility in Afghanistan. Guess again; grief for that dear, innocent night watchman far overwhelmed any concern for national security. Ol’ blood ‘n’ guts himself, Christopher Hitchens, sniffed:
Well then, what was the hurry? A hurry that was panicky enough for the president and his advisors to pick the wrong objective and then, stained with embarrassment and retraction, to refuse the open inquiry that could have settled the question in the first place? There is really only one possible answer to that question. Clinton needed to look “presidential” for a day. He may even have needed a vacation from his family vacation. In any event, he acted with caprice and brutality and with a complete disregard for international law, and perhaps counted on the indifference of the press and public to a negligible society like that of Sudan, and killed wogs to save his own lousy Hyde (to say nothing of our new moral tutor, the ridiculous sermonizer Lieberman). No bipartisan contrition is likely to be offered to the starving Sudanese: unmentioned on the “prayer-breakfast” circuit.
After 9/11, of course, the rightie tune was that Clinton should have acted quicker and bombed the Afghanistan facility while Osama bin Laden was still there. The attack missed him by hours.
Regarding the pharma plant, though I understand the CIA and some former Clinton Administration officials still stand by the nerve gas claim, consensus leans on the aspirin factory side of the story. Even so, going by this Wikipedia article, the Clinton Administration was a lot more successful at capturing, prosecuting, and convicting the perpetrators of the embassy bombings than the Bush Administration has been concerning those responsible for 9/11.
However, as this blogger points out, righties since then have become considerably more sanguine about the slaughter of civilians, including children, in the name of fighting terrorism. Yep, after the attacks on 9/11 the righties shed their tender sensibilities rather abruptly, and they flipflopped from complaining that Clinton had done too much to claiming he hadn’t done enough.
The missile story also reminded me of this famous exchange between Senator Bob Kerrey and National Security Adviser Condi Rice from the 9/11 commission hearings:
KERREY: You’ve used the phrase a number of times, and I’m hoping with my question to disabuse you of using it in the future.
You said the president was tired of swatting flies.
Can you tell me one example where the president swatted a fly when it came to al-Qaida prior to 9-11?
RICE: I think what the president was speaking to was …
KERREY: No, no. What fly had he swatted?
RICE: Well, the disruptions abroad was what he was really focusing on …
KERREY: No, no …
RICE: … when the CIA would go after Abu Zubaydah …
KERREY: He hadn’t swatted …
RICE: … or go after this guy …
KERREY: Dr. Rice, we didn’t …
RICE: That was what was meant.
KERREY: We only swatted a fly once on the 20th of August 1998. We didn’t swat any flies afterwards. How the hell could he be tired?
RICE: We swatted at — I think he felt that what the agency was doing was going after individual terrorists here and there, and that’s what he meant by swatting flies. It was simply a figure of speech.
KERREY: Well, I think it’s an unfortunate figure of speech because I think, especially after the attack on the Cole on the 12th of October, 2000, it would not have been swatting a fly. It would not have been — we did not need to wait to get a strategic plan.
Dick Clarke had in his memo on the 20th of January overt military operations. He turned that memo around in 24 hours, Dr. Clarke. There were a lot of plans in place in the Clinton administration — military plans in the Clinton administration.
In fact, since we’re in the mood to declassify stuff, there was — he included in his January 25th memo two appendices — Appendix A: Strategy for the elimination of the jihadist threat of al-Qaida; Appendix B: Political military plan for al-Qaida.
So I just — why didn’t we respond to the Cole?
RICE: Well, we …
KERREY: Why didn’t we swat that fly?
Ahh, those were the days. There’s more amusing nostalgia in the linked old post. Are the righties now reduced to cheering the swatting of flies? To be fair, Pajamas Media reports the U.S. has “boots on the ground” in Somalia, but so far I haven’t picked up this information in other news stories.
In January 1998, the neocons at PNAC sent a letter to President Clinton advising him that “regime change” in Iraq should be the aim of U.S. policy in the Middle East. A look at PNAC’s archives for 1997-2000 reveals the pnac’ers were obsessed with Saddam Hussein. But they seem not to have noticed Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda at all, unless I’m missing something. Even memorandums written within days of the embassy bombings are about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. And these are the same geniuses pushing Bush into an escalation in Iraq now. If neocon policies don’t touch off a pancontinental war across the Middle East and much of Africa it will be a miracle.
Murtha Smacks Biden with Facts
Thanks: Taylor Marsh.
Our Last, Best Hope?
Hope Yen of the Associated Press reported today:
President Bush will address the nation at 9 p.m. EST Wednesday about his new approach for the war in Iraq , the White House said. Bush is expected to announce an increase of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops.
Yen goes on to report House Speaker (yay!) Nancy Pelosi’s announcement that Congress might not approve funds for military escalation in Iraq, and that Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader (yay!) Harry Reid sent a letter to Bush last week that said it was time to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq.
However,
Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a 2008 presidential candidate, said increasing troops would be a “tragic mistake.” But he contended Congress was constitutionally powerless to second-guess Bush‘s military strategy because lawmakers had voted to authorize the commander in chief to wage war.
I think that Biden is wrong on the Constitutional issue, and have said so before.
Shaun Waterman writes for the World Peace Harold:
“It’s a fundamental constitutional principle that Congress can initiate and regulate war,” law Prof. Neil Kinkopf of Georgia State University told United Press International.
Kinkopf, a former Clinton administration Justice Department official who worked in the Office of Legal Counsel, authored a paper for the American Constitution Society last week arguing that Congress has the power to stop President Bush sending additional troops to Iraq — a move many expect him to announce this week.
I think Biden is hiding behind the Constitution to avoid the political risk of confronting Bush directly. Personally, I think he’s taking the greater political risk by being a wuss. Biden recently announced he is a candidate for the presidency in ’08. Does he seriously think he’s going to survive the primaries by being a Bush appeaser?
But let’s stick with constitutional issues for now. There’s no question that, over the years, the separation of powers between Congress and the White House vis à vis war have been corrupted considerably. Alexander Hamilton made it clear (well, pretty clear, given the 18th century English) in Federalist #69 that the President’s role of commander in chief had limits (emphasis added).
The President is to be the “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States. …” … The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.
Hamilton’s views on the CinC role as expressed in Federalist #69 and elsewhere were that the President was something like a supreme military commander, coordinating the forces of the army, navy, and militia (which would morph into the National Guard, but that’s a long story) during time of war. Remember, the Founding Guys were preparing to tap George Washington for the CinC position. There was also some discussion among the FG’s about possibly relieving a president of the CinC job if he proved not to be too good at it. Unfortunately, they didn’t put that into writing.
Findlaw has an annotated Constitution online that I find to be an excellent resource for understanding constitutional issues. Here is the annotation for the duties of the commander-in-chief addressed in Article II, Section 2, first paragraph. The annotation provides a thumbnail history of how the CinC role became expanded and enlarged over the years. Much of this enlargement came about to enable the President to respond to emergencies — invasions and insurrections — in a timely manner, without having to convene Congress and have a debate. There were other reasons for tilting the war powers toward the executive branch that Findlaw discusses that I’m not going to review here.
Now, compare and contrast to the war powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8, paragraphs 11-14. The Findlaw annotation suggests there was considerable disagreement among the authors of the constitution about exactly who was responsible for what. Congress alone has the power to declare war, but court challenges arising from the Civil War brought about a SCOTUS decision that a state of war could exist without Congress declaring it. The question that haunts us to the present day is, “whether the President is empowered to commit troops abroad to further national interests in the absence of a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization short of such a declaration.”
Skipping ahead, we get to the War Powers Act of 1973. Dahlia Lithwick explains,
Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. It looks good on paper, but presidents have generally ignored the War Powers Act, citing Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat.
But that takes us back to the original separation of powers issue — who gets to decide when the nation should commit troops? Although the Constitution doesn’t spell this out specifically, I do not believe the authors of the Constitution intended the President to have the power to send troops wherever he likes as long as he likes at his discretion.
We’re hearing a lot of noise from the pundits about the “power of the purse,” as if Congress’s only responsibility to the military is to fund it. But the Constitution provides that Congress alone not only has the power to declare war, also Congress is to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Further, Congress alone has the explicit authority to “punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations,” the latter being as close to a global war on terror as the Founders might have imagined, IMO.
Very basically, my reading of the Constitution and various testaments of its authors suggest to me that the intention was to give Congress the authority to make political decisions about committing troops, and the president the authority to decide how to use the nation’s military resources to carry out the will of Congress. Although the President has some power to use military force without waiting for Congress’s permission, it’s going way too far to claim that Congress has nothing whatsoever to say about how the President uses the military and can check him only by denying funds. I believe Congress does have the authority, under the Constitution, to order the President to clean up his mess and bring the war in Iraq to a close.
This is an important point, because denying all funds for the Iraq War could have some consequences the advocates of that tactic haven’t thought out. I believe strongly that if the tactic would put our troops overseas at any increased risk whatsoever, it’s the wrong move. Further, that kind of brute force grandstanding could put the nation’s government into serious disarray and invite a mighty backlash against the tactic’s perpetrators. It’s a highly dangerous move, in other words, and I don’t blame Democrats for being reluctant to make that move.
But here’s the good news, courtesy of Think Progress:
According to a tally by Think Progress, only seven lawmakers have given their public support to Bush’s escalation plan, twenty-three have come out in opposition, and fifteen have said they will withhold judgement for now.
Think Progress will be keeping tabs on who is willing to go along with Bush’s misguided plan and who is speaking out against it here. Help us keep it updated by leaving more examples in the comments. (Or send us an email).
A veto-proof, bipartisan majority in Congress willing to say no to Bush would be the best of all possible developments. Not only would it pave the way for Congress to exert more authority; bipartisanship means neither party would take the blame for whatever mess Iraq is left in when we leave. I believe this is to the Republicans’ advantage as well as Democrats’, which is why I’ve had some hope for awhile that congressional Republicans eventually will choose to throw Bush overboard to save themselves. And that eventuality is, IMO, getting closer every day.
Bush’s double-or-quits policy is rife with risks, not just in the Middle East — where the hanging of Saddam Hussein reminded the world just how far Iraq has sunk — but also back home.
They are risks that threaten to reduce Bush to Nixonian levels of isolation, and that threaten long-term damage to the Republican Party. Bush told journalist Bob Woodward that he would not withdraw from Iraq even if his wife and dog were the only people left on his side. The jest may not prove idle.
This might sound like hyperbole. Bush is currently receiving powerful support for surge from two of the country’s most prominent politicians: John McCain, who is the front-runner to win the Republican nomination in 2008, and Joe Lieberman, a former Democratic vice presidential candidate who defeated an anti-war Democrat in last year’s congressional elections. The two men are back from a 10-day visit to Iraq, and are even more voluble than usual.
At the same time, the Democratic leadership continues to be nervous about confronting Bush directly on the subject. Harry Reid, the new Senate majority leader, proclaimed his support for surge under certain conditions, before changing his mind a couple of days later. Hillary Clinton pulled the opposite trick — first coming out against surge, then laying down conditions that would make her change her mind.
But the hyperbole is fast becoming reality. McCain and Lieberman are part of a diminishing band of diehards on the Iraq War (Lieberman is a band of one on the Democratic side). And the Democratic leadership is likely to be forced to drop its equivocations over the next few weeks.
The most worrying problem for Bush, though, is the growing hostility to surge in his own party. Chuck Hagel’s description of the policy as Alice in Wonderland is par for the course: the senator for Nebraska has long criticized the war. But now two other senators who face uphill races for re-election in 2008 have added their voices to the criticism: Oregon’s Gordon Smith and Minnesota’s Norm Coleman.
Robert Novak, a long-time Republican-watcher, says Bush will find it hard to get the support of more than a dozen of the 49 Republican senators for sending more troops.
You can do your part to shove matters along by leaning on your Senators and Congress critters and signing Moveon’s petition against escalation.
Remember, Iraq isn’t the only serious issue we face now. The Democrats will be holding investigations and hearings on other critical matters, like torture and surveillance without warrants. These should not be seen as minor, secondary details to Iraq. And some semblance of bipartisanship would strengthen the Dems’ hands.
Sorta kinda related: Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith write at AlterNet that the Democratic Congress and the Republican White House seem to be engaged in a Constitutional collision course, and not just on Iraq.
Resist the Surge
[Update] Wes Clark has an op ed in today’s Washington Post that’s worth a read.
The odds are that this week President Bush will announce a “surge” of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. Will this deliver a “win”? Probably not. But it will distract us from facing the deep-seated regional issues that must be resolved….
… What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm’s way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops appeared on the streets — as happened in the summer when a brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad. And even if the increased troop presence initially frustrated the militias, it wouldn’t be long before they found ways to work around the neighborhood searches and other obstacles, if they chose to continue the conflict.
Other uses for troops include accelerating training of the Iraqi military and police. But vetting these Iraqi forces for loyalty has proved problematic. So neither accelerated training nor adding Iraqi troops to the security mission can be viewed as though a specified increase in effort would yield an identical increase in return.
The truth is that the underlying problems are political, not military.
Vicious ethnic cleansing is underway, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment, security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces — and increasing U.S. efforts is likely to generate additional resistance, especially from Iraq’s neighbors. More effective action is needed to resolve the struggle at the political level. A new U.S. ambassador might help, but the administration needs to recognize that the neoconservative vision has failed.
[Update update] Paul Krugman on the surge:
[W]hat’s clear is the enormous price our nation is paying for President Bush’s character flaws.
Promising Developments
This morning on CBS’s Face the Nation, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced that Congress may refuse to authorize funding for an escalation of U.S. forces to Iraq if President Bush cannot justify the strategy.
Pelosi stated clearly that Congress will fully support all U.S. forces currently in Iraq. “But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it,†Pelosi said. “This is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions, and we have gone into this situation, which is a war without end, which the American people have rejected.â€
See also Taylor Marsh and Bob Geiger.
Demagoguery
Here’s a YouTube video of Cindy Sheehan (via Mahablog commenter Sachem515) that I actually find a bit alarming.
In this video Sheehan says,
Rahm Emanuel, worked against every anti war candidate that ran in the primaries, and actually some of them that ran in the general elections. Rahm Emanuel, worked against every single one of those people.
Certainly, Emanuel in his capacity as chair of the DCCC ran away from the Iraq War last year. Certainly, he recruited and pushed Dem primary candidates whom he considered “safe” on Iraq — meaning, those who were willing to mouth pablum about staying “until the job is done.” Certainly Emanuel made stupid choices about candidates and races in which to invest DCCC money. Certainly, after the midterms Emanuel took credit that he didn’t deserve. And yes, he’s a back-stabbing ass. But to claim that he worked against any Democrat in the general election is going too far, I think. Let’s not get carried away here. If anyone can alert me to an incident in which Emanuel actually seemed to be trying to undermine a Dem candidate in the general election (claims that he didn’t work hard enough for somebody don’t count), please let me know.
The other part of this video that bothered me was Sheehan’s whining about Nancy Pelosi not including Iraq and impeachment in her “first 100 hours” legislative blitz. Sheehan is being disingenuous, or is misinformed, or is extremely stupid. The issues chosen for the “100 hours” were narrowly focused items to be accomplished in 100 hours. As in, getting bills passed and out the House door within 100 hours. The “100 hours” items were never intended to be the entire Democratic agenda; just a kick-off. The “100 hours” items are:
The “100 hours” amounted to Pelosi’s version of Newt Gingrich’s famous “Contract On With America” from 2004 1994. These items were chosen because they were low-hanging fruit — popular with voters, good items to campaign on, and the House ought to be able to pass the bills within the time limit. A gimmick, yes, but all of the six items are important issues that have been held up by the Republicans lo these many years.
Even Sheehan ought to be bright enough to know that the House could not whip up bills of impeachment in just 100 hours.
Regarding impeachment — I’m all for it, but if it’s actually going to be accomplished the issue needs to be handled with great care. The issue is political dynamite, and if the Dems act prematurely — before there is a very strong public consensus in favor — it could blow up in their faces. It’s cheap and easy for Sheehan to demagogue the subject, as her ass isn’t on the line.
Hearings are a good first step. Congressional hearings in the past have made a huge impact on public opinion. We do need to push the Dems for all the hearings and investigations they can think of. Several are already rarin’ to go. I hope the investigations will make impeachment viable.
But Sheehan’s whining about the Dems is not helping to make impeachment viable. If she wants to help, she should use her stature as an antiwar activist to bring a serious discussion of impeachment to the public. Pandering to the easy applause of her fawning admirers must be fun, but it’s not going to make a dime’s worth of difference to the Cause.
Finally, I very much dislike Sheehan’s implication that Iraq was the only issue that mattered with voters, and that antiwar activism was the entire reason the Dems took back the House and Senate, and that Iraq and impeachment are the only issues that matter now. A lot of Americans also care deeply about minimum wage and prescription drug prices and national security issues that don’t involve overseas wars. As important as Iraq is, this is not the time for the Dems to become a one-issue party; nor do I think so many Dems would have been elected had they all been one-issue candidates.
Many of us have been looking to the day in which real progressivism might make a comeback for many years before George Bush was President. I think we may have a shot. If the Dems blow off progressivism in the next two years, I don’t expect to live long enough to get another shot. Sheehan may not care about progressivism, but some of us do.
I’m anticipating many comments in support of Saint Cindy. Yes, I’ve gone from being a Sheehan admirer to concern that she’s just a female Ralph Nader. (I used to be an admirer of Ralph Nader, too; the only difference is that it took me thirty years to see the truth about Ralph [Update: see this, too]. I’m either getting quicker, or more jaded.) Note that I agree with a lot of what Sheehan says, and I am not at all opposed to holding Dem feet to fire as needed. But demagoguery is demagoguery, and a lot of what I see in that video looks like demagoguery to me.