In case anyone is wondering what is the latest rationale for the war in Iraq, Nicole Devenish, whitehouse spokesperson just said that we are “laying the foundation for peace.”
Isn’t that great? Why didn’t we think of it before? That could serve as a catch-all rationale for any war in history — and it can be used by either side. “The Emperor of Japan may have been a little bit ambitious when he had his navy bomb Pearl Harbor, but he should be given credit for laying the foundations for peace.”
I finding it hard to believe, but this ridiculous notion of David Ignatius’— that we will be successful if things turn out ok in 30 years seems to be catching on. On Hardball they were busily comparing George Bush to Harry Truman — because Truman was unpopular while he was re-building Europe and Japan and we all know that Truman was considered to be a great president decades later. Of course he hadn’t unilaterally started WWII with a bogus rationale, but that’s just a niggling detail.
So we can assume that Junior will be seen as a great president someday just like old Give “Em Hell Harry. He was plainspoken too, don’t you know. (Nobody seems to notice the eery resemblance between Bush and his fellow Texan, Lyndon Johnson, however.)
It would seem that in this one unique instance the government is taking the long view. We don’t know when there will be peace — why, it could take years and years. But we know that when Iraq does achieve it, they will have George W. Bush to thank for it. Praise be.
Michael at Reading A1 wonders why some Democrats seem skittish about Cindy Sheehan. I have wondered this too. It seems as if our side has a knee jerk fear of controversy. I think he correctly diagnoses the problem:
Every so often I’m brought up short by the “discomfort” within the operative class, current or wannabe, toward political demonstration—as if it would be slumming to stand on a hot tarmac with a bunch of sweaty people holding a sign; as if it showed a lack of that so-prized seriousness to speak in and with symbols, rather than engaging in policy debate. Cindy Sheehan is reminding us, we don’t especially need policy debate right now. What we need, very badly need, are stories: and story is just what the theater of Camp Casey is giving us. The right-wing talking point—that Cindy Sheehan doesn’t really want to engage in dialogue with George Bush, that her demand for the dialogue he won’t give her (and wouldn’t, even if he were improbably to meet with her) is a sort of playacting—is accurate, but beside the point. The relations of power are difficult to conceptualize, and can be even for people trained to do that sort of thing. There is nothing difficult, on the other hand, about the mother of a dead soldier standing ignored at the end of the man’s driveway who sent her son to be killed, waiting stoically in the Texas sun for an answer she knows will never come. Nor is there anything about it that doesn’t speak volumes of truth to the ugly situation in which we find our country, five years on in the Rove/Cheney regime.
I’m flabbergasted that anybody on the left has even a moment’s hesitation about this, has the least qualm about making use of the gift of symbol Cindy Sheehan is presenting us.
Politically, nothing could be more important for Democrats than to tell the story of Iraq in human terms.
The president got himself re-elected with this image:
As music blared from stadium loudspeakers, Marine One, the presidential helicopter, carrying Bush, his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, and first lady Laura Bush, landed in left field, dusting some of the 10,000 cheering supporters with dirt from the warning track. Bush emerged to the theme of the movie Top Gun.
“The choice in this election could not be clearer,” Bush said from a podium set up on second base. “You cannot lead our nation to the decisive victory on which the security of every American family depends if you do not see the true dangers of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Political theatre works. If people could be politically persuaded by civilized debate, the Lehrer News Hour would be the highest rated news show on television. Most people need drama, excitement, pathos, catharsis — on some level their emotions have to connect with their minds in order to understand.
Up to now, the story of Iraq has been told through the prism of American might and glory. It was a stirring tale. Unfortunately, the story of Iraq isn’t really a story of might and glory; it’s a story of arrogance, incompetence and human suffering. That’s the story that Cindy embodies as she stands out there in the hot sun, surrounded by supporters, asking the president to answer the question for which he has no answer.
The spectacles of 9/11 and Iraq are over. Even the war supporters are singing a different tune now —- the swashbuckling “I-raq ‘n Roll” has given way to the mournful “Arlington.” Cindy Sheehan’s story is the story of that shift in the zeitgeist. We do not need to be afraid of this; it’s good for the country.
John Aravosis, linking to Steve Soto’s wonderful post about liberal pundit Richard Cohen, says in his headline “good guy, but dead wrong about Karl Rove and the war in Iraq.” He may be a good guy, I don’t know him, but the problem is that he’s dead wrong about a lot of very important things at exactly the wrong moment.
I’ve written a lot about Richard Cohen over the years because I think he is a large part of what ails our side in this political/civil war. The liberal elite pundits, whom everyone assumes speak for “reasonable Democrats” are the first link in a chain that defines Democrats as being without conviction or belief. Democratic politicians, the media and the strategists take cues from their positions as to what constitues the “correct” liberal position. And it’s killing us.
Richard Cohen is the poster boy for this destructive effete punditry. His claim yesterday that the Plame investigation was “not a major story. It’s a crappy little crime and it may not be a crime at all,” is just the latest in a long line of cocktail party bon mots that seem almost designed to ruin any chances the Democrats have of making headway in the media. Perhaps there is no better example, however, than this one from November 2000:
Given the present bitterness, given the angry irresponsible charges being hurled by both camps, the nation will be in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse. That man is not Al Gore. That man is George W. Bush.”
At precisely the wrong moment, Cohen made precisely the wrong argument. It is his very special gift. The Republicans can always count on Cohen to give the respectable liberal view that Republicans are really the good guys and prove to everyone else that Democrats are a bunch of wimps.
Yesterday, he claimed that he doesn’t blame reporters for getting the Iraq war wrong because they have to rely on their sources, (which we now know is solely comprised of the Bush administration and each other.) John Aravosis politely replies:
I’m a reporter, a writer, an activist, and many other things. And I didn’t “get it wrong” like Richard Cohen apparently did. I totally got that something didn’t add up BEFORE the war in Iraq started. I remember telling many people that the fact that the rationale for going to war in Iraq had changed, oh, 27 times (literally) had me a bit concerned. I remember telling them that I supported going into Afghanistan but Iraq smelled fishy – Bush didn’t have a clear reason for going in and something didn’t smell quite right.
Oddly enough, Cohen was an early skeptic of the war. Back in July of 2002 he was questioning the necessity for war:
The reason I started this column with LBJ’s letter to Marshall Surratt of Dallas, Texas (a copy of which Surratt recently sent on to me), is that the lack of candour and the willingness to exaggerate the stakes in Vietnam cost both Johnson and the United States dearly. Not only was the triggering event for that war, the Tonkin Gulf incident, either wholly or partly concocted, it was used to justify a policy that had already been decided.
Is the same thing happening with Iraq? Are the events of September 11 being used to justify a goal that was already something of a fixation for some Bush administration figures?
I don’t know. But I do know that certain hard questions have not yet been answered.
[…]
The US can take casualties, but only if it understands why. War plans are being drawn up in the Pentagon. But explanations are lacking at the White House.
All it took to turn him into an enthusiastic supporter was Colin Powell, every reasonable liberal pundit’s favorite Republican Daddy. He could hardly contain his breathless relief that he could now join in the excitement:
“…the case Powell laid out regarding chemical and biological weapons was so strong — so convincing — it hardly mattered that nukes may be years away, and thank God for that. In effect, he was telling the French and the Russians what could happen — what would happen — if the United Nations did not do what it said it would and hold Saddam Hussein accountable for, in effect, being Saddam Hussein.
The French, though, are so far deaf to such logic. Their foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said that the consequences of war are dire and unpredictable. He is right about that. But the consequences of doing nothing — and mere containment of Iraq amounts to nothing — are also dire and somewhat predictable. The United Nations will be revealed as a toothless debating society — a duty-free store on the East River — and every rogue will have learned a lesson from Saddam Hussein: Stall until everyone loses interest.
By this point a very large minority in the US and majorities of everyone in the rest of the world were convinced otherwise. There were massive protests that were disregarded as old hippy relics by the beltway media elite. It was clear that they were not being skeptical of any of the many rationales the Bush administration presented — all they knew was that Bush had decided to go to war come hell or high water and once they knew that they became supporters of the war. Their intoxication was palpable.
And while the Republicans were being extolled for their resolute courage, the Democrats were being portrayed as bedwetting panic artists. This image was used to great effect during the presidential campaign. It was at this point that liberal Richard Cohen, with his usual impeccable timing, chose to admit that he had gotten all askeered about anthrax:
I’m not sure if panic is quite the right word, but it is close enough. Anthrax played a role in my decision to support the Bush administration’s desire to take out Saddam Hussein. I linked him to anthrax, which I linked to Sept. 11. I was not going to stand by and simply wait for another attack — more attacks. I was going to go to the source, Hussein, and get him before he could get us. As time went on, I became more and more questioning, but I had a hard time backing down from my initial whoop and holler for war.
[…]
The terrorist attacks coupled with the anthrax scare unhinged us a bit — or maybe more than a bit. We eventually went into a war that now makes little sense and that, without a doubt, was waged for reasons that simply did not exist. We did so, I think, because we were scared. You could say we lacked judgment. Maybe. I would say we lacked leadership.
Very inspiring, no? A leading liberal admitting that he supported the Bush administration because he was afraid. Does it get any worse than that?
The Democrats have an image problem. And that image problem is constantly reinforced by the liberal pundits who helped create it in the first place. We are saddled with this milquetoast reputation in large part because the “reasonable” liberal pundits have political tin ears and yet are catered to and listened to by Democratic politicians and their handlers.
Like I said, I’m sure Richard Cohen is a good guy. But no politician anywhere should care what he thinks or listen to him or anyone like him, and there should be a concerted effort to persuade the media that these guys do not speak for us. Richard Cohen is what’s killing us.
While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well.
Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.’s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different–and perhaps barren–outcome. “Why We Didn’t Remove Saddam”George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft Time (2 March 1998)
That’s a snarky title, but it’s quite true anyway. There are going to be many different ways to evaluate this period in our history, but the prism of the father-son relationship is perhaps the most compelling — and maybe the most important. That combination of the second rate son with the manipulating neocon advisors is the stuff of Shakespeare.
Look at what Scowcroft and Bush Sr were saying and look at the state of Iraq today. It is breath-taking, isn’t it? It can really only be explained by magical thinking on the part of the neocons and the long frustrated desire on their part to conquor something. And Georgie just wanted to do what his father didn’t do — take out Saddam and win a second term. By that standard he’s been a rousing success. One wonders if he feels satisfied. He doesn’t look it.
In our endless search for explanations as to why they really did this inexplicable thing, Junior’s relationship with his father and the neocon psyche are probably the places where the answers truly lie.
I wonder what would happen if a reporter were to ask Junior how he felt about the fact that his father’s predictions of failure in Iraq had all come true? I’d really like to see that.
Thanks to Chris K for reminding me of this article.
I often get a little bit annoyed when people automatically dismiss something written in a partisan publication purely because it is partisan. It’s tempting to do that, but it skews your world view if you assume that all conservative or liberal newspapers and magazines are liars. It’s important to read them and try to see them as objectively as possible if you want to understand the real state of the debate. Certainly, their editorial policy and choice of stories will favor their side, but I have always assumed that the reputable publications do try to adhere to basic journalistic standards when it comes to straight reporting.
So, this exchange of e-mails between a National Review reader and an investigative writer shows me once again that I have been far too trusting. Evidently NR writers proudly admit to only using Republican sources. And they admit to it with all the naive earnestness of Jimmy Olson:
In hindsight, I really could have worded that sentence better. I certainly wasn’t trying to mislead readers or skew the facts. Based on additional research I did this morning, I can see your take is correct. As far as my heavily GOP sources go, I do write for the biggest U.S. conservative publication. No claims of fairness or objectivity here! 🙂
Thanks to Matt Stoller for the tip. Read the whole thing. It’s a fascinating exchange and a very interesting insight into the way that conservative “reporters” think. Note especially the fact that even though the reporter thinks that Doug Forrester is toast in New Jersey, he happily writes a phony, error riddled probe of Jon Corzine anyway. Just for fun, I guess.
Reader Richard M sent in this link to an article written by David Shipley regarding the function of the op-ed page of the Ny Times:
The Op-Ed editors tend to look for articles that cover subjects and make arguments that have not been articulated elsewhere in the editorial space. If the editorial page, for example, has a forceful, long-held view on a certain topic, we are more inclined to publish an Op-Ed that disagrees with that view. If you open the newspaper and find the editorial page and Op-Ed in lock step agreement or consistently writing on the same subject day after day, then we aren’t doing our job.
How odd then that the editorial page runs a plaintive request for Judith Miller’s freedom and the next day the op-ed page runs Bob Dole’s spirited defense of Miller’s position. It would seem that the gamut of opinion on the subject runs from Miller being a valiant journalist protecting the first amendment and her sources to Miller being a courageous reporter protecting her sources — and the first amendment.
I’m looking forward to further stirring justifications of Miller on the op-ed pages. Perhaps they could even get Judy herself to write one. After all, she hasn’t written one thing on the subject.
I hear liberals say in frustration that they’d like to leave the country or that they’d like to secede, things like that. But I never hear them say that they’d like to kick their political rivals out of the country. Perhaps it’s a fine distinction, but it’s a distinction nonetheless. Via media Matters, here’s Rush:
We just had Stephen Breyer saying, oh, yeah, totally appropriate, we must import what they’re doing around the world in other democracies, it will help buttress their attempt to establish the rule of law, and we might learn something, too. Well, here’s something I’d like to import. I’d like to import the ability that the Brits are doing to export and deport a bunch of hate-rhetoric filled mullahs and imams that are stoking anti-American sentiment. Wouldn’t it be great if anybody who speaks out against this country, to kick them out of the country? Anybody that threatens this country, kick ’em out. We’d get rid of Michael Moore, we’d get rid of half the Democratic Party if we would just import that law. That would be fabulous. The Supreme Court ought to look into this. Absolutely brilliant idea out there.
That first amendment has outlived its usefulness now that the right people are in charge anyway. (Calling the government “jack booted thugs” would be fine under certain circumstances, but not in others, I assume.)
So Rush just openly fantasizes in front of his 20 million listeners about deporting Michael Moore and half (only half?) of the Democratic Party. I’m sure all those Real Americans in their offices and cars just sat back and thought, “yeah, wouldn’t it be great is we could just get rid of all those people once and for all?”
In modern parlance I think that could be called “political cleansing.” It’s been done before — usually by communists, the modern republican’s favorite role models. Totalitarians ‘R Us.
The day the so-called liberal New York Times has that old fuck Bob Dole carrying its water for them is the day they have finally sunk to irreparable ignominy.
Yesterday they editorialized about poor little Judy and the freedom of the press:
An investigative reporter for The Times, Ms. Miller was ordered to testify as part of an investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a covert operative of the Central Intelligence Agency. It is not yet clear where the investigation is going, or why Ms. Miller’s testimony was demanded by Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor. Intentionally revealing the identity of a covert operative by a government official is a crime, but at this point, the only one serving time in jail is a civilian, Ms Miller.
It is true that some journalists have abused and overused unnamed sources over the years. But in the main, the secret source is not a convenience for the news media or a shortcut for an easy story. He or she is the backbone of a free and independent press. Think about the civil servant who sees a superior lying and breaking the law. Think about the employee who sees a manager whitewashing a report on a hazardous product.
Think about a powerful government official leaking sensitive classified information to the press solely to discredit a critic of the government’s policy.
Think about a journalist using the reporter’s shield law to protect her from having to testify about her own role in discrediting a critic of the government’s policy.
Think about a reporter never being required to write a story about her involvement in a huge case reaching the very highest levels of government.
Think about a reporter lying to her employers to save her own skin.
But it wasn’t enough to beat their chests one more time about freedom of the press (to be manipulated by powerful forces), they then hired Dole to follow up with a stirring defense of poor Judy on the op-ed page today. I’ve been following Dole my whole life. He has a good sense of humor but he’s always been a mean partisan asshole. In his old age, especially, he has become a very nasty and willing to say anything. Last summer he used his credibility as a severely wounded WWII vet to go after John Kerry’s medals. Now he’s weighing in on the Plame investigation as one of the sponsors of the Intelligence Protection Act to claim that Plame wasn’t covert.
He boo-hoos about whistleblowers and freedom of the press for half the article. (As if he really cares; this is Bob Dole we’re talking about. You can practically see the eye-rolling and the yada-yada-yada.) Once he gets that out of the way, he launches into the impending GOP Fitzgerald meme — the “out-of-control” prosecutor.
With the facts known publicly today regarding the Plame case, it is difficult to see how a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act could have occurred. For example, one of the requirements is that the federal government must be taking “affirmative measures” to conceal the agent’s intelligence relationship with the United States. Yet we now know that Ms. Wilson held a desk job at C.I.A. headquarters and could be seen traveling to and from work. The journalist Robert D. Novak, whose July 14, 2003, column mentioned Ms. Wilson, using her maiden name, and set off the investigation, has written that C.I.A. officials confirmed to him over the telephone that she was an employee before he wrote his column.
I, of course, do not know what evidence Mr. Fitzgerald has presented to the grand jury, nor will I hazard a guess as to the final outcome of his investigation. But the imprisonment of Judith Miller will be even more troubling if it turns out that no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act has occurred.
No he doesn’t know what the evidence is, but he and the NY Times are working in tandem to make it look like Pat Fitzgerald is out of control. The liberal media strikes again.
If they think that Bob Dole would ever come to their defense if the shoe were on the other foot, they are out of their minds. Dole would be the first one on the “law ‘n order” bandwagon. In fact, you can just feel the dripping sarcasm in his voice as he chokes up over poor little Judy’s plight, while softening up Fitzgerald for shiv.
The NY Times is foolishly putting all its eggs in Judy Miller’s basket and it’s costing them. It’s one thing for them to support her legally and financially. But considering the huge controversy about her role in the case, for them to be helping the Republicans discredit the investigation is beyond the pale. They need to recognise that when their editorial stance echoes partisan Republican attempts to discredit the investigation itself, they are in serious danger of putting their loyalty to Miller in service of politics in the worst way. Ironically, that’s exactly what Judy has done for the last decade.
Actually, now that I think about it, that’s exactly what Howell Raines did throughout the 90’s too. Indeed, this is just par for the course in our liberal media. You really can’t go wrong if you sidle up to the Republican character assassins. Good copy, big ratings, easy access. It’s good business.
Update: According to Arianna’s spies, Miller is receiving visits from John Bolton in jail which just strikes me as a foolish thing for both of them to do. Are they that close or are they both just that arrogant?
There is nothing worse to the Bush administration than missing deadlines. They have a fetish about it. Going back to 2000, the post-election argument rested entirely on the idea that if they missed any deadlines for any reason the world would explode. Nothing but nothing, must interfere with a meaningless arbitrary deadline.
There is a reason for this, of course. They are always scrambling to get something finalized before their ill-conceived plans or public lies are exposed. We are witnessing this happening before our eyes once again:
Some specialists said the administration is fixated on artificial deadlines at the expense of addressing substantive issues. “There’s no doubt the administration has the ability to force an agreement in the next seven days,” but if it is one that does not resolve the underlying issues “that’s a much, much bigger failure than failing to meet a deadline,” said Judith Kipper, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations.
“There’s a bit of a message to the administration: ‘Don’t rush this. . . . We need to do this right, not fast,’ ” said Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who advised the U.S.-led occupation authority on constitutional issues. The bid to meet the deadline, he added, was driven by the political imperative of bringing troops home as soon as possible. “It’s shameful,” he said. “It’s constitutional malpractice.”
But their reasons have nothing to do with what is good for Iraq. They are rushing for the benefit of George W. Bush’s political standing. Whenever he’s losing support they pull out another artificial deadline. This time, they have real rootin’ tootin’ experts saying so on the record:
As Gelpi described it, the American people remained supportive of the Iraq effort despite extensive violence when they saw incremental goals being met — first the handover of partial sovereignty last summer, and then the democratic elections in January.
Since then, he said, public support has fallen because there are no more intermediary benchmarks. Bush could have laid some out in his speech short of a timetable for withdrawal, Gelpi said, such as setting targets for how many Iraqi security forces would be trained by certain dates. That, he said, would give the American public a sense of moving forward as these benchmarks are attained.
“What’s important for him now to keep the public with him is to look forward and say we’re going to make progress and this is what progress looks like,” Gelpi said.
So, they are rushing Iraq to finalize a constitution so that Bush can be perceived as “winning” in Iraq. Let us all wave a purple finger and get a bounce in the polls. And if a few little hitches develop, well, they’ll deal with that down the road. hopefully after the 2006 elections.
Besides, Condi is very confident. Even if the talks are stalled on certain sticky issues, she knows what the Iraqis really want:
“It’s quite remarkable how much the process has become more inclusive over the last couple of months,” Rice said. She added that any final document should guarantee women’s rights. “We’ve been very clear that a modern Iraq will be an Iraq in which women are recognized as full and equal citizens,” Rice said. “And I have every confidence that that is how Iraqis feel.”
Perhaps the Iraqis “feel” that the Americans “have been very clear that a modern Iraq will be an Iraq in which women are revognized as full and equal citizens” but it looks like they also “feel” that the Americans can go piss up a rope. But whatever. So half the population winds up less free than they were under Saddam. Big deal. It’s not like it’s really important in the grand scheme of things.
The only thing that matters is that Junior is able to have a press conference and announce “progress” in Iraq so the idiot Americans will be appeased for another month or two. That’s the plan anyway.
Speaking of the anti-military right, check out The Editors’ “Wanker of the Week” for August 8th, Michel Ledeen:
This is to mourn the murder of the free lance journalist Steven Vincent, a victim of the Sadrist thugs (that is to say, the Iranian-sponsored terrorists) in Basra. His crime was to have written about the fanatics in Basra, who are attempting to create a mini-islamic republic in the south, to the shameful indifference of the British forces and Coalition commanders, and the so-called Left in this country and Europe. If there is ever a day of reckoning, those opinion makers who have remained silent in the face of the monstrous terrorist campaign against the Iraqi people will find it quite impossible to explain their de facto collusion with the terrorists.
He hasn’t quite made it as far as the Powerline boys to include the Iraqi people in that litany of traitors, terrorists and incompetents but give hime time.
If only they’d listened to him and sent in General Ahmad Chalabi and his boy scouts this thing would have been a cakewalk. The plan had so much promise. And he looked so cool in his black GI Joe t-shirt:
Memo to those on the right who say the Left supports Islamic fundamentalists: we’re the Godless Heathens, remember? We’re against the religious zealots running governments across the board. Of course, that includes your “base” here in the US too so you’ll have to pardon us for our consistency and ask yourselves why we find you incoherent on this matter.
We always understood that while deposing Saddam was easy, the risk of civil war or an Islamic theocracy were very high. We thought it might be worthwhile to wait for just a fucking minute to see how this little terrorism problem played out before jumping into the middle of the hornets nest and swinging wildly. So, please don’t blame us. We don’t like totalitarians. We don’t like theocrats. And we understood that when you go mucking around in the middle east at the direction of con-men and ideologues, you are likely to fuck things up.
America isn’t magic. The military does not have magical powers. We knew this. Michael Ledeen and his fanciful cohorts apparently didn’t. Now they are blaming everybody — and I mean everybody — but themselves for the failure they have wrought.
