Let's Get Back to Iraq

Ms. Huffington has offered up what seems to me spot-on advice that it's long past time for progressives to get Iraq and all that the debacle there entails out on the table. When Cheney's claim that the insurgency is almost over so conspicuously conflicts with the real information coming out of Iraq despite concerted censorship by the administration and DOD, it's time to open the debate.

John Nichols blogs at the Nation:

They came to hear Howard Dean.

But they got the message that matters from Arianna Huffington.

That's because, while the chairman of the Democratic National Committee delivered a tepid and predictable address to the Campaign for America's Future's "Take Back America" conference on Thursday, the columnist and author who not that many years ago identified as a Newt Gingrich conservative was the speaker who showed up with a road map for renewal of the Democratic Party.

Where Dean made no direct mention of the war in Iraq during a lengthy address to the morning plenary that kicked off the fullest day of the annual gathering of progressive activists, Huffington went to the heart of the matter.

"We cannot continue to ignore the debacle in Iraq if we are going to have any hope of [Democrats] ever again being a majority party," said Huffington, the conservative who came in from the cold and has recently lent her name and energy to the Huffington Post.

At a conference where the schedule was heavy with domestic-policy discussions but short on discourse regarding foreign policy, Huffington bluntly told the crowd, "We cannot have a solution on the domestic front without addressing what is happening in Iraq."

After a quick tour of the quagmire ("Ahmed Chalabi is the oil minister -- this is like something out of Saturday Night Live") and of the Bush Administration's steady pattern of misdeeds and missteps, Huffington asked the fundamental question of Congressional Democrats and party leaders: "Where is the oversight?"

"There is no oversight going on in this most corrupt and most immoral Congress that we have right now," she said, adding that, "I'm very troubled by the way our Democratic leaders go on television and sound like spineless Republicans." (Later in the day, at the one conference session that was devoted to foreign policy issues, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern recalled Dean's recent "now that we're there, we're there" comment regarding the "need" to remain in Iraq and then said, "That sounds like Rumsfeld to me.")

[clip]

Cozy and Bookmarkable

I have a terrific new site you really ought to visit - probably on a regular basis. This is a well-conceived and terrifically-orchestrated spinoff of the original "Talking Points Memo" (TPM) site that I have ballyhooed before. TPM is the great site run by one Josh Marshall that features, merely as an example, this recent, timely, and ever-so-spot-on post:

TPM Reader LG chimes in on Mark Felt, et al.

Josh: Is there anything more despicable than allowing the likes of Chuck Colson and G. Gordon Liddy, and even Pat Buchanan (although he was never implicated in Watergate) to go on TV and call Mark Felt a bum and a disgrace. That Matthews and others have, with either little or no objection to Colson and Liddy’s slander, is outrageous. Mark Felt may or may not be a genuine hero, but what he did was honorable and took courage – and he is certainly not a bum like his accusers.

This hadn't occurred to me. Or rather I hadn't realized it because I barely watch any political TV anymore. But if this is the case, it really is outrageous.
Nixon was a crook, as were most of his cronies. And Felt was a law man who ended up getting that all busted. As I note below, Felt's motives may not be black and white. But it's hard for me to see where any of these jokers gets off passing judgment on him.

I thought Chuck Colson's whole redemption shtick made at least some pro forma nod toward conceding that his Watergate era criminality maybe wasn't such a great thing after all. I guess not.

As for Gordon Liddy, he has, I guess, been accepted back into polite society, of a sort, for a mix of his character (and I'd say I mean that in the descriptive rather than than evaluative sense), his sense of humor and the undeniable fact that he never tried to make excuses for what he did. Took his lumps, etc.

Having said that, he's a crook, a bit nutty, and rightly did time for his crimes not only of the ordinary sort but actually against the constitution itself.

I guess these points don't cut much with DC's chatterati.

-- Josh Marshal

The new TPM Cafe site features a great collection of "captive" regular contributors as well as weekly guest bloggers, including for this kickoff week the one and only John Edwards (yes, that one!). I am very impressed with the first couple days of site operation and commend it to anyone trying to keep apprised of the news.

Just a taste here from latest new site post. Look at that artwork and layout! Please visit, bookmark, and regularly check in on the site. I assure you that you will find something to think about at TPM Cafe.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/
Foxes Deplore Henhouse Expose by Deep Beak
By Todd Gitlin Section: Media

Josh asks the right rhetorical question. The newspapers' recourse to commentary by Charles Colson, Pat Buchanan & Co. on the Mark Felt revelation--and not so much, say, former Nixonian whistleblower John Dean, and not at all former Watergate committee staffer Hillary Rodham Clinton or former committee members like Elizabeth Holtzman (so far as I can see)--tells us who the established media think are the significant players in Watergate. It was left to Larry King to prompt a reaction from Bill Clinton.

Continue Reading Here... (1 comment, 201 words in story)
Jun 02, 2005 -- 12:31:14 AM EST

Fair and Balanced?
By Joshua Micah Marshall Section: Media

Does it say something about Washington today, or the state of the Washington press corps today, that in reporting on whether Mark Felt is a hero or a rogue, so much of the comment and opinion is being solicited from the crooks, scoundrels and former Batista enforcers he helped, indirectly, land in jail? I couldn't help but notice, in addition to that, that the president quite conspicuously punted when asked whether he thought Felt had done the right thing in guiding Woodward and Bernstein toward the facts that brought down the Nixon presidency.

Continue Reading Here... (19 comments, 339 words in story)
Jun 01, 2005 -- 10:31:20 PM EST

Honestly, Memorial Day?

This is a day hallowed in the "Land of the Free," set aside for the specific purpose of remembering those who have died in action on behalf of our nation, defending the principles of democratic government. That is, those who have risked their lives in the name of government of and by the people, where all have a voice, the weak equal to the strong, individual people before corporations, with governance divided among several independent branches whose independence is guarded by a system of checks and balances, and with explicit tolerance for all manner of spiritual belief and thus, obviously, total separation of state and church.

Unfortunately, those making sacrifices of their lives or livelihoods these days appear to be doing so under numerous serious misunderstandings. And this goes well beyond the fact that their Commander in Chief seems constitutionally incapable of actually publicly recognizing their sacrifices. The former beliefs and principles associated with our form of democracy are currently in profound jeopardy since there is more evidence every day that our federal government now appears to be entirely riddled with falsehood, lies, corruption, and other criminal behavior. And those for the moment holding power have apparently experienced a revelation to the effect that there is an absolute religious "truth" - and they have concluded that the majority of us are "wrong."

A government built on lies and religious ideology is inherently not a democracy. The Bush administration is conspicuously addicted to dishonesty and influence-peddling (well, and the most obsessive secrecy in our government's history, a natural dodge for liars and thieves). Given the loss of almost all independent national media, it is not surprising that all three branches of our government, controlled as they are by the same party, have been largely able to exchange the former system ("democracy") for a mutual pact of dishonesty and hypocrisy. Theocracy? Plutocracy? Fascism? Stay tuned.

From the Baltimore Sun:

Let's clear away the propaganda and concentrate on the meaning of Memorial Day. Since the Civil War, it has been a day to remember those who died in action. They are the heroes we celebrate this day, and more than 1,800 have joined the memorial rolls since the outbreak of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. A nation mourns their loss and honors their memory.

They were men and women serving on the treacherous front lines and working the dangerous supply routes. They were 19-year-olds out of high school and "weekend warriors" old enough to be their fathers.

They died for America and Americans. That they were ill-served and exploited by the government that sent them into action has nothing to do with their sacrifice.

Except this - a government that was either smarter or more honest would not have squandered so many lives. The war in Iraq could have been avoided. Or, once launched, enough troops could have been deployed to ensure a successful occupation. Body armor and Humvee armor could have been provided. Familiarity with Arabic and with Arab customs could have become a top priority. American officials could have handled the crucial early weeks after the fall of Baghdad with finesse and good sense, rather than doing everything possible to earn the hostility and contempt of so many Iraqis.

[clip]

And then there's this guest-post I ran across at BuzzFlash:

"We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force." - George W. Bush, Radio Address Mar. 8, 2003

It's hard these days to get very excited when George Bush or his minions tell another lie. They've lied to the American people and to the world at an astonishing rate. The lies are calculated, hateful, sometimes deadly and legion. Place them end-to-end and they could reach from the Oval Office in Washington to the bluebonnets of Crawford, Texas; -- and then there would still be plenty left over to reach the sun-drenched poppy fields of Afghanistan or the burning streets of Baghdad. His is a veritable factory of lies.

In their zeal for the ever-greater fib, they are taking the "Big Lie" concept to a whole other level. Not simply happy with telling the same lie so often that those listening eventually accept it as fact; they appear to have signed on to the vile theory that if you lie all the time, the lies will metastasize, multiply, and spread, like a cancer eating at the truth, engulfing and consuming all reason until the lies become a new reality out of sheer force of gravity. In Bushworld, lies are the new truth.

I am by no means the first to write of the mendacity of the Bush administration. Al Franken has done it with more humor and David Corn in far greater detail. The Bush proclivity for perfidy is well documented in print, film and on countless websites.

When the President tells us we aren't torturing detainees or we aren't sending them to other countries to be tortured, he's lying. When the President peddles his social security snake oil, he's lying. If you hear him talk about how he's interested in protecting the air you breathe and the water you drink, he's lying. And that energy plan - a high wattage, untapped gusher of a lie.

He's got so much lying to do that he's even outsourced his lying. Just ask the infamous lying "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" who managed to smear John Kerry's war record in last year's election. Or the pundits, two-bit actors and propagandists who've been paid handsomely to spread his lies in the form of phony newscasts and partisan commentary. Joseph Goebbels has nothing on this bunch.

Rather than merely produce a litany of Bush lies, I would rather use this opportunity to shine the light on one very big lie recently exposed.

Taking a country to war is one of the most solemn responsibilities we bestow on our President, on our Commander-in-Chief. It would be hard to imagine a greater act of deceit than that which takes a country to war on a lie. Sounds treasonous. No doubt criminal. Which of course makes it very difficult to understand why the President is still free to walk the halls of our White House and act the part of sanctimonious purveyor of democracy, freedom and moral clarity.

If you haven't heard, and you may not have because the mainstream media outlets in our country have largely ignored the story, The London Times obtained a classified memo confirming that the U.S. and Great Britain had made a secret agreement in the summer of 2002 to attack Iraq. Also discussed was the need to create conditions to justify war and to "fix" the intelligence and the facts around the policy. Yes, the fix was in well before the President sought Congressional authority to go to war "as a last resort".

[clip]