[Peace-discuss] Perfidious Democrats (and, of course, the press)

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Perhaps AWARE should consider the Occupation Project
-- mentioned at the end of this article; see
<www.vcnv.org/project/the-occupation-project>
-- as a New Idea at the next meeting. --CGE]

	December 19, 2006
	Democrats Prepare to Fund Longer War
	By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

This last Sunday Harry Reid, the incoming Democratic majority leader in 
the US Senate, went on ABC's Sunday morning show and declared that a 
hike in U.S. troops in Iraq is okay with him.

Here's the evolution of the Democrats' war platform since November 7, 
2006, the day the voters presented a clear mandate: "End the war! Get 
out of Iraq!" and took the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives 
away from the Republicans.

So somewhat to their surprise the Democrats recaptured both the Senate 
and the House. Then they went to work -- to obliterate the mandate. The 
first thing they did was reject Jack Murtha, the man who said "Quit Now" 
in 2005. They voted down Murtha as House majority leader and picked the 
pro-war Steny Hoyer.

Then Nancy Pelosi, chose Silvestre Reyes as House Intelligence Committee 
chairman. Reyes promptly told Newsweek, "We're not going to have 
stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private 
armies. We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in 
Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq -- I would say 20,000 
to 30,000 -- for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are 
dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military."

Reyes comes to his important post with an open mind, meaning an empty 
one. He knows nothing of the region. This became clear in his brief 
parley with a reporter from Congressional Quarterly who had the 
impudence to ply him with questions at the end of a tiring day when men 
of mature judgment head for the bar. CQ's man asked Reyes if Al-Qaeda 
was Sunni or Shiite.

Reyes tossed a mental coin. "Predominantly -- probably Shiite." Wrong, 
of course, since Al-Qaeda is Sunni, of a notoriously intolerant strain. 
It's as if Reyes had called the Pope a Presbyterian.

Then the pesky newshound probed him on the matter of Hezbollah. 
"Hizbollah. Uh, Hizbollah" Reyes answered irritably. "Why do you ask me 
these questions at 5 o'clock?"

Back in 2003 Reyes, a Vietnam vet, was opposed to the war. Give him 
clout as Intelligence Committee chair and he starts citing John McCain 
approvingly, even upping the mad Arizonan's troop-boost call by 10,000.

Next, the Democrats in the Senate gave unanimous confirmation to Robert 
Gates as defense secretary. Gates has a career record as one who slants 
intelligence to suit his bosses' political agenda. Recently, as 
president of Texas A&M, he deep-sixed affirmation action as college 
policy. The Democrats in the Senate could have stretched out the 
hearings, grilled Gates closely on his plans, taxed him with his grimy 
past as Bill Casey's second-in-command in the Contra-gate Era. Special 
Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh said flatly in his memoirs that Gates was not 
truthful in his 1991 confirmation hearings about his role.

Next, House Democrats welcomed the Iraq Study Group report of James 
Baker and Jim Hamilton by promptly reaffirming the "Palestinian Terror 
Bill 2006", written by AIPAC.

Then, on December 17 the Democrats' Senate leader, Harry Reid, said it 
was okay with him to send more troops to Iraq. This was the same Sunday 
morning that Colin Powell, appearing on CBS, said a troop increase 
"cannot be sustained" and that the thousands of additional U.S. soldiers 
sent into Baghdad since the summer had been unable to stabilize the city 
and more probably could not tip the balance, Powell said.

Yesterday, it was instructive to go to the Democratic websites in the 
wake of Reid's statement. Nothing on Daily Kos, nothing on Truthout, 
nothing on any of them. They had many words about Republican 
warmongering, about McCain's call for more troops. About Reid, one of 
the top Democratic leaders, about the evolving Democratic posture -- 
nothing.

Now let's go to a Republican, U.S. Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon. While 
the Democrat Reyes was calling for a troop hike, Smith was proclaiming, 
"We have no business being a policeman in someone else's civil war. I 
welcome the Iraq Study Group's report, but if we are ultimately going to 
retreat, I would rather do it sooner than later." Not cut and walk. Cut 
and run.

At least Gordon Smith can publicly concede that as things stand, the 
Iraq mission is a disaster, and quitting time is here. No prominent 
Democrats in Congress but Jack Murtha can bring themselves to do that. 
(I include here Senator Slither, otherwise known as Barack Obama, who 
trims to every shift in the wind.) The language is always of pleasing 
schedules, in which a (fictional) entity called the Iraqi Army, at the 
disposition of an (imaginary) power called the Iraqi government, can be 
welded into an (entirely fantastical) nonsectarian force by (as yet 
unavailable and putatively suicidal) US military trainers.

Suicidal? A poll cited by the Iraq Study Group found that 61 percent of 
Iraqis believe that it is appropriate where possible to attack the US 
occupying troops. Since the poll included Kurds, who are less hostile to 
the US presence, we can assume that the percentage of Sunnis and Shiites 
who think it a patriotic act to shoot or blow up a US soldier is well 
above 61 percent. Now imagine yourself as a US trainer embedded in an 
Iraqi unit, the vast majority of whose members believe it right and 
proper to kill you. "Suicidal" seems to be the correct term. These calls 
for a bigger US training force are complete hokum.

You would have thought that Democrats would rush to hang their hats on 
the the bipartisan ISG report, calling for cut and walk. But the 
long-awaited report is dead shortly after arrival. There aren't more 
than a handful or so of Democrats who are going to be caught in the same 
room as a report that calls for the return of the Golan Heights to Syria 
and dares to raise the issue of the right of return of Palestinians to 
their homeland.

In America these days persons in political life can describe reality 
only if they are self-employed, with a guaranteed independent income and 
above 75 years of age. Jimmy Carter and James Baker are two prime 
examples of this truth. Otherwise fantasy rules in Congress and the 
press, which has consistently misrepresented the extent of the disaster 
in Iraq, preferring to promote fatal illusions about a viable central 
government and fantasies of the US being able to shape a new model army 
of Iraqis.

Since the elections of November 7, elite liberal consensus, as 
represented by the Democratic leadership and major opinion formers such 
as the editors of the New York Times, has rallied to the notion of a 
"surge" in U.S. troops in Iraq. "Surge" is a handy word. It has the 
timbre of forceful majesty, of mighty ocean rollers roaring onto a 
beach. It also has the promise of withdrawal, since what surges can also 
recede.

A faction among the U.S. commanders in Iraq has been promoting the surge 
option to useful journalists such as Michael Gordon of the New York 
Times. (Today, the Washington Post reports that inside the Pentagon 
there is growing opposition to the surge scenario, presumably on the 
reasonable grounds that there aren't the troops to mount the surge and 
that it would do nothing to alter the situation anyway.)

Indeed, no reporter has played a more assiduous role in fostering this 
"surge" option than Gordon, a man who somehow skipped free of the 
misreporting charges that finally caught up with his former colleague 
Judith Miller, even though he shared a byline with Miller in the very 
worst report, the claim that aluminum tubes were hard evidence of 
Saddam's WMD program.

In the past months, in the Times and on CNN Gordon has been laying down 
a propaganda barrage against speedy withdrawal and for a hike in US 
troop numbers in Iraq. When Murtha ran for the House majority leadership 
position, the New York Times front-paged two stories by Gordon attacking 
Murtha's advocacy of rapid withdrawal, and promoting a troop increase.

At the Washington Post, which editorialized against Murtha's bid, David 
Ignatius has similarly been fostering the impression of feasible options 
in Iraq. "With enough troops and aggressive tactics," Ignatius wrote 
earlier this year, "American forces can bring order to even the meanest 
streets." In Iraq, in March of this year, Ignatius, claimed to find 
"unmistakable signs here this week that Iraq's political leaders are 
taking the first tentative steps towards forming a broad government of 
national unity that could reverse the country's downward slide." His 
keen eye detected a "new spirit of accord."

So here we have the Times's and Post's lead reporter/commentators on the 
war diligently promulgating the core fantasy: that the United States has 
options beyond accepting defeat. The vast majority of Iraqis want US 
forces out. Militarily, the United States has been defeated. 
Diplomatically it is isolated. Politically it is immobilized.

 From the Republican defeats at the November 7 polls through to the 
publication of the Iraq Study Group report, there was a window for 
Washington to commence diplomatic operations to get out with all speed.

That opportunity has almost gone. Now a decisive moment approaches. The 
Democratic leadership -- Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel, Biden -- is recommending 
that the Democrats in Congress vote to approve the supplemental budget 
appropriation early next year, probably $160 billion, which will give 
Bush enough money to keep the war going till he leaves town.

Enough Democrats have always been available to push these appropriations 
through, sometimes by huge majorities or, in the Senate, unanimous 
agreement. Here's the record of shame:

	By 2004, when it was clear a disaster was unfolding and after Iraq's 
alleged WMDs had been exposed as frauds invented by US and British 
intelligence agencies and the press: HR 4613 -- Final House Vote July 
22, 2004: 410-12. Final Senate Vote July 22, 2004: 96-0.

	In 2005, by which time it was clear that the US attack had spawning 
civil war, plus staggering corruption -- HR 1268: Final House Vote May 
5, 2005: 368-58. Final Senate Vote May 10, 2005: 100-0. HR 2863: Final 
House Vote December 19, 2005: 308-106. Final Senate Vote December 21, 
2005: 93-0.

	By 2006 the American people were turning decisively against the war. 
Bush's ratings were among the lowest in presidential history. Up came HR 
4939: Final House Vote June 13, 2006: 351-67. Final Senate Vote June 15, 
2006: 98-1. HR 5631 -- Final House Vote September 26, 2006: 394-22. 
Final Senate Vote September 29, 2006: 100-0.

Years ago, my father used to tell me that when it came to assessing the 
likely policy of the British Labor Party, the best approach was to 
figure out the worst option available, and then proceed under the 
assumption that this was the course the Party would adopt. Here in the 
U.S. I've always applied this useful journalistic rule to the Democrats, 
with unfailing success. Never for a moment, after November 7, did I 
doubt that Reid and the others would do the wrong thing.

As we warned after the election, the role of the Democrats will be to 
ease through a troop increase This prediction has turned out to be 100 
per cent accurate.

Now comes the chance to see whether the antiwar movement, the 
progressive Democrats, will meekly toe the line, even as some start 
wasting their time promoting a Kucinich bid for the Democratic 
nomination, which will exactly the same effect as did his bid in 2004. 
It was clear from the outset that the only substantive function of 
Kucinich's run was to try to preempt defections to a Third Party 
candidate such as Nader. Then, in Boston, Kucinich toed the line and 
fell in behind Kerry. Once again doomed to fail, he'll do the same thing 
in 2008.

On this site [viz., Counterpunch], last week, Mike Ferner wrote:

     "This February, the peace movement's choir, of which you are one, 
will up the ante of protest. Voices for Creative Nonviolence, joined by 
Veterans For Peace, have initiated the 'Occupation Project' to occupy 
the hometown offices of Representatives and Senators who have voted 
money for the war.

     "All this clearly adds up to a historic opportunity.

     "Last week I spoke in Marietta, Ohio to 35 people, and announced 
the Occupation Project. I asked who among them would consider occupying 
their local congressional offices. Without a moment's hesitation, six 
hands went up.

     "We talked about practical concerns: having to work, how much will 
it cost, what will the charge be? We talked about taking a vacation day 
and the modest fines involved for a misdemeanor -- all compared to the 
enormous suffering Iraqis and soldiers now endure in this war."

So now let's see how these Democrats, all with their eyes cocked towards 
2008 and the need to hold the antiwar vote, react to the threat or the 
reality, of being occupied.

CounterPuncher John Farley, reading my comments on the blathersphere's 
tactful silence at Reid's call for a troop "surge" directs our attention 
to the feisty <www.lasvegasgleaner.com> site, where this pertinent 
comment can be found:

	"Surge protector

	"We liked it better when the Democrats were just hiding behind the 
skirts of Jim Baker and his Iraq Study Group and saying nothing about 
Iraq. Sure, it wasn't a Democratic profile in leadership or anything. 
But it was far preferable to the bizarre sight of the Great and Powerful 
Harry Reid going on national teevee Sunday and endorsing the idea of 
sending more troops:

	"'If it's for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it's part 
of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, 
then, sure, I'll go along with it.'

	"This qualified support, contingent on toothless guarantees and based 
on a naive optimism that things will go largely as planned if executed 
competently is vaguely reminiscent of something ... hmmm ... oh yeah, 
Reid's vote to give Bush a blank check to invade Iraq in the first place.

	"It is nothing less than astounding that Reid would even consider 
trusting Bush to keep good on a promise, any promise, let alone one 
wherein Bush was able to escalate troop levels in Iraq so he could do 
what Bush is clearly so loathe to do -- withdraw from his optional war, 
effectively admitting defeat to himself and to the judgment of history 
with which Bush is so obsessed. In fact, if Harry Reid would like some 
advice about why Bush can't be believed or trusted, Harry Reid need look 
no further than, well, Harry Reid. Asked about Bush on election day, 
Reid said:

	"'I don't think he's emotionally capable of even thinking about 
governing from the center. I think the man is a perfect example of what 
I studied in school, the Acton theory, power tends to corrupt, absolute 
power corrupts absolutely. He's corrupt. Not in the sense of stealing 
from people. But corrupt in the sense of having an arrogance of power. 
He controls the White House. He did control the House and the Senate, 
seven members of the Supreme Court were Republicans. And this man is 
arrogant with power. And I'm not sure, that no matter what happens 
today, that he's going to change that. I don't think he has it within him.'

	"It wouldn't be a shocker to see the Harry Reid Democratic War Room and 
Media Message Development Center, Amplifications and Clarifications 
Division, put out a statement Monday trying to explain what Harry really 
meant to say, whatever that is. Meantime, with any luck, the mainstream 
media -- and the public -- will ignore Reid's inexplicable Sunday talk 
show mutterings and instead cast their attention to Colin Powell, now 
firmly in the cut and run camp and scoffing at the surge mentality."

	###