Politics and Press

The Omnipotent Mr. Cheney

The Washington Post is running a 4-part report on the Vice Presidency of Richard Cheney. The report, prepared by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker and entitled “Angler” which is Mr. Cheney’s secret service code name, paints a picture of our Vice President as the man behind the throne, pulling strings, Oz-like, that direct many of our most critical domestic and foreign policy programs. One example is the role Mr. Cheney played in how the United States would handle “terrorists” captured during the apparently unending “war on terror”. Mr. Cheney developed the draft order that Mr.Bush signed, putting into operation the policy permitting the indefinite confinement of foreign terrorism suspects without any access to the courts. Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condi Rice, nominally in charge of such things, knew nothing about the order until after it was executed. The secrecy is typical of Cheney’s modus operandi. As stated in the Gellman/Becker report:

“Across the board, the vice president’s office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that “the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch,” and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance.

“In the usual business of interagency consultation, proposals and information flow into the vice president’s office from around the government, but high-ranking White House officials said in interviews that almost nothing flows out. Close aides to Cheney describe a similar one-way valve inside the office, with information flowing up to the vice president but little or no reaction flowing down.”

Mr. Cheney has played a similar role in approving use of extremely inhumane treatment of “terrorist” prisoners (which many believe amounts to torture), gatekeeping Supreme Court nominees, and squelching environmental initiatives - all with a degree of secrecy that is startling. Past vice-presidents have attended state funerals and promoted run-of-the-mill programs, such as Mr. Gore’s efforts to improve the bureaucracy’s efficiency. Not so Mr. Cheney. While the President signs the executive orders and makes the public appearances, Mr. Cheney pulls the strings from his undisclosed locations. The Post report confirms that Mr. Cheney is in fact our co-President, exercising power as Vice-President as it has never been exercised before.

The Candidates and Iraq: Avoiding Reality

A recent Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post recognizes what should by now be obvious to any serious candidate for the presidency: by any reasonable definition the Iraq War is lost. The decision to invade was based on a combination of ignorance, arrogance and deception; the waging of the war was naïve and simple-minded, and the management of the follow-up has been nothing short of a disaster. The surge is most recently defined by General Petraeus as a ten-year effort; that is a time line the American people will not accept. Nor will they accept the Bush/Cheney concept of a new “Korea-type” 50 year involvement. The American people have determined that it is not in the national interest and they are – finally – smarter than their leaders.

So, what is going on with the primary campaigns among both Republicans and Democrats? It seems obvious that the major foreign policy challenge facing America is first, how to extricate itself from Bush’s Iraq fiasco and second, and perhaps more important, to begin to define an appropriate role for the United States in the Middle East and Gulf region post-Iraq. But the campaign rhetoric is largely confined to how long to stay in Iraq, how many troops to leave behind, can Americans face the fact of defeat, and isn’t it about time the Iraqis cleaned up the mess we made.

No one can know what will happen when U.S. troops leave Iraq but we can certainly predict what will happen if we stay because it is happening already – more American deaths, more Iraqi deaths, throwing good American after bad, more Iraqis leaving their country, and a terrific training and recruiting ground for Al Queda.

But to read the press and listen to media news one would think that staying in Iraq was an actual option. It is not and the more time spent pretending otherwise is time lost to the serious effort needed to redefine America’s role in the world in a way that reflects both reality and America’s real national interest. This public discussion needs to begin now and needs to be led by those who would be our next president.

Mitt Romney: All Suit, No Man??

His no-hair-out-of-place look has led some to refer to Mitt Romney as “Governor Perfect”. But former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney has not-so-subtly shifted positions from middle of the road to far right on abortion, stem cell research, gun control, civil unions for gay couples, homosexual adoption, and birth control privacy laws, among others. He has added support for the Iraq adventure to his current repertoire as he courts the right wing of the GOP for primary votes and it is apparent that he will do almost anything, take on any view and change any opinion, to reach the White House.

What would candidate Romney look like in a general election when the extreme right has less influence and any GOP candidate must gain support from independents? He has said that his positions have “evolved” since he left the governorship of Massachusetts and it is probable that they will evolve backwards as time and events demand. He is one more in a long (and growing) line of presidential candidates with no central core of beliefs and should have a large sign on the back of his suit: “Voter Beware”.

In 1968 George Romney, Mitt’s father, was a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination and discovered very late in the game that supporting the Vietnam War was a loser of an issue so he changed his mind, claiming that he had been “brainwashed” by the military (Gene McCarthy commented that a “light rinse would of sufficed”).

Seems like the Romney genes are intact, but going through life on a haircut and a smile do not make for a good president. Now it is up to the American press to put on their big-boy pants and start dealing with issues and the political history of all the candidates and forget about suits, haircuts, slick commercials, and canned responses aimed at narrow interest groups.

Does the Primary System Work?

The recent presidential primary debates have made it clear that both major political parties will be selecting their candidates on the basis of limited purity rather than substance. For the Republican Party it is immigration that is pulling the candidates to the right. For the Democratic Party, withdrawal from Iraq pulls the candidates to the left. Perhaps this is for the best but it seems reasonable to wonder whether there might be a better way to select the two finalists in the process soon to be known as American Political Idol.

The fact that primaries are decided by narrow slices of both parties and that the press plays up one or two issues means that substantive discussion of a wide range of critical issues gets deferred until at least after the primaries and perhaps even after the election. The immigration debate will continue but will never lead to throwing 11 million immigrants out of America – cannot be done and should not be done, regardless of political rhetoric. And while the Iraq invasion was a horrible mistake the reality is that extricating America from that mistake will take time and will require a rethinking of America’s role in that part of the world.

The real loss in the primary race is that one or both parties are largely ignoring major issues that require attention. These include: the cost and availability of health care; the substantive quality of education beyond simply standardized testing; the need to repair the image of America throughout the world; the need for substantive environmental controls; the widening gap between the haves and have-nots; the long-term effect of huge deficits on future generations – the list goes on. But so far the emphases in this election are identified by focus groups in a limited number of primary states and the reporting of the press, which tends to reinforce the numbing vacuity of presidential hopefuls mouthing tired repetitions of unrealistic slogans on self-identified hot button issues.

IRAQ UPDATE: Good Money After Bad

As we enter the fifth year of the Bush Iraq Fiasco, there continue to be amazing stories of rampant corruption, mind-boggling incompetence and a pig-headed obstinate inability to face reality.

The country has been entertained for five months as President Bush resists the congressional majority’s calls for “deadlines” in its funding bill for Iraq. Refusing to accept the inevitable, Bush continues to dream of an as yet undefined “victory” in Iraq while the Congress searches for a veto proof funding bill that will set a timetable for the U.S. to begin to move troops out of Iraq.

The latest move in this political dance macabre is away from “deadlines” to “benchmarks” – apparently a less inflammatory word for Bush but still not acceptable if there are any specific dates applied. This in spite of – or maybe because of – a lack of evidence that the “surge” will be effective in anything other than raising the American death toll while merely delaying the inevitable.

However, one group that is moving toward deadlines is the Iraq Parliament, with a majority of its members signing on to the principle of deadlines for American troops to leave - but agreeing with the American view that the withdrawal should not be precipitous and should be timed to the readiness of Iraqi troops to maintain security. While this might not satisfy either Bush or the Congress, (it is, after all, their country) they are moving toward reality at a faster pace than Bush. Meanwhile the death toll mounts, ca. 100 Americans per month and ca. 100 Iraqis a day.

Another development in Iraq is reminiscent of Paul Wolfowitz’s comment in 2003 that Iraqi oil would pay the costs of reconstruction after a brief victorious battle. That has turned out to be as good an idea as Wolfowitz’s handing his girlfriend a $60G raise and foisting her on the State Department. Turns out that having paid for destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure we are now paying for its reconstruction as well and it is not going well. Iraq oil production is not close to the predicted levels and the NY Times reports today that a draft report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office describes a situation in which from $5 to $15 million a day of Iraqi oil is disappearing – either through government corruption, smugglers or – worse yet – insurgent theft. The latter translates into an oil production program that in effect is bankrolling the insurgents who are killing American troops.

The press cannot seem to come to grips with all of this – choosing to argue about the when and how of withdrawal without ever coming out and saying that withdrawal is inevitable. Defeat is in the air and is a tough pill for politicians and bloviating journalists to swallow with their pride in their throat. It looks an awful lot as though the day is coming and it would seem to be a good idea to start thinking about the future and how we can undo the damage of the miserable mistakes made by Bush and his band of fools. Bush predicted a new world after Iraq and he is going to get it and would be well advised to start thinking about how to interact with that new world.

Finally, it seemed somehow appropriate to have Dick Cheney threatening Iran on a aircraft carrier deck just four years after Bush got into his costume and declared “mission accomplished” – also on a carrier deck. Fact is that Cheney and Bush are in many ways headed for the kind of irrelevance that Tony Blair faced and at least had the sense to resign from office.

Censoring the Troops

Two recent news items indicate the lack of respect this administration holds for the soldiers and marines it sends to Iraq to fight and sometimes to die for the Bush-Cheney Fiasco.

While much of the American press remains huddled in the Green Zone, blogs managed by U.S. servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan have been interesting and useful sources of information for those wishing to understand what life is like for them. While some blogs - or at least some entries on some blogs - have been critical of American strategies and tactics (and rightly so), most have been attempts to communicate reality to readers back home and to share thoughts among themselves.  And there is evidence that the blogs have provided a morale lift for the troops. But, alas, the was is not going so well and since “war is hell” is more than just a slogan the Defense Department has determined that all blogs must be approved by commanding officers.  That is, each entry must be approved. What insulting arrogance!

At almost the same time, a Defense Department official announced this week that servicemen and women below a certain rank would not be allowed to testify before Congressional committees.  Never mind that this regulation will probably not stand (assuming the Congress locates its backbone). It is just one more indication of how this administration really feels about its troops. Insufficient armor, insufficient numbers, lousy medical care at home, extended tours, an incoherent strategy, reduced VA funding and now, an attempt to shut them up.

Campaign Update: The Press

My intention had been to describe my utter despair over the levels to which the American press can sink in discussing a major political campaign. Like, for instance, for Leader Of The Most Powerful Nation In The World.  But Matt Taibbi has done it for me and better than me in a recent Rolling Stone.  A small quote will give a sense of his take on it and you can read the whole piece by going to the Rolling Stone website.

Like Seinfeld, the presidential campaign is essentially a “show about nothing,” a prolonged prime-time character-driven drama crafted around a series of fake conflicts that always get resolved by the end of the program, in this case November 2008. Marcia and Greg make driving-test bet in segment one; Marcia imagines instructor in underwear in middle segments; Marcia and Greg’s bet ends in a tie, family loves each other again. In the old days the presidential show’s writers tended to use actual political issues (Georgie and Hube argue about Vietnam!) as the starting points for their dramatic conflicts — a natural artistic strategy, given that the subject matter was a real election in a giant country teeming with ugly social and economic problems — but in the last few cycles the networks seem to have figured out that you can shoot even a whole season of a presidential race without including any of the boring political shit.

The End of Bush Imperialism?

Is the Bush presidency headed for that special closet, once reserved for Richard Nixon? The signs say “yes”. Bush travels the back alleys of American politics, speaking to veterans organizations, groups of soldiers and their families, those Republican Congressmen and women who will still be seen in public with him, the occasional trade organization and of course, the Poodles – formerly known as the White House Press Corps.

The video clips of the Poodles dancing and singing with Bush and Karl Rove at the White House Press Club dinner were emblematic of the long standing problem of the press throwing away their honor and integrity for “access” to people who mislead and lie to them to get their version of the news in front of readers and viewers.

Senator McCain continues to support the Bush war and has picked up the president’s theme that anyone who votes not to allow more American soldiers to die for his fiasco is – well, hurting their chances of dying for his fiasco. And Bush continues to ignore the will of the American people in pledging to do more of what has not worked in order to avoid being in office when the inevitable occurs. The hypocrisy and cynicism of his and McCain’s stance is mind-boggling. But not surprising, given who they are.

Well, the party is winding down.  The issue of ending our occupation of Iraq is no longer whether, but when, and the press in catching up with the American people in understanding this. Time Magazine, of all things, has announced: An Administration’s Epic Collapse. Leaving only places like the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, John McCain’s website and the dependably neocon opinion journals to support a presidency damaged beyond repair.

But there are almost two years of this presidency for us to survive and a cornered Bush who feels he is not sufficiently respected can be dangerous.  It is time for serious Republican leaders -  especially those in the Senate – to help rein in this train wreck of a  Presidency before it goes completely off the track.

Iraq and Imus: The Press Chooses

The surge does not appear to be working. It’s still early, but the latest development is that al-Sadr has essentially declared war on the US. 10s of thousands march “peaceably” to protest the US’s continued presence, and US military spokesmen say we invaded to establish a democracy [oh?] and the Shia demonstration is democratic so we all deserve a clap on the back - all that’s some spin. But the important development is that al-Satyr has now asked all Iraqis to stop fighting each other and fight the US presence.

Meanwhile, TV news covers not al-Satyr, but Imus and The Revs. Jackson and Sharpton. The Rev said it best: “We have to make a choice - choose us or Im-us.” Lordy, Lordy.

Peter Galbraith on the “Surge”

Peter Galbraith discusses at length Bush’s “surge” strategy in Iraq in the current issue of the New York Review of Books. He is not optimistic and presents a convincing argument that the “war” as defined by Bush is lost and that everything from now on is a delay that will cost lives and bring us no closer to an acceptable solution. One small point in the Galbraith piece is a reminder of the unwillingness of Bush to take responsibility for his actions (not unusual given his personal history) and, more significantly, his ability to blame the victim – in this instance the Iraqi people. Galbraith quotes Bush when asked whether he owed the Iraqi people an apology for not providing adequate post- invasion security:

“Well I don’t, that we didn’t do a better job or they didn’t do a better job?… I think I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude. That’s the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that’s significant enough in Iraq.”

The article provides a  detailed analysis of the situation in Iraq that is very different from what we are being told by the administration. Read it and make your own decision and think about what we are getting from not only the administration but also the mainstream press who are giving the “surge” the benefit of the doubt in the face of a lot of evidence that it is doomed to fail.