Them Dems

archived: 23 - 29 Sep, 2007         Back                 Next

UPDATED:  SEP 27, 2007

                        SQUARING REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY  

FPOTUS Clinton directly takes on the Republicans for their attacks on MoveOn’s advertisement in the New York Times on Gen. Petraeus’ report to Congress on Iraq.  The House of Representatives

overwhelmingly voted to condemn the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org for a recent advertisement attacking the top U.S. general in Iraq. 

By a 341-79 vote, the House passed a resolution praising the patriotism Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and condemning a MoveOn.org ad that referred to Petraeus as "General Betray Us." 

The liberal group's full-page ad appeared earlier this month in The New York Times and has served as a rallying point for Republicans. President Bush called the ad "disgusting" and criticized Democrats such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the party's nomination, for being afraid of irritating the group.

President Clinton makes the critical point; the Republicans attacking MoveOn are the same ones who have elevated attacks on opponents’ patriotism to an art form.  His interview is a must watch for every Democrat as it is a classic demonstration of how Democrats should stand up to Republicans.  It can be found at this link: 

CLINTON INTERVIEW                       

MOVEON’S NY TIMES AD WAS CORRECT: GENERAL PETRAEUS HAS BETRAYED US
[BY ED CIACCIO]  

Is being asked whether you will “betray us” (a play on the name of Cheney/Bush’s chief propaganda tool, the multiple medal-bedecked General David Petraeus) in a full-page NY Times ad, worse than being called an “ass-kissing little chickenshit” by his commanding officer?  Is it worse than his putting his own career prospects ahead of the lives of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers? Is it worse than his continuing to promote a disastrously failed policy based on lies and constituting war crimes, including the supreme war crime? Is it worse than his ignoring facts as well as reality, misrepresenting the truth, and lying outright with lives in the balance? 

If you answered yes to any of these questions, stop reading here. 

However, if you’ve read this far, what follows is an explanation of why denouncing the September 10, 2007 MoveOn NY Times ad is not only a waste of time and energy, but it actually plays into the distract-from-the real-issues strategy so successfully employed by Republicans over the last 13 years and which is now being pushed even harder to revive support for an unpopular war and occupation. 

Republicans seized on the MoveOn.org ad because they have nothing else to offer but foolishly repeating Cheney/Bush/Petraeus bullshit.  And, as George Lakoff points out, this paints them into the corner of defending those who HAVE BETRAYED US: Cheney, Bush, Petraeus, and the rest of the warmongers.  If you doubt they, including Petraeus, HAVE betrayed us, especially our troops stuck in Iraq, pay attention: 

Petraeus had already lied in 2004 about "progress"in Iraq in his NY Times op-ed, published just before the 2004 Presidential Election.  This purposely-timed op-ed identified him as a political tool of Cheney/Bush and a shill for their destructive, disastrous policies.  He put his career prospects above his duty as a military man, exaggerating the "progress" made in Iraq to ingratiate himself to the war criminals running our country, helping them to keep our troops in Iraq for years more.

 

Petraeus’ own commanding officer, CENTCOM Commander Admiral William Fallon, recognized Petraeus “…as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting…Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be ‘an ass-kissing little chickenshit’ and added, ‘I hate people like that"’, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.” (Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge By Gareth Porter http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235)

 

As clinching proof that the Cheney/Bush/Petraeus "surge" had already been abandoned as a failure, a month BEFORE Petraeus' Congressional "performance", the provincial government in Kurdistan, defying the central Iraqi government, passed its own oil law.  It signed a production-sharing deal with the Hunt Oil Company of Dallas. Ray L. Hunt, chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of George W. Bush. Hunt is also a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. As Paul Krugman comments, "Some commentators have expressed surprise at the fact that a businessman with very close ties to the White House is undermining U.S. policy." (see Paul Krugman: A Surge, and Then a Stab http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/09/paul-krugman-surge-then-stab.html

Petraeus' recently-revealed comments about intending to run for president some day, and his shameful Congressional "testimony" (i.e. propaganda), have cemented his stature a one of the prime BETRAYERS of our country, especially of the U.S. troops being kept for many years in the slaughterhouse of Iraq so Cheney/Bush can: 

1. control Iraq's oil, thereby controlling China, Japan, India, and Europe, our biggest economic competitors;

 

2. keep the mega-profits rolling into their corporatist/militarist cronies who control BOTH our major political parties and our foreign and domestic policies;

 

3. secure new bases in the heart of the Middle East to replace the ones Bush closed in Saudi Arabia in 2003 (as Osama bin Laden demanded) and to be a jumping-off point for aggression against Iran, Syria, Jordan and, eventually, Pakistan. 

Wearing a uniform does NOT (and should not EVER) protect anyone from criticism.  If he lied (and he did, repeatedly), HE dishonored his uniform; MoveOn's ad, which asked if he WOULD betray us, did not (by then, he already had betrayed us).  Complaints about "insulting a man in uniform" who defends war crimes remind me of the words of Marlon Brando's Col. Kurtz character in Coppola's Apocalypse Now: "They train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write fuck on their airplanes because it's obscene! " 

The whole, tiresome cliché of "respecting the uniform" must be retired or we will never grow up as a people and a nation in the 21st century.  Gen. Westmoreland disgraced his uniform when he lied before Congress in 1967 to support President Lyndon Johnson's failing policies in Vietnam.  He was justifiably discredited for that.  How is what Gen. Petraeus did any different?  Should we kneel in deference to everyone in a uniform?  Col. Oliver North in his Marine Corps uniform as he lied about Iran-Contra?  Lieut. William Calley during his trial for the My Lai massacre?   

Calley was partially responsible for the murder of over 300 Vietnamese villagers; Cheney, Bush, and, by his complicit support, Petraeus, are responsible for the violent deaths of over ONE MILLION Iraqis, in addition to the deaths of over 3,700 U.S. troops and the horrible maiming of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, more. 

These are the brutal facts which Democrats as well as Republicans, not to mention the other corporate whores who pretend  to "report" the news in this country, WILL NOT face, and which we ALL MUST keep repeating because they are the truth.  And the following "inconvenient truths" must NEVER be forgotten: 

1. Committing what Nuremberg Trials Chief Prosecutor (and U.S. Supreme Court Justice) Robert Jackson, referring to Nazi Germany's 1939 invasion of Poland, called "the supreme international crime" under which all other war crimes are contained (see Aggressive War: Supreme International Crime http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904A.shtml), Cheney/Bush waged an unnecessary war of aggression against Iraq, a nation severely weakened by the 1991 Gulf War and the following 12 years of murderous sanctions under Bush I and Clinton, and which never posed any threat to the U.S. or any of its own neighbors.  Justice Jackson declared, in an eerily prescient statement, "If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

 

2. Following the Holocaust, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." Cheney/Bush, and, by complicit extension, all those who support their monstrous "supreme international crime" (Including Petraeus), are guilty of this "accumulated evil " by their numerous war crimes, crimes against humanity, and serious violations of U.S. and international laws, including the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter (former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared the Iraq War illegal), and the Geneva Conventions.

 

3. Documented destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure (including hospitals and water-treatment facilities, which is now causing a cholera epidemic in northern Iraq) under the 12 years of the Bush I-Clinton sanctions as well as Cheney/Bush's war of aggression; already-documented use of weapons such as depleted uranium (which will cause fatal cancers in our troops as well as Iraqis and birth deformities in future generations of Americans and Iraqis whose parents were exposed to it), napalm (Mark-77 firebombs), white phosphorous, and cluster bombs; killings of Iraqis by U.S. and British troops in retaliation for coalition casualties; and torture are ALL war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Compare these acts to asking whether Gen. Petraeus will betray us.

 

4. Rewriting Iraq's constitution and all its laws, especially to favor U.S. corporations, as L. Paul Bremer did under Cheney's orders, violates the Geneva Conventions.

 

5. As a result of the illegal, unprovoked war crime of the U.S. invasion, Iraq is now suffering ethnic cleansing as Sunnis and Shias are forced to flee to respective sectarian enclaves.  Over 2 million Iraqis are refugees inside Iraq, and more than 2 million others have fled to already-overcrowded Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon, causing what the U.N. refugee agency calls a major humanitarian crisis.

 

6. More than ONE MILLION Iraqis, including over 500,000 children, died as a result of the Bush I-Clinton sanctions.  More than ONE MILLION have died of the violence following Dick Cheney & George Bush's 2003 "liberation" of Iraq.  TWO MILLION unnecessary, preventable Iraqi deaths (in a nation of 26 million) in 15 years under three U.S. Presidents constitute genocide. 

So don't waste any more time and energy talking about NY Times ads.  Talk about war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and polluting the environment with birth defect-causing toxins.  Talk about putting these war criminals away for life.  Talk about justice, the only sure way to peace.

_____________________________________________

UPDATED:  SEP 23, 2007

                        FILIBUSTER  

Republicans mount the Senate procedural barricades by employing the filibuster on a growing list of legislative initiatives.  It is a conscious, deliberate strategy to thwart the majority will.  Republicans are on target to exceed all previous records for employing the filibuster as the chart immediately below denotes. 

The New York Times editorially demonstrated its frustration not by first lashing the Republican minority that is thwarting votes on bills addressing the most serious issues facing America, but points a damning finger first at Democrats and then the Republicans: 

 The Democrats don’t have, or can’t summon, the political strength to make sure Congress does what it is supposed to do: debate profound issues like these and take a stand. The Republicans are simply not interested in a serious discussion and certainly not a vote on anything beyond Mr. Bush’s increasingly narrow agenda. 

On Wednesday, the Senate failed to vote on two major bills. One would have restored basic human rights and constitutional protections to hundreds of foreigners who are in perpetual detention, without charges or trial. The other was the one measure on the conduct of the Iraq war that survived the Democrats’ hasty retreat after last week’s smoke-and-mirrors display by Gen. David Petraeus and President Bush. 

There were votes, of course, but not on the bills. They were cloture votes, which require 60 or more Senators to agree to cut off debate, eliminating the possibility of a filibuster, so Senators can vote on the actual law. In both cases, Democrats were four votes short, with six Republicans daring to defy the White House.  

We support the filibuster as the only way to ensure a minority in the Senate can be heard. When the cloture votes failed this week, the Democrats should have let the Republicans filibuster. Democratic leaders think that’s too risky, since Congress could look like it’s not doing anything. But it’s not doing a lot now. 

The country needs a lot more debate about what must be done to contain Iraq’s chaos and restore civil liberties sacrificed to Mr. Bush’s declared war on terrorism. Voters are capable of deciding whether Republicans are holding up the Senate out of principle or political tactics. 

The current Republican leadership, now in the minority, has organized its entire agenda around the filibuster. In July, the McClatchy newspaper group reported that Republicans were using the threat of filibuster more than at any other time in the nation’s history. 

Remember, this is the same batch of Republican senators who denounced Democrats as obstructionist and even un-American and threatened to change the Senate’s rules when Democrats threatened filibusters in 2005 over a few badly chosen judicial nominees. Now Republicans are using it to prevent consideration of an entire war.

Obviously, the New York Times has not read Senate Rule 22.  In 1975, Rule 22 was amended to allow 41 Senators to state their intention to filibuster.  Upon reaching the required number, the legislation is removed from consideration.  The Majority Leader, in this case Sen. Reid, has the authority to force a vote on cloture, making the minority prove that they in fact have the 41 votes necessary to filibuster.  The New York Times simply ignores the fact that Sen. Reid did what Rule 22 requires by making Republicans vote publicly.  The New York Times lashes Democrats for not employing a strategy that they have no right to mount under Rule 22.   

Democrats everywhere must simply keep making the case to the public that it is the Republicans who are preventing votes in the US Senate. The message for citizens is simple:  if you want the US Senate to vote on critical legislation elect more Senate Democrats.   

BUSH BOUNCE 

After a slow August, public polling firms have returned to a full schedule of polls following Labor Day.  Nine polls have been released (see chart at the end of this article), already equaling the number of all polls released in August.  

Fundamentally, Bush’s “approval” rating has increased only slightly; +.78%.  Bush’s approval rating remains in the low 30% range, where it has been stuck since June.     

The increase comes almost entirely from the Fox/Opinion Dynamic Poll that finds Bush’s approval rating up +5% in a single month.  If Fox/ Opinion Dyn results are removed, Bush’s approval rate would have risen by only .25%.    

Another pattern is that Bush’s bounce in the polls, as anemic as it is, seems to be losing steam.  This fact is ably demonstrated by comparing poll results for the last three months for all polling firms that have published a poll in September and polls in both July and August (see chart immediately below).  

The patterns are unmistakable.  From July to September, the rise in Bush’s approval ratings is as follows: 

AP-Ipsos           +/-0%
CBS                 +2%
CBS/NYT          +1%
Fox/OD             +5%
Newsweek         +3%
Pew                  +2%
USA Today        +4% 

From August to September, only Fox/Opinion Dyn shows improvement in Bush’s approval rating:   

AP-Ipsos           -2%
CBS                 +/-0%
CBS/NYT          +0%
Fox/OD             +4%
Newsweek         +0%
Pew                  +0%
USA Today        -1% 

AP-Ipsos

9/10-12/07

33

64

3

-31

AP-Ipsos

8/6-8/07

35

62

3

-27

AP-Ipsos

7/9-11/07

33

65

2

-32

 

 

 

 

 

 

CBS

9/14-16/07

29

64

7

-35

CBS

8/8-12/07

29

65

6

-36

CBS

6/26-28/07

27

65

8

-38

 

 

 

 

 

 

CBS/New York Times

9/4-8/07

30

64

6

-34

CBS/New York Times

7/20-22/07

30

62

8

-32

CBS/New York Times

7/9-17/07

29

64

7

-35

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOX/Opinion Dynamics

9/11-12/07

37

58

6

-21

FOX/Opinion Dynamics

8/21-22/07

33

56

11

-23

FOX/Opinion Dynamics

7/17-18/07

32

61

7

-29

 

 

 

 

 

 

Newsweek

8/1-2/07

29

63

8

-34

Newsweek

7/11-12/07

29

64

7

-35

Newsweek

7/2-3/07

26

65

9

-39

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pew

9/12-16/07

31

59

10

-28

Pew

8/1-18/07

31

59

10

-28

Pew

7/25-29/07

29

61

10

-32

 

 

 

 

 

 

USA Today/Gallup

9/7-8/07

33

62

5

-29

USA Today/Gallup

8/3-5/07

34

62

4

-28

USA Today/Gallup

7/6-8/07

29

66

5

-37

The central dynamics over the past eight months remain unchanged.  Bush has held his Republican base and most recently as recaptured some Republican support he had lost.  The limits of Bush’s “bounce” are also evident.  At the same time that Bush’s average monthly approval rating increases by +.78%, Bush’s disapproval rating increased +.21%, a clear sign that perceptions of Bush’s performance in  office, both positive and negative, are simply hardening.

In our estimation, Bush’s strategists no longer seek to persuade the public at large.  Bush’s strategy is more limited.  Bush strives only to hold his Republican base to retain the support of a sufficient number of Republican Senators to successfully filibuster any legislation or block meaningful Congressional oversight that threatens his policy agenda.  Dr. Steven Jonas, TPJ’s Contributing Author, outlined the broad parameters of Bush’s strategy in his series, “The Most Successful American President: George W. Bush:”

Thus, when one looks at the BushCheney (or CheneyBush, as I have said, your choice) record, is this a “failed Presidency?”  Hardly.  Bush set out to achieve what I have on more than one occasion termed a “coup d’etat in slow motion.”  BushCheney does measure success in terms of polls.  Forget the polls.  We must look at what he has done and continues to do with the control of the Executive Branch that he has. . . .

It now becomes clear that Bush, without, then with, and now again without full control of Congress, has accomplished virtually every one of his objectives, some probably beyond the Georgites’ wildest dreams of success.  He did this primarily because he and Cheney and Rove and their minions had a very well thought-out plan for doing so.  This man is not impotent.  He is highly competent.  In terms of his own terms, he is not a failure by any stretch of the imagination.  In fact, when you compare what he has achieved of the goals that he set out to achieve with what any other US President achieved in terms of his goals, Bush is indeed the most successful President of the United Sates, ever.  What can be done with this knowledge and insight, if anyone in the political arena has the will to do so, will, of course be the subject of more than one future column. 

Bush’s control of the Executive Branch, combined with Republican dominance in the judiciary, has left Congress emasculated as a co-equal branch of government.  Congress issues subpoenas; Republicans simply ignore them. Bush directs the Justice Department to ignore its responsibility to enforce the subpoenas on Congress’ behalf, leaving effective Congressional oversight neutered.  Democrats in Congress introduce legislation to curb Bush’s excesses; a staunch Republican minority filibusters while Bush continues to assume ever growing powers.

In the history of the United States, no President has so willingly governed in defiance of public opinion or principals of constitutional government.  Ron Suskind authored an article (no longer available online) documenting the Republican Party’s intentional disconnect from the public will:     

"He [Bush] truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence", Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan advisor and former treasury official told Suskind.  . . .

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' – The Raw Story (emphasis added)  

_____

TPJ'S BUSH WATCH

 

 

Approve

Trail Mo

Disapprove

No Opinion

Spread

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CBS

9/14-16/07

29

 

64

7

-35

Pew

9/12-16/07

31

 

59

10

-28

FOX/Opinion Dyn

9/11-12/07