Bushfib- no. 2

In his press conference of August 9, 2006, President Bush made several debatable assertions but, to his credit, only one statement which was clearly beyond distortion or obfuscation. By law, the President is required to submit to Congress two reports to include "an assessment of how the Sovereign Government of Iraq is performing in its efforts to achieve a series of specific benchmarks."

According to colunnist Dan Froomkin, writing in White House Watch for washingtonpost.com, Mr. Bush asserted "in the July 15 report that I submitted to Congress, there were indications that they had met about half the benchmarks and some of the political benchmarks they were falling short." However, "progress" had been found in only eight of eighteen benchmarks (o.k., almost half) but the "Initial Benchmark Assessment Report" did not address whether the benchmarks had been met, only whether "progress" had been made. To illustrate: in the case of one of the benchmarks in which progress had been made, the report maintained "progress toward achieving this benchmark has been satisfactory, and we will continue to monitor and engage with the committees to produce a satisfactory effect over the next 60 days." Hence, there were not even "indications" of benchmarks having been met; otherwise, the report would not have differentiated between "progress" and the "effect," which could be measured only over the following 60 days.

Romney's Concept of Service

More on Mitt Romney. Following a speech today in Bettendorf, Iowa, the former Michigan governor took a question from a Rachel Griffiths, who identified herself as a member of Quad City Progressive Action for the Common Good, as well as the sister of an Army major who had served in Iraq. As reported in TPM Cafe, she asked "... how many of your five sons are currently serving in the U.S. military, and if none of them are, how do they plan to support this war on terrorism by enlisting in the U.S. military?" In a long response which touched on support for the volunteer army and the soldiers serving in Iran, and comments about his niece, Romney stated:

It’s remarkable how we can show our support for our nation and one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I’d be a great president. My son, Josh, bought the family Winnebago and has visited 99 counties, most of them with his three kids and his wife.

Griffiths clearly was not amused and asked for her reaction, responded "he told me the way his son shows support for our military and our nation is to buy a Winnebago and ride across Iowa and help him get elected." To give equal time: on the atlantic.com, substituting for Andrew Sullivan, Eric Kleefeld writes "I don't think Mitt Romney is so insensitive that he would intentionally compare the sevice of our troops to people working for his campaign. But I do think he did a great job of putting his foot in his mouth this time."

I don't buy this. I'm not convinced this does not reflect Romney's thinking about himself, service to country, or patriotism. I don't believe he is stupid, that he "put his foot in his mouth." Democrats underestimate this fellow at their peril, just as they always have George W. Bush- the guy who outmaneuvered (with the help of James Baker and others) them in the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election, in the 2002 vote authorizing military action in Iraq, and recently, in expanding the power of the Executive Branch in wiretapping American citizens.

Romney And Abortion

We all know former Governor Mitt Romney has flipped on abortion rights, but a comment he made during the August 5, 2007 televised debate in Iowa throws more, or perhaps less, light on his remarkable conversion.

The debate led off with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News asking Kansas Senator Brownback about the "robo-call," which the campaign calls an "urgent action alert," in which a caller tells the prospective primary voter "as late as 2005, Mitt Romney pledged to support and uphold pro-abortion policies and passed taxpayer funding of abortions in Massachusetts. His wife Ann contributed money to Planned Parenthood. Mitt told the National Abortion Rights Action League that 'you need someone like me in Washington."

Calling the call "desperate and perhaps negative" (perhaps negative?), Romney stated "I changed my position. When I was governor and when I faced an issue of life or death, when the first time a bill came to my desk that related to the life of an unborn child, I came down on the side of life."

So far, so good. This is the Romney position on abortion as he has argued it, roughly "I was for abortion (rights) before I was against it." But later, Romney offered a curious response to Adam T. Waldron of Pocatello, Idaho, who asked "...what is a defining mistake of your life and why?" The former governor said "the greatest mistake was when I first ran for office being deeply opposed to abortion but saying I supported the current law, which was pro-choice and essentially a pro-choice position."

So now Mr. Romney is saying that he always (or at least before he was elected to anything) was pro-life. He did not ever change his mind, according to this formulation, but merely lied about his position. Which makes his previous (oft-repeated) statement that he changed his position... what- a lie?

Stepford GOP

We pause a moment while excoriating, ridiculing, and demeaning the House and Senate Democrats for permitting passage of the euphemistically named "Protect America Act of 2007," which amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 2007 by expanding the executive branch's powers of surveillance. It is true, as the mainstream media emphasizes, that 41 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 17 Democrats (including Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, technically an Independent) voted for this unfortunate measure passed by the Democratic-controlled chambers. However, it is not so widely reported (as demonstrated in this Boston Globe article) and certainly not emphasized, that in the House, two (2) Republicans voted against the measure and in the Senate, 0 (that's zero) Republicans voted "nay." Yep- lots of independent thought in that GOP.

Iraq And The Republicans

Although not the issue I'm most interested in, the Iraq war is the biggest issue in the country, so it's useful to take a look at the comments regarding the U.S. involvement made by the Republican Presidential candidates during the August 5 debate televised by ABC.

Not surprisingly, only Representative Ron Paul, who noted "the war is not going well because the foreign policy is defective," condemned Persian Gulf II. However, the nature of the comments differed dramatically. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, supporting a three-state solution and arguing that there is more to the war than military, asserted "we need a political surge." Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee referred to Saudi Arabia (a bold move for a Republican) and urged that our nation "end our dependency on foreign oil," an unusual, if wise, assertion for a Republican.

Former Governor Tommy Thompson and U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo included a hint of criticism of President Bush. Thompson stated "I've laid out a plan that we have to give all our resources... to our fighting men and women... but beyond that it is not fair (for the soldiers) to shoulder all the burden, to pay for a war that's costing us ten billion dollars a month, that we're not funding, we're just passing it on to our children and grandchildren..." And he cited "a failure of our President and Congress" not to pressure the Iraqi government sufficiently. (The failure of the Bush Administration to supply our soldiers adequately, while passing on a hugh tax cut for the wealthy, is- or should be- one of the great scandals of this Administration.) And Tancredo, while stating "we are in a war with radical Islam," declared "no President should ever send anyone in this military and keep one arm tied behind them." (A note here- this was a common criticism among Americans during the Vietnam War, that President Johnson was foolishly fighting a war of restraint.)

Comments of these four individuals- Tancredo, T. Thompson, Huckabee, Brownback, and Paul- are reasonable, to varying degrees valid, and completely non-partisan and bi-partisan.
That's the good news. The other four candidates- U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter and the three (aside from the non-candidate, Anything for a Buck Fred) leading men- were partisan and irresponsible. Mitt Romney fantasized that Obama "has gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove." (Although given Romney's proclivity for philosophical acrobatics, one nearly expects to learn that he once contributed to the "Obama for Senate" campaign fund.) He proclaimed "it's time... for the people of America to a show huge surge of support including our leaders in Washington for our families and these troops... to make sure this surge is a success." Translation: if this escalation fails, it is ony because of the opposition from not only Democratic members of Congress but also Main Street Americans.

To hearty applause, Duncan Hunter described "the Democratic debate" as "a race to see who could stampede to the exit the quickest" while "not a single Democrat (sic) candidate paused in the rush to the exit to say to our Marines "good job. You guys are fighting and achieving with blood, sweat, and tears what the country needs." Those troop-hating Democrats-the guys who sent our soldiers into a battle without a plan to win the peace, proper supplies, or adequate health care. (Scratch that. That was President Bush.)

But though not the most vitriolic, the saddest remarks came from John McCain, who declared "we will not set a date for surrender as the Democrats continue to do." Echoes of the lovely "stab in the back" argument that served the Nazis so well after World War I, ascribing the loss of that war to invisible enemies. Invisible, as in the reputation for bipartisanship and independence that McCain once coveted.

Terrorism, Pakistan, And Obama

Let's go over a couple of the facts about Pakistan:

-in September, 2006 President Pervez Musharraf negotiated a deal with the tribal warlords of northwestern Pakistan, effectively ceding all control to them, while the Pakistani army would be removed from that region;
-Osama bin Laden is believed to be holed up in northwestern Pakistan;
-The United States pays $80 million a month to Musharraf's government, payments thus far totalling approximately $5.6 billion, presumably for anti-terrorism efforts; and
-the recently released National Intelligence Estimate argues that al-Qaeda has reconstituted itself in northwestern Pakistan and the U.S.A. (or, the "homeland" to those who share the Nazi's fondness for the term) "will face a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years" due primarily to al-Qaeda.

Thus paying attention, on August 1, Barack Obama gave a statement outlining his policy on terrorism. It included the following:

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

The following day, Obama (according to WashingtonPost.com), responding to a question about use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Pakistan), stated "There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss."

In the Presidential debate of 6/3/07 from Manchester, New Hampshire, Senator Clinton, asked if as President she would enact a no-fly zone in Darfur: "well, but we're not going to engage in these hypotheticals"; and about a missile strike against Osama bin Laden that might kill civilians: "I don't think it's useful to be talking in these kinds of abstract hypothetical terms." So on 8/2/07 she criticized Obama's refusal to discuss a hypothetical situation by arguing that he should not be discussing a hypothetical question: "Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons." (If this is incomprehensible to you, you're paying attention.) Of course, Obama's response was not that of a President discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons- but rather that of a candidate, a distinction lost on a candidate who herself refuses to answer "hypotheticals."

Fortunately, Senator Clinton did not criticize Obama's readiness to strike terrorist camps in Pakistan, if necessary, by conventional means. Others,however, were not so reticent. "It is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression that a President would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power," intoned Senator Dodd, aghast that a Presidential candidate might actually tell the American people what he would do as President. Warning "it is important not to unnecessarily inflame the Muslim world," Governor Richardson, in his rush to split infinitives and reassure Muslims, inadvertently implied that Muslims everywhere approve of the terrorism bin Laden and the Taliban have provoked. And still auditioning for Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration, Senator Biden remarked "the way to deal with it is not to announce it but to do it," apparently forgetting that, not currently being President, the Illinois Senator cannot "do it." Obama's statement, Biden continued, puts Musharraf "in the position that makes it virtually impossible for him to do anything other than what he's done, basically cut a deal with the warlords on the border." (Which, obviously, is the situation that Obama's consideration of a strike against terrorist camps is a reasonable response to. This can get very confusing.)

Senator McCain, whose foreign policy expertise has been demonstrated by his steadfast support of Mr. Bush's counterproductive invasion of Iraq, also criticized Obama's stance against the terrorist camps in northwestern Pakistan. And Bush spokesman Tony Snow lectured "our approach to Pakistan is one that not only respects the sovereignty of Pakistan as a sovereign government..." seemingly unaware that when a sovereign government declares a portion of its territory off-limits to its own security forces, it has ceded a significant portion of its sovereignty (and usefulness to a "war on terror.")

What does Senator Obama understand that these guys don't? A "war on terror" must be more than a slogan.

The Republican Media- No. 5

I don't mean to pick on CNN as a part of the pro-Republican media. It would be easy to select items from FOX News to demonstrate a pro-GOP slant. But given that FOX News is a virtual arm of the Republican Party, demonstrating bias there would not prove bias in the mainstream media generally. And besides, one can go to the Republican National Committee's website and get reports nearly as objective as those on FOX News. Herewith an exchange from Larry King's interview with President Cheney televised last night on CNN:

King: "So, those 3,000-plus lives have not died in vain?"
Cheney: (agreeing) "Yes, sir."
King: "So in restrospect you would still go into Iraq."

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 commission) found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization before the U.S. invasion." Further, Acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, in a Defense Department report released in April, 2007 and here summarized by WashingtonPost.com, reported that "captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides 'all confirmed' that Hussein's regime was not cooperating with al-Qaeda before the invasion of Iraq."

Sure, the Administration has been trying since that disastrous day in 2001 to make the linkage between al-Qaeda and the late Saddam Hussein. According to TIME.com, NBC reported that former NATO commander-in-chief General Wesley Clarke stated that "people in and around the White House had made a concerted push to link 9/11 to Iraq and... he was urged to make that link during his TV appearances." CBS, TIME noted, reported that "Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had urged his aides to begin making the case for striking Saddam as well as bin Laden within hours of the atacks."

Richard A. Clarke, the counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council on September 11, 2001, recounted in his book Against All Enemies Inside America's War on Terror- What Really Happened this regime's push for war by manufacturing a link. Shortly after the attacks, Wolfowitz told Clarke (who had argued that only al Qaeda was "an immediate and serious threat to the United States") "you give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1999 attack on New York without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."

So Larry King conflates our incursion into Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. And therein repeats a key Republican talking point, the myth that Iraq was involved with the attacks, thereby suggesting a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. And this is repeated throughout "the liberal media."