This is excellent - From TruthOut -Willaim Rivers Pitt

[Lyle]

Iraq and the Democrats
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 08 December 2005

There is a tactic in the art of debate and argument known as "Rejecting the premise." To wit: when someone tosses a straw-man into a debate, you are wise to point it out as such, instead of validating its existence by arguing against it. A perfect example of where this can apply comes in the latest round of nonsense from the far Right about a so-called "War on Christmas."

Person #1: "Do you think the liberal elite are aiding in the war against Christmas?"

Person #2: "I reject the premise. There is no war against Christmas. Christmas is doing just fine."

Here's another good one. Vice President Cheney was speaking on Tuesday to troops at Fort Drum, NY.

Cheney: "Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq, we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq, and the terrorists hit us anyway."

Me: "I reject the premise. The fact that we had not invaded Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. As Richard Cohen said of Cheney's comments in Thursday's Washington Post, 'Yes, and the crowing of the rooster makes the sun come up. Cause and effect is being mocked here.'"

See? It's that simple. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?

There is a cluster of Democrats who could learn about rejecting the premise, especially when it comes to the occupation of Iraq. The most recent and galling example came after Congressman John Murtha made his courageous demand for a withdrawal from Iraq. Murtha is the guy the generals talk to, because the generals know they are wasting their breath trying to talk to Rumsfeld, Cheney or Bush. Murtha knows exactly how bad things are in Iraq. His call for withdrawal specifically said that such an action should come "at the earliest practicable date."

Nowhere but nowhere in the text of Murtha's resolution were the words "immediate withdrawal" to be found. The reaction of congressional Republicans, however, was to paint Murtha's call as exactly that, a "cut-and-run" demand for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The "immediate withdrawal" GOP talking point was broadbanded across the media spectrum, and was used in a farcical legislative attempt to derail the conversation. Congressional Republicans tossed up a resolution demanding "immediate withdrawal," daring the Democrats to vote for it.

Scott Shields, writing on the MyDD blog, pegged it perfectly. "My advice to the entire Democratic caucus," wrote Shields when this garbage GOP resolution was introduced, "is to not take the bait. Theentire caucus should abstain from voting altogether. And the Republicans should be called out for their bullying tactics. The Democrats must make it clear to anyone who will listen that this 'Murtha vote' is not a vote on the Murtha resolution at all, but rather a caricature of his resolution, thrown together by hot headed Republicans, eager to jam up the opposition."

Was this advice heeded? Did we hear, "I reject the premise that Murtha's resolution called for immediate withdrawal" and expose the GOP's scurrilous actions for what they were? Hardly. A bunch of dumb Democrats instead took the bait and threw Rep. Murtha under the bus. They knocked over furniture and old people in their rush to the microphones, where they validated the GOP talking point about "immediate withdrawal" by defending themselves against it.

Senator Clinton got up and said immediate withdrawal would be a "big mistake" before beginning a hare-brained crusade against flag-burning.

Senator Biden echoed Clinton by saying immediate withdrawal would be a mistake, never bothering to point out that "immediate withdrawal" was not part of Murtha's resolution.

Governor Mark Warner of Virginia, in rejecting Murtha's non-existent call for immediate withdrawal, said, "This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into the Iraq war. I think we need to focus more on how to finish it." Great work, Governor. Rather than call this administration to account for the manner in which we were dragged into this disaster, let's give them a pass and trust them to do the right thing in the future. Brilliant. Oh, psssst, Murtha never said "immediate withdrawal" in his resolution. Pass it on.

Senator Lieberman, whose pandering to Republican extremism has reached an extraordinary level of sublime hilarity, outstripped his fellow Democrats by orders of magnitude. On top of dismissing "immediate withdrawal," he went on to say, "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years. We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

It should be noted that Murtha thumped Lieberman's defense of Bush but good. "Undermining his credibility?" asked Murtha. "What has he said that would give him credibility?" That, friends and neighbors, is a golden example of rejecting the premise.

Joementum wants us to do as we are told, shut up, and accept the Bush/Cheney view of things. Criticism of the administration is tantamount to treason. Let the word go forth from this time and place that silence is golden and critics are aiding terrorism. Even for Joe, this was a spectacular statement. One wonders if the word on the street about him replacing Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense has anything to do with this gibberish. From the sound of things, he already believes himself to be a member of Bush's Cabinet.

Sadly, four Democratic ninnies cuddled right up to it, validating a GOP talking point intended to destroy debate on the signal issue of our day. Clinton, Biden, Warner, Lieberman ... what do these four have in common? As far as can be seen, they share one common characteristic: they all think they will be President after 2008.

Wesley Clark, another Democrat who hopes to be redecorating the Oval in 2009, took the whole thing one big step further with an editorial in Tuesday's New York Times titled "The Next Iraq Offensive." The article detailed a series of troop maneuvers that would redeploy American and Iraqi forces along the borders with Syria and Iran. Clark warned that Iraq was becoming a Shia-dominated buffer state that serves to protect Iran, and that a radical shift in tactics must be undertaken to avoid the creation of an Iran/Iraq superstate. At bottom, Clark said the United States must remain in Iraq, and that his plan was one that could achieve victory in this conflict.

It was a cogent and effective argument centered around an undeniable fact: this occupation has empowered Shia fundamentalism in Iraq, said fundamentalism being deeply tied to Shia fundamentalism in Iran. This union poses a danger to the Mideast region and, in the long run, a danger to the United States both at home and abroad. There is one significant dent in Clark's thinking, however. In making his argument, he accepted a number of premises that should be rejected as deeply flawed.

Here's the deal: we invaded Iraq to establish a permanent, muscular military presence in the Middle East; we invaded Iraq to take control of their petroleum reserves for the next hundred years, a pretty little piggy bank in a world where oil is becoming harder to find; we invaded Iraq so we could use our military presence there to attack and invade several other countries in the region; we invaded Iraq to establish strategic positioning for any economic and/or resource struggles with China and Russia; we invaded Iraq because administration officials who think they are members of the Likud Party believed this war would serve to protect and defend the state of Israel; we invaded Iraq so a bunch of military contractors with umbilical ties to the administration could get paid.

All of this is enshrined in the codicils of the Project for a New American Century, the organization whose membership rolls include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Libby and a pile of others who have crafted our insane foreign policy and thrown us into this mess. This is what they wanted. They've been planning it for years, well before they ever got into the White House with Bush. For them, victory had nothing to do with defeating Hussein or fighting terrorism or establishing democracy. Victory means we stay in Iraq forever.

Period. End of file.

When Wesley Clark and these other Democratic aspirants talk about "winning" in Iraq before we get out, they accept a premise that should be rejected out of hand. For the architects of this war, victory has already been achieved, and all arguments in favor of remaining in Iraq until impossible goals are reached strengthen that victory. There is no democracy at the end of this tunnel, only more tunnel.

When Wesley Clark and these other Democratic aspirants talk about "winning" in Iraq, they buy into the fantasy that there is anything to win. The invasion and occupation created a breeding ground for terrorism, immeasurably strengthened the resolve of Islamic fanaticism, ravaged the US treasury, and has seriously weakened our ability to defend ourselves against other global threats.

We cannot stay in Iraq. Were we to withdraw tomorrow, we would sow the seeds of future bloodshed and risk an all-out civil war. We would compound the crime already committed against the Iraqi people. But if we stay, if we buy into the idea that remaining in Iraq will cure these problems, we do exactly the same thing.

Rep. Murtha was right. It is the presence of American troops in Iraq that inspires the violence today. The solution, therefore, is beyond sloganeering or open-ended promises that cannot be fulfilled. We have to exit Iraq, but we must do so far more responsibly than the manner in which we first arrived there. We need a plan that involves international cooperation with organizations like NATO and the Arab League. The Iraqi people must be given the help they need to take over the security and economy of their own country, but this help cannot be provided by the United States. We do no good there, but only harm.

We absolutely need a timetable established for this to happen. Some have argued that the "terrorists" will use a timetable for withdrawal against us. This may be true, but such statements blue-sky right past a glaring reality: they are presently using the lack of a timetable for withdrawal against us, they are doing so effectively, and the body count continues to rise because of it.

An exit from Iraq is the only rational course of action. How and when we do it must become the central point of discussion in American politics. Timetables for that withdrawal must be established, and a real plan must be agreed upon. This administration, which has no interest in withdrawal for its own nefarious reasons, must be forced to accept this.

Democrats who aspire to higher office must not derail this process by accepting GOP talking points, talking points which serve to do little more than ensure that we will still be in Iraq when our great-grandchildren are old enough to vote.

Take all the rhetoric you've heard from Republicans and Democrats alike regarding "winning" in Iraq, wad it up, throw it into a metal wastecan, and set it on fire. Put all the talk about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda alliances and Hussein was a bad man and bringing democracy to the torch. Give this nonsense a good, old-fashioned Viking funeral, which provides far more of a dignified departure from this world than it deserves. Cast the ashes to the wind. Salt the earth where the ashes fall so that nothing so pestilently wrong can grow there.

We can win nothing in Iraq. We can only hope to survive the incredible disaster that has been foisted upon us. Rejecting the premise of "winning" is the first step toward that survival. Rejecting wrong-headed, deliberately misleading GOP talking points would be a good idea, as well. Getting out of Iraq is the only sane, sensible, responsible course of action. Any Democrats who hope to be President should heed this. They are ten steps behind the rest of the country, and when they buy into the nonsense, they only ensure their electoral doom.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Kicked and recommended.... great job Will... great job. nt.

[jackster]

2. Will Pitt Delivers AGAIN!

Excellent!

[jarnocan]

5. true- love Murtha's line also move on petition link

"Undermining his credibility?" asked Murtha. "What has he said that would give him credibility?" That, friends and neighbors, is a golden example of rejecting the premise".
http://political.moveon.org/iraq/?id=6502-4062925-9IsK.OHLizFQ24tlblWm7A&t=1 Don't forget to give Alantic Monthly Dec. issues as a HOLIDAY stocking stuffer.

[calimary]

42. He's always excellent. He's been hitting 'em out of the ballpark for

quite some time now. No exception here, either.

[radio4progressives]

3. bookmarked and kicked! n/t

[TahitiNut]

4. When you're in a lose-lose game, STOP PLAYING!

That's the only sane 'answer' to this clusterfuck of a war crime.

[emdee]

6. That deserves a standing ovation....

It should not have taken this long to figure out the "reject the premise" stance. From the day I heard "Question Bush or you are unpatriotic" and "Aren't you happy there is a Christian in the White House" and everything the Swift Boat Liars ever said - I wondered why in the world "we" were accepting the premise they set forth and why "we" were arguing what they deemed our view to be rather than our actual viewpoint?

I hope that all of our elected officials read this article.
emdee

[katty]

7. people are dying in Iraq & elsewhere, but RW yammer on

with their stupid drivel-about x-mas

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. A brilliant expose, William.

I felt pretty sick that, while I was infuriated at Lieberman's duplicity, I hadn't spotted that his warning, "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril", was precisely that dupicitous technical device, the strawman. Now I feel a lot happier about it, as I've realised that it's unique for any leader not to have any credibility. We're creatures of habit aren't we? All the greater credit to you and Murtha. And poor old Lieberman's bad luck!!!! But what does it does it tell us about Lieberman...? Or should I say remind us about him?

[Pam-Moby]

9. Once again William Rivers Pitt hit the nail on the head.

I agree with all of this. Great insight William. You rock! :applause:

[Lyle]

10. My favorite part of this article is this:

"Here's the deal: we invaded Iraq to establish a permanent, muscular military presence in the Middle East; we invaded Iraq to take control of their petroleum reserves for the next hundred years, a pretty little piggy bank in a world where oil is becoming harder to find; we invaded Iraq so we could use our military presence there to attack and invade several other countries in the region; we invaded Iraq to establish strategic positioning for any economic and/or resource struggles with China and Russia; we invaded Iraq because administration officials who think they are members of the Likud Party believed this war would serve to protect and defend the state of Israel; we invaded Iraq so a bunch of military contractors with umbilical ties to the administration could get paid."

It just sums up SO much!!!!

[SeanQ]

11. Bravo!!!

[unhappycamper]

12. Lyle:

Please be aware that DU copyright rules require that excerpts of copyrighted material be limited to four paragraphs and must include a link to the original source.

In the future, please insure your posts adhere to this standard.

TIA,

unhappycamper
DU Moderator

[Lyle]

13. Whoops!

Sorry about that. Thank you for letting me know.

[unhappycamper]

15. You have one hour from time of post to make changes.

You should be able to shorten that post up before the clock expires. . .

Thanks,
uhc

[WilliamPitt]

16. Well

Since I posted the whole thing earlier myself, I can hardly complain. ;)

[donheld]

29. This time you can recommend yourself

:D Hugh did.

[Einstein99]

23. What is this n/t thing I keep seeing?

Since you are a moderator, I thought I'd put the question to you.:)

[ailsagirl]

35. It means there's "no text" in the message other than what's in

the subject line...

:)

[RJRoss]

14. Excellent column!

I visit truthout.org every day hoping to find something new from WRP. Gotta love this line:

"There is no democracy at the end of this tunnel, only more tunnel."

[WilliamPitt]

17. Thanks!

[sellitman]

48. Unfortunately this conforms my fear about having "The Good General' as ...

our President. He think of Military victories over political , moral and strategic design. Too bad....because the vociferous Clarkies here on DU had almost won me over. Russ Feingold is looking better and better every day. Thanks for the great piece as always Will.

Kevin

[dogman]

50. You can repeat that worn meme forever, but it still is not true.

Clark writes that military force is only a tool to achieve political success. He has come up with a strategy that offers a chance of avoiding total defeat and bringing about a larger regional conflict. That is the moral thing to do. Feingold's plan is fine assuming no change in strategy by Bushco. His plan too, is unlikely to be adopted however.

[sellitman]

51. I agree with Will and Russ

We cannot win a military victory in Iraq. We just fundamentally disagree. Clark is a General. He thinks like one. I want a diplomat and a Statesman. Simple.

[dogman]

52. Clark is also a diplomat and statesman.

He was deeply involved in the Dayton Peace Accords. He is writing about a three legged solution, only one of which is the military. Without political and economic reform it is not sufficient. Reread what he has written and recently blogged on his site and you will see he is describing an overall strategy. Will acknowledges that Clark is correct that the current policy is a victory for Iran. The problem he has with Clark's solution as I read it, is that it will not be adopted by Bushco. He then points out that there may be a political price to be paid for not jumping on the "out now" bandwagon. Clark is not a normal politician and is more concerned about what is right for the US and the world than his own political ambitions. The "out now" strategy is also no guarantee of political success at the national level in the general election.

[sellitman]

59. But....

Posted by dogman :The "out now" strategy is also no guarantee of political success at the national level in the general election.

It is a guarantee of my support though.

[dogman]

66. Didn't we support Kerry?

We're still on the outside looking in while they destroy our country.

[sellitman]

67. In the election yes....

But not in the primary. In the primary I want a candidate who will end the occupation immediately, not commit more troops to a loosing cause. Russ in my opinion will bring them home sooner.

[dogman]

68. I understand, but that still begs the question.

Can he win a General Election? He's not my first choice, obviously, and I would support him just as I did Kerry. I personally fear the same result.

[sellitman]

69. If Diebold machines are counting JFK could run and we would loose.

If the votes are honest....I believe this country would elect Russ.

[triguy46]

18. Kick!

[rman]

19. as usual

[Angry Girl]

20. Well said. These important tactics muct be learned

Where's George Lakoff these days anyway? And I don't understand why we can't apply the Amway model and create our own echo chamber, dammit. We're technologically and intellectually superior in every way but the simpletons have a loud cheering section with catchy sound bytes. As much as I love reading a well-written essay, understand that 85% of America can't understand, let alone read such a thing. We need dems on TV all repeating short, easy-to-remember memes, over and over and over, just like a marketing campaign. Get the terms associated in the subsconscience of the average American: "The GOP culture of corruption" (thanks, Pelosi, for that vote), "Bush manipulated WMD intelligence," "Diebold rigged the elections". No, it's not subtle but it works.

[Peace Patriot]

58. "...understand that 85% of America can't understand..."--Angry Girl

Where did you get this stat from? 58% of the American people opposed the war on Iraq BEFORE the invasion (Feb. 03). 58%! Across the board in all polls. It's over 70% today. What can the great majority of Americans NOT understand? They are way ahead of most of the Democratic Party leadership, and have been for two years (on ALL Bush policy, as a matter of fact--way up in the 60% to 70% range; read the issue polls, you will be amazed).

The ONLY issue on which they could be called "sheeple" is the Bushite corporate takeover of the election system with that $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle that Congress provided--but this happened too fast for ordinary people to get onto it in time, and it happened way under the radar, assisted by the lunacy or corruption/collusion of the Dem Party leadership. See my post below. The only thing I disagree with Will on, is that there will likely be "electoral" consequences for War Democrats. I'm afraid that that is not in the cards (i.e., won't compute, in the secret, proprietary programming code by which our votes are 'tabulated').

[Autonomy]

60. Where did you get those stats?

I remember 70% approving of the Iraq war, 68% believing Saddam attacked the US on 9/11, and Bush's approval rating at over 90% after 9/11. Could you post a link to the stats you've cited?

[Angry Girl]

64. You miss the point and I'm pretty disgusted by your behavior

You miss my point, which is fine, I'm not always very clear. But I think it's pretty damn obvious that 85% is not a hard stat and to take that fraction of a quote of mine, without the context, and display it in your post header as some kind of nasty attempt to discredit me, that's pretty fucked up, Peace Patriot.

[novak goes postal]

21. WELL DONE Will..... Great Writing with Golden truth

kick n/t

[Einstein99]

22. Sadly, sadly, sadly, Howard Dean caved in today too

He was right when he said yesterday that we cannot "win" in Iraq. He should have stuck with it because more and more Americans are coming around to the same conclusion. Murtha was right: the American people are way ahead of the politicians on this point. Instead, he gave in to the timid Democrats who are afraid of losing their re-election bids and said this morning that we CAN win the war in Iraq. Disgusting! Disgusting! Disgusting! Not only did he cede the argument back to the Republicans, but he made himself out to look like the flip-flopping fool that Kerry looked like in the last campaign. It's no wonder that the American people don't trust the Democrats in Congress any more than the Republicans. They care more about their own re-elections than they do about the country. I'm ready to just chuck the whole thing and move out of the country.
:puke:

[EVDebs]

26. How do you 'withdraw US troops' when plans for '14 enduring bases'

haven't been formally dropped ? Someone at one of Bush's frequent press conferences simply MUST ask this for Jeff Gannon.

[Liberal In Texas]

24. Good one Mr. Pitt. Recommended. n/t

[malaise]

25. Brilliant WIll

as usual.

[mike_c]

27. EXCELLENT!

eom

[BigBearJohn]

28. Now, can we PUHLEEZE send this to our leaders (they might learn something)

[In Truth We Trust]

30. Well put Mr Pitt! k&R

[Career Prole]

31. Thanks, Will! n/t

[ismnotwasm]

32. Great stuff

I was just reading this morning some things about Iraq and the cause and effect the American invasion has had.
Mr. Pitt sums things up nicely.

[90-percent]

33. William Pitt

Would make a damn good POTUS!

He's got my vote!

-85%

[Melissa G]

34. Excellent! One of Will Pitt's finer achievements! n/t

[Arkham House]

36. Will Pitt is our Tom Paine

Really, sir--you may be the truest real patriot of our generation. Knowing you're there makes a huge difference...and this piece shows why. No one has spoken with more simple common sense...how about Will Pitt for President in 2008...?

[Sacajawea]

38. I don't think he's old enough yet :)

Well said, Will! :)

[realFedUp]

37. Will posted this at DU today

and yet a thread about his essay gets nominated to greatist?

:eyes:

[Evergreen Emerald]

39. "Senator Lieberman,"

"whose pandering to Republican extremism has reached an extraordinary level of sublime hilarity..."

great stuff.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. A small matter of definitions

The word I usually here Clark use for a goal in Iraq is succeeding, but more often
he says "avoid failure". I think, to rephrase an old 60's song (Strawberry Alarm Clock), Clark sees "little to win, but something to lose".

Clark never talks about "Victory", he talks about trying to leave an Iraq behind that isn't deeply embroiled in a civil war that threatens to engulf the entire region. The fact that Clark is concerned about "failing" in Iraq does not mean that he bought or is buying into Bush's vision of "winning", or any other fantasy. That is a very misleading leap of logic. Clark tics off some goals that he still thinks may be achievable. These aren't Bush's great "victory".

Further, Clark never says we shouldn't leave without winning. He says there are some things we should attempt now first before leaving. That may sound like a small distinction but it isn't. Pitt boiled down Clark's position into nearly unrecognizable mush. Clark acknowledges that failure to bring about sufficient changes within a small window of opportunity which he believes is still open would mean that American forces should be withdrawn even if we failed to prevent the worst case scenarios in Iraq. One could say I am arguing over words and they would be right, I am. I would argue that if you don't agree on the words being used in a discussion than you aren't even talking about the same things. Will Pitt has an amazing way with words, but that doesn't mean his definitions are to be accepted by default without any clarification or challenge.

And saying something must be so doesn't make it so. I see no willingness on the part of the United Nations, N.A.T.O. or anyone else to step in and provide security for the good people of Iraq for the foreseeable future, much as I would like that to be otherwise. And even if the Arab League were so inclined the participation of that overwhelmingly Sunni organization would be met with grave suspicions by the majority of Iraq's citizens, including the Kurds who have a difficult history at best with Syria.

"An exit from Iraq is the only rational course of action. How and when we do it must become the central point of discussion in American politics." This I agree with.

[ultraist]

45. "We MUST suceed in this mission." Clark

Further, Clark never says we shouldn't leave without winning. He says there are some things we should attempt now first before leaving.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2934?from=0&comments_per_page=50

But what we all need to realize is that the American people don't want to see us lose. If the Democrats make a big play on the need for a pullout, and things go wrong in the current strategy, as they almost certainly will, then where will the Dems be? They'll be blamed. Look, Bush made the war a matter of domestic politics. He and his company have consistently trashed opponents and tried to stifle criticism. It was a mistake. Let's don't compound it by going partisan ourselves. We MUST succeed in this mission. I've sketched out elsewhere the dire consequences of a premature pull-out.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2934?from=50&comments_per_page=50

I do believe if we follow the ideas I sketched out that we can avert a civil war and avoid an American defeat

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Yes. So?

"Here's my thinking. This is really the first time I have tried to formulate this, so consider this as a draft that I may have to come back and amend somewhat. But let me put the bottom line up front: No, it's not yet too late to try to straighten out the policy and strategies in Iraq and the region.

The first window closes when we've lost the ability to influence the Iraqis politically. Because you really can't win militarily. So, the trick is to use the military presence and the economic assistance to create the political leverage on the Iraqis to change the constitution, reduce the sectarianism, readmit the insurgents, etc....when there's no ability left to influence them, then the first window has closed....(for example, there's a four month window after the election when the Constitution can be changed by majority vote, which may be one of the key factors driving the timing)...at that point, we have to look at our other interests in the region, and assess whether staying in Iraq helps or harms them...those other interests include the terrorists, (Al Qaeda), and Iran's nuclear and hegemonic ambitions, and whether our presence there is overall doing us more harm than good. The second window closes if they tell us to leave. At that point, staying is tantamount to invading."
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2914

On another thread I commented that we need words to describe the difference between having the worst case scenario occur and avoiding having the worst case scenario occur. If we agreed that the very worst case scenario for Iraq, internal civil war leading to regional warfare, is something virtually all of us would like to have avoided, and if we concede that it is indeed American stated policy to avoid that scenario, having it happen anyway would be an American failure. That is the failure that Clark says we must avoid. Avoiding that is the mission Clark wants to succeed at. These goals are very far removed from Bush's fantasy "victory" of making Iraq safe for Democracy and indoctrinating the Arab world into the joys of American style freedom. Clark doesn't think we are fighting in Iraq to defeat Terrorism. He thinks we are now trying to help stabilize Iraq in order to slow down the further spiraling of terrorism, for example.

Again, semantics, but Clark makes an effort, as the quotes you chose show, to not lightly throw around the words "Win" and "Victory" because he sees the United States as being in damage control mode at best in Iraq, trying to avoid creating the complete opposite of what Bush supposedly entered Iraq to secure.

[dogman]

41. Are you sure Will?

Has PNAC accomplished their goal? Have they achieved their victory? Is it possible they want short term defeat? Will their concept of the USA being the sole super power be reinforced? I've noticed more talk of limited nuclear war being discussed. Kissinger was just shown in an interview saying that Congress was at fault for forcing the MAD strategy because it was cheaper and easier to follow. Of course MAD required an offsetting force and Kissinger believed limited Nuclear war could be a show of strength and persuasive. Now we have the ne-cons celebrating the demise of the Soviet Union and the sole super power is now the USA. We have recently been told that limited nuclear strike is seen as a strategy against a threatened nuclear capability by our potential enemies. If Will agrees that Iran is the likely victor of this debacle, is it not foreseeable that PNAC will argue that we cannot maintain a conventional war because of the defeat in Iraq and the solution is air power against Iran with nuclear weapons to assure success? Clark was not advocating victory for the USA, he was writing about a strategy to prevent an Iranian victory. I believe Clark is less concerned about electoral doom and more about longer term stability in the region. Clark is simply writing that a strategy can be developed that is no longer staying the course but also offers the Iraqis a chance to succeed. I admit that the chance of Bushco adopting this plan is unlikely, but isn't that what a responsible leader does? Present the best options available. Is getting out of Iraq the only sane, sensible, responsible course of action if it leaves Civil War resulting in regional instability that results in our further and deeper involvement over time? I agree that rather than our present direction, leaving is best. That certainly isn't the only option available. Can we be sure that, if the Democrats are seen as the reason for defeat, that this country will elect a Democratic President?

[ultraist]

43. K&R

:kick:

[Wetzelbill]

44. I appreciate the level of ass kissing on this thread

Kudos!!!!

:)

[BamaBecky]

47. Excellent!

[ClassWarrior]

49. Nice job Will. Props to ScooterKen for introducing this premise...

...here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5538861&mesg_id=5539733

NGU.

[VaYallaDawg]

53. Thanks, Will - as always! Excellent insight and writing. n/t

[kpete]

54. Best yet, Will Pitt

This is now up at Daily Dissent.
http://dissent.blogspot.com/

[Peace Patriot]

55. A more brilliant analysis of our political situation re Iraq has not been

written. Thank you, Will!

I only wish that your last sentence--that Democrats who are "ten steps behind the rest of the country," and who buy into Bush Cartel nonsense, are ensuring "their electoral doom"--was true.

"Electoral" these days has a new meaning. It does not mean "the will of the people." It means the will of rightwing Bushite corporations who control vote tabulation with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY software and firmware, with virtually no audit/recount capability.

Recently, in Ohio, four election reform initiatives that were predicted to win by a 60/40 vote went down to a 60/40 LOSS on election day--the most audacious vote flipover we have yet seen. (The machines and their masters are now dictating what election policy will be, and are PREVENTING reform!)

See Bob Koehler's article on the Ohio initiatives:
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?custid=67&catid=1824

Despite the non-transparency of these electronic voting systems--and their insecurity and hackability, not to mention their partisan ownership--Kansas just bought a Diebold system, as did North Carolina. The disease of hackable electronic voting with the most insecure machines imaginable--Diebold's--is spreading across the country. They're now targeting California, for a RE-certification of Diebold's worst election theft machines, after they got rid of Democratic Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, who had sued Diebold's ass and banned their touchscreens (DREs) for the 2004 election.

There are strong and growing local election reform movements, who are getting the word out, finally, to the American people--and there is a Feingold bill in Congress (HR 550) that could stop this epidemic of privatized elections in its tracks--but, given the corruption in the $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle at every level, it is not likely that we will have an honest, clean, transparent election system by '06 or '08, especially with the Bush criminals in charge of Congress, and the Democratic Party leadership--inexplicably, INSANELY, it appears--permitting Bushite corporations to take over our election system with no significant opposition, let alone with the firebrand opposition that they should be mounting.

Ergo, two rightwing Bushite corporations--Diebold and ES&S--are going to choose which candidates we are permitted to 'vote' for, in '06 and '08 and who 'wins.'

It may not be quite that cut and dried, but it's close. Add in the war profiteering corporate news monopolies and what they do to anti-war candidates, and the fact that half the Democratic Party leadership is hogtied to the military-corporate war profiteers, and I just don't see there being any real "electoral" consequences for Democrats who support Bush's and PNAC's war on the Middle East.

The Democrats should long ago have nailed this down as BUSH's war, and spoken with ONE VOICE for withdrawing US troops from this disaster and creating a new Middle East policy. Incredibly, they have not done so. And I can only presume that a good half of them don't think they have to. A good half of them--just like Bush--feel immunity from the opinion of something like SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people, who are far smarter than these Democrats, and know a "quagmire"--and an illegal, torturing monstrosity--when they see one.

And I think Democrats like Hillary Clinton know all of this very well, and are going for the Diebold and ES&S endorsement, not the endorsement of the American people.

The war profiteers likely need a War Democrat in the White House, at this point--to get a military Draft (Bush can't do it), to expand the war in the Middle East (probably with some "Gulf of Tonkin" type incident with Iran or Syria), to put down any unrest that may arise on the home front, and to start taking the rap for Bush's financial and foreign policy disasters, possibly preparatory to installation of a worse fascist regime in '12.

And don't' think the war profiteers, global corporate predators and billionaire rightwing think tanks don't have this all planned out. I assure you that there is a PNAC-like document lurking somewhere, detailing the plan to destroy American democracy and override its great, justice-loving, peace-loving, progressive majority--whose collective will, as a people, could dismantle these traitor corporations. They know who their enemy is. It is US.

I think it's quite LIKELY they will install a War Democrat. And my hope is that even a War Democrat has to pay lip service to progressive values like honest elections, and that we can turn it around that way--achieve swift election reform nationwide with a new Democratic administration, whatever its war intentions are. In other words, I hope we can piggyback on the war profiteers' nefarious schemes, to achieve transparent elections, DESPITE their nefarious schemes. (And I am reminded of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which were achieved in the midst of the Vietnam War--an interesting precedent.) Otherwise it's going to be a long slog to restore our right to vote, with local/state movements.

The above analysis is premised upon continued economic and planetary environmental conditions, more or less as is. Who knows what will happen if our thin blue film of life--our biosphere--begins to deteriorate yet more rapidly, or another "Great Crash" occurs (or both!). In that respect, the recent ADDITIONAL tax cut for the rich, that Bush's Congress just passed, reminds me of the "Beggars' Ball" held by the glitterati of the 1920s greedfest at the Waldorf-Astoria just before "Black Tuesday." When the super-rich get this greedy, and have ruined everything, and have slain their own "golden goose," they get nuts. They get scared. And they do strange things.

Hillary may wish she hadn't been so calculating, so self-centered and so very clever. The White House is the last place any sane person would want to be, if and when the "perfect storm" of ecological and economic collapse occurs, while we have been idling the hours away torturing and killing the people who own the last oil on earth.

[Peace Patriot]

57. P.S. A note on Israel. Whoever told Israel that a US invasion and

occupation of Iraq would make Israel "safer" deserves the Woodrow Wilson award for "Idiot of the Century." The Bushites are turning the Middle East into a nuclear tinderbox, and if and when it explodes, Israel goes with it. Further--barring that horrendous catastrophe (end of the world, basically--sooner rather than later, since, as Carl Sagan established, even a limited nuclear exchange will destroy earth's atomosphere)--Israel CANNOT survive as a medieval armed fortress in the midst of hostile, angry neighbors. A true friend of Israel would be counselling wisdom, diplomacy, generosity, and a policy aimed at the common good of all Middle East peoples, not a festering nightmare aimed at catastrophe. And Israel and its REAL friends would START with an apology to the people of Iran for destroying THEIR democracy in 1953 and installing the torture-loving 'Shah." The cycle of revenge and retribution MUST be stopped, NOW.

[PATRICK]

56. On every big issue

we get the big disconnect with an important, tragically outspoken chunk of the party leadership.

On electronic fraud- nothing at all. On Iraq, conceding we actually have a CIC not Al Capone. On Iraq, believing a thoroughly exposed and ruined(at least by incompetence) traditional US policy can just
reappear at any minute with a little Bush cooperation. On all other policies acting as if Bush has any inclination at all to do his job and serve the nation and work with and not over, Congress and the Democrats. On the people, thinking they are totally reflected or at least under the sway of big media when a host of propaganda failures has been signaling otherwise- in vain- for a long, long time. On democracy and the myths, thinking it is adult to preach cliches and children's book ideas when the horror and the joke of it all pervades the mood- and slowly the mind- of the American electorate. On campaigning, that buying into the winner's ideas and policies ignores the danger of selling out to a fraud that bought the election and sold the nation a bill of goods.

The higher and more brilliant the leadership who truly represent the people and the nation's concerns are the most blinded to their own humiliation in being simply conned, over and over and over again because even if they saw the clarity and consistency of the coup mob they could not swallow the fact of their own shaming by keystone political hacks and swindlers.

They will listen to FOX pundits, WP and NYT "journalists, DC insiders, but not to the people who have nothing left but people who think they know better for being privy to mistakes and lies beyond the ken of normal people. They will graciously accord respect, looting and destruction like a conquered nation that must pretend to be otherwise in the mystical hope that the disguise of normality will enable them to earn their turn. But they have no faith in the people or the truth and would rather trust Colin Powell(a more jaded dupe) and fear propaganda pressure from cheap bullies while the people, go broke die, and lose everything that is America's best soul.

Mention of Clark is sympathetic, but the insider disease is the presumption that the utterly spoiled US policy can be retooled to do things bit better and fix problems that should never have been entered into and pretend that suddenly it can be noble, successful and practical. The officers on the ground now, from harsh unnecessary experience, see things much more clearly. The people feel things in the main much more correctly. Guess who is muted, shoved aside, killed and impoverished and stripped of rights while the game staggers on? The GOP does not represent the vast majority and neither do the Democrats quoted above. Bush uses the war to exploit the people. Clark has thoughtful tactics that are nothing but fantasies when idiots are charge, but he ignores the politics. The grinding slog of trying to right this mess is not something any general or populace would thrill to. It is too late to throw our discredited weight around better. By acquiescing to Bush as the legitimate though bumbling overseer of "wise" policy in the first place they entered a quagmire of traditional insider policies which no longer can be valid. Can't see, can't acknowledge, can't change. This is a surefire formula for becoming the Tweedledum Part 2 Iraq War administration as much as the smart Nixonians were consumed by Vietnam. The same idiocy of a selective conventional wisdom.

One can have sympathy more for Clark who could be less expected to understand the political difficulties of trying to fulfill his sensible strategies far outweigh the horribly formidable logistics of trying to redeploy an exhausted partly ruined military. And what poison will keep eating away at the road to hell paved with DLC intentions? The unfaced enemy within who is the center of all the world's current misery by personal choice- the Bush gang. If that road is doomed for wrong headed good intentions, what of the road the nation now is forced upon? We are already there. To seek more without getting OUR nation out of tyranny and a globalist anti-democratic empire is to guarantee defeat on al fronts for the last remnants of decency and reason. "Leaders" not even close to the popular consciousness that despises all extremism and militarism and tyrannical privilege or to the daunting real crises of the natural order are as dangerous as Bush. And you can thank Bush for putting them so sorely to the test they have tragically failed.

Dancing to the ruined scene of Bush issues, themselves ALL lies as presented and executed, ignores all the real and broader issues. Waddling in the Right Wing quagmire has become a force of bad habit that discredits any presumptive chief executive candidate not to mention the utter degradation of vestigial gravitas that an also shamefully dicsredited media alone sustains.

[Peace Patriot]

61. A "shamefully discredited media." Yup, we are walking right into another

Vietnam, and THIS time, we, the people, are in far worse shape to fight back, due in large part to virtually our entire Fourth Estate having become war profiteers and monopolies, which are giving the rightwing warmongers a BIG TRUMPET, way out of proportion to their numbers.

The worst and most nauseating thing to see--and the thing that many Democrats buy into--is that this CRAZY, LOOTING, THIEVING, TORTURING, ILLEGAL, CRIMINAL, MASS MURDER POLICY IN IRAQ is now being "discussed" as if it were just any other "policy," that somehow Bush and his Neo-Cons "goofed" (those Katrina "incompetents") and maybe we need to "change course" in Iraq.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was egregiously illegal and unconstitutional. Every Democrat and Republican representative in Congress who voted to give away their Constitutional power to declare war violated their oath of office that day, and have been violating it ever since by funding this terrible and illegal war. The same thing happened on Vietnam, also based on a pack of bald-faced lies, and also with a Congress that would not protect its ESSENTIAL function in the "balance of powers" that our Founders designed in the Constitution specifically for the purpose of preventing executive tyranny regarding WAR.

This should not be a NORMAL discussion. What went wrong cannot be FIXED by a "change of course in Iraq"--even an immediate withdrawal--because it was a crime to begin with, going to the very heart of what's wrong with our democracy: The President has TOO MUCH POWER, and the fascist Bush Cartel is pushing the frontiers of that power further and further toward outright tyranny every day--with the cooperation of the "shamefully discredited," war profiteering corporate news media.

Imagine what would have happened IF Congress had refused to turn war powers over to Bush. In that case, it would have been CONGRESS who was judging the debate in the United Nations, and evaluating the evidence, and determining whether or not to give the UN inspectors more time, as virtually the entire world was telling us to do. Not Bush. Congress!

We have to stress FUNDAMENTALS in this "discussion" now--after the fact--and that is not being done. How we got into Iraq was Congress giving away its war powers, a FUNDAMENTAL violation of the US Constitution.

And I can only presume that those who voted to give Bush those war powers WANTED the Iraq War, because only a lame-brained idiot could have thought that he wasn't going to do it NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE WAS, and NO MATTER WHAT THE REST OF THE WORLD THOUGHT. Some of them say now that they thought he would go the diplomatic route to "contain" Saddam Hussein, and they had stressed that in their speeches. But the Bushites took all such controls out of the resolution--and they voted for it anyway. What did they expect would happen, giving Bush a blank check? Hadn't they read the "Project for a New American Century" that the entire blogosphere had read by that time? Are they stupid? I think not.

I think they were thinking something along these lines: that the militarized US economy has to have war, and if it doesn't have war, people might start thinking that they are entitled to a "peace dividend"--as we all thought after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War (ha, ha, ha on us!). They also needed cover for the outsourcing of tens of millions of jobs, with the global corporate predator "free piracy" (i.e., "free trade") agreements (the removal of American manufacturing capability and all of its good jobs abroad, for slave labor and no environmental regulation). The only way to cover for that piracy is to increase military spending, and the only way to do that, in peacetime, is to manufacture a war.

This is the reality. This is the truth. And the sooner we face it, regarding our own party, the better.

I think we need to become very, very, very practical in facing this situation. There is NO WAY we can stop our government waging war in the Mideast War--not with Democrats like Clark talking about stationing US troops on the Iranian and Syrian borders (read "Gulf of Tonkin"), and Murtha saying to station them in Kuwait or Qatar (like a tiger ready to pounce whenever anybody questions the US military budget), and Clinton with the standard "success in Iraq" lines. They are GOING to wage war in the Middle East. Both parties are agreed. And Diebold and ES&S will "select" one of them to lead us to "victory."

How do we break this War Party hold on government policy, without smashing our own political party to pieces (re: Germany 1932 and the splintering of the center/left)? That is our dilemma.

One strategy is to focus on election reform, and not let up until we get it. The American people want PEACE. And the only way they're going to get it--short of economic and/or ecological collapse--is by TRANSPARENT elections.

The way to turn things around in the Middle East is FIRST OF ALL to admit that Bush's war is illegal and wrong, and to apologize to the world, and compensate the Iraqis, for letting it happen, and SECONDLY to call a world peace conference and propose plans to rid the world of war forever--including the dismantling of our own nuclear arsenal--and to create a just and sustainable world economy. And if that means pulling the charters of every US-based global predator corporation, and seizing their assets for the common good, so be it. What we have now is not capitalism. It is fascism.

Transparent elections must be our first priority. Without them, we cannot stop unjust war, and we cannot achieve a peaceful and just country, or world.

[KnowerOfLogic]

62. Well, i'm saying it... Immediate withdrawl. nt

[second edition]

63. Good points, especially like the premise that no timetable is being

used effectively against us. What type of time tables are you suggesting?

[Czolgosz]

65. The Christian cultural imperialism has been swelling unchecked since 1954

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress imposed those words. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. In the heat of McCarthy's congressional reign of terror, no one stood up to this trashing of the constitutional separation of church from state. The fight-against-Christmas nonsense we hear now is an echo of that failure to stand up to corrupt power in the 1950s. Likewise, if we do not stand up to the imperialists who are misleadingly framing the debate, we will hear the echos for generations.