Op-Ed
Rove outlines Busheviks' Iraq strategy to win midterms: lie again about Dems being weak on terrorism
You have to hand it to Karl Rove. When he finds something that works, he sticks with it. While the president was conducting his symbolic Iraq war strategy summit on Monday, the newly energized, indictment-free chief political operative outlined in his game plan for November, borrowing heavily from his '04 playbook. The overall theme: Iraq is a success. The Busheviks and Repugs can take the credit for this progress. We just killed Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, which is another huge milestone. The Democrats are weak pansies who run from war and would not protect Americans from terrorism. Sound eerily familiar? What's scary is how well this crap worked the last time. Can it work again?
The scheduled speech by Sen. Hillary Clinton at the “Take Back
America 2006” conference in Washington on June 13 is likely to intensify
discussion about her relationship with the progressive grassroots of the
Democratic Party.
Many weeks ago the conference sponsor, the Campaign for America’s Future, sent out an email telling prospective attendees: “As in years past, we expect America’s most prominent progressive leaders to attend and address the conference. Invited speakers include...” On the list was Hillary Clinton.
In response, I wrote to Campaign for America’s Future co-director Roger Hickey and asked what Clinton’s name was doing on a list of “progressive leaders.” He responded by saying that “I don’t think of ALL of our speakers as ‘America’s most prominent progressive leaders.’ In fact, I have been quoted saying very critical things about Hillary -- in the Washington Post and elsewhere. We do, however, want to ask possible presidential candidates to attempt publicly to justify their candidacy to the progressive activists.”
Hickey also commented that “some people do consider Hillary progressive.”
Many weeks ago the conference sponsor, the Campaign for America’s Future, sent out an email telling prospective attendees: “As in years past, we expect America’s most prominent progressive leaders to attend and address the conference. Invited speakers include...” On the list was Hillary Clinton.
In response, I wrote to Campaign for America’s Future co-director Roger Hickey and asked what Clinton’s name was doing on a list of “progressive leaders.” He responded by saying that “I don’t think of ALL of our speakers as ‘America’s most prominent progressive leaders.’ In fact, I have been quoted saying very critical things about Hillary -- in the Washington Post and elsewhere. We do, however, want to ask possible presidential candidates to attempt publicly to justify their candidacy to the progressive activists.”
Hickey also commented that “some people do consider Hillary progressive.”
AUSTIN, Texas -- Iraq and the media, the media and Iraq -- over and over. Last week was supposed to be a good media week for Iraq -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was dead. Taken out, we said, by a combination of American and Iraqi troops with Jordanian intelligence.
The churlish might note this was the second time the American military had announced Zarqawi's death -- but, hey, we've announced the capture of Osama's No. 2 guy at least seven or eighth times. Others claimed Zarqawi was never that important to begin with, indeed had been built up by our side. Still, that's a goal for our side, as they say in World Cup play.
Then reality got a bit bumpy. Zarqawi wasn't exactly dead when we found him. We put him on a stretcher and cleaned him up -- the fog of war intervened.
I distinctly remember people predicting the first time we killed Zarqawi that it wouldn't make much difference, so I presume they did it again. Thus, we get to revisit the old cackle over whether we are fighting international terrorists who have flocked to Iraq or a native uprising against our occupation of the country. Can't even agree on what's going on.
The churlish might note this was the second time the American military had announced Zarqawi's death -- but, hey, we've announced the capture of Osama's No. 2 guy at least seven or eighth times. Others claimed Zarqawi was never that important to begin with, indeed had been built up by our side. Still, that's a goal for our side, as they say in World Cup play.
Then reality got a bit bumpy. Zarqawi wasn't exactly dead when we found him. We put him on a stretcher and cleaned him up -- the fog of war intervened.
I distinctly remember people predicting the first time we killed Zarqawi that it wouldn't make much difference, so I presume they did it again. Thus, we get to revisit the old cackle over whether we are fighting international terrorists who have flocked to Iraq or a native uprising against our occupation of the country. Can't even agree on what's going on.
Nominal leader of the Democrats in Congress Nancy Pelosi, following talking points produced by the Republican National Committee, recently told her fellow Dems to keep impeachment off the table. This past weekend, the Democratic Parties in Maine, New Hampshire, and Hawaii passed resolutions demanding impeachment. This, of course, raises the question: Whose table is it, Nancy?
Whose table? Our table!
These states joined the Democratic parties of Nevada, New Mexico, California, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and the executive committee of the North Carolina Democratic Party (their convention is later this month). If Texas does it, that'll make 10. Activists in other states have tried to pass impeachment resolutions but been blocked by their state party's leadership. Most of the states that have succeeded have done so despite opposition from the leadership. This grassroots energy, along with every poll I've seen, suggests that making the coming elections about impeachment would mobilize lots and lots and lots of Democrats. Not a shred of evidence supports the RNC-Pelosi claim that it would benefit Republicans.
Whose table? Our table!
These states joined the Democratic parties of Nevada, New Mexico, California, Wisconsin, and Vermont, and the executive committee of the North Carolina Democratic Party (their convention is later this month). If Texas does it, that'll make 10. Activists in other states have tried to pass impeachment resolutions but been blocked by their state party's leadership. Most of the states that have succeeded have done so despite opposition from the leadership. This grassroots energy, along with every poll I've seen, suggests that making the coming elections about impeachment would mobilize lots and lots and lots of Democrats. Not a shred of evidence supports the RNC-Pelosi claim that it would benefit Republicans.
When the House and the Senate pass similar but not identical bills, they create a conference committee to work out the differences. When they both passed amendments to the "emergency supplemental" spending bill stipulating that none of the money could be used to build permanent bases in Iraq, the conference committee, behind closed doors this week, resolved that non-difference by deleting it.
This would appear to be a blatant violation of the rules of Congress and an unconstitutional voiding of the will of the people as expressed by their Representatives and Senators. But it can't appear that way to a people that knows nothing about it. And it does not appear that way at all to the journalists who inform the public of its government's doings. Even the minority members of the conference committee and the leaders of the minority party in Congress seem entirely comfortable with this course of events, although Congresswoman Barbara Lee has denounced the Republicans for it.
This would appear to be a blatant violation of the rules of Congress and an unconstitutional voiding of the will of the people as expressed by their Representatives and Senators. But it can't appear that way to a people that knows nothing about it. And it does not appear that way at all to the journalists who inform the public of its government's doings. Even the minority members of the conference committee and the leaders of the minority party in Congress seem entirely comfortable with this course of events, although Congresswoman Barbara Lee has denounced the Republicans for it.
They got him -- the big, bad, beheading berserker in Iraq. But, something's gone unreported in all the glee over getting Zarqawi … who invited him into Iraq in the first place?
If you prefer your fairy tales unsoiled by facts, read no further. If you want the uncomfortable truth, begin with this: A phone call to Baghdad to Saddam's Palace on the night of April 21, 2003. It was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on a secure line from Washington to General Jay Garner.
The General had arrives in Baghdad just hours before to take charge of the newly occupied nation. The message from Rumsfeld was not a heartwarming welcome. Rummy told Garner, Don't unpack, Jack -- you're fired.
What had Garner done? The many-starred general had been sent by the President himself to take charge of a deeply dangerous mission. Iraq was tense but relatively peaceful. Garner's job was to keep the peace and bring democracy.
Unfortunately for the general, he took the President at his word. But the general was wrong. "Peace" and "Democracy" were the slogans.
If you prefer your fairy tales unsoiled by facts, read no further. If you want the uncomfortable truth, begin with this: A phone call to Baghdad to Saddam's Palace on the night of April 21, 2003. It was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on a secure line from Washington to General Jay Garner.
The General had arrives in Baghdad just hours before to take charge of the newly occupied nation. The message from Rumsfeld was not a heartwarming welcome. Rummy told Garner, Don't unpack, Jack -- you're fired.
What had Garner done? The many-starred general had been sent by the President himself to take charge of a deeply dangerous mission. Iraq was tense but relatively peaceful. Garner's job was to keep the peace and bring democracy.
Unfortunately for the general, he took the President at his word. But the general was wrong. "Peace" and "Democracy" were the slogans.
In the old days, they'd brandish the head of the captured chieftain from the battlements. These days, given the effects on human bone and tissue of artillery and 500-pound bombs, there's a cull from an old most-wanted list and then, when the morticians have done their work, a photo of the cadaver's visage, decently cleaned up.
When Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, were located and killed in July 2003, connoisseurs of the mortician's arts were particularly impressed by the efforts taken to make them presentable for post-mortem primetime.
At the White House press conference Thursday morning, there was gloating of course, just as there was when Saddam's sons were killed. It takes an effort now to recall that, like the late Zarqawi, Uday and Qusay, too, were credited with inspiring a large part of the resistance, and then, as now, guarded hopes were expressed in Washington that maybe some sort of a corner had been turned.
When Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay, were located and killed in July 2003, connoisseurs of the mortician's arts were particularly impressed by the efforts taken to make them presentable for post-mortem primetime.
At the White House press conference Thursday morning, there was gloating of course, just as there was when Saddam's sons were killed. It takes an effort now to recall that, like the late Zarqawi, Uday and Qusay, too, were credited with inspiring a large part of the resistance, and then, as now, guarded hopes were expressed in Washington that maybe some sort of a corner had been turned.
In 1975 Dorothy T. Samuel published "Safe Passage on City Streets," a book that examined the state of mind and behavior of people who tended not to get attacked on city streets or tended to walk away unscathed. She found that the safest people were not those who focused on the danger, not those who walked in fear, and not those who carried weapons – which, as often as not, were turned against them. The safest people – though there was no guarantee – were people who put danger out of their minds and when attacked reacted with surprise, indignation, or humanity.
Conservatives love to talk about the so-called "liberal media" and its influence over the news. But just the opposite is true. And they know it. The media is either dominated by full-fledged kool-aid drinkers like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Rupert Murdoch, or sympathizers like Wolf Blitzer, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews and, yes, even the NY Times. It's the Repuglicans whose influence dictates the media's direction, and its coverage of both parties.
As the evidence of global warming becomes inescapable, I fear Americans will switch instead to a fatalistic pessimism. Maybe it’s real and maybe it’s our fault, this sentiment goes, but at this point there’s nothing we can do, so we’re off the hook.
It’s hard to deal with melting arctic glaciers, Katrina refugees who might never return to New Orleans, and floods that recently covered half of Bangladesh. Weather-related catastrophes cost a record $225 billion last year, with the impact of global climate change just beginning. Add in a president deep in denial, and it’s tempting to feel powerless. We can’t even escape to the Weather Channel without a sense of impending doom.
It’s hard to deal with melting arctic glaciers, Katrina refugees who might never return to New Orleans, and floods that recently covered half of Bangladesh. Weather-related catastrophes cost a record $225 billion last year, with the impact of global climate change just beginning. Add in a president deep in denial, and it’s tempting to feel powerless. We can’t even escape to the Weather Channel without a sense of impending doom.