Month: April 2007

Jonathan Weisman reports on the unruly GOP base.

With public opinion tilting firmly toward ending U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq, Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.) might have expected praise for his votes that would start to bring the troops home. Instead, at town hall meetings on the Eastern Shore, the former Marine and Vietnam combat veteran has been called everything from a coward to a traitor.

After Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) voted for a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush’s troop increases, reaction in his district was so furious that local GOP officials all but invited a primary challenge to the reliable conservative. Inglis responded with multiple mailings to his constituents, fence-mending efforts and a video message on his House Web site pleading his case. On subsequent Iraq votes, he has not strayed from the Republican fold.

The experiences of the few Republicans to vote against the war help explain the remarkable unity that the party has maintained in Washington behind an unpopular president. Just four Republicans — two in the House, two in the Senate — voted last week for a $124 billion war funding bill that would start withdrawing troops by Oct. 1, legislation that Bush has vowed to veto this week.

That cohesion reflects the views of the GOP’s core voters, who see the war in Iraq in fundamentally different terms than Democrats and political independents do, said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Voters from those groups tend to see unremitting gloom, but Republican base voters continue to see a conflict that is going reasonably well, with a decent chance of military success.

“That’s the dilemma for Republicans going forward,” Kohut said today. “They’ve got to look out for their base, but they have to acknowledge the independents have aligned themselves with the way Democrats are thinking on the issue of Iraq.”

What can you really say about people that look at Iraq and see ‘a conflict that is going reasonably well, with a decent chance of military success’?

I don’t really look at wingnuts this way. Rather than see them as frighteningly optimistic, I tend to see them as the ones suffering from ‘unremitting gloom’. Their gloom is not about progress in Iraq, necessarily, but about the prospects of America ever living in relative peace with the Islamic world. They are wholly incapable of drawing any distinctions between Sunni and Shi’ite, Turk and Persian, southern Arab versus northern Arab versus African Arab, between Pashtun and Tajik, or the Islam of Indonesia versus the Islam of Albania…

They hate and fear them all and will support any policy, no matter how expensive, unsustainable, or counterproductive, so long as that policy results in the death of hordes of Muslims. They see 600,000 dead Iraqis compared to 3,000 dead Americans and they like the ratio. Torture of Muslims is applauded. Illegally tapping their phones and reading their email is applauded. Bush created these wingnuts through his scare tactics. And now all Republicans have to live with them.

Who are the gloomy ones again?

I would be shocked if much, if not all of this diary (or one similar to it) hasn’t been written over the past 4 years. While I for one am beyond disbelief that the “republicans are strong/Democrats are weak” line took hold in the first place, I am nothing short of floored that this has not only stuck, but has been the biggest obstacle to the American public waking up and realizing just how outrageously amazingly ludicrous beyond any possible measure this total lie really is.

Hat tip to fellow kossack huntsu for pointing out Mike Lupica’s comment about the republicans keeping us safe. And thank-friggin-goodness we are seeing this in print (even if it is the sports section). And while Lupica’s was a one line comment buried in the middle of his column, it points out that absolute absurdity (and a tremendous opening for the Democrats) of the “only republicans can keep us safe” or “if Democrats will be elected, there will be another 9/11” memes.

While I can’t believe it worked in 2004, I can believe that there was still an enormous percentage of the American public were still completely and utterly in the dark and still whipped into a “they’re gonna kill us all if we don’t kill ‘em all first” frenzy – due in large part to the massive lying and covering up by this administration, the right wing noise machine and lazy (to say the least) nature of the press and media.

But now? Now??? This is all the republicans have left in their arsenal. They have lost everything else. Sex scandals? Check. Politicization of the Justice Department? Check. Lying to Congress by the Attorney General? Check. Lying to Congress by the Secretary of State? Check. Suspicion of obstruction of justice by the President’s top advisor? Check. Another republican Congressman under investigation? Check. Did I mention sex scandal?

That doesn’t even involve the latest disasters and spiraling out of control violence, bombings, torture and mass murders going on in Iraq since the latest national security failure in what is becoming a never ending list of national security failures that just so happened to ALL occur while the republicans have been in control of the situation of events.

Republicans are strong on national security? This statement should be laughed at with complete dismissal and the utmost of mockery. Strong HOW? Strong WHEN? Strong WHERE? And just for shits and giggles, strong WHO?

Once this meme dies the death that it should have died before it even took hold in the first place, so too will the republicans’ credibility with a larger-than-you-think portion of their remaining support (or as Stephen Colbert calls them, “the backwash”).

How have the republicans kept us safe? Are the ports secure? Are an adequate number of cargo containers being inspected? Are the air cargo holds in our planes being monitored? Can a large number of weapons or explosives be carried onto airplanes? Do we have more friends around the world than 6 years ago? Or do we have far less friends? Are our nuclear plants secure? Haven’t there been some strange situations at some plants?

When have they kept us safe? Who was the President on 9/11/01? Who ignored warnings by the French as well as their own briefings? Who was the mayor and leader of NYC on 9/11/01? Whose decision was it to put an emergency response center in 7 World Trade Center, and was mayor right after the 1993 attacks did nothing to prepare the city for another such attack on the World Trade Center? When the entire world was on our side right after 9/11, who held control of the entire Congress and the White House as bad decision after bad decision after bad decision after bad decision was being made about how to defend this country and make it safer?

Where exactly are we safer? Americans are looked more poorly upon in foreign countries now as a result of the pig headed and half-assed national security direction that the republicans (NOT just Bush) have taken us. Our friend Pakistan has been harboring the Taliban and al Qaeda. Iran, who reached out to us in 2001, 2002 AND 2003 certainly isn’t as welcoming. Here in the US, there has been a complete failure to take any true measures to keep us safe (see the “how” above). Our dependency on foreign oil is higher than it has been in the past, our economy was run into the ground by the republicans in Congress and the White House. We are at an economic and strategic disadvantage because of the billions of dollars borrowed for the completely failed foreign policy the republicans have pursued. And of course, the republicans have broken our entire military in every conceivable way (to the point that we can barely defend ourselves if need be) that it will take decades to rebuild.

Who can say they have done anything to keep us safer? Certainly not any of the republicans who have voted against armor and equipment for our troops. Certainly not those who blew off the 9/11 attack warnings. Certainly not those who didn’t keep New York City safe either. That includes you, Mr. “if I say you won’t keep us safe, maybe you will forget that I have already failed to keep you safe” Giuliani. That won’t look too good as you gear up for a Presidential run.

And we can’t forget those “strong” republicans who bravely avoided military service when called upon to actually be strong on national security. That means you, Dick Cheney, Rudy Giuliani, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Dennis Hastert, Mitch McConnell and Rush Limbaugh. That also means you, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, George Will, William Kristol, Pat Buchanan and Saxby fucking Chambliss. And I didn’t forget you too Mitt Romney, Fred Kagan, Trent Lott, Tom DeLay and Sam Brownback.

Of course, one need only point to the past six years to show just how horrific a job the republicans have done with national security. Or what the republicans have done with Homeland Security dollars. Or who they wanted to put in charge of National Security after 2004.

This will be very important – VERY important to keep in the foreground. It is all they have left in their “debate” about Iraq. That the Democrats are “defeatists” and don’t have the “strength”. It is all they have left in their campaign “strategy”. This is a complete farce. And a lie. A lie so big that it is laughable.

Which is EXACTLY how we should respond every single time it is brought up.

In the face of a showdown with Congress over mandatory timelines for troop redeployments from Iraq, the White House and Pentagon struggle to retain their blank check.  

The art of the lowered expectation has long been a hallmark of Bush administration political strategies, so it’s little surprise they’re now applying it to the Iraq situation.  According to David E. Sanger of the New York Times, some of Mr. Bush’s top advisers now say the White House is scaling back its expectations for Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government.  Ryan C. Crocker, the new U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, describes al-Maliki’s situation as “trying to fight fires from every direction.”

“We have to be clear to him on where our priorities are,” Crocker told U.S. reporters by phone, “so that we can buy him the time he needs. And we have to buy the time now because he is going to need it in the future.”

If we haven’t made out priorities clear to al-Maliki by now, I doubt we ever will.  And this business of buying him time now so he’ll have it in the future sounds like something out of the worst Star Trek episode ever written.  But don’t be fooled–there’s a method to this madness.

Hiding Behind the Troops

If the Congress wants to test my will as to whether or not I’ll accept a timetable for withdrawal, I won’t accept one.  I just don’t think it’s in the interest of our troops.

— George W. Bush, April 27, 2007

This statement is typical of Mr. Bush’s fallback position in any debate–turn everything into a manhood measuring contest and hide behind the troops.  You’d think that as the notional leader of the world’s most powerful nation and having reached the ripe old age of 60, Mr. Bush would have abandoned this kind of schoolyard rhetoric long ago, but it appeals to the non-cognitive segment of his base, and it’s worked for him so far, so why should he change now?

Most of us can see the foolishness in deciding vital questions of policy through adolescent genital comparisons, but it’s somewhat harder to keep the discussion within the bounds of logic and reason when “support the troops” is invoked.  Very few of us, no matter how much we may object to that administration’s policies and strategies, wish anything but the best for our troops, especially the vast majority of them who have no say in the policies and strategies.  

If you believe the administration’s propaganda, the troops want to stay in Iraq and get the job done (whatever getting the “job done” might consist of).  If you buy the results of a Zogby Poll, the vast majority of troops in Iraq have wanted a withdrawal timeline for over a year.

At the end of the day, though, when it comes to matters of foreign policy and national security strategy, what the troops think or want or feel doesn’t matter.  Certainly, if America decides to put its all-volunteer force in harm’s way, it owes that force whatever it needs to accomplish the agreed upon mission and to sustain and protect itself (a pact, by the way, that the Bush administration and its sycophants in Congress and the Pentagon have miserably failed to live up to.)  

But it’s not up to the troops to determine where and when they go into harm’s way, or how long they stay there.  And as to the head troopers in charge–the active duty Generals–they’ve proven themselves throughout the course of the Bush administration to be little more than invertebrate yes men.  I had hoped that Petraeus might turn out to have something more in the lumbar department than his predecessors, but those hopes began to vanish like a blind widow’s silverware when he stage managed that outdoor market shopping trip in Baghdad for John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and a hundred of their very best heavily armed friends.  

Given Petraeus’s complicity in the neoconservative bait-and-switch “surge” plan (the “surge” that was actually a long term escalation), it’s fairly apparent that Bush didn’t expect Petraeus to win the war in Iraq.  Bush was looking for a pliant four-star who would help him spin the war into the next administration’s lap, and early indications suggest that Bush made a sound choice in that regard.  

But as I said earlier, Petraeus’s inputs on the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq aren’t pertinent.  The Iraq policy issue is now in the proper arena, a showdown between the executive and legislative branches.  The first veto will no doubt come by the middle of this week.  What happens then is anybody’s guess.  We hear rumors that some sort of compromise is already in the making, but these days we hear a lot of rumors that turn out not to be true.  

Moreover, one has to wonder what kind of compromise can be crafted given the basic nature of the opposing positions.  Mr. Bush wants a blank check that allows him to continue his war in Iraq indefinitely.  The Democratic Congress wants put a finite cap on the duration and intensity of U.S. involvement in that war.  I don’t see how anyone can square a circle that big.  The choice is between Mr. Bush and Congress, and in that regard, William Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general and former Director of the National Security Agency aptly framed the issue in a radio address last Saturday.

I am not now nor have I ever been a Democrat or a Republican. Thus, I do not speak for the Democratic Party. I speak for myself…

…Most Americans suspect that something is fundamentally wrong with the President’s management of the conflict in Iraq. And they are right…

…We cannot ‘win’ a war that serves our enemies interests and not our own. Thus continuing to pursue the illusion of victory in Iraq makes no sense. We can now see that it never did…

… No effective new strategy can be devised for the United States until it begins withdrawing its forces from Iraq…

…I hope the President seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill the Congress has sent him. I will respect him greatly for such a rare act of courage, and so too, I suspect, will most Americans.

I appreciate General Odom’s sentiments, but as we have observed over the past six years plus, acts of courage on the part of the Bush administration and its supporters are rare indeed.  

#

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia.  Read his commentaries at Pen and Sword.

.

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

There is certainly a lot of blame to go around for the recent Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on so-called partial birth abortions, a case which further chips away at the right to choose, and sets the stage for a possible reversal of Roe. But if we really want to identify the culprits we need look no further than the Democratic Party, and in particular Democrats in the US Senate.

It was after all, Senate Democrats whose votes approved Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito. Each of these men were known quantities: hard core, anti-feminist conservatives. Everyone knew that they opposed a woman’s right to choose. But in each instance, Democrats in the Senate allowed these individuals to obtain a seat on the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of which individual rights the Constitution protects, and which rights it does not.

Clarence Thomas had a history of sexual harassment. Furthermore, at the hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his opposition to abortion rights was exposed, when it was revealed that Thomas, in a speech he made while head of the Reagan administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, had praised an essay which argued that a fetus possessed an “inalienable right to life,” a position in direct conflict with the decision in Roe v. Wade. Despite all this, eleven Democrats in the Senate voted to confirm his appointment to the Supreme Court, which passed by the slimmest of margins, 52-48. Not one Democrat chose to filibuster his appointment, nor was his nomination killed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Scalia’s open hostility to decisions which interpreted the Constitution as a living document, one in which the the rights of individuals could be expanded in cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v.Wade, was well known at the time Reagan nominated him. Nonetheless, he was approved by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate. In other words, not one Democrat opposed his nomination. Not even Ted Kennedy, for chrissakes!

John Roberts made the following statements at his confirmation hearings regarding his prior writings opposing women’s rights and the right of privacy:

In a day of sometimes testy exchanges with senators, Roberts distanced himself repeatedly from his conservative writings as a young legal adviser to President Ronald Reagan, including a memo in which he had disparaged privacy as “amorphous” and a “so-called right” not spelled out in the Constitution. […]

“Senator, I was a staff lawyer; I didn’t have a position,” Roberts said in a typical exchange, when asked about a memo from the early 1980s advocating a policy that would have allowed colleges to receive federal funds even if some of their programs discriminated against women. […]

Roberts … during the 1980s signed a memo saying that Roe was “wrongly decided” and should be overturned.

Nevertheless, his appointment to serve on the Court was confirmed by a Senate vote in which 22 Democrats joined their Republican colleagues.

When Sandra Day O’Connor resigned, and Alito was nominated we had an entire series of diaries here at Booman (the 12 Days For Justice) that detailed his misanthropic attitude toward women’s rights. As a appeals court judge he had argued unsuccessfully for a law requiring a married woman to notify her husband before obtaining an abortion. Here’s Connecticut Man’s Diary detailing Alito’s opposition to Roe v. Wade from his days as a government attorney in the Reagan Administration’s Solicitor General’s Office:

In a 1985 memo Alito had advised the Reagan Administration that it should attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade. Alito urged the administration to file a friend-of-the-court brief in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and argued that this brief could promote “the goals of bringing about the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade, and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects.”

Yet, despite this fact, four Democratic Senators voted for his appointment, which was approved by the entire Senate by a vote of only 58-42. More devastating, not one Democrat attempted to filibuster the vote on his appointment to the Court, despite the fact that there would not have been enough votes to break the filibuster.

I imagine there are numerous reasons why Senate Democrats have failed to protect one of the most important rights that women in America have, the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. You could blame it on fear of an increasingly hostile media environment, or the misguided belief that the doctrine of stare decisis would prevent even outspoken opponents of abortion on the Court from overruling Roe v. Wade. You can palm it off on political calculations that supporting abortion was not a winning argument for Democrats in many states.

But the truth is that the Democratic Party, as a whole, simply didn’t care enough about the single most significant issue for women in this country. The Democratic party has abandoned women on this issue. Progressive voices who support the right to choose have been shouted down or marginalized. As the Democrats attempted to move to an ever more mythical center in a futile attempt to win elections, they lost their way, and abandoned the progressive ideals which once made them the dominant political power for much of the 20th Century.

Thus, if you are looking for someone to blame for the recent Supreme Court decision look no further than the party which was supposed to advocate for, and protect, individual rights in general, and the rights of women, in particular: the Democrats.

Samuel Alito

John Roberts

Clarence Thomas

Antonin Scalia

Right to Choose

Abortion

Democratic Party

cross-posted at skippy and a veritable cornucopia of other community blogs.

john amato at c&l is reporting that black employees of radio stations are pretty p.o.’d about limbaugh’s “barack the magic negro” parody:

updated: rush limbaugh has angered many black employees over this parody song called “barack the magic negro” this isn’t the first or the last time that limbaugh will go after obama’s race…

i’ve been told that they have held meetings internally to deal with a ground swell of anger at rush because of this.

update: i’ve anonymously confirmed that stations around the country who carry the show are having concerns expressed by listeners and even their own workers of color about the obama parody, and the ensuing controversy in the media, and that respective managements are considering ways to address the matter with as little imus-like backlash as possible,..this is starting to boil over…

we hope it is starting to boil over. and you can help it along.  we tell you how after the jump:
via antirepublican at the unfiltered news network forum (hat tip malmo blue commenting at c&l), here’s a list of links to some of limbaugh’s advertisers:

life lock

lumber liquidaators

laser sheild

cartridge world

quicken loans

barnes & noble

gold central

dollar imprint

big baby

big red consulting

pcfaster

constant contact

premier radio network

of course, the last one, premiere radio network, is actually rush’s syndicator (don’t mention that skippy used to work there in the 90’s when you call!)

and, on prn online, a parody site of premiere (hat tip to wess commenting at c&l), here’s a list of phone numbers of “some” of rush’s advertisers:

autozone (901) 495-6500

bose wave radio 508-766-7781

mission pharmacal(makers of citracal) (800) 531-3333

general steel metal buildings 1-888-98-steel

hotwire discount travel 415-343-8444

lending tree (704) 541-5351

life quotes 1-800-670-5433

red lobster (407) 245-6546

select comfort 763-551-7460

mission pharmacal(makers of thera-gesic) (800) 531-3333

overstock.com (801) 947-3100

remember, when calling, be polite and focused.  ask the advertisers why they choose to continue to support someone who is patently racist.  inform them you will no longer/never buy their products/services, and you will actively work to spread the word that they support racism on a national level.

Regular readers of the Booman Tribune will have noted the series of reports being released by the Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) during this spring.

The report of Working Group I covered the scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change and was released on 2 February 2007.
Contribution of Working Group I – Summary for Policymakers (pdf)

Working Group II released it’s report on April 6; assessing the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it.
Working Group II – Summary for Policymakers (pdf)  Also see previous diary entry.

The report of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change was due to be released on May 4 in Bangkok.  However, The Guardian has obtained a copy of the draft summary report, allowing us some insight to what will be presented coming Friday.

Follow below::
Here is how The Guardian sums it up:

The summary of the new report, a draft of which has been obtained by the Guardian, says: “It is technically and economically feasible to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere … provided that incentives are in place to further develop and implement a range of mitigation technologies.”

The knowledge and technology available to us today should enable us to limit the global temperature increase to 2-3 C, provided greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere is stabilizing within 454-534 parts per million by 2030.  That would require immediate and drastic action.

One of the most controversial findings of the report is likely to be its discussion of the various strategies international governments could take – the US has refused to adopt binding targets agreed under Kyoto and is resisting attempts to discuss a replacement, preferring voluntary agreements.

The draft report says such voluntary agreements are not effective, but it also raises questions about the success of Kyoto-style treaties based on targets and carbon trading. It says the best approach is to tie development to investment in clean technology.

Catherine Pearce, international climate campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said: “We hope that this report will push governments to take action, by demonstrating that the policies, measures and sustainable energy technologies are readily available. We have no time to lose, and no excuses for further inaction.”

Check out the entire article!  Of course, we do recall that the previous report ended up heavily politicized:

CNN – Several scientists objected to the editing of the final draft by government negotiators but in the end agreed to compromises. However, some scientists vowed never to take part in the process again.

    The climax of five days of negotiations was reached when the delegates removed parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick in with every rise of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, and in a tussle over the level of scientific reliability attached to key statements.

No doubt, this is a busy week of negotiations in Bangkok, hopefully, we will get a final report which is scientifically sound.  We cannot afford political games and stalling tactics any longer.  The time for action is now!

David Brooks, behind the firewall, makes a few points that I have been making for a while. Do the Republicans have any sense of self-preservation? Evidently not.

At the University of Chicago there’s a group of scholars who are members of what is called the Rational Expectations school of economics. They believe human beings tend to anticipate unpleasant future events and seek in advance to avoid them. Their teachings do not apply to the Republican Party.

Brooks then details a familiar narrative about the 2006 midterms, etc. Then he gets to the meat of the problem.

On Capitol Hill, there is a strange passivity in Republican ranks. Republicans are privately disgusted with how President Bush has led their party and the nation, but they don’t publicly offer any alternatives. They just follow sullenly along…

They are like people quietly marching to their doom.

What’s interesting about Brooks’ column is that he attempts to explain why.

First:

Anybody who offers unorthodox tax policies gets whacked by the Club for Growth and Americans for Tax Reform. Anybody who offers unorthodox social policies gets whacked by James Dobson.

Second:

Being a good conservative now means sticking together with other conservatives, not thinking new and adventurous thoughts. Those who stray from the reservation are accused of selling out to the mainstream media by the guardians of conservative correctness.

Third:

Conservatives have allowed a simplistic view of Ronald Reagan to define the sacred parameters of thought. Reagan himself was flexible, unorthodox and creative. But conservatives have created a mythical, rigid Reagan, and any deviation from that is considered unholy.

And fourth:

Republican morale has been brutalized by the Iraq war and the party’s decline. This state of emotional pain is not conducive to risk-taking and free and open debate.

Brooks concludes by saying something about the GOP that can be applied with even greater accuracy to the President and Vice-President and their war in Iraq.

In sum, Republicans know they need to change, but they have closed off all the avenues for change.

By defining the war in Iraq as the defining struggle of our generation, and by defining any withdrawal from Iraq as a defeat that will have catastrophic consequences for our nation, and by rejecting the collective wisdom of the Baker-Hamilton group…the GOP has driven itself over a cliff.

The people are concerned about Iraq and the consequences of chaos and instability in the Middle East. But they also know that there would be a draft, and tax increases to pay for a total national effort, if the status of Iraq were truly as important as it is portrayed by Republican fire-breathers.

The GOP/administration are like the boy who cried wolf. Even if there is a real wolf lurking out there, the people stopped listening to false alarms a long time ago.

But, from a political perspective, the most interesting thing is precisely this total lack of any instinct for self-preservation we are seeing from congressional Republicans. Their collective tolerance for the continued service of Alberto Gonzales is merely the most visible manifestation of a greater problem.

If they were sensible they would get out in front of the problem and admit that we cannot make any progress on fixing our problem in Iraq until we have new leadership and that we can’t wait until 2009. If the Republicans force us to wait until 2009, there may be very few Republicans in office when the 111th congress take their seats.

And, as a Democrat, I admit that this is good for my party. But it is not good for the country. Republicans should save themselves by admitting what a growing majority of Americans already know: our current leadership is unfit for office.

Regarding the “Global War on Terror”(GWOT frame) show-of-hands question in the first debate for the Democratic nomination, Matt Stoller wrote: Global War on Terror: Clinton Fails, Edwards Shines and an Edwards promoter goes on to explain to us why that frame is so bad (didn’t we know this since it was coined first?)

While the current version of Edwards (“Edwards 3.x”) is apparently exciting to many in the blogosphere, it turns out that the former avatar of Edwards (“Edwards 2.x”) was, as with the war, at the forefront of championing the GOP/neocon frame, “GWOT”, as seen in the extensive evidence presented below the fold.

Tags: John Edwards, ‘War on Terror’ frame, Iraq War, 2008 elections, Democratic Nomination, Progressive Movement

They then diverted their attention from the very people who attacked us, who were at the center of the war on terror, and so Osama bin Laden is still at large.

— John Edwards, Vice Presidential Debate, Cleveland, Ohio, October 5, 2004. Link

~~~~~~~~

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said on ABC’s “Nightline” program. “The war on terrorism is absolutely winnable.”

— John Edwards, circa Aug 31, 2004

~~~~~~~~

Whether it is winning the war on terror; strengthening and leading strong alliances; or finishing the job in Afghanistan and Iraq.

To win the war on terror, we need three things: a strong offense, a strong defense, and strong alliances.

And we must start by finishing the job we started in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Afghanistan is in many ways a forgotten front in the war on terror.

— Senator John Edwards, D-N.C., Wilmington, N.C., August 30, 2004: Remarks on National Security

~~~~~~~~

EDWARDS: And as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know that we have to do more to fight the war on terrorism and keep the American people safe. We can do that.

And we’re here to make America respected in the world again so that we can bring him home. And American soldiers don’t have to fight this war in Iraq or this war on terrorism alone.

— John Edwards, July 28, 2004, Acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.

~~~~~~~~

SNOW: Well, Senator, during the debate about the Patriot Act — the section that you’re talking about is called Section 215. Russ Feingold, one of your colleagues…

EDWARDS: That’s correct.

SNOW: … actually put together an amendment to tighten it up. You voted against that amendment and for the act.

EDWARDS: I did. I think there are some things in the Patriot Act that are actually very good. You know, for example, we’ve got some — there were some serious information-sharing problems before September 11th with respect to intelligence, between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. That was changed in the Patriot Act. That’s a good thing. Some of the provisions of the Patriot Act updated our ability to use technology. I think that’s a very good thing.

And specifically on Russ Feingold’s amendment, at least from my perspective, it didn’t approach this deficiency in the problem in the law the right way. I think it went further than we needed to go. And I think there has to be the correct balance between making sure that we’re prosecuting the war on terrorism and protecting people’s civil liberties.

— Senator John Edwards, D-NC, September 28, 2003. Appearance on ‘FOX News Sunday’

~~~~~~~~

We must work with the world to win the war on terrorism and to finish the job in Iraq.

— Senator John Edwards, D-NC, Announcement of Candidacy for President, September 16, 2003. Robbins, NC. Link

Q: What will be America’s greatest foreign policy challenge in the next 20 years?

A: Our highest priority is to protect the American people — and therefore the greatest challenges will be to win the war on terrorism and halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

— Senator John Edwards, D-NC, May 25, 2003. Question and Answer with the Los Angeles Times

~~~~~~~~

I reject the false choice between fighting the war on terrorism and containing the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, specifically the looming danger of Saddam Hussein.
…
When it comes to fighting the war on terror around the globe, we have to keep the big picture in mind, and stay true to our principles.

— John Edwards, December 18, 2002. Homeland Security Address, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. Link

~~~~~~~~

On a related note, in the speech above, Edwards proposes a new domestic spying agency, which he would later put forward as this bill:

S.410
Title: A bill to establish the Homeland Intelligence Agency, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (NC) (introduced 2/13/2003)      Cosponsors (None)

~~~~~~~~

In a speech in October 2002 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington, D.C., Senator Edwards articulated the details of his strategy. The Senator called for action to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction, win the war on terrorism, and promote democracy and freedom internationally, particularly in the Middle East.

— Source: johnedwards2004.com

~~~~~~~~

But the first responsibility of any government is the safety and security of its citizens. I believe that, today, that responsibility imposes three challenges above all others: first, to eliminate the threat of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons; second, to win the war on terrorism; and third, to promote democracy and freedom around the world, especially the Middle East.
…
The first thing we need to do with regard to the war on terror is to recognize that, like the fight against weapons of mass destruction, it will never be won through unilateral American action.
…
In addition to global leadership against Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, and in the war on terror, the United States should lead a global coalition to promote democracy.

— Senator John Edwards, D-NC, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., October 7, 2002. America’s Role in the World

~~~~~~~~

In fact, in this February 2002 interview, Edwards injected the frame “war on terrorism” before anyone else did or asked there (as the reader can verify by searching for “war on terror” while visiting the link), and proceeded to declare Saddam Hussein “the most serious and imminent threat” to start his extended Kabuki in promoting the invasion of Iraq:

EDWARDS: Well, the death of Mr. Pearl is a terrible tragedy and something that actually is a good indication of what we have just been talking about, the need to go forward with this war on terrorism, the brutality of the way he died is a terrible thing.
…

But I do think that the more serious question going forward is, what are we going to do? I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States — they’re dictatorships, they’re involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.

And I think they — as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as we develop policies about how we’re going to deal with each of these countries and what action, if any, we’re going to take with respect to them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits.

And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.

— John Edwards, CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER, February 24, 2002 – 12:00 ET. Link:

~~~~~~~~

Here is only a partial sampling of that kabuki:

Edwards’ obsessive war-hawking record

1. Starts with: “in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.” (2/24/02),
2. Co-sponsored Lieberman war resolution along with all the lies it contains,
3. Voted against the Byrd Amendment which would have limited IWR authorization to one year renewal-needed terms,
4. voted for the IWR,
5. Sidelined the UN weapons inspector report saying there were no WMD and continuing his war support,
6. Said: “I would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein.” in October 2004. He was apparently speaking for himself here and in fact seems to have been a prime advocate for this tack for the Kerry/Edwards campaign in the fall of 2004 according to this Boston Globe article.

~~~~~~~~

In November of 2005, apparently after making a strategic decision,

Support for the Iraq war caused Edwards trouble in the 2004 Democratic primary. So in the spring of 2005, the former North Carolina senator asked aides to begin rethinking his policy on the war. The result: a Washington Post op-ed saying “I was wrong” and calling for a drawdown in troops and increased engagement with Iraq’s neighbors in the Middle East
The Iraq Primary

Edwards issued a ‘Mea Culpa’

However, the said apology itself contains various contradictions with what he said and did during 2002-2004. We will explore them in a future diary, but here is a preview: Edwards says he was misled on pre-war intelligence in the said apology. However, on this he contradicts himself as argued at that link.

The basic fact to remember in this context is that Saddam Hussein was never an imminent threat to the US because even if he had any WMD/nuclear weapons, he never had the means to deliver them to the US since he did not have missile that could reach even a tenth (or so) of the distance between Iraq and the US and neither did he have known connections to terrorist networks such as Al Queda. Furthermore, Saddam did not have a known motive or established inclination; in fact, one would gather precisely to the contrary from Sen. Bob Graham’s oped where he said: “As to Hussein’s will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.”

Further, while Edwards did offer condolences to the fallen American troops as he should have, he didn’t extend the same courtesy to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians as a result of the needless war.

For these reasons, I see his “apology” as a calculated political gimmick/repositioning for the 2008 presidential race.

~~~~~~~~

Conclusion:

While the readers must reach their own opinions and dispositions, and towards that end, I implore them to spend a few hours to visit all of the links given here and thinking through them, I find that the evidence is clear, compelling and even overwhelming that Edwards sold the GOP/Neoconservative snake oil on not only the Iraq war but also the associated GWOT and WMD frames.

Getting behind such a candidate, in my opinion, will doom the progressive movement, which I care deeply about.

Should he be the nominee, I believe that his grossly shifting, slick, inconsistent and highly contradictory record on the war will be a trivially easy target (several fold worse than the “flip-flopping” meme in 2004) for the Republicans to pounce on and to ensure a landslide defeat for the Democratic party in not only the presidential election but also the 2008 congressional races. Clearly, the Democratic party, the country and the planet can ill-afford such a defeat at this critical juncture.

28 April 2007
Mr. George Tenet
c/o Harper Collins Publishers
10 East 53rd Street 8th Floor
New York City, New York 10022
ATTN: Ms. Tina Andredis

Dear Mr. Tenet:

We write to you on the occasion of the release of your book, At the Center of the Storm. You are on the record complaining about the “damage to your reputation”. In our view the damage to your reputation is inconsequential compared to the harm your actions have
caused for the U.S. soldiers engaged in combat in Iraq and the national security of the United States. We believe you have a moral obligation to return the Medal of Freedom you received from President George Bush. We also call for you to dedicate a significant percentage
of the royalties from your book to the U.S. soldiers and their families who have been killed and wounded in Iraq.

We agree with you that Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials took the United States to war for flimsy reasons. We agree that the war of choice in Iraq was ill-advised and wrong headed. But your lament that you are a victim in a process you
helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership. You were not a victim. You were a willing participant in a poorly considered policy to start an unnecessary war and you share culpability with Dick
Cheney and George Bush for the debacle in Iraq.

You are not alone in failing to speak up and protest the twisting and shading of intelligence. Those who remained silent when they could have made a difference also share the blame for not protesting the abuse and misuse of intelligence that occurred under your watch. But ultimately you were in charge and you signed off on the CIA products and you briefed the President.

This is not a case of Monday morning quarterbacking. You helped send very mixed signals to the American people and their legislators in the fall of 2002. CIA field operatives produced solid intelligence in
September 2002 that stated clearly there was no stockpile of any kind of WMD in Iraq. This intelligence was ignored and later misused. On October 1 you signed and gave to President Bush and senior policy makers a fraudulent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)—which
dovetailed with unsupported threats presented by Vice President Dick Cheney in an alarmist speech on August 26, 2002.

You were well aware that the White House tried to present as fact intelligence you knew was unreliable. And yet you tried to have it both ways. On October 7, just hours before the president gave a major speech in Cincinnati, you were successful in preventing him from using the fable about Iraq purchasing uranium in Africa, although that same claim appeared in the NIE you signed only six days before.

Although CIA officers learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein’s inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, you still went before Congress in February 2003 and testified that Iraq did indeed have links to Al Qaeda.

You showed a lack of leadership and courage in January of 2003 as the Bush Administration pushed and cajoled analysts and managers to let them make the bogus claim that Iraq was on the verge of getting its hands on uranium. You signed off on Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations. And, at his insistence, you sat behind him and visibly squandered CIA’s most precious asset—credibility.”

You may now feel you were bullied and victimized but you were also one of the bullies. In the end you allowed suspect sources, like Curveball, to be used based on very limited reporting and evidence.

Yet you were informed in no uncertain terms that Curveball was not reliable. You broke with CIA standard practice and insisted on voluminous evidence to refute this reporting rather than treat the information as suspect. You helped set the bar very low for reporting
that supported favored White House positions, while raising the bar astronomically high when it came to raw intelligence that did not support the case for war being hawked by the president and vice president
It now turns out that you were the Alberto Gonzales of the intelligence community–a grotesque mixture of incompetence and sycophancy shielded by a genial personality. Decisions were made, you were in
charge, but you have no idea how decisions were made even though you were in charge. Curiously, you focus your anger on the likes of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice, but you decline to criticize the President.

Mr. Tenet, as head of the intelligence community, you failed to use your position of power and influence to protect the intelligence process and, more importantly, the country. What should you have done?

What could you have done?

For starters, during the critical summer and fall of 2002, you could have gone to key Republicans and Democrats in the Congress and warned them of the pressure. But you remained silent. Your candor
during your one-on-one with Sir Richard Dearlove, then-head of British Intelligence, of July 20, 2002″ provides documentary evidence that you knew exactly what you were doing; namely, “fixing” the
intelligence to the policy.

By your silence you helped build the case for war. You betrayed the CIA officers who collected the intelligence that made it clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat. You betrayed the analysts
who tried to withstand the pressure applied by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Most importantly and tragically, you failed to meet your obligations to the people of the United States. Instead of resigning in protest, when it could have made a difference in the public debate, you remained
silent and allowed the Bush Administration to cite your participation in these deliberations to justify their decision to go to war. Your silence contributed to the willingness of the public to support the disastrous
war in Iraq, which has killed more than 3300 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

If you are committed to correcting the record about your past failings then you should start by returning the Medal of Freedom you willingly received from President Bush in December 2004. You claim it was
given only because of the war on terror, but you were standing next to General Tommy Franks and L. Paul Bremer, who also contributed to the disaster in Iraq. President Bush said that you: played pivotal roles in great events, and [your] efforts have made our country more secure and advanced the cause of human liberty.

The reality of Iraq, however, has not made our nation more secure nor has the cause of human liberty been advanced. In fact, your tenure as head of the CIA has helped create a world that is more dangerous.

The damage to the credibility of the CIA is serious but can eventually be repaired. Many of the U.S. soldiers maimed in the streets of Fallujah and Baghdad cannot be fixed. Many will live the rest of their lives missing limbs, blinded, mentally disabled, or physically
disfigured. And the dead have passed into history.

Mr. Tenet, you cannot undo what has been done. It is doubly sad that you seem still to lack an adequate appreciation of the enormous amount of death and carnage you have facilitated. If reflection on
these matters serves to prick your conscience we encourage you to donate at least half of the royalties from your book sales to the veterans and their families, who have paid and are paying the price for
your failure to speak up when you could have made a difference. That would be the decent and honorable thing to do.

Sincerely yours,

Phil Giraldi
Ray McGovern
Larry Johnson
Jim Marcinkowski
Vince Cannistraro
David MacMichael