Bush has been calling the Democratic candidates with some free advice. About Iraq. And I really fear that, after watching the Dem debate the other night, Clinton, Obama and Edwards are actually listening to the one human being on this planet who has proved his ineptitude knows no limits:
Even on Iraq, Bush clearly has an eye on the clock. While he no longer harbors hope of winning the war by Jan. 20, 2009, he wants to use his remaining time in office to stabilize the country, draw down some forces and leave his successor with a less volatile situation that would dampen domestic demands to pull out completely. If he can do that, he told television anchors during an off-the-record lunch this month, he thinks even Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic front-runner, would continue his policy.
The goal, as national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told the Council on Foreign Relations recently, is that “a new president who comes in in January of ’09, whoever he or she may be, will look at it and say, ‘I’m persuaded that we have long-term interests here. It’s important we get it right. This strategy is beginning to work. I think I’ll leave Iraq alone.’ And so that a new president coming in doesn’t have a first crisis about ‘let’s pull the troops out of Iraq.’ ”
Bush has even quietly sent advice through intermediaries to Clinton and other Democratic candidates, urging them to be careful in their campaign rhetoric so they do not limit their options should they win, according to a new book, “The Evangelical President,” by Bill Sammon of the Washington Examiner. Bush has “been urging candidates, ‘Don’t get yourself too locked in where you stand right now. If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically,’ ” White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten told Sammon.
Any sane person would run, not walk, as fast as he or she could 180 degrees in the opposite direction from any course of action recommended by this worst of American Presidents (and the competition is no longer even close). Yet we witnessed the other night the top three candidates for the Democrats, one right after the other refuse to commit to removing all of our troops from Iraq before the year 2013. Indeed, they didn’t even pledge that much. They merely set 2013 as an “aspirational” goal, at best.
Hillary Clinton, the leading candidate, reiterated her refusal to commit to a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq by 2013. Her top contenders, Barack Obama and John Edwards, joined her in declining to speculate on hypothetical situations so far in the future.
“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” Obama said Wednesday night during a debate at Dartmouth University in New Hampshire. […]
Clinton said it was the “height of irresponsibility” for President Bush to leave office without ending the war, and she said her goal was to have troops gone within four years, but the New York Senator would not make any firm commitments because “we don’t know what we’re going to find” when the next president takes office.
Former North Carolina Sen. Edwards said he couldn’t “make that commitment” to having all troops gone …
In short, it appears that the leading Democratic candidates would rather listen to the guy whose strategy in Iraq the overwhelming majority of Americans have rejected (even after the testimony of General “I’ve found a pony in Iraq” Petraeus before Congress earlier this month), the man who lied and misled our nation into violating the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution, and the man who is trying desperately to inoculate himself from being prosecuted for war crimes, than to the people who have been right about Iraq all along.
It’s enough to make someone into a conspiracy theorist, isn’t it? It’s certainly makes reasonable people doubt the sincerity of any Democrat who claims he or she opposes the war and wants to withdraw our troops from Iraq. Congress refuses to defund the war, or even to force Bush to continuously veto supplemental defense funding bills that would set a firm date for the withdrawal of our forces. Congress also refuses to even consider an impeachment investigation of Bush and Cheney, even in light of the recent disclosures in the Spanish press that Bush was flat out lying to Congress and the American people back in early 2003 when he claimed he hadn’t made his mind up about invading Iraq (instead he told the Spanish leader, Aznar that he would invade with or without a UN resolution authorizing the use of force).
How much lower can the Democrats go? That used to be a question I asked of the Bush administration and the Republican party, but increasingly it makes sense to ask it of the “worst opposition party” in history. After all, what have they done to roll back the excesses of the Bush regime enacted prior to 2006?
Have they changed the Military Commissions Act to restore habeas corpus? No.
Have they changed the FISA law to make it impossible for a US President to spy on American citizens with out a warrant? No (instead they extended Bush’s authority to do so).
Have they created laws which require oversight of the billions upon billions of dollars doled out to US contractors in Iraq? No.
Have they amended the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to make it crystal clear that Bush does not have the unilateral authority to attack Iran without a Congressional declaration of war, as required by the Constitution? No (instead they approved meaningless resolutions condemning Iran and advising Bush to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, thus making it easier for him to rely on the AUMF to attack Iran whenever he so desires).
Did they vote to deny Bush the authority to escalate the war in Iraq? No.
Now the leading Democratic candidates for president won’t commit to withdrawing our troops from the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States. And it looks as if they are following the advice of current criminalcommander-in-chief who created this mess in the first place.
Ask me again: Why should I send any money to the Democratic Party or any of its affiliated organizations (DNC, DCCC, DSCC, etc.)? I can’t think of one good reason. Can you?
In partial defense of the Presidential candidates, the “will you commit to…” language has an ambiguous meaning. (1) Would you commit to having a policy to move the situation toward… and (2) Would you commit to obtaining these results… Call them the loose deconstruction (1) and the strict deconstruction (2).
Candidates who in a stump speech will answer in a loose deconstruction way (because they have surrounded it with hedges) will take it in a strict deconstructionist way in a debate, especially when pressed.
The fact is that good intentions, good plans, good policies, and determination are not enough when George W. Bush is trying to build a box to force their policy. They indeed do not know what they will see in January 2009–too far in the future. It is mildly possible that the whole enterprise might have already collapsed at Bush’s feet by then.
That is about a very long (in political terms) time in the future.
In considering the future we should be equally worried about the Congress that will push any President in one direction or another.
That said, you are dead on about their actions in the present. It is those and not their “commitments” that should worry us more. And not just of the presidential candidates but all of the Democrats in Congress.
Yes, it is indeed time to withhold donations until there are several changes:
(1) More spine in pushing through needed legislation
(2) More spine in blocking dangerous candidates for Plum Book jobs appointed by the Bush administration
(3) More spine in oversight, to the point of issue contempt citations
(4) A commitment not to rhetorically slam progressives in order to try to cultivate the mythical “center”
(5) Serious efforts to find a way to win without subsidizing the media companies that counteract 1-minute ads with unbought 1 hour programs
2008 is about the Congress and restoring the power of Congress in the federal system. Our fixation on the photogenic presidential race, which is being hyped by the very media that seek to destroy the progressive movement, is distracting us from getting a progressive Congress. Where are the folks who will primary the Bush Dogs? Where are the folks, like Barry Welsh, who will run in so-called hopeless races in a time when an unforeseen event or scandal can suddenly put a race in play. Hadn’t we start to have candidates building name recognition in those districts? Even if the Democratic Party in Congressional District is two people, one of those people should run for Congress. People are fed up and want alternatives–real alternatives not phony ones.
I couldn’t agree more with this statement:
It seems I have been hearing more and more frequently an attitude that we should just chuck the Democratic Party into the crapper and think about building a new entity from scratch. And I think that is foolish. Getting anywhere is going to require a supreme effort at the ground level and that begins with reshaping Congress in 2008 with not just Democrats but Progressive Democrats. The Presidential race is important, but the direction which this country takes will be shaped much, much more by what happens in the less covered Congressional races. People need to recognize that and focus their efforts at that level. We can’t let ourselves get too wrapped up the media spectacle surrounding Presidential race.
Primary challenges for every Dem who voted to support the war, amend FISA, voted for Lieberman Kyl, etc. Every damn one.
I declined a request from the DNC yesterday, and AGAIN requested they remove me from their list.
1945-1993
In 1993 I watched the final parade in Berlin marking the departure of the Allied Forces.
Delving into the more paranormal side of my life impressions from the great beyond suggest Boston as the site of the next “911” which is going to be a nuclear event. Many times though these impressions have changed and gone away as the “date” of prophecy passes.
Perhaps the answer to this is to stop watching “the news”. I wouldn’t know about Kyl-Lieberaman.
This morning Bruce Springstein is on TV asking where did America go.
Bruce, I agree.
The language should be “BUSH IS HOLDING OUR BOYS HOSTAGE.” Make the language reflect the reality. America wants the war over but Bush is threatening to leave the troops there without funding, in other words, jeopardizing the lives of the men in order to keep his failed war going.
+++
But the candidates apparent lack of courage is more their understanding of how our government really works. When JFK stood up to the military-industrial complex they killed him.
Liberals will forever be frustrated until they understand the constellation under which our country now toils.
Its a KISS Moment. We have reached toe point. Not a cent to the ORGs you pointed out. Pick the individuals and support the or- pick the orgs that cater to your individual beliefs.
Why is hell should a penny of ones’ donation go to a person who has shown by his or her history that they do not support your positions. that is behavior that astounds me. No rant this AM.
I am too happy that SCHIP passed.
What is needed now is the greatest organized campaign to force the goopers in the house to support this bill!
Shouldn’t the question be “If we must have perpetual war, why should we raise children who may choose to serve in the armed forces?”
Ask me again: Why should I send any money to the Democratic Party or any of its affiliated organizations (DNC, DCCC, DSCC, etc.)? I can’t think of one good reason. Can you?
Nope.
“I have been saying for the last thousand years that the United States has only one party–the property party. It’s the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican.”
–Gore Vidal
blame dems for not passing bills since there is that stonewall factor of 60 votes. However, that does not explain the bills that HAVE passed. Like that stupid American Protection Act or some such thing that took away ANY FISA involvement.
It appears that the majority of congresscritters are all self-serving and cowards. They worry excessively about attacks from without and proceed to attack the very foundations of our government processes thinking they are barriers to complete security and safety.
It doesn’t appear that any of them are overmuch educated in those processes of government either.
We have ourselves to thank for this to some extent. We have continually voted against clean government and instead left the field to the monied interests to own our representation. Somehow the thought of being responsible for our own predicament has escape us.
But, in our own defense, debate about government processes (along with even the debate about the war) has been stifled by the fourth rail – the media – who has been own by the same monied interests that now hold our government hostage and has a talon into each and every representative and executive branch member.
In order to break those shackles, it will be necessary to do some remarkable things – like vote with our money.
by not committing himself to full withdrawal. Hillary and Obama have already proved themselves to be tools of corporations, the Empire, and AIPAC. To stand a chance, Edwards needs to show how he is clearly different from them.
The best way of doing so is taking a firm anti-war stand. I really don’t understand why he hasn’t done that. Politically, it would be different if he were in Hillary’s or Obama’s position, but he isn’t. So he has nothing to lose by doing the right thing.