Wednesday, April 09, 2003

The occupation… …will be about urban combat on a daily basis – unfortunately very possibly like this. 4:30:00 PM

A sad taste… …of the occupation to come – right here. 11:17:56 AM

Sounds like the war is over… …and the really tough part – the occupation – has begun.   How can I tell? Apart from the collapse of centralized resistance these two stories here and here…   Of course Blair and Bush want the conflict termed a “war” as long as possible – it heightens their prestige and standing and renders them relatively invulnerable to domestic criticism. The moment it becomes the “occupation” and not the “war” is the moment that these two become accountable for the costs (human and otherwise) and ongoing turmoil and sacrifice - hence the determined reluctance of their regimes to declare the “war” over. 11:15:02 AM

Time to Fight In fact there is never a time not to fight… but the Dems don’t seem to understand this.   They have confused reasonableness with backing down. There is no contradiction in fighting and being reasonable – you compromise IF they also compromise.   But too many Dems have been spooked by the GOP PR and personal destruction machine. They’ve seen what has happened to Clinton and others and don’t want to be fed to the wood-chipper.   The sad thing is, they all WILL be – one at a time - if they don’t fight.   Public opinion is a powerful thing, but the public needs to be armed by arguments that originate with the elite who have access who set the media agenda. If only one side of the argument is aired then for many in the public it is a one-sided battle. The Dems cannot and should not rely on the GOP-media to show both sides of any argument – the whole raison d’etre of hate radio, Fox news, and increasingly cable news and the rest of networks is to act as an echo chamber for GOP blast-faxes. They need to fight to get their message out there.   They cannot rely – as German-Jewish veterans of WW1 did – on their obvious status as any form of protection for the dehumanization process. Daschle, Cleland and Kerry are veterans but is has not prevented the GOP hate machine from dehumanizing them. And it will continue, of that you can be sure.   The only response is to FIGHT. Oppose the Bush regime. Defend the proper use of English (“tax cuts” versus “tax giveaways,” “operation Iraqi freedom” versus “Bush’s invasion,” “patriotism” that eliminates constitutional liberties versus “jingoism” that redefines patriotism to mean support of the GOP policy program.   Folks who love America, now is the time to FIGHT.     Gene Lyons April 9, 2003   Political Correctness, GOP Style   According to the U.S. Constitution, there's a presidential election next year. Assuming it takes place as scheduled, however, Republicans are demanding special ground rules: there will be no criticizing the august personage of "America's commander-in-chief." Any rival who points out that George W. Bush is arguably the worst president since the Civil War will be deemed unpatriotic.   The bullying has already begun. Speaking in New Hampshire last week, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) permitted himself a wry joke. "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq," he said "but we need a regime change in the United States."   Kerry's been using the remark for months. Given Bush's incantatory repetition of the phrase, it's a guaranteed laugh getter. A decorated Vietnam combat veteran, Kerry may have thought he'd earned the right, although no American should have to. Criticizing our leaders isn't merely a constitutional right, it's our duty as citizens.   Nevertheless, Republicans feigned outrage in their usual scripted, coordinated way. The RNC e-mailed party faithful quoting chairman Marc Racicot. "Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander-in-chief at a time when America is at war," he said. "These comments are just the latest example of Democrat leaders blaming America first."   Imagine that, Kerry "dared to suggest" replacing President Junior. Talk radio bloviators jumped in, along with House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Rep. Tom DeLay and the usual pundits. DeLay pronounced Kerry's remarks "desperate and inappropriate." New York Post editor John Podhoretz called them "ugly" and "disgusting." Transplanted Brit Andrew Sullivan opined that "Kerry is now indistinguishable from the most hard core anti-war leftists."   Accusing Democrats of lacking patriotism is GOP boilerplate. Even before Kerry's "regime change" joke, Weekly Standard editor and neo-conservative guru William Kristol was sadly telling Fox News Sunday that "a certain chunk of the Democratic Party, a higher chunk of the liberal commentators, take a certain relish in the fact when something goes badly in the war. They...hate the Bush administration more than they love America. And that is a very bad situation."   David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter who takes credit for coining the "Axis of Evil" phrase, used virtually identical terms to describe another group of Bush critics. "[T]hey are thinking about defeat, and wishing for it and they will take pleasure in it if it should happen," he wrote. "They began by hating the neoconservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country."   Frum, however, wasn't talking about Democrats, but conservative pundits Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan, who have criticized the war in Iraq as contrary to the national interest. Novak broke what he said was a 40 year refusal to respond to personal attacks by describing his own Korean war service and lifelong patriotism.   During the 2002 election, Republicans ran TV ads in South Dakota linking Sen. Tom Daschle, an Air Force veteran, with Saddam Hussein. They impugned the patriotism of Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, who lost two legs and an arm fighting in Vietnam, because he differed with Junior over details of a Homeland Security bill Bush himself had opposed until his administration's cover-up of pre-9/11 intelligence failures became a big issue. Astonishingly, it worked, largely because Cleland refused to dignify the smear with a personal response.   Sen. Kerry is a different breed of cat. Instead of cowering, he hit back. "I'm not going to let the likes of Tom DeLay question my patriotism, which I fought for and bled for in order to have the right to speak out," he said. It was an obvious reference to the fact that DeLay, like many in the GOP Chickenhawk Drum and Bugle Corps, avoided Vietnam. Indeed, DeLay once memorably complained that undeserving minorities had unfairly grabbed up all the infantry slots.   Kerry later amplified the theme. "The Republicans have tried to make a practice of attacking anybody who speaks out strongly by questioning their patriotism," he said. "I refuse to have my patriotism or right to speak out questioned. I fought for and earned the right to express my views in this country...If they want to pick a fight, they've picked a fight with the wrong guy."   "I watched what they did to Max Cleland last year," Kerry added. "Shame on them for doing it then and shame on them for trying to do it now."   "Finally," wrote Joan Walsh in Salon, "a Democrat with the guts to fight back!" Amen to that. Bush and company have gotten away with the phony tough-guy act for far too long. Frightened and confused since 9/11, Americans don't necessarily want to go to war with every tinpot dictator in the Islamic world. But neither do they trust a leader who won't stand up for himself to stand up for them. 10:58:10 AM

Fair weather patriots That’s what we’re seeing now in this war… all the GOP and their fellow travelers in the media who were ready to tear down the “commander in chief” during the Kosovo crisis and the attempt to get bin Laden (prior to 9/11) have now discovered the necessity of stifling any criticism of the president. Rather fortuitous for their political party, wouldn’t you say? Also rather contemptuous of the people in whose name they wield power, since it assumes we can’t remember what they were saying a scant few years ago. But then democracy was never high on the agenda of plutocrats, media moguls and fundamentalists that make up the base of today’s GOP.   The Last Refuge By PAUL KRUGMAN   In 1944, millions of Americans were engaged in desperate battles across the world. Nonetheless, a normal presidential election was held, and the opposition didn't pull its punches: Thomas Dewey, the Republican candidate, campaigned on the theme that Franklin Roosevelt was a "tired old man." As far as I've been able to ascertain, the Roosevelt administration didn't accuse Dewey of hurting morale by questioning the president's competence. After all, democracy — including the right to criticize — was what we were fighting for.   It's not a slur on the courage of our troops, or a belittling of the risks they face, to say that our current war is a mere skirmish by comparison. Yet self-styled patriots are trying to impose constraints on political speech never contemplated during World War II, accusing anyone who criticizes the president of undermining the war effort.   Last week John Kerry told an audience that "what we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States." Republicans immediately sought to portray this remark as little short of treason. "Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief at a time when America is at war," declared Marc Racicot, chairman of the Republican National Committee.   Notice that Mr. Racicot wasn't criticizing Mr. Kerry's choice of words. Instead, he denounced Mr. Kerry because he "dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief" — knowing full well that Mr. Kerry was simply talking about the next election. Mr. Racicot, not Mr. Kerry, is the one who crossed a grave line; never in our nation's history has it been considered unpatriotic to oppose an incumbent's re-election.   Anyway, what defines patriotism? Talk is cheap; so is putting a flag in your lapel. Citizens prove their patriotism when they make sacrifices for the sake of their country. Mr. Kerry, a decorated veteran, has met that test. Most of his critics haven't.   I'm not just talking about military service — though it's striking how few of our biggest hawks have served. Nor am I talking only about financial sacrifice — though profiting from public office seems to be the norm, not the exception, among those who wrap themselves in the flag. (Mr. Racicot himself accepted the job as R.N.C. chairman only on the condition that he remain on the payroll of Bracewell and Patterson, a law firm that specializes in lobbying.)   The biggest test of a politician's patriotism is whether he is willing to sacrifice some of his political agenda for the sake of the nation. And that's a test our current leaders have failed with flying colors.   Consider the case of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, who also piled on Mr. Kerry last week. As it happens, during the war in Kosovo Mr. DeLay was a defeatist, and blamed his own country for provoking Serbian atrocities; any Democrat who said similar things now would be accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.   Mr. DeLay's political agenda hasn't shifted a bit now that we're at war again. He's still pushing for huge, divisive tax cuts that go mainly to the rich: "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes," he says. And he's still eager to slash any and all domestic spending. In the midst of war he pushed through a budget that included sharp cuts in, yes, veterans' benefits.   You can see why Mr. Kerry blasted back, "I'm not going to be questioned in my patriotism by the likes of Tom DeLay."   Some timid souls will suggest that critics of the Bush administration hold off until the war is over. But that's not the American tradition — and anyway, when will this war be over? Baghdad will fall, but during the occupation that follows American soldiers will still be in harm's way. Also, a strong faction within the administration wants to go on to Syria, to Iran and beyond. And Al Qaeda is still out there.   For years to come, then, this country may be, in some sense, at war. And all that time, if Mr. Racicot and his party are allowed to set the ground rules, nobody will be allowed to criticize the president or call for his electoral defeat. You know what? If that happens, we will have lost the war, whatever happens on the battlefield. 10:58:04 AM