reflectivepundit

Senate Vote on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard: An Authorization for What?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
During the debate of Democratic presidential contenders the other night, John Edwards said according to the debate transcript the following: “…there was a very important vote cast in the United States Senate today. And it was basically in a resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. I voted for this war in Iraq and I was wrong to vote for this war and I accept responsibility for that. Senator Clinton also voted for this war. We learned a very different lesson from that.

I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran. And I think that vote today, which Senator Biden and Senator Dodd voted against, and they were correct to vote against it, is a clear indication of the approach that all of us would take with the situation in Iran. Because what I learned in my vote on Iraq was, you cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority, because he cannot be trusted. And that resolution that was voted on today was a very clear indication …"

A few hours before the debate, the Senate had indeed adopted 76-22 a resolution that urged the Bush administration to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard, an elite special force, as terrorist organization. Although this move was intended by the White House one way or the other, Senators Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut) sponsored a measure that will strengthen the president’s and, more important, the vice-president’s hand in dealing with one part of the axis of evil: Iran.As David Bromwich writes in the Huffington Post,

The original draft of Kyl-Lieberman had asked U.S. forces to "combat, contain, and roll back" the Iranian menace within Iraq. But the words "roll back" were all too plainly a coded endorsement of hot pursuit into Iran; and the senators did not want to go quite so far. To assure a larger majority the language was accordingly trimmed and blurred to say "that it should be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."

Ahmadinejad in New York: The Hyping of a Pseudo-Event

By Brigitte L. Nacos
After reading this morning’s featured news headlines on Yahoo, especially the ones about (1) the world’s largest “Chicken Dance” during the world’s largest Octoberfest outside Munich in Cincinnati (“Zinzinnati”  as they spelled it in mocking the accent of Germans and German-Americans—mine included) that drew some 500,000 visitors and (2) the massive protests organized against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech and question-and-answer session at Columbia University, I decided to take some time off for a round of golf. After hitting some pretty satisfying drives and short iron shots—never mind the poor putting—, I read and listened to accounts of Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia and concluded that I didn’t miss a thing. Just as the world’s largest chicken dance and record numbers of bratwurst (it is actually “Bratwuerste” in German) sold in Cincinnati over the weekend were trivial, Ahmadinejad’s remarks at Columbia did not add anything to my understanding of Iran’s overt and covert policy goals. Indeed, the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran did not say anything that he did not articulate during his interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday, his session with the National Press Club earlier this morning, or any number of public appearances in Tehran or elsewhere inside and outside Iran.

Since no-one in his/her right mind could have imagined anything new or different coming out of Ahmadinejad’s mouth during his controversial visit at Columbia, one could well argue against the  rationale for the invitation in the first place. Columbia, by allowing Ahmadinejad to make his familiar case at the university, and various groups, by organizing massive anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-Iran protests, played into the hands of a man who strives on staging outrageous anti-American and anti-Israeli political theater and propaganda shows that guarantee massive news coverage around the globe before, during, and after such media events.

Bush: Ready to Kill Health Insurance Expansion for Children

By Brigitte L. Nacos
It is shocking enough to learn of a delay in the cancer treatment of an insufficiently insured young woman, as I did this morning, but it is even more incomprehensible to hear the President of the United States threaten to veto a congressional initiative to expand a children’s health insurance program for families whose income is too high to qualify for Medicaid and too low to buy their own health insurance. Bush told the American people, "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point." To call his statement merely spin, would be an understatement. According to the Washington Post, “A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday that would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.” In his response to Mr. Bush’s remarks, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, said that without the funding fifteen states would run out of money for this program by the end of September. So, who is risking health coverage for poor children? Democrats and Republicans in Congress who want to finance the program or the President who says he will veto such funds. 

President Bush and his supporters, including the viable contenders for his party’s presidential nomination, remain gung-ho when it comes to the Iraq War and the astronomical funds it requires. The National Priorities Project tracks the costs of the Iraq War and the ticker on the organization’s web site shows right now $453,8 billion since the beginning of the invasion—by the time you read this blog probably more than $454 billion. Take a look at the National Priorities Project’s web site to get an idea how many health insurances for children these hundreds of billions could buy!

The good news is that the Democratic contenders for their party’s presidential nomination agree to tackle the intolerable fact that more than 45 million Americans do not have health insurance, if they become president. Reason enough for opponents to once again play their propaganda game and throw around the nonsensical term “socialized medicine” to kill universal health insurance.

P.S. Tonight, the New York Times reports on its web site, "The Bush administration plans to increase its 2008 financing  request for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere by almost $50 billion, with about a quarter of the additional money going toward armored trucks built to withstand roadside bombs, Pentagon officials said Saturday. The increase would bring the amount the administration is seeking to finance the war effort through 2008 to almost $200 billion."

But $35 billion cannot be found to provide health insurance and adequate health care to American children for the next five years!? 

Gender Bias on the Sports Pages

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Imagine that the competition for the Ryder Cup, golf’s prestigious trophy, had taken place last weekend in Sweden. Imagine how extensively the biennially contested matches between the best male golfers of team United States and their counterparts of team Europewould have been covered on the sports pages and in television. Now imagine that the competition for the Solheim Cup, golf’s prestigious trophy, between the best female American golfers and their counterparts in team Europe had taken place last weekend in Sweden and imagine how extensively the biennially contested matches might have been covered on the sports pages and in television. Well, last weekend the Solheim Cup matches were played in Halmstad,Sweden, and won convincingly by the American team thanks to the American women’s superb play in the singles matches. But chances are that you do not know—even if you are interested in sports-- because the event was basically a non-event on the sports pages and TV sports programs. This would simply not have happened in case of a Ryder Cup competition--regardless of the time difference between Europe and the U.S. Gender bias in sports is alive and well--in general and on the sports pages in particular.

What if Terrorists Strike the United States Before the 2008 Elections?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman writes today that by sticking to his policy and staying the course on Iraq, “George W. Bush delivered his farewell address on Thursday evening — handing the baton, and probably the next election, to the Democrats.” He mentions David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment, who has said, “In one fell swoop George Bush abdicated to [General] Petraeus, [Iraq’s Prime Minister] Maliki and the Democrats. Bush left it to Petraeus to handle the war, Maliki to handle our timetable and therefore our checkbook, and the Democrats to ultimately figure out how to end this.” With respect to making the Iraq War Petraeus’s war, retired General Wesley Clark writes perceptively, “shame on political leaders who would hide behind their top generals. It was hard not to catch a whiff of that during last week's hearings. The Constitution, however, is not ambivalent about where the responsibility for command lies -- the president is the commander in chief.” But it is with respect to  “handing the baton” to the Democrats that Friedman raises the most interesting questions: “While Mr. Bush’s tacit resignation last week greatly increases the odds of a Democratic victory in 2008, there are several wild cards that could change things: a miraculous turnaround in Iraq (unlikely, but you can always hope), a terrorist attack in America, a coup in Pakistan that puts loose nukes in the hands of Islamist radicals, or a recession induced by the meltdown in the U.S. mortgage market, which as forces a stark choice between bailing out Baghdad or Chicago.”

Mr. Friedman’s inclusion of “a terrorist attack in America” in his list of events or developments likely to decrease the odds of Democrats winning the White House next year is not far-fetched. After all, since the 444-day long Iran Hostage Crisis (1970-81) Republicans have managed to convince the majority of Americans most of the time that Democrats are soft on terrorism and defense. The current occupants of the White House, especially Vice-President Cheney and his advisers, and their ideological brethrens in the Congress and elsewhere have been tireless in magnifying this perception—regardless of reality that the more and more lethal incidents of terrorism against U.S. targets occurred under Republican presidents.

General Petraeus and Rudy Giuliani’s Attack on Hillary Clinton

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Well before General David Petraeus began his marathon testimony before several congressional committees earlier this week, the essence of his report did not come as a surprise. And although he assured up front that his report had not been cleared by the White House but was his alone, it was clear that he and President George W. Bush were on the same page. I do not know whether or to what extent the President and his advisers followed the General’s advice when they decided on what comes down to staying-the-course and buying-time in Iraq. But even in his speech at Quantico today, the President urged Americans to follow experts like General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The way the White House sold the General’s report card and his congressional testimony before and after the event conveyed the strong impression that Mr. Bush himself followed the General’s lead. The President opened last night’s speech with this sentence: "In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home." If you listened to what Petraeus told members of Congress, this sounded familiar in that the General, too, mentioned mostly al-Qaeda when he described the violence in Iraq.
Whether presidents or generals—when decisions over war and peace are made, the deciders should be scrutinized, certainly by the Congress, the branch that has the constitutional right to decide over war and peace. The idea that questioning and doubting and contradicting highly decorated generals in such crucial matters means “spewing political venom,” as Rudy Giuliani characterized Senator Hillary Clinton’s skeptical reaction to the General’s progress report, is dead wrong and underlines Mr. Giuliani’s intemperate disposition. Senator Clinton said that taking the Petraeus progress report at face value would require the “willing suspension of disbelief.” So what? The success and progress report that the General delivered is one assessment, but there are several other recent reports by government agencies that paint a far more pessimistic picture—including the report on the lack of political progress by the General Accountability Office.

The Iraq-9/11 Connection is Alive and Well for Senators McCain and Lieberman

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Although there is no evidence for any connection between Saddam Hussein/Iraq on the one hand and al-Qaeda/ 9/11 on the other, direct and indirect statements to the contrary have been made for years by President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and others to first justify the invasion and then the occupation and troop surge. Now, presidential candidate Senator John McCain and Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman make this same false argument in an op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Listening to Petraeus: The president had the courage to change course on Iraq. Does Congress?”

McCain and Lieberman write, “Whatever the shortcomings of our friends in Iraq, they are no excuse for us to retreat from our enemies like al Qaeda and Iran, who pose a mortal threat to our vital national interests. We must understand that today in Iraq we are fighting and defeating the same terrorist network that attacked on 9/11 [emphasis added]. As al Qaeda in Iraq continues to be hunted down and rooted out, and the Iraqi Army continues to improve, the U.S. footprint will no doubt adjust. But these adjustments should be left to the discretion of Gen. Petraeus, not forced on our troops by politicians in
Washington with a 6,000-mile congressional screwdriver, and, perhaps, an eye on the 2008 election.

So, the Iraq War is now about fighting al Qaeda and Iran! Al-Qaeda Central, whose leaders are certainly not in Iraq but most likely hiding in the mountains of Pakistan, will not be defeated if the al-Qaeda in Iraq brand is.

The idea that General Petraeus alone should make decisions over war and peace, not civilian leaders in
Washington is shocking--at least not those in Congress. After the president and his administration “finally had the courage to change course in Iraq earlier this year,” as they write, they want the Congress to fall in line.
Forget about the U.S. Constitution.

9/11 Anniversary Hype by Targets and Architects of the Terror Attacks

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Just in time for the sixth anniversary of 9/11 and the by now familiar display of collective grief and political exploitation at the Ground Zero site and elsewhere, the leaders of the targeted society and the architects of those horrific terror attacks have intensified their propaganda campaigns. This morning, Eric Schmitt reports on the New York Times web site that the “nation’s top counterterrorism officials are warning today that the United States will face a persistent threat from Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups for years to come, but they plan to offer no specific evidence of any imminent plots against targets on American soil.” And the Associated Press and its members carry a dispatch informing us, “Al-Qaida said Monday that it will release a new video of Osama bin Laden presenting the last testament of one of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers, marking the sixth anniversary of the attacks.” While mass-mediated terrorism threat warnings from administration officials and from al-Qaeda Central have been plentiful in the six years after the events of 9/11, they come in bunches at this time of the year because they assure their issuers even more attention than usual. 

Since this heightened attention makes the public stage just before and on 9/11 especially attractive, it can’t be a coincidence that the long advertised Iraq "progress" report by General David Petraeus was scheduled for today. With the 9/11 anniversary looming large in the media, even Oprah gets into the act with a special show from New York City on “The Children of September 11,” the general shouldn’t have too a hard a time selling what has been publicized well in advance of his appearance—regardless of the noise from MoveOn.org and a few Democrats. Cued by the president’s assurances that the military knows best when it comes to Iraq, the public now trusts the generals more than the president and the congress. Never mind that neither the White House nor anyone else in the administration listened to the generals before the Iraq invasion.

No “Coalition of the Unwilling” against Staying the Course in Iraq

By Brigitte L. Nacos
If there was the chance for a congressional “coalition of the unwilling” against the Iraq policy, it has passed. Score one for the big White House spin machine that has sold the “staying the course” policy and the success story of the troop surge—finally even to Democrats in Congress who won last fall majorities in both congressional chambers because Americans lost confidence in the Iraq leg of the so-called war on terrorism. Now the Democratic leadership seeks reportedly an Iraq compromise with Republicans by demanding nothing and changing nothing—except perhaps the request to withdraw a few thousand U.S. troops by the end of the year or early next year. Such a compromise could be accommodated even by the staunchest war hawks since the military is so extended in Iraq that tiny withdrawals are at any time likely for rotation purposes. Why the lack of courage on the part of the Democratic Party’s leaders in the Congress? They were flattened by a pro-Iraq war PR-steamroller that originated in the White House and sold the successes of the “surge” to so-called experts and the fourth estate.

Recently, the White House spin machine intensified its drum beat to draw attention to Monday’s non-event on Capitol Hill, where General David Petraeus and United States Ambassador Ryan Crocker will report on the success of the troop “surge” in Iraq and embrace the continuation of the president’s “staying the course” marching order—give or take the promise to bring a few thousand troops home thanks to the success of the troop build-up. From the time the “surge” and its alleged successes were sold by the White House, it was done in tandem with the miracle general in Baghdad. As a Washington Post team reports, the White House PR-operation “hard-wired into Petraeus's shop.”

Fred Thompson: Another White, Male Look-Alike in the Republican Race

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Fred Thompson took a page out of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s playbook by declaring his candidacy for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination on NBC’s Tonight Show with Jay Leno. But what seemed at the time a clever and new setting for movie star Schwarzenegger, who was determined to avoid tough questions by the mainstream news media as he declared his candidacy for California’s highest office on a Hollywood-based show, was a less appropriate venue for making the entry into a presidential race official. In the New York Times Susan Saulny writes, “It is perhaps no coincidence that several of Mr. Thompson’s main communications strategists also worked on Mr. Schwarzenegger’s campaign, similarly re-introducing an actor as a serious political contender. The talk-show setting in Los Angeles allowed Mr. Thompson to capitalize on his pop-cultural appeal as an actor and simultaneously reinforce his contention that he is a Washington outsider — although he lives in a suburb of the capital and worked extensively there as a lobbyist when not in the Senate.” What pop-cultural appeal? As the grumpy-looking district attorney Arthur Branch, Thompson has only a very minor role in the “Law & Order” television series. If former Schwarzenegger communications strategists talked Mr. Thompson into following into Arnold’s footsteps, what does that tell us about the candidate’s leadership abilities for the highest office in the land? And if Thompson wanted to avoid tough questions, what does it tells us about this presidential candidate’s agenda and his ability to explain it to voters?

Translating celebrity into electoral strength is nothing new. Ronald Reagan is the best example, Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura others. But unlike those show business celebrities, Thompson looks away from the television screen as grumpy and solitary as the guy he portrays in Law & Order. As Howard Kurtz writes in the Washington Post of his appearance on the Tonight Show,

“Thompson was casual and folksy as he made the declaration, but seemed to me a bit rambling and low-key for a man accustomed to memorizing his lines. He made a couple of mild jokes, but mostly kind of ambled his way into the race. One thing I found off-putting: He barely glanced at Leno, playing instead to the camera, but didn't look directly into the camera either, instead sort of gazing into space. It was, to be candid, a flat performance [emphasis added]….”