Steely Clinton attacks Obama as new vote showdown looms

US Democratic presidential candidate New York Senator Hillary Clinton talks during a campaign stop at Merrimack Valley High School, on January 5, in Penacook, New Hampshire. Coming off a third place finish in the Iowa caucus Hillary Clinton is looking to rebound in the New Hampshire 08 January primary. (AFP/GettyImages/Joe Raedle)

"Hillary Clinton launched a searing attack on surging rival Barack Obama, as polls showed he could inflict a second body blow to her White House hopes in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary."

Atrocity-Linked U.S. Officials Advising Democratic, GOP Presidential Frontrunners

"Independent journalist Allan Nairn and American Conservative correspondent Kelley Beaucar Vlahos discuss a little-addressed facet of the 2008 campaign: many of the top advisers to leading presidential candidates are ex-U.S. officials involved in atrocities around the world."

This is the most important election of our lifetime

"Whichever theory of change Democratic voters nominate, and whichever theory of statis Republican voters select, the choice before Americans next November will be stark. In 2004, many Americans, particularly liberals fearful about a second Bush term, took to calling that election "the most important of my lifetime". And it was, for a while. Now this one is."

Democratic Process: Another Day, Another Capitulation

"The Democratic "opposition" in Congress – you know, the party that represents the common people, good working folk and the most vulnerable in our society: the sick, the old, the poor, the children – have just effected yet another capitulation to Money Power, gutting an energy bill that would have required Big Oil – now reaping the most gargantuan profit margins in the entire history of human enterprise – to pay a pittance in new taxes. The original bill would have also required utility companies to eventually produce a whopping 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources."

A Dumbed-Down Civilization

"Watching last week's televised debate between the US Republican Party's presidential aspirants made me realize to what profound depths the level of American politics has fallen. Apart from Ron Paul, the Great Unknown, it seemed almost impossible to get a straight answer out of anyone. John McCain, as expected, was righteous and right on the question of torture, magisterially rebuking Mitt Romney for his reptilian evasion of the question of whether "waterboarding" is torture."

Dems Bill on Iraq Wouldn't End War

"The Democrats' flagship proposal on Iraq is aimed at bringing most troops home. Yet if enacted, the law would still allow for tens of thousands of U.S. troops to stay deployed for years to come."

Democrats are hocking their agenda as if they were at a fire sale

The Bush years have been so crushing that progressives have now set their expectations at disastrously low levels

by Gary Younge, The Guardian - October 29, 2007

Just over a week ago, about a thousand activists from the Christian right gathered in Washington to pass verdict on the Republican presidential candidates. At the Family Research Council's Values Voters summit, the values most cherished did not sit well with most Americans. Polls show that a consistent and substantial majority in the US are pro-choice, supports stem cell research and opposes amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. All these issues figure low on the list of national priorities and high on the agenda of the FRC. None the less, all the leading Republican contenders showed up.

The more out of touch with mainstream America they sounded, the greater the applause. "Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our workforce," said Mike Huckabee. "It might be, for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalised abortion." Huckabee was rewarded with a strong second-place showing in the summit's straw poll.

At the weekend, well over 100,000 anti-war protesters gathered around the country to protest about the occupation of Iraq. The demands of the demonstrations chimed with the views of most Americans. Polls show a consistent and substantial majority oppose the war and want the troops withdrawn immediately or soon. Indeed, at 34%, the proportion of Americans who support the war is identical to the proportion polled last week who believe in ghosts and UFOs.

Despite Iraq remaining the number one priority among voters, none of the leading Democratic presidential contenders appeared at any of the marches.

Primary season is an ideal moment to examine the relationship between the different parties and their core supporters. Come the presidential elections, both sides will have to tack to the centre in a bid for coveted swing voters. But in the primaries, the candidates' task is to preach to the choir and, maybe, give them a new and better song to sing.

Republican candidates dedicate considerable effort to galvanising their base. At the FRC summit, the thrice-married and twice-divorced Rudolph Giuliani, who is pro-choice and insufficiently anti-gay, made a bid for their trust and understanding. He came in second last with just 2% of the vote. But he was there.

The Democratic candidates, meanwhile, seem embarrassed by their own supporters. Although they are perennially absent from anti-war rallies, they will show up at black churches, trade union fundraisers and the occasional gay event. But when it comes to articulating support for those causes or communities, they lose their voices.

But if the Democrats have an abusive relationship with their supporters, their supporters are complicit in that abuse. Democrats overwhelmingly support troop withdrawal from Iraq yet back candidates who favour keeping troops in the region indefinitely. The gay community continues to give the main candidates huge amounts of money even though all of them oppose gay marriage. They seem to like it this way. For even though Republican candidates have lavished far more attention on core supporters, it is Democratic voters who are far more satisfied with their candidates.

There is an important lesson in this apparent paradox for those who seek progressive social change. Republican politicians continue to court Christian conservatives precisely because they are not happy - they might do something about it, and the party cannot do without them. There are two reasons for this. First, Christian conservatives are well organised and can deliver votes. Second, those votes are contingent on the Republicans delivering political results.

The progressive left can claim neither of those qualities. A national anti-war movement - one that meets, decides, acts and lobbies effectively on a national level - has never truly taken shape. There are tens of thousands of anti-war activists, who have heroically kept a presence and the conversation going in their communities. This is also true for feminists and gay activists, who once formed the bedrock of the Democratic base. But Latinos and black activists are better organised on a national level.

A new coalition of interests and forces that could play that role may be in the making. The web-based MoveOn.org has done brilliant work on single issues, but has been unable to cohere enough people around a coherent enough agenda to make an electoral impact. Netroots has also notched up impressive achievements (the Labour left could learn a great deal from both), but its work is largely confined to getting better Democrats elected. There is nothing wrong with this - indeed, it is crucial. But, strategically, it has its limits.

Christian conservatives have always made it clear their primary loyalty is to their agenda, not to the party most likely to support it. They may work hand in glove with Republicans, but they feel free to take their hand out of the glove at any moment. The morning after the last presidential election, a White House aide called Focus on the Family's founder, James Dobson, to thank him for his support. Dobson replied with a warning: if the administration snubbed conservative Christians, particularly with respect to supreme court nominations, the party would "pay a price in four years".

Although it's difficult to see how George Bush could have delivered more, this is precisely what seems to be happening now. According to the Pew Research Centre, Bush's support among white evangelicals has slumped.

All politics is a negotiation. It goes without saying that if you set your price too high, or walk away too soon, you could miss out on a great deal. It is equally self-evident that if you set your price too low, or your counterpart knows you will never walk away, you will sell out far too cheaply. But there are few as powerful in a negotiation as those who understand their value and are prepared to walk away. For decades, progressive activists have been hocking their agenda as though at a fire sale. The Bush years have been so disastrous they have forgotten that many of the things they are campaigning against now - Nafta, the gay marriage amendment, greater economic inequality, the ban on photographing soldiers' coffins coming home - were introduced under Bill Clinton. Their fears that things could get worse overrides any confidence that they could improve. So they settle for candidates who will make things get worse at a slower pace and on a less dramatic scale. Sometimes, as in 2004, these low expectations make sense. But as an overriding strategy it is a recipe for perennial disappointment and disaffection.

The Christian right has shown that there is sufficient democratic space for movements to play a role in shaping the political narrative, regardless of who the electoral protagonists are, so long as those movements can prove their clout and exercise their independence.

"Some might compare the religious right to a snake," a Wichita evangelist, Terry Fox, told the New York Times. "We may be in our hole right now, but we can come out and bite you at any time." It's time for progressives to get out of their hole and find some teeth.

In Search of Logic About Iran

by ALI MOAYEDIAN - Oct 28, 2007

In Bushies' march to war with Iran. Many are concerned and see the dangers of war as imminent. Others are openly advocating for U.S. aggression against Iran and they scream for bombardment of another nation, just because we can!

Forces of Good and Evil are lining up. And this is no movie. There is no middle ground either. If Evil takes over, all that there is will have to succumb to Evil. Which side are you standing with? And which side do you think has the upper hand? I like to think it's the Good. Unfortunately I've been proven wrong before!

Brook's PsychoBush Theorem

Rosa Brook, a columnist for Los Angeles Times, puts is very bluntly, and she has got it right. The Bushies are all insane. Thus one cannot confront them in the domain of logic. One has to wonder how a psychotic Bush sold us one War for Peace, and how he continues his road shows selling more of Elixir Of Death as Elixir Of Life?

We are past the 9/11 patriotism. But it still takes guts for Brook to say it as she sees it. May the force protect her from blacklists!

Forget impeachment. Liberals, put it behind you. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn't be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment.

Writing in Newsweek on Oct. 20, Fareed Zakaria, a solid centrist and former editor of Foreign Affairs, put it best. Citing Bush's invocation of "the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon," Zakaria concluded that "the American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. . . . Iran has an economy the size of Finland's. . . . It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are . . . allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"

The Jihadi Cowboy

Dr. Ali Ettefagh, writing from Tehran in Washington Post, argues that since Iran hasn't attacked anyone the U.S. should leave her alone. This argument will make perfect sense to sane and/or logical people. But based on Brook's PsychoBush Theorem discussed above, we need to come up with new arguments to deal with psychotic Bushies. All evidence indicates that the Bushies only believe in language of force. To come and say "Iran hasn't invaded any countries" only aggravates the situation and causes the Bushies to show more teeth. You should instead write about all the times Iran has invaded and conquered others. Feel free to go back a few thousand years!

We have to accept that we live in an era of intellectual rip-offs, tactics sold as policy and instant strategies broadcast live on TV. The show on the plastic box and talking-head spin-meisters will do the thinking and planning for us all. Accordingly, we lower expectations and shall not be surprised when we see childish games are sold as a mimic of statesmanship. His Excellency, the president of a superpower, is now demanding that the world forget what it knows and listen to his version of stories.

Finally, it's useful to review history. Iran has not started a war, or grabbed a neighbor's territory, since the United States became an independent country. Iran helped the Allies during World War II, providing a supply route to Russia and a safe escape route for Polish Jews, some of whom settled in Iran. Iran has never trampled on the dignity of any one.

But a small Middle Eastern country fabricated after World War II might well start the world's next Iranian conflict--a country that that aspires to be the real spin-meister of cheap tactics in Washington.

The Real Threat

Lamis Andoni, a Middle East consultant for Al Jazeera, writing in Washington Post talks about worries of the people in the Arab world. What people like Lamis fail to understand is Bushies doesn't give a hoot (to be polite) for the anxiety and uncertainty of the Arabs. But no hard feelings. Katrina victims were treated the same, if not worse!

Talk of an American war against Iran has provoked anxiety and uncertainty here in the Arab world, especially in the Gulf Region, Jordan, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. People are still reeling from the effects of the continuing war in Iraq and the lack of resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Many believe Iran's military power is the region's only deterrent against Israel--and many here support Iran's legal right to develop nuclear power. The view from the region is largely defined by the world's silence towards Israeli nuclear power.

Oil Gets Nervous

Considering Iran produces 4 million bpd and sits strategically between Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf, there is no question nervousness will turn into mass hysteria if sanity forbid the first GWB missile lands in Iran. Guess who will pay the price then? Now if some people have to pay more, others will naturally collect more. It's left an exercise to the readers to find who the select others are.

Then again you may ask that when the whole planet is going down with global warming, does it make sense to continue maximizing profits by engaging in Massive Murder and Destruction (WMD)? To that I have to answer you are thinking logically again. Please go back and study the PsychoBush Theorem again!

Crude oil rose above $90 a barrel to a record in New York the day after a government report showed an unexpected drop in U.S. stockpiles.

New U.S. sanctions against Iran, warnings of a Turkish assault on Kurdish militants in Iraq and a falling dollar also pushed prices higher today.

Hillary Clinton Advocates More Insanity

Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner Democratic Presidential Candidate, supports the new Bush Sanctions against Iran. We could perhaps forgive Hillary for voting for the war on Iraq. We can blame that on temporary insanity; or maybe she followed Bush blindly and natively. What now? Now that all the cards are on the table, what's her excuse? Maybe the insanity wasn't temporary after all? Is this the best that we can get for a first woman president? I Pass!

Here's the official statement from Hillary Clinton on Bush's Iran Sanctions Announcement:

"We must use all the tools at our disposal to address the serious challenge posed by Iran, including diplomacy, economic pressure, and sanctions.

"I believe that a policy of diplomacy backed by economic pressure is the best way to check Iran's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons program and stop its support of terrorism, and the best way to avert a war. That's why I took to the Senate floor last February and warned the President not to take military action against Iran without going to Congress first and why I've co-sponsored Senator Webb's legislation to make that the law of the land. I've been concerned for a long time over George Bush's saber rattling and belligerence toward Iran.

"We must work to check Iran's nuclear ambitions and its support of terrorism, and the sanctions announced today strengthen America's diplomatic hand in that regard. The Bush Administration should use this opportunity to finally engage in robust diplomacy to achieve our objective of ending Iran's nuclear weapons program, while also averting military action. That is the policy I support."

Loony Romney Wants The Blood Flowing In Persian Gulf

Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney best exemplifies the mentality of the Republican hopefuls, except for Ron Paul of course. They are all eager to replace the flow of oil through Persian Gulf with blood. The Republicans, have turned the presidential campaign into an I'll Attack Iran First race instead. Mitt and company are screaming at the top of their lungs everywhere they go on the campaign trail trying to create a monster out of Iran, and they all try to top each other in how they plan to obliterate Iran. Will the voters see the real monsters close at home?

According to CNN, Romney told voters in New Hampshire that he would take military action, including a blockade or "bombardment of some kind," to stop Iran's move to gain nuclear weapons.

"If for some reasons they continue down their course of folly toward nuclear ambition, then I would take military action if that's available to us," Romney said. "That's an option that's on the table. And it's not something which we'll spell out specifically."

Romney also spoke out in favor of the Bush administration's sanctions against Tehran.

May Sanity Prevail

There is still hope. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska wants engagement not confrontation. Rays of wisdom are forcing their way through the clouds of hatred and warmongering in Washington. But will the sun come out?

"Unilateral sanctions rarely, ever work," Hagel said by phone during his weekly news conference. "I just don't think the unilateral approach and giving war speeches helps the situation. It will just drive the Iranians closer together."

Hagel, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said there's no question that Iran's behavior presents a problem, citing the country's activities in Iraq and elsewhere. But, he said, the answer is not "to throw unilateral sanctions on them." "It escalates the danger of a military confrontation," Hagel said. "I certainly think engagement is critical ... direct engagement," said Hagel. "That's what great powers do."

Senator Chris Dodd, a Democratic Presidential Candidate, also spoke against the new sanctions:

"I recognize the obvious threat a nuclear Iran poses to the region and beyond, and that we must stop Iran's continued support for international terrorism.

"Unfortunately, the action taken by the Administration today comes in the context of escalating rhetoric and drumbeat to military action against Iran.

"I am deeply concerned that once again the President is opting for military action as a first resort.

"The glaring omission of any new diplomatic measures by the President today is the reason I voted, and urged my colleagues to vote, against the Kyl -Lieberman resolution on September 26.

"The aggressive actions taken today by the Administration absent any corresponding diplomatic action is exactly what we all should have known was coming when we considered our vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, and smacks, frankly, of a dangerous step toward armed confrontation with Iran."

But it was John Edwards, another Democratic Presidential Candidate, who had the harshest words for Bush, Cheney and above all Hillary Clinton:

"Today, George Bush and Dick Cheney again rattled the sabers in their march toward military action against Iran. The Bush Administration has been making plans to attack Iran for many months. At this critical moment, we need strong leadership to stand against George Bush's dangerous 'preventive war' policy, which makes force the first option, not the last.

"I learned a clear lesson from the lead up to the Iraq War in 2002: if you give this president an inch, he will take a mile - and launch a war. Senator Clinton apparently learned a different lesson. Instead of blocking George Bush's new march to war, Senator Clinton and others are enabling him once again.

"I have called for strong, capable diplomacy to deal with the challenge of Iran, and a carrots and sticks strategy aimed at results--not the Bush/Cheney path, which would escalate tensions, enable attacks, and lead to unintended consequences.

"The New Yorker recently reported that one reason the administration has not yet attacked Iran is because public opinion has turned against such a course. Senator Clinton's actions undermine the American people's opposition to war with Iran. Today's advancement of the Bush strategy on Iran shows how much we need strong opposition on this issue. I learned my lesson the hard way in 2002, but it appears that others still have some learning to do."

The High Costs

Unfortunately, the cryptic statement from Senator Barak Obama, another Democratic Presidential Candidate, didn't cut it. He's taken the middle ground (as if there is one). Obama wants us to believe he isn't for war. But he is afraid to be forceful and daring. He's obviously too concerned about the political costs: " It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which supports terrorism. But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran. Unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran - a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard."

A Small Man Standing Tall

Congressman Dennis Kucinich is by far the strongest anti-war Democratic Presidential candidate. One can expect to hear straight words from Kucinich. No beating around the Bushies. He is a man of wisdom and logic. They've tried to put him down because of his height. But he's standing taller than all other candidates:

"The Administration has been dramatically increasing its efforts in the last several weeks to go to war with Iran," Kucinich said. "This latest stunt is nothing more than an attempt to deceive Americans into yet another war-this time with Iran."

Last week, President Bush stated in a news conference: "So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

In a speech Sunday to the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, Vice President Dick Cheney said that if Iran continues on its current course, the United States and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences. Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions."

In announcing the sanctions today, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said:

"Unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon, building dangerous ballistic missiles, supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israel off the map."

"After the lies and deception used to lead us to war in Iraq, the belligerent Bush Administration cannot be given leeway with statements that suggest a preemptive attack on Iran is necessary," Kucinich said. "We are systematically destroying every available route to restoring peace and security in the Middle East."Congress must take back its exclusive authority to declare war from the Bush Administration."

Midnight in America: the Mainstreaming of the GOP's Lunatic Fringe

by Arianna Huffington - Oct 23, 2007

The most significant takeover of the past decade isn't to be found among the telecoms, the big oil companies, or in Silicon Valley. The reconfigured entity is headquartered in Washington, but we can see and hear the results everyday on your television, radio, and computer screen. And America is much the worse for it. I'm talking about the takeover of the Republican Party by its lunatic fringe.

Reagan's GOP has been replaced by the dark, moldering, putrefied party of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Malkin. Morning in America has given way to Midnight in America.

Of course, there the Republican Party has always had it Jesse Helmses, Spiro Agnews, and Lee Atwaters. But they were the minority, far removed from the mainstream of the Party -- Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, the first George Bush.

But these days it has become impossible to tell where the mainstream stops and the fanatical fringe begins. Just look at what the so-called "mainstream" of the party is endorsing.

We have a mainstream on the right that supports torture, that is backing an Attorney General nominee who is agnostic on torture, and that rallies behind a president who refuses to define what the word "torture" means.

A mainstream that supports -- even applauds -- the behavior of Blackwater thugs.

A mainstream that continues to back the White House's delusions about Iraq at the expense of our military, our treasure, our safety, and our standing in the world.

A mainstream that supports the gutting of our civil liberties.

So, it can no longer be denied: the right wing lunatics are running the Republican asylum.

These days, the only thing that separates the RNC and Rush Limbaugh is a prescription for OxyContin.

The latest evidence: the ugly smear campaign mounted against 12-year-old brain injury survivor Graeme Frost and his family. This new-low-in-messenger-killing wasn't just the doing of the toxic talk radio, rabble-rousing right; it was Senator Mitch McConnell's office pulling together the talking points. And then lying about its involvement when exposed.

And notice the dearth of Republicans willing to distance themselves from the Swiftboating of a 12-year-old boy - a boy who has worked diligently to make a remarkable recovery from his devastating injuries, supported by a loving, hardworking, intact family. Aren't those some of the basic core values the GOP used to stand for?

Despite the fanatical right's takeover of the Republican Party, the traditional media -- with its obsession with "balance" and its pathological devotion to the idea that truth is always found in the middle -- has failed to properly document the metamorphosis. So much easier to see everything that's happening in American politics through the lens of right versus left.

Making matters worse, today's Democrats continue to tread lightly when it comes to holding accountable the fanatics running the GOP. Time and time again, the Democratic leadership allows itself to get played, run over, or distracted. Republicans want to deflect discussion of the war by arguing over newspaper ads and radio comments? Okay, Reid and Pelosi are game.
Republicans want to avoid talking about children without healthcare by crying about Pete Stark's tough assessment of the president? Sure, here comes a Pelosi reprimand.

Democrats are in the majority today because their positions are in line with mainstream America. But if the lunatic fringe group now known as the Republican Party is to be stopped in its efforts to radically remake this country, the Democrats are going to have to step up and defend the mainstream that elected them.

The Democrats who enable Bush

by Helen Thomas - Oct 8, 2007

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party's leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy.

Those Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq, especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war.

Last week at a debate in Hanover, N.H., the leading Democratic presidential candidates sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, and Barack Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards refused to promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it?

When the question was put to Clinton, she reverted to her usual cautious equivocation, saying: "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."

Obama dodged, too: "I think it would be irresponsible" to say what he would do as president.

Edwards, on whom hopes were riding to show some independence, replied to the question: "I cannot make that commitment."

They have left the voters little choice with those answers.

Some supporters were outraged at the obfuscation by the Democratic front-runners.

On the other hand, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., are more definitive in their calls for quick troop withdrawals.

But Biden wants to break up Iraq into three provinces along religious and ethnic lines. In other words, Balkanize Iraq.

To have major Democratic backing to stay the course in Iraq added up to good news for Bush.

Now comes a surprising Clinton fan.

President Bush told Bill Sammon -- Washington Examiner correspondent and author of a new book titled "The Evangelical President" -- that Clinton will beat Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination because she is a "formidable candidate" and better known.

Sammon says Bush revealed that he has been sending messages to Clinton to urge her to "maintain some political wiggle room in your campaign rhetoric about Iraq."

The author said Bush contends that whoever inherits the White House will be faced with a potential vacuum in Iraq and "will begin to understand the need to continue to support the young democracy."

Bush ought to know about campaign rhetoric. Remember how he ridiculed "nation building" in the 2000 presidential campaign? Now he claims he is trying to spread democracy throughout the Middle East.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is another Democratic leader who has empowered Bush's war.

Pelosi removed a provision from the most recent war-funding bill that would have required Bush to seek the permission of Congress before launching any attack on Iran. Her spokesman gave the lame excuse that she didn't like the wording of the provision. More likely, she bowed to political pressure.

Is it any wonder the Democrats are faring lower than the president in a Washington Post ABC approval poll? Bush came in at 33 percent and Congress at 29 percent.

Members of Congress seem to have forgotten their constitutional prerogative to declare war; World War II was the last time Congress formally declared war.

Presidents have found other ways to make end runs around the law, mainly by obtaining congressional authorization "to do whatever is necessary" in a crisis involving use of the military. That's the way we got into the Vietnam and Iraq wars.

So what are the leading Democratic White House hopefuls offering? It seems nothing but more war. So where do the voters go who are sick of the Iraqi debacle?

No Hope in the Democrats

Democrats signal capitulation on Iraq – and Iran

by Justin Raimondo - Sept 28, 2007

As the cool undercurrents of Indian summer hint at winter frosts to come, the rhetoric of the Democrats' at their most recent presidential debate foreshadows their capitulation to the War Party on the two vital issues of the day: Iraq and Iran. The first fifteen minutes of the debate were devoted entirely to these issues, and, to anyone who wants to find hope in the prospect of a Democrat in the White House, watching the performance of the Seven Dwarves & Gravel (I'll resist the temptation to dub him the Troll) was a depressing experience.

"Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?" – moderator Tim Russert's question was posed to one and all, and the Clinton-Obama-Edwards axis of frontrunners all refused to take the pledge, albeit each in their own way.

Obama: "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there."

Hillary: "I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."

Edwards: "I cannot make that commitment."

If your illusions in the Democrats as the "peace party" aren't shattered, then your capacity for self-delusion is limitless.

We're going to be in Iraq for at least through the first term of the next President, and likely far beyond that – and it doesn't matter what the voters voted for, or think they voted for. That's American "democracy" for you, a system that George W. Bush wants to export at gunpoint to the rest of the world. No wonder the rest of the world is saying "No thanks."
"
It was Gravel who raised the real issue coming to the fore in this campaign, and that is the looming confrontation with Iran:

"There was a vote in the Senate today – Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has offered another resolution, and it essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against, and I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You're not going to get another shot at this, because what's happened if this war ensues – we invade and they're looking for an excuse to do it.
"And Obama was not even there to vote."

How that last barb must have stung the self-righteous Obama, whose self-backslapping – "I was against this war [in Iraq] from the beginning" – was an embarrassment. Hillary's sinister laugh, when given the opportunity by Russert to answer Gravel, ought to have curdled the blood of even the hardest of the antiwar movement's hardcore Democratic partisans. What followed was a pretty faithful recitation of the War Party's talking points regarding Iran and the resolution passed by the Senate:

"My understanding of the revolutionary guard in Iran is that it is promoting terrorism. It is manufacturing weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq. It is certainly the main agent of support for Hezbollah, Hamas and others, and in what we voted for today, we will have an opportunity to designate it as a terrorist organization, which gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran."

The resolution [.pdf], sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyle, designates the Quds force, as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are known, as an official "terrorist" organization. Besides placing sanctions on individual Iranian officials, as Hillary points out, it would also give the President extraordinary leeway in going after the Quds guards militarily – giving him, in effect, the power to unilaterally go to war with Iran, without coming to Congress for any further authorization. There would doubtless be howls of outrage from some Democrats, and even a few Republicans, but the administration would justify its actions – and quite credibly – on the grounds that the authority to go after "terrorists" had already been granted. Of the Democratic "majors," only Edwards seems to realize the import of this.

That Senator Gravel, alone, had the courage to raise the alarm, and confront Hillary on this issue, speaks volumes about the state of the Democratic party – and the political impotence of the antiwar majority in this country. Those who want us out of Iraq, and, furthermore, are bitterly opposed to the prospect of yet another war in that neck of the woods, are the new silent majority. Silent because we don't hear this view reflected in the media – where pro-war commentary and "centrist" of-course-we-can't-withdraw-until-2012 punditry prevails – and also politically impotent: with the Democratic frontrunners basically taking a Bush-lite approach.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

This account by William Hawkins of the debate on the Iraq war held at the recent meeting of the John Randolph Club, in Washington, D.C., is hilarious, albeit unintentionally. That he somehow managed to write a 1000-word-plus article about that event without once mentioning that Peter Brimelow, the editor of Vdare.com, and a staunch conservative of the paleo persuasion, was one of three debaters on the "out now" side, is really quite an achievement.

The reason he did so, I imagine, is to buttress his thesis that labels me a "left-libertarian," a sinister "anarchist," who, along with co-debater Kirkpatrick Sale (who really is a man of the left), is "shouting about how patriotism is a dirty word because America is the source of all evil in the world." Gee, that's funny, but Frontpage's last smear-job on me insisted I'm a "fascist," i.e. an extremist of the far right. These people are so crazed by their venomous hatred of anyone who disagrees with them that they can't remember from one moment to the next what calumny they've hurled – they just keep slinging slurs in the hope that some of it will stick.

The great problem, for them, is … the internet. They can smear to their heart's content, and misrepresent the facts about a particular incident, but the new technology makes lying about these kinds of things nearly impossible.

Hawkins can drop out Peter Brimelow from his account of the debate, but we can re-insert him by posting the audio of that exciting performance: Go and listen, and hear for yourself if "the audience was about evenly divided" – as Hawkins claims – when it came time to vote on the question (which was, by the way, "America should immediately withdraw her armed forces from Iraq"). The yeas had it by several decibel levels.

Hawkins starts out his patently dishonest account by expressing his impatience with the wording of the question, complaining that nobody but nobody in Washington was even considering such a course: he even cites Hillary Clinton to buttress his case. Which, of course, neatly underscores the theme of my talk at the conference: the great yawning divide between the agenda of the Washington-New York elites and popular opinion in the rest of the country.

For the ordinary American, outside the Beltway, this widening gap is cause for concern, if not alarm. For Hawkins, and his fellow neocons, popular opinion doesn't even come into it.
In any case, the real question, as I put it in the debate, is not about "immediate" withdrawal versus gradual redeployment (which was Srdja Trifkovic's position), but between getting out as soon as possible and colonizing Iraq as the first phase of building an American protectorate – an empire – in the Middle East. When I framed the issue in terms of the danger of imminent war with Iran, no one on the other team objected to that prospect – and, if you listen to the debate, they implicitly endorsed it. That's when – and why – they lost, at least in front of that staunchly antiwar audience.

Hawkins is shocked that the "anti-American" Justin Raimondo is allowed to speak at a conservative gathering, but I have been going to the John Randolph Club meetings since the second gathering: the JRC, after all, was founded largely on account of the libertarian-paleoconservative convergence over the question of Gulf War I. Both were naturally opposed to that war, just as they oppose this latest one.

Yet Hawkins stupidly berates his audience, whose "patriotism" he challenges, as well as questioning the JRC's conservative credentials. According to him, there is no conservative tradition of peace and noninterventionism: anyone who doesn't want to colonize Iraq and conquer Iran in the process belongs on "the left, along with Sale and Raimondo." Brimelow got quite a laugh out of the audience when he prefaced his opening remarks by exclaiming (in his understated British way) "that's the first time I've ever been called a leftist."

Hawkins had no real arguments to offer, other than smearing Sale, Brimelow, and myself as "wishing for an American defeat," and accusing us of being agents of Al Qaeda. That didn't go over very well with the audience, either: the shock was audible in their silence. No one applauded. The only time they got a positive reaction was with demagogic calls to set up a religious test for immigration by banning all Muslim immigration to the US. (And they criticized me for proposing a course that isn't even "on the table"!)

Hawkins doesn't know how to argue, and he didn't make any arguments in his peroration: name-calling doesn't qualify. Yet that's the only way he and his fellow neocons can bolster their sagging support, even among their own hardcore followers. As the folly of this war becomes ever more apparent by the day, and the dark prospect of yet another and even bloodier conflict rears its ugly head, the deserters from the ranks of the War Party are beginning to outnumber the remaining stalwarts. Especially in view of the electoral drubbing the GOP faces, the rats will be deserting that sinking sink in droves by the new year.

Finally, I don't know whether Hawkins is stupid, or just plain nutty, but I don't know how else to account for the following:

"Writing from Tehran in May, 2006, he argued, "the prospect of Iran acquiring nukes does not mean the end of the world. It means that the natural tendency of nations to achieve a balance of power will, in this case, be fulfilled, and that the Middle East will muddle along, just as the East bloc and the West did for all those years." Writing from Tehran? If you follow the link he provides, it takes you to a May 2006 column, "Letter from Tehran," in which I wrote about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's open letter to George W. Bush.

What is this guy smoking?

Whatever it is, it causes him to similarly misperceive or deliberately mischaracterize my views: thus, in correcting the deliberate mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's statement about Israel, which was wrongly reported as expressing a desire to "wipe Israel off the map," I am "spinning statements by Iran's president." Hawkins also cites my booklet, The Terror Enigma, and descries its thesis – that Israeli intelligence had wind of the 9/11 terrorist plot and neglected to warn us in time – without mentioning that much of it was based on a four-part report by one of his very favorite news outlets: Fox News. Was Carl Cameron – who reported that story – engaged in "the most vile and heinous tactics of the Left" when he stated:

"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are 'tie-ins.' But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, 'evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.'"

Hawkins' outrageous smears are directed not only at me, but at Murray Rothbard, including even that old canard about how Rothbard "physically applauded" Nikita Khrushchev on his visit to the US in the 1960s – an act that, I can assure you, never occurred. The very idea of Rothbard rushing down the stairs for anything short of a four-alarm fire is laughable to anyone who knew him.

It's funny that Hawkins describes me and my "ilk" as "cancer cells within the conservative movement," because that is precisely the role that has always been played by the neocons, historically, a faction that came from the extreme Left. Indeed, there is at least one such ideological immigrant who proudly waves the banner of the "Trotsky-cons. If this is the tradition of "authentic" conservatism, as Hawkins claims, then we might as well forget about the entire history of the American right before 1955 – which Hawkins, and his fellow neocons, would certainly like us to do.

The only problem with that is the revival of the Old Right, as exemplified by the candidacy of Ron Paul, the relatively recent founding of the American Conservative magazine, the longtime existence of Chronicles magazine – and, last but hardly least, the founding and 18-year history of the John Randolph Club, which, at its most recent meeting, roundly rejected the belligerent posturing of Hawkins, and, in a foreshadowing of the coming conservative repudiation of neoconservatism, voted that we ought get out of Iraq immediately.

The neocons are getting mighty nervous: even the right is turning against them. That accounts for the desperate tactics: the name-calling, the appeals to authority, and the hiding behind largely outmoded political labels. They're losing – and they know it. A cornered rat is likely to take a final flying leap at its adversary, baring its teeth and hoping for the best. Such desperate tactics, however, are not going to save the neocons from the fate they so richly deserve. Before this is over, they'll be totally discredited, and run right out of the conservative movement – if not run out of Washington on a rail.

A Special Note

Get on over to Taki’s Top Drawer and check out my article, “The Subversion of Lawrence Dennis.” I’m especially proud of this piece, and I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

Dems can't make guarantee on Iraq troops

By BETH FOUHY - Sep 26, 2007

HANOVER, N.H. - The three leading Democratic presidential hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they could not guarantee that all U.S. combat troops would be gone from Iraq by 2013, the end of the next president's first term in office.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson provided the assurances the others would not.

"I'll get the job done," said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.

The opening question of the two-hour debate plunged the eight contenders into the issue that has dominated all others in the race for the White House.

With the primary season approaching, all eight have vied with increasing intensity for the support of anti-war voters likely to provide money and organizing muscle as the campaign progresses.

Edwards said his position on Iraq was different from Obama and Clinton, adding he would "immediately drawn down 40,000 to 50,000 troops." That's roughly half the 100,000 that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has indicated could be stationed there when President Bush's term ends in January 2009.

Edwards sought to draw a distinction between his position and that of Clinton, saying she had said recently she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq.

"I do not want to continue combat missions in Iraq," he said.

Clinton responded quickly, saying Edwards had misstated her position. She favors the continued deployment of counterterrorism troops, not forces to engage in the type of combat now under way.

Asked whether they were prepared to use force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, several of the hopefuls sidestepped. Instead, they said, all diplomacy must be exhausted in the effort.

Moderator Tim Russert of NBC News asked about Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani's pledge to set back Iran by eight to 10 years if it tries to gain nuclear standing.

Sen. Joe Biden flashed anger at the mention of the former New York mayor. "Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what the heck he's talking about," the Delaware senator said. "He's the most uninformed person on foreign policy that's now running for president."