Here is an article by a prominent Democrat and college professor I knew as a young man. Todd Gitlin was a leader of Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s but veered far to the right after achieving great success in the academic world as a leading author and media critic.
The fact that even he is worried that the Democrats may again capitulate to Bush on a vital issue of war and peace shows again how low this "opposition" party has sunk.
Iraq with an N? Anatomy of a Rumor That Has to be Taken Seriously
By Todd Gitlin
I don't see any point to contributing to a cycle of useless panic, but if Victor Davis Hanson is worried about war with Teheran, I'm worried and then some. "Don't Bomb, Don't Bomb Iran," wrote one of conservativedom's most interesting war analysts on Friday at National Review Online.
It was bad enough that the keen Afghanistan analyst Barnett Rubin took seriously a Washington rumor that the rollout was coming soon after Labor Day--to pick a day at random, say, Sept. 9, or 10, or, what the hell, 11. His source heard the following from "someone in one of the leading neo-conservative institutions":
They [the source's institution] have "instructions" (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this--they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is "plenty."
Then George Packer raised the threat level to orange, and while I haven't the information to raise it to red, and might only be adding a link to a child's game of Telephone, I'd rather do that than shut up. If there's anything we understand about the occupants of the White House, it is that worst-case scenarios are, if not dead certain, to use the phrase of the day, worth taking seriously.
After all, Bush got the current fever of speculation going with his speech last week to the American Legion, warning: "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.“ He declared that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late."
The rhetoric's not original, and neither is the mentality in the White House, and neither is the bravado of Ahmedinejad. Bush might be trying to jam the Europeans into sanctions. Of course, he doesn't do nuance. He talks this way. He doesn't necessarily mean anything by it. As Howard A. Rodman put it in HuffPost, "one would have to be a madman (or Dick Cheney) to start a second war when the first one is going so fucking well." "Before it is too late"' might be how Bush pronounces "before I no longer have my finger on the button."
So perhaps the rollout is imminent? I have to say that I take seriously Hanson's going to the trouble of arguing that Bush shouldn't panic about Iran, even if one element his argument seems dubious:
There are subtle indications that U.S. policy is slowly working, and that a strike now on Iran would be a grave mistake, in every strategic and political sense — not to mention the humanitarian one of harming a populace that may well soon prove to be the most pro-Western in the region.
Then, for comic relief, there's Ollie North lauding Joe Lieberman for warning that the Persian wolf is at the gates, and scolding Democrats for "passivity."
But here's the point of this post: Forget what Ollie North means by passivity. There's a genuine passivity to fear. The Democrats have to stand up this week, loud, clear, and demonstrative, and declare that they will not get hustled into supporting a mindless, counterproductive attack on Iran. They will not appropriate funds for it. Half of them in the Senate got hustled at the equivalent moment in 2002 and now regret it, even if are only willing to use the euphemism "if I knew then what I know now."
One thing they all must know now is who they are dealing with in the White House. The mania of George Bush and Dick Cheney is not the sum of all dangers today but it is, after all, a known quantity.
This time, for sure, post-facto regret won't do. |
