SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TigerPaw who wrote (25814)8/20/2003 10:24:21 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
American Voters Have Two Choices: Bush or Bush-lite
__________________

by Hugo Young

Published on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 by the Guardian / UK

The oldest saw in modern politics is that elections are won only on the centre ground. Extremists have to abandon, or at any rate disguise, their passions, and move to positions as close to being all things to all fickle voters as they can invent. That's how Tony Blair made Labour electable. The coalitions of continental Europe are built round the same inescapable proposition. In such politics, nuance replaces conviction, and manoeuvre boldness, as the identifying marks of a winning team.

What's going on in America as the 2004 election begins is unnervingly the opposite. It's one of the more extraordinary spectacles a political scientist, or journalist, let alone a professional politician, could encounter. George Bush is running his campaign from the same fringe position as the one he has adopted for his presidency.

This is a hard-right administration offering virtually no concessions to the soothing niceties that might make it more electorally attractive to voters who are not Republicans. Its tax policy is grotesquely loaded against the masses and in favour of the rich. Its bias on the environment unfailingly comes out on the side of the big commercial interests. It is daily tearing up tracts of policy and practice that protected the basic rights of people snared in the justice system. It is the hardest right administration since Herbert Hoover's from a very different era. And, which is the point, delights in being so. There is no apology or cover-up.

But even that isn't the most striking thing about the set-up as it now stands. For this we have to turn to the Democrats. Unlike Bush, many Democrats are sticking to the conventional wisdom. They grope for some kind of centre ground. But so far has the territory shifted, thanks to the Republicans' shameless stakeout on the hard right, that their quest continues to drain their party of most of its meaning and any of its capacity to inspire.

The rules are being observed, but we find that in some circumstances these rules are a fallacy. They draw a party so far into the orbit of its rival as to render itself meaningless as anything except a political machine of variable potency around the country. Yet the dominant mode of most presidential candidates is still to cling to the kind of centrism that defines them at best as Bush-lite, at worst as people who have nothing to say that could send the smallest shiver up the spine of afloating voter.

One should hesitate to second-guess all these massively professional politicians, laden with polls. But their reflex looks to me as unnecessary as it is self-destructive. One way to respond to Bush's rewrite of the rule book - which covers more contentious ground than Ronald Reagan's campaigns ever did, for example - may be to meekly accept the new setting for old maxims. The other is to treat the maxims, in present times, as a snare.

For one thing, many Democrats seem to have forgotten that they did win the election last time. For four years it has been idle to challenge the Florida vote and the bizarre workings of the electoral college, but now is the time to recall that in 2000 half a million more Americans voted for Al Gore's progressive version of the future than Bush's more conservative one. Bush was still posing as a bit centrist then, and Gore was scarcely a raving liberal. Gore mostly stuck to the Clinton third way doctrine that had taken the Democrats away from the narrowest version of their past. But there was a left-right choice, and more Americans voted left than right.

In most systems, that would have been another reason for the technical winners to gravitate towards the centre. Since that did not happen, it is instead an excellent reason for the losers to rediscover their raison d'être. Yet most of them seem mesmerised with terror at the prospect, and full of guff about Democratic "values" which they take to excuse them from advancing any awkward Democratic policies.

The Iraq war is to blame for this, but only partly. It is Bush's alibi for everything else. To the extent that voters dislike his right-wingery on domestic matters, Iraq and terrorism give cover to the Great Leader. We may be sure he will exploit this until the day of the election. It puts Democrats in a bind, though something has changed when dreary Joe Lieberman, an early war supporter, now feels it necessary to bleat defensively that his was a "principled" position, and posturing John Kerry - probably the favourite as things stand - calibrates a position edging finely away from believer to mealy-mouthed critic. Another year of Baghdad body bags, with Osama bin Laden still at large, and the politics of the war cannot be so neatly predicted.

For any Democrat to take advantage of Bush's waning popularity and overcome his vast campaign finances, however, he must have something to say. There needs to be some clarity, on all fronts. The other day, the same edition of the New York Times carried stories saying that neither young African-Americans nor the Boston Irish could any longer be counted on as part of the core vote. Is this heresy surprising when nobody knows with any certainty what Democrats stand for? If a party can't fire up its core vote, it will be deader quicker than if it can't draw in people who've never voted for it before. Watching what Bush has done to both the economy and the constitution, it should be easy for a Democrat to come up with soundbites and articles of simple faith to inspire a few more than the millions of Americans who voted for Gore last time.

Wiseacres continue to pretend otherwise. They think Howard Dean, the most lefty of the candidates, and former governor of the state of Vermont, could never get elected. Transfixed by the attractions of triangulated centrism, they're prepared to have its geometry laid out exclusively by their opponents. They come out against a bit of the Bush tax plan but not all of it. They're all but silent, as are much of the media, on what anti-terrorism psychosis is doing to civil liberties.

Yet the Republicans didn't get where they are today by such half-baked timidity. The challenge they make is for the life and death of the soul of the America very many Americans still believe in. What their opponents need is a leader whose voice rings more eloquently than Bush's - surely not the hardest contest to win. That won't happen until they abandon their backing and filling, and their belief that being a Democrat no longer adds up to anything more than a milder version of their enemies.

"Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater said that 40 years ago. It was the start of the recovery of the right. The words now belong rather exactly in the other side's mouth. If they came out of Senator Kerry's this autumn, they'd make him sound less like a calculating wimp.

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

commondreams.org



To: TigerPaw who wrote (25814)8/20/2003 11:38:54 AM
From: Karen Lawrence  Respond to of 89467
 
Iran-Contra, Amplified
The specter of the Iran-Contra affair is haunting Washington. Some of the people and countries are the same, and so are the methods -- particularly the pursuit by a network of well-placed individuals of a covert, parallel foreign policy that is at odds with official policy.

Boiled down to its essentials, the Iran-Contra affair was about a small group of officials based in the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that ran an "off-the-books" operation to secretly sell arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. The picture being painted by various insider sources in the media suggests a similar but far more ambitious scheme at work.

Taken collectively, what these officials describe and what is already on the public record suggests the existence of a disciplined network of zealous, like-minded individuals. Centered in Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith's office and around Richard Perle in the Defense Policy Board in the Pentagon, this exclusive group of officials operates under the aegis of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney.

This network includes high-level political appointees, such as Undersecretary of State John Bolton, who are scattered around several other key bureaucracies, notably in the State Department, the NSC staff and, most importantly, in Cheney's office.

Cheney, of course, has a direct link to Bush (and all the heads of agencies), while his powerful chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, also enjoys exceptional access and influence. Indeed, the two men's frequent visits (as well as those of another DPB member, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich) to CIA headquarters before the Iraq war have been cited by retired and anonymous intelligence officers as having actively intimidated analysts who disagreed with the more sensational assessments about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda produced by Feith's office.

Oliver North and his cohorts used the proceeds to sustain the Nicaraguan contras -- U.S.-sponsored rebels fighting Managua's left-wing government -- in defiance of both a congressional ban and of official U.S. policy as enunciated by the State Department and President Ronald Reagan. It was never clear whether Reagan understood, let alone approved, the operation. As with Reagan, in this case, too, it is difficult to determine whether Bush -- or even his NSC director, Condoleezza Rice -- fully understands, let alone approves, of what the hawks are doing.

There was some hint of a parallel policy apparatus dating back just after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It was known early on, for example, that the Pentagon leadership, without notice to the State Department, the NSC or the CIA, convened its advisory DPB, headed by Richard Perle, to discuss attacking Iraq within days of the attacks. The three agencies were also kept in the dark about a mission undertaken immediately afterward by former CIA director and DPB member James Woolsey to London to gather intelligence about possible links between Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, a move that suggested that the CIA or the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) could not be trusted.

While Woolsey's trip recalls the more benign shenanigans of the Iran-Contra crowd, consider some of the more recent press reports.

Item One: Iran-Contra alumnus and close Perle associate Michael Ledeen has renewed ties with his old acquaintance, Manichur Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms merchant who became the key link between the NSC's Oliver North, the operational head of Iran-Contra, and the so-called "moderates" in the Islamic Republic. But to what end?

It appears that certain elements in the Pentagon leadership, specifically Douglas Feith, are trying to sabotage sensitive talks between Teheran and the State Department to promote cooperation over Al Qaeda and other pressing issues affecting Afghanistan and Iraq. The Pentagon clique thinks Ledeen's old friend Ghorbanifar can help, according to Newsday, which reported August 8 that two of Feith's senior aides -- without notice to the other agencies -- have held several meetings with the Iranian, whom the CIA has long considered "an intelligence fabricator and nuisance."

Item Two: U.S. aircraft and Special Operations Forces (SOF) intercepted and destroyed a residential compound and two small convoys that were heading from Iraq into Syria in mid-June, killing as many as 80 civilians. They then subdued and arrested five Syrian guards across the border, taking them back to Iraq, where they were held and interrogated for five days, despite strong objections from the State Department.

The Pentagon, for its part, claims that it suspected senior Hussein officials of trying to make a run for it on a smuggling route. But an expose last month by The New Yorker suggests that the raid and arrests may have been part of a deliberate effort to inflame tensions with Damascus in an effort to put an end to the remarkably close level of cooperation between Syria, the CIA and the State Department in the campaign against Al Qaeda.

Item Three: The right-wing Washington Times reported on August 8 that certain "high-level circles within the administration" are hoping to persuade Chinese military officers to co-sponsor a coup to overthrow North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. While it is not clear whether concrete action has been taken, the paper noted that the Pentagon leadership disagrees strongly with the State Department's efforts to use diplomacy and the promise of a non-aggression pledge to persuade Kim to abandon his nuclear-weapons program.

Just before North Korea agreed to resume talks last week, Bolton delivered a blistering attack on Kim in what was seen by analysts here as a deliberate act of provocation.

Item Four: Anonymous "senior administration officials" informed a prominent conservative columnist of a covert CIA operative (whose name he then published) jeopardizing her career and possibly exposing numerous ongoing covert actions and agents who worked with her. The agent in question is the wife of Joseph Wilson, a retired career foreign service officer who publicly exposed as a fabrication President George W. Bush's now-infamous assertion that Iraq had tried to buy uranium yellowcake in Africa.

While some analysts have said the disclosure of his wife's identity, a felony under U.S. law, was an attempt to discredit him, Wilson charged this week that the move "was clearly designed to intimidate others from coming forward" with information that would expose the administration's manipulation of intelligence.

No one knows yet whether such intimidation will work, but recently retired intelligence and foreign service officials and military officers, and a growing number of anonymous active-duty officials, have indeed been talking to the media about the shenanigans within the administration. Recent stories expose a consistent pattern of manipulation and exaggeration of intelligence in order to justify the war against Iraq and, more recently, efforts to hype evidence about the alleged threat posed by Syria.

Newsday's disclosure that Feith's office has been used for secret contacts with Ghorbanifar suggests that the work of this small group of officials goes well beyond assessing intelligence and making policy recommendations. According to one career military officer who worked for eight months in the Near East/South Asia bureau (NESA) in that office, the political appointees assigned there and their contacts at State, the NSC and Cheney's office tended to work as a "network." Feith's office often deliberately cut out, ignored or circumvented normal channels of communication both within the Pentagon and with other agencies.

"I personally witnessed several cases of staff officers being told not to contact their counterparts at State or the (NSC) because that particular decision would be processed through a different channel," wrote retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowsky last week. "What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline."

In an interview with Inter-Press Service, she insists that her views of Feith's appointees and operations were widely shared by other professional staff. Quoting one veteran career officer "who was in a position to know what he was talking about," Kwiatkowsky says, "What these people are doing now makes Iran-Contra look like amateur hour."

Jim Lobe writes for Inter Press Service, an international newswire, and for Foreign Policy in Focus, a joint project of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies and the New Mexico-based Interhemispheric Resource Center.