A Sigh For America

By James Carroll January 22, 2007

THE PASS of the Moor's Sigh" is the place on the outskirts of a city in Spain where its last Moorish ruler, upon being expelled from Iberia, stopped to weep. His companion rebuked him, as the writer Robert Grudin recounts , for waiting until all was lost to express his feeling. Why did he not manifest his devotion to his realm before, when a different outcome was still possible?

The feeling many Americans have today is that, all but literally, we are being driven out of our beloved country. President Bush will deliver his State of the Union address tomorrow night , and once more an air of unreality will hang over the nation.

The hubris of former such speeches may be absent, but the president, predictably, will discuss Social Security, the economy, the problem of dependency on foreign oil. The rhetoric of bipartisanship will be in evidence, if inauthentically. The chastened Bush will have little or nothing to add on the subject of his new "strategy" in Iraq, although it shows signs of already failing.

Bush's latest rationale for this war is to act in support of "the Iraqi military," but does any such entity exist? Does defending the openly tribal government of Nouri al-Maliki mean that US soldiers are now an adjunct to Shi'ite death squads, even while being their target? If Maliki and Bush are allies, why do they talk past each other? Why should the Sunni leaders of "moderate" Arab states not be alarmed by the tightening US-Shi'a embrace? And when insanity rules, does the fact that an air attack on Iran's nuclear facility would be insane any longer mean it will not happen?

In other words, the "surge" in Iraq that matters is the movement from disaster to catastrophe.

A question: How can otherwise rational policy makers and military leaders continue to cooperate in this madness?

That, obviously, is a question that goes to the US Constitution: What happens when a president's dogged determination begins to show itself as an obsessive irrationality? In numerous television appearances last week, interviewers successfully drew Bush out, showing him to be a man in the grip of an idée fixe: He is saving America. From what, now that all explanations for the war have been debunked, he cannot say. But the president's transcendent project of national redemption justifies his isolated inflexibility. That his decisions so palpably undermine US security and lead to unnecessary deaths means little to him because his decisions are deemed correct not by outcomes, but by being his. He is the decider.

How bad do things have to get before the co-equal branch of the US government begins to act? The Congress, even with Americans overwhelmingly against the war, has been stymied. This seems partly the result of dreading to appear not to "support the troops," and partly of the Democrats' reluctance to take actions that might lead to their sharing responsibility for the debacle.

The president is famously the commander in chief, able to take autonomous action in war. But ironically, by following the Baker-Hamilton report with a stage-managed act of war-renewal, he has just sacrificed that autonomy, opening up an unprecedented opportunity for a congressional intervention. The administration's own orchestration requires a political response from Capitol Hill.

Unlike the larger war, the Bush "plan" to escalate numbers of US soldiers, which is necessarily implemented gradually, can be opposed without complication. That is being reflected in several resolutions, put before members last week, that cap troop levels. With growing popular revulsion, the disenchantment of Republicans, and the frankly expressed skepticism of many military commanders, there is political cover for stopping the increase now by the appropriations process. No funds for a surge.

If the Congress derailed Bush's planned escalation of the war, the war itself would then be squarely on the table of the political process. An utter reversal of what is meant by "supporting the troops" would lead the public to welcome shifts in military funding that began to bring them home. The already expressed will of the American people would begin to be followed. No funds for more war. All of this can start tomorrow night.

Or will the political leadership of the United States wait until it is too late? Like the last Moor of Iberia, will Congress decline to express itself when the crucial difference could be made? Who then will sympathize with their regret, or care about their weeping? Much less vote for them when they run for president?

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Webb Delivers Democratic Response to SOTUS

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 23, 2007; 5:42 PM

Virginia Sen. James Webb (D) tonight will deliver a blistering eight-minute response to the President's State of the Union address. Aides promised it will be an aggressive challenge to Bush's Iraq policies from the newly empowered Democratic majority in Congress.

Webb will speak live from an historic Capitol Hill meeting room and is likely to display the same pugnacious scowl and blunt manner that won over Virginia voters in November and later generated headlines in a face-to-face exchange with Bush at the White House.

In an interview this morning, Webb called Bush's new Iraq policy "an adjustment" and said "an adjustment is not a strategy. What is the end point?"

Democrats owe their newfound control of the Senate to Webb's slim and improbable victory over former Virginia Sen. George Allen (R). Webb -- a Vietnam war hero turned antiwar zealot -- also embodies his party's central message: a determination to oppose the Iraq war while still supporting the troops who are there.

And Webb has become a folk hero among liberals and bloggers for brusquely telling Bush at a White House social event that questions about Webb's Marine son serving in Iraq are "between me and my boy."

So after just three weeks as a U.S. senator, the former Republican became the choice of the Democratic leadership in the Senate and House of Representatives to carry their blunt warning about Bush's new war strategy.

"He represents to me what the new America is all about," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), as he faced about 40 reporters with Webb and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "Someone who understands what it means to go to war, what it means to have peace, what it means to work on a bipartisan basis. I think he's the perfect person to answer the president."

For the second year in a row, Democrats tonight turn to a newly-elected Virginia leader for their response to Bush. Last year, they picked Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), fresh from his victory in the conservative state, to speak for the national party.

Kaine offered an upbeat, hopeful message tinged with a few jabs at Bush. Webb, a former boxer, is expected to offer a harsher critique of the president's six years in office. With his party in control of Congress now, Webb's brief speech will be more aggressive and confident, said Paul Reagan, his chief of staff.

Even before either speech was given, Republican party officials sent out e-mails criticizing Webb as "in lock step with Defeatocrats on Iraq" and calling him "just another Dem hothead."
During the briefing with Reid and Pelosi, Webb chided Bush and the White House because "they don't have a plan."

For Webb, tonight's speech caps a remarkable year that began with an underfunded, largely dismissed campaign to unseat a leading presidential hopeful. For most of the year, his campaign was ignored by pundits and criticized by suspicious Democrats.

But his bid for office caught on even as Allen's was rocked by gaffes and scandal. After his 9,000-vote victory, Webb thrust his son's combat boots over his head, publicly taking them off for the first time since the Senate campaign began.

"To the people who have become such loyal followers of Jim, we're motivated by the fact that he's willing to fight for what he believes in," said Jim McBride, 32, who organized aspeech-watching party for 100 of Webb's most die-hard campaign volunteers at the Bailey's Pub and Grille in Arlington.

"We are waiting for the Democratic party to fight the way Jim is fighting," McBride said.
Webb began his day by spilling a cup of coffee on his blue shirt, prompting an aide to urge a change of clothes instead of just a buttoning of his jacket.

"I told him this was one of the biggest appearances he'd make in his life, so maybe we should change the shirt," said communications director Jessica Smith.

For the first time, networks planned to broadcast the State of the Union and Webb's response in high definition television. That prompted Webb's staff to hire a makeup specialist who could make sure that Webb looked good even in those crystal-clear pictures.

Aides said Webb has taken the speech seriously, vigorously rewriting the initial draft suggested by the offices of Reid and Pelosi. But like past State of the Union responders, Webb received much unsolicited advice. Asked why the speech grew from five minutes to more than eight, Smith said, "that's what happens when you have input from everyone."

Kristian Denny Todd, Webb's spokeswoman during the campaign, said the speech is a big moment for Webb, who spent much of the last two decades writing books and articles about war and its consequences.

"This is the opportunity he's wanted for four years," Todd said. "Like one of his Op-Eds, but broadcast to millions of Americans in his own voice."

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became
mass murderers.

Sunday Gab Fests with commentary

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press WriterSun Jan 21, 5:38 PM ET

Two leading Senate Democrats sought to build support Sunday for a bipartisan resolution opposing President Bush's war strategy in Iraq, cautioning that division over whether it goes far enough could spell defeat.

No matter what the Resolution finally turns out to be, just get everyone on record. If Bush can't be stopped now, those who block meaningful congressional action will not be in D.C. much longer.

"The worst thing we can do is to vote on something critical of the current policy and lose it," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. "The public doesn't support his policy, a majority of Congress doesn't support his policy.

"If we lose it, the president will use the defeat of a resolution as support of his public policy," Levin said.

And he will be dead wrong!

The new Democratic-led Congress heads this week toward its first vote on the war, with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee beginning debate Wednesday on a resolution condemning Bush's proposal to send 21,500 more troops to Baghdad and Anbar province. A vote could come as early as that same day.

The proposed nonbinding resolution, which is largely symbolic and would have no affect on money for troops, states that "it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq."

Well, not shit, Sherlock! Everyone with more than three neurons firing and who hasn't been in a coma or ideologically brain-damaged for the past 4 years, knows that.

It has generated some division among Democrats who want to go farther by cutting funding for new troops, moderates in both parties who want softer language and Republican leaders who have vowed to filibuster.

Anyone who filibusters any Resolution against this criminal war, must be targeted for defeat in 2008, if not worse; like standing along side Bush and Cheney in the dock for their crimes against humanity.

On Sunday, Levin and Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., who sponsored the resolution along with Republicans Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record) of Maine, called their proposal a first step that would send a "powerful message" that Bush must change course.

Does anyone really believe he will hear any such message? Get real. He was sent a damned strong message by the electorate last November. He sure as hell hasn't heard that message!

Other congressional steps, such as limiting federal appropriations for the war, could come later if Bush were to continue pushing forward with additional troops in defiance of the resolution, they said.

How much later? How many deaths later? How many billions later?

Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, downplayed the notion that support could splinter over how far lawmakers should go to restrain the president's power to wage war. He said he expected the half-dozen competing proposals to oppose the war each would get an airing.

As well they should. The last thing we need is more lock-step congress. Besides, we want everyone on record.

"I don't think there's any muddled message here," Biden said. "They'll all get a chance to be voted on, with some discussion."

The proposals to limit the war vary.

Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., and Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., say they want to cut funding for new troops to prevent the deployments. Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn., has a proposal that would cap troops at existing levels.

Republican Sen. Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon said he was wary of the term "escalating" in the resolution and was working with Sens. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, and Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Neb., on a "constructive, nonpartisan resolution that expresses the opposition of the Senate to the surge."

I find it hard to imagine that senators are now going to squabble over semantics while people die and are maimed in an unnecessary, criminal war! I thought that Senator Smith was at the "end of his rope." when someone is really at the end of their rope, they don't get bent out of shape about a word.

Besides, unlike troop level increases in the past (which haven't worked), this one is being announced as a new stratgey, a change in policy. It is, therefore, an escalation, against the will of the people, as clearly expressed.

Collins and Nelson, alongside Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., were expected to announce the details Monday.

This is going to be some version of Baker-Hamilton, we expect.

And the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats say they would introduce legislation this week calling for greater accountability on how Iraq war funds are spent.

That's nice. It should have been done years ago. Do you guys have a plan to get the wasted funds back, or are you just going to whine about it?

Bush, meanwhile, was expected to address the Iraq war in his State of the Union address Tuesday and renew his calls to work together with Democrats on a bipartisan way forward.

Bullshit, By working together, Bush means going along with every nutty plan he comes up with.

Earlier that day, the Senate Armed Services Committee will also hear from Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, a former division commander in Iraq, who was tapped by Bush to replace Gen. George Casey as the top American commander in Iraq.

On Sunday, Biden said despite the competing proposals, there was overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress against the war. He said Vice President Dick Cheney was absolutely wrong in suggesting that a resolution against the war would "embolden our enemy."

Or it could have just the opposite effect. It might be seen as the first sign of Democracy in this country in over 7 years.

Does Cheney believe that the criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq didn't embloden "our enemy? Does he understand that the invasion actually created far more enemies, even among our old allies?

"Every single person out there, that is of any consequence, knows the vice president doesn't know what he's talking about. I can't be more blunt than that," Biden said. "He is yet to be right one single time on Iraq."

Our favorite comment of the day.

Hagel suggested there may be more Republican support than is generally known for seeking a vote in Congress toward ending the war in Iraq.

"It is wrong to put American troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war," he said. "Are we not to register our sense of where we are going in this country?"

"Let every member of the Senate express themselves," he said, saying they owe that to the American public.

Hagel is right-on! By all means, let our elected officials express themselves. We can't wait!

"We have anarchy in Iraq," he said. "It's getting worse."

Much more of Bush, Cheney and their slack-jawed followers and there is going to be anarchy here!

Biden and Levin spoke on "Fox News Sunday," and Hagel was on CBS' "Face the Nation.