|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Failure of Leadership; Republicans In Charge |
Current rating: 0 |
by John Peebles
Email: lordfraser (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified!)
Phone: 765-362-8651 |
23 Nov 2005
Modified: 01:33:34 PM |
Release Date/Time: November 23
Description: This article addresses the failures of Republican leadership.
Author: John Peebles
E-mail: lordfraser (at) yahoo.com |
Failure of Leadership; Republicans In Charge
by John Peebles
George Bush’s 37% popularity offers an opportunity to highlight the results of Republican failures. Under the leadership of our self-anointed “War President”, our foreign policy has grown increasingly delusional. Republicans in Congress have spent and borrowed trillions, for the benefit of the wealthy, while cutting vital aid to working-class Americans.
We’re locked in two land wars in a hostile region. Neither war can nor will end without withdrawal, for radical Islamic terrorists pledge to lash out as long as infidels occupy Muslim lands. Our on-going presence is therefore perpetuating the resistance. If our presence really brings stability, the security situation in Iraq would have improved by now.
We are told to stay the course, to honor the fallen and “git-r-done.” But we don’t know what our goals in Iraq are—the only ones I’ve heard are the amorphous “support for democracy” and the always popular “so they don’t win.” It was Mao who said political power grows from the barrel of a gun, not our Founders. And as for winning, we need objective standards for victory—Bush has yet to offer any criterion for exiting Iraq.
In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we must maintain our military presence to preserve the government we created. This dependency locks us into defending a regime regardless of what it does, because the alternative is losing to radical Islamic fundamentalists. The trap therefore dictates that we spend more lives and money for “the cause of freedom,” to justify the money and lives already lost.
In Afghanistan, our presence encourages anti-Western fanaticism. The benefits of American occupation have yielded dubious fruit. The country has become the largest supplier of heroin in the world. The trafficking has opened up clandestine trading conduits in an unstable region which could be used to move WMD’s.
Simply put, US plans to create a democracy in Iraq have left the Iranians in a position to dominate politics there, as the largely pro-Iran Shia population outnumbers all others. The Sunnis have turned to violence in part to retain a stake in Iraq’s oil fields, where “democratization” could turn the Sunni’s only hope for prosperity in their resource-scarce homelands over to the Kurds and Shia.
Convicted embezzler and neo-con darling Ahmed Chalabi is back in favor with Bush. Still paid $340,000/month by the Pentagon [1], Chalabi stands accused of passing off pre-war deceptions to prominent neo-cons, which then made their way into statements of fact by the Administration. In 2004, Chalabi was accused of informing the Iranians that we had broken their diplomatic communication codes. Chalabi’s return signals just how ignorant the Bush crowd is about the scope of Iranian influence in Iraq, or how little they really can do to stop the rise of Iranian power.
Recycling Chalabi does help maintain the denial in the Bush Administration’s mood-elevated Iraq policy, where democracy is always good, and things are always looking up. Likewise Chalabi’s return to good graces legitimatizes post-facto the lies about WMD that he and his Iraqi National Congress offered as truth before the invasion, to the White House Iraq Group and Office of Special Plans (Pentagon).
The consummate swindler, Chalabi was convicted of embezzlement in Jordan. Clearly a survivor, he retains considerable political influence in Iraq, with his links to its large Shia population and Iran’s.
Maybe Chalabi’s re-emergence into the neo-con’s lie-packed, war-frenzied version of foreign policy shows how desperate the Bushinistas are to wrangle “peace with honor” out of the strategic blunder and unfolding disaster which is Iraq.
Backroom dealing with the Iranians is nothing new to Republicans, despite their fervent anti-Iran rhetoric. During the hostage crisis in 1980, their icon Ronald Reagan held an October Surprise, in which with Republican interlopers held secret negotiations with Iran to hold the hostages until after the Presidential election.
Our neo-con-dominated foreign policy has a place for our friends at our table, assuming they submit to the “with us or against us” paradigm of post-9-11 terrorism. Like Iraq three years ago, the neo-cons now claim Iran is trying to acquire WMD. The intelligence could theoretically be right on Iran, but because of falsely accusations before, in Iraq, can our government be trusted? This loss of credibility is in itself a huge reason for governments not to cry wolf, particularly about a sensitive issue like WMD’s.
Bush himself has spoken, saying we do not torture, and so we therefore don’t. He says; therefore it is true, based on who he is. It is not the right of those who stand accused of torture to define it, nor is it left for accused to determine their guilt. Judging by Abu Ghraib, secret CIA-run prisons, and our rendition flights sending prisoners to countries where they really know torture, the rest of the world would disagree with Bush.
The Bush Administration steeps itself in hypocrisy. Even as the walls close in, they cling to their pre-war assertions despite evidence to the contrary. Contained they are by a combination of 1) realists from within their Party, 2) indictments, and 3) the usual political opposition. As Election ’06 closes in, Republicans have already begun to distance themselves from the President and his war policies.
Bush’s fragile justifications for invasion are emerging into the stark light of political scrutiny and prosecutorial inquiry, where they’re systematically being torn apart. With a possible indictment of Rove pending, the Bushinistas have lost their masterful touch in managing the Media. Falsehoods once blindingly accepted are increasingly revealed to be the distortions or outright lies they are or were.
Bush loyalists must struggle between their sense of loyalty and their sensibility, between the belief that their leader can do no wrong and his possible fallibility. Facing worsening popular and foreign opinion, Bush supporters must insulate themselves ever farther from the consequences of their dysfunctional policies in order to preserve the illusionary fabric on which they are based, lest reality smash in on them. Hence the “siege mentality.”
While postponed until after Election ‘04, reckoning has already come for some in the Republican power structure. House Majority Leader DeLay stands indicted. Senator Majority Leader Frist is accused of improprieties managing a ‘blind’ trust. More legal action against neo-conservatives and their support network could be coming; the most notable so far is the Libby indictment. Less known is the Franklin case where a mid-level neo-con was caught giving national security secrets (related to Iran) to two lobbyists chummy with Israel. Franklin was an aide to prominent neo-con Douglas Feith.
While a majority of American Jews did not support the invasion, US neo-conservatives colluded with right-wing Israelis in advocating military intervention in the Middle East and shaping US foreign policy in the region. Sharon’s recent abandonment of the Likud party he helped create might temporarily disguise his political extremism, but the militancy and racism at the core of Zionist policies will remain as long as Sharon stays in power.
In the Senate, John McCain remains steadfast in his support for anti-torture legislation, despite Cheney’s contentious claim that the CIA would be exempted from torture restrictions under his authority. The torture “question” raises the awkward question of whether the US is still a country which honors the rule of law. The Senate’s suspension of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees takes us still farther away from the principles of international law and universal human justice.
Republicans in Congress have exploited their well-crafted image as the caretakers of our national security. The unabashed use of military force has always been at the heart of the “conservatives” drive to accumulate political capital. The next logical step is to militarize the future response to any crises, which solidifies the relationship between Republicans and corporate beneficiaries of large government contracts. War profiteering and contractual abuse are rampant as a result.
To preserve tax cuts benefiting corporations and the rich, the Senate has taken from the poor—heating oil subsidies, student loans, and childcare help—in a reverse-Robin Hood. Rather than cut pork from last summer’s highway bill to pay for Katrina, our representatives sought to cut spending where it is truly needed.
When a real crisis arrives (Katrina), the principle of less government heralded by Republicans really does come home to roost. Blaming the state and local levels for their failures during the response shows just how eager our federal government is to abandon its responsibilities. When it comes to the rebuilding, though, Washington is quick to assert control by channeling relief funds to favored contractors. Allegations of disaster profiteering have been rife in the recovery.
Republican leadership is hardly a paradigm of fiscal virtue. Under a veto-free Presidency, federal spending is out of control. Fiscal restraint, a crucial part of the 1994 Republican Contract-with-America, has gone out of Washington, succumbing to a war on terror, tax cuts, and the emergencies of hurricane relief.
Failing to spend on flood prevention magnified the impact of Katrina and drove up overall damage. Iraq drained the Army Corps of Engineer of vital funds for levee maintenance and construction. [Hard to find is an admission that the Corps is responsible for protecting the city of New Orleans from flooding.] It remains unclear what impact the fully funding levee maintenance would have had on the flooding [2]. Still, holding back crucial funds that could have saved American lives for the sake of Iraqi reconstruction is hardly a good use of taxpayer money.
Media coverage of bird flu does more to stroke mass-fear-mania (omnipresent since 9-11) than assess the practical threat posed to Americans by the disease. Tamiflu (a Rumsfeld-connected company [3]) hasn’t been proven to stop the spread of the contagion, or even provide a sure-fire cure. Preparations for a flu epidemic can begin, but if Katrina gives us any view of the future, if the flu should strike, the federal response will prove belated and inadequate. In other words, we’re on our own.
Tax cuts or direct spending for the benefit of war contractors and big oil undermines the whole principle of higher government, which is to support its people in need. In times of crisis, higher government (Federal) must act to support lower government (State/Local), which often lacks the resources or capacity to respond. Without assistance from the federal government, why pay federal taxes? If the federal government fails to act, the only legitimate, de facto forms of government would be States and municipalities.
A recent successful vote for secession in Vermont demonstrates that many feel they’re better off without Washington. While the secession vote reflects anti-war sentiments, it also highlights the very patriotic opinions of a very independent state. Dissenting Vermonters see the their taxes spent by a federal government given over to partisan causes and monied interests, led by a President they didn’t elect. In 1776, the ruling “George” was un-elected, a King, and the people of Vermont rebelled against him, too.
The failures of Bush leadership are an on-going saga. Unlike other countries, we can do nothing here to force a new election, like a holding a no-confidence vote. Therefore, our current Administration is no longer accountable in any way. It’s only by venting their frustration in 2006 that voters will be able to hold their Congressional representatives to account for the failures of Republican leadership. Make sure your vote counts.
Sources:
[1]: “Intelligence: A Double Game” ; by Mark Hosenball , Newsweek, 5/10/05
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4881157/
[2]: “Is Bush to Blame for New Orleans Flooding?” ; FactCheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html
[3]: “Rumsfeld's growing stake in Tamiflu” ; Fortune, 10/31/05
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/31/news/newsmakers/fortune_rumsfeld/
Bio: The author lives in a small Midwestern town where he analyzes political and international news. He writes for a progressive audience via the Web. |
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license |
|
Re: Failure of Leadership; Republicans In Charge |
by eee eeee
mssmwp (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
24 Apr 2006
|
immortal
its "the list" that history will judge accordingly.
well written, logical and accurate. |
