Conason: Bush’s Supporters Will Libel Any Foe

In the acrid debate over Iraq, the President’s supporters will say anything. They will question the patriotism of those who disagree with “staying the course.” They will insinuate cowardice on the part of those who would “cut and run.” Even though they avoided military service, they will denigrate the records of decorated veterans like John Kerry and Jack Murtha. They will even accuse the war’s critics of providing “aid and comfort” to the enemy, which is the legal definition of treason.

Then the White House will turn around—after days of encouraging such vilification of their opponents—and leak the commanding general’s optimistic plan to start withdrawing troops, which would proceed according to the same timetable proposed by those weak and pusillanimous Democrats. That is meant to reassure the majority of Americans who realize invading Iraq was a strategic error and a tragedy that must be concluded as soon as possible.

All the slanders and all the maneuvers are performed for political expedience, not national security. In pursuit of Karl Rove’s electoral strategy, the Republicans will spend a trillion dollars and squander thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and the prestige of the United States. There is only one thing they won’t do. They will not speak honestly about the war, because the truth cannot accommodate their crude partisan rhetoric. The unfortunate reality is that President Bush has no “plan for victory.” On some days, he cannot foresee removing American troops during his Presidency and says that withdrawal will be a decision for “future Presidents” to make. On other days, he contemplates removing two-thirds of our combat brigades there by the end of next year. On some days, his ambassador to Baghdad discusses amnesty for the insurgents with the Iraqi government and other negotiable items. On other days, those difficult subjects are utterly taboo. He has no plan because the invasion of Iraq didn’t proceed according to the expectations of the White House and the Pentagon. The Bush war cabinet had formulated a sketchy plan at the outset, with vague, implausible notions of how postwar Iraq would be pacified, rebuilt and governed.

(snip)

Among the ill-conceived schemes originally contemplated by our ill-advised leaders was the installation of Ahmad Chalabi, an exile of dubious character, as Baghdad’s strongman. That daydream had to be abandoned, along with the flower-strewn parades and the reimbursement of our invasion expenses with Iraqi oil revenue. What we got instead were a plague of suicide bombings, an intractable insurgency, an ethnic civil war and a government allied with the Iranian mullahs.

more…
http://www.observer.com/20060703/20060703_Joe_Conason_opinions_conason.asp

Anybody in the Admin that listened to this guy or allowed him in any way shape or form to influence policy with Iraq should be tried for TREASON.

And Ahmad Chalabi should be tried in an International Court for WAR CRIMES.

Instead he gets seated behind GWB in full camera range for PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATIONS!

-85% Jimmy

It's not that THEY were fooled by him, but that he provided a useful tool for them and still does. They have never been on the outs, as media pretends.

tried in absentia and convicted of embezzlement in Jordan ? I believe his sentence was 20 yrs in prison. I'm sure 20 years in Jordanian prison is basically a life sentence. Just put him on a flight to Amman and let the authorities know he's coming. Works for me! We won't have to go through the trouble of a trial and all that nonsense. But then again at a trial, his testimony might prove "veerry interesting".

I am always amazed at how circumspect the Democrats are about impugning the motives of their GOP opponents, when those on the other side call them traitors and stop just short of forming a lynch mob.

Their response to "cut and run" is a sad case in point.

The correct response is to tell the truth. Cutting & running is indeed bad if you accept that we mistakenly undertook a misguided but noble mission. The American people and our troops may have done so, but the Bush administration did not.

For them, this looked like a simple smash and grab robbery. They wanted to give control of Saddam's oil to their friends, so they could decide how much flows and collect the profits when it does, as Greg Palast, Naomi Klein, Antonia Juhasz, and others have documented. They used our good reputation in the world, our tax dollars, and our troops as the brick to smash the window, and we don't even get a cut of the loot, or a break at the gas pump as thanks.

We are treated like patsies while Bush's friends at the oil companies, defense contractors, Bechtel, and Halliburton divide the spoils.


Those are not conspiracy theories but the ugly, bald-faced facts.

When you catch a smash and grab thief in the act, you don't figure out how to make him more comfortable in the jewelry store, you wrestle him to the ground and sit on him until the cops show up.

If Democrats continue to talk as if the war is just a noble adventure gone wrong, not only will they continue to lose, but they will look more and more like willing accomplices, trying to stall the cops while the rest of the gang gets away.

And what the GOP is taking is not just Iraq, but our democracy.

They need to get off their dead asses and start acting like this is a death match because it is.

:kick:

Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals:

Pick your target.
Freeze your target.
Personalize your target.
Polarize your target.


___________________



as a total aside...

cuts both ways -- we need to beat the RUSH Limbaugh thing to a bloody pulp.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=103&topic_id=219466&mesg_id=219466

What a great guy. Abbie Hoffman's mentor.

I don't think I've met anyone else who has read that book. Except my best friend, Jay. In my life.

DU.

it as an activist-organizer in the 80s.

the class that required it was an urban planning seminar where we examined the culture of change. you know, being a "change agent."

the funny thing is, i didn't appreciate it until the class. the first read was sorta like, "well, duh." :) when do we get to the *good* part. the utopia... or whatever it was that i thought was "beyond the rhetoric."

and yes -- abbie hoffman was da man. here's a very cool read on the subject...

Chant Down Babylon by Minstrel Boy (as he's been known on DU)
http://rigint.blogspot.com/2006/06/chant-down-babylon_23.html

Maybe more Yippie, and less Hippie?

Yesterday on the RI board, "Johnny Nemo" remembered Abbie Hoffman saying "There were all these activists, you know, Berkeley radicals, White Panthers... all trying to stop the war and change things for the better. Then we got flooded with all these 'flower children' who were into drugs and sex. Where the hell did the hippies come from?"

The Yippies were trickster revolutionaries, who staged shamanic acts to advance social transformation. They led thousands to the Pentagon in 1967 to attempt its levitation. They crashed the galleries of Wall Street to shower money on the trading floor. They ran a pig for president. But the decade, in America's memory, belongs to the Hippies.

(much more at the link above...)

And both are equally trustworthy.