the dread specter of Howard Dean in the White House, and
it's all because the President's hawkish impulses are being
somehow subverted by out-of-line subordinates:
Bush is committed to victory in that war, his secretary of
state seems committed to diplomatic compromise, and his secretary
of defense to an odd kind of muscle-flexing-disengagement.
And when Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., said on
Sunday with regard to Iraq, 'We're going to get out of there
as quickly as we can, but not before we finish the mission
at hand,' one wonders: Wouldn't Howard Dean agree with that
it's hard to say what Dean would or would not agree with:
the probable Democratic nominee has also said that we can't just get up and leave,
while somehow gaining a reputation as the "antiwar" candidate.
Whatever. The point is that no presidential candidate who
tells the truth about Iraq that we'll be there for the next
decade or so, barring an outright military defeat, no matter
which party is in power can possibly hope to win. But the
little Lenin of the neocons won't take no for an answer:
doesn't the first half of that sentence suggest that even
the most senior of Bush's subordinates haven't really internalized
the president's view of the fundamental character of this
war? If they haven't, will the American people grasp the need
for Bush's continued leadership on Nov. 2? If not, prepare
for President Dean."
real problem, of course, is not the Rumsfeldian
insistence that we have enough troops in the field, but
that we haven't launched any new invasions lately: by this
time, the neocons complain, we should have been marching through
the streets of Damascus
and on the road to Tehran. "Faster,
please," is an exhortation that Michael Ledeen, neocon
polemicist of Iran-Contra
fame, makes a point of ending his frequent perorations
with, and it fairly summarizes the neoconservative position.
and Syria are their current targets, but in his book, The Terror Masters
the "What Is To Be Done?"
of the War Party Ledeen advocates overthrowing them
all, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The smoke had barely
begun to clear from the devastated World Trade Center before
Kristol and his "Project for a New American Century" issued
a statement that emphasized
going after "other groups" than Bin Laden's, including but
not limited to the nations of Syria and Lebanon.
the pro-war and anti-war factions of the Right paint a portrait
of a President caught in the machinations of Rasputin-like
advisors. Kristol imagines that Rumsfeld and Powell are subverting
the President's real intentions, and subtly manipulating him
to sell out the pro-war cause. Pat Buchanan, on the other
hand, in commenting on Bush's November
speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, portrays
the President of the United States as little more than a sock-puppet:
Bush did not write this democratist drivel. This is the kind
of messianic rhetoric he probably never heard before he became
president. Who is putting these words in his mouth?"
President, in both scenarios, is an empty chalice waiting
to be filled, a hapless Boy Emperor at the mercy of willful
advisors, each with their own agenda. At the top of Karl Rove's
agenda is getting the President reelected, and that includes,
we are told, a key proviso of "no
war in '04." It seems pretty clear that a political decision
has been made to at least give the appearance of handing power
over to the Iraqis before the election really begins to heat
the neeocons to no end, and there are many signs, aside
from Kristol's complaint, that they may be turning against
the Republicans. They never had any loyalty to the President
to begin with, and, as has
been foretold in this space many times, would turn on him
viciously if it ever came to that.
certainly describes the attack launched
by Frank Gaffney, ostensibly directed at conservative
Norquist, but which includes this astonishing accusation
leveled at the White House:
pro-Islamist groups had been scheduled to meet with President
Bush on the morning of September 11 to hear what he planned
to do to deliver on his secret evidence campaign pledge. But
that day, the executive mansion complex was shut down, for
fear that a fourth hijacked aircraft was headed its way. I
watched bemused as Grover Norquist and the White House official
responsible for Muslim outreach, Suhail Khan, escorted the
displaced Islamists into the conference room we share. (Al-Arian
had arranged to participate in the presidential meeting via
phone. According to his website, his teaching schedule at
the University of South Florida would not allow him to be
there in person.)"
President, as The Speculist points
out, was in Florida that fateful morning, and his schedule
called for him to be there until Tuesday afternoon, as this
White House briefing put it:
return to the White House on Tuesday afternoon, where he will
host, in the evening, the Congressional Barbecue on the South
Lawn. Also on Tuesday, Mrs. Bush will make remarks on early
child cognitive development to Senator Kennedy's committee."
rest of Gaffney's screed is a farrago of lies, character assassination,
and the usual guilt-by-association tactics that are the hallmark
of his written works. It's as if someone had taken The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion and transmuted it into
a polemic against the real hidden masters of the universe
radical Islamists, who, in Gaffney's whacked-out world,
have infiltrated and taken over the White House!
dogs of war are barking up a storm, driven half-mad by the
thought that their plans may be frustrated. And it's music
to my ears
IN THE MARGIN
of barking dogs, somebody muzzle radio ranter Neal
Boortz before he embarrasses himself any further. Now
he's calling me me! a Communist!
Check it out:
"Justin Raimondo doesn't particularly like me. He doesn't
like me because I approve of our actions in Iraq. Fair enough.
Do you know who else doesn't like our Iraqi actions? Well,
communists, for one. The chairman of those anti-war protests
in London is the leader of the British communist party. So
... is it
a bit odd that Raimondo's rants against me show up in a Pravda
anyone can post anything in a "chat room," isn't it more than
a bit odd that this ersatz evidence of my secret membership
in the Communist Party should turn up now? This is evidence,
alright of Boortz's basic asininity.
would ask Boortz: do you know who else doesn't like
our Iraq actions? The Libertarian Party, that's who the
party that has disgraced itself by inviting you as a speaker
at their national convention. The same party whose banner
I ran under, in the 1980s, for three different offices in
the state of California. The same party whose state convention I addressed
the Libertarian Party also part of the Commie conspiracy against
this war? That's the question Neal Boortz should be asked,
by the party leadership. Boortz insists the antiwar movement
must be watched by federal agents. Should members of the Libertarian
Party, too, be spied on by the government because they hold
antiwar views and participate in antiwar protests?
all waiting for your answer, Neal
of Commies, Glenn Reynolds is going
on about the glorious "anti-terrorism" rallies in Baghdad
and elsewhere protesting the actions of the Iraqi insurgency,
but in citing news accounts he always carefully edits out
leading role taken by the Iraqi Communist Party:
of Iraqis, some watched over by US Apache helicopters, demonstrated
in Baghdad and other cities to condemn 'terrorism' in their
country. More than 200 protesters from the Iraqi National
Congress and other political parties, women's groups and sheikhs
in traditional dress gathered near the National Theatre in
Baghdad and marched to a central Baghdad hotel.
is the national campaign against terrorism and sabotage,'
said Abo Thaer, 55, a member of the Iraqi Communist Party.
His party members turned out with giant red flags bearing
the hammer and sickle.
... Qutaiba Khalid, and his wife Taghreed Jasin, both 28,
said they were representing students as well as the Communist
Party. With a red neckerchief and purple-tinted sunglasses,
Khalid said violence 'will endanger the lives of innocent
people and it will delay the departure of the occupying force.'"
Communists showed up early, and in large numbers, and their
key role as organizers and foot soldiers of the occupation
is underscored by Middle East scholar Juan Cole:
plan for a new anti-terrorist force of 750-850 fighters, drawn
from the militias of 5 Iraqi parties, appears to be going
forward. It is scary that the force will include members of
the Badr Corps (trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards).
Western news agencies are not reporting, as al-Zaman
does, that one of the five paramilitaries providing fighters
is the Communist Party of Iraq! So, the last best hope of
the US for an effective anti-terror campaign in Iraq rests
with hardline Shiites and Communists?"
Reynolds made such a big deal about commie participation
in the antiwar marches, exemplified by the Workers
World Party-controlled "International ANSWER," inveighing
against marching with "Stalinists," how does he justify marching
with Iraqi Stalinists who no doubt had a great deal
to do with organizing these demonstrations? Reynolds urged
sincere opponents of the war to boycott the demos organized
by ANSWER, on the grounds that to march would sully the moral
integrity of everyone who abhors the mass murders committed
by Stalin and his successors. Well then, why doesn't this
same principle apply in Iraq? Or does it only apply to the
recommend the above to Neal Boortz and his fans, who have
been writing me incoherent letters: now that's the way red-baiting
is really done!
Please Support Antiwar.com
1017 El Camino Real #306
Redwood City, CA 94063
or Contribute Via our Secure
Credit Card Donation Form
Your contributions are