March 25, 2003 Update Back
Recently Gore Vidal told a little story that particularly describes TW’s rush to war based on evidence that is proving highly problematic upon closer examination. In this paraphrase, Gore Vidal equated the Holy Roman Empire to the United States -- with the US now at the dawn of the end of the American empire:
"When Tiberius was Emperor, the Senate came to him and said 'Oh, Holy Emperor, bring us any legislation you want and we'll pass it.” Tiberius objected. The senate insisted, and Tiberius responded; “When a body such as this agrees to whatever the leader demands, then they have become slaves.”
Vidal adroitly commented, “If only we had Tiberius and not Caligula.”
[Junkie: For Junkies a little rusty on their Roman history, Caligula was a clement ruler for the first six months but became a vicious tyrant. He squandered his fortune on public entertainment and building projects; made his favorite horse a consul; declared himself a god; and had temples erected and sacrifices offered to himself.]
It is now patently obvious that many of TW’s reasons to justify a unilateral war against Iraq are false. There are three critical areas in which TW has misled all Americans.
RESOLUTION
1441 AUTHORIZED WAR – A SECOND RESOLUTION WAS NOT NEEDED
FALSE
TW detailed his authorization for war in a Report To Congress. The report states in pertinent parts (highlighting added):
In response to the president's challenge of Sept. 12, 2002, and after intensive negotiation and diplomacy, the Security Council unanimously adopted Security Council Resolution 1441 on Nov. 8, 2002. The Council declared that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach" of its disarmament obligations, but chose to afford Iraq one "final opportunity" to comply.
. . .
The president has full authority to use the armed forces in Iraq under the U.S. Constitution, including his authority as commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces. This authority is supported by explicit statutory authorizations contained in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243).
In addition, U.S. action is consistent with the U.N. Charter. The Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, provided that member states, including the United States, have the right to use force in Iraq to maintain or restore international peace and security. The Council authorized the use of force in Resolution 678 with respect to Iraq in 1990. This resolution on which the United States has relied continuously and with the full knowledge of the Security Council to use force in 1993, 1996 and 1998 and to enforce the no-fly zones remains in effect today. In Resolution 1441, the Security Council unanimously decided again that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions and would face serious consequences if it failed immediately to disarm. And, of course, based on existing facts, including the nature and type of the threat posed by Iraq, the United States may always proceed in the exercise of its inherent right of self-defense, recognized in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.
To the extent that TW’s Report implies that Resolution 1441 gives the US the automatic right to initiate war with Iraq, TW misleads the American public.
The US understood and accepted at the time of the passage of Resolution 1441 that a second vote of the UN would be required! Specifically, the LAT reports: -- LAT
All sides claimed victory, including the holdout French and Russians, who said they had curtailed U.S. warmongering and ensured that there will be a second stage of deliberations before going to any war.
But Bush's remarks Thursday illustrated just how far his position on Iraq has evolved over the last two months. Instead of demanding "regime change" and an immediate authorization to use force against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the resolution launches a new inspections program and emphasizes eradication of weapons of mass destruction.
. . .
They said the original wording proposed in the U.S. draft — the third draft offered by the United States and Britain — would have let the United States determine on its own whether Iraq violated the terms of the resolution, which could then trigger an attack on Baghdad.
France, Russia and others interpret the word change to mean that only the weapons inspectors can report to the council that Iraq has not lived up to its obligations to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, and only the Security Council can assess whether it is a breach serious enough to justify military action.
But in a feat of "creative ambiguity," the resolution is silent on whether the U.S. must wait for council authorization before taking action against Iraq, leaving Washington free to attack after the council meets.
The change of an "or" to an "and" tried to narrow the remaining ambiguities. Fearing that the U.S. would regard Iraq's slightest infraction as cause to attack, the simple word change satisfied skeptical delegates that the process would be guided by the council.
"The 'and' is very good," said Irish Ambassador Richard Ryan, who hadn't committed his country's support for the resolution until this week. "It keeps the hands of the council members as a whole on the steering wheel of the resolution in the future. It's of enormous significance."
. . .
U.S. officials said Thursday's concession on the language showed that the United States is genuinely committed to a multilateral process.
"There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution," U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte said. "Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken."
SADDAM SOUGHT NUCLEAR
WEAPON MATERIAL
(FALSE REPORT)
In particular, TW’s evidence of Saddam’s attempt to obtain nuclear material to make WMD was based on a forged document. The only question is whether TW deliberately mislead the American people.
Dem. Congressman Henry Waxman has documented the forgery, TW’s reliance on the forged document and asks compelling questions. Every American deserves answers! His letter to TW, including his supporting documentation, is a critical read for all Junkies and is at the end of this update. It should be read.
One answer may be that the CIA is apparently under pressure to produce evidence that conforms to TW’s policy positions. “’The forgery heightened people's feelings that they were being embarrassed by the way Iraqi intelligence has been handled,’ said one government official who has talked with C.I.A. analysts about the issue. The forged documents were not created by the C.I.A. or any other United States government agency, and C.I.A. officials were always suspicious of the documents, American intelligence officials said. But the information still ended up being used in public by Mr. Bush. Intelligence officials said there was other information, which was deemed to be credible, that raised concerns about a possible uranium connection between Niger and Iraq. Several analysts have told colleagues they have become so frustrated that they have considered leaving the agency, according to government officials who have talked with the analysts.” -- NYT
PEACE NEVER HAD A
CHANCE
(TRUE)
The truth is that TW had made the decision to “take out” Saddam as early as March 2002.
"F—k Saddam. We’re taking him out," said President George W. Bush in March 2002, after poking his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, TIME reports.
TIME’s story focuses on Paul Wolfowitz, a senior advisor to President Bush, a neoconservative – someone who thinks that the world is a dangerous place where civilization and democracy hang by a thread. Neoconservatives, report Elliott and Carney, also believe that the U.S. is endowed by Providence with the power to make the world better if only it will take the risks of leadership to do so.
In January 1998, Wolfowitz joined other neo-conservatives in signing a letter to President Clinton arguing that "containment" of Saddam had failed and asserting that "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power…needs to become the aim of American foreign policy." -- Drudge Report
Wolfowitz and company are all members of Project For a New American Century. TPJ has published several articles on the maniacal plans PFNAC has for “world order.” Finally, the NYT is exposing the connection between the war in Iraq and PFNAC. – NYT
Where did you hear first about the PNAC – THE POLITICAL JUNKIES – SIX MONTHS AGO!
_____________________________________________
March 17, 2003
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing regarding a matter of grave concern. Upon your order, our armed forces will soon initiate the first preemptive war in our nation’s history. The most persuasive justification for this war is that we must act to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons.
In the last ten days, however, it has become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence you and other Administration officials have cited regarding Iraq’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. What’s more, the Central Intelligence Agency questioned the veracity of the evidence at the same time you and other Administration officials were citing it in public statements. This is a breach of the highest order, and the American people are entitled to know how it happened.
As you know, I voted for the congressional resolution condemning Iraq and authorizing the use of force. Despite serious misgivings, I supported the resolution because I believed congressional approval would significantly improve the likelihood of effective U.N. action. Equally important, I believed that you had access to reliable intelligence information that merited deference.
Like many other members, I was particularly influenced by your views about Iraq’s nuclear intentions. Although chemical and biological weapons can inflict casualties, no argument for attacking Iraq is as compelling as the possibility of Saddam Hussein brandishing nuclear bombs. That, obviously, is why the evidence in this area is so crucial, and why so many have looked to you for honest and credible information on Iraq's nuclear capability.
The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African country, Niger. For several months, this evidence has been a central part of the U.S. case against Iraq. On December 19, the State Department filed a response to Iraq’s disarmament declaration to the U.N. Security Council. The State Department response stated: “The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.” A month later, in your State of the Union address, you stated: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Defense Secretary Rumsfeld subsequently cited the evidence in briefing reporters.
It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery. On March 7, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that the evidence that Iraq sought nuclear materials from Niger was “not authentic.” As subsequent media accounts indicated, the evidence contained “crude errors,” such as a “childlike signature” and the use of stationary from a military government in Niger that has been out of power for over a decade.
Even more troubling, however, the CIA, which has been aware of this information since 2001, has never regarded the evidence as reliable. The implications of this fact are profound: it means that a key part of the case you have been building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence experts at the Central Intelligence Agency do not believe is credible.
It is hard to imagine how this situation could have developed. The two most obvious explanations — knowing deception or unfathomable incompetence — both have immediate and serious implications. It is thus imperative that you address this matter without delay and provide an alternative explanation, if there is one.
The rest of this letter will explain my concerns in detail.
Use of the Evidence by U.S. Officials
The evidence that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from an African country was first revealed by the British government on September 24, 2002, when Prime Minister Tony Blair released a 50-page report on Iraqi efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. As the New York Times reported in a front-page article, one of the two “chief new elements” in the report was the claim that Iraq had “sought to acquire uranium in Africa that could be used to make nuclear weapons.” [1]
This evidence subsequently became a significant part of the U.S. case against Iraq. On December 7, Iraq filed its weapons declaration with the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. response relied heavily on the evidence that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Africa. For example, this is how the New York Times began its front-page article on December 13 describing the U.S. response:
American intelligence agencies have reached a preliminary conclusion that Iraq’s 12,000 page declaration of its weapons program fails to account for chemical and biological agents missing when inspectors left Iraq four years ago, American officials and United Nations diplomats said today.
In addition, Iraq’s declaration on its nuclear program, they say, leaves open a host of questions. Among them is why Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa in recent years. [2]
The official U.S. response was provided on December 19, when Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the Security Council. As the Los Angeles Times reported, “A one-page State Department fact sheet . . . lists what Washington considers the key omissions and deceptions in Baghdad’s Dec. 7 weapons declaration.” [3] One of the eight “key omissions and deceptions” was the failure to explain Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.
Specifically, the State Department fact sheet contains the following points under the heading “Nuclear Weapons”: “The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger. Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?” A copy of this fact sheet is enclosed with this letter.
The Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Africa were deemed significant enough to be included in your State of the Union address to Congress. You stated: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” [4] As the Washington Post reported the next day, “the president seemed quite specific as he ticked off the allegations last night, including the news that Iraq had secured uranium from Africa for the purpose of making nuclear bombs.” [5]
A day later, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at a news briefing that Iraq “recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” [6]
Knowledge of the Unreliability of the Evidence
The world first learned that the evidence linking Iraq to attempts to purchase uranium from Africa was forged from the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei. On March 7, Director ElBaradei reported to the U.N. Security Council:
Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents — which formed the basis for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger — are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. [7]
Recent accounts in the news media have provided additional details. According to the Washington Post, the faked evidence included “a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger.” [8] The article stated that the forgers “made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away — including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written.” [9] CNN reported:
one of the documents purports to be a letter signed by Tandjia Mamadou, the president of Niger, talking about the uranium deal with Iraq. On it [is] a childlike signature that is clearly not his. Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been foreign minister of Niger for 14 years. [10]
U.S. intelligence officials had doubts about the veracity of the evidence long before Director ElBaradei’s report. The Los Angeles Times reported on March 15 that “the CIA first heard allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger in late 2001” when “the existence of the documents was reported to [the CIA] second- or third-hand.” The Los Angeles Times quotes one CIA official as saying: “We included that in some of our reporting, although it was all caveated because we had concerns about the accuracy of that information.” [11] The Washington Post reported on March 13: “The CIA . . . had questions about ‘whether they were accurate,’ said one intelligence official, and it decided not to include them in its file on Iraq’s program to procure weapons of mass destruction.” [12]
There have been suggestions by some Administration officials that there may be other evidence besides the forged documents that shows Iraq tried to obtain uranium from an African country. For instance, CIA officials recently stated that “U.S. concerns regarding a possible uranium agreement between Niger and Iraq were not based solely on the documents which are now known to be fraudulent.” The CIA provided this other information to the IAEA along with the forged documents. After reviewing this complete body of evidence, the IAEA stated: “we have found to date no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.” [13] Ultimately, the IAEA concluded that “these specific allegations are unfounded.” [14]
Questions
These facts raise troubling questions. It appears that at the same time that you, Secretary Rumsfeld, and State Department officials were citing Iraq’s efforts to obtain uranium from Africa as a crucial part of the case against Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials regarded this very same evidence as unreliable. If true, this is deeply disturbing: it would mean that your Administration asked the U.N. Security Council, the Congress, and the American people to rely on information that your own experts knew was not credible.
Your statement to Congress during the State of the Union, in particular, raises a host of questions. The statement is worded in a way that suggests it was carefully crafted to be both literally true and deliberately misleading at the same time. The statement itself — “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” — may be technically accurate, since this appears to be the British position. But given what the CIA knew at the time, the implication you intended — that there was credible evidence that Iraq sought uranium from Africa — was simply false.
To date, the White House has avoided explaining why the Administration relied on this forged evidence in building its case against Iraq. The first Administration response, which was provided to the Washington Post, was “we fell for it.” [15] But this is no longer credible in light of the information from the CIA. Your spokesman, Ari Fleischer, was asked about this issue at a White House news briefing on March 14, but as the following transcript reveals, he claimed ignorance and avoided the question:
Q: Ari, as the president said in his State of the Union address, the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. And since then, the IAEA said that those were forged documents —
Mr. Fleischer: I’m sorry, whose statement was that?
Q: The President, in his State of the Union address. Since then, the IAEA has said those were forged documents. Was the administration aware of any doubts about these documents, the authenticity of the documents, from any government agency or department before it was submitted to the IAEA?
Mr. Fleisher: These are matters that are always reviewed with an eye toward the various information that comes in and is analyzed by a variety of different people. The President’s concerns about Iraq come from multiple places, involving multiple threats that Iraq can possess, and these are matters that remain discussed.
Thank you [end of briefing]. [16]
Plainly, more explanation is needed. I urge you to provide to me and to the relevant committees of Congress a full accounting of what you knew about the reliability of the evidence linking Iraq to uranium in Africa, when you knew this, and why you and senior officials in the Administration presented the evidence to the U.N. Security Council, the Congress, and the American people without disclosing the doubts of the CIA. In particular, I urge you to address:
1. Whether CIA officials communicated their doubts about the credibility of the forged evidence to other Administration officials, including officials in the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and the White House;
2. Whether the CIA had any input into the “Fact Sheet” distributed by the State Department on December 19, 2002; and
3. Whether the CIA reviewed your statement in the State of the Union address regarding Iraq’s attempts to obtain uranium from Africa and, if so, what the CIA said about the statement.
Given the urgency of the situation, I would appreciate an expeditious response to these questions.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
[1] Blair Says Iraqis Could Launch
Chemical Warheads in Minutes, New York Times (Sept.
25, 2002).
[2] Threats and Responses: Report by
Iraq, Iraq Arms Report Has Big
Omissions, U.S. Officials Say,
New York Times (Dec. 13, 2002) (emphasis added).
[3]
U.S.
Issues a List of the Shortcomings in Iraqi Arms Declaration,
Los Angeles Times (Dec. 20, 2002) (emphasis added).
[4] The President, State of the Union
Address (Jan.
28, 2003) (online at
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html) (emphasis added).
[5] A War Cry Tempered by Eloquence,
Washington Post (Jan.
29, 2003).
[6] Press Conference with Donald
Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, Cable News Network (Jan.
29, 2003) (emphasis added).
[7] IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei,
The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An
Update (Mar.
7, 2002) (online at www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Statements/
2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml).
[8] Some Evidence on
Iraq
Called Fake; U.N. Nuclear Inspector Says Documents on Purchases Were Forged,
Washington Post (Mar. 8, 2003).
[9]
Id.
[10] U.N. Saying Documents Were Faked,
CNN American Morning with Paula Zahn (Mar.
14, 2003).
[11]
Italy
May Have Been Misled by Fake Iraq Arms Papers, U.S. Says,
Los Angeles Times (Mar. 15, 2003).
[12] FBI Probes Fake Evidence of Iraqi
Nuclear Plans,
Washington Post (Mar. 13, 2003).
[13] IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei,
supra note 7 (emphasis added).
[14]
Id.
(emphasis added).
[15] Some Evidence on
Iraq
Called Fake,
supra note 8.
[16] The White House, Press Briefing by
Ari Fleischer (Mar.
14, 2003) (online at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030314-12.html)
(emphasis added).
In this week’s TPJ, the Junkie commented on Junkie Gary Pelphrey’s fine review of the peace march he attended in Georgia. – “W” Stands For War Junkie’s response, “Ain’t Got No Animals,” made the point that the Democrat Party was missing a wonderful opportunity to bring those involved in the peace marches into the Democrat Party or at least aligned with the Dems in the ’04 election.
Thom Hartmann’s article below is written from the perspective of the political left. He reaches the same result as Junkie. Hartmann’s article is a must read for Junkies. We must ask our local, state and national Party – WHERE ARE THE DEMS?
“How To
Take Back America”
by Thom Hartmann –
Common Dreams
Marching in the streets is important work, but wouldn't we have greater success if we also took control of the United States government?
It's vital to point out right-wing-slanted reporting in the corporate media, but isn't it also important to seize enough political power in Washington to enforce anti-trust laws to break up media monopolies?
And how are progressives - most standing on the outside of government, looking in - to deal with oil wars, endemic corporate cronyism, slashed environmental regulations, corporate-controlled voting machines, the devastation of America's natural areas, the fouling of our air and waters, and an administration that daily gives the pharma, HMO, banking, and insurance industries whatever they want regardless of how many people are harmed?
This lack of political power is a crisis others have faced before. We should learn from their experience.
After the crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964, a similar crisis faced a loose coalition of gun lovers, abortion foes, southern segregationists, Ayn Rand libertarians, proto-Moonies, and those who feared immigration within and communism without would destroy the America they loved. Each of these various groups had tried their own "direct action" tactics, from demonstrations to pamphleteering to organizing to fielding candidates. None had succeeded in gaining mainstream recognition or affecting American political processes. If anything, their efforts instead had led to their being branded as special interest or fringe groups, which further diminished their political power.
So the conservatives decided not to get angry, but to get power.
Led by Joseph Coors and a handful of other ultra-rich funders, they decided the only way to seize control of the American political agenda was to infiltrate and take over one of the two national political parties, using their own think tanks like the Coors-funded Heritage Foundation to mold public opinion along the way. Now they regularly get their spokespeople on radio and television talk shows and newscasts, and write a steady stream of daily op-ed pieces for national newspapers. They launched an aggressive takeover of Dwight Eisenhower's "moderate" Republican Party, opening up the "big tent" to invite in groups that had previously been considered on the fringe. Archconservative neo-Christians who argue the Bible should replace the Constitution even funded the startup of a corporation to manufacture computer-controlled voting machines, which are now installed across the nation. And Reverend Moon took over The Washington Times newspaper and UPI.
Their efforts, as we see today, have borne fruit, as Kevin Phillips predicted they would in his prescient 1969 book "The Emerging Republican Majority," and as David Brock so well documents in his book "Blinded By The Right."
But the sweet victory of the neoconservatives in capturing control of the Republican Party, and thus of American politics, has turned bitter in the mouths of the average American and humans around the world. Soaring deficits, the evisceration of Social Security, "voluntary" pollution controls, war for oil, stacking federal benches with right-wing ideologues, bellicose and nationalist foreign policy, and the handing over of much of the infrastructure of governance to multinational corporate campaign donors has brought a vast devastation to the nation, nearly destroyed the entrepreneurial American dream, and caused the rest of the world to view us with shock and horror.
Thus, many progressives are suggesting that it's time for concerned Americans to reclaim Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Party. It may, in fact, be our only short-term hope to avoid a final total fascistic takeover of America and a third world war.
"But wait!" say the Greens and Progressives and left-leaning Reform Party members. "The Democrats have just become weaker versions of the Republicans!"
True enough, in many cases. And it isn't working for them, because, as Democrat Harry Truman said, "When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time." (And, history shows, voters are equally uninterested in Republicans who act like Democrats.)
Alternative parties have an important place in American politics, and those in them should continue to work for their strength and vitality. They're essential as incubators of ideas and nexus points for activism. Those on the right learned this lesson well, as many groups that at times in the past had fielded their own candidates are now still intact but have also become powerful influencers of the Republican Party. Similarly, being a Green doesn't mean you can't also be a Democrat.
This is not a popular truth.
There's a long list of people who didn't like it - Teddy Roosevelt, H. Ross Perot, John Anderson, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader - but nonetheless the American constitution was written in a way that only allows for two political parties. Whenever a third party emerges, it's guaranteed to harm the party most closely aligned to it.
This was the result of a well-intentioned accident that most Americans fail to understand when looking at the thriving third, fourth, and fifth parties of democracies such as Germany, India, or Israel. How do they do it? And why can't we have third parties here?
The reason is because in America - unlike most other modern democracies - we have regional "winner take all" types of elections, rather than proportional representation where the group with, say, 30 percent of the vote, would end up with 30 percent of the seats in government. It's a critical flaw built into our system, so well identified in Robert A. Dahl's brilliant book "How Democratic Is the American Constitution?"
. . .
This is particularly problematic in presidential elections. H. Ross Perot's participation in the 1992 election drew enough votes away from the elder George Bush that Bill Clinton won without a true majority. Similarly, Ralph Nader's participation in the 2000 election drew enough votes away from Al Gore that it was easy for the Supreme Court and Jeb Bush to deflect media notice away from Florida's illegal vote-rigging in the pre-election purging of the voter rolls and thus select George W. Bush as President.
Conservative activists recognized this inherent flaw in the electoral system of the United States and decided to do something about it, recruiting Ronald Reagan and forming his infamous "kitchen cabinet." They took over the Republican Party and then successfully seized control of the government of the United States of America. As we can see by comparing documents from the 1990s Project For A New American Century with today's war in Iraq, these once-marginalized conservative ideologues are the real power behind Bush's throne.
Liberals weren't so practically minded. Instead of funding think tanks to influence public opinion, subsidizing radio and TV talk show hosts nationwide, and working to take over the Democratic Party, many left to create their own parties while others gave up on mainstream politics altogether. The remaining Democrats were caught in the awkward position of having to try to embrace the same corporate donors as the Republicans, although they weren't anywhere near as successful as Republicans because they hadn't (and haven't) so fully sold out to corporate and wealthy interests.
We see the result in races across the nation, such as my state of Vermont. In the 2002 election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, the people who voted for the Democratic and Progressive candidates constituted a clear majority. Nonetheless, the Republican candidates became Governor and Lieutenant Governor with 45 percent and 41 percent of the vote respectively because each had more votes than his Democratic or Progressive opponents alone. (Example: Republican Brian Dubie - 41%; Democrat Peter Shumlin - 32%; Progressive Anthony Pollina - 25%. The Republican "won.")
Similarly, Republicans have overtly used third-party participation on the left to their advantage. In a July 12, 2002 story in the Washington Post titled "GOP Figure Behind Greens Offer, N.M. Official Says," Post writer Thomas B. Edsall noted that: "The chairman of the Republican Party of New Mexico said yesterday he was approached by a GOP figure who asked him to offer the state Green Party at least $100,000 to run candidates in two contested congressional districts in an effort to divide the Democratic vote."
The Republicans well understand - and carefully use - the fact that in the American electoral system a third-party candidate will always harm the major-party candidate with whom s/he is most closely aligned.
The Australians solved this problem in the last decade by instituting nationwide instant run-off voting (IRV), a system that is making inroads in communities across the United States. There are also efforts to reform our electoral system along the lines of other democratic nations, instituting proportional representation systems such as first proposed by John Stuart Mill in 1861 and now adopted by virtually every democracy in the world except the US, Australia, Greece, the United Kingdom, and Canada.
These are good and important efforts for the long-term future of American democracy. But they won't happen in time to influence the 2004 elections, and we're facing a crisis right now. A few Democratic stalwarts survive who may oppose Bush on the national stage, but while the rest of us fixated on the war, neo-cons are creeping on cat's paws into the very heart of Jefferson's Party.
Thus, the best immediate solution to advance the progressive agenda is for progressives to join and take back the Democratic Party, in the same way conservatives seized control of the Republican Party.
After writing the first draft of this article, just as the first 2003 attack of Baghdad began, I thought about how the Democratic Party could change if most of the protesters in the streets were to join the Democratic Party and run for leadership positions in their local town or county. In short order, it could become a powerful force for progressive principles and democracy in America and the world, maybe even in time to influence the 2004 election.
So, I called the Democratic headquarters in my home state of Vermont.
"Sign me up!" I said to the startled young man who answered the phone.
"What?" he said, taken aback by my enthusiasm.
"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore," I said, standing and waving my arm as I talked on the phone. "We have to stop the right-wingers from ripping up our constitution, despoiling our earth, and turning America into a fascist state! Sign me up!"
"Are you a Democrat?" he said.
"Can I be a progressive Democrat?"
"Sure!" he said.
"Then I'm also a Democrat now!"
He chuckled, and said. "We're getting a lot of calls like this."
He took my contact information, and gave me the name of my county's Party leader. I told him to put me on the list for future fundraising events, to let me know how and when I could run for local Party leadership, and how I could participate on a regular basis in the decision-making processes of "my" local Democratic Party.
An hour after that call, I received an email characteristic of so many I get these days.
"I've never been so depressed in my entire life," the correspondent, an attorney and longtime progressive activist wrote. "Bush is completely ignoring us. My nation, using the same rationale Germany did in the 1930s, has just gone to war against a nation that did not attack it, and my president has declared himself a military dictator. Every time we announce peace marches, they raise the 'threat level' so they can keep us away from government buildings or use force to prevent us from marching. I've lost all hope."
A few minutes later, another old friend and activist wrote that her "heart was heavy and tears came easily." A flood of other emails arrived after the publication of my most recent article on Common Dreams, and all but one expressed despair, fear, or panic.
So I've started answering them by saying:
"The nation I love is confronting a crisis no smaller than those faced by Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Washington: a crisis that will determine if American democracy survives to the next generation. So-called 'conservatives' are turning our government inside out, trying, as they say, 'to drown it in the bathtub,' killing off regulatory agencies, ripping up the Constitution, cutting funding to social services, and turning pollution controls over to industry. Government expenses in the trillions of dollars are being shifted from us, today, to the shoulders of our children, who will certainly have to repay the deficits Bush's so-called 'tax cuts' (which are really tax deferrals) are racking up. War is being waged in our name and without our consent.
"And, most disconcerting, the leadership of this administration is made up of blatantly profiteering CEOs, former defense industry lobbyists, and failed hack politicians so outside the mainstream that one - Ashcroft - even lost an election in his home state against a dead guy.
"Unlike most other modern democracies, our American electoral system only allows for two political parties, at least at the national level. So, given that the rich, the polluters, the paranoid, and the zealot war-mongers got to the Republicans first, we have no choice but to take back the Democratic Party, reinvigorate it, reorient it, and lead it to success in 2004. We may not be able to stop Bush now, but we sure as hell can throw him out of office next year at the ballot box."
But what, some have said in response, about the corporate-controlled media?
That was the same problem faced by the Christian Right 25 years ago, when the coverage they could get was of Tammy Faye Bakker scandals. But once they'd taken over the Republican Party, the press could no longer ignore them, and Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are now regulars on network TV.
Another person answered my now-form-email by saying, "I want to participate in producing a detailed plan for the future of America, rather than just joining a corrupt and tired-out political party."
My response was that if there were enough of us in the Democratic Party, it could become a cleaned-up and powerful activist force. It's possible: just look at how the anti-abortion and gun-nut folks took over the once-moribund Republican Party.
Another said, "But what about their rigged computer-controlled voting machines?"
My answer is that only a political party as large and resourceful as the Democrats could have the power to re-institute exit polling, and catch scams like the voter-list purges Jeb Bush used to steal the 2000 and 2002 elections for himself and his brother.
And the Democratic Party can only do it if we, in massive numbers, join it, embrace it, and ultimately gain a powerful and decisive voice in its policy-making and selection of candidates.
__________________________
Thom Hartmann (e-mail: thom at thomhartmann.com) is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.