archived: 4 - 10 Jul, 2004         Back                 Next 

JULY 8, 2004 UPDATE

                        SOME THOUGHTS FOR AND ABOUT THE KERRY CAMPAIGN, I”

_______________

Note to readers:

As we are now approaching the run-up to the Democratic National Convention and the Convention itself, I am devoting a series of columns to what are primarily campaign matters, rather than the more historical and theoretical issues I usually deal with.  It happens that I am going to be away during most of this period.  Thus, not only these columns but also the first two for August are being prepared in advance.  It is possible that some of what I will have to say here will be overtaken by events.  Hopefully, whether or not that happens, you will find these thoughts of use as our attention turns to the principal problem facing the pro-democracy forces, not in Iraq, but here at home: how to defeat George Bush and assure the election of John Kerry.

            I should note that some of these reflections have appeared in one form or another in one or more of my previous columns.  If that is the case, obviously I believe they have merit.  So please bear with me.

________________

            Dealing With The “Liberal Label” Issue

The Georgites will be using the “liberal as a dirty word” strategy with increasing intensity.  This is because they have little else to run on and little other than invective and phraseology designed to distract the electorate from the real issues: the record of George Bush and how John Kerry would re-direct the course of our ship of state back onto that determined by our Constitution.  To do this, the Senator might use something like the following recipe:

"If 'liberal' means . . .

Getting 20% of the 50%

I continue to believe that the primary electoral key to victory in November is held by the 50% of eligible voters who don’t ordinarily vote in Presidential elections.  Over many years polls have shown that the number one reason for not voting is that eligible voters perceive no differences between the candidates to make getting out to vote worth the effort.  If Kerry can get 20% of this 50%, he will win in a true landslide. 

The lesson from the data on why eligible non-voters don’t vote makes it quite obvious what Kerry must do:  clearly distinguish himself from Bush, by taking what are mainstream American positions (see the list above) that the Georgites try so hard to define as “left.” Distinguishing himself in this way will also draw that ever-increasing segment of “Anybody But Bush” customarily Republican voters to him.

As to those poll numbers that so many people are worried about, the ones that as of late June did not show Kerry pulling into a commanding lead over a Bush who is suffering one policy reverse after another, I have to say that I am not upset.  The fact is that most polls simply do not reach the many non-voters who are hopefully going to come out and vote for Kerry.  Further, even that being said, I think, given Bush's enormous build-up over his (false) "strength" in the face of 9/11 and the natural national rallying round at the beginning of the Iraq disaster, it is not surprising that the polls, such as they are, don't fully show the extent to which Bush support has dropped and will not likely recover, just as long as Kerry can manage to keep the focus on Bush and make the primary agenda for the election reversing the Bush Record.

On Iraq

The Bush “turnover” policy is obviously being driven by domestic politics.  Wolfowitz and Negroponte had already (end of June) said that the US will be in Iraq indefinitely, apparently regardless of what form the Iraqi government might eventually take (and as of the end of June, its leaders were talking about a military dictatorship [!]) and what power it might have. We all know what happened to the WMD and Saddam/al-Qaeda links reasons for the War. 

Now the “bringing democracy and freedom” argument is begin to ring quite hollow.  Little noticed was the following statement by the inimitable Paul Wolfowitz: “The purpose of this war wasn’t to remake Iraq any more than the purpose of World War II was to remake Germany and Japan” (Tierney, John, “The Hawks Loudly Express Their Second Thoughts,” New York Times News of the Week in Review, May 16, 2004, p. 5).  What was that?  Next, will Wolfie be telling us that the primary reasons for the War were: 1. Iraqi oil, 2. permanent bases in the region, 3. American “hegemony,” just as his Project for a New American Century associates were openly saying in the 1990s?

Indeed, I believe that the primary goal of the Iraq invasion was No. 1, getting the hands of the US oil companies on Iraqi oil, but not all of it.  (Warning: those anti-conspiracy theory readers are not going to like this paragraph much at all.)  Southern Iraq is much too unstable and much too contested.  No, I believe that the US oilmen have been focusing on Kurdish oil, ever since the American virtual protectorate for that region was set up following the end of the Gulf War in 1991.  Thus, I think that all along the underlying Georgite goal for Iraq has been to have it end up as a "federated" nation in which Iraqi Kurdistan, and its potential enormous oil reserves, would be come a permanent US protectorate.  A deal would be worked out with the Turks and the Iraqi Kurds to make sure that this would not make more than minor trouble for Turkey.  (At the NATO Summit at the end of June, Bush was already trying to make nice with the Turks.  Wonder what that was all about?) Further, as for the concerns of Iran about its own Kurds, could this become an excuse for a future invasion of Iran?

Now, whether the last paragraph represents reality or not, how could Kerry’s policy differ from Bush’s?  Bush has attempted to appropriate both the UN and NATO for maintaining the military option.  As of the end of June, neither organization was biting with anything like “boots on the ground.”  But he did get a UN resolution and he did get the appearance of “turnover.”  Under such circumstances: 

First, Kerry could renounce any US interest in owning or controlling any fraction of the Iraqi oil reserves, regardless of what part of the country they lie in.  Second he could announce that all construction on permanent US military bases would be stopped and the bases dismantled or turned over to the UN on an interim bases, for future transfer to the Iraqi government from the UN.  Third, he could announce that, to the extent possible, given contractual obligations, reconstruction projects would be turned over to Iraqi companies.  Fourth, he would renounce the infamous “Bearing Point Plan,” promulgated by the Bremer Regime in one of its first acts (see Antonia Juhasz, LeftTurn Magazine, No. 12, Feb/Mar, 2004, www.leftturn.org; Naomi Klein, The Guardian (UK), 6/26/04).  It ‘privatized’ the whole Iraqi economy for pillage by foreign (mainly US) companies.  Fifth, he could propose a realistic Federal structure for a future permanent Iraqi government.  The country we know as Iraq was an artificial British construct dating from the 1920s.  Realism could countenance going back to some form of the provincial arrangement, as it existed under the Ottoman Empire.

On the Choice for VP

Please note that this comment could well have been pre-empted by the time you read this column.  BUT, if Kerry wants as his Vice-Presidential running-mate a person who: brings geographical balance; considerable experience in both the Executive and Legislative branches of government at the highest level; is, like himself, a Vietnam vet (although he didn’t see combat); has an extensive background in both domestic and foreign policy and brings a special expertise on the crucial issue for the survival of the species -- that is the environment and its protection/preservation -- and has made Bush and the Georgites a clear target and regards them as clearly different from any true Democrat; can be a terrific speaker; knows that the true primary issue in this election is the preservation of Constitutional Democracy as we have known it for 200 years, and who is proclaiming this loudly, clearly and with increasing fervor in his public appearances; the choice is clear.  It is: Al Gore.  Would he accept the offer?  He just might, given the peril the Nation is in under the Georgites. Yes, extraordinary times do demand extraordinary choices and extraordinary sacrifices.  Just recall that after his defeat by Andrew Jackson in 1828, John Quincy Adams went back to the House of Representatives, where he throughout the 1830s he was virtually the only voice protesting the existence of slavery and calling for its abolition.

________________

Dr. Steven Jonas is a TPJ contributing author.  He is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author of some twenty books. Dr. Jonas is one of America's most perceptive Democratic political analysts.

In The New Americanism, Dr. Jonas presents his case that the Democratic Party has come adrift from its founding principles, and he urges a swift return to support for the constitution as the best source for America's patriotic, political and social culture. "The New Americanism: How the Democratic Party Can Win the Presidency  from Amazon.com (just click on the title).

The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022 is available from Amazon under the name "Johnathan Westminster." 

_______________

Previous Articles

July 1, 2004                  “Counsel To The President”

June 24, 2004               “ ’You Know me Al:’ On the German Reichstag Fire of Feb. 27, 1933                                      and the 9/11/01 Bombing of the World Trade Center, Part II”
June 17, 2004               “ ‘The Ralph Nader Problem’ --- A Re-run plus”
June 10, 2004               “Ronald Reagan’s Legacy”
June 3, 2004                 “’You Know Me Al:’ On The Reichstag Fire Of Feb. 27, 1933 And The                                     9/11/01 Bombing Of The World Trade Center, Part I”

May 27, 2004                “On Fascism -- And The Georgites”
May 20, 2004                “On John Ashcroft -- And Jefferson Davis”
May 13, 2004                “Karl Rove’s Personal Political Notebook”
May 6, 2004                  “Possible Explanations For Bush Behavior And 9/11”

April 29, 2004               “On George Bush and Religion, Part 2”
April 22, 2004               “What Condi Rice Might Have Said”
April 8, 2004                 “On George Bush And Religion”
April 1, 2004                 “Some Political Thoughts For Senator Kerry”

March 25, 2004              “Brief Essays”
March 16, 2004             “You Know Me Al: The Iraq War --- So What Was It About, Anyway?
March 11, 2004             “A Word (Or Two) On Ralph Nader”
March 4, 2004               “A Firebell In The Night”

February 27, 2004        “On Doctor Dean”

_____________________________________________

JULY 1, 2004 UPDATE

“COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT”

On Jan. 25, 2002, the Counsel to the President, Alberto Gonzales, sent President George Bush a memo in which he warned the President about a United States law, the War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 2441).  That law prohibits the commission of “war crimes” by any U.S. officials or other personnel.  Included in the definition are any violations of the Geneva Conventions concerning the treatment of prisoners of war.  Gonzales told the President that the Justice Department had concluded that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to any apprehended members of al Qaeda.  He also advised the President that the State Dept. did not agree with Justice.  He proposed to the President that he make a determination that the Conventions did not apply to the Taliban or members of al Qaeda.

In Gonzales’ view, the “war on terror” had rendered certain sections of the Conventions obsolete; “quaint” was a descriptor he used.  One John Yoo, a University of California law professor on leave with the Justice Department, had begun working on ways and means for the US to avoid being charged with war crimes in reference to how certain prisoners taken in Afghanistan were treated in the fall of 2001, as the invasion of Afghanistan was getting under way.  Why might he need to have done this?  Because, according to The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh’s sources at least, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had authorized an approach to prisoner treatment that included physical coercion and sexual humiliation.  The Pentagon denied these charges, of course.  But if such a plan did not exist, why on earth would they have had a legal defense for its implementation prepared?

We now know that the plan was instituted in Afghanistan and then transferred via Guantanamo to Iraq.  That transfer lead inexorably to the Abu Ghraib outrage.  We thus also know that what we saw in those first horrifying photos was not the work of a “few bad apples” among enlisted personnel, carrying out these atrocities on their own initiative, but rather the product of more than a few bad apples fairly high up in the Bush Administration.  The primary question from the beginning has been; how high up the chain of command do knowledge and responsibility go? 

The Pentagon, and the CIA, asked for legal rulings justifying the use of what most observers, as well as the usual interpretations of the Geneva Conventions, would term torture. Rumsfeld himself was involved.  That put the chain of command knowledge level pretty high.  If it did not go so very high, why was the Counsel to the President briefing Bush on the legal issues involved?  These are matters that have been and are being dealt with in great detail elsewhere.  In this column, I take a brief look at certain Constitutional issues raised by the whole sordid mess.

Article VI of the Constitution says, among other things, that: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the Untied States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Sect. 2, Article II, empowers the President “. . . by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. . . .” The clause from Article VI quoted above has always been interpreted to mean that treaties are part of the Constitution.

The oath of office for the President is found in the Constitution, at the end of Article II, Sect 1.  It says: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  The impeachment provision is found in Section 4 of the same article: “The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  One would think that violation of one’s oath, as found in the Constitution itself, would constitute a high crime or at least a misdemeanor.

Yoo was working on ways to have US personnel avoid charges of committing war crimes.  Jay Bybee, now a Federal Appeals Court judge, of the Office of Legal Council of the Justice Department, the federal government’s ultimate legal advisor, wrote the principal memo that Gonzales used in advising the President.  He decided that certain provisions of the Conventions were “outdated” and “quaint.” Further, he told the President that with a simple re-labeling of persons captured in Afghanistan from “prisoners of war” to something else and a redefinition of “torture,” provisions of US law (passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic President, by the way) concerning the commission of war crimes could be by-passed. 

In addition, a group of Pentagon lawyers told Rumsfeld that “inherent” in the President’s power as Commander-in-Chief, in war-time, was the authority to authorize essentially anything he wanted to, regardless of US law or treaties.  In this case too, even if such power could be found anywhere in the Constitution (and I looked hard in Article I, Sect. 2 that defines those powers -- and couldn’t find it) it happens that the only US government entity empowered to declare war is the Congress.  Although the President and Fox News say over and over again that “we’re at war,” we are not, at least in Constitutional terms.

In the eyes of most of the rest of the world, what Gonzales, Woo, Bybee, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld’s lawyers did was unilaterally to amend a series of treaties.  And they did this without bothering even to inform, much less negotiate with, our treaty partners (most of the countries in the world).  Since treaties are part of the Constitution, they were thus also unilaterally amending the Constitution without bothering to go through the amendment process.  To this was added the interesting “inherent powers” doctrine that does the same thing.  But the Bush folks are not strangers to amending the Constitution at the stroke of a pen.  The USA Patriot Act does the same to Constitutional rights at home.  I have previously pointed out in this space that the Act voids rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, thus amending the Constitution by de facto repealing of those amendments.  It also amends the last clause of Article III, Sect. 2, in the body, to wit “The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury . . . . “ 

It is breathtaking that, with reference to torture, all of these lawyers were looking for ways around treaty obligations and US law that they recognized existed.  (It should be noted that other government lawyers, for example from the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Office and from the State Department, were horrified by all of this.)  But the most disturbing aspect of this is that, according to Ashcroft’s Justice Department, all of these actions, from the endorsement of the use of torture in the face of our treaty obligations, to the suspension of Constitutional rights under the USA Patriot Act, allegedly are and can be done on Presidential authority alone. 

There are two major issues here.  One is that, if Bush, on Gonzales’ advice, authorized the breaking of the Geneva Conventions, since they are part of the Constitution, which is an impeachable offense.  The other, even more important in my view, is that what is going on here is the substitution of the Rule of Man for the Rule of Law.  This is a very serious threat to every US citizen, and other persons for that matter residing in the United States, as well as to US captives abroad.

Under this doctrine, the President, on his own authority, labels you or re-labels you something in a new category and then all of a sudden you live outside of the protections of the US Constitution, whether those protections are to be found in its body or in treaties that become part of it, as determined by the President under something called “inherent powers.”  Since the President would have leave to define those powers in any manner he would see fit, to come up with such a concept is to endorse explicitly the substitution of the Rule of Man for the Rule of Law.  In so doing, the process also explicitly endorses the eventual end to American Constitutional Democracy, which rests on the bedrock of the Rule of Law, as we have known it.

This, in my view, is the most important single issue facing the American electorate in the upcoming election.  The Georgites have rewritten the Constitution on their own authority.  “We’ll tell you what rights you have and what rights you don’t have, and once we tell you that you don’t have any, we can do whatever we want to with you, whether it’s torture by another name or indefinite imprisonment without charges and without recourse.”  It seems to me that an Executive undertaking to act in just this manner was a major factor in a Revolution that began around 1776.

I do hope very much that Senator Kerry wakes up to what is truly at stake here, soon, and then makes it a central issue of his campaign. 

________________

Dr. Steven Jonas is a TPJ contributing author.  He is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author of some twenty books. Dr. Jonas is one of America's most perceptive Democratic political analysts.

 In The New Americanism, Dr. Jonas presents his case that the Democratic Party has come adrift from its founding principles, and he urges a swift return to support for the constitution as the best source for America's patriotic, political and social culture. "The New Americanism: How the Democratic Party Can Win the Presidency  from Amazon.com (just click on the title).

The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022 is available from Amazon under the name "Johnathan Westminster." 

_______________

Previous Articles

June 24, 2004               “ ’You Know me Al:’ On the German Reichstag Fire of Feb. 27, 1933                                       and the 9/11/01 Bombing of the World Trade Center, Part II”
June 17, 2004               “ ‘The Ralph Nader Problem’ --- A Re-run plus”
June 10, 2004               “Ronald Reagan’s Legacy”
June 3, 2004                 “’You Know Me Al:’ On The Reichstag Fire Of Feb. 27, 1933 And The                                     9/11/01 Bombing Of The World Trade Center, Part I”

May 27, 2004                “On Fascism -- And The Georgites”
May 20, 2004                “On John Ashcroft -- And Jefferson Davis”
May 13, 2004                “Karl Rove’s Personal Political Notebook”
May 6, 2004                  “Possible Explanations For Bush Behavior And 9/11”

April 29, 2004               “On George Bush and Religion, Part 2”
April 22, 2004               “What Condi Rice Might Have Said”
April 8, 2004                 “On George Bush And Religion”
April 1, 2004                 “Some Political Thoughts For Senator Kerry”

March 25, 2004              “Brief Essays”
March 16, 2004             “You Know Me Al: The Iraq War --- So What Was It About, Anyway?
March 11, 2004             “A Word (Or Two) On Ralph Nader”
March 4, 2004               “A Firebell In The Night”

February 27, 2004        “On Doctor Dean”