We Haven't Learned a Goddamn Thing (BR)

I'm in the midst of enjoying my morning coffee at 1:00 PM, as is my custom, and browsing Crooks and Liars to catch up on whatever ass-hattery perpetrated by Team Bush I managed to miss thanks to our species' confounded need for sleep.

A post titled Dems' big advantage on Iraq by Steve Benen reports the results of a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, which does indicate a shrinking level of public tolerance for the President's assertion of exclusive dominion over the handling of the war:

Most Americans see President Bush as intransigent on Iraq and prefer that the Democratic-controlled Congress make decisions about a possible withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

As the president and Congress spar over war policy, both receive negative marks from the public for their handling of the situation in Iraq. But by a large margin, Americans trust Democrats rather than the president to find a solution to a conflict that remains enormously unpopular. And more than six in 10 in the new poll said Congress should have the final say on when to bring the troops home.

While this is encouraging data for anyone who, like me, favors a withdrawal from Iraq, I can't share in Benen's enthusiasm when he sums it all up this way:

Any Dems who are still worried about how the public might react to Congress forcing Bush’s hand just aren’t paying attention.

This is a popular line of thinking among my fellow Democrats, but it does not ring true to me. Even though Americans of all stripes are growing sick of the war, we are not as gung-ho to end it as we were to invade in the first place.

As if to confirm my skepticism, The New York Times published a separate poll today, showing that popular support for the initial invasion of Iraq has increased seven points since May; a frightening and baffling 42% of our countrymen and -women would go to war all over again today, even knowing everything we know now, even having seen the chaos and death that has ensued.

Another interesting finding in the Times poll is that notwithstanding John Edwards' and Governor Richardson's frequent admonitions regarding how easy it would be to simply cut off the money and force the President to bring the troops home, only eight percent of those polled favor blocking funds as an option. Fully 63 percent say they support fully funding the war with a timetable for withdrawal, but this only illustrates the cluelessness of the electorate about the process and the ground rules of the debate.

It's a bit like someone stating his support for being fed cheesecake by five nude models. It's a nice idea, but it speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work in the real world.

I'm not as heartened by the vox populi today as some of my friends, and I see the Democrats' hedging as fairly standard political maneuvering. If a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq precipitates an escalation of the current civil war into full-fledged genocide, or turns the country into a safe haven for Islamist groups with aspirations to global terror -- two very real possibilities -- it will be determined to have been the Democrats' fault.

More to the point, nowhere in these poll results do I see a people that has learned anything from this horrendous botch-job of a war. There may be sympathy toward the de facto "peace" party, but there's nothing that would identify a solid majority in favor of military restraint, robust diplomacy, or non-interventionism. If anything, I see a nation increasingly protective of its prerogative to screw up just as badly in the future.

Congressional Sovereignty Over Executive Authority Amendment of 2007 (BR)

Congressional Democrats plan to introduce a bill in the coming days that would strip President Bush of the authority they voted to grant him in 2002 to wage war in Iraq. However, given the structure of the Constitutional system, this cause is more or less lost before it is to begin, as it would require the President to sign off on a cut to his own power.

This eventuality seems to have been overlooked by the founders of our country, and the inability of Congress to take power away from a President must be addressed. The Constitution must be amended to allow Congress to draw the parameters of presidential power and deny authority which is used irresponsibly or renders the commander-in-chief a de facto monarch.

With that in mind, here is the text of the Congressional Sovereignty Over Executive Authority Amendment of 2007:

To: United States Congress and State Houses

Being that the authority of the President of the United States tends toward expansion; and that the practice of Presidents signing into law enhancements of their own power lacks the mechanism of a Constitutional check that is the bedrock of a functioning Republic; and that the Congress, having endowed a President with power, lacks currently the authority to later remove it without approval of that very President;

We, the People of the United States of America, do hereby affirm and ratify this Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution:

Section 1 - All legislation pertaining to the augmentation or diminution of Presidential authority shall be enacted as law upon passage by a supermajority, or sixty per cent, of both Houses of Congress, and shall not be subject to veto by the President.

Section 2 - Bills of this nature shall be introduced as standalone legislation only and shall not be subject to floor amendments in the Senate or House of Representatives.

I encourage our readers to view the petition I have drawn up and sign on if you agree. Any opinions, comments and partisan flames are also welcome.

To the Other Heroes (BR)Overdue props for the daunting job of war journalism

ABC News has posted a gallery of some highly moving photos of Bob Woodruff, who was anchor of World News Tonight for less than a month before being brained and nearly killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq in January, 2006.

Woodruff has made a remarkable recovery, considering that surgeons had to remove part of his skull in order to allow his brain to swell following the attack. He is even back on the job, and will be hosting "To Iraq and Back: Bob Woodruff Reports" next Tuesday at 10 on ABC.

Journalists find themselves on the receiving end of a considerable amount of grief for merely doing their jobs. Accusations of injecting politics into stories and selective placement of news items to serve some agenda or another, and, in general, questions about personal patriotism and loyalty are inordinately common. But embedded reporters put themselves in harm's way every day to do a job which stodgy romantics like myself believe is the people's best weapon against unaccountable and tyrannical government.

The Iraq war has been particularly perilous. It has, in fact, been the deadliest conflict for journalists in history. The independent Committee to Protect Journalists counts 93 reporters and 37 media support workers -- drivers, interpreters and other logistical staff -- who have been killed in just under four years of fighting. Compare that to 66 dead in the 20 years of Vietnam (1955-75), and 68 killed in World War II. Granted, there are more news outlets in our day and age and therefore more individuals working as journalists, but the numbers also reflect an erosion of the unspoken pact not to target media personnel in combat.

War correspondents serve in conditions comparable in danger to those faced by military infantry, without means of self-defense and with no expectation of glory and praise for the work they do. Most Americans, if pressed to consider the matter, would likely admit the indispensiblity of their labor, but for the moment, the political environment is noxious and journalists, who bring us inconvenient truths on a daily basis, are an easy target, in both the metaphoric and literal senses. Bob Woodruff's story is a needed reminder of the wartime heroism of people, not just warriors, who stare down death in order to keep the public informed.

An Attempt To Criminalize Debate and Dissent (CS)Next up, Thoughtcrime?

Some Conservatives have a new favorite word they like to toss around... A new label they like to pin to any of their enemies. Not in the know? Confused? Well, today's cover of the New York Post will help you out in big, bold, black print:

This accusation coming from the right (parroted by pundits and politicians, "justified" by a falsified quote from Abraham Lincoln) is about as responsible and thoughtful as the Post's front page is classy.* They conveniently forget the truth on the ground, the various reports coming from Iraq. They conveniently forget all studies that indicate our fighting in Iraq has been a massive motivator for Al-Qaeda recruitment and terrorists in general. If the critics of the war were so inclined, they could probably make the same accusations based on these reports and evidence, that it is staying in Iraq which is aiding the enemy.

All this furor over a non-binding resolution, the political equivalent of picking lint out of your belly (slightly above "staring at one's own-navel" which is the equivalent of doing nothing at all). I would actually hope that they would do MORE to get our troops out of Iraq. It'd be great if Congress were capable of doing something real and productive which would not only help our troops and help our standing in the world, but also help our actual ongoing conflict with terrorism and extremism. But as it stands, this is simply a rebuke. A criticism. Hanging and imprisoning those who might criticize the current government is something to be expected of a Fascist state. It's this sort of talk that makes me less afraid of what might possibly be aiding the enemy from without because of the budding/fermenting rhetoric of the possible enemy from within.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Perhaps they aren't serious about this treason accusation, sandwiching it between celebrity junk about spousal abuse and some sort of trailer trash's bout with rehab. Then again, these seem to be the things the Post takes VERY seriously with their journalistic integrity equal to a drunken gossip with a grammar school education.

His Obsession a.k.a. Bush's Madness Related to Radness a.k.a Animotion Ahead of Their Time (CS)

How does one describe President Bush's attitude towards Iraq? I'm going to try, but as an aid, I'm going to reach way back to the mid-80s for this gem:

Ah yes, Animotion's "Obsession."
Give it a good watch/listen.

Animotion went a bit wild with the costumes in this one. The video opens with the jester's shoe tapping to the beat. Later we see this character idiotically "drumming" around the reflecting pool. The President has been characterized as an idiot and a clown often enough that this comparison should be obvious enough, The President is The Idiot. Though later on we see the lead-man (in his cheesy Miami Vice-esque blazer and also dressed as a Roman centurion) it is the fool, the idiot (just like the President) who is setting the beat to which we must all dance (or march, as the case may be).

Of course, George W. Bush would wish himself to be associated with the Centurion. This is the figure that tries to take the lead in this video, brandishing his sword and swearing victory. He objectifies his counterpart, the Cleopatra figure. Here we see the classic set up of Occident vs. Orient. These are close to the simple terms within which Bush often phrases the war. It is always an "us" and "them" proposition. Bush's oversimplification of Iraq and the entire region of the Middle East is a modern day act of Orientalism at its worst and most destructive. His silly and uneducated view of the Middle East might even be expressed with Animotion's lyrics:

I will find a way and I will have you
Like a butterfly
A wild butterfly
I will collect you and capture you

Like the Lothario seeking his prey, or to stick to the very words, the butterfly catcher seeking the butterfly, Bush has fetishized Iraq. He sees it (and likely always has) as the quill in his cap, the essential mission he was put in this position for, the golden star in his collection of lifetime achievements. However, not all has gone according to plan for poor Bushie. As the song goes:

My fantasy has turned to madness
And all my goodness
Has turned to badness

That an occupation could ever have worked is, of course, purely Bush's delusion and the Centurion of the video mirrors this as he is also a complete sham. Notice at the 1:11 mark the huge sign "HOLLYWOOD" appearing right by the Centurion's head. For all his attempts to appear stoic and powerful, we can see right through him, right into the artifice. Try and sit through one of the President's speeches. Look at his face and listen to his words. A big "HOLLYWOOD" sign might as well be planted above his head as well. Also like our President, the Centurion of "Obsession" has not proven himself in battle. In the only scene where we see him "fighting" (2:09) he is wagging his sword about like a child, play-fighting. From his far too cavalier attitude toward using America's armed forces abroad, we can guess that Bush's conception of battle to be just as infantile.

The Arabian is another figure that pops up in "Obsession." He sits by the poolside bored and ignored. You'll notice that the Jester (our established ACTUAL Bush character) takes one look at the Arabian and decides to not deal with him at all (2:20). Likewise, the mission in Iraq was never about the people, but instead all about Bush. Had this been an actual humanitarian or democratizing mission, then how come so little attention was paid to tribal factions within Iraq or the will of the people (which would have us out of the country yesterday)? How come so little attention continues to be paid to humanitarian crises in other pars of the world such as Sudan and Zimbabwe (where there is even less of an excuse of Chinese and Russian slow-peddling on the security council as in Darfur)?

The Iraqi people are not the only group Bush has ignored. His critics and the people of various nations (including his own) tried to warn him. Even many of his generals and advisers have gone against the administration line. But despite all this, despite even saying that he wasn't "Stay the Course," Bush has stayed the course as if that were the ONLY option. Once again, I defer to Animotion (as if speaking for Bush):

You protest
You want to leave
Stay
Oh, there's no alternative

There are moments in the video which simply cannot be explained in any sort of reasonable fashion such as the stiff, writhing, ineffectual astronaut (perhaps relateable to Bush's aircraft carrier flightsuit stunt?). But even the absurd reminds one of our current predicament, for how else would one describe this madness except as absurd. Animotion's video appears, at times, to be fueled by coke and/or simply batshiat insane. Bush's history with coke aside, his policy in Iraq could be seen the same way, without direction, maddening.

Most obviously, the song is about obsession, which is the only way one could seem to describe Bush's attitude towards Iraq at this point. He seemed determined to fix the intelligence around getting into Iraq, throughout the war refused to accept any criticism or advice that strayed from his course, and now, with seemingly only Barney and the First Lady by his side, he has stubbornly chose an option few if any (including his generals) would go with. Bush is the decider. And he has decided not to give an inch... Animotion:

There's no balance
No equality
Be still I will not accept defeat

The entire video takes place at a big mansion in the hills. It comes across as a bunch of spoiled children playing roles. It is a game and in the end they will leave their costumes behind. In Bush's case, however, we must wonder what the situation will be by the time he hangs up his spurs. All his good intentions are worthless and artificial (whether he realizes it or not) for behind them all is an undeniable obsession which on the world stage can be characterized as nothing but destructive. When Bush is finally done playing his game from the fancy house up on the hill, how much damage will have been wrought by this obsession?

It's Not History Until It's History (CS)

I appreciate my comrade's editorial on the Hussein execution. But there was one comment that really struck me as unwarranted, where he described Hussein as (italics my own):

the man who experienced one of the most humiliating and public falls in world history

Hyperbole is par for the course in the blogosphere, but I couldn't help being a bit irked by this. I don't entirely mind the linking of Hussein's death to the ongoing war in Iraq. I don't even mind speculation that Saddam might have been quickly silenced to keep certain information from coming out that would villanize America. But I'm always a bit wary of when editorials try to historicize and many of the editorials on the execution leaned toward exactly that.

Executions are inextricably linked to justice. The historical record is also considered a matter of justice. If history held no importance in this regard, it's unlikely historical or archival ethics would ever be a concern. Through this sense of justice, history becomes terribly relevant to how we choose to set up our world. For example, Israel's existence is predicated on the history of the Jewish people and particularly the history of the Holocaust. A recent attempt in Iran to discredit Israel's right to exist was enacted through an (alleged) historical conference.

It's no wonder, then, that with its relevance to current politics and foreign events and policy that writers would try to situate this event into a much grander scheme. I would argue that placing something into "history" is far more complicated and will take a measure of distance to understand.

Some might ask why I wouldn't let The President off the historical hook, but it's a bit different in George W's situation. We're well aware of the decisions he's made and well aware of the effect they've had on the world. For him to indicate that historians will decide his place within history is ironically ridiculous. The way history pans out may see great things come out of Bush's screwups. Or it may see further terror and strife out of them. But we do know that his actions, in themselves, have been failures. As far as his quality as a President goes in his own time, history has little to do with judging George W. Bush.

With something as specific as Saddam Hussein's execution, however, the fallout of history is less specific. The event is too singular. Even the life of the man and its place in history will not fully be understood until the region settles down and we can hear, marshal, and analyze the voices that were coming out of it.

That's part of why it's difficult for me or any American to evaluate Hussein's death itself, right now. Honestly, I would leave that to Iraqis and maybe even Iranians. With this sort of temporal immediacy to the event, it's their geographic and tangible immediacy to the actions of the man that make their voices valuable.

What I can say, however, is that Hussein's death has revealed the classic faux pas historians must find frustrating in journalistic and editorial writing, that being historical favoritism for one's own era and a lack of historical perspective, generally.

Brendan's ending note, that "Saddam Hussein is only the latest casualty in Iraq. Not the last," is more reasoned than his opening. As much as we want to make our claims on history and privilege our present, the history of the world continues to move on. New presents change our old pasts and will continue to do so. And yet how conveniently we forget our privileged presents past.