The Wreck of the War Party

[fastpat]

The Wreck of the War Party
by Doug Bandow

The wild, drunken neocon joyride is over. After running as the candidate of national restraint and humility, George W. Bush metamorphosed into a modern Alexander the Great, promising to bring civilization and democracy to both the known and unknown worlds. He mobilized popular support for war in Iraq by manipulating dubious intelligence and spinning idyllic fantasies. The Republicans increased their congressional majorities by demonizing their critics, suggesting that opposition equaled defeatism and treason. The results were GOP victories in 2002 and 2004.

But like a classic Ponzi scheme, the Republican political scam eventually had to end. For a time the GOP could blame its manifold failures on former President Bill Clinton, Democratic Party opposition, media bias, French perfidy, foreign faithlessness, Pakistani double-dealing, UN ineffectiveness, Iranian interference, Russian skullduggery, and more. After six years, however, there is no one left to blame.

America has squandered its immense store of moral capital after Sept. 11. Iraq is a catastrophe, a strategic mistake of enormous proportions. North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon. Iran is busy moving ahead with its own atomic program. China and Russia, along with much of Europe, cheerfully obstruct, oppose, impede, and hinder U.S. initiatives. The American government is hated around the world, and especially in the Muslim and Arab worlds.

Democratic movements in Egypt and Lebanon are fizzling. The Sudanese conflict continues to rage. Latin America has embraced unregenerate leftists Hugo Chávez and Daniel Ortega despite Washington's angry mutterings. Russia is reasserting its influence in the nations of Georgia and Ukraine. Today the U.S. government is more distrusted and Americans are less secure than before George W. Bush took office.

The domestic policy record is no better. Massive spending increases. Little respect and sometimes overt disdain for civil liberties. Centralization of power in Washington. The biggest expansion of the welfare state in 40 years. No progress on Social Security reform. And fulfillment of Lord Acton's famous warning about power: pervasive abuse, pork-barreling, self-dealing, and corruption in the Republican-controlled Congress.

Perhaps most important has been the administration's astounding combination of arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 George W. Bush's stubborn simplicity seemed to affirm America's moral rightness; today the president's unchanging rhetoric in the face of endless disaster is recognized as dangerous indifference to reality. It has become all too evident to the majority of Americans that President Bush makes policy based on how he believes the world should be, not on how it really is.

The Republicans still thought they had a chance to hang on to their congressional majorities. Maldistricting in the House made it hard to dislodge more than a handful of incumbents. Moreover, GOP candidates sought to keep the contest focused on local issues.

The Republican demagoguery machine also was directed against Democratic congressional challengers – the president allowed that he wouldn't say they were traitors or unpatriotic, but he said: "The Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: the terrorists win and America loses." The Republicans preferred to discuss sex scenes in novels by Virginia Democratic Senate hopeful James Webb rather than the war in Iraq or congressional overspending. The GOP recognized that nothing was more important than avoiding a debate over the party's actual record in office.

Thankfully, the people were not fooled. Election-day polling found widespread dissatisfaction with Republicans on many issues, particularly congressional abuses. Most important, however, the election turned into a vote on George Bush and his misbegotten, unnecessary war in Iraq. Even a third of white evangelicals, perhaps the GOP's most reliable voting bloc, pulled a Democratic lever. Observes Gary Jacobson of the University of California-San Diego, "One thing that's true is this will have been a referendum election."

President Bush's approval rating is below 40 percent. Twice as many voters used their congressional ballot to express opposition as support for the president. While his sky-high approval ratings once helped elect Republicans to Congress, now he dragged them down.

Perhaps even more important was the war, deemed the most critical issue by voters – 49 percent said that Iraq was "extremely important." Almost 60 percent of voters disapproved of the ongoing debacle, roughly twice the number who supported the conflict. Critics of the war were far more likely, by a four-to-one margin, to choose Democrats for Congress. Opposition to the war was particularly important in moving independents and moderates into the Democratic column. An exit poll found that 56 percent of voters favored withdrawal of some or all U.S. troops from Iraq.

Although people vote for or against candidates for many reasons, the war clearly affected many races. Before the balloting, pollster John Zogby observed, "Our polling has shown that several key issues have benefited the Democrats heading into next week's election, but the war, far and away, has been the most important." One unnamed GOP campaign analyst told the Washington Times, "The Iraq war is an overwhelming presence in this election that dwarfs all other issues. It is the issue of this campaign, and it is draining all enthusiasm out of GOP partisans while motivating the Democrats."

It was James Webb's opposition to the war, and Sen. George Allen's unthinking, reflexive support of the Bush administration, that led Webb to switch parties, run, and win. Democrat Carol Shea-Porter, a county chairman, rode opposition to the war to an unexpected victory over Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-N.H.). Explicitly antiwar candidates also defeated Reps. Anne Northrup (R-Ky.) and Clay Shaw (R-Fla.).
*Doug Bandow is a Washington-based political writer and policy analyst and a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy. He served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and as a senior policy analyst in the 1980 Reagan for President campaign.*
Read the complete article

[on-ramp]

war criminals in Congress and the White House. hiding behind suits & ties, and speeches written by others. Ultimate power with no accountability, and a blank check, funded by the taxpayer.

they have caused 10X the harm the terrorists did on 9/11. but the war goes on with brainwashed pride.

Iraq, after all, before the invasion, was probably one of the LEAST dangerous nations to the US. the country was contained, no fly zone, no WMDS, a weakened dictatorship posing very little threat...however..

Bush had other plans.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by on-ramp
war criminals in Congress and the White House. hiding behind suits & ties, and speeches written by others. Ultimate power with no accountability, and a blank check, funded by the taxpayer.

they have caused 10X the harm the terrorists did on 9/11. but the war goes on with brainwashed pride.

Bush had other plans.

Sure, the terrorists just want us to like them...look at who VOTED for the war, both D's and R's.

Focus.

[Moneyguy1]

And just WHY did they all vote for the war? Who controls the information flow? To whom do the secretaries owe their allegiance?

Just idle questions........

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
And just WHY did they all vote for the war? Who controls the information flow? To whom do the secretaries owe their allegiance?

Just idle questions........

True, and go back before President Bush and look what was being said then!!! Funny how you forget little things like that.

[hardflex]

Our New Sec of Defense -

"If intelligence is going to be used to justify a military attack or a pre-emptive action, it better be unambiguous and it must be timely," Gates said.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
And just WHY did they all vote for the war? Who controls the information flow? To whom do the secretaries owe their allegiance?

Just idle questions........

Idle answers: Who runs the intelligence committes? Who has access?

If you don't know the answers to these questions, stay in idle.

They voted for the war because it was politically expedient and they thought it would be easy.
If you think Senators do not, can not, get intel, sorry. It was only after things got tough did they dissemble.

Hold them all to their politics, and don't make excuses.

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by Seahawk
Sure, the terrorists just want us to like them...look at who VOTED for the war, both D's and R's.

Focus.

there were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion. They were in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia....that's where the 9/11 hijackers were from. Do you remember Bin Ladin?

Focus.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by on-ramp
there were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion. They were in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia....that's where the 9/11 hijackers were from. Do you remember Bin Ladin?

Focus.

Really? Prove it.

Focus, Sport. Look for the camps...follow the money, if you can. Terrorists have no concept of state, so it really doesn't matter what you think, it is more important what they think.

Edit: So, then, why did virtually the ENTIRE Senate vote for the war...you had/have better intel?

[on-ramp]

Originally posted by Seahawk
Really? Prove it.

Focus, Sport. Look for the camps...follow the money, if you can. Terrorists have no concept of state, so it really doesn't matter what you think, it is more important what they think.

Edit: So, then, why did virtually the ENTIRE Senate vote for the war...you had/have better intel?

pumped up campaign of fear, Wmds and " imminent threats".

wmds which we now know to be false.

what else would they going to say? we're invading Iraq to bring democracy to the region, or to bring down an evil dictator? not good enough.

[Seahawk]

What could the Dem's have said? They refused to fight because they were afraid to, because they thought it would be politically untenable. But to deny they didn't have insight is foolish.

I bought the premise as well, but, based on being there a few times, feel us leaving is the worse possible scenario. Does any one have a plan?

The finger pointing saddens me at this late hour...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Seahawk
Sure, the terrorists just want us to like them...look at who VOTED for the war, both D's and R's.

Focus.

Therein is the problem, and that's why we won't get the changes America wants through either Dems or Reps.

You are either supporting the status quo, or working to trash the whole dung heap.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Seahawk
Hold them all to their politics, and don't make excuses.

I will, you can rest assured.

Better yet, don't rest assured, join me in scrapping it all.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by fastpat
I will, you can rest assured.

Better yet, don't rest assured, join me in scrapping it all.

I want to scrap the people, not the system, in which I have faith and fidelity. My study of history and government lends no credence to any other form of government...you'll have to prove otherwise.

The only tweek I would make is term limits...from there springs all hope for the republic.

The art of the possible, in a system that allows for us to have this meaningless, jujune spat, is better than any alternative.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Seahawk
The only tweek I would make is term limits...from there springs all hope for the republic.

I would also remove taxpayer fundng for campaigns. I would also remove the oppressive limitations for any party other than Democrats and Republicans.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Seahawk
I want to scrap the people, not the system, in which I have faith and fidelity. My study of history and government lends no credence to any other form of government...you'll have to prove otherwise.

The only tweek I would make is term limits...from there springs all hope for the republic.

The art of the possible, in a system that allows for us to have this meaningless, jujune spat, is better than any alternative.

In your studies, what did you find in the Articles of Confederation that would not be an improvement over that which we have now?

I find that the Constitution has so many loopholes through which government itself can drive through as to be meaningless over the long run, and I think history proves that I am correct. The federal government has defined its' own limitations over the 200+ years of its' existence, and there is no sign of that stopping, much less reversing course.

It will not matter which men take the helm.

[Seahawk]

This is the Pat I admire...I only wish you would be so more often. Your recent tone would add so much more to the debate.

I am headed to a local Marine Corps Ball ASAP, so I can only preface my comments for tomorrow with this: The Articles are imperfect, reflections of man. But they represent the highest intent that man has offered another. Imperfect? Yes. Better than any other organized form of human interaction? Yes.

Show me a more successful union created by man.