Wealthy Frenchman

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Will the Democrats Betray Us?

SIR, I don't know, actually": The fact that America's surrogate commander in chief, David Petraeus, could not say whether the war in Iraq is making America safer was all you needed to take away from last week's festivities in Washington. Everything else was a verbal quagmire, as administration spin and senatorial preening fought to a numbing standoff.

Not that many Americans were watching. The country knew going in that the White House would win its latest campaign to stay its course of indefinitely shoveling our troops and treasure into the bottomless pit of Iraq. The only troops coming home alive or with their limbs intact in President Bush's troop "reduction" are those who were scheduled to be withdrawn by April anyway. Otherwise the president would have had to extend combat tours yet again, mobilize more reserves or bring back the draft.

On the sixth anniversary of the day that did not change everything, General Petraeus couldn't say we are safer because he knows we are not. Last Sunday, Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the C.I.A.'s Osama bin Laden unit, explained why. He wrote in The Daily News that Al Qaeda, under the de facto protection of Pervez Musharraf, is "on balance" more threatening today that it was on 9/11. And as goes Pakistan, so goes Afghanistan. On Tuesday, just as the Senate hearings began, Lisa Myers of NBC News reported on a Taliban camp near Kabul in an area nominally controlled by the Afghan government we installed. It is training bomb makers to attack America.

Little of this registered in or beyond the Beltway. New bin Laden tapes and the latest 9/11 memorial rites notwithstanding, we're back in a 9/10 mind-set. Bin Laden, said Frances Townsend, the top White House homeland security official, "is virtually impotent." Karen Hughes, the Bush crony in charge of America's P.R. in the jihadists' world, recently held a press conference anointing Cal Ripken Jr. our international "special sports envoy." We are once more sleepwalking through history, fiddling while the Qaeda not in Iraq prepares to burn.

This is why the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, including those more accurate than Mr. Bush's recent false analogies, can take us only so far. Our situation is graver than it was during Vietnam.

Certainly there were some eerie symmetries between General Petraeus's sales pitch last week and its often-noted historical antecedent: Gen. William Westmoreland's similar mission for L.B.J. before Congress on April 28, 1967. Westmoreland, too, refused to acknowledge that our troops were caught in a civil war. He spoke as well of the "repeated successes" of the American-trained South Vietnamese military and ticked off its growing number of combat-ready battalions. "The strategy we're following at this time is the proper one," the general assured America, and "is producing results."

Those fabulous results delayed our final departure from Vietnam for another eight years — just short of the nine to 10 years General Petraeus has said may be needed for a counterinsurgency in Iraq. But there's a crucial difference between the Westmoreland show of 1967 and the 2007 revival by General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Westmoreland played to a full and largely enthusiastic house. Most Americans still supported the war in Vietnam and trusted him; so did all but a few members of Congress, regardless of party. All three networks pre-empted their midday programming for Westmoreland's Congressional appearance.

Our Iraq commander, by contrast, appeared before a divided and stalemated Congress just as an ABC News-Washington Post poll found that most Americans believed he would overhype progress in Iraq. No network interrupted a soap opera for his testimony. On cable the hearings fought for coverage with Britney Spears's latest self-immolation and the fate of Madeleine McCann, our latest JonBenet Ramsey stand-in.

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker could grab an hour of prime television time only by slinking into the safe foxhole of Fox News, where Brit Hume chaperoned them on a gloomy, bunkerlike set before an audience of merely 1.5 million true believers. Their "Briefing for America," as Fox titled it, was all too fittingly interrupted early on for a commercial promising pharmaceutical relief from erectile dysfunction.

Even if military "victory" were achievable in Iraq, America could not win a war abandoned by its own citizens. The evaporation of that support was ratified by voters last November. For that, they were rewarded with the "surge." Now their mood has turned darker. Americans have not merely abandoned the war; they don't want to hear anything that might remind them of it, or of war in general. Katie Couric's much-promoted weeklong visit to the front produced ratings matching the CBS newscast's all-time low. Angelina Jolie's movie about Daniel Pearl sank without a trace. Even Clint Eastwood's wildly acclaimed movies about World War II went begging. Over its latest season, "24" lost a third of its viewers, just as Mr. Bush did between January's prime-time address and last week's.

You can't blame the public for changing the channel. People realize that the president's real "plan for victory" is to let his successor clean up the mess. They don't want to see American troops dying for that cause, but what can be done? Americans voted the G.O.P. out of power in Congress; a clear majority consistently tell pollsters they want out of Iraq. And still every day is Groundhog Day. Our America, unlike Vietnam-era America, is more often resigned than angry. Though the latest New York Times-CBS News poll finds that only 5 percent trust the president to wrap up the war, the figure for the (barely) Democratic-controlled Congress, 21 percent, is an almost-as-resounding vote of no confidence.

Last week Democrats often earned that rating, especially those running for president. It is true that they do not have the votes to overcome a Bush veto of any war legislation. But that doesn't mean the Democrats have to go on holiday. Few used their time to cross-examine General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on their disingenuous talking points, choosing instead to regurgitate stump sentiments or ask uncoordinated, redundant questions. It's telling that the one question that drew blood — are we safer? — was asked by a Republican, John Warner, who is retiring from the Senate.

Americans are looking for leadership, somewhere, anywhere. At least one of the Democratic presidential contenders might have shown the guts to soundly slap the "General Betray-Us" headline on the ad placed by MoveOn.org in The Times, if only to deflate a counterproductive distraction. This left-wing brand of juvenile name-calling is as witless as the "Defeatocrats" and "cut and run" McCarthyism from the right; it at once undermined the serious charges against the data in the Petraeus progress report (including those charges in the same MoveOn ad) and allowed the war's cheerleaders to hyperventilate about a sideshow. "General Betray-Us" gave Republicans a furlough to avoid ownership of an Iraq policy that now has us supporting both sides of the Shiite-vs.-Sunni blood bath while simultaneously shutting America's doors on the millions of Iraqi refugees the blood bath has so far created.

It's also past time for the Democratic presidential candidates to stop getting bogged down in bickering about who has the faster timeline for withdrawal or the more enforceable deadline. Every one of these plans is academic anyway as long as Mr. Bush has a veto pen. The security of America is more important — dare one say it? — than trying to outpander one another in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate need all the unity and focus they can muster to move this story forward, and that starts with the two marquee draws, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It's essential to turn up the heat full time in Washington for any and every legislative roadblock to administration policy that they and their peers can induce principled or frightened Republicans to endorse.

They should summon the new chief of central command (and General Petraeus's boss), Adm. William Fallon, for tough questioning; he is reportedly concerned about our lapsed military readiness should trouble strike beyond Iraq. And why not grill the Joint Chiefs and those half-dozen or so generals who turned down the White House post of "war czar" last fall? The war should be front and center in Congress every day.

Mr. Bush, confident that he got away with repackaging the same bankrupt policies with a nonsensical new slogan ("Return on Success") Thursday night, is counting on the public's continued apathy as he kicks the can down the road and bides his time until Jan. 20, 2009; he, after all, has nothing more to lose. The job for real leaders is to wake up America to the urgent reality. We can't afford to punt until Inauguration Day in a war that each day drains America of resources and will. Our national security can't be held hostage indefinitely to a president's narcissistic need to compound his errors rather than admit them.

The enemy votes, too. Cataclysmic events on the ground in Iraq, including Thursday's murder of the Sunni tribal leader Mr. Bush embraced two weeks ago as a symbol of hope, have never arrived according to this administration's optimistic timetable. Nor have major Qaeda attacks in the West. It's national suicide to entertain the daydream that they will start doing so now.


At 4:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perfectly said. But paraphrasing General Washington when he was appealing to Congress - is anybody there? does anybody care? Nothing really changes does it?

At 6:02 AM, Blogger Bruce said...

Gen. Peatraeus' lies to continue the occupation of Iraq are a betrayal of the American people. His fancy uniform doesn't -- and shouldn't -- protect him from the truth. What would Frank Rich prefer to call a betraying soldier?

At 6:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wondered about the wisdom of MoveOn.org. in the ad they placed in the NY Times.
Then, I read Admiral Fallon's opinion of the General (Petraeus) who is under his command.

For that reason, (if for no other) Admiral Fallon should appear before the same Congressional committees.

I do not mind if the Congress gives deference to people in the military, who are deserving of their respect. However, I wonder if an "chicken sh** a** kisser" would be one of those, who deserves the "outrage" of the members on Congress who so loudly "denounced" the ad.

At 9:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

George W. Bush has consistently relied on others to pick up the pieces after his failures. Why should this war be any different? His is a child-like personality, bereft of personal responsibility, empathy and shame. But, dear God, what does it say about the American people to have chosen and to continue to back this man?? The US has become an astonishingly mediocre place, in many ways, despite all the self-congratulatory proclamations to the contrary. No nation is exceptional that "elects" an administration of such painfully obvious shortcomings. God help us.

At 9:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

my son is one of the cans bush is kicking down the road. having to spend another year in Iraq. How can anyone in washington not ask' what good is alliances with sheiks who are murdered before the end of the day?' what success is that? I jsut read Albright says this is the biggest failure ever- no an attack on Iran would be the icing on the cake.

At 11:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Democrats should also muzzle John Kerry. The guy comes across as a major windbag.

Or maybe they could teach him to make a point and then shut up.

Or a pig to sing.

At 11:51 AM, Anonymous downing said...

In Fiasco by Rich, it is obvious that Petraeus is the only one over there who knows how to deal with insurgency; he has studied it and his methods have shown reults. He should have been in charge at the outset. That said, the whole thing was wrong from the start, and will ever be seen as such.

At 12:30 PM, Anonymous Spitfire said...

Frank Rich is a maestro. His ability to define where we stand with this bloody and disastrous issue is brilliant.

Republicans tell lies and huff in false outrage; Democrats poster for airtime and otherwise act helpless.

Shakespeare used different words to describe what Rich did perfectly. "It's a tale told by a fool, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Bush is the fool, the Congressional hearings are the sound and fury, and the results are.... nothing.

The American people are screwed. Meanwhile, Al-Qaida positions itself for another awful, unnecessary attack, which Bush, Cheney, and the Right Wing will exploit for even more foolish and deadly mistakes, like attacking Iran.

Bring on the bread and circuses, the reality shows, the inanity of what passes for news, and watch America pass out of history like Rome..... fat, resigned, vulnerable, and broke.

At 1:52 PM, Blogger Anna Van Z said...

Cheney-BushCo are responsible for the utter destruction of an entire country, and the complete ruination of an entire society. We are not welcome "liberators" ("Hey Iraq, we've come to liberate you from the power grid, plumbing, homes, schools, food, and medical care - aren't you glad we're here?!"), and we are not in Iraq for any moral, ethical, or noble reason. We're not there because Iraq was any threat to the U.S. or because of 9/11; GOP media propaganda notwithstanding. The Iraq invasion was planned long before 9/11 - clearly outlined in the NeoCon manifesto known as "The Project for a New American Century".
-"On Winning and Losing"
The Mills River Progressive

At 1:52 PM, Blogger flyte said...

hey Spitfire - the Shakespeare line is "... it is a tale told by an idiot, full of...", so in your metaphor, Bush would be an idiot. The thing is, I think that lets him off the hook. When Macbeth utters these lines towards the end of the play and his fiasco war, just after learning that his wife has died, he's scraping away the last little part of his soul, so that nothing he does matters anymore. He's under the illusion that he is immortal. Instead of an idiot telling a tale, I prefer to think of Bush as Macbeth, full of overweening ambition, egged on by Cheney (Lady Mac) preferring unquestioning loyalty above all other traits, distrusting of everyone, and so committed to believing that what the witches prophesy is *good* that he destroys prior alliances, murders former colleagues who tried to advise him well, attacks the families of those who go against him, and in the end, totally deserves what he gets. "Macbeth hath murdered sleep..." It is my hope that the President is as conflicted as Macbeth, suffers from sleeplessness, is haunted by those he has killed, but from all accounts, he sleeps like a baby. This makes him even less deserving of the pity that might be inspired by his being considered an idiot. Lethal, greedy, and with a Marie Antionette-like disregard for the citizens in his care, he deserves no quarter.

At 11:03 PM, Blogger Stevens Tania said...

Almost all men experience occasional erectile problems. About one in ten adult men experience erectile dysfunction. Erectile dysfunction can happen at any age. The chance of erectile dysfunction does increase with age. But erectile dysfunction can affect men at any age and at any time in their lives. http://www.buy-viagra-with-us.com/


Post a Comment

<< Home

Executive MBA
Get An Executive MBA from Top MBA Schools