How the world works

Tags: media, newspapers, Iraq war, Iran, propaganda

Blair's road map to redemption?

Blair flew into Lisbon last night to begin his new role as Middle East peace person. Yes, I know, it's fairly ludicrous that the man who was schooled on Middle Eastern affairs by Lord Levy - and who joined Bush in invading Iraq - should think he's the man to bring peace to a conflict that has raged for over fifty years, but that is actually the gig that he has accepted.

I personally think that that the very fact that he is blatantly pro-Israeli is why Bush and Israel were so keen to have him appointed to the task.

However, as he has been tasked with achieving peace in the region, and as he has already achieved peace in Northern Ireland through talking to people that governments traditionally avoid, the big question is whether or not he decides to open talks with Hamas. There is already movement within Brown's new Labour government signalling that they are prepared to go down that path, opening the way for Blair if he so chooses.

On the other hand, even Mr Blair's own successor government in Britain, in which his one-time chief policy adviser David Miliband is Foreign Secretary, is among several in Europe tentatively reviewing whether it is really sensible to continue an ­arguably failed ­ policy of total international isolation of Hamas.

No decisions have been taken but the case for change is that more realistic demands, such as an immediate halt to Qassam attacks on Israel and perhaps a pledge not to renew suicide bombing, might produce bankable results. And those advocating conditional engagement, including some prominent Israeli experts, believe it could strengthen the faction's more pragmatic wing at the expense of hardliners who may in time prefer violent opposition, perhaps including suicide bombings, to Israel as well as to Mr Abbas's new emergency administration in Ramallah.

There is no way that Blair can succeed in the task that has been set for him without enraging Israel and the US, for these two countries are not seriously interested in peace, but rather in how much Palestinian land the Israelis can hold on to.

However, the task that has been set for Blair is finding a meaningful way to peace in the region. He has shown before that he is - under such circumstances - prepared to listen to both sides.

Both Bush and Olmert will be pushing Blair to acknowledge Abbas and ignore Hamas, but Blair must see that no solution is possible without the inclusion of the Gaza Strip - currently controlled by Hamas.

John Ging, the UN refugee agency director in Gaza, and a group of Gaza businessmen directly appealed to Mr Blair and the Quartet to use his good offices to reopen the Karni crossing ­ whose closure they said had triggered the loss of 68,000 jobs since Hamas's bloody takeover of the Strip in June.

Mr Blair is said to have been shocked by conditions in much of Gaza when he visited it as long ago as 1999 ­ and would be even more shocked now. Similarly, will the man who released IRA and loyalist prisoners in the pursuit of peace at a pace that was often criticised heed the persistent calls of Mr Abbas for Israel to go much further than the 250 mainly Fatah prisoners being released tomorrow? For many years Mr Abbas has been vainly pressing for the release of men gaoled before the Oslo accords for taking part in militant missions on which they were sent by those whom Mr Bush and Israel now praise as Palestinian moderates ­ including Mr Abbas.

Blair is on a mission to remove the word "Iraq" from his historical tombstone. And achieving a settlement in the Middle East would do that better than anything else, which is why I think he might take this task more seriously that the people who appointed him would like.

If Blair applies the same rigid fairness that he applied to Northern Ireland to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, then he will enrage the Israelis and the Americans, but he would win the respect of the rest of the planet.

For far too long this dispute has followed a USreali script. Indeed, this very fact has contributed to 9-11 and a rise in anti-Americanism across the globe. Blair can now prove himself a true friend of America. But only if he is prepared to tell them things that they dont want to hear.

His work in Northern Ireland has shown that he has what it takes. But can he overcome the US/Israeli bias that he has always shown in order to carry it off?

I doubt it. But his wish to distance himself from the nightmare he created in Iraq might just be the incentive that he needs.

The US and Israel have - unwittingly - employed the right man for the job. The question now is whether or not he has the balls to carry it off.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Blair, Israel, Palestine, Middle East peace talks, Bush, US

Back tomorrow!

I've been cut off for days. It's been a nightmare but, at last, at 9.15pm normal service has been resumed.

I'll be posting again first thing tomorrow morning.

Sorry for the recent absence.

Posting Hiatus

My internet connection is down. Engineer coming on Wednesday, so hopefully full posting can resume then.

Pain in the arse I know, but what can I do?

Surgeon general was 'gagged by White House'

Bush always seems to dismiss any complaints against his administration by claiming, "That's just politics" carrying the clear implication that this administration is somehow above politics. It certainly goes against that image when one discovers that the Bush regime have been manipulating the surgeon general to make statements that suited the White House's purposes and to gag him when he intended to do the opposite.

The Bush White House banned Dr Carmona from speaking or issuing reports on stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, prisons, mental health and international health issues, he has revealed. For years, the White House also tried to "water down" a key report on the dangers of second-hand smoke, he said. When it was published last year , the report stated that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke can cause immediate harm.

When Dr Carmona tried to address the subject of embryonic stem-cell research, deeply controversial among the religious right, he said he was "told to stand down and not speak about it". He explained: "Much of the discussion was being driven by theology, ideology, [and] preconceived beliefs that were scientifically incorrect... I thought, 'This is a perfect example of the surgeon general being able to step forward, educate the American public'... [but] I was blocked at every turn. I was told the decision had already been made - 'Stand down. Don't talk about it.' That information was removed from my speeches."

He was also told that global warming was a "liberal cause" and to decline invitations to attend scientific discussion meetings on the subject.

Dr Carmona is the latest in a long line of officials claiming that political considerations take precedence over scientific facts at the Bush White House.

And this is being done by an administration that accuse others of engaging in "politics" as if they are above such a thing.

Indeed, they even objected to the surgeon general getting involved in the Special Olympics because it received considerable support from the Kennedy's.

"I was specifically told by a senior person, 'Why would you want to help those people?'" Dr Carmona testified.

Politics of the grubbiest kind, ignoring the truth when it didn't suit their political purposes, whilst all the time publicly claiming to be above the fray.

The truth appears to be meaningless to this administration.

During a nine-month trial of the US tobacco industry, Dr Carmona was heavily leant upon not to testify. The same went for sex education: "However, there was already a policy in place that did not want to hear the science but wanted to preach abstinence only, but I felt that was scientifically incorrect," he said. "Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalised or simply buried," Dr Carmona said. "There is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalising the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds."

This administration is simply too moronic to be leading the world's only superpower. Ideologues uninterested in anything that doesn't support their own narrow agenda.

It's exactly the mindset that led them into Iraq. Believe only that which confirms your own preconceived notions and ignore the rest. It's the rationale of idiots.

So we shouldn't be surprised that the surgeon general was treated in such a shoddy way by these morons.

Click title for full article.

Firefighters go after Rudy Giuliani with new video

Giuliani Bungled Preparation in Years After 1993 Attack on Trade Center.

Critical failures by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani before, during and after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, raise serious questions about his ability to be commander-in-chief.

In this thirteen minute documentary, fire fighters, fire officers and family members give dramatic testimony about Giuliani's leadership failures. Their dramatic stories tell how Giuliani failed to provide the FDNY with radios that worked, which led to the deaths of 121 fire fighters inside the World Trade Center's North Tower because they were unable to hear orders to evacuate.

'A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi... You know, so what?'

With the US bracing itself for a report into progress in Iraq since the infamous "surge" that has been trailed as "mixed", the Nation magazine is publishing a series of interviews with 50 combat veterans of the Iraq war from across the US who describe how they have abused or killed Iraqi men, women and children with impunity.

Their stories, recorded and typed into thousands of pages of transcripts, reveal disturbing patterns of behavior by American troops in Iraq. Dozens of those interviewed witnessed Iraqi civilians, including children, dying from American firepower. Some participated in such killings; others treated or investigated civilian casualties after the fact. Many also heard such stories, in detail, from members of their unit. The soldiers, sailors and marines emphasized that not all troops took part in indiscriminate killings. Many said that these acts were perpetrated by a minority. But they nevertheless described such acts as common and said they often go unreported -- and almost always go unpunished.

Court cases, such as the ones surrounding the massacre in Haditha and the rape and murder of a 14-year-old in Mah­mudiya, and news stories in the Washington Post, Time, the London Independent and elsewhere based on Iraqi accounts have begun to hint at the wide extent of the attacks on civilians. Human rights groups have issued reports, such as Human Rights Watch's Hearts and Minds: Post-war Civilian Deaths in Baghdad Caused by U.S. Forces, packed with detailed incidents that suggest that the killing of Iraqi civilians by occupation forces is more common than has been acknowledged by military authorities.

What's startling is the size of the lie revealed beneath the "Iraqi liberation" rhetoric that Bush and his cohorts pushed as a reason for the invasion once their initial WMD claims were found to be so bogus. An army "liberating" a people have a concern for their welfare, they certainly couldn't have their well-being in mind and make comments like this:

"I guess while I was there, the general attitude was, A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi," said Spc. Jeff Englehart, 26, of Grand Junction, Colorado. Specialist Englehart served with the Third Brigade, First Infantry Division, in Baquba, about thirty-five miles northeast of Baghdad, for a year beginning in February 2004. "You know, so what?... "

Englehart then goes on to justify this attitude by stating that many soldiers genuinely wanted to liberate the Iraqis as their President had told them - meaning they bought into Bush's lie - and were horrified that some Iraqis then went on to attempt to kill US soldiers.

Of course, the distinction that Englehart is missing is that not all Iraqis are attempting to kill US soldiers, the vast majority are people who simply want order on their streets, an order that the US forces have failed to provide. But it would appear that, now that attacks on US forces have become commonplace, some soldiers are failing to see any distinction between the insurgents and ordinary Iraqis. It is as if the fact that some Iraqis are attacking them appears to have condemned the whole population in the eyes of parts of the US forces.

And, of course, many of the soldiers end up deeply disturbed by the disparity between the reality on the ground and the way the US media is selling this conflict. I really hope some of the right wingers who defend the war on here take the time to click on the title and read what these soldiers actually have to say about this "depraved" conflict that these soldiers actually have to take part in, rather than the rose-colour-spectacled battle that many on the right appear to think is taking place in Iraq.

The war the vets described is a dark and even depraved enterprise, one that bears a powerful resemblance to other misguided and brutal colonial wars and occupations, from the French occupation of Algeria to the American war in Vietnam and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.

"I'll tell you the point where I really turned," said Spc. Michael Harmon, 24, a medic from Brooklyn. He served a thirteen-month tour beginning in April 2003 with the 167th Armor Regiment, Fourth Infantry Division, in Al-Rashidiya, a small town near Baghdad. "I go out to the scene and [there was] this little, you know, pudgy little 2-year-old child with the cute little pudgy legs, and I look and she has a bullet through her leg.... An IED [improvised explosive device] went off, the gun-happy soldiers just started shooting anywhere and the baby got hit. And this baby looked at me, wasn't crying, wasn't anything, it just looked at me like--I know she couldn't speak. It might sound crazy, but she was like asking me why. You know, Why do I have a bullet in my leg?... I was just like, This is--this is it. This is ridiculous."

The concern felt by Michael Harmon is commendable, but unfortunately, his sentiments are not typical of the many expressed in this shocking report.

According to the survey, conducted by the Office of the Surgeon General of the US Army Medical Command, just 47 percent of soldiers and 38 percent of marines agreed that civilians should be treated with dignity and respect. Only 55 percent of soldiers and 40 percent of marines said they would report a unit member who had killed or injured "an innocent noncombatant."

Veterans described reckless firing once they left their compounds. Some shot holes into cans of gasoline being sold along the roadside and then tossed grenades into the pools of gas to set them ablaze. Others opened fire on children. These shootings often enraged Iraqi witnesses.

This report typifies why myself and others often compare the Iraq war with Vietnam and Northern Ireland. It highlights the way in which a war with a hidden enemy saps the will of the conventional forces and leads them to regard every citizen as the enemy. It is the very reason why conventional forces rarely win against this kind of enemy. Eventually the conventional forces will snap and be perceived as turning on the civilian population or, at the very least, of failing to see them as citizens. At this point, the battle for hearts and minds, which is essential for victory against an enemy who hides within the populace, is lost.

This is the story now emanating from Iraq.

We heard a few reports, in one case corroborated by photo­graphs, that some soldiers had so lost their moral compass that they'd mocked or desecrated Iraqi corpses. One photo, among dozens turned over to The Nation during the investigation, shows an American soldier acting as if he is about to eat the spilled brains of a dead Iraqi man with his brown plastic Army-issue spoon.

"Take a picture of me and this motherfucker," a soldier who had been in Sergeant Mejía's squad said as he put his arm around the corpse. Sergeant Mejía recalls that the shroud covering the body fell away, revealing that the young man was wearing only his pants. There was a bullet hole in his chest.

"Damn, they really fucked you up, didn't they?" the soldier laughed.

The scene, Sergeant Mejía said, was witnessed by the dead man's brothers and cousins.

There's really nothing to add. This war is lost. Bring the troops home.

I strongly recommend that you click on the title and read the whole 11 pages of the report. I can only give you a taster of it here.

But any notion that the US forces are "liberating" Iraqis at the moment is dispelled the instant you read it. I am sure many of these young soldiers bought into Bush's lie and went there with the best intentions in the world, but the reality on the ground has changed them and destroyed their mission. One soldier describes an almost typical daily event:

"And we were approaching this one house," he said. "In this farming area, they're, like, built up into little courtyards. So they have, like, the main house, common area. They have, like, a kitchen and then they have a storage shed-type deal. And we're approaching, and they had a family dog. And it was barking ferociously, 'cause it's doing its job. And my squad leader, just out of nowhere, just shoots it. And he didn't--mother­fucker--he shot it and it went in the jaw and exited out. So I see this dog--I'm a huge animal lover; I love animals--and this dog has, like, these eyes on it and he's running around spraying blood all over the place. And like, you know, What the hell is going on? The family is sitting right there, with three little children and a mom and a dad, horrified. And I'm at a loss for words. And so, I yell at him. I'm, like, What the fuck are you doing? And so the dog's yelping. It's crying out without a jaw. And I'm looking at the family, and they're just, you know, dead scared. And so I told them, I was like, Fucking shoot it, you know? At least kill it, because that can't be fixed...."

And neither can this war. Lets just end it and put us all out of our fucking misery.

Click title for full article.

The Worst Person in the World.

Bush faces down own party as discontent over Iraq deepens

The man who constantly confuses stubbornness with resolve is at it again. Faced with Republican defections over his Iraq war policy, Bush has decided to do what he always does and insist that black is white, the moon is made of green cheese, and he's the Decider and that's the end of it.

He said: "You have got all the troops there a couple of weeks ago... They have just showed up and are beginning operations in full and you have people in Washington saying 'Stop'." He added: "I believe it is in this nation's interest to give the commander a chance to fully implement [the strategy] and Congress should wait."

In a direct rebuff to his critics in Congress, he said: "Troop levels will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington DC." But the Republican revolt continued to grow, with new senators going public to express their scepticism with the "surge".

The lie, of course, is that troops levels are being set by "commanders on the ground".

Indeed, before the invasion Donald Rumsfeld replaced General Shinseki as Army Chief of Staff with General Peter J. Schoomaker after Shineski "questioned the cakewalk scenario, and told Congress (that February) that we would need several hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq to put an end to the violence against our troops and against each other."

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called his estimate "wildly off the mark" and said, "I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down."

So there was certainly no deference to military commanders before the conflict, nor has there been any sign of deference during the conflict with commanders being replaced if they do not agree with the current policy as it is articulated by the White House.

General Casey stepped down because he did not agree with the planned "surge" so - again - it's simply ludicrous for Bush to pretend that this war is being fought according to the wishes of the generals:

In a telephone interview on Friday, General Casey continued to caution against a lengthy expansion in the American military role. “The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias,” he said.

So, again, we have this silly product of a privileged background refusing to accept the political or military reality of the position he now finds himself in. This man, who all his life has been bailed out by others, thanks to his well connected family, again refuses to accept defeat.

It's alien to his nature. Life has always given him what he wanted eventually, even if daddy had to intervene, so he feels sure that this will somehow sort itself out if he only shows "resolve".

The White House argument is basically that the full deployment of the 30,000 extra troops was completed only last month so the strategy has not yet been given a chance. But Republican critics, such as senator Olympia Snowe, who may vote with the Democrats on the April deadline, countered that, though the full deployment was completed only last month, most of them had been in Iraq for months and had not made a significant difference.

"Clearly we're at the crossroads of hope and reality, and now I think we have to address the reality, and that includes the president," Ms Snowe said. Another Republican senator, Lamar Alexander, called for US troops to shift from a combat role and toward training of Iraqi troops. "The surge by itself in my opinion is not a strategy," Mr Alexander said.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll showed yesterday that more than seven in 10 Americans favour withdrawing nearly all US troops from Iraq by April.

It's easy for someone who has never actually had to face any kind of real hardship to confuse stubbornness with resolve, and that is what we are witnessing here. Other people's children die whilst this pampered parvenue - with almost zero real military experience - continues to insist that he's right and everyone else is wrong.

For four years this man has been claiming victory is simply over the next hill. And at all times, using all measurements available, the news has been unremittingly going from bad to worse. Initially they refused to even accept that an organised insurgency was taking place against them with the White House dismissing the emerging insurgency as "remnants of Saddam's regime". Then they refused to accept that a civil war was breaking out as Cheney insisted that the insurgency was "on its last legs".

For four years every single prediction these men have ever made has turned out to be, not just nonsense, but a form of optimism that bordered on the delusional.

His supporters are now dwindling, he is now propped up by only the most rampant and zealous remnants of the Republican party, the kind of people who still think Vietnam could have been won had the US shown more "resolve".

The lunatics have taken over the asylum. And Bush is their perfect leader. Militaristic. Stupid. Ignorant. Stubborn.

How many more have to die? How many more years have to pass before Bush will admit what most sentient human beings have long ago grasped? It's over. You lost. And you lost because you were too arrogant to listen to your generals when they were telling you things you didn't want to hear.

Click title for full article.

Mandelson has a pop at Campbell

Dear God. Every so often I read something that simply takes my breath away. In today's print edition of The Independent (I can't find any link to it online) they carry this extract from Alastair Campbell's diaries. Campbell and Mandelson are arguing over whether Blair should wear a tie or an open necked shirt.

CAMPBELL: I could feel myself losing it, said he could not swan in, upset what we were doing, then waltz out again. TB was like a dad trying to shush two squabbling brothers. "Cut it out you two, for Heaven's sake."

He [Mandelson] said I'm sick of being rubbished and undermined, I hate it and I want out. " Get out then and we can finish the speech" [Campbell said.]

"That's what you want isn't it, me out of the whole operation." I said I wanted to be able to do a job. He started to leave, then came back over, pushed at me, threw a punch, then another. I grabbed his lapels to disable his arms and TB was by now moving in to seperate us and PM just lunged at him, then looked at me and shouted: "I hate this, I'm going back to London."

Who would have thought Mandelson would attempt to hit Campbell and Blair in one meeting. Talk about punching above your weight! I don't expect anything else in his diaries will shock me quite as much as that tale did.

YOUNG TURKS: Pete Domenici (R) Calls for Troop Withdrawal

Michael Moore demands apology from Wolf Blitzer

Michael Moore went off on Wolfie and CNN for a hit piece they aired about "Sicko" right before he came on. He was hot! He slapped the beard around pretty good...He says he'll post the facts refuting their claims on his website tonight. He then attacked CNN and Blitzer for not doing their job in the run up to the war (where were you when it mattered?) and said that everything he said about the Iraq war did come to pass. He wondered why it took him so many years to get Cheney on teevee? He asked when America will get sick and tired of the "crap" they show...

The Road Home

As I don't have any time to write any posts today, I thought I'd simply print two articles that I think important. The first is this one by the New York Times calling for the immediate withdrawal of American forces. With Republicans now jumping ship it really does appear as if Bush has taken his final gamble and lost.

Support is haemorrhaging away from this Presidency and this war at an alarming rate. The New York Times becomes the latest to state the obvious. This President does not and never did have a plan. Once Iraq's civil society started to fracture, this President has been talking optimistically whilst all the while planning to pass this problem on to his successor. Now it appears that his own party won't hold together if he attempts that. The game is up for Bush. It's time to admit defeat.

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.

A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.

The Mechanics of Withdrawal

The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons of military gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out safely will be a formidable challenge. The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.

The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.

Accomplishing all of this in less than six months is probably unrealistic. The political decision should be made, and the target date set, now.

Despite President Bush’s repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.

This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda’s leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American troops.

And it created a new front where the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need resources and bases to stanch this self- inflicted wound for the foreseeable future.

The Question of Bases

The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging points.

There are arguments for, and against, both options. Leaving troops in Iraq might make it too easy — and too tempting — to get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that Washington’s real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those nations’ governments.

The White House should make this choice after consultation with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.

The Civil War

One of Mr. Bush’s arguments against withdrawal is that it would lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now, and it may take years to burn out. Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening.

It is possible, we suppose, that announcing a firm withdrawal date might finally focus Iraq’s political leaders and neighboring governments on reality. Ideally, it could spur Iraqi politicians to take the steps toward national reconciliation that they have endlessly discussed but refused to act on.

But it is foolish to count on that, as some Democratic proponents of withdrawal have done. The administration should use whatever leverage it gains from withdrawing to press its allies and Iraq’s neighbors to help achieve a negotiated solution.

Iraq’s leaders — knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival — might be more open to compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate. That would be better than the slow-motion ethnic and religious cleansing that has contributed to driving one in seven Iraqis from their homes.

The United States military cannot solve the problem. Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.

The Human Crisis

There are already nearly two million Iraqi refugees, mostly in Syria and Jordan, and nearly two million more Iraqis who have been displaced within their country. Without the active cooperation of all six countries bordering Iraq — Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria — and the help of other nations, this disaster could get worse. Beyond the suffering, massive flows of refugees — some with ethnic and political resentments — could spread Iraq’s conflict far beyond Iraq’s borders.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting refugees. Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with refugees, need more international help. That, of course, means money. The nations of Europe and Asia have a stake and should contribute. The United States will have to pay a large share of the costs, but should also lead international efforts, perhaps a donors’ conference, to raise money for the refugee crisis.

Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this administration has never shown. And, however angry they were with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences. To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible to ignore.

The United States has the greatest responsibilities, including the admission of many more refugees for permanent resettlement. The most compelling obligation is to the tens of thousands of Iraqis of courage and good will — translators, embassy employees, reconstruction workers — whose lives will be in danger because they believed the promises and cooperated with the Americans.

The Neighbors

One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling in Iraq by its neighbors — America’s friends as well as its adversaries.

Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.

For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq’s borders.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.

Click title for source.

Rethinking the surge

There is a sense of accelerating momentum in the US towards a post-surge rethink of Iraq policy. The Bush administration had been hoping that it could be postponed until September when General David Petraeus, the coalition commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Baghdad, are due in Washington to present a progress report.

Even that was being played down by the White House, which was commissioning other studies in case the report was too embarrassing, as the administration did in the case of the Iraq Study Group.

But all the signs are that events on the ground in Iraq and the political clock in Washington are running ahead of the administration's timetable. The trickle of Republican defections threatens to become a rush for the door as the party gets nervous about its electoral viability next year. The latest defector, Pete Domenici, a New Mexico senator, had been a reliable all-weather supporter. The fact that he blamed the failure of the surge on the Iraqi government hardly mitigates the significance of his change of heart.

According to an article in this morning's New York Times by David Sanger (widely considered the best reporter on the White House beat) there are fears in the White House that the exodus may accelerate, particularly if John McCain, the most vocal surge advocate outside the White House, returns from a fact-finding trip to Iraq with more bad news. The rethink of what to do after the surge has gained urgency, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates, has cancelled a Latin American tour, so that he can take part.

The New York Times has also waded in to the debate editorially with a lengthy polemic entitled "The road home" calling for an immediate start to the withdrawal. All the reasons for staying on have evaporated, it argues, adding: "The war is sapping the strength of the nation's alliances and military forces."

There has been little doubt for months that the surge had failed to bring the sectarian conflict under control and to bolster the Iraq government. What is at issue now is how long the administration will attempt to put off a course correction, while patience runs out in the Republican party.

The new course is likely to involve some kind of redeployment away from the most dangerous tasks, like patrolling Baghdad, to heavily fortified super-bases, either in Iraq or in the region, from where the US could strike if, for example, al-Qaida showed further signs of establishing itself. That was one of the central policy recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, along with opening channels of communication with Tehran and Damascus. The surge increasingly looks like a detour on the way to implementing those proposals.

Click title for source.

COLBERT: Iran it’s America Under the Carter Administration

Tags: Colbert, Iran, Bush, Carter, eighties

A Politically Motivated Case

And whilst it's edifying to see the general public refuse to accept Bush's commuting of Libby's sentence, it's frankly astonishing to listen to the way in which some Republicans continue to insist that Libby was somehow the victim of a "politically motivated" witch hunt.

Listen to Marty Peretz whining in The New Republic:

It was from the beginning a politically motivated case, as Dershowitz argues in this morning's Post, the appointment of the special prosecutor, the prosecutor's own obsessions, the case itself with the doubtful and understandably doubtful but diverse memories of many witnesses, including the defendant, the especially harsh sentence pronounced by the judge, the refusal of the appellate court to continue Libby on bail -all of these were politically motivated. And, thus, in and of themselves, unjust.

How do they get away with this bullshit? Are they literally now simply preaching to themselves?

How can they claim that this case was "politically motivated"? Fitzgerald was appointed by a Republican administration, Libby was found guilty before a judge that was appointed by a Republican administration and had his appeal heard before two judges who were also appointed by Republican administrations. His sentencing was well within the guidelines set forth by a Republican administration's Justice Department. So, how can any sentient human being rationally argue that this case was "politically motivated"? Are we now to believe that the Republicans are motivating against themselves?

And what are the "the prosecutor's own obsessions" that he alludes to but fails to specify? And why does he put such faith in the "understandably doubtful but diverse memories of many witnesses". Why can't he bring himself for a nanosecond to consider - as the jury did - that these are perhaps not "diverse memories" but big fat frigging lies?

The Republican party have simply detached themselves from reality, they no longer even feel the need to put forward reasoned arguments and are now, literally, simply talking to themselves.

This ship is sinking fast.

Click title for Peretz's hysterical whining.

Tags: Peretz, Libby, Plamegate, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Iraq war, Niger, Uranium

The Slide Continues...

Bush's abysmal record of sliding down the polls is continuing and his recent decision to "commute" the sentence of "Scooter" Libby certainly has not helped matters. What I find most amusing is that Independents seem to be reacting more harshly towards this decision than even registered Democrats.

69% of voters disapprove of his decision to commute Libby's sentence with 76% of Democrats disapproving and a whopping 80% of Independents finding what Bush did to be simply beyond the pale.

On a complete pardon, which Bush has refused to rule out, only 9% of voters would approve of such a step with 84% of all voters firmly against such a step. 82% of Democrats feel this way against a whopping 97% of Independents.

A slight plurality of voters now favour the impeachment of Bush (46% for and 44% against) although more people appear to favour the impeachment of the worst man in the world, Dick Cheney, where - amongst all adults - 54% favour impeachment with 40% against such a move.

The figures are as nasty an indictment of Bush's failure in his job as one could hope to see. 67% of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling his role as President.

And what's astonishing about the figures is that there appears to be a split over whether or not the Iraq war can be one with Dems saying no and Repugs saying that victory is still possible.

85% of likely Democratic primary voters voting for Hillary Clinton, 71% of those voting for John Edwards, and 64% of those voting for Barack Obama say they do not believe the United States can win the war in Iraq.

86% of likely Republican primary voters voting for John McCain, 62% of those voting for Rudy Giuliani, and 68% of those voting for Mitt Romney say they believe the United States can win the war in Iraq.

I genuinely find it simply astonishing that there are still people out there who believe Iraq can be redeemed. That goes beyond optimism and puts one firmly in the camp of the delusional as far as I am concerned.

Likewise Bush's ridiculous claim that the United States "are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" appears to have been rejected by Democratic voters as the nonsense that it is, although Republicans appear to buy into this bullshit.

67% of likely Democratic primary voters voting for Hillary Clinton, 84% of those voting for John Edwards, and 71% of those voting for Barack Obama say they do not believe that the terrorists fighting in Iraq would travel to the United States to fight if the US withdrew all troops from Iraq.

71% of likely Republican primary voters voting for John McCain, 45% of those voting for Rudy Giuliani, and 53% of those voting for Mitt Romney say they believe that the terrorists fighting in Iraq would travel to the United States to fight if the US withdrew all troops from Iraq.

So it's an interesting poll, not only because it shows how Bush's recent decision to commute Libby's sentence has gone down like a cup of cold sick with the general public, but it also shows that Republicans in general believe things that are simply fantastical; that the war in Iraq can still be won and, if lost, that Iraqis are going to cross the Atlantic and wage war in the United States.

The man who convinced them of this staggers on - with a mere 27% of the public approving the job that he is doing.

I don't expect to see a worst President in my lifetime.

Click title for full poll.

Tags: Bush, polls, opinion polls, Iraq war, worst president ever, "Scooter" Libby, pardon, commute sentence

The tragic collapse of America's standing in the world

Glenn Greenwald printed a superb article yesterday on the collapse of America's standing throughout the globe over the past six years based on recent polling from a worldwide Pew poll. It really undercuts the specious argument that anyone who disagrees with the disgraceful direction which Bush II has taken that great nation must in some way be fundamentally anti-American or jealous.

There are many of us in Europe who are well aware of the debt which we owe to our American friends. But that debt has never meant that we were blind to America's failings, it simply meant that we were also aware that America's virtues far outweighed those failings.

Under Bush that has ceased to be the case.

The picture that emerges here is conclusively clear. In virtually every area of the world -- Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia -- overwhelming majorities of people viewed the U.S. favorably prior to the Bush presidency. But in virtually every single country in each of those regions, the percentage which now views the U.S. favorably has collapsed, and is now confined only to minorities, often tiny minorities.

The precipitous drop in U.S. credibility -- from levels of great respect to levels of widespread contempt -- is as stark among America's traditional allies as it is in less friendly regions. Contrary to claims found among both America's right and some on Europe's left, the U.S. enjoyed great moral credibility among its Western European allies prior to the Bush presidency.

The arguments that people dislike America because they are jealous or because they are intrinsically anti-American ought to be dismissed out of hand as the intellectual cop-outs that they are. For both arguments seek to put America's responsibility for it's own behaviour as somehow beyond reasonable discourse, something to be debated only by zealots, madmen and virulent anti-Americans.

The natural assumption behind both positions is that America is intrinsically good and it, therefore, naturally follows that any action she takes is also good. This logic dictates that anyone arguing against any American action must have dark and sinister reasons for doing so.

This leaves aside the fact that it is actually because American ideals ARE so good which accounts for the huge disappointment around the globe when American herself fails to live up to them or appears, as she does under the Bush administration, to have abandoned them altogether.

Indeed, this argument is merely an extension of the theory posited by Israel's supporters that anyone who objects to Israel's rampant colonialism in the occupied territories is somehow actually engaging in a subtle form of anti-Semitism. In both cases the objections are an attempt to end argument rather than challenge the validity of the initial charge.

Indeed, Greenwald - and this makes him unique amongst most American commentators - actually has the courage to put the Israeli part of the equation on to the table, something that, in my opinion, is frequently missing from American discourse.

Finally, it is worth noting one fact that is indisputable yet frequently denied in American political discourse, except when it is ignored altogether -- namely, that America's blind support for Israel in its disputes with its neighbors plays a key role -- not the only role, but a key role -- in why America's moral standing has collapsed: Note that even a plurality of Israelis believe that our Middle East policies have excessively favored Israel.

The main point of course is, and this is highlighted in the Pew poll, that if it were true that the world was basically anti-American - or simply jealous of America's economic strength - then there is very little that Bush could have done in the last few years to cause such a catastrophic collapse in the world's opinion of the US, as it would naturally follow that the world simply hated the US anyway.

The fact that Bush's presidency has resulted in such a collapse of support for the US as a world leader shows that the world cares about the US's policies as these policies effect the lives of millions of people. I can well understand why it matters not a jot to many Americans that Bush invaded Iraq without a second UN resolution. I am sure there were many Brits who took a similar attitude to the actions of Britain at the height of her Empire. However, for those of us who don't live within the borders of the world's most powerful nation the rules and regulations formed in the aftermath of WWII matter.

When Bush announced his policy of pre-emption he was effectively dispensing with a key tenet of international law. Those of us who rely on international law for security - rather than the largest standing army in the world - were, naturally, made extremely uneasy by this.

If the most powerful nation in the world decides it will no longer be bound by the rules that it helped to create, then we are left with a world ruled by force rather than by the rule of law. It is this aspect of Bush's leadership that most of us have found disquieting.

Greenwald sums it up best:

The role that the U.S. has played in the world for decades is critically important. The ideals and political principles which this country for decades has symbolized have been -- even when we have deviated from those principles -- a critical anchor for our security and standing in the world as well as a vital source of inspiration for people on every continent. As the world's sole superpower, the face that we choose to show to the world, the principles which guide our actions, are incomparably important.

When we adhere to those values and exemplify those principles, people around the world see that and judge our country accordingly. When we repudiate those values and violate those principles, our moral standing and credibility collapse. There is a direct causal link between how we conduct ourselves and how we are perceived in the world.

Amen to that, I say.

Click title to read full article. Highly recommended that you do so.

Tags: US, Bush, international standing, opinion, anti-Americanism, Iraq war, international law

David Shuster on Libby White House spin

Tags: Shuster, Olbermann, Libby, Plamegate, Valeria Plame, Cheney, Bush

John Dean: Bush’s Commutation Conflicts With His Own DoJ Guidelines

Oh, what a can of worms Bush has opened...

Tags: Olbermann, John Dean, Scooter Libby, Plamegate, Valeria Plame, Joe Wilson

A joyous day brightens the gloom of the Middle East

I do apologise that posting here is so light of late, but I am - for the most part - taking the next two weeks off.

The great news from Gaza yesterday was the release of Alan Johnston. I felt for him as I watched him being dragged from pillar to post for photo-ops and was amazed to see how the professional journalist in him kicked in almost immediately, allowing him to remain detached and, as always taking the overview. I am sure when he is on his own the emotion will kick in and he will find himself at last being able to begin to offload the enormous emotional baggage that he must be carrying.

There is, of course, another story being told here and that is the story of Hamas in Gaza. The Independent summed it up best:

Yet there is another crucial element in this story, without which Mr Johnston might still be in captivity or the denouement rather different. Three months into his ordeal, the political context was transformed. Last month, after increasingly intense armed confrontations with the Fatah organisation, the Islamic militant group Hamas seized overall power in Gaza. In effect, they took by force the power they had won peacefully in elections, but had not been permitted to exercise.

What would happen to Mr Johnston was widely seen abroad as a first test for Hamas. With Fatah no longer disputing power in Gaza, did Hamas have sufficient authority to force his release? And if it did, would it use it? Mr Johnston's account of his release gives at least a partial answer.

Hamas does have the authority and it was prepared to use it, but it was not sufficient to secure the journalist's release at once. Hamas leaders had to do more than snap their fingers; they had to bargain with the kidnappers. Mr Johnston's edgy last journey as a captive was simultaneous testimony to Hamas's strength and weakness.

What is not known at this stage is what deal Hamas might have struck, and what concessions it might have made. Certain conclusions, though, can be hazarded. The fact that Hamas ordered Mr Johnston's release shows that it cares about how it is seen abroad. That it actually obtained his release shows that Hamas wields power that is real and might, given time, be just sufficient to bring order to Gaza's chaos. It also suggests that the division of the Palestinian Authority between Gaza and the West Bank could be more durable than Fatah would like, even if the West Bank receives the bulk of outside assistance.

I have no doubt that Bush and the Israelis have no regrets over their decision to fund what was, in effect, an Abbas private militia in Palestine. However, I feel sure that this morning Abbas is having second thoughts.

A Palestinian Authority and a future Palestinian state split into two warring factions and two separate mini-states suits the Israelis and their American sponsors perfectly.

Abbas may have unwittingly done Israel's dirty work for them. For the present situation certainly is not in the interest of the Palestinians.

As an aside, I looked for coverage of his release in both the New York Times and the Washington Post. I could fine none.

Click title for full article.

Olbermann: Bush, Cheney should resign

Olbermann on why the pardon in all but name is a betrayal.



Glenn Greenwald is, as always, spot on:

That Dick Cheney's top aide, one of the most well-connected neoconservatives on the planet, is protected from the consequences of his felonies ought to be anything but surprising. That is the country that we have. It is a result that is completely consistent with the "values" that define official Washington. No other outcome was possible.

The Plame investigation was urged by the Bush CIA and commenced by the Bush DOJ, Libby's conviction pursued by a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor, his jail sentence imposed by a Bush-appointed "tough-on-crime" federal judge, all pursuant to harsh and merciless criminal laws urged on by the "tough-on-crime/no-mercy" GOP. Lewis Libby was sent to prison by the system constructed and desired by the very Republican movement protesting his plight.

But our political discourse and media institutions are so broken and corrupt that Bush followers (and their media enablers) feel free to make the completely-backwards and fact-free claim that the Libby prosecution was driven by "partisan" and "political" motives -- as though it was a mirror image of the Clinton persecution driven by Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and a purely partisan Republican prosecutor -- because they know that there is no such thing as a claim too false to be passed on without real objection by our vapid, drooling press corps.

For the right-wing political movement that has spawned the Bush disasters of the last six years, the exoneration of Lewis Libby was not merely something they supported. It was much more than that. It was a matter of the greatest importance. That is because Libby is a True Believer, a loyal member of their cult. Seeing him in prison would be humiliating, would make them feel weak and defeated at the hands of the Enemy (defined as "anyone who opposes them"), which is the worst outcome there is.

The only "principle" they have is that their movement is Good, those who oppose it Evil, and loyal members of their movement -- and especially its Leaders -- must never have their power checked or limited in any way. One who serves at Dick Cheney's side cannot possibly be in prison. Literally, there is no crime their Leaders can commit which will render them unwilling to defend and justify it. The overriding priority is that they remain strong and powerful, immune from the constraints of the law.

Bush Spares Libby 30-Month Jail Term

Is there a sentient human being on the planet who can even be bothered feigning surprise? Faced with a choice between further alienating an American public who hold him in almost record contempt and annoying what's left of the Republican base that continue to support him, Bush chose to leave aside any pretence that he believes in law and order for the moneyed clique that surround him and he has given "Scooter" Libby a commuted sentence that is a pardon in all but name.

Of course, what's unusual about pardoning this particular crook is that pardons are normally reserved for people who have expressed some kind of remorse. Not only has Libby failed to show remorse but there have been a cackle of right wing loons screaming that no crimes have actually been committed. As if perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice are trifling matters when carried out by members of Bush's administration.

I have always thought that people who work in government and therefore have a say over the laws that govern the rest of us should actually be more vigilant than anyone about obeying those laws. The Bush administration apparently does not share that view.

The commutation brought immediate praise from conservatives, who hailed it as a courageous step to avert a miscarriage of justice, and condemnation from Democrats, who said it showed a lack of accountability and respect for the law.

The president portrayed his commutation of the sentence, which fell short of a pardon and still requires Mr. Libby to pay a $250,000 fine and be on probation for two years, as a carefully considered compromise.

“I respect the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Bush said in a statement. “But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.”

A more honest statement from Bush would have been that he agrees with strong messages when it comes to law and order but only as that relates to poor people.

Certainly it confirms in my mind that Bush is now officially a lame duck President, as he obviously no longer cares what the public think of him.

The action drew a sharp response from Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the case, in which Mr. Libby was accused of lying to investigators looking into the leak of a C.I.A. operative’s identity. Mr. Fitzgerald criticized the president’s characterization of the sentence as “excessive.”

“In this case an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws,” Mr. Fitzgerald said in a statement. “It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals.”

Bush no longer pretends that all citizens "stand before the bar of justice as equals" and is no longer even pretending that he does.

Of course, nutters like William Kristol have long been campaigning for Libby to be pardoned if no better reason than it would "drive the Democrats crazy".

Such is the reasoning behind the right wing "logic".

As Joe Wilson now says, this administration is now corrupt from top to bottom.







UPDATE: Another thought. Under American justice as handled by this administration, Paris Hilton goes to jail and Scooter Libby walks free. Says a lot about perspective doesn't it?

Click title for full article.

Short Break

Posting will be light for the next two weeks as I am going on holiday. I will still post, but I imagine that posting will be substanially lighter than usual.

Why Winston Wouldn't Stand For W

Well, well, well. It appears all this time that Bush is actually nearer to Chamberlain than he has ever been to Churchill. That's certainly the opinion of Lynn Olson who has written a new book, "Troublesome Young men", which has attracted much praise from some people who have been keen to see Bush in Churchillian terms.

I've spent a great deal of time thinking about Churchill while working on my book "Troublesome Young Men," a history of the small group of Conservative members of Parliament who defied British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasing Adolf Hitler, forced Chamberlain to resign in May 1940 and helped make Churchill his successor. I thought my audience would be largely limited to World War II buffs, so I was pleasantly surprised to hear that the president has been reading my book. He hasn't let me know what he thinks about it, but it's a safe bet that he's identifying with the book's portrayal of Churchill, not Chamberlain. But I think Bush's hero would be bemused, to say the least, by the president's wrapping himself in the Churchillian cloak. Indeed, the more you understand the historical record, the more the parallels leap out -- but they're between Bush and Chamberlain, not Bush and Churchill.

Like Bush and unlike Churchill, Chamberlain came to office with almost no understanding of foreign affairs or experience in dealing with international leaders. Nonetheless, he was convinced that he alone could bring Hitler and Benito Mussolini to heel. He surrounded himself with like-minded advisers and refused to heed anyone who told him otherwise.

In the months leading up to World War II, Chamberlain and his men saw little need to build up a strong coalition of European allies with which to confront Nazi Germany -- ignoring appeals from Churchill and others to fashion a "Grand Alliance" of nations to thwart the threat that Hitler posed to the continent.

Unlike Bush and Chamberlain, Churchill was never in favor of his country going it alone. Throughout the 1930s, while urging Britain to rearm, he also strongly supported using the newborn League of Nations -- the forerunner to today's United Nations -- to provide one-for-all-and-all-for-one security to smaller countries. After the League failed to stop fascism's march, Churchill was adamant that, to beat Hitler, Britain must form a true partnership with France and even reach agreement with the despised Soviet Union, neither of which Chamberlain was willing to do.

Like Bush, Chamberlain also laid claim to unprecedented executive authority, evading the checks and balances that are supposed to constrain the office of prime minister. He scorned dissenting views, both inside and outside government. When Chamberlain arranged his face-to-face meetings with Hitler in 1938 that ended in the catastrophic Munich conference, he did so without consulting his cabinet, which, under the British system, is responsible for making policy. He also bypassed the House of Commons, leading Harold Macmillan, a future Tory prime minister who was then an anti-appeasement MP, to complain that Chamberlain was treating Parliament "like a Reichstag, to meet only to hear the orations and to register the decrees of the government of the day."

As was true of Bush and the Republicans before the 2006 midterm elections, Chamberlain and his Tories had a large majority in the Commons, and, as Macmillan noted, the prime minister tended to treat Parliament like a lapdog legislature, existing only to do his bidding. "I secretly feel he hates the House of Commons," wrote one of Chamberlain's most fervent parliamentary supporters. "Certainly he has a deep contempt for Parliamentary interference."

Churchill, on the other hand, revered Parliament and was appalled by Chamberlain's determination to dominate the Commons in the late 1930s. Churchill considered himself first and foremost "a child" and "servant" of the House of Commons and strongly believed in the legislature's constitutional role to oversee the executive (even when, after becoming prime minister, he often railed against MPs who criticized him). In August 1939, when Chamberlain rammed through a two-month parliamentary adjournment just weeks before the war began, Churchill -- then still a backbencher -- exploded with anger in the House, calling the prime minister's move "disastrous," "pathetic" and shameful." He encouraged his anti-appeasement colleagues to mount similar attacks against Chamberlain, and when one of them, Ronald Cartland, called the prime minister a dictator to his face in the same debate, Churchill congratulated Cartland with an enthusiastic, "Well done, my boy, well done!"

Likewise, Churchill almost certainly would look askance at the Bush administration's years-long campaign to shut down public debate over the "war on terror" and the conflict in Iraq -- tactics markedly similar to Chamberlain's attempts to quiet his opponents. Like Bush and his aides, Chamberlain badgered and intimidated the press, restricted journalists' access to sources and claimed that anyone who dared criticize the government was guilty of disloyalty and damaging the national interest. Just as Bush has done, Chamberlain authorized the wiretapping of citizens without court authorization; Churchill was among those whose phones were tapped by the prime minister's subordinates.

Churchill, by contrast, believed firmly in the sanctity of individual liberties and the need to protect them from government encroachment. That's not to say that he was never guilty of infringing on them himself. In June 1940, when a Nazi invasion of Britain seemed imminent, he ordered the internment of more than 20,000 enemy aliens living on British soil, most of them refugees from Hitler's and Mussolini's fascist regimes. But as the invasion scare abated over the next few months, the vast majority were released, also by his order. "The key word in any understanding of Winston Churchill is the simple word 'Liberty,' " wrote Eric Seal, Churchill's principal private secretary during the early years of the war. "He intensely disliked, and reacted violently against, all attempts to regiment and dictate opinion. . . . He demanded for himself freedom to follow his own star, and he stood out for a like liberty for all men."

Writing about Churchill and Chamberlain, I've discovered, is like administering a Rorschach test to one's readers. People see in Churchill and Chamberlain what they want to see. They draw parallels between the 1930s and the events of today according to their own political philosophy. I've received congratulatory letters and e-mails from people who see similarities between the current U.S. woes in Iraq and Chamberlain's disastrous conduct of the so-called phony war in 1939-40. But I've also gotten fan mail from readers who favorably compare the Tory rebels' courageous fight against Chamberlain to the Bush administration's campaign against those opposing the Iraq war. Among those who've written me in praise of the book are Bush adviser Karl Rove and Howard Wolfson, the communications director of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign.

The president no doubt has his own Churchill. "He was resolute," Bush has remarked. "He was tough. He knew what he believed." But Churchill would snort, I believe, at the administration's equation of "Islamofascism," an amorphous, ill-defined movement of killers forced to resort to terrorism by their lack of military might, to Nazi Germany, a global power that had already conquered several countries before Churchill took office in 1940. Still, key members of the Bush administration have compared critics of the wars on terrorism and in Iraq to the appeasers of the 1930s, thus implicitly equating their boss and themselves to Churchill and the "troublesome young men" who helped bring him to power. During bleak days in Iraq, the administration's hawks can be forgiven for hoping that history will show them to be as far-sighted about a gathering storm as Churchill was in the 1930s.

But history has its own ways, and we cannot make the long-dead titans we admire give us their modern blessing. As the world's two most prominent and powerful democracies, the United States and Britain had a responsibility to serve as exemplars of democracy for the rest of the world, Churchill believed. But to be fitting role models, he argued, both countries had to do their best to ensure that the "title deeds of freedom" were strongly safeguarded within their own boundaries. "Let us preach what we practice," he declared in his 1946 "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton, Mo. "But let us also practice what we preach."

Click title for source.

Tags: Bush, Churchill, WWII, Iraq war, war on terror