Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
George W Bush – prospects for the sixth year
Kerryn Higgs, Webdiary's American correspondent, is a Webdiary columnist. Her last post was Bush rewrites history. This is Kerryn's first contribution for 2006. Thanks Kerryn, and good to hear from you again.
by Kerryn Higgs
As George W Bush embarks on his sixth year in office, it’s anybody’s guess whether his administration’s egregious misrepresentations, misjudgements and (quite probably) crimes will end up carrying any penalty. We will perhaps be able to gauge the electoral implications with the midterm Congressional elections this November, though it should always be remembered that the US electoral system, which has become heavily reliant on unaudited electronic voting machines, is vulnerable to vote-tampering.
Though the trial of ex-Cheney Chief of Staff ‘Scooter’ Libby has been pushed out beyond these elections to January 2007, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s inquiry continues. Whether White House fixer Karl Rove faces indictment or Vice-President Cheney is under investigation remains unknown. Court documents released recently indicate that Libby’s defence could involve the claim that his ‘superiors’ authorised him to reveal the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame – a reference, one would imagine, to his boss Dick Cheney.
Cheney’s blunder in the quail-shooting woods at the weekend, by the way, is not expected to carry serious consequences, especially since his victim, seventy-eight year old Republican fundraiser Harry Whittington, seems likely to survive the friendly fire to his face and chest. At worst, Cheney’s failure to get a Texas bird-hunting permit may draw a ‘caution’.
Polls continue to show that Bush’s approval rating rarely rises above 40% - and that the public is weary of the war on Iraq. Nonetheless his studied self-image as commander-in-chief of a nation “at war” continues to mesmerise much of the post-9/11 American public. Polls show that the myth of Republican superiority in matters of national security is wearing well.
On the warrantless wiretapping issue, people are evenly split, indicating the success of the administration’s claim that the program was directed solely at calls to and from al Qaeda and suggesting that many Americans are oblivious to infringements of their civil liberties.
According to TruthOut correspondent Jason Leopold, thousands of US citizens have been caught up in these wiretaps, including at least one officer at the State Department. (One has to wonder why al Qaeda was calling the State Department – or vice versa.)
The Democratic opposition is fractured between its own base, bitterly opposed to the war from the outset, and most of its leadership, who either supported regime change in Iraq or are afraid that pull-out language will only compound their image as inadequate defenders of the US people. If these divisions persist, it is hard to see the Democrats recapturing the House and/or Senate in November.
For those of us who have carefully watched the entire sorry drama unfolding since the September 2001 attacks, Bush’s ability to maintain the edge on security is a mystery in itself. After all, it was Bush who ignored counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke’s frustrated demands for action on al Qaeda throughout 2001 and several specific warnings during the summer of 2001 (See my webdiary article here). It was Bush who pulled vital US forces out of Afghanistan before the place was secured, in order to divert them to Iraq – a country totally unrelated to al Qaeda, bin Laden or 9/11. And it is the Iraq invasion that has provided a new venue for al Qaeda recruiting and fueled a rising tide of anti-Americanism worldwide.
Last week I saw Eugene Jarecki’s new documentary, Why We Fight, which examines the ongoing influence of the US “military-industrial complex” on US decisions to go to war. One of the most compelling people Jarecki interviewed was a New York ex-cop and Vietnam vet whose son died in the World Trade Centre; this man backed the war to the hilt until he found out recently that Saddam had nothing to do with it.
The key to Bush’s success as protector seems to be the administration’s fabulous PR job – a credit to the White House Iraq Group which set out to sell the Iraq war as a “new product”. We had Judith Miller’s front-page WMD stories in the (supposedly liberal) New York Times, superbly-timed appeals to mushroom-cloud hysteria, far-fetched claims that drones might shower the US with chemicals, and Colin Powell’s smoke and mirrors presentation at the UN in February 2003.
The administration ran an irresistible advertising campaign. By the time of the invasion, most Americans believed in Iraq’s WMDs and the fictional connections between Saddam and Osama – most even thought Iraqis were amongst the hijackers! Even now, after belated counter-statements from various officials, including the President, a significant minority still do.
Many of us smelled a rat early on and watched in trepidation as the “facts were fixed around the policy”. Since then, a flood of evidence for this interpretation has reached the public sphere, including numerous leaked Downing Street memos confirming that the course was set long before the decision was announced.
The latest of these memos is revealed in the new edition of Philippe Sands’ Lawless World, which describes a meeting between Bush, Blair and their aides in late January 2003. Worried that they weren’t going to get their war resolution through the Security Council (they were right there), Bush proposed painting a US spy-plane in UN colours and trying to tempt Saddam to shoot it down, providing a pretext for retaliation. The war was “pencilled in” on Bush’s calendar for March 10 and he intended to go ahead, with or without the UN.
Last week, Paul Pillar, ex-CIA analyst in charge of Middle East assessments, published a scathing critique of the administration’s cavalier approach to intelligence in Foreign Affairs.
Like Pentagon policy officer Karen Kwiatkowski, who watched the Office of Special Plans at close range from her post on the Pentagon Middle East desk, Pillar was in a position to observe the CIA process first hand. What he concluded was that the administration’s motivations for the war had nothing to do with the actual intelligence on Iraq.
If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war – or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath. What is most remarkable about pre-war US intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important US policy decisions in recent decades.
...
Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war. On the issue that mattered most, the intelligence community judged that Iraq probably was several years away from developing a nuclear weapon...
The Bush administration deviated from the professional standard not only in using policy to drive intelligence, but also in aggressively using intelligence to win public support for its decision to go to war. This meant selectively adducing data – “cherry-picking” – rather than using the intelligence community's own analytic judgments…
But the greatest discrepancy between the administration's public statements and the intelligence community's judgments concerned… the relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. The enormous attention devoted to this subject did not reflect any judgment by intelligence officials that there was or was likely to be anything like the "alliance" the administration said existed. The reason the connection got so much attention was that the administration wanted to hitch the Iraq expedition to the "war on terror" and the threat the American public feared most, thereby capitalising on the country's militant post-9/11 mood.
A majority of US citizens now believe they were lied to before the war – but whether this will affect their votes in November is an open question. By then, it may be that the publicity machine will have focused their attention elsewhere.
Among the key factors which will influence the fate of the Bush administration (and the rest of us) is the extent to which the American people continue to accept the President as their best bet against the threats of terrorism – something well understood by the Republican Party itself. Doug Thompson of Capitol Hill Blue wrote last November that a confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders described the possibility of a new terrorist attack as “blue sky thinking”.
The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President’s war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow.”
Evidently, some Republicans would count a further terrorist strike as a stroke of luck.
It was in this spirit, no doubt, that “new details” of a 2002 terrorist attack on the tallest building in Los Angeles were unveiled by the President last week. Bush got the name of the tower wrong, intelligence professionals expressed scepticism and the mayor of LA promptly slammed the President for releasing information without briefing the city first.
Bush announced that a shoe-bomber was to blow open the cockpit door of a plane. But, as one journalist pointed out to Press Secretary Scott McClellan, it is hard to see how such a tactic would work without either incinerating the shoe-bomber or blowing the front off the plane – either of which would presumably compromise the alleged hijacking. However flawed the claim, it was amplified in the heartland by the shock jocks and represents the ongoing management of Bush’s credibility by skilled public relations tactics – focusing attention back on 9/11, the lynchpin of his security ploy.
Scoring a domestic attack would rely on mere “luck” again. Back in 2001, Bush, who had promised to run an overall budget surplus, except in the event of recession, war or national emergency told his budget director Mitch Daniels, "Lucky me. I hit the trifecta."
The launching of a new overseas exploit, however, lies well within the power of the administration. On this, the signs are ominous. Iran got a spot in the “axis of evil” in 2002 and reports of an actual plan of attack date back at least a year. (see my Webdiary article, The trouble with Iran.)
In November 2005, The New York Times reported details of a US briefing to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), using a laptop which purported to prove Iran was building nuclear warheads (archived here). The Times noted that no-one was told where the laptop came from, except that the supplier had since died:
American officials, citing the need to protect their source, have largely refused to provide details of the origins of the laptop computer beyond saying that they obtained it in mid-2004 from a longtime contact in Iran.
Numerous experts have challenged the laptop evidence:
"I can fabricate that data," a senior European diplomat said of the documents. "It looks beautiful, but is open to doubt…" Several intelligence experts said that a sophisticated Western spy agency could, in theory, have produced the contents of the laptop. But American officials insisted there was no evidence of such fraud.
Given the Bush administration’s relationship to the Niger forgeries – at best inept credulity, more likely intentional fraud – it would seem wise to take such reassurances with a grain of salt. However, when the IAEA voted last week to report Iran to the Security Council, it turned out that the decision had been based, (at least “in part”) on the laptop of unknown provenance.
Meanwhile, reports keep surfacing that the US, or possibly Israel, is ready to launch a devastating attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In the absence of a capitulation, the Security Council will consider the matter in early March. Iran warns that it will retaliate if attacked.
An attack on Iran would signify a new escalation in the downward spiral of world security. If Bush’s PR machine thinks the tactic will work for him, we will witness such an attack – and all of us will have to deal with the consequences.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Iraqi war-dissident assassinated
"There is now a systematic campaign to assassinate Iraqis who speak out against the occupation." Thanks to Sol Salbe for this link from the Guardian:
Death of a Professor
[extract]
Why We Fight.
The video of Why We Fight can be found here.
US impressions
Kerryn, although my experience in the US is now 20 years old, I have to agree with Roger's assessment of the importance of the US' place in the world to the majority of Americans. As the receptionist at our embassy in Washington, I regularly dealt with people who were flabbergasted to learn (usually quite late in the process of making travel arrangements) that they required a visa to enter Australia. "But I'm an American citizen!" was the usual retort, as though that should set everything straight. I was sometimes astounded by the arrogance I met. But of course that wasn't everyone and I met some truly wonderful people too.
Along with the sense of being the greatest, many Americans have felt an attached responsibility and, although there is some reluctance involved, there is a real perception that the US has a duty to be "the world's policeman". Given that very few Americans seem to learn much about the world outside their borders in school, I think this is very dangerous, especially if that ignorance has not been overcome comprehensively in their leadership. And there is bewilderment when their "policing" efforts are not appreciated.
But I'm interested to learn from Roger that the possibility of the loss of their pre-eminence is now being widely felt. If only they (and we) could understand how much good could be achieved by giving away some power, especially economic strangleholds.
C Parsons and Jay White:
C Parsons and Jay White, you both seem completely unaware of the US electoral machinery and its problems. If you’re serious about any debate on this question, check out the links provided in Andrew O’Connell’s post.
In Australia we have a non-partisan electoral commission, we write our votes on paper and actual people count our votes under scrutiny. I regard scrutiny as an essential safeguard of any democratic process. I have no doubts about Australian electoral outcomes at any time in my lifetime – not sure about you, since you seem to be arguing that the electoral outcomes here in the US are comparable with those in Australia. Jay White’s prescription to examine the reasons for the result, and work out better policies, is spot on where Australia is concerned.
But it’s illogical to conflate these two very different systems. The fact is that the votes here in the US are counted by the software of private companies like Diebold, with absolutely no oversight and no way of checking the result. Anyone who uses Windows knows that hacking is child's play – Windows users are under endless attack. I support paper ballots and human scrutiny.
The system here in the US is absolutely unaccountable. I’m puzzled. Do you support an unaccountable electoral system in Australia – or anywhere? I certainly do not. Whether votes are being hacked or not, the fact is that the US system is vulnerable. I do not think that the answer is for Democrats to counter-hack, which seems to be what you suggest. Are you serious about democracy? Doesn’t seem so.
Roger Fedyk, your sense of the difference between our culture and the US is really interesting. I, too, think we are quite different cultures, but had not considered that the sense of being "the greatest" was a critical factor with Americans. I always insist to people here that the key difference is that Australia is basically secular, that we don’t have to deal with fundamentalists to such a degree. But it’s certainly true that we are on the margins and they elect the leader of the "free world".
Maybe A Unique Perspective
Hi Kerryn, as circumstance should have it, I have more that a passing familiarity with the US electoral system. Through my computer programming consultancy I provide software services to the City of Philadelphia and seven of the counties in the State of New Jersey that deal with the verification of voters at election time. This involves legislation that allows those bodies to automatically collect electronic signatures and residential details from the DMV when a person renews their driving licence.
The City of Philadelphia and the counties I deal with would dearly love to take on the Diebold voting machines because of the substantial cost savings (if they can get a suitable deal); however, the local political organisations are leery of moving people from one system to another. Currently there is also some concern over whether the votes collected from these machines could not be thrown out completely by a Supreme Court challenge in a closely fought ballot.
As to the slightly hidden bombast, it got driven home under the influence of a glass of red or two. Our limited understanding of our place in the world due to our physical insularity. As an economist working with Bechtel once said to me in Houston, "Australia could slip beneath the waves of the Pacific and we would not even notice that you were gone". At the time Australia/New Guinea contributed 0.3% to Bectel's bottom line.
Roger Fedyk "the secret
Roger Fedyk: "the secret to being a half-decent political commentator is to have some knowledge of the historical facts".
What you mean like say Alan Ramsay?
"It has not been so long ago that I don't see how you have forgotten. Do you remember that prior to Howard's election to office, Australia had a Labour Government for 23 years? From 1983 to 1996, in case you have forgotten the dates. The Coalition were just hopeless as a political force".
Well actually it was not 23 years, 1983-1996 is 13 years. [Craig R Ed.: Roger realised and posted a correct to that before this comment was published] somebody called Malcolm Fraser came in between the fun times, but given him I accept your drift. The problem Labor faces is that too many people do remember them in government. Yes, including State and Territory Governments.
"Between the Bush's we had an 8 year term of a Democratic administration".
Yep, people remember only too fondly those years aswell. That, however, comes up when his wife wishes to carry the torch.
"That means that your triumphalist Conservative jig is more than a little misplaced".
Not really, my side apparently rigs elections. My gig under those circumstances could go on for the rest of my life.
"These things are cyclic in case you haven't noticed".
Not when elections are rigged there are not. At this rate both Republicans and Liberals could well defeat the Castro record, holding elections and all.
"Australians thought that Labor was doing a great job for a long while".
Who? Either there was lax mental health or free alcohol. I fall back on the fact of obvious vote rigging.
"However, just wait a while and it will all reverse".
What vote rigging? Are democrats learning hacking lessons?
"A political scientist will tell you why but I think your smart enough to work those things out for yourself, so cut the crap".
Yes, Alan Ramsay told me who would win, however I did not listen, lucky me. I might be full of crap, however it did not cost me anything, in fact I gained, lucky me?
C Parsons
C Parsons: "Yes, it's always a good idea to get your alibis in early, Kerryn".
It sure is although I am at a loss to see what the benefit would be. I would think the best course of action after any electoral defeat would be to critically look at why the defeat and attempt to correct the situation through sound policy.
Running about with nut job conspiracy theories is hardly likely to reverse the situation now is it? It appears Australian Labor supporters and American Democrats are joined at the hip when it comes to failure. Gee, at this rate it would make one think conservatives are planting many of these diversion stories themselves. The saddest part is that they don't have to. The left does the job of destroying itself better than any opponent ever could.
The biggest giggle I got out of the whole 2004 election whopping handed to the Democrats was the Michael Moore farce. Running off down to Florida camera in hand capturing the easy Republican victory. So much for the anger resulting from the 2000 forged election, priceless!
I have said it before and I will say it again: lefties exist solely for the amusement of others. By the way, how many Presidential elections has the dictatorship of United States held since Fidel Castro came to power? Shhh, best not talk about that.
Get A Grip
Jay, the secret to being a half-decent political commentator is to have some knowledge of the historical facts. It has not been so long ago that I don't see how you have forgotten. Do you remember that prior to Howard's election to office, Australia had a Labor Government for 13 years? From 1983 to 1996, in case you have forgotten the dates. The Coalition were just hopeless as a political force.
Between the Bushes we had an 8 year term of a Democratic administration. That means that your triumphalist Conservative jig is more than a little misplaced. These things are cyclic in case you haven't noticed. Both here and in the rest of the democratic world the governments move from one political persuasion to another. Australians thought that Labor was doing a great job for a long while. Also, in case it has also escaped your attention, every state and territory government is currently a Labor one.
However, just wait a while and it will all reverse. A political scientist will tell you why but I think you're smart enough to work those things out for yourself, so cut the crap.
Apologies
Yet it moves
Jay White: "I would think the best course of action after any electoral defeat would be to critically look at why the defeat and attempt to correct the situation through sound policy."
That would require such a rending in the fabric of the known political philosophical universe it would be roughly equivalent to the Copernican Revolution.
Latham has all the answers
Kerryn Higgs: ".....though it should always be remembered that the US electoral system, which has become heavily reliant on unaudited electronic voting machines, is vulnerable to vote-tampering."
Yes, it's always a good idea to get your alibis in early, Kerryn.
After all, the confident predictions of "regime change" being boasted prior to the recent elections in the USA, Britain and Australia proved embarrassingly wide of the mark when the actual results came in, didn't they?
So placing a bob each way would be wise.
I personally think it might be a good idea to actually wait for the election before analysing the result.
So, let's meet back here in November, hey?
Anyway, I'd like to quote Alan Ramsey, perhaps one of Australia's most respected academic political analysts and commentators, just a couple of days before the last Federal election here in Australia;
Yup. That pretty well summed up the situation at the time.
Memory Attention Span (Or Deficit)
CP, I refer you to my comment to Jay White. When you give us a reasoned analysis instead of bombast, it may be illuminating to read what you say.
Politics is not about what you remembered happened last week, month, year. The political history of Australia stretches over 105 years and it is not, as much as you apparently hope, a story about Conservative triumph. Perhaps you would like to comment on why when Australia actually went to war as a nation it turned to a Labor Government, both times, to lead it. Then you could turn your attention to Menzies (small 'l' liberal) and compare his actual policies with the policies of both today's Labor and Australian Democrats and Howard's Liberals.
I would also refer you to what I wrote in my comment "It's a Different World". Perhaps you would like to make a comment on that as well.
Look forward to hearing from you.
1941
It's the marketing.
What we've seen over the past few decades is the realisation by political parties, in Australia and the US at least, that they don't really need to enunciate or demonstrate a particularly consistent political philosophy to win elections. The most successful present their man in the same way that advertisers and marketers present any product. Focus groups, market research, propaganda. Does anyone really believe that Coke can teach the world to sing? All it really does is rot your teeth and make you fat. Yet hundreds of millions of us go out and buy the image that we've been sold. The marketers of politicians have the added advantage of being able to attack their competitors and it doesn't really seem to matter whether the allegations they make are true or not.
Bush and his handlers have been spectacularly successful at creating an image that bears no relationship to how he actually is or what he actually does. What madness is it to believe that the man who ignored all the warnings about 9/11, sat like a stunned rabbit as it occurred and then allowed the man who was supposedly behind it to escape is the best person to keep you secure? Howard is the same. Millions of Australians trust him to do the right thing by them, yet any analysis of Howard's actions show that everything he does is for him, the big end of town or the scary US neoconservative crew he and his party have cuddled up to.
It Is A Different World
Having lived in the US for eight years and regularly returning there for business I have my own perspectives on Bush's success. I happened to be in the US for the whole period of the Iraqi invasion and the media beatup was relentless and jingoistic.
As wonderfully hospitable most Americans are, they are a people with more differences than points of commonality to ourselves. The Left/Right divisions don't approach anywhere near the polarisation that we have in Australia. The parallels between Labour/Liberal and Democrat/Republican don't hold up over most of the political issues.
The effect upon the American psyche of being the richest and most powerful nation on earth is beyond the capacity of most Australians to understand. We have never experienced the euphoria, machismo and thinly disguised bullying power of the US as citizens. The best we can do is kick around the Pacific Island nations.
Irrespective of their political persuasion the majority of Americans have no intention of relinquishing their emminent status. The Bush braggadocio plays so well in the US because George W is not a new political phenomenon, he is a throwback to the old-style of American politician. The ones that elected him don't see the inarticulate buffoon that the rest of the world sees. They see their own 'good ole boy' in the White House. They would rather have the Will Rogers homespun style than any other. It is a culture that they intimately understand. It is their own, born-and-bred.
But there is something else going on at a deeper level. There is an repressed fear permeating America. Something darker and unspoken, for in their private moments most Americans do realise that their time in the sun is coming to an end and any politician that can forestall that awful day is embraced, dull-wit or not. Bush does not espouse a vital new American philosophy. He is drawing the waggons around the US that most Americans want to keep. This scenario will play out until mid-century when China overtakes the US. Then there may be a swift decline of the American empire in much the same way that the British Empire's death throes played out from 1918 to 1948 when Indian independence saw the whole colonial edifice crumble.
And there is a lesson to be learnt from the British demise by the Americans. The two World wars bankrupted England. It was not until the late 1980s that England finally threw off the financial burden that those wars imposed. History's lessons are, that an empire is really at its weakest when it believes that it is at its strongest, because at that time foolishly fatal and financially weakening decisions will be made. Iraq may well prove to be the last hurrah for a rampant USA.
What does parallel the US experience in Australia, however, is our own hidden fear that we are in a world where our destiny is not our own to make. The real reason for Australians embracing Howard is that we desperately need to believe what ever he tells us. The truth is the first casualty of our desperation.
Bush as protector
There was a real cognitive dissonance for him, I think he knew he was being sold a pup, but couldn't admit it to himself. Finally the real reason he (and millions of other Americans) voted for Bush.
They are frightened. Bush, Fox news and the rest of his cabal have convinced them that there are big bad boogymen out there who hate their "freedom" and want nothing other than to kill them all. Somehow he's also managed to fool them into believing that only he can protect them.
Bush and his cohorts successfully duped a significant number of the US population into believing that Saddam was out to get them. They have committed the US to continuous war and have Iran firmly in their sights. Using the levers of fear, they're about to prove that the US population can get fooled again. I try not to think of the consequences for the rest of us.
Jay, if you really want to learn more about Diebold and vote tampering have a look here. In 2003 Paul Krugman in the New York Times said
George W Bush
"As George W Bush embarks on his sixth year in office, it’s anybody’s guess whether his administration’s egregious misrepresentations, misjudgements and (quite probably) crimes will end up carrying any penalty. We will perhaps be able to gauge the electoral implications with the mid-term Congressional elections this November, though it should always be remembered that the US electoral system, which has become heavily reliant on unaudited electronic voting machines, is vulnerable to vote-tampering".
This has to be one of the confused starts to a article regarding a President's prospects I have ever read. How will we gauge the 2006 year if on the one hand Republicans win Congressional elections it is because of vote tampering? One the other hand if Bush loses vote tampering has gone poorly so therefore it is a bad year?
Anyhow just one thing on the link provided it says "A political operative with hacking skills could alter the results of any election on Diebold-made voting machines - and possibly other new voting systems in Florida - according to the state capital's election supervisor, who said Diebold software has failed repeated tests."
Well okay say Diebold machines in Florida and elsewhere can be "hacked," is it proven Democrat operatives have zero "hacking" skills? What is there stopping them changing results?
I also was not aware Diebold voting machines were used for poll results? So imagine my surprise reading this"
I thought Republicans merely relied on rigging elections? Why bother with PR and the like?