Rep. Jane Harman teamed up today with Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) to editorialize in the Wall Street Journal on why Bush isn’t so bad The Limits of Intelligence.  Leaving aside the hilarious range of jokes afforded by the title, it’s a nearly letter-perfect exculpation for the Bush Administration.  To hear Reps. Harman and Hoekstra tell it, the information produced from the Intelligence community is inherently flawed and suspect.  As a result, any conclusion could be right or wrong at any given point and assigning a value judgment is just silly:

Still, intelligence is in many ways an art, not an exact science. The complete reversal from the 2005 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear-weapons program to the latest NIE serves as its own caution in this regard. The information we receive from the intelligence community is but one piece of the puzzle in a rapidly changing world. It is not a substitute for policy, and the challenge for policy makers is to use good intelligence wisely to fashion good policy.

Or in other words, sure it looks like Harman, Hoekstra and the President totally dropped the ball on this over the course of three full years of Iran-focused hawkish rhetoric that apparently had no basis in reality, but that’s just how it works.  And now that it’s been completely disproven, rather than admit an error, we’re simply going to blame the evidence.  It’s been said that a good craftsman never blames his tools, and this may be the best demonstration in quite some time.  Caught with their pants down the first time, it turns out that the assessment has always been correct no matter what the actual research or evidence might say, and we’re all best served just ignoring the inconvenient evidence and running with the stuff that we like.  I liked this outlook best when it was justifying the invasion of Iraq, but I guess the classics never really die.

After her primary challenge last year, I was hopeful that Harman’s hawkish tendencies would soften.  And in many ways, we’ve gotten that.  Despite protestations that “Jane Harman hasn’t changed” since declaring herself “The Best Republican in the Democratic Party,” her votes on the war have gotten better- in fits and starts- over the past year.  But lately she’s been trying to play thought police and now trying to justify a belligerent stance on Iran by legitimizing the same insanity that got us into Iraq.  In 2002, the selective application of intelligence and deliberate misinformation to support a pre-established policy goal went on behind closed doors and, eventually, really pissed people off.  Oh, and it also needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of people, bankrupted the country, further destabilized the Middle East and destroyed the nation’s international credibility.  But this time we’re going to tell you to your face that we’re feeding a predetermined policy and tell you that it’s the only reasonable way to decide anything.  Only the crazy irrational fringe would be swayed by actual evidence.

Perhaps the saddest part is that this whole article goes beyond political outrage and comes off as Rep. Harman’s “I drive a Dodge Stratus!” moment.  She got passed over to Chair the House Intelligence Committee after Democrats retook the House, getting the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence instead.  This sure does come off as a half-bitter, half-desperate attempt to reclaim relevance by grabbing a headline.  Maybe her tendency to undermine the party in support of hawking an antagonistic foreign policy is why Rep. Silvestre Reyes is chairing the Intelligence Committee today.  I’m just speculating there of course, but it’s tough to come up with a positive reading of this editorial, particularly when it finally boils down to “The government is telling you Iran is dangerous even though the government has established that Iran is not dangerous”:

Though the new NIE may be taken as positive news, Iran clearly remains dangerous. The combination of international pressure, economic sanctions and the presence of U.S. troops on Iran’s borders may have indeed convinced Tehran to abandon its nuclear-weapons program, as the NIE states with “high confidence.” Nevertheless, Congress must engage in vigorous oversight — to challenge those who do intelligence work, and to make site visits to see for ourselves.

This line of crap flew in 2002 and 2003 because Democrats like Jane Harman pushed it and there wasn’t a clear and recent debacle to prove how wrong-headed it was to its core.  There’s no excuse now.

Cross posted to DailyKos

Long before it was “popular”, John Edwards was calling for a New Strategy for Iran (and the War on Terror in general)

Long before the NIE Report, threw water on the GOP’s fiery rhetoric about the looming dangers of Iran, Edwards was saying we must learn the lessons of the Iraq War — NOT Repeat them in Iran!

Long before the cynical Rumsfeld Memos were leaked (proving Edwards right), John Edwards was busy “reframing” the Global War on Terror, calling it “a ‘bumper sticker’ slogan Bush had used to justify everything …”

Did Edwards get Media Attention and fanfare for his insightful and stateman-like leadership — NO, but he DID help to change the national conversation!

So Much so, that insiders in NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), seem to have taken his advice that: “We’ve got to stand up to Bush and Cheney and the Neocons …”

Even though Bush knew of the NIE Report Conclusions, as early as August this year:

At a press briefing this morning, President Bush said he was told by his Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell “in August” that “we have some new information” regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

In spite of knowing there was No imminent threat of Nukes from Iran, Bush continued to trump up the neocon agenda, of looking under chairs and in closets for the next generation of WMD’s (Weapons of Mass Delusion)!

Indeed as recently as mid Oct, Bush was raising the spectre of World War III:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President George W. Bush warned on Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III as he tried to shore up international opposition to Tehran amid Russian skepticism over its nuclear ambitions.

More “bumper sticker” sloganeering — no doubt! Thanks goodness for the voices of reason and sanity within the NIE, for deciding to go public, with there previously internal Report. True Patriots, I’d say, inside government, taking a stand against — more Neocon manipulation of the American People! Bravo!

So what were the Conclusions of the sea-change Report from the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)?

November 2007

National Intelligence Estimates (NIE)

Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

Key Judgments

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.

…

– We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years.

– We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

– We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.

– Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.

…

We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.

– We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.)

All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.

http://media.npr.org/documents… (pdf)

—-

So what are the implications for the Bush Agenda, and for those Presidential hopefuls, who want to pick up where Bush left off? NPR has a few thoughts on the implications this NIE news:

npr

NIE Report May Block Military Force Against Iran

by Mike Shuster

Morning Edition, December 5, 2007 – The emergence of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is presenting a major challenge to the policies of the Bush administration.

The report’s primary conclusion – that Iran halted a secret nuclear weapons program four years ago – appears to raise barriers to the use of military force against Iran and raise questions about whether economic sanctions are even justified.

…

President Defends Iran Policy

As justification for continuing his Iran policy, the president cited the NIE’s judgment that Iran chose to shut down its covert nuclear program in 2003 because of international pressure. The president said he wants that pressure to continue.

But in 2003, there were no economic sanctions against Iran. The U.S. refused to engage with Iran and dismissed the European decision to negotiate as fruitless.

…

Recently, the administration has been talking about even tougher sanctions, all the while suggesting the possibility of military attack.

But the first casualty of the NIE’s conclusions appears to be the military option. Many experts think it is impossible now. Bruce Riedel, who spent 30 years in the CIA, is among them. Riedel is a scholar with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

“There is no possible way that the United States could now use unilateral military force in the wake of this estimate. I don’t think the political calculus in this country or that of our allies abroad would tolerate it,” he said.

http://www.npr.org/templates/s…

—-

Interesting. And indeed hopeful. Maybe the world can begin to recover from the disastrous policy of endless preemptive war! Maybe America CAN return to our core values, that most of us believe, in afterall? Let hope so.

John Edwards has been calling for ENDING the policies of preemptive war and the application of “smart power”, as early as May of this year, and recently as November, in a Major Speech CNN’s Wolf Blitzer called “important”:

John Edwards: Situation Room-Nov 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

—-

Here’s are some of the key points of this important Edwards Foreign Policy speech. Funny how today’s current events, are once again proving, “John Edwards IS Right, again!”

Learning the Lesson of Iraq: A New Strategy for Iran

Nov 5, 2007

University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa



John Edwards:

This is a critical moment. As a nation, we stand today at a fork in the road with Iran. We have a real choice about the direction we’ll take. One path will replay the last seven years. It leads toward a dark future of belligerence, aggression, and war.

We need a new direction — one that will defuse the Iran threat, rather than aggravate it, one that will make America safer, not make the world more dangerous.

To understand exactly what the administration is trying to do with Iran, we need to go back to the beginning of the Bush Administration and look at how they took us to war with Iraq.

In the spring of 2002, the nation was struggling to recover from the devastating terrorist attacks of 9/11. At the same time, a group of Bush Administration neoconservatives, like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, were strategizing for ways to start a war with Iraq. And suddenly, instead of reacting to 9/11 by working to protect America from terrorists, they saw a political opportunity to promote their right-wing ideological agenda and demonize anyone who disagreed with them.

Here’s what you have to know about these neocons — they think might makes right, every time. They believe in domination, not debate. They think America should use our military power to impose our will wherever and whenever we want. They use a sledgehammer when we should use a scalpel.

And here’s what you need to know about George Bush’s foreign policy — it’s written by these neocons, lock, stock, and barrel.

So after 9/11, instead of focusing on the terrorist threat, George Bush started promoting a radical new neoconservative doctrine he called, quote, “preventive war” — which would soon become part of his argument for war in Iraq.

Here’s what they mean by preventive war — if we see a possible threat, we go to war; we don’t exhaust diplomatic, political, and economic options, we go straight to war. Under this Bush doctrine, military force is no longer the option of last resort.

…

Harry Truman once said, “There is nothing more foolish than to think that war can be stopped by war. You don’t ‘prevent’ anything other than peace.”

That’s exactly right. Think about it — you don’t prevent wars by starting them. It would be ridiculous if it weren’t so dangerous.

This George Bush policy instead is, almost literally, “shoot first, ask questions later.”

…

So let me be clear.

We should take Iran very seriously. And as commander-in-chief, if I ever learn that any nation is threatening an imminent attack, I will do what’s necessary to protect America.

But the one thing we absolutely should not be doing is launching another so-called “preventive war” with Iran. American and the world possess a powerful arsenal of diplomatic and economic options that have not yet been used, let alone exhausted.

…

We need, in short, a new strategy for Iran. My plan for Iran has five principles.

(1) End the doctrine of preventive war

First and foremost, we need to ensure that the preventive war doctrine goes where it belongs — the trash-heap of history. As he has done with so much else, Vice President Al Gore got it right about the preventive war doctrine.

…

(2) Use smart sanctions against Iran

The second principle is to use bolder and more targeted economic sanctions to force Iran’s leaders to understand that they cannot continue to buck the will of the international community without destroying their ability to be the modern, advanced nation they so desperately want to become.

There are smart sanctions that will achieve results, and there are reckless sanctions that will backfire and play into a policy of military attacks. The Bush-Cheney sanctions Senator Clinton supports are the most radical, unprecedented, and belligerent sanctions possible. These reckless sanctions will escalate tensions between the U.S. and Iran — the thing Bush and Cheney most want — and have other unintended consequences, such as higher oil prices.

…

(3) Offer carrot of possibility to re-join the world community

The third principle of my plan is to use “carrots” — diplomatic measures to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and re-join the world community. We should draw Iran into compliance through incentives including increased refinery capacity and a regional fuel bank that Iran could use for peaceful purposes.

And we need to use the possibility of bringing Iran into multilateral economic organizations, including the WTO, as a carrot for change.

…

(4) Open Diplomatic Communication with Iran

The fourth principle of my policy is to reengage with Iran.

Even Republicans like Senator Hagel are now urging the president to open up communications with Iran. Communication is not a concession. After all, we talked to our great enemy, the Soviet Union, at the height of tensions during the Cold War.

…

But we must always negotiate from a position of strength.

…

(5) Get other Nations to apply pressure

And the fifth and final principle is to reengage with other major nations on the challenge of Iran.

We must work with China and Russia on the problem of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Both nations have economic relationships with Iran on trade and energy. But both nations also have a strong interest in stability in the Middle East. And neither nation wants the nuclear club to expand. In the first year of my administration, I will convene a conference with my Secretary of State and representatives from the “E.U. 3” — Great Britain, France, and Germany — Russia, China and Iran, to discuss a way out of the stalemate of the Bush Administration.

The strategy I’ve described to you today is the right way to keep America strong while keeping the peace.

It is the right way to force Iran to forgo its nuclear ambitions.

And it is the right way to restore America’s historic role as a leader of the world community — through a combination of strength, vision, and reengagement with the world.

America needs a president who can guide America through a dangerous world, with the wisdom of history by our side.

America has gone through similar challenges before.

http://johnedwards.com/news/sp…

—-

Edwards’ smart, targeted, and visionary Foreign Policy are among the many reasons, he has my support, in his bid for President.

This new NIE Report should cause a few changes a few Cover Stories, both in the Administration and among some Presidential Hopefuls. The GOP Hopefuls were intending to run against the Bogey Man in Iran, against those “new” WMD — Weapons of Mass Delusion. And senator Clinton was planning on running by looking as tough as the GOP on Iran and Iraq, thus her support of the Kyle-Lieberman Vote.

NOW what will they do and say in light of the NIE Report? Anything?

Will any of them admit mistakes?

Will any of them take a more Humanitarian perspective, on Global problems as Edwards has long advocated for?

Or will Candidates do what they always do — and act like “Status Quo” Bureaucrats — ignoring the relevant Facts, and just continue with “Business as Usual”! … Pssst: Iran is NOT the “clear and present danger” you all were making it out to be!

We need to give 3rd world countries Hope — NOT Hate. America needs to pull the world’s citizens to our side of the fence — and NOT push them to the other side of the fence!

We need a Statesman like John Edwards, restoring the Moral Authority of America again, and not squandering it away with more preemptive misguided military intrusions!

Until America uses our power smartly, and stops all the bullying on the block, we will never be able to lead on other critical Global Issues like Global Warming, and Aids, and Tribal Conflicts, and poverty, and Hunger, and Thirst.

As a Country we ARE Better than what the World has seen lately — it’s high time we showed them, what most Americans are really about.

But that will take real progressive Leadership, who has those goals as the core of his agenda. IMO, that will take John Edwards at the helm.

 

“When taken in concert with the statements and actions of the Administration over the past year regarding Iran, the National Intelligence Estimate reveals a pattern of willful deceit directed at the U.S. Congress, the American people, and the rest of the world on the critical matters of war and peace.”

                        Dennis Kucinich

He also pointed out that this most recent revelation, of an Administration’s deaf ear to facts, shouldn’t surprise us:

“More than three months ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran was cooperating with inspection procedures and demanded that the Bush Administration disclose any alleged evidence regarding such a program. None was provided.  More than a month ago, Russian President Putin revealed findings by his own nation’s intelligence services and announced that there was no credible evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

“Yet, in the face of both sets of findings, this Administration continued its drumbeat for war. Just this past week, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, with the NIE in his hands, was trying to arm-twist our NATO allies and the Republic of China into pressuring the U.N. Security Council to impose additional sanctions on Iran because of its alleged weapons program.

As many of you know, Kucinich’s push for Impeachment has been concerned specifically with this Administration’s actions regarding intelligence for War; Iraq, as well as Iran. In fact, Article Three of the impeachment resolution reads:

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:

(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:

(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.’ March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.

(B) `But we’ve also made it clear that all options are on the table.’ January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.

(C) `When we–as the President did, for example, recently–deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.’ January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `But I’ve also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.’ February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.

(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:

(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.’ Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council’. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.

(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.’ Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:

(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.

(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.

(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.

(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.

(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.

(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution’s adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.

(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.’ Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.

(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.’ The threat of force is illegal.

(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.’ Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.

The Vice President’s deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President’s recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Kucinich pointed out that since it now seems publicly evident that the Administration willfully falsified the facts regarding their weapons program, it is now time for Congress to investigate the mater:

“I call on the Congress to launch an immediate investigation into what our intelligence agencies knew and when they knew it. I believe such an investigation will further build the case for the impeachment of both the President and the Vice President. The fact that  the President recently raised the specter of a possible World War III in public comments regarding Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program — when he knew full well that Iran had no such program – should seriously be considered as a high crime. And, the fact that he and his Vice President have pursued plans for our military to drop 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs on Iranian nuclear research facilities constitutes a war crime.”

And really how couldn’t you? Because I want to lay it down here: anyone who hopes to hold our highest office must support accountability for that office. It is time for our other candidates to join Kucinich in pushing for an investigation. Biden has seems to have started to firt with the idea, but we need the pressure from all of our Candidates. The more public and popular, the more pressure their statements will create. Where are they?

(not totally local, but I mentioned the Empower Change Summit yesterday, so I thought I’d update)

So I spent Saturday on the campus of UCLA, at the American Democracy Institute’s “Empower Change Summit,” a gathering of aorund 3,000 young people, to interact and discuss the ways in which they can be a force for social change.  The ADI describes itself as a nonpartisan organization built on shared values (though they are, to be honest, typically progressive), dedicated to being a leadership gateway, inspiring people to create change on their own in a bid to make democracy more relevant to people’s lives.  The desire for a new model of political engagement, one that exists both within and without the electoral sphere, which foregrounds values and principles and encourages public citizenship and the change we can make in our daily lives, is noble.  But it was unfortunately turned briefly into a world-class spin session during the closing speech by former President Bill Clinton.

John Hart, the CEO of the American Democracy Institute and a former official in the Clinton Administration, has put together several of these summits around the country.  They feature speakers and small-group “workshops” where peer leaders discuss the opportunities for involvement on a variety of subjects.  One of the workshops I attended concerned voter empowerment, where ADI members unveiled “I Vote, You Vote,” a social networking tool for voter registration and engagement that essentially brings peer-to-peer mobilization to the online sphere.  Considering that 54% of all voters in the youth demo, according to one poll, actually went out to vote because they were asked by a friend or family member, this is an exciting effort.  I was happy to see thousands of young people giving up their Saturday, united by their willingness to make a difference in new and innovative ways.

Obviously, the relationship between Hart and the Clintons (Hillary was the founding honorary chair of ADI) gives him the opportunity to add a real draw to the event.  So Bill Clinton’s closing address was heavily anticipated by those who files into Royce Hall.  The last time I saw Clinton speak was at a campaign event in Ann Arbor in 1992, so I shared this anticipation.

There’s a rough transcript here.  First of all, Clinton is an exceedingly brilliant man.  Without notes, he delivered a statistic-heavy speech about the challenges facing America and the world and how the next generation can help solve them.  It was a speech focused on big change, about the need to deal with persistent, enduring national and global inequality; to reverse unsustainable energy patterns and resource depletion; and to understand the fact that citizens are now more interconnected than any of us can manage, yet also prone to identity conflicts.  These are some of the topics that the Clinton Global Initiative seeks to counteract, through managing and “operationalizing” charitable giving into effective projects, like delivering AIDS drugs to the developing world, or green building and retrofitting projects in urban environments (there was a LOT about clean energy in the speech).  But he was adamant that citizen action and nongovernmental organizations cannot supplant the need for effective government.  He cited the example of Denmark, “governed by a conservative coalition,” who grew their economy by 50% with no additional energy use, and a reduction in greenhouse gases, while also having the lowest inequality in the developed world, because their focus on green jobs became an economic engine.  He discussed Ron Suskind’s book The One Percent Doctrine and the famous blind quote about “the reality-based community,” saying as a rejoinder “I spent my childhood in an alcoholic home, trying to get into the reality-based world, and I like it here.”  So it was a speech that was open about the challenges we face, but passionate about how we can leverage the energy and engagement of the next generation to meet them.  That requires being a good global citizen, by participating both in the political sphere and through civil society.

I give that much detail about the whole of the speech so you can understand how completely out of left field this next segment came, as I quote the rough transcript:

And one last thing: we’re working toward a presidential campaign.  But what you need to do is make sure the election is not taken from you by triviality.  I watched the debate for 2 hours.  And I didn’t mind Hillary being asked the immigration question, I minded that none of the other candidates were asked about it and had 30 seconds to respond.  And if we turn immigration into a 30-second sound bite, the politics of fear and division will win.  We have 12 million people here undocumented and most of them are working.  Nobody wants to discriminate against people who have come here legally, but you can’t throw out all those people either.  This is a mind-boggling problem.  And don’t you let them turn it into a 10-second soundbite.  And no president gives drivers licenses.  The states do that.  But that soundbite allows people to fulminate.  It’s a serious issue.  And climate change is a serious issue.  But I didn’t learn anything about climate change, education, healthcare, the most urgent domestic problem that most families face, about wage stagnation, about how our young people can afford college after deliberate government policies making it harder to afford college-right now, you have a better chance of going to college if you’re at the top 25% of your income group and the bottom 25% of your class than the other way around, and less if it’s vice versa.  No matter who you are, this is your life, and there will never be a time when citizen action can supplant the need for effective government.

The transcript misses one incredibly crucial part of that.  Before President Clinton said that he didn’t learn anything in the debate about climate change, education, etc. (which is a legitimate critique), he said that “I learned something in the debate about Iran.  I learned why to vote for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, and I learned why not to vote for it.  I learned that from Senator Biden, by the way, not from any of those who said that it could authorize the President to go to war.  It doesn’t authorize that, and everybody knows it.”

Let me again set the scene.  This was a speech at a nonpartisan event, given to a group of young people who obviously have a lot of enthusiasm for Bill Clinton, and look up to him as an authority figure.  I found it completely inappropriate for him to turn what was an interesting speech into what you might hear on a conference call with Mark Penn.  Furthermore, note the “listen to your elders, I know better” tone here.  After citing voluminous statistics throughout the speech, Clinton waves away legitimate concerns about the Kyl-Lieberman vote with a dismissive “It doesn’t authorize that, and everybody knows it.”  No reasons, no citation of the actual text, just a nod to “what Senator Biden said” without explicitly stating what it was.  Here’s the first thing Biden said.

Joe Biden: Well, I think it can be used as declaration.

Biden went on to talk about how the vote caused a ripple effect of rising oil prices, driving moderates underground in Afghanistan and Pakistan, perpetuating the myth that America is on a crusade against Islam, but also about emboldening Bush to “make a move if he chooses to do so.”

There’s also the factor that Clinton’s position reflects a continued naive view of the machinations of George W. Bush.  Indeed, one of Bush’s key talking points during the Iraq debate was that the Congress voted 98-0 for regime change under the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.  What the Congress says obviously matters, and calling a sovereign nation’s Army a terrorist organization is unnecessarily combative.

But that’s a bit besides the point.  The fact is that Bill Clinton used his platform to very subtly and cleverly turn a nonpartisan speech into a campaign event.  Clinton is an asset that no other candidate has, someone who still holds the trust of the American people, particularly those for whom the absence of true Presidential leadership has made the heart grow fonder.  If he’s going to advocate on his wife’s behalf, which is absolutely his right, he should at least do it with some intellectual honesty, and he shouldn’t wrap a critique of the media as a whole into what he really explains as a critique of the media’s treatment of his preferred candidate.

Tuesday night in a nationwide phone call organized by Progressive Democrats of America, Dennis Kucinich reportedly announced:

he will go before the U.S. House of Representatives on a point of personal privilege to move the impeachment of Dick Cheney.  Mr. Kucinich stated he will bring the impeachment forward before Thanksgiving.

Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President, Dick Cheney, back in April. H.R. 333 consists of three articles of impeachment, with supporting examples:

1.) In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests

2.) In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests

3.) In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States

Kucinich also provided roughly 50 supporting documents for the articles, on his Congressional website.

Over 80 cities/towns have now passed impeachment resolutions, with 50 more pending, and major polls, such as Zogby, have indicated a majority of Americans support impeachment proceedings. However, the MSM and members of Congress have failed to listen to the American people.

H.R. 333 has picked up 21 cosponsors, far short of what is needed to start proceedings, and House Speaker Pelosi has continually insisted that impeachment is “off the table”.

But, as Kucinich holds nothing higher than his duties to defend the Constitution and represent the people of the United States, Kucinich is making sure that it gets back on. when asked about the Congress’ failures to protect the Constituion, at the San Mateo Presidential Straw Poll, Kucinich replied:

“If Congress did the right thing, they would be talking … about impeachment…

“I introduced House Resolution 333 because I heard from the American people and they said they wanted some response to make Dick Cheney accountable for the statements that he made that took us into a war based on lies. And the statements he made that would take us into a conflict against Iran. Again, more lies.

“The President is now openly invoking the specter of World War III with respect to Iran. He ought to be held accountable also. I’m the only member of Congress who stepped forward on the issue of making Dick Cheney accountable. And now we have 21 members who’ve joined me. That’s a step in the right direction. But I’m going to go beyond that. I’m going to call a privileged resolution, at which point, would force a vote — at least if it’s only on a procedural motion — members are going to have to confront this issue of impeachment. They’re not going to escape it. This is a question of defending our Constitution. It really is.“

Kucinich proves yet again his courage and leadership in Representative Democracy against fear and political calculation. He proves that he will not play party politics if it is against the interests of the United States and American citizens. He proves, again, his credentials for holding our highest office. Support Dennis Kucinich!

I hope you guys appreciate me, because I managed to get through the entire 90-minute debate for the June 26 primary in the 37th Congressional District to replace the late Juanita Millender-McDonald held on Thursday night.  11 Democrats were on stage, and because they were all given 2 minute opening statements, the debate really didn’t cover much ground.  But actually, the fact that the moderator was a clueless local news anchor from LA’s ABC7 who had virtually no connection to the district was a good thing, as the persistent issues of race played out in the media in the campaign were fairly nonexistent in the debate.

Detailed two-day-late debateblogging on the flip…

Let’s take a look at each candidate’s opening statement:

Ed Wilson: former mayor of Signal Hill, a small city in the district.  He immediately went after the whole ethnicity issue, saying “this is not a black seat or a white seat or a Hispanic seat, it’s your seat.”

Peter Matthews: He’s the PDA-endorsed candidate who has run for office many times, including challenging Millender-McDonald in a primary in 2006 (and getting 10,000 votes).  Matthews is running on the progressive issues on getting us out of Iraq, closing the inequality divide, providing single-payer universal health care, and restoring tax fairness.

Jenny Oropeza: The state Senator was strong on the war, saying “we need to get out of Iraq now.”  She talked about the environment, health care, revising NCLB, and needing to “turn around trade agreements” that sacrifice American job (that was cheering).  She closed with “You know my record,” playing off her experience serving the area.

Laura Richardson: Assemblywoman Richardson is also running on her record.  She kind of messed up her move from talking about Iraq to domestic issues, saying “I want to talk about the war in America” and then claiming that Al Qaeda is running rampant (I think she meant in Waziristan, not Long Beach).  Didn’t seem like much of a public speaker.

Valerie McDonald: The late Congresswoman’s daughter talked about her ties to the area, the need to keep families together in the black community, and the importance of education.

Bill Grisolia: He’s a longtime employee of Long Beach Memorial Health Center, so universal health care was one of his themes.  But he was at his most powerful discussing the war in Iraq, and his desire to cut funding except to bring our troops home.  He also tried to blunt the experience argument by saying “What have the electeds done for you?”

Mr. Evans: I forget his first name and it doesn’t matter.  He’s a far-right immigrant-hating loon who somehow was let into the Democratic primary.  He proudly namechecked Lou Dobbs in the first sentence of his statement and called himself a closed-borders candidate.  There is a sense in the black community that immigrants are in competition with them for low-paying jobs, but this was the most extreme out-and-out black bigot I’ve seen.

Alicia Ford: Spent her entire statement talking about something she did a decade ago that ABC7 didn’t cover, which made her bad.  Also actually said “In Compton, they are without… a lot of things.”  Stirring.

Lee Davis: Her whole statement decried the front-runner assumptions of the media, and said that “if the top three had any self-respect they’d leave this stage right now” to allow for equal access, and then actually WAITED for them to leave the stage.  They, er, didn’t.

George Parmer: a truck driver from Long Beach, the first to actually call for impeachment and call out the Democratic leadership for their sell-out on capitulation in Iraq.

Jeffrey Price: Talked mainly about lobbying and ethics reform.

Albert Robles: a write-in candidate in a 17-candidate field.  Best of luck to you.  I mean, if you can’t get the papers in on time…

The first question was on Iraq, and pretty much the entire field is committed to getting out now, so on that big issue, there’s not a lot of daylight and everyone is on the right side.  Peter Matthews went so far as to suggest that there ought to be impeachment investigations into lying us into war, and announced his support for HR 333, the impeachment of Dick Cheney.  The moderator actually did the “raise your hands” thing on the impeachment question, and I think 8 or 9 candidates raised their hands, including Jenny Oropeza (it was a wide shot on a postage stamp video window, so I could be wrong).  Mr. Evans, of course, kept calling the President the “commander-in-chief” and yelled at everybody for undermining him in a time of war.  I think there’s a place for him in the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

On Iran, Jenny Oropeza has sadly bought into the bullshit rhetoric that they are a threat to our national security and that all options have to be on the table regarding their nuclear program.  She also said that she thinks diplomacy has failed because this President is incapable of it.  Only Alicia Ford understood that Iran is not an imminent threat, but then she went on about how China is a threat to this country and how in Compton they don’t have “things.”

Transportation and port security was a major topic, with the Port of Long Beach in the district.  Most candidates supported efforts to green the ports, including State Sen. Alan Loewenthal’s $30 container fee for clean air proposal.  Peter Matthews pressed the need for public transit to aid a cleaner environment.  Valerie McDonald was good on this issue as well.  George Parmer, the trucker, maintained that many truckers own their equipment and can’t afford to modernize their trucks, and so some of the funds from the container fee should trickle down to them.  I didn’t see much difference here.

A big topic was the events at MLK/Harbor Medical Center’s ER, which has been in the news lately, as a woman fell dead in the waiting room while the hospital staff did nothing.  Most of the candidates believed MLK/Harbor should remain open and would support the $200 million in federal funding that goes into it annually, though Ed Wilson and Valerie McDonald stressed accountability.  Laura Richardson said a platitude like “this situation must be dealt with” but didn’t explain how.  Peter Matthews mentioned that he organized a picket at MLK/Harbor 2 years ago and the only result was that they cut beds in half.  Bill Grisolia stressed the need for cooperation in the community, perhaps nurses college training partnerships to get more staff in there.  Many stressed the need for universal healthcare so that poor people aren’t relying on the ER as their last resort.

On a question about Wal-Mart, Oropeza proudly claimed that she fought against a Wal-Mart in Long Beach, and now there’s an Albertson’s there!  (Does she not read the news about the looming grocery strike and how Albertson’s in particular is trying to screw their workers again?)  The major candidates were in agreement on this, though only Valerie McDonald mentioned that workers ought to have the right to organize.  I take it she’d support the Employee Free Choice Act.

In final thoughts, Oropeza said she wouldn’t support the current immigration bill but didn’t say why, George Parmer advocated a national paper ballot because “votes are being stolen,” and Ed Wilson wanted to stop Congress from raiding Social Security and Medicare funds.  Laura Richardson took a cheap shot when she mentioned some local shooting and claimed she was the only candidate there (what, if you run for Congress, you have to know where the shootings are?).

My impression is that the candidates, by and large, are fairly similar and fairly progressive, as befits the district.  Oropeza and Richardson are politicians who are playing some political games.  Oropeza doesn’t seem all that informed on a couple crucial issues, and Richardson is clearly running a “vote for me, I’m one of you” race.  I was impressed with Valerie McDonald and Bill Grisolia.  Peter Matthews certainly has all of his progressive chops down, and it will be interesting to see if he can leverage the grassroots energy in Southern California from PDA and translate it into votes.

I watched a little of today’s hearing on Iraq war profiteering and contracting.  It’s really nothing short of amazing.  It’s like watching the movie Iraq For Sale in Congressional hearing form.  They’re focusing on Blackwater Securities today, whose contract for Iraq couldn’t even be found until today, and who were sending out truck drivers without proper equipment to save money, while pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars through overcharging the government.  It’s great to see these bastards nailed to the wall.

And the man who’s putting this all together is my Congressman, Henry Waxman.  He is nothing short of heroic for bringing the spotlight to this war profiteering in his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.  And he’s a dogged investigator and questioner.  He painted the picture in yesterday’s session with Paul Bremer of the Federal Reserve packing 363 tons of cash in palettes onto military aircraft to be sent to Iraq to simply be passed out.  Today, Waxman repeatedly asked a spokeswoman from the Army how many security contractors they have hired, and she dodged and dodged and finally had to answer that she didn’t know the precise number.  And finally, there was his brilliant smackdown of GOP attack dog Rep. Patrick McHenry, who spent the entire session trying to blame profiteering on the Clinton Administration and calling it a show trial: he said “I suggest the Congressman return under his rock.”

Waxman deserves a lot of credit for his pursuit of lawbreaking and official corruption.  And his reputation in this district is gold sterling.  He was right there on the front page of the New York Times the other day.  And he’s a great, longtime champion for liberal values.  He took on the cigarette companies.  He wrote the Clean Air Act.  And on and on.

However, it’s important to note that Waxman voted for the war, is not part of the Out of Iraq caucus, and while he has finally come out against the escalation, is “on the fence” about de-funding the war and bringing the troops home.

On the flip…

He keeps this incredibly quiet.  You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in this district that knows this.  I was talking to a few friends about this very topic recently, and they looked at me like I was nuts.  They actually couldn’t believe it.

You have to dig, but you can find Waxman’s statement about Iraq at his website.

On October 10, 2002, Rep. Waxman voted for resolution H.J.Res. 114, authorizing the use of military force to ensure Iraq’s disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. He did so with the expectation that a strong bipartisan stand in Congress would pressure the United Nations to carry out its responsibilities to enforce its own resolutions and because he believed it was necessary to send a tough message for Saddam Hussein to understand he would have to comply.

On March 17, 2003, Rep. Waxman called for an investigation of the revelation that the President relied on false intelligence sources to present the case for war with Iraq to the American people and the United Nations. On June 26, 2003, he introduced H.R. 2625, which would establish an Independent Commission on Intelligence about Iraq – modeled after the September 11 Commission – to examine pre-war intelligence and the representations made by executive branch officials about Iraqi efforts to develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction.

In addition, Rep. Waxman has initiated an intensive investigation of the Bush Administration’s process for awarding post-war contracts in Iraq to ensure fairness and accountability in U.S. funded projects for Iraq reconstruction. He remains deeply concerned about allegations that Halliburton, a company with close ties to Vice President Dick Cheney, has received special treatment from the Administration in the awarding of Defense Department contracts, including some related to Iraqi reconstruction.

Waxman’s actions about intelligence – almost immediately after voting for the war – are noble.  He also cosponsored legislation to ban permanent bases in Iraq or a “long-term or permanent” military presence.  But he is not committed to stopping funding on this war, and he has been allowed to coast on his reputation and give no definitive answer on the conflict.  This came to a head a couple weeks ago at the Palisades Democratic Club:

Addressing a crowd of 200 at a Palisades Democratic Club meeting in Los Angeles Sunday, Congressman Henry Waxman said he opposes the US occupation of Iraq but may continue to fund it because “I don’t want to make any promises before I see what the (funding) proposal will be.”

Greeted by grassroots Democrats holding a banner that read “Liberals do not fund occupation,” Waxman acknowledged there were members of the audience who would like to see him support bills calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops, but said he was not sure bringing the troops home now was the answer […]

Waxman, now Chair of the Government Reform Committee, told the standing-room only crowd he opposes the Bush troop escalation and wants to conduct vigorous investigations into the 8-billion US dollars missing in Iraq, but said he is not convinced it is time to use the power of the purse to end the war or even co-sponsor legislation that would bring the troops home within six months. Waxman said a civil war could develop when US troops leave Iraq. “But there already is a civil war,”
said one audience member, whose objection went unanswered.

And I have to add this, which gave me quite a bit of pause.

Asked if he would oppose US military use of Israel as a proxy to bomb or invade Iran, Waxman said he opposed a war against Iran, though added, “If you want to lose sleep, think of a nuclear-armed Iran.” The Congressman said he favored economic sanctions over the use of force, referencing the enormous impact of world economic sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa.

There’s more here and here.

Waxman, simply put, is trying to skate on this war, and furthermore is buying in to right-wing frames about Iran which do nothing but enable war hawks who would like nothing more but to come up with any pretext to attack Iran.  In fact, now is the time to stop this drumbeat toward Iran in the US Congress.

Congress should not wait. It should hold hearings on Iran before the president orders a bombing attack on its nuclear facilities, or orders or supports a provocative act by the U.S. or an ally designed to get Iran to retaliate, and thus further raise war fever.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has warned the administration that it had better seek congressional authorization for any attack on Iran. But we need Senate and House hearings now to put the Bush administration on notice that, in the absence of an imminent military attack or a verified terrorist attack on the United States by Iran, Congress will not support a U.S. military strike on that country. Those hearings should aim toward passage of a law preventing the expenditure of any funds for a military attack on Iran unless Congress has either declared war with that country or has otherwise authorized military action under the War Powers Act.

The law should be attached to an appropriations bill, making it difficult for the president to veto. If he simply claims that he is not bound by the restriction even if he signs it into law, and then orders an attack on Iran without congressional authorization for it, Congress should file a lawsuit and begin impeachment proceedings.

Anyone that is throwing up belligerent and fearmongering rhetoric on Iran gives the President more leeway to do the same and manufacture a conflict.  Waxman may have his reasons for doing so, all of them perfectly sincere.  But starting another war in the Middle East right now would be the height of insanity and would continue to fuel hatred in that part of the world for generations.

There are going to be street actions soon around this issue, to both thank Rep. Waxman for what he’s doing, but to pressure him to do the right thing on denying the appropriation of funds and bringing this war to an end.  Waxman seems like he doesn’t want to come to terms with this issue.  He’d rather do what he’s very good at doing, investigation and oversight.  But this vote matters and it’s a major priority.  If liberal lions like Henry Waxman cannot represent the views of his district and the vast majority of the American people, then I don’t know what it will take.  I don’t want to psycho-analyze Waman and try to understand why he’s being so noncommital on this issue.  I just want him to do the right thing.