Republicans Hating Bush

This week in Washington, President Bush continued doing a wonderful job of ruining his party’s future. His State of the Union speech paid lip service to a number of hot-button domestic issues, but a closer examination revealed neither substance nor a genuine willingness to make fundamental change.

Meanwhile, Democrats continued to ramp up efforts to investigate the myriad mistakes, deceptions and possible illegalities committed during the last five years. It looks like a report will finally be issued on pre-war intelligence distortions, and hearings on illegal wiretapping will continue despite the recent administration flip-flop allowing courts to oversee the surveillance program.

As if ripping a scab off an old wound, the Scooter Libby trial also began this week, and it has already made sensational headlines. The prosecution is alleging—as I predicted long ago—that Libby lied to investigators to hide the fact that his boss, Vice President Cheney, was behind the Joe Wilson smear campaign and the outing of Valerie Plame. Cheney was apparently enraged that his brilliance was being questioned and his lies exposed, and became obsessed with discrediting critic Wilson. Were this fact to become public during the first investigation, it would have cast further aspersion on the White House at a critical and vulnerable time, a time when the Bush team wanted to redraw the map of the Middle East by trumping up the easiest available excuse, WMD.

The news coming from Congressional investigations and the Libby trial will only hasten what the Bush Troop Surge has ensured—the demise of Bush’s failed presidency. But with a tide of legislation sure to flow from the newly Democratic congress, Bush seems determined to go down swinging. By vetoing items like a minimum wage hike, he will ensure that his own party will suffer in 2008 when 21 Republican Senators go up for re-election versus only 12 Democrats. No wonder so many of the 21 are breaking ranks and openly opposing the Bush Troop Surge, as well as embracing a number of other issues that Bush stubbornly opposes.

The Bush disaster may also guarantee that a Democrat will be elected President in 2008. John McCain has already damaged his chances by pushing for an even bigger troop surge than Bush. In fact, I feel comfortable predicting that if John McCain became the GOP nominee, he would lose to whoever the Democrats chose—Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Gore or Mickey Mouse. The Republican who currently stands a chance of beating the Democrats is Rudy Giuliani, but he will have a tough time getting his party’s nomination. The only other hope the Republicans have to salvage the Presidency from the bomb-crater left by Bush would be a come-from-behind surge by a maverick underdog like Chuck Hegel. Otherwise, forget it.

Bush and Cheney love to defer questions about their legacy, claiming that history will be the judge. But it doesn’t take a high-school diploma to see that the Bush Administration is an unmitigated disaster. Along almost every axis, on virtually every subject, Bush has failed to achieve anything of substance or value, while at the same time compromising our military, destroying or damaging countless lives, trashing our international credibility, wasting a vast trove of money and making our future less safe. Bland, happy speeches filled with focus-group-tested phrases will do nothing to alter the downward spiral of the Bush Presidency and the Republican Party. No wonder so many in the GOP are fighting mad.

- JT Compton

Labeling Liberals

Broadcast media can't resist using labels, especially when describing Democrats. Despite the bludgeoning taken by the GOP in the last election, and despite the ongoing disaster in the White House, newscasters seem intent on slamming Dems while granting Republicans immunity.

When was the last time you heard anyone describe Rudy Giuliani as a Liberal Republican? When was the last time you heard anyone describe Jack Murtha as a Conservative Democrat? These labels are as true as any, but you'll never hear them because they don't play into the stereotypes that so-called journalists love to fall back on.

When was the last time you heard anyone call Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Gingrich, Brownback or their ilk "radical fundamentalists" or "far-right fanatics"? Never. When was the last time you heard anyone call any number of Democrats "lefties" or "far-left liberals" or "on the liberal fringe" or "hysterical activists"? Just turn on the television.

I noticed on MSNBC that commentator Norah O'Donnell enjoys taking an obviously mocking, derisive tone when talking about Democratic Presidential hopefuls. In my experience, she has yet to do the same with Republican contenders. Shame on her, and shame on so many other commentators who lack the integrity and imagination to stop using convenient slurs in favor of commentary worthy of a journalist.

Here is a letter I wrote to O'Donnell in frustration:

Dear Norah,

Watching MSNBC Live recently, I noticed that you consistently describe Democratic presidential hopefuls in ways that are insulting, personal and derisive. You often use a mocking tone, as you did today when you suggested that Hilary Clinton's presidential announcement was softened to contrast her, using your words, "cold, calculating" persona.

I'm not sure if you consider yourself a journalist, but if you do, I'm wondering when I will get to hear you talk about Republicans in the same way.

For example, when will I hear your voice take on a phony-southern accent as you describe John McCain as a "hypocritical flip-flopper"?

When will I hear you dumb down your voice to describe Sam Brownback as a "right-wing extremist fundamentalist"?

For that matter, when will I get to hear you knowingly describe President Bush as a "lying, incompetent failure"?

Thanks for all the editorials. I'm sure Focus On The Family will give you a nice seven-figure consulting job the minute you want to leave MSNBC...

- JT Compton

Victory Fantasy

On Meet The Press last weekend, Bush Administration mouthpieces including Senator Joe Lieberman and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley came out in support of the Bush troop surge.

In his usual whiny cadence, Lieberman mumbled to Tim Russert of the Bush plan, “It’s a plan to win in Iraq, and I believe we still can.”

Leaving aside that Joe Lieberman is a walking caricature—a bizarrely awkward man whose statements are often so ridiculous, off-putting and bereft of common sense that his reelection was nothing short of astonishing—what does his strange mind imagine when it contemplates winning in Iraq?

On the Bush perspective, Stephen Hadley agreed with Lieberman, saying of Iraq that, "...both of us have an interest in success. The costs of failure are just too high." He went on to note that, "...the president understands the American people are tired of this war."

Wrong. The American people are tired of the lies, distortions, bad decisions and incompetence that shaped Iraq into a disaster of historic proportions. And they have no faith that the President and his civilian leaders can suddenly “succeed” in Iraq after a long seige of failure.

Despite years of rhetoric and propaganda to the contrary, Iraq is not a war. It is an occupation and police action. We are fighting a “war” of sorts against al-Qaeda, but Iraq has much less to do with terrorism than it has to do with nation building and forced democracy. Because we are occupying a nation as a de facto security force, Americans understand that “victory” is not the proper term to be using. There is nothing to “win.”

So until the small and shrinking group of stalwart administration officials, including cheerleader Lieberman, grasp the fact that winning and victory have become meaningless—as the American public already has—they will continue to make historic blunder after historic blunder.

We only have two forms of real influence left in Iraq. Our munitions and our occupation. Clearly, we cannot bomb Iraq into peace. Indeed, the more force we use, the worse the situation gets for all involved. Our only other leverage is our physical presence. When we threaten to begin to withdraw, Iraqi politicians and moderates will truly face up to the prospect of an Iraq without our troops. Whether Iraqis will then come together has always been, and will ever remain, beyond our control. If our withdrawal unleashes full-blown genocide (as opposed to the small-scale genocide currently occurring every day in Iraq), the UN should step in and try to do what our inept and bungling leaders failed to do—put together a coalition of nations to shepherd a resolution.

Sadly, because of the arrogance and rancor of the Bush approach to invasion, nobody will come to the aid of Iraq until we are gone and humiliated.

Every time you hear a deluded hawk talk about “winning” in Iraq, they are really talking about the victory of fantasy over reality, of spin over truth. George Bush was stupid enough to stir a hornet's nest and twenty thousand additional troops will do nothing to get the hornets back in the hive. What idiots.

- JT Compton

Too Much Too Late

In tonight's address to the nation, President Bush spoke more honestly and precisely than at any time in his entire presidency. Sadly, his speech raised as many troubling questions as it answered, and fell far short of the convincing rationale needed to rescue his folly in Iraq. Doubling down with a new troop surge still sounds like a solidly tragic idea.

Though his characterization of the chaos in Baghdad was refreshingly stark and honest, he made it seem like the horrific violence was a recent, post-election occurrence, which is absolutely false and misleading. Sectarian violence has been endemic in Baghdad almost from the beginning of our occupation, increasing steadily and unfettered for years. How can we trust Bush to fix this mess if we he can’t even understand or acknowledge the actual timing and history of the mess?

Also, the details of Bush’s “new” strategy included a host of things we should have been doing from the very start. Holding cleared territory. Preventing arms from entering via Iran and Syria. Using diplomacy to pressure moderates to join our effort. Very little of substance was offered tonight that we haven’t already tried before—and found lacking.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of his strategy involved how much of it rests on the Iraqi leadership for success. According to Bush, the troop surge will “provide breathing room” for the Iraqi government to bolster its grip on security. But can we honestly believe that the Iraqi leaders will chasten their militias, forgo vengeance and set aside deep-seated tribal hatreds because we tell them to? We’ve been begging them to stop their militias for months, but things have only worsened.

Bush made it clear that this is the time for Iraq to stand up and take responsibility for its future. But he’s made the same call to action countless times before: after the elections, after the capture of Saddam, after the death of al-Zawahiri, and so on. America is sick and tired of last chances. The only leverage we have over the leadership of Iraq is our ability to leave. The timing and pace of our departure must be the final motivation for Iraq to choose civility over bloodshed.

Otherwise, it makes me wonder, yet again, if Iraq has anyone like a Muslim Martin Luther King—a courageous, high-profile leader promoting non-violent change and reconciliation. Absent such an icon, and with our troops a permanent though impotent fixture, it’s hard to see anything that might catalyze a change in their national ethos and stop a civil war.

Imagine if Bush had said, “We’ve come to the conclusion that a slow, phased withdrawal, at a timing and pace of our choosing, will give Iraqi leaders the best motivation to set their differences aside, order their minions to stop the torture and murder, and bring their nation into civility.”

Instead, his troop surge will likely only postpone the day of our departure at an even higher and more tragic cost, while doing little to alter the bloody course Iraq seems otherwise determined to follow.

- JT Compton

New Direction for Health Care?

As a self-employed American, I know first-hand the ridiculous, wasteful and burdensome state of our broken, pitiful health care system. Unlike many, I’m fortunate to barely afford the sky-high premiums of one of the few single-payer plans offered in New York State. And I’m horrified but not surprised that my premiums have increased by 20%, 20%, and 12% in the last three years. This year’s increase will add a whopping $1,227 to my already enormous insurance bill.

The recent drubbing of the GOP at the polls--a repudiation of the Bush Presidency--gave me new hope that our leaders would stop gorging themselves on health care lobby cash and finally focus on this critical issue, but history suggests otherwise. As Paul Krugman reminded us in today’s excellent New York Times Op Ed entitled A Healthy New Year, when the Clinton White House tried even modest changes to the system, the health-care industry went into overdrive to crush his plan, throwing mountains of money at lawmakers and the media.

More insidious and corrosive, however, are those citizens who believe Universal Health Care is somehow tantamount to socialism. Despite the fact that a Medicare-for-all system would significantly decrease the total cost of our collective medical burden (which, like global warming, is a consensus fact), naysayers can’t set their anger, bigotry and ignorance aside to embrace something that would benefit so many.

People against Universal Health Care rarely give informed or rational reasons to support their position, relying instead on jingoistic notions of capitalism and self sufficiency, or on old, tired stereotypes about Godless Communists or the French (who, by the way, have a better and less expensive health care system than ours). Their stance flies in the face of both compassion and utility, having more to do with raging against handouts benefiting others (usually minorities) while confusing Heath Care with Welfare. Their immoral “logic” goes like this; Giving health care to lazy poor people is the same as giving welfare to lazy poor people.

I believe it is far better to teach a person to fish than to give a person a fish, but Health Care is an entirely different issue. In fact, the “lazy poor” use emergency rooms for their health care, which increases costs for the rest of us. It is, instead, the hardworking middle who often don’t have coverage and are forced into bankruptcy when a medical crisis occurs. Many people make enough to afford food and shelter but can’t afford single-payer health insurance premiums because they work for themselves, for small businesses or for the growing numbers of huge corporations like Wal-Mart who go out of their way to designate workers as part-time employees.

As Democrats take control of Congress and begin to address the wide array of important issues fat, greedy Republican lawmakers were paid to ignore, I’m sure I’ll hear a new raft of heartless, irrational whiners trying to keep HMOs and Insurance Companies in record profits while the rest of us suffer. As they try to smear and label anyone not in their camp, their anger, rage and bitterness will become increasingly apparent. But will that help to turn the tide and force lawmakers to provide health benefits for all? Will we be able catch up to the rest of the civilized world and create a system that we can be proud of, instead of the disgraceful system our wealthy lobbyists bribe politicians to maintain? I hope so. But if not, we should ridicule and shun those who put their immoral, selfish agendas in the way of progress and decency. Shame on them.

Healthy New Year.

- JT Compton