DEMOCRATIC IDEAS: POST-ELECTION 2006

Column No. 128 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - NOVEMBER 12, 2006

I began my TPJ column of May 25, 2006, “Ideas for Democrats, I: The Vision,” by noting that in a front page article in The New York Times on May 9, 2006 (“Optimistic, Democrats Debate the Party's Vision”) Robin Toner said: “With Democrats increasingly optimistic about this year's midterm elections and the landscape for 2008, intellectuals in the center and on the left are debating how to sharpen the party's identity and present a clear alternative to the conservatism that has dominated political thought for a generation. . . . . But some of these analysts argue that the party needs something more than a pastiche of policy proposals. It needs a broader vision, a narrative, they say, to return to power and govern effectively.”  To which I said, and say, Amen.

I also noted that such statements were nothing new.  I went on to give several examples, going back to 1987 in a New York Times article of September 25, 1987, E.J. Dionne wrote:  “All Democrats have been searching for language to call America away from the individualism of the Reagan years to a new sense of community.”  We Democrats have not found that language yet.  This column us being written in the week before the 2006 election, for publication after it.  Despite the polls and the over-arching bad news about the Georgites, Bush, and the Republicans in general, I do not believe that as of the time you are reading this, the Democrats will have taken either House.  Not that they in reality will not have won, as they did in both 2000 and 2004.  However, it appears as if the Rovian Grand Theft Election machine is running full throttle and will do the Georgites’ nefarious work once again.  And that will be that.

Of course, I hope that I am wrong.  However, regardless of whether I am or not, the Democrats are going to have to get themselves together for sure this time around, going into 2008.  As I have shared with you before in this series (“Ideas for Democrats, II and III”), I do recognize that there is no “The Democrats” in the sense that there has been a “The Republicans,” or has been at least until the rats started to abandon the sinking ship as the Bush Administration has started falling apart at the seams and Bush himself has become an embarrassment.  However, the non-collaborationist, that is non-DLC, what I shall call “Mainstream Democrats,” and there are plenty of them in the Congress, can come together under a new vision and a new program.  If the election is fixed this time, as I believe it is, this time, unlike in previous times, there will be a huge public outcry, a huge raft of litigation, and possibly some “insider” or even “spy” (well one can hope, can’t one?) exposés.  That will give us at least a fighting chance in 2008.  And so to a review, with some modifications, of my grand plan.

First, for the vision.  As I have noted before, my 1992 book, The New Americanism: How the Democratic Party Can Win the Presidency, found the proposed “Vision for the Democrats” in the very founding documents of our great nation. The New Americanism projects a grand, integrated, overarching, forward-looking domestic and foreign policy based upon the principles of, yes, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Together they provide the Statement of Purpose for our nation, the Statement of Purpose of our National Government, and the Primary Functions of that Government in achieving in the stated Purpose.

Our National Purpose is made clear by the Declaration: to demonstrate unequivocally that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness . . .” The primary Purpose of our National Government is also made clear in the Declaration: “[T]o secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men.” The Primary functions of our National Government in achieving this purpose are spelled out in the Preamble to the Constitution:  “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  Why this is enough to make a strict constructionist out of anyone (other than the Georgites, of course)!

Then the Mainstream Democrats will have to move on to specifics, and a level, however, rather deeper than “do something (anything) about Iraq,” “raise taxes on the rich,” “health care, education, and the environment.”  We first and foremost have to get back to Constitutional government in this country, and so that is the first focus of my (further) revised “Ten Commitments” that I have shared with you on several previous occasions.  And so, henceforth, the Democratic Party will be committed to:

I.  First and foremost making the protection and promotion of Constitutional Democracy, in accordance with the plain language of the Constitution including the Preamble, the center of the Party’s approach to governing.  A return to the Constitutional System of checks and balances and the requirement that the President fully abide by the Constitution is essential.

II. A return to totally free and fair elections, and a full-scale assault on the Republican strategy of Grand Theft Elections, with guarantee of equal access, voting down with machines and programs held in the public sector, and true campaign finance reform..

III. A full, planned withdrawal from all military activity in Iraq, including the construction and maintenance of all military bases, by a date certain.  This withdrawal is to be accompanied by a reactivation of the Israel/Palestine peace process along the lines of the proposed Geneva Accords.  It is further to be accompanied by a return to the multi-lateral foreign policy that worked so well for our country from the time we entered the Second World War until the advent of Georgites, and a return to abiding by the UN Charter, which forbids “pre-emptive war” of the Georgite type.  (A specific plan for achieving the Iraq withdrawal can be found in my column of Dec. 15, 2005.)

IV. A vision of government that is defined by the Preamble to the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  It understands that big problems require big solutions, that when necessary for the common economic good, government needs to be big, that the Georgite/ Norquist Doctrine of Bathtub Government needs to be flushed down the toilet.  On the other hand, in accord with the prescriptions of the Constitution, when it comes to such matters as belief as to when life begins, freedom of political, moral and ethical expression, and adult personal behavior, government needs to be small.  This is the exact opposite of the Republican, anti-Constitutional view, which wants government to be overwhelmingly big when it comes to said matters of personal belief, rights, liberties, and freedom, and overwhelmingly small when dealing with the economy.

V. In support of this Commitment, a taxation policy designed to share the burden, in accordance with ability to pay, of supporting those actions of government necessary for the full implementation of its responsibilities as set forth in the Preamble.

VI. Also in support of Commitment IV, regulation of the market for goods and services designed to insure that it is both free and fair.

VII. A Pledge of honesty, integrity, openness, and a return to the traditional arms-length relationship between government and the private sector for all elected and politically-appointed government officials.  A specific ethical pledge to which all Democratic candidates for elected office and Democratic nominees for political appointments will be asked to subscribe will be developed.

VIII. The broad and forward projection of the most important Values that define a civil society: pluralism in matters of religion in accordance with the First Amendment; tolerance of difference; the promotion of compassion and sharing the burden, leaving behind the Doctrine of Every Man for Himself and the Devil Take the Hindmost; the full promotion of human rights at home and abroad; the understanding that healthy sex is healthy and unhealthy sex is not and that for adults sex is a private matter; and the end to the promotion of the criminalization of personal belief in matters of morality and of adult sexual identity and behavior.

IX. The development of an Energy Policy that will deal with the potentially disastrous and very real problem of global warming, as well as ensuring that ample energy will be available to support modern human life after the petroleum runs out.  This means that the first focus must be on Alternative Energy, only the second on alternative fuels.

X. The establishment of nomination and hiring standards for political appointees designed to ensure competence in government.  A specific list of standards will be developed.

This is where I think the Democratic Party has to go.  If one tries to pick out “what issues can we win with?” first without examining and establishing principles, that is “why” we should win, one almost assures losing (as has been proven over and over again since the election of 1964).  Neither our country, nor indeed the world, nor indeed in my view the human species as we know it, could afford that.

THE US ENABLING ACT, 2006, PART II: WHY BUSH WANTED IT

Column No. 127 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - NOVEMBER 2, 2006

In my previous essay on this subject I examined the similarities between the US Enabling Act of 2006 (referred to in the United States Code by the bureaucratic-sounding name of “The Military Commissions Act”) and the Nazi German Enabling Act of 1933.  I also explored how the US version virtually emasculates major sections of the US Constitution.  This week I am going to briefly review the powers that the Act gives to George Bush and then briefly describe just what are the reasons that he wants them.  Guess what?  It ain’t about “fighting flanking maneuvers” (I mean “terrorism”).

What the Act does (Wikipedia, “Military Commissions Act of 2006”):

*     The Act establishes a new set of US Military Commissions, alongside of those that already exist and have existed in one form or another since the US Army and Navy were founded.  These new Commissions are for the purpose of trying “alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses.”  The purview of the law is retroactive, indefinitely.  That is, it is ex post facto legislation (which just happens to be specifically prohibited by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution).

*     An "unlawful enemy combatant" is “a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant” or before the passage of the Act “has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense” (there’s that ex post facto application, again).

*    "Alien" is defined as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States.”  However, the Act also states that “Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”

*     No persons subject to the purview of the Act “may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.”  The President is authorized to interpret the meaning of the Geneva Conventions as he chooses.

*     Persons detained under the Act have no right to a habeas corpus hearing.  There is no guarantee of a speedy trial, no protection against being required to testify against oneself, no right to any pre-trial hearings, no guarantee against being held in custody indefinitely without any trial of any kind, whatsoever.  There is no right to civilian counsel unless that counsel has “Secret or higher” security clearance (which means that there is no right to choice of counsel).  Hearsay evidence, evidence obtained without a search warrant, evidence obtained when an unspecified “degree of coercion” (most people would call this “torture”) has been applied, are all permitted, but access to evidence termed “classified” is not. A “guilty” vote, even when a death sentence might be imposed, requires only a two-thirds majority of the members of the commission present at the time the vote is taken. Persons charged are protected against double jeopardy.

OK, so that’s the Act in a nutshell.  So why does Bush want it?  Before getting to the question, we do have to examine carefully to whom the law applies.  On the one hand it says clearly “aliens.”  Many Americans, even among those opposed to both Bush and the Act, like Human Rights Watch, have said “phew, well it only applies to aliens, so we really don’t have to worry too much about it.”  But does it really only apply to aliens?  There is that “breach of allegiance to the United States,” ”aids an enemy of the United States” clause.

The Act, specifically ignoring the Constitution itself by, for example, creating ex post facto legislation and wiping out habeas corpus absent rebellion or invasion, thus unconstitutionally gives Bush the power to ignore the Constitution on his own authority as well.  Further, with is numerous unconstitutional “Signing Statements,” unchallenged by Congress, he has said that he can interpret any piece of legislation anyway he wants and indeed can ignore completely any bits he doesn’t like. The Act gives Bush the power to interpret the Geneva Conventions any way he wants to without consulting either the Congress that ratified them or any other of its signatories, after all, and they, according to Article VI of the Constitution, are part of the supreme law of the land.

So what is to prevent him from interpreting the “allegiance” clause to apply to US citizens who aid an “enemy alien,” as defined by the law?  Nothing, as far as I can see, because any person arrested under this Act is denied access to the courts to contest the arrest, as Keith Olbermann pointed out immediately after its passage.  So folks, don’t sleep easy.  Under this “the Constitution is just a scrap of paper,” “the Unitary Executive is all,” President everybody within his reach is subject to permanent incarceration at the discretion of this President or his designee.  Where, you might ask?  Well in Nazi Germany they called those places in which persons were incarcerated under the same kinds of laws and by the same means “concentration camps.”  (It has been reported that Kellogg Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of Bush's "unlawful enemy combatants." Why could not Americans be among them? 10-10 http://www.alternet.org/rights/42458/? It has been speculated in fact, that there are up to 800 of such facilities available for potential use, http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1062).

So then why did Bush want this law and why did he want it so badly? He doesn't need it to go after "terrorists." He has had plenty of tools to do that, and in fact has used them little.  It happens that Bush has never offered even one little reason why the present law doesn’t work for him in “fighting flanking maneuvers” (oops, I mean “terrorism”) and why he needs this one.  He has had large numbers of men under permanent confinement for a number of years now.  He has had a military court system that under pre-existing US law is plenty tough enough and military prisons are tough enough without using torture, even of the simple hooding, sensory deprivation (shown on the front cover of Newsday some time ago), water boarding type.  Why doesn't he want to use that system?  Why does he keep saying “now we can really get them” when he certainly could have “gotten them” before (that is, if he had the evidence --- details, details).  Why secret courts?  With evidence, one certainly could convict real terrorists in regular US military courts.

Well first, the Georgites are terrified of what would likely, or least might well, come out in open court under the time-honored procedures provided for by the US Constitution.  Apparently, many of the current prisoners are totally innocent of any sort of “crime against the United States” and were picked up on whims or at the behest of other intelligence services (and now we will never know).  Many of the captives are apparently (now we will never know) nothing more than political activists.  The Georgites are terrified of what the prisoners might say in open court on direct examination about how they have been treated and about the total lack of evidence for the US incarceration of them in the first place.

If those who indeed were terrorists or involved in some way in terrorist plots, the Georgites are terrified about what they might reveal about what really happened in the plots, successful or not, possible US or other Western complicity in them, what they might know about the US letting Osama go, where he is now, that he might indeed be a US asset, very useful for Georgite propaganda purposes, and so one and so forth.  These are indeed potentially dangerous men, potentially dangerous that is to the political interests and political power of the Georgite Regime.

So if he doesn’t want/need it to “fight terrorism,” why does he want it?  For two reasons.  First, it does establish the “Unitary Executive” that has been a gleam in Cheney’s eye since the Watergate days.  As I showed last week, it shreds most of the basic individual rights guaranteed until now by the Constitution.  It has established the precedent that Congress may amend the Constitution on its own authority without bothering to go through the amendment process that is detailed in Article V of the Constitution.  It also gives the President the power to amend the Constitution on his own authority through the “interpret the Geneva Conventions as he chooses” clause.  For this “to-hell-with-the-law-I’ll-do-what-I-want” President (again see the “Signing Statements” and what they say) there is one kind of legal precedent that is important: the kind established in this law.  Remember, he took the nation into war on the basis of a very vague Congressional resolution on “combating terrorism,” saying that it was enough.  With this law as precedent, this President could go to town further shredding the Constitution, for example, on his own authority because of the authority it gives him to “interpret” the Geneva Conventions.

Second, it now becomes obvious that the primary intended use is for future domestic repression.  The Georgites know what will begin to happen in this country if: Bush starts trying to use the powers given to him by the US Enabling Act to begin to selectively lock up opponents of the regime such as, for example, anti-Georgites who publish regularly on one or more websites; the War on Iraq continues and the opposition to it becomes overwhelming and reaches the street demonstration stage; the economy goes further south for the average American worker, what the numbers are put out by the Georgites and a militant organize labor movement is re-born; the regime attempts to fulfill its pledges to the Christian Right to criminalize personal beliefs and behaviors not in accord with their religious dogma; Bush further expands his dictatorial powers through actions of the Republican Congress coupled with is “Signing Statements;” a Georgite Supreme Court endorses all of the above and maybe even outs itself totally out of the business of protecting the personal rights and liberties guaranteed under the constitution; Bush cancels the 2008 elections by creating another 9/11 and declaring a “National Emergency.”

Back at the beginning of 2005 I wrote a series in this space entitled “The Coming Second Civil War.”  The US Enabling Act of 2006 has brought it several giant steps closer.

THE US ENABLING ACT, 2006, PART I: WHAT IT IS AND SOME COMPARATIVE HISTORY

Column No. 126 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH OCTOBER 26, 2006

It was an event little noted by persons other than those of us who are devoted to the American concept of Constitutional Democracy. But it will be long remembered by the whole world, if there is a future history to record it. On Sept. 29, 2006, the Congress of the United States passed an act formally known as “The Military Commissions Act.”  It was signed by Pres. Bush on October 17.  If there was an accompanying “signing statement” stating that he didn’t intend to comply with this new law because in his view it is unconstitutional (which it is on its very face), which he has done with so many pieces of legislation he doesn’t like but couldn’t be bothered to veto, I must have missed it.

A better name for the Act is "The US Enabling Act." It is the equivalent of the Act that came to be known by that name that was passed by the German Reichstag on March 23, 1933.  (The formal name of the German one was the "Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich.")  It gave the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, the power to over-ride the protections for freedom and liberty written into the German (Weimar) Constitution of the time, if he determined that so doing was necessary to protect the nation from terrorism and "actions endangering the state." It was under that Act, of course, that Hitler established his dictatorship.

Specifically, the Nazi Enabling Act gave Hitler the authority to, on his own authority, over-ride the following provisions of the Weimar Constitution (a constitution that happened to be much more explicit concerning civil rights and liberties and their protection than ours is): Sections 114, protections against restrictions on personal liberty; 115, requiring warrants for house-searches; 117, providing protection against violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications (!); 118, guaranteeing the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; 124, protections guaranteeing the right of assembly and the right of association; and 153, providing for due process for orders for confiscation as well as restrictions on property, These provision were all “suspended until further notice.”

The US version (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf) gives the President the power to over-ride, on his own authority, the following provisions of the US Constitution, if he determines that it is necessary to do so to “protect the nation from terrorism,”  should he decide that a person "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States": Articles I, which establishes the powers and the limits thereon of the legislative branch; II, which establishes the powers and the limits thereon of the executive branch; III, which establishes the powers and the limits thereon of the judicial branch; V, which establishes the procedure for amending the Constitution; and VI, which establishes signed-and-ratified treaties as the “supreme law of the land;” and Amendments I, freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and petitioning the government for the “redress of grievances;” IV, protection against unreasonable search and seizure and the requirement for warrants based on probable cause; V, guaranteeing the due process of law; VI, guaranteeing open, speedy trials in criminal prosecutions; and VIII, protection against cruel and unusual punishment.  (See, for example, "Rushing off a Cliff," New York Times Editorial, 9/28/06; "It's Mourning in America," a BuzzFlash Editorial, 9/29/06; "In Case I Disappear," William Rivers Pitt, Truthout, 9/29/06; “A Dangerous New Order,” New York Times Editorial, 10/19/06.)  For the time-being the claim is that the law does not apply to US citizens, but since Bush has given free reign to do with the Constitution whatever he wants to, hey you never know.

We do not know at this time whether the long-term outcomes of the events of this week in the US will be in any way similar to those that befell the German nation and the German people, as well as the people of much of Europe, under the Hitlerites. The potential for Georgite harms of course spreads much further, to the future of our species and perhaps to all the species of the Earth. What happens remains to be seen. But it will be much easier to fight the Georgites on this most central issue if people will begin to see the similarities between them and the Hitlerites.

A friend said to me recently, "isn't it amazing what is happening here, the drive towards fascism?" (My short definition is: “Fascism is a politico-economic system in which there is: total executive branch control of both the legislative and administrative powers of government; no independent judiciary; no Constitution that embodies the Rule of Law standing above the people who run the government; no inherent personal rights or liberties; a single national ideology that first demonizes and then criminalizes all political, religious, and ideological opposition to it; and total corporate determination of economic, fiscal, and regulatory policy.”  If you want to see my longer definitions, please refer to my TPJ columns of May 27, 2004 “On Fascism -- And The Georgites,” of Jan 27, 2005 “Comparing George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler”, and of February 10, 2005, “The Georgite Version of ‘Freedom and Democracy’.”)

I replied that what was amazing to me was not that a group like the Georgites was attempting it. Rather, I told him that I was amazed that there was so little awareness of the parallels between what is going on here now and the Nazi German experience (see, for example, a series of columns of mine going back more than two years published on the The Political Junkies the links to which can be found at the end of this column). At least the German people could be excused in part for what happened because at that time there were no historical parallels to look back upon. There are differences, of course. Interesting among them are differences in the mode of the taking of total power in the two instances.

Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the German President, Marshall von Hindenburg, on Jan. 30, 1933. The Enabling Act was passed less than two months later. It has taken the Georgites close to six years to get similar powers. Hitler actually went through the formal process of amending the Weimar Republic's Constitution with a 2/3's vote of the German Parliament, the Reichstag. The vote was fixed a bit, to be sure. Hitler banned the large number of elected Communist Party Reichstag members completely. (Most of those who had not been arrested in early February, 1933 had fled Germany anyway.) Most of the Socialist members were banned or under arrest also. The Nazi members, less than an elected majority, showed up for the vote wearing their SA "Brownshirt" uniforms and the hall was surrounded by SA troopers in uniform. However, Hitler at least went through the motions of amending the Constitution. He had, after all, upon taking office promised Pres. von Hindenburg that he would respect the Constitution. And that Constitution did contain Article 48, giving certain powers to the President (although not to the Chancellor, the equivalent of Prime Minister): ”If public safety and order in Germany are materially disturbed or endangered, the President may take the necessary measures to restore public safety and order, and, if necessary, to intervene with the help of the armed forces.”

In the US, the Republican Congress, with some Democratic allies like Joe Lieberman, has amended the US Constitution without bothering to go through the amendment process provided for in that document. Neither force nor the threat of force as applied to the members of Congress was necessary. Why is Bush so successful, despite the fact that (like Hitler) he has only a minority of the population behind him? There are two reasons, only. First he has the Congress. He has it in large part because of the un-Constitutional re-districting for House seats; the grand tilt to the under populated, right-wing states in the Senate caused by the two-seat formula; and the Rovian Grand Theft Election machine (active in Congressional as well as Presidential elections). But he has it. Second he has his vast Privatized Ministry of Propaganda. It's a contemporary Orwellian World, as so eloquently pointed out by my friend Michael Carmichael in his essay "Ignorance is Strength" (The Planetary Movement.org, 9/26/06).

So for the Georgites, facts don't matter, even as they come spilling out in ever more horrifying detail (e.g., the National Intelligence Estimate, the testimony of an increasing number of US generals about Iraq, the on-going Katrina disaster, the new Woodward book). Consider once again the Nazi German experience. Between the conclusions of the battles of El Alamein in November, 1942 and Stalingrad in January, 1943, Nazi Germany had lost the war and many members of the General Staff knew it. The German people were getting their kishkas bombed out from that time on to the end. Yet Hitler remained in power and in January 1945, with the Soviet Army moving steadily across Eastern Europe, his Rove-model Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels, was telling the German people that Hitler was still going to win. And his internal terror system (the Gestapo, et al), enabled by his original Enabling Act, remained in place. Facts mean nothing when you've got the world's most powerful propaganda machine broadcasting your message to your own people, you have no effective political opposition, and you've got an over-arching internal terror machine that was originally created by seemingly legal means.

The Georgites are in control of the governmental levers of power. They don’t have an internal terror machine yet, but they are taking recruits into the armed forces qualified for one by their membership in (presently) fringe far-rightist action groups now, and they are training a cadre of concentration camp guards/torturers in the armed forces and the CIA now too.  They may well right now be planning for how to keep hold of those levers of governmental power after Jan. 20, 2009.  Yes indeed.  We do have to hope for (pray for, if you are a praying person, which I am not) a Democratic takeover, in spite of the power of the Rovian Grand Theft Election machine, of at least one House of Congress on Nov. 7.  Given the number of Lieberman-like collaborators (yes, he voted for the Act) among the Democrats, they might not be able stop the Georgite drive to fascism, but at least there would be a better chance of doing so than we have now.

_____

Next week I will be dealing with the major powers that the Act gives to Bush, the major precedents it sets for him and the Congress, and why the Georgites want them.

DEMOCRATIC IDEAS, XIV: ATTACK ON DEFENSE REVISITED

Column No. 125 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - OCTOBER 12, 2006

Last month House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi traded barbs with Republican Rep. John Boehner.  She had criticized the Bush 9/11 speech as inappropriately political.  She called Boehner's criticism “cynical tactics.’”  (Kind of fits with his current tactics in dealing with the Foley Scandal.)  “Rather than try to defend their own failed record,” Pelosi said, “Republicans have resorted to the desperation politics of fear. . . . It is long past time for Republicans to be honest with the American people [sic] and stop questioning the patriotism of those who recognize that the president's Iraq policy has not worked, is making us less safe and must be changed."  Tough words for a Democratic leader.  Unfortunately, the Congressional Democrats, with a few notable exceptions, were totally cowed by the Republican “Defeatocrats” assault when it came to the passage of the US Enabling Act on Sept. 29, 2006.  (See my column on the latter subject that appeared on BuzzFlash on October 2, 2006.  I will be treating the same subject at more length in this space on October 26 and Nov. 2, 2006.)

However, while the Democrats are getting better, even with the disastrous retreat on The US Enabling Act, they are still working on the defensive side of the line.  The truly “muscular” Democratic position would be neither “we can do these people one better” nor “we are too patriots,” nor “how dare you?’  It would be to set our agenda, which means a) ignoring Rove’s and b) always attacking, never defending (a major part of which is indeed setting the agenda).  Here is a list of attack points, followed by a short list of positive proposals.  By the way, some of these will actually be considered “tough.”  (Oh, my!)  Yes, being truly tough would be unusual for Democrats, but when Republicans in the Congress make speeches saying the Democrats who do not support Bush’s open-ended Iraq policy are supporters of terrorists, well . . . .

Bush is in trouble, more of it than ever.  The list is well-known to readers of TPJ.  So now is absolutely the time to attack him where the Privatized Ministry of Propaganda keeps telling us that he is the strongest, but he really is the Emperor without clothes.  He ain’t strong.  He’s weak.  He’s a loser.  He is sacrificing our nation’s strength, its honor, and its Constitution for the benefit of the massive corporations that put him and his puppet-master Cheney in power.  Let’s go for it.

1.   Protecting the nation from terrorism?  9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, despite ample warnings.  Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security Advisor warned Rice.  Richard Clarke tried to warn Bush.  There was the starkly worded August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing from the CIA.  There were the myriad FBI warnings about the flight “students” not caring about taking off or landing, only flying level.  There were the Air Defense mess-ups on 9/11 itself.  There was Ashcroft turning down an FBI request for $800 million in additional funds to fight terrorism --- on 9/10/06.

Former Senator Bob Kerrey, a member of the 9/11 Commission, speaking out (finally) recently, put it succinctly: You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. Didn't do anything to harden our border security. Didn't do anything to harden airport security. Didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement. Didn't do anything to round up INS and the consular office, and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people. What did you do? Nothing so far as we can see “(Allen Roland, “The Great 9/11 Cover-up, 9/26/06).

Protecting the nation from terrorism?  Hah!  Why should we trust you with that task?

2.      In the two initiatives he took, Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush has proved to be a loser.  Both wars are going badly, and it appears that they can only get worse, both for us and for the peoples of those two nations.  In the 2000 Campaign, Bush said that he would not follow Clinton’s footsteps on “nation building.”  Boy, was he right.  He hasn’t.  Bush is a loser.

3.      If the Georgites did not mis-lead about the reasons for going into Iraq, as the recent report of the Senate Intelligence Committee showed, they were totally incompetent in handling the intelligence information about what the true situation was.

4.       As an increasing number of retired US generals are telling us, the Georgites have depleted and weakened our armed services in fighting two wars for which it is ill-equipped and not properly trained.

5.       They have turned the world against us (see Pew Research international poll from early summer 2006).

6.       According the recent National Intelligence Estimate, they have created large numbers of new terrorists, not reduced their ranks.

7.       They have done very little to strengthen homeland security and what they have done has been only grudgingly undertaken in response to repeated Congressional prodding.  (Yes, the Republican Congress does do the right thing, on very rare occasions.)

8.        They are totally incompetent in handling natural disasters.  They could be even worse in handling man-made ones.

9.         They have depleted the national treasury by going to war on borrowed money while making the nation’s rich even richer with their ever-expanding tax cuts.

10.        They love military solutions to problems that cannot be solved using the military.

11.        Safer now than five years ago?  That’s a laugh.  Just consider: rising troop deaths, declining military strength (except for nukes and very expensive, highly profitable weapons systems that are of absolutely no use against the kind of insurgency we face in Iraq.)  Moribund Constitutional  Democracy.  Wasn’t it once that “they hate because of our way of life, freedom and all that?”  Well destroying “freedom and all that right here at home is one to deal with terrorism, they might argue: remove the cause [ho, ho, ho] and the terrorists will just go away.)  And now all of that’s gone?  The growing, reborn Afghani insurgency, plus the largest heroin crops ever.   Osama’s still out there.  N. Korean nukes.  Iranian nukes.  A government built on lies, corruption, hypocrisy, cover-ups and incompetence (from Iraq to New Orleans)

12.        Finally, as Allen Roland has put it: (Allen Roland, “Staying the Course is Moral Suicide,” 9/30/06): “How can we stay the course on a path that was initiated from a place of lies, deception and moral pretentiousness? How can we stay the course of an illegal occupation where over 80% of Iraqis want us out and are actively supporting their freedom fighters ~ yes, freedom fighters. If the American military presence in the region lasts another four years, the total outlay for the war could stretch to more than $1.3 trillion, or $11,300 for every household in the United States.

The people are on our side.  Bush has got the Congress, is getting the Courts or getting them out of the way, and has O’RHannibaugh and the rest of his Privatized Ministry of Propaganda.  But we’ve got the 60% or more of the American people who believe, know, that Bush’s policies are wrong, dead wrong, for themselves and for the country.  Let’s have the Democrats respond to that fact, not PMOP’s incessant screaming, and the hysterical Coulterite charges of “traitor” coming the (s)elected Georgites.

Finally, some Democrats say, “oh but there is the sound bite problem.”  In a recent speech before the Reserve Officers Association, Bush shouted: "You don't increase terrorism by fighting terrorism.”

A friend commented:  “Good line.  Punchy.  A classic sound bite. Meaningless, also. The counter argument is, ‘You increase insurgency, discontent, and turmoil exponentially when you declare, erroneously, insurgents to be terrorists and then fight them ineptly.’  But that is not a good sound bite (the President's preferred way of thinking).  The strength of the statement in the para above is that it is rational and accurate.  The weakness of the statement, in terms of its having any impact on True Believers, is that it is rational and accurate.”

Well, some folks give up too easily.  Here are a few sound bites for you.

"This Administration has never fought terrorism.  It's about time we started."

"You don't fight terrorism be creating terrorists."

"You don't fight terrorists by destroying countries."

Then there's this one:  "Cut and run?"  How about "Stay and drown."

It's not the phrases that are tough.  It's deciding to attack instead of defend that's tough.

(This column is based in part on the aforementioned BuzzFlash column and in part on my June 29, 2006 TPJ column "Ideas for Democrats VI: Attack on Defense, II.”)

THE BUSHWAR ON IRAN, THE US CONSTITUTION, AND THE UN CHARTER

Column No. 124a By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - OCTOBER 8, 2006

Our European Editor Michael Carmichael recently web-circulated an article entitled  “The March to War.”  (By M.D. Nazemroaya, Global Research, 10/1/06, republished on Truthout * Issues, http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100406B.shtml, it is extensively referenced.  See also Time, “What the War With Iran would look like,” 9/25/06.)  The subject is “The White House prepares to launch Iran War for major oil reserves on the eve of US midterm elections.” The Global Research article presents a lengthy, detailed analysis of the plans for the BushWar on Iran.  Laid out is a very frightening scenario of what the Georgites (as I like to call them) are planning for the Iranian people, the people of the Middle East generally, the people of the US, possibly the people of Central Asia and Europe, and indeed even of the whole world. The Armageddon that the political core of the Georgites in the United States (as well as certain Jewish and Muslim extremists, as well as, possibly, Bush himself) may well be upon us. We may well be facing the Georgite solution to the looming disaster of global warming: the use nuclear weapons in Iran which could well lead to nuclear winter.

However, we aren’t there yet.  There are certain steps that the anti-Bush political forces in the United States could take to avert the war. Or at least they could publicly warn Bush and the Republicans of the very serious consequences for him and his Party that could well result if he were to undertake the invasion, whether he were to use nuclear weapons or not (assuming of course that civilization in general and the Untied states as sovereign country would survive such a catastrophe).  Mass eruptions there would certainly be in the US.  Anticipating them in the case of an Iran Attack (obviously well into preparation at this point) may be one reason why Bush pushed so hard for the passage of the US Enabling Act.  He could, and likely would, respond with mass round-ups of demonstrators, with indefinite imprisonment without recourse to any element of due process.  I discussed this Act in a column that appeared on BuzzFlash and The Moving Planet Blog.

Whether the Democratic Party, the few sane elected Republicans left, the increasing number of elements of the US power elite that are totally opposed to Bush, and other US political forces,  would be able to pull themselves together in a coalition to mount an effective political and legislative campaign against the Georgites is another matter.  However, the US Constitution gives them the tools to do so.  Under Article I, Section 8, the Congress has the exclusive power to declare war.  The Georgites and their Privatized Ministry of Propaganda would surely make the case that such an invasion is covered in the War Powers Act.  However, no matter what real or imagined or created-out-of whole-cloth “evidence” they would present, the present Iranian posture vis-à-vis uranium enrichment could not in any way be characterized as an “emergency” or an “immediate threat” of any kind.

The Georgites themselves are the best source of this: they claim only that Iran, in continuing with its refinement of nuclear fuels, is aiming towards building a bomb.  Should the President, facing this reality, send US forces into war on his own, that is clearly an impeachable offense.  Going to War in this manner is also a clear breach of Articles 33, 34, 37 and 51 of the United Nations Charter which, according to Article VI of the Constitution, constitute “the supreme law of the land.”  He could be impeached for that violation as well.  (If he does invade, it would be interesting to see which countries might try to invoke Articles 39 and 40 of the UN Charter against the United States in the Security Council.)

How could this be done in a practical matter, given a) that the Congress is in the hands of the Republicans, b) that the Congress is in recess until after the election, c) that Bush would most likely claim that under the US Enabling Act, which gives him the power to over-ride on his own authority most of the Articles of the Constitution and the key elements of the Bill of Rights?  Not easily.  He used a vague “Iraq is a danger and we have to do something about it” resolution to justify his full-scale invasion of that country.  He would likely say that since Congress granted him the authority to ignore broad swathes of the Constitution already, he could then ignore any others, like the power to declare war, he wanted to.

Although given an invasion of Iran, the first concern must be for the people of Iran and the second for our own safety given such an outlandish event, the third would be that we would have a full-blown Constitutional crisis on our hands.

And so, what would/should the opposition forces do?

A)                  Demand the emergency reconvening of Congress to a) call the Republicans’ bluff by introducing a Declaration of War resolution to the Senate (having determined in advance that at the worst a filibuster would prevent its passage), b) demand the immediate institution of impeachment proceedings in the House.

B)                  Facing the likelihood of a Republican refusal to reconvene, the Democrats, and any Republican allies they might be able to scrape up, especially if Bush does this horrendous thing before the election, would have to call a rump session of Congress, possibly outside of Washington, to do “A” above.

C)                  Mount a massive mass/news-media counter offensive against the Privatized Ministry of Propaganda.

D)                  Mobilize whatever military leadership they could find, especially among the active flag-officer class willing to risk their careers by coming out against the war, possibly even refusing to serve in it, on the basis that it would be un-Constitutionally declared.

E)                  Take their case to the UN, through the large number of member nations that would be opposed.

F)                  START NOW, RIGHT NOW!  The Georgites must be very publicly asked, in a variety of forums, about the Georgites intentions and exactly what the military preparations in the Arabian Sea mean.

Well, that’s it for now, my friends. I don’t pray, but those of you who do, please do.  As for me, I hope that wiser heads, with power, will prevail, either before or after the catastrophe we face were to occur.  For if they don’t it may well be that, for one reason or another, there will not be too many more of these columns following.

IRAN NUKES (Expanded Edition), REVISITED

Column No. 124 By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH - October 5, 2006

This column is a slightly edited revisit to a series of short pieces that were run in this space last spring, which were in turn based upon a series of “Dr. J.’s Short Shots” run on our European Editor Michael Carmichael’s “The Moving Planet (Ltd. UK) Blog” (http://www.planetarymovement.org/) for which I am privileged to be a Contributing Editor.  The topic will, I fear, be with us for quite some time and there are some new developments.  Thus, in my view it is worth this revisit, with some editing and additional commentary.

On Monday, November 29, 2004, in "Short Shot No. 27: Iranian Nukes," I wrote in part that, at that time, not a day seemed to pass without the Iranians changing their position on nuclear weapons development.  One day, they were accepting European proposals for an agreement to suspend it; the next day they seemed to be repudiating any agreement.  The U.S. and the Israelis were working hard to paint the scariest of scenarios that might arise were Iran to join the nuclear club, albeit with only a few bombs and fairly primitive delivery systems.  [Even back then] I happened to think that the scariest nation having nuclear weaponry at present is the United States under the Georgites [and still do].  It is well known that leading members of and top advisors to the Georgite regime have for some time openly talked about invading Iran.  Since the U.S. ground forces are having such a tough time against lightly armed guerillas in Iraq, with what is the U.S. going to invade Iran, one might ask?  The “nuclear option was obviously on the table.

Consider the history.  The U.S. is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons.  Since the time of the Eisenhower Administration (and to my knowledge only under successor Republican presidents), the U.S has actually considered using them again in one situation or another.  In the Iraq war, Georgite propagandists like Bill O’Reilly talked about "nuking" Fallujah.  In his national radio program on June 25, 2005, Paul Harvey, the 87 year-old Disney Corp. (ABC) commentator, questioned why “rifles” were used in Afghanistan instead of the “big one.”  The Georgite program to develop a whole new generation of "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons, designed to get at underground facilities of various kinds, receiving on-again, off-again, on-again consideration in the Republican Congress, with cost being apparently the only concern.  Most recently [that is as of the Fall of 2004], the Georgites have announced their interest in starting up a new program to develop enriched plutonium.  Such work had not been done in years.  One wonders just what the purpose of that program would be.

If I or you were in the Iranian leadership, liberal or conservative, given these facts and given that close-by Israel, presently under the Partition-rejectionist/Palestinians-ejectionist Sharonists, is estimated to have about 400 nuclear weapons, wouldn’t you and I want to have them, too?

Unless a deal is made, and since the Iranian nuclear industry is widely decentralized, only a complete takeover of the whole country by the US could prevent Iran from eventually acquiring nuclear weapons.  The deal that the Iranians may be on their way to making with the Europeans and the Russians may be indeed not to acquire nukes, in return for a solid guarantee of protection against the US.  Perhaps (I noted back then) this is what the on-again/off-again nature of the public Iranian position is all about, as the various forces maneuver behind closed doors to provide those guarantees to the Iranians.  Stranger alliances have occurred in history.

On December 04, 2004, I followed that commentary with "Short Shot No. 31: Further on Iranian Nukes."  In it I noted that a friend, a very sharp political analyst and a strong anti-Georgite on most issues, had sent me the following comment:

"Steve: If you're really, truly more afraid of George Bush than of the theocrats in Teheran, I'm afraid we don't have anything to say to each other on this topic.  If it's just rhetoric, I think it's ill-judged rhetoric."

I sent him the following response:

"Hi.  Yes, I am more afraid of George Bush and the theocrats/Neocons who are running him than I am of the theocrats in Teheran.  George Bush is rapidly turning our country into a fascist dictatorship.  This is beyond the power of the Iranians to do, nuclear-tipped or not.  The negative impacts of Georgite policy, not only for our country but also for the human species as we know it, are terrifying, in my view.  Whether or not Iran acquires nuclear weapons, I am indeed much more afraid that the Georgite theocratic/Armageddonists, as they become evermore entrenched in power, while evermore feeling that, on the international stage, their backs are against the wall, might use the US nukes than that the Iranians would use theirs."

I never did receive a response from my erstwhile correspondent.  He is obviously a man of his word, that if I stuck to my position, we had nothing further to talk about.

I returned to the subject on February 21, 2005 in "Short Shot No. 48: Going Nuclear in Iran?”  I noted that our Editor/Publisher Michael Carmichael had just published the next item below on The Iran War.  It began:

"Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter have reported that the US planning for the Iran War is reaching a very advanced stage.  George Bush has already approved a June launch, when the bombing will target strategic sites inside Iran.”  And continuing: ". . . the Defense Department is now revising military plans for a maximum ground and air invasion of the oil-rich nation."  [Hersh and Ritter were off on their timing, obviously.  We must fervently hope that the increasing number of analysts/commentators who are predicting a Georgite invasion of Iran either before or just after the election are wrong as well.]

Right above the notice of Michael's item in my email in-box that day was the daily bulletin from The Washington Post, which contained this lead item: "Army Having Difficulty Meeting Recruiting Goals.  The active-duty Army is in danger of failing to meet its recruiting goals, and is beginning to suffer from manpower strains like those that have dropped the National Guard and Reserves below full strength, according to Army figures and interviews with senior officers.  (By Ann Scott Tyson, The Washington Post)."

The Georgite maxi-Imperialists must know this [and the situation is only getting worse].  The US will have nowhere near enough ground forces for any sort of conventional invasion of Iran.  It is having a hard time holding its own against guerrillas in Iraq, much less the large, well organized and well-equipped army it would be facing in Iran.  It could very well confront mass rebellion in the ranks of the Reserves and National Guard, and even the regular forces, including some high-ranking officers (many of whom opposed the Iraq invasion, at least at the planning level) were it to try to mount a conventional invasion of Iran.  Does this mean that the powers that be are planning to go nuclear?

Yes, folks.  That is what I wrote.  The end of civilization as we know it may be closer than most of us think.

Finally, on February 25, 2005, in "Short Shot No. 49: There He Goes Again," I noted that George Bush was in Europe, talking about Iran and nuclear weapons.  While there, Bush said that he strongly endorsed the European diplomatic option in pursuit of a settlement with the "Moolahs" on the matter of "nookyulahr" weapons (yes, he used those pronunciations in a sound bite heard on All Things Considered, 2/23/ 05).  "Most important," he said.  "Will continue," he said.  "Absolutely the first option," he said.  (He did not say, of course, that his own government would engage in direct diplomacy with Iran on matters of mutual concern, any more than his government did with Hussein's Iraq, or is doing with North Korea, which has repeatedly requested bilateral negotiations.)

Which brings us to the present [that is, July 28, 2005], and my present comment.

While the open military assault predicted by Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh has not yet taken place, according to Ritter the U.S. assault on Iran has already begun, covertly.  If true, this initiative has much in common with the pre-emptive air war that the US and the UK launched against Iraq well before they went to the UN with their “justifications” for “meeting the clear and present danger that Hussein’s Iraq presented to the world.”  Ritter states that the anti-Iranian government terrorist organization, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (known as the MEK or MKO in the West) is operating as a strike force under CIA direction, and that the United States is preparing to stage military attacks with U.S. troops from the neighboring Republic of Azerbaijan.

As for the Iranian President and the possibility of U.S.-Iranian negotiations, the process of demonization of the former, most likely to give the US an excuse not to negotiate with him, has already begun.  He has been identified as a hostage-taker, interrogator, and possible torturer during the Tehran US Embassy hostage crisis of 1979-80 by at least six former hostages.  Iranian authorities are going out of their way to deny this, but one wonders what difference that would make if the Georgites really wanted to negotiate.  Of course, the US does not negotiate with terrorists.  Except.  Except when its interest is to do so.

After all, Reagan may well have negotiated with the Ayatollah Khomeini during the 1980 elections, with Bush the First as a major go-between, to defer release of the hostages until after the US elections, which Khomeini did (see the book October Surprise by Gary Sick).  Reagan definitely negotiated with the Khomeini regime to arrange the Iran part of the Iran-Contra scheme to raise money to buy weapons for the Nicaragua contras.  Both sides of the conspiracy were illegal.  Iran was at the time officially designated as a "terrorist state” by the US, and US aid of any kind to the Contras was specifically prohibited by the Boland Amendment.  So Bush's ideological forbears, including directly his Dad, negotiated directly with the Iranian terrorists when it served their objectives. The Rumsfeld-lead mission under Reagan to line up with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War (which funnily enough occurred around the same time that Iran-Contra was underway) is well-known.  As for the present, the Georgites are apparently negotiating with the Iraqi insurgents/terrorists right now (what exactly about, one has to wonder).  But direct negotiations with the government of Iran would not serve their interests now, so the facts be damned.  Let the demonization begin.

History, consistency, and honesty are just inconveniences for the Georgites and their supporters.  On the much more important nuclear question, one still has to wonder, is the use of nuclear weapons already on the Georgite agenda for Iran?  Given their extraordinary track record for secrecy and conspiracy, we may know only when the first mushroom cloud appears over the Elburz, or perhaps the Tagros mountains of that historic land.