But a very different reality is now confronting the Democrats.
News of the neoconservative demise proved premature; the meaning of
Rumsfeld’s departure was misunderstood (he was booted when he privately
called for an Iraq War de-escalation); and the Republican “realists”
remained outside Bush's inner circle looking in.
Then, the
Democratic leaders stumbled and crumbled in the face of a president
determined to escalate the war in Iraq, expand his “war on terror”
surveillance powers, and ratchet up pressure for a possible new war
with Iran.
The hard fact that the national Democrats missed was
that the political dynamics of Washington had not changed very much.
Plus, their wishful thinking in November 2006 and their irresolute
actions throughout 2007 alienated millions of Americans who had hoped a
Democratic majority in Congress might make a difference.
Today,
the U.S. capital is in the midst of a bizarre replay of 2002 when
Democrats tried to assuage Bush by acceding to his demands and major
mainstream news outlets joined with the powerful right-wing media in a
lock-step march toward war.
For instance, the Washington Post’s
neoconservative editorial-page editors are beating the drums for war
with Iran, much as they did five years ago when they bought into Bush’s
bogus WMD claims in the prelude to war with Iraq.
The Post not
only endorsed Bush’s plan to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a
“specially designated global terrorist” organization for its alleged
role aiding Shiite militias in Iraq, but has suggested that Bush go
further.
In an Aug. 21 lead editorial entitled “Tougher on
Iran,” the Post editors accepted uncritically the administration’s
claims about Iran’s actions in Iraq, such as supplying sophisticated
roadside bombs that kill American soldiers.
The Post called the
terrorist designation, which could put the two countries firmly on a
path toward confrontation, “the least the United States should be
doing, given the soaring number of Iranian-sponsored bomb attacks in
Iraq.”
[For more on the media’s Iraq War role, see our new book,
Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.]
Tough-Guy Consensus
What
is perhaps most telling about Official Washington’s continued
“tough-guy” consensus is that the roster of the Post’s neocon-dominated
op-ed page remains almost the same as it was in fall 2002 with the most
notable change the addition of former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson
to provide even more pro-Bush opinions.
While it's true the
nation’s other premier newspaper, the New York Times, has editorialized
against the Iraq War and urged serious diplomacy with Iran, it too has
bent over backwards to open its op-ed section to pro-Bush propaganda.
The
Times gave prominent play to an influential – and misleading – Iraq War
article, entitled “A War We Just Might Win” by pro-surge pundits
Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “
NYT’s
New Pro-War Propaganda.”]
By contrast, the Times buried on page
11 of its “Week in Review” section an extraordinary article by seven
82nd Airborne soldiers finishing up 15-month tours in Iraq, entitled
“
The War as We Saw It.”
These seven soldiers, six sergeants and one Army specialist, called the political debate in Washington “surreal” and added:
“To
believe that Americans, with an occupation force that long ago outlived
its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and
win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. … We are skeptical of recent
press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and
feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest
that we see everyday.”
Beyond the lesser play that the Times
afforded the non-coms, their article got far less bounce on the chat
shows than did the Pollack-O'Hanlon piece, even though one was written
by soldiers with first-hand experience and the other by two think-tank
analysts who were chaperoned on a carefully managed tour of selected
scenes in Iraq.
When the non-com article was discussed on TV and
radio, it often was framed as a debate over the propriety of non-coms
in a battle zone expressing opinions. Similarly in the run-up to the
Iraq invasion, Americans who visited Iraq and expressed doubts about
Bush’s WMD claims were questioned about their motives and patriotism.
America’s
right-wing news media also remains a powerful and well-financed force,
disseminating pro-war talking points through print, radio, Internet and
TV outlets. Anyone who doesn’t praise the military progress in Iraq is
deemed “wedded to failure” or eager to set a “surrender date” or simply
“soft on terror.”
For the same career reasons that prevailed in
2002, many mainstream journalists tilt their reporting to the right to
avoid the damaging “liberal” label.
Air America’s Struggles
After
Election 2006, liberals and progressives also turned away from a
sustained commitment to build media outlets that would resist
right-wing pressure and make sure an alternative viewpoint reached the
American public.
Air America Radio went in and out of bankruptcy
but remains today an under-funded operation, while progressive and
independent Web sites continue to struggle with negligible financial
support.
Instead, since November 2006, liberal/progressive money
has poured into the political campaigns of Democratic presidential
hopefuls or into “organizing.” The goal of a new media infrastructure
has been neglected again.
On the political front, the leading
Democratic presidential candidates have all staked out anti-Iraq War
positions, but some – along with a growing list of congressional
Democrats – have begun to equivocate in the face of the new pro-war
propaganda.
For instance, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, who
voted to give Bush war authorization in 2002, is inserting new rhetoric
into her speeches praising U.S. military progress under Bush’s “surge”
strategy.
“We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some
areas, particularly in Anbar province, it’s working,” Clinton told the
Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 21.
Other Democrats, who spent
part of their August recess taking guided tours of Iraq, also have come
back hailing military progress.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan,
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, not only cited
supposed battlefield gains but offered Bush a ready alternative if he
wants to guarantee war funding through 2008. Levin recommended the
ouster of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, an idea that Bush didn’t
discourage when asked about it.
So, if Bush arranges for
Maliki’s removal – either with a violent Diem-like coup as happened in
Vietnam or by arranging a comfy exile for Maliki – Levin effectively
has bought into another year or so of war funding to give a new Iraqi
government a chance to succeed.
[For more on Levin’s "anti-war" blundering, see Consortiumnews.com’s “
Sen. Levin’s False History & Logic.”]
Some
junior Democratic congressmen have returned from Iraq trimming their
sails on the war after getting buffeted by both a well-presented
military tour of Iraq and an aggressive Republican pressure campaign
back home.
For instance, Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-California,
expressed a readiness to be more flexible on troop withdrawal timelines
after being shown the supposed progress in Anbar province and other
areas of Iraq.
“We should sit down with Republicans, see what
would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the
president, start negotiating from the beginning,” McNerney said in an
interview. [Washington Post, Aug. 22, 2007]
Brainwashing
Writings 
Many national Democrats saw last year’s election as a political turning point. They cheered the voters’ repudiation of a Republican one-party state; they hailed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s ouster the next day; and they were sure that resurgent GOP “realists” would help wind down the Iraq War.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
