The giddiness among Democrats about their prospects for a sweep in both
Houses of Representatives has reached a level of absolute euphoria. But what
exactly are the voters are hoping for?
A speedy exit from Iraq?
John Walsh posted a great article on CounterPunch.org; "Election 2006: The Fix is
already In", which outlines the grim facts about "candidate
selection" in the Democratic Party. The Democratic leadership has no
intention of extracting us from the bloody mess in Babylon and they have
methodically rooted-out the bothersome antiwar-types from their pool of
potential candidates. As Walsh points out, nearly eight out of every 10
Democrats (78 percent) want an immediate or partial withdrawal of troops from
Iraq. That, of course, makes no difference to the DLC-powerbrokers who have
thrown their bucks behind candidates who are completely divorced from the
convictions of the party faithful.
As Walsh reports: "64 percent of the Democratic candidates in the
45 closely contested House Congressional races OPPOSE a timetable for
withdrawal from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democratic worthies
oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or defunding the war;
they oppose as much as a timetable. The position of these Dem candidates is
indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush".
Prediction: The Democrats will never get us out of Iraq nor will they
repeal the USAPATRIOT Act or the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (which allows
Bush to imprison American citizens without charges and torture them according
to his own discretion)
The party has been co-opted by a pro-business, liberty-slashing,
war-mongering clique of free traders who simply feel they can put a better face
on imperial politics.
No argument there; but for anyone with a trace of a conscience, the
prospect of voting for a party that may slaughter another half-million or so
Iraqis presents some basic ethical problems. Is it too sanctimonious to suggest
that the war in Iraq is MORALLY EVIL, and that any policy or party that
supports the conflict must be flatly rejected?
Ahhh yes; time to don the body-armor and protective headgear that one
needs whenever they make disparaging remarks about the Democratic Party. It's
never healthy to take aim at the emasculated phonies who run America's
"other" war party.
Regrettably, the Democratic Party is only slightly different from the
GOP. That's not pessimism; it's realism. We need to be clear about the
magnitude of the task in front of us if we expect to have any hope of restoring
our personal liberties and ending the butchery in Iraq.
Despite the dramatic shift-away from the Republican Party, Bush and Co.
must have something up their sleeves for the mid-terms. After all, the
Eisenhower carrier group is steaming towards the Gulf for a possible
confrontation with Iran; so the fur could fly at any minute.
It seems improbable that Bush would allow a takeover in the House and
Senate knowing that unpleasant investigations into 9-11, war crimes, and
executive abuses of power could quickly follow.
So, what's he up to?
Who knows? But we do know that the present occupants of 1600
Pennsylvania Ave. are high-stakes gamblers who are bound to roll the dice to
keep their chestnuts out of the bonfire.
Something is bound to snap, and fairly soon, too. Bush and Cheney didn't
assemble all the levers of tyrannical rule (including the repeal of habeas
corpus, due process, and the laws banning cruel and unusual punishment) just to
transfer that authority to Democratic leaders in the Congress. That simply
The Democrats are headed into the elections fairly confident that they
can regain a place at the political table and have their voices heard on the
conduct of the war. They have no intention of leaving Iraq. They simply want to
change directions and minimize the damage to America's long-term interests.
Their strategy is probably similar to the (forthcoming) recommendations of
James Baker's "Iraq Study Group". In fact, I'd be surprised if
leaders on both sides of the aisle haven't already collaborated on the details
to make it more palatable to Bush.
But these guys are in La-la Land. The Bush team will never relinquish
power, nor will they accept the results of a system of balloting which they
conspicuously despise. They've spent six years "transforming" the
military so that it serves the exclusive interests of corporate mandarins. They
have changed FEMA into a stealth-organization which defends the political
status quo from potential internal security threats (including Continuity of
Government COG provisions which disband the Congress) And, they have created a
global torture and liquidation regime for preemptively eliminating enemies real
Nothing in the present Bush system is transferable. It is a
"one-shot deal" tailor-made for fanatical neocons, who play for
Winner take all.
I have no idea what the Bush troupe is planning, but we'll all have a
better idea by November 7; so, buckle up!
One small footnote: Prensa Latina News Agency reports that "Luis D.
Elia, Undersecretary for the Social Habitat in the Argentine Federal Planning
Ministry, issued a memo in which he spoke of the purchase by Bush of a 98,842
acre farm in Northern Paraguay, between Brazil and Bolivia". (Oct 13)
Bush bought a 100,000 acre ranch in Paraguay?
Are you kidding me? Is Bush planning an early retirement with his Nazi
friends south of the border?
It's just too weird to wonder?
Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org.