Why some Dems are war hawks

From silly to stupid: now that Clinton and Biden have started their run for the White House (don’t believe me? check your mailbox for campaign fund solicitations from said folks), perhaps it’s time we started hounding them in re: their war hawk positions on “staying the course” in Iraq. It would be pretty fucked up if we bounce one war president only to have another one of the opposition party pop up to take his place. And while you’re at it, send The New York Time’s Tom Friedman a stink bomb or two; that idiot ought to go into hiding. Half of this shit is his fault.

If you’ve been tearing your hair out trying to understand why Democrats like Lieberman, Biden and Clinton have taken such un-progressive views on the continuing occupation of Iraq, you might want to pop over to The Nation and check out this article by Ari Berman on the “strategic class,” that group of pundits, hothouse thinkers and has-been academics who help shape Democratic foreign policy thinking.

A clip:

As one example, Stephen Walt, a leading foreign policy expert and academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, says that "Brookings [Institute]was basically supportive of the war in Iraq. If Brookings is signing on to a major foreign policy initiative of a Republican Administration, that doesn't give the Democratic mainstream much room to mount a really forceful critique of the incumbent foreign policy." Much of Kerry's campaign platform--with its calls to add 40,000 troops to the military, preserve the doctrine of pre-emptive war and stay the course in Iraq--read as if it had been lifted verbatim from a Brookings strategy memo.

[snip]

At the bottom of the pyramid are the liberal hawks in the punditocracy, figures like New Republic editor Peter Beinart, Time writer Joe Klein and New York Times columnist Tom Friedman. These pundits, along with purely partisan outfits like the Democratic Leadership Council's Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), help to both set the agenda and frame the debate. The journalistic hawks churn out the agitprop that the more respectable think tanks turn into "serious" scholarship, some of which eventually becomes policy, or at least talking points, when adopted by the politicians.

Dinosaurs all; bloody-red-meat-eating dinosaurs, bound and determined to make the future into an Orwellian nightmare of perpetual warfare. Just because they say they’re Democrats doesn’t make it so. A war hawk is a war hawk, gentle readers, and very bad news for all concerned. Think Lyndon Johnson.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

While the general public has been reluctant to march on Washington in any kind of numbers that really count or write scathing letters to the editor en masse and newspaper editorial pages dare not speak the name for fear of corporate reprisals, it seems that the public’s boiling resentment of the President’s war in Iraq, a raft of other things and most particularly his bungling of the Hurricane Katrina response has caused a huge percentage, possibly a majority (albeit a slim one) to seriously consider whether or not this President should be impeached.

I’ve been of the opinion that he should have been denied the office in the first place and for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that he obtained it by theft and with the unconstitutional connivance of the Supreme Court, and while we’re at it, certain members of the Supreme Court should be impeached as well. Still, better late than never, I suppose.

Impeach Bush Coalition, a blog and grassroots group dedicated to the exposure of the lies that brought on the Iraq war, has commissioned a poll by Ipsos Public Affairs (via the offices of the good people at AfterDowningStreet.org) to determine the exact temperature of the public’s boil:

“If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him.”

Yes: 51% Average among all voters polled, regardless of party affiliation, with the “No’s at 44%, with 8% either not caring or misunderstanding the question. Details here.

A poll conducted by Zogby International back in June found 42% willing to consider impeachment, but the Katrina fiasco no doubt kicked the public’s sentiment past gnashing-of-teeth and into tar-and-feather mode.

OK, let’s do it.

Possible grounds (this is just off the top of my head; I’m sure with a little digging you can add more charges with just a cursory review of this president’s recent history):

High crimes

Illegal invasion of a sovereign foreign nation

Unconstitutional use of the armed forces

Unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus

Authorizing assassination, torture and kidnapping

Illegal detention of foreign nationals (multiple counts)

Illegal detention of US citizens (multiple counts)

Illegal declaration of a national emergency

Crimes against humanity (multiple counts)

Misappropriation of government funds ($8 billion US in cash gone missing in Iraq)

Misdemeanors

Malfeasance in office: appointment of incompetent cronies to do the nation’s business

Malfeasance in office: pathological lying about everything to everybody

Malfeasance in office: smirking in public

Just a passing thought here. If this many people think that Bush might be ripe for impeachment, one wonders just how long they have been considering this option in the back of their minds. I mean, 50% is a huge number, and to have someone respond, you know, right out, “yeah, let’s start thinking about impeachment,” probably means they’ve already been considering it for some time. Yeah, OK, a silly thing to point out, but that’s what blogs are for, right?

California propositions

There are eight Propositions scheduled for a Special Election, November 8, 2005 in the State of California. Some are aimed at budget adjustments, while one falls under the penumbra of abortion rights, and one is related to the affordability of prescription drugs.

This review is intended as a quick guide to voting, with recommendations on the way to vote based on my own jaundiced view of the Initiative’s merit as a native Californian, with no agenda but the quality of life in the great State of California. Broadly speaking, I’m not in favor of the Proposition system, but it’s what we’ve got, so let’s see what’s what this go-around.

Some Notes
All of these Propositions were brought to the ballot by so-called ‘special interests,’ but when you get down to it, every single citizen is a member of a special interest group, even if the membership is a party of one. Some of these bills seem to have been hand-crafted by lawyers working for corporations with vested interests, while some others seem to have been brought forward by genuine consumer rights groups.

Don’t be fooled by the cute titles, as most are deliberately designed to obfuscate the true intent of the law. Follow the links for the actual bills, source materials and other pertinent information.

As always, read the Secretary of State’s Legislative Analyst’s view for cost impact and potential public harm. You might also want to visit The League of Women Voters of California for some analysis. They're usually pretty fair on any given issue. Pay no attention to the TV ads, they’re designed to confuse you and make you weak. Vote with your head, but consult your heart as well. This is your state, your democracy, live here wisely. Thank you.


Prop Number - Legislative Name – Summary – Way to Vote

Prop 73 Parents Right to Know and Child Protection Initiative

Parental notification (abortion rights)
Pay attention here: this is an amendment to the State Constitution, and it defines ‘abortion’ as causing the death of a child as “conceived, but not yet born.” Rather than address the issue of why young women get pregnant, it is well-meaning but intrusive, designed to throw up another roadblock in the sphere of women’s rights. This legal solution comes from “conservative values” people who throw laws at problems of race and gender that they can’t or won’t face in open public debate.
It’s sneaky language is designed to trump Roe v. Wade but could also cause a raft of problems down the road because the use of RU-486 (“morning after pill”) would fall under the definition of ‘abortion,’ thereby banning its use without parental or judicial notification. Very troubling privacy rights issues and probably based in racism. Sponsored by John Birch Society-like entities.
Bad idea.
NO

Prop 74 Put the Kids First Act

Reduces probationary period for first time teachers
Complete red herring, does nothing for quality education, certainly guaranteed to increase local school administrative costs. Prime example of what is wrong with the Proposition system. Why it’s on the ballot is a mystery to me.
Bad idea.
NO

Prop 75 The Public Employees Right to Approve Use of Union Dues for Political Campaign Purposes Act

Union-busting
Attempt to modify existing election funding law to favor corporations over labor, embarrass non-union employees while emasculating union influence over labor conditions. Bad idea.
NO

Prop 76 California Live Within Our Means Act

Tax reduction, funding of education, police, first responders
Good idea, bad execution. Could easily (and probably will) result in permanent reductions in education funding at governor’s sole discretion. Shifts funding for education, firefighting and police services to counties, virtually guaranteeing reduction in services forever, while locking in pork barrel projects.
Really bad legislation.
NO

Prop 77 Redistricting Reform: The Voter Empowerment Act

Redistricting
Changes schedule of redistricting by clever system of endless postponements, potentially disenfranchising many, while ensuring incumbents get to ‘pick their own voters.’ Way too clever by half. May be on ballot illegally. Informative article here.
It stinks.
NO

Prop 78 California State Pharmacy Assistance Program (Cal RX)

Prescription drug costs reduction program
Alleged costs reduction program legislation written by lobbyists for the giant pharmaceuticals. Need I say more?
Corporate dodge.
NO

Prop 79 Cheaper Prescription Drugs For California Act (Cal RX Plus)

Prescription drugs costs reduction program
Written by a consumer activist group, this bill forces drug companies to offer lower prices and ties in discount pricing with the Medi-Cal program while enlarging the eligibility pool
of entitled people. There will probably be a spike in costs to the state as the program starts up which will fall significantly over the course of the next several years. A boon to many.
Good idea.
YES

Prop 80 The Repeal of Electricity Deregulation and Blackout Prevention Act

Re-regulates the electrical production industry
An act that does what it says it does! Regulates the price of electricity to the mass market, prevents Enron-like price gouging and market-cornering. Mandates increased alternative energy production with a specific timetable. Really doesn’t go all the way in
imposing stiff fines for failure to perform, but it’s a good start.
Excellent idea.
YES