Joe Scott 3: The Body Politic

Torture Ban: More Doublespeak?

17 December 2005 |permalink | email article

President Bushís agreement to accept a formal ban on torture, after threatening a veto and resisting it for months as a signature issue in his war on terror, is a rare defeat for him and major victory for Sen. John McCain.

The real question, after the high fives and good news, is whether McCainís triumph signals a complete ban on torture.

The ban was clear when the Republican-controlled House voted 308 to 122, with 107 GOP members lining up with the Democrats, to support the McCain measure. The Senate approved it in October by 90 to 9 as part of a military spending bill, which may yet be the joker in the deck.

Despite the feigned truce in the Oval Office between the two sometime rivals, Bushís forced smile could not conceal a blunt political fact: just 13 months after his reelection and with terrorism his highest priority, his leadership is weakened. His credibility among European allies is almost nonexistent and his party is splintered over major domestic issues including rebuilding the Gulf coast and immigration reform.

McCainís success appears to be a major defeat for Vice President Cheney who fought hard to block a truce and get Congress to exempt covert CIA intelligence officers from the Arizona senatorís legislation.

But, watching Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales on CNN soon after the Bush-McCain handshake, one got the distinct impression that doublespeak still plays a role in torture and will be defined the way the White House chooses. Gonzales made it clear that torture meant the intentional infliction of ìsevereî physical or mental harm.

Also morally troubling is that McCainís amendment is attached to a scary bill introduced by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin. The current version appears to allow coerced confessions, which might strip U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court, of the power to review detentions.

As the New York Times editorial board opined, ìWhat is at stake here, and so harmful to Americaís reputation, is the routine mistreatment of prisoners swept up in the so-called war on terror.î

Bush on VI Day

15 December 2005 |permalink | email article

President Bushís address on the eve of Iraqís first parliamentary elections reprised his Dec. 1 mantra in Annapolis: ìWe will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than total victory.î

His then reference to VJ Day, when Japan surrendered on the deck of the USS Missouri, set the stage for his muscular rhetoric about victory in Iraq. But in the real world, illusions of victory - VI Day in Iraq - can be as deceptive as the U.S. found out in Vietnam. 

I mean, to use Bushís criteria, how do you determine when a) the terrorists and “Saddamists” can no longer threaten Iraqís democracy; b) Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens; and c) Iraq is no longer a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on the U.S?

His articulation of what constitutes victory is now more somber and nuanced than only weeks ago. The concession of intelligence mistakes, that successful voting wonít make the insurgents give up and the call for ìpatienceî by both Iraqis and Americans will only escalate the U.S. debate about whether the war is already lost ñ more blood, sweat and tears. What are the generals telling Jack Murtha in private?

Bush’s statement that the U.S. ìdid not choose war ñ the choice was Saddam Husseinísî ñ an attempt to counter a strong impression by a majority of Americans that the Iraq invasion was a war of choice, or that senators had as much intelligence information as he did - are blatantly untrue and the administration knows it. 

More compelling to me was how Bush tried to associate the cause for freedom in Iraq with how President Harry Truman successfully planted the seeds of freedom and democracy in Japan after World War II.

It is a terrible analogy. Unlike the fall of Saddam, Hirohito remained on the throne after the war and the Japanese were a peaceful and unified society under the U.S. occupation ñ quite the opposite of the Iraqis, divided since ancient times by tribal, religious and family feuds.

The reaction of Democratic leaders is predictable: Bush has yet to spell out the remaining political, economic and military benchmarks that must be met to claim victory. While correct, the party opposite has failed to articulate a compelling vision of its own ñ how a secular democracy in Iraq, given the clear animosity between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, can survive and avoid the eventual fate of Yugoslavia.

Joe Lieberman and Iraq

14 December 2005 |permalink | email article

The powerful editorial board of the Wall Street Journal rewards political friends and attacks political enemies.

This week it rushed to defend Joe Lieberman, the 2000 running mate of Al Gore and the Democrat from Connecticut, who has dared to agree with President Bush that the U.S. must and will win the war, from colleagues in the Senate.

The presidentís new cheerleader, in Iraq four times in 17 months, told the Hartford Courant he is unapologetic about his defense of Bushís Iraq policy. îI think Bush has it right.î He denied he is a neocon but added that some of his best friends are.

Lieberman sees the importance of rare bipartisan sentiments and draws a parallel from the early days of the Cold War. Then a Democratic President, Harry Truman, tried to build alliances to fight Communism despite fierce criticism from many Republican conservatives, notably their Senate leader, Bob Taft of Ohio.

But Arthur Vandenberg, a GOP Senator from Michigan and longtime isolationist, stood up to support Truman and a bipartisan ìcontainmentî strategy was born - which could have worked with major U.S. allies in Iraq had not Bush willed a first-strike rush to war.

The Journal’s editorial predictably seizes on Lierbermanís scenario and suggests that if Democrats are smart theyíll listen to what heís saying about the defeatist message theyíre now sending about Iraq, and U.S. foreign policy in general.

But to imply that the Connecticut senator is a credible reincarnation of Vandenberg is mind-bending, both in terms of history and the moment. He lacks the political skill the Michigan senator brought to bear in forging true bipartisan support for the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan or NATO.

ìWhen Vandenberg spoke,” his official Senate biography reads, ìthe Senate chamber filled with senators and reporters, eager to hear what he had to say.î Lieberman is no Vandenberg but a Bush toady squirming within the Democratic caucus.

As the Courant noted, Liebermanís political fate was sealed with a kiss, planted on his cheek by Bush, just after the President delivered his State of the Union address. Truman was blunt but never a fool.