Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 13: The BushGoal for iraq

The Report of the Iraq Study Group, the independent report from senior American diplomat Andrew Cordesman, various assessments from the CIA and the Pentagon themselves, all say that the U.S. is losing, or at least losing ground, in Iraq. All agree that there has to be some kind of reasonable, rational plan for a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq within some reasonable period of time, “victory” or no. Yet in his Dec. 20, 2006 press conference, referenced on BuzzFlash on Dec. 21, Bush said:

”Victory in Iraq is achievable . . . . It hadn’t happened nearly as quickly as I hoped it would have. . . .” Confirming that he either cannot or will not read or listen, he went on to say: “But I also don’t believe most Americans want us just to get out now, . . . . A lot of Americans understand the consequences of defeat [he did not define “defeat”]. Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States.” He concluded this particular riff with: “[W]e’re not winning. We’re not losing. [W]e’re not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted . . . . [C]onditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad. . . . I believe that we’re going to win [he did not define “win”]. I believe that - and, by the way, if I didn’t think that, I wouldn’t have our troops there.”

And so, the latest plan is to send in 20-30,000 more troops from an already way over-stretched armed force. This is a plan that his top generals (to whom he always listens, of course) have told him a) won’t work and b) beyond not working may well make things worse. In U.S. Iraq Commanding General Casey’s (paraphrased) words, it would make things appear even more like an occupation. That despite the military advice, Bush is still pushing ahead is indicative of what his real goals, to which I have previously spoken, are.

More…

(While his plan is on the surface being adhered to by the top commanders, the same AP article cited above also noted that: “The shift in policy is likely to be accompanied by a shuffle of top American generals in Iraq. Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, has submitted plans to go ahead with a retirement that is months overdue. And the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, has indicated he may not stay much longer than the end of this year. Abizaid and Casey have opposed sending more troops to Iraq, and their departures could make it easier for Bush to send more soldiers to the war.”)

It is becoming clearer every day that the BushCheney plan for Iraq is for Permanent War, with permanent killing of U.S. servicepople and, in much larger numbers, Iraqis, military and civilian alike. Let us hope that once retired, either Gen. Abizaid or Gen. Casey or both, will remember one of the primary responsibilities of generals, a lesson surely emphasized for them at West Point. That is not to go on taking casualties when it is clear that the military element of the war is lost. If they do, let us hope that they will speak out against the BushCheney policy, just as Colin Powell has (finally) done. But whether or not they do, the anti-war political leadership in both parties will have to address this question above all others, better sooner than later.

This column first appeared on BuzzFlash on Mon, 12/25/2006 - 8:30pm. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/038

“Dr. J.” is a nom-de-plume for Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net) and a Columnist for BuzzFlash.

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 12: Tony Snow’s Job

 

 Most observers agree that the unanimous report of the Iraq Study Group is totally damning the Bush-Cheney policy for Iraq, as well as on its implementation. (It should be noted that among the members of the Group are former Senator Alan Simpson, one of the most conservative Republican Senators ever, before the Santorum-Inhofe crowd and Ed Meese, one-time President of the National Council for Policy [he may still be; they are very secretive], the organization for all of the major right and far right-wing organizations in the US.) At the White House press conference on Dec. 6, 2006, following the report’s release, David Gregory of NBC News, reading from the Report, asked White House press secretary Tony Snow if he didn’t think that its conclusions were indeed damning. Snow responded by attacking Gregory for asking a “partisan” question, and in the subsequent colloquy about that issue, not the report’s findings, managed to avoid dealing with the latter altogether.

 Thus Snow engaged in the classic right-wing response to potentially damning questions: always attack, never defend, and attack the questioner; do not deal with the substance of the question. In classic terms: kill the messenger. Snow has done this expertly in recent times on such matters as whether the Bush policy is still “stay the course” when they have announced that it is isn’t, and whether the civil war in Iraq is really a civil war when everyone else but them says that it is. So how come? Well, Tony Snow is just very expertly doing the job he was hired to do, and David Gregory and an occasional other brave journalist or no, he just isn’t going to change.

 In this space last April (”A Commentary on the Tony Snow Job“) it was noted that the job Snow was hired to do is surely not to answer questions forthrightly, honestly, and openly; is surely not to establish a cooperative relationship between the White House and the media; is surely not to increase the amount of information made available to the American people about the Executive Branch of their government, how it operates, and what it is doing. So what was, and is, it then?

 1. First, Snow was to revive the old CNN political show “Crossfire,” where yelling and screaming was substituted for rational discussion and disagreement over significant political issues. Reducing reporters to jelly by yelling at them, literally or figuratively, whether they yell back or not, is job one.2. Further demean and disdain the media, treating them as untrustworthy and unimportant. Obfuscate, conceal, distract, distort, and lie, with more skill than any previous holder of the position. 3. Begin the merger of the Privatized Ministry of Propaganda, of which F”N”C is the prime property, into the government.4. Snow is not a “newsman.” He is a voice of Radical Right-wing Republicanism. Hiring him clearly demonstrates what the Georgites think that “news” is all about — as made so clear every day by the F”N”C (which I do watch, folks): PROPAGANDA.

 So yesterday, Tony Snow certainly fulfilled his job description. As for his parent, it was said here last April that the Volkischer Beobachter (the Nazi Party’s daily “newspaper”) is right around the corner. Well, this morning (Dec. 7, 2006, Pearl Harbor Day, it happens), the three major stories dealt with on the prime 7 AM ST “Fox and Friends” segment (the morning show of the F”N”C for those smart enough never to look at Fox) were, in order: the resignation of one of Jimmy Carter’s staff over the former President’s publication of a book that condemns Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories, the announced plans of NASA to establish a permanent base on the moon and from there go on to a manned landing on Mars, and the fight against the “War on Christmas.” The ISG Report was mentioned briefly in their brief “news” segment. I kid you not.

This not-so-short shot was originally  Bpublished on BuzzFlash on Thu, 12/07/2006 - 12:24pm. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/035

 

“Dr. J” is a nom-de-plume for Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net) and a Columnist for BuzzFlash.

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 11: Iraqi Straws in the Wind

Bush is fiddling while Iraq burns. He is stood up at dinner by his own designated Iraqi Prime Minister. But he keeps on saying “we will stay until the job is done, we will give the PM all the help he needs, until victory is achieved,” even though we are no longer “staying the course,” without ever defining victory. He is just delighted to have the battle of words rage over what we should call what is going on in Iraq rather than over the total failure of his policy regardless of what it is called.

 For some time I have wondered if the various sides in the Iraq civil war would ever come to their senses and realize that their prime enemy is not each other but the U.S., which is an occupying force with its own agenda: oil and bases, and for the Cheney wing, permanent war at the permanent expense of Iraq. Yesterday morning on CNN in a news item that I have not yet seen elsewhere, it was stated that several prominent Sunni and Christian leaders have reached out to Muqtada al-Sadr, the most prominent anti-US Shiite leader. He had temporarily suspended the participation of several of his top aides in the current government, to protest Prime Minister al-Maliki’s meeting with Bush in Jordan.

The aforementioned leaders have said that they are looking for common ground with al-Sadr and are in the process of asking the UN to review its mandate under which the U.S. claims to be acting. Yes, folks, the key to achieving peace in Iraq may very well not be the continued U.S. presence there but its departure at the earliest possible time. If such a demand comes from a united Iraqi front, I just wonder what Busheney will do then. We already know what both the Baker wing of the Republican Party and the Congressional Democrats will be doing: dancing down the Congressional isles together.

This item was originally published on BuzzFlash on Fri, 12/01/2006 - 11:17am. Steven Jonas http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/033Dr. J. is a nom-de-plume for Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net) and a Columnist for BuzzFlash.

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 10: Defining Democracy and Freedom: Who Said This?

Recently, the leader of a major world power offered a definition of democracy and freedom that I thought our readers might be interested in seeing. It stands in such contrast to the functional definition offered by our very own President, for our very own people, embodied as it is in the Patriot Act and the “Military Commissions Act” which, among other things repeal the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the US Constitution, and on that sly addition to the “Defense Appropriations” Bill that allows the President to use the Army to deal with “domestic insurrection,” however he might define it. And so…“Freedom is universal and democracy is universal. People desire to live in free societies. The vast majority of people want to live in moderation and not have extremists kill innocent people. Our policies are to promote that kind of form of government. Democracies yield peace. Democracies don’t fight each other. It’s a universal right. Democracy means you can worship any way you choose, freely. People protest, that’s a good sign. It’s a sign of a healthy society.”

 Yes, folks, these words actually appeared in a response George Bush made to a question delivered at the press conference that followed his meeting with President Yudhoyono of Indonesia on Nov. 20, 2006.

 So the follow-up question has to be, “What is this guy on, anyway?”

This item originally appeared on BuzzFlash on Tue, 11/28/2006 - 4:35pm.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/032

“Dr. J.” is a nom-de-plume for Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net) and a Columnist for BuzzFlash.

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 9: Trent Lott, Republican Leader

While all the nattering is going on about the really refreshing openness and consideration of different viewpoints on such matters as the War on Iraq and Congressional earmarks in the House Democratic Caucus, it might be interesting to consider some of the basic positions of the newly elected Republican Senate Minority Whip, Trent Lott. Let’s, for example, hear what he has to say about race and racism, homosexuality and homophobia. They tell us volumes about what the Republican positions on these two critical questions concerning the social fabric of our county really are.

In a 1984 interview with the magazine, Southern Partisan, a journal of apologia for the Confederate States of America, he said (Applebome, P., “Dueling with the Heirs of Jeff Davis,” News of the Week in Review, New York Times, Dec. 27, 1998, p. 1): “I think that a lot of the fundamental principles that Jefferson Davis believed in are very important to people across the country, and they apply to the Republican Party.” One might want to ask Sen. Lott himself, and the party that chose him once again to be part of their Senate leadership, just which are the particular principles espoused by Davis to which he subscribes. The theory of white supremacy? The justification of slavery? The rights of the states in which slave-holding was legal at the time to continue the institution of slavery in perpetuity? Or perhaps it was the rights of slave-holders to bring the institution into any of the then unorganized territories.

 On the matter of homosexuality, in 2002 or so (and for this one I do not have before me the reference), on the Senate floor he said words to the effect of: “The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. So it is, and that’s that.”

 Tells us a lot, and a Lott too, about contemporary Republicanism, doesn’t it? That these positions are little known also tells us how much and how little are really known about what Republicans and their chosen leaders really stand for.

This item was originally pubished on BuzzFlash on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 11:08am.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/030

“Dr. J” is a nom-de-plume for Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net), Contributing Editor for The Planetary Movement (http://www.planetarymovement.org/ and a Columnist for BuzzFlash.

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 8: Not So Fast, Jim, or “The Return of the Chith”

So, just like me, you thought that Cheney was finished, huh? You thought that the upcoming report of the “Baker Commission” would set the course for a reasonable withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, primarily because the two original Georgite objectives of the invasion, oil and bases, had been achieved. You thought, like me, that the unceremonious ouster of Rumsfeld and the insertion of the old Bush-I/Baker hand, Bob Gates, signified that the battles had been fought and the Baker wing of the Republican power elite had won. You thought, like me, thought that the Baker folks were probably inwardly happy with the election of a Democratic Congress because dealing with rational people would make it easier for them to achieve their desired aim. Finally, like me, you thought that the next major head to roll might very well be Cheney’s. Well, we all have to think again.

 Vice-President “Permanent War” Cheney ain’t giving up without a fight. That was made clear by two events that occurred yesterday (Nov. 15, 2006). One was the testimony of the (obvious Cheney puppet) Gen. John Abizaid before a Senate panel that any talk of time-tables or “phased withdrawal” would be very ill-advised, that the “job wasn’t finished,” that the Iraqi forces needed lots more, better, and different training and leadership (as if it had not been his task to do that all these many months — what was this guy doing?) Sounded very much like “Stay the Course” without using those now prohibited words. Second was the announcement that the White House was setting up its own “study group” for Iraq policy and that the report of the Baker Commission was something they would certainly consider. Sounds like that report has suddenly gone from determining the future to teetering on the edge of the dustbin for policies that the Georgites just don’t like (any that are not their’s).

 This stuff has Cheney’s fingerprints all over it. And why would the No. 1 Georgite go in this direction? A) He really doesn’t feature losing his job and being unceremoniously tossed into the dustbin of failed Iraq policies himself. B) He still believes in the Neo-con/Project for a New American Century program for US world domination that has been at the heart of U.S. Middle East policy since Bush took over the Presidency. C) He still really wants to bomb the hell out of Iran “to show the world who is boss,” something that will definitely not happen if the Baker Commission polices, which include, oh my gosh, actually talking with Iran and Syria, are adopted. And D) most importantly, if an Iraq withdrawal is achieved, if Iran is not bombed to smithereens, if the “War on Terrorism” actually becomes a war on terrorism, not a cover for American imperialism, there go Cheney’s chances of establishing his dreamed of “Unitary Executive” otherwise known as “Fascist Dictatorship,” for which the legislative basis has already been established, right here in River City.

And so the Baker-Cheney battle is underway. It will be a fascinating to watch. The future of Iraq, Iran, Israel, and the rest of the Middle East and of Constitutional Democracy right here at home, are in the balance. Oh yes, what are the “Chith?” The Cheneyite Sith of “Star Wars” fame, of course.

 This item originally appeared on BuzzFlash on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 4:13pm. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/028


“Dr. J.” is a nom de plume for Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net) and a Columnist for BuzzFlash

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 7: Which Way Ya Gonna Go, Joe?

In the run-up to the election, Joe Lieberman was assuring Connecticut voters that [delete the first “he”] if elected he would continue to vote with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. He was elected, as you all know. (Why don’t I say “re-elected,” some might ask? Because it wasn’t Joe Lieberman, Democrat, who was elected, it was Joe Lieberman, former Democrat who was elected. He received about 70% of the Republican vote in Connecticut. If he had not gotten all of those Republican votes, the true Democratic candidate Ned Lamont would have won in a walk.) [Delete “further”] For his campaign, Lieberman received lots of Republican money and had senior Republican political consultants on his staff.

On October 17, 2006 elsewhere I published a short note speculating that were he to get back to the Senate, Lieberman might vote to caucus with the Republicans. Nevertheless, on the day after the election, appearing on the show of his “dear friend” Sean Hannity (!!!), Lieberman said unequivocally that he would caucus with the Democrats, while shooting darts at all the Democrats who had “deserted” him (“stabbed him in the back” [by supporting the elected nominee of their own party, of course] was the term Hannity used, without any demurrer from Lieberman). “I won’t ever forget what happened,” Lieberman said. But he also said, “I gave my word before the election [that he would caucus with the Dems.], and I will stick with it.”  In the new Senate his vote will be critical to how it is organized. If he votes with the Dems., it will be 51-49 and they will organize. If he votes with Repubs., it will be 50-50. The question of who would organize it in that case would be complex, very complex, but in any tie votes on legislation, Cheney would have the tie-breaker. (It is unclear if he would have the tie-breaker on organizing the Senate. At the very least there would be co-Majority leaders and the Committee chair positions would be spilt.) But now, all of a sudden, Lieberman’s not so sure which way he will go. On “Meet the Press” on Nov. 12, he announced that his party label would not be “D” but rather “ID:” Independent Democrat. Further he stated that he would now not rule out voting with the Republicans on the matter of organizing the Senate, although he was still “leaning” to the Democrats.

The question now becomes to whom, precisely, did he give his word on the matter of with whom he would be caucusing, were he to be going back to the Senate: the voters of Connecticut or the Republican power-brokers who put him back in office? Stay tuned, folks. Harry Reid may not be the Majority Leader after all, and the Dems. may not indeed have all of those juicy Committee Chairs. (Wouldn’t the Georgites in particular like not to have Pat Leahy running Judiciary, as they continue their assault on Constitutional Democracy.) “Say it ain’t so, Joe,” originally applied to the baseball great Shoeless Joe Jackson after the revelation of the “Chicago Black Sox” baseball betting scandal of 1919, may come to have a new meaning.

This article was originally published on BuzzFlash on Mon, 11/13/2006 - 3:28pm, at

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/027Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net), the Contributing Editor for The Planetary Movement, and a Columnist for BuzzFlash. 

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 6: The Wisdom of Ann Coulter

This morning (it was Nov. 3), Ann Coulter, along with a steady stream of Republican heavyweights (and no Democrats) appeared on “Fox and Friends,” the “fair and balanced” morning show of the Fox”News”Channel. She shared a couple of pieces of political wisdom with her audience that I thought might enlighten our readers about what she is really about (that is, if you need any further enlightening). First, she told us that the prime reason that the Republicans need to retain control of Congress was that only the Bush Administration could be trusted to secure our nation’s security. This on the morning, as posted earlier today on Buzz Flash, that the New York Times revealed that since March until yesterday, the Department of Defense had up on the web a site about the dastardly Saddam Hussein that showed, among other things, how to make an atomic bomb. When asked how she would compare the Foley scandal with the Kerry scandal (sic), Ms. Coulter allowed that the former only concerned one single individual who needed help, while the latter concerned the whole of the Democratic Party, revealing how traitorous it is (well, you know those liberals). And there you have it, folks: the wisdom (sic, and sick) of Ann Coulter.

Please note: this item was originally published on the webmagazine BuzzFlash on Nov. 3, 2006

Dr. J.’s Short Shot, 10-17-06: “What’s the Deal, Joe?”

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

Yesterday, October 16, 2006, Joe Lieberman, Republicrat of Connecticut, engaged in a televised debate with the Republican candidate, an obscure (and being made more obscure all the time by the national Republican Party) nobody named Alan Schlesinger, and the Democratic Candidate, Ned Lamont, for the Senate seat currently held by Lieberman (New York Times, 10-17-06). It should be noted that during the Democratic Primary campaign won by Lamont, the latter had pledged to support whichever Democrat won. Lieberman refused to do so. (Since he is not a Democrat, he was simply being honest after all.) In an interview with the Hartford Courant the previous Sunday, in response to a question about which party should be in control of Congress, Lieberman said: “Uh, I haven’t thought about that enough to give an answer.” Unfortunately, Lamont did not pursue that subject at the debate. He should have.

Lieberman is receiving major Republican money for his campaign and top-level Republican political consultants are on his staff. The Republicans are not doing this for nothing. My guess as to the deal, especially in the light of Lieberman’s Sunday comment? Should he be re-elected (a strong likelihood since he will get most of the Republican votes and some Democratic as well), he will pull a Jim Jeffords in reverse and declare himself as an Independent. He will then vote with the Republicans to organize the Senate. Since in the Senate ties are broken by the vote of the Vice-President, in order to take over that body, the Democrats will have to get 51 seats, without Lieberman. That, my friends, will reflect the “moral values” that Lieberman has been so fond of lecturing us all on for so many years.

Dr. J.’s Short Shot, 10-19-06: “Christopher Shays, ‘Liberal’ Republican”

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

“What is a ‘liberal” Republican?” is a question on everyone’s lips. Christopher Shays, a Republican Congressman from Connecticut, is often presented as an example. He presents himself that way, in fact. His current political advertising uses the word “independent” frequently, and never uses the word “Republican.” But he is a Republican.

So let’s see what an “independent” Republican actually is.  Commenting on the current, ever-widening Foley Scandal, the other day Shays had this to say in defense of House (Republican) Speaker Dennis Hastert (who happens to be up to eyeballs in the cover-up that may go back as far as five years). “Well, at least he didn’t kill anybody as Kennedy did back in 1969.” Oh my. Shays goes right back to the Republicans’ favorite whipping boy before Bill Clinton came along: Ted Kennedy. All the way back to 1969, in fact. That Kennedy didn’t actually kill Mary Jo Kopechne (and a coroner’s jury, asked to go over the case a number of times by the organized Right-Wing legal beagles of the time, made that determination) is for Shays beside the point.

There is absolutely no excuse for what Kennedy did. He got very drunk at a party attended by many young political staffers and hangers on. He married at the time to be sure, rather drunk, got into his car with a young lady who was not Kopechne. He didn’t notice that an even drunker girl, Kopechne, had very sadly crawled into the back-seat and fallen asleep. Negligence of the highest order? Yes. Active killing, murder even, as Shays implied, surely not. But as I have often said, it just most unfair to confuse any reactionaries, Republicans and otherwise, with facts. But there went Shays, with the standard Republican mantra: “Two wrongs make a right.”  And all the way back to 1969, as noted. They have been doing it with Clinton and Monica (as if an affair between two consenting adults somehow is at the same depth of immorality as an adult male hitting on teen-aged boys, but what the hey). And here Shays shows that, being a “liberal” Republican, he is not to be outdone.