Rantidote

Hillary's Do-Over

It’s difficult to imagine what Hillary Clinton was thinking when she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment designating Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. For some reason, I'm reminded of Silvio on The Sopranos doing his impression of Michael Corleone: Just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in.

Senator Clinton spent a good portion of the beginning of her presidential campaign not apologizing for her vote authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq. Instead of apologizing, she justified her decision as one that would have been correct had President Bush been a man of his word, not a warmonger with an itch that only an invasion of Iraq could scratch. It seemed odd that Senator Clinton opted for verbal gymnastics rather than a simple apology, especially in light of John Edwards’s eloquent and heartfelt apology for the same erroneous vote.

Eventually, though, I think most of us accepted Senator Clinton's rationale that, in casting her vote, she didn’t factor in President Bush’s equivocating, warmongering nature, even if we knew that she was empowering a madman and validating the claims and policies of an ideologue, not a clear-thinking commander-in-chief. When asked if, knowing what she knows now, her vote would be different, Senator Clinton has said, “...there are no do-overs in life." Last week, though, almost like Superman making Earth reverse course to go back in time, Senators Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl handed Senator Clinton her "do-over," a second chance to cast the right vote.

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment not only  designates Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, it relies on cherry-picked quotes of retired generals and administration insiders to bolster the Defense Department's conclusion that "Tehran's support for [Shi'a militias] in Iraq is one of the greatest impediments to progress in reconciliation." The amendment intimates that diplomatic avenues have been exhausted after a mere three  meetings between U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Iranian diplomats during which, according to Ambassador Crocker, it was clear that "...Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions."  Imagine that.

Unbelievably, Senator Clinton, faced with one of life's rare do-overs, voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, once again empowering the same warmongering president with a similarly wrong-headed vote. In justifying her vote, Senator Clinton cited evidence that was shown to her by the same ideologues who built a case for the invasion of Iraq. Just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in. Although the resolution is non-binding, it is far from meaningless. Senator Dodd, who voted against the amendment, said, "We learned in the run up to the Iraq war that seemingly non-binding language passed by this Senate can have profound consequences.... We shouldn't repeat our mistakes and enable this president again."

The simple fact that the United States Senate allowed such an amendment to come to the floor legitimizes the obscene, unconscionable proposition of invading yet another country that has not attacked us. The Senate's bipartisan vote in favor of the amendment validates the ludicrous Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Self Defense by even beginning to consider the possibility of moving against Iran. Furthermore, it empowers Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad, both of whom lack credibility among moderates in their own countries and rely, therefore, on the inane acts of their respective governments to maintain power and influence.

While Senator Clinton's vote in favor of the amendment, which passed 76-22, displays a frightening inability to learn from past mistakes, Barack Obama and John McCain were the only two senators who failed to vote at all. In casting her vote, Senator Clinton has given herself yet another do-over: the opportunity to apologize for an erroneous vote.  Senators Obama and McCain, however, won't find many options sitting on the campaign fence watching other candidates vote.

Pointing Fingers

“Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.” Those were the words of Lee C. Bollinger, president of Columbia University. He was speaking to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he could have made the same statement to President George W. Bush.

It's easy to come to the conclusion that Mr. Ahmadinejad is a narcissistic, megalomaniacal madman.  In fact, it would be difficult to find a person in this country who could or would make a heartfelt statement in support of Mr. Ahmadinejad, and anyone making a positive statement about this Holocaust denier would most certainly be branded a radical, unpatriotic evildoer.

In my world, though, Mr. Bush is also a narcissistic, megalomaniacal madman. Yet, I can find people even in my own ever-shrinking circle of friends who support him. Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust; Bush denies the civil war in Iraq and can't even say "Iraq War" when discussing the Iraq War. During Ahmadinejad's presidency, individual rights have eroded and academic institutions have been forced to restructure their curricula to promote his agenda. During the Bush presidency, research institutions, universities, and health care clinics have lost federal funding if they failed to adhere to the Bush agenda, i.e., no meaningful stem cell research, no abortions, and abstinence-only sex education. NASA scientists were even required to refer to the "big bang" as the "big bang theory." As far as individual rights, well, if I were arrested for writing this column or if the NSA began listening to my rambling phone calls, no one would be especially surprised.

So,  you have to ask yourself, who's more dangerous, a war-denying, arrogant moron or Ahmadinejad?

 

 

What War?

President George W. Bush and his war-dodging cronies have immersed this country in a war so terrible that it has become their war-that-cannot-be-named. In his speech Thursday night about the IRAQ WAR, President Bush reached new depths of denial, failing to say "IRAQ WAR" even one time.  Mr. Bush’s speech invoked the word “war” only twice, once referring to “terrorists and extremists who are at war with us” and in reference to his “war of good and evil.”

Once again, the Bush administration has approached the unpopularity of an issue and the problems arising from it by rephrasing it. From the administration who believed the problem with FEMA could be fixed by renaming it, from the same group who named its unfunded education mandate “No Child Left Behind,” from the folks who came up with “The Surge” to describe sending 30,000 additional men and women into harm’s way in Iraq, we now have a speech about the IRAQ WAR with no mention of the IRAQ WAR.

Bush ended his speech with his never-ending effort to link 9/11 with Iraq, saying, "Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late....It is never too late to deal a blow to al-Qaida." Finally, I'm speechless; I wish Mr. Bush were, too.

 

Move On!

Republicans don’t like to look back. When Democrats raise the issue of the lack of WMD’s in Iraq or the outing of Valerie Plame, Republicans accuse Democrats of having no vision for the future.

Like any adolescent who's made a big mistake,  Republicans often talk about moving forward, moving on.  “Karl Rove is moving on down the road,” said President Bush upon announcing Mr. Rove’s resignation. White House press secretary Tony Snow said of his resignation that he was “ready to move on.” History is a bad word in a Republican household, and I think we all understand why. Remember Reaganomics? Iran-Contra? Add Katrina, warrantless wiretapping, and a penchant for torture, and it's easy to see why Republicans are the party of looking forward. "Moving on" is a good thing to Republicans. That’s why it’s wonderfully ironic that one of the most powerful forces working to keep Republicans honest echoes the Republican mantra: MoveOn.org.

In today’s New York Times, MoveOn.org placed a full page ad with the inquiring headline, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”  While Democrats, for the most part, lost their nerve at today’s joint house hearing on Iraq, MoveOn.org did not, citing facts in its ad that every Democrat should have been repeating:

• The Bushies like to talk about neighborhoods in Iraq where the violence has receded, but they don’t tell us that those neighborhoods are peaceful because they have been ethnically cleansed, that there’s no one left to kill; 
• The Washington Post and the New York Times have reported that, to try to make a case for progress in Iraq where there is none, the Pentagon has produced misleading statistics based on ridiculous definitions, i.e., deaths from car bombs don’t count and assassinations only count if the victim is shot in the back of the head, not the front.

Republicans have three uses for history:  (1) to invoke the tragedy of 9/11 in order to justify the morally and constitutionally unjustifiable acts of President Bush, (2) to dismiss those who oppose their ideology by saying that history will prove that Republicans were right, and (3) to rewrite it.  Maybe we can help them remember history the way it really was by putting Bill Clinton back in the White House and letting our Republican friends relive the Clinton years all over again.

Honest John

John Edwards should be running for re-election. In 2004, it was obvious that he was the unbeatable candidate. He passed the all-important beer buddy test of 2000: not only would voters want to drink with him, but unlike President Bush, he could actually have a beer without awakening a boozing, drugging version of himself. I’ve always thought it was ironic that people voted for Mr. Bush over Al Gore because, as some poll phrased it, they’d rather have a beer with Mr. Bush, the alcoholic. Anyway, somehow John Kerry won the Democratic nomination, and today we find John Edwards trying to get traction in the midst of Hillary Clinton’s unstoppable march to the White House.

To be honest, I would be thrilled to have a woman president and see Bill Clinton move back into the White House. Senator Clinton has the intelligence, insight, international credibility, and political savvy to make a great president. But. When John Edwards speaks, his honesty is disarming and electrifying. Last weekend, a New Hampshire voter asked him about the budget deficit, and Mr. Edwards told him he’d like to reduce it, but that it would hurt the economy to make that a goal by itself. Since when do politicians talk like that?  Republicans have a long record of creating enormous budget deficits, and Democrats have Bill Clinton’s $236 billion budget surplus to extol. Why didn’t Mr. Edwards spend a few minutes excoriating Mr. Bush for his budget mess? It’s as if Mr. Edwards doesn’t have time for that. He’s on a mission to change the world, to provide health insurance for all of us, eliminate nuclear weapons, stop global warming, and grow the middle class. While becoming president is clearly his goal, I think John Edwards wouldn’t be running if he thought someone else could get the job done. Of course, every candidate says that he or she will make the best president, but when John Edwards says it, he’s just being honest.

Federal Dogfighting

Coincidentally or not, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has chosen to leave office on Constitution Day, September 17th. Ironically,  Mr. Gonzales’s announcement of his resignation competed for air time with Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick's guilty plea and public apology concerning a federal dogfighting conspiracy charge. Who could have guessed that Michael Vick would be the more eloquent speaker?

Alberto Gonzales probably thought he was picking a good day to announce his resignation. After all, August is the right month to recall defective products, as Frank Rich of the New York Times pointed out.  In stark contrast to Mr. Gonzales,  Michael Vick took responsibility for his actions and said that he needed to grow up, that he would redeem himself. Mr. Gonzales, on the other hand, said petulantly, “Even my worst days as attorney general have been better than my father’s best days.”  Mr. Gonzales apparently concluded that he didn’t need to proffer a reason for his much-demanded resignation when his most famous DUI client would be jumping into the dogfight with him. In true co-dependence fashion, President Bush made a brief statement about his loyal henchman, saying as though it were a bad thing, “His name was dragged through the mud for political reasons.”

While Michael Vick faces time in prison for a federal charge on dogfighting, Alberto Gonzales, who championed the torture tactics at Abu Ghraib that used dogs to terrorize prisoners, leaves his post with a flair reminiscent of a punished child flouncing to his room. Michael Vick won my compassion and support with his old-fashioned, straightforward apology and acknowledgment that he alone was responsible for his mistakes. Alberto Gonzales left me hoping fervently that Congress will make his defiant statement untrue: maybe his worst days were better than his father’s best days, but his worst days aren’t over, yet.

Obama Justifies Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Vote

On The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Barack Obama inadvertently minimized Hillary Clinton's responsibility for her vote on the Iraq War, saying, "[The Senate] is designed for you to take bad votes.  With the Senate, you end up having to vote on stuff that...can be used later to attack you."

The Amazing Litmus Test

Abortion is an even better litmus test than I had first imagined.  Pro-choice and anti-abortion activists agree that they want the abortion issue to be used as a litmus test when confirming Supreme Court justices, voting for politicians, and in any interview conducted by Monica Goodling.  But the abortion issue is also a great way to lure the crazy side of a politician out into the open. 

Republican presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul is a perfect example of this.  Listening to his views on the Iraq War, I cautiously thought Congressman Paul sounded almost reasonable. Then, I heard him speak about abortion at the Iowa Straw Poll where he began his speech by stating his belief that stopping abortion is an integral part of defending liberty, saying, "As an OB doctor who has studied history and economic policy and politics for a long time, I can assure you that life begins at conception."  Hmmm.  How fast would you run out of the exam room if your doctor referred to economic and political policy when explaining your medical condition?

The great thing about the abortion issue, though, is that it seems to embolden candidates to share even more outlandish viewpoints.  For example, Mr. Paul followed up his abortion statement by explaining that "9/11 could have been prevented if we'd had a lot more respect for the 2nd Amendment."  Apparently,  respecting life is only his agenda for the unborn. See?  Abortion is a great litmus test because people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade turn out to have no comprehensive reasoning skills concerning other issues, as well.  Consider Mitt Romney.  He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he thinks he'll get his own planet when he dies. 

Ironically, litmus, a lichen whose colorful reactive properties have been used since 1803, can actually identify Republicans and Democrats. Note the definition in the American Heritage Dictionary:  A water-soluble blue powder derived from certain lichens that changes to red with increasing acidity and to blue with increasing basicity.  Is it only a coincidence that a true litmus test begins with blue lichen that, when contaminated, turns red?  Another odd fact: look at the signs in the picture to the left.  I can almost guarantee that the Democrat is holding the blue sign, and the Republican is holding the red sign. When it comes to passing a litmus test, it's clear that blue is the color God chose, and anything red is an aberration.

Karl Rove's Newest Messenger

Barack Obama may not take money from special interest groups, but he takes his cues from Karl Rove.  Two days after Mr. Rove labeled Hillary Clinton the fatally-flawed candidate, Senator Obama told the Washington Post, "I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running."

Is Senator Obama saying that the impetus for his entire presidential campaign is his belief that  "some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons"  have created an opening for him?  Despite his inarguable lack of experience, Senator Obama displays the political acumen of a seasoned Republican in his willingness to exploit a label that he himself identifies as unfair and misguided. If Senator Obama had run against John Kerry in 2004, would he  have adopted the swift-boat campaign, too? "Look," he might have said, "John Kerry may not deserve to be painted as a coward, but that's how people see him."  Is the premise of the Obama campaign, "Vote for me because I haven't been unfairly labeled...yet"?

Senator Obama didn't shrink from Senator Clinton's divisive aura when she campaigned for him during his senate race a few months ago.  In the Washington Post interview, he says, "My race for the U.S. Senate was much more improbable than my race now for the presidency." Really?  The only improbable aspect of that race was that his opponent was a gift horse named Alan Keyes.  Hillary Clinton's biggest mistake was campaigning for a disloyal and inexperienced Democrat who would so willingly help Karl Rove launch his latest swift-boat attack.

Karl Rove's Family Leave Act

Did anyone catch the speech where Osama bin Laden said he was going home to spend time with his family? Of course, everyone understands that this is jihad-speak for “hiding out while I plan my next attack.”  They may have two different agendas, but Karl Rove and Osama bin Laden both like to lay low in barren locales while they plot and plan how the sacrifices of others might move them closer to their goals.

Karl Rove said yesterday that he is returning to Texas to spend time with his family now that his only son is off to college. As the mother of three, I can tell you that my husband wouldn’t be welcome home if he decided to spend time with his family after our kids had gone off to college. I guess Mr. Rove is so accustomed to lying and getting away with it that he felt compelled to deliver another blatant lie just so he could enjoy himself as he watched reporters repeat it. The single redeeming thing about Karl Rove is his ability to show reporters again and again the fine line between reporting and gossiping. Unfortunately, most reporters continue to gossip, laughing today at the sheer whimsy of Mr. Rove's latest lie and reporting it to their audiences the same way parents talk to other parents about gifts from Santa Claus.

We all know that Karl Rove isn't leaving Mr. Bush to spend time with his family; he's just slinking off to Texas to plot his swift-boat attack on Hillary Clinton.  After all, he referred to Senator Clinton as a "fatally-flawed candidate," and now he needs a little time to manufacture that flaw.  Karl Rove said in his short speech Monday that he would join other ordinary Americans who pray for the president; somehow, I don't think we're all praying for the same thing.