"There is a bipartisan responsibility for what has happened."

[Q]

Published on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 by the International Herald Tribune

Who Ordered 'Shock and Awe'?

by William Pfaff

To what extent have the policies of the Bush administration - and the values and attitudes that have characterized the conduct of the so-called war against terror - contributed to a state of mind and morale in the American military that opened the way to the torture, abuse and, in some cases, apparent murder of prisoners in Iraq? Even before the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration displayed hostility toward international law and treaty obligations that it considered as limits on U.S. national sovereignty or as obstacles to American national interest.

In the Afghanistan war it summarily shipped prisoners outside of the country, notably to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, without serious examination of their cases, and in disregard of Geneva norms concerning prisoners taken in war. U.S. Army regulations on dealing with prisoners of war were bypassed, since these people were by presidential definition "enemy combatants," not prisoners of war. Ordinary American norms of justice, requiring timely presentation of charges, legal representation and impartial adjudication, were ignored then and continue to be ignored.

While the administration's disregard for international, military and constitutional law was widely acknowledged at the time, there was little protest in the American press, and no effective challenge from Democratic Party leaders. There is a bipartisan responsibility for what has happened.

Some Afghan and other "war against terror" prisoners were transferred to third countries. Reporters were informed - with a smile and a wink - that this was because they could be tortured there. Again there was negligible reaction in U.S. press and political circles. In Afghanistan, and subsequently in Iraq, an obvious reason for the involvement of civilian "contract employees" in intelligence and interrogations has been that they are not subject to military discipline, and responsibility for them and what they do can be "plausibly denied" by U.S. officials.

All this is consistent with an attitude toward violence characteristic of the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, who have for years insisted that history is made through violence, and that in the national cause a governing elite has the right to mislead the public in order to achieve goals that the leaders alone are in a position to understand. This lies behind the administration's pressure for violent action to "change regimes" and intimidate so-called rogue nations, constantly described - however implausibly - by the president and vice president as threatening mass destruction attacks on the United States, jeopardizing national survival. Iraq had to be attacked before it was "too late."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0512-08.htm

-------

- Isn't it time that BOTH PARTIES accept responsibility for what has happened to America, the 'war on terror' and the American-made terror in Iraq?

[Q]

1. An important quote:

"While the administration's disregard for international, military and constitutional law was widely acknowledged at the time, there was little protest in the American press, and no effective challenge from Democratic Party leaders. There is a bipartisan responsibility for what has happened."

[Wilber_Stool]

2. Yeah. We did it,

but they didn't stop us. So it's not our fault.

[Bandit]

3. "and no effective challenge from Democratic Party leaders."

Whoop ~ There It Is.....Tutu wearing Democrats and very little has changed.

[Q]

6. I get the impression that many Americans don't understand the meaning...

...of an 'opposition' party. Yes..the Bush* cabal is directly responsible for the moral failings of America, the ruinous 'war on terror' and the illegal war in Iraq. But there are hundreds of Democrats in DC that didn't stand up and be counted when their country needed them the most. Their country NEEDED them to confront Bush*...to tell him that what he was doing was wrong.

- We've all failed America. Republicans failed by supporting their insane 'leader' no matter how crazy his policies or agenda. Democrats failed by pretending that nothing was wrong and allowing the Bush* cabal to abuse our Bill of Rights, national resources and our military.

- We should be Americans first and Democrats/Republicans second. Both parties are willing to blindly follow their leadership as long as they 'win' the seat of power. Could this be why we're in up to our necks in corruption and greed?

[redqueen]

11. "Could this be why we're in up to our necks in corruption and greed?"

Yes, I think it is. Very much so. Each party disappoints and fails, but come election time, they know you're stuck with them.

:grr:

[gratuitous]

4. What the--?

"No effective challenge from Democratic leaders." Okay, I'll grant you that the Democratic leadership in Congress hasn't been nearly as out there on this as I'd like. But let's take a look at some facts on the ground, shall we?

1. The Democrats are the minority party in both houses of Congress. That means they can't convene committee hearings, they can't issue subpoenas, they can't set the agenda, they can't do diddly-squat in the legislative branch.

2. The executive and judicial branches are likewise wholly controlled by the Republicans. Exhibit A is the 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore. 'Nuff said, if you're paying attention.

3. So, where can Democratic leaders make an effective challenge? On the media? Don't be absurd. Responsible opposing voices to the invasion of Iraq before March 2003 were almost totally shut out of the airwaves. The only anti-war voices you heard were the kookiest looking folks at rallies, marches and parades. The media have never explained why there was such a freeze-out.

4. Since the launching of the invasion, the only credible voices that get to go on air against the invasion are people who were in favor of it before March 2003. This is nuts. Why are the voices of people like Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, our own William Pitt and dozens of others totally excluded from the ongoing discussion about Iraq? There has been no explanation from the media (again), but doesn't it seem logical to present the case against the ongoing obscenity in Iraq from the people who have been right all along?

But yeah, let's just say both parties are responsible. Doggone it, why didn't anybody say anything about how wrong this could go? You know, get on TV? Or if the media weren't paying attention, they should have taken to the streets with their message. But no, nobody said a word against the invasion, and now we're stuck in a horrible, bloody, wasteful, endless situation with no clear path out. It's the Democrats' fault!

Bold writing there, Mr. Pfaff. Ordinarily I'd have to look to a sage like Homer Simpson to come up with this sort of reasoning. It takes an uncommon mind to figure out how to deflect responsibility from the majority party and put the hat on the least powerful people in our society. What a crock.

[denverbill]

7. Horse-hockey.

"3. So, where can Democratic leaders make an effective challenge? On the media? Don't be absurd. Responsible opposing voices to the invasion of Iraq before March 2003 were almost totally shut out of the airwaves. The only anti-war voices you heard were the kookiest looking folks at rallies, marches and parades. The media have never explained why there was such a freeze-out."

I heard Howard Dean loud and clear in November 2002. The people I did NOT hear were John Kerry, Tom Daschle, John Edwards, and the other 'leaders' of the party, who were too busy worrying about how a 'No' vote would look in the reelection bid to speak out.

[Q]

9. It was gradual...but Democrats and GOPers alike saw what was coming...

...What were they doing and thinking as little dictator Bush* defied and ignored one international treaty after another? How could they possibly NOT see it coming?

- The fact is that both Republicans and Democrats abdicated their responsibilities to the American people and their Constitution.

- The beginning of our 'downfall' was the bogus impeachment of Clinton and then the 2000 election and the lack of fight shown by those who were cheated out of the White House. The RWing bullies take our people's 'lunch money', smirk and then do it all over again when the next opportunity shows itself.

- What will they take when our lunch money is gone? Our principles? Values? Humanity? Pride?

[gratuitous]

10. And what was Dean's position in November 2002?

A former governor of a small northeastern state. Pardon me, but la-de-dah. I have high regard for Mr. Dean but in November 2002, he was nobody on the national level, and it's perfectly consonant with my point that responsible opposing voices were almost totally shut out. How often was Dean on programs? And who else appeared to say that the impending invasion was wrong? We're back to Wavy Gravy (whom I also respect) and the rainbow-wig-wearing folks at the rallies.

I'm perfectly fine with giving Daschle and Gephardt their lumps for their craven "opposition" that amounted to letting the Bushistas and their media frenzy run over them. But to come down on the Democratic leadership and not take into account the piss-poor job the media did of providing "balance" is to miss (and I think Pfaff deliberately misses it) a major part of the story of why we invaded another country on the basis of a pack of lies.

[denverbill]

30. It was Dean's opposition to the war that set him apart as a candidate.

Even a governor of a small northeastern state managed to get his voice heard by millions of Democrats, enough to turn him from a nobody into a true contender for the Democratic nomination. If Kerry had come out against the war at that time, he would have had no trouble getting his message out.

And he would probably have been the darling of progressives on this board, rather than their goat.

[kiahzero]

12. I've never bought the "political cowardice" explaination for the vote

Given the circumstances, it seems that the IWR was the best of many bad options. Those that reflexively say "But I want to vote FOR someone, not AGAINST someone" seem to have a problem with this concept.

The Republicans had all the votes they needed, whether Kerry voted for it or not. However, by working with the Republican Party, concessions (such as, you know, not authorizing the invasion of the entire Middle East, or getting at least some resolution from the UN) could be made.

Some seem to forget - the Bush Administration was signalling it believed it had authorization from the first Gulf War; even if Congress was controlled by Democrats, its possible the matter could have gone to the Supreme Court, and God only knows how that would turn out.

[Q]

14. The IWR was a blank check...

...and even if it WASN'T...both parties let Bush* interpret it any way he wanted. You'd think our leadership would have at least put up a fight when the Bushies ignored the rest of the world and the UN security council and began mobilizing for WAR.

- Or what about when the Bushies insisted that those we captured on the field of battle weren't protected by the Geneva convention? Both parties were depending on nationalism and false patriotism to protect them from criticism.

- Bush* was 'signaling' that it had authorization? The Constitution doesn't give the executive branch the power to declare or wage war. Congress...both parties...GAVE their Constitutional authority to Bush*. And now they say they didn't know that he was actually going to SPEND that blank check they gave him?

[calimary]

24. I dunno...

I still remember reading the account of a Northern California voter - may even have been HERE at DU - who described a town hall meeting with his congressman, Fortney "Pete" Stark. This was AT LEAST a year and a half ago. Might even have been before the 2002 elections.

Anyway, the writer recalled people asking Stark WHY he wasn't speaking out more, and objecting more forcefully to what was going on - at that time - in the run-up to the war. His response: EVERYONE in Congress was afraid. Because anything they did that wasn't a blind, unquestioning rubber-stamp of this criminal White House brought down a torrent of angry criticism and slams of being "unpatriotic" and "treasonous." Back then, 9/11 was still mighty close in time, and many of 'em WERE afraid of appearing to be appeasers or unpatriotic or unAmerican. Stark actually said this to his group of constituents.

MOST significant. What that means is - this Vast Right Wing Conspiracy definitely exists. The limbaugh/Pox "News" machinery is extremely effective and nimble. Apparently all it takes is a few of these neanderthals whipping their freeper/dittohead audiences up into a frenzy, and - these being the marginally-stable and violent and excitable types anyway - they tend to respond in the extreme. They're extremists, so why wouldn't they? Anyway, these people can be easily moved to write, call, fax, and as they do, they fill such communiques with angry, violent, threatening, offensive, indeed, TERROR-izing verbiage. Who wouldn't get some of that shit and be at least a little taken aback? Heck, Daschle and Leahy each got ANTHRAXED, did they not? And those are just the anthrax letters we know about. It was a VERY scary time and our reps WERE being intimidated.

For myself, the way I know this to have been true is when I call some of these congresspeople and senators, I've often asked whichever staffer answers the phone how their calls are running, or if they're getting any reaction from anybody else on whatever the issue-du-jour is. And they'll tell me. Sometimes, Democrats' offices are deluged with shit like this.

That's why I'm always annoying people here, urging that they call, too! WE need to be heard. WE. US, the DU people and others of like mind. DEMOCRATS. LIBERALS. PROGRESSIVES. WE are the ones who need to be heard more. Certainly is high time for EQUAL TIME. Which means our side deserves more weight, because for far too long, it's been wall-to-wall right-wing, and WE haven't been heard AT ALL.

PS - note my sig line...

[denverbill]

29. Absolutely, and exactly.

EVERYONE in Congress was afraid. Because anything they did that wasn't a blind, unquestioning rubber-stamp of this criminal White House brought down a torrent of angry criticism and slams of being "unpatriotic" and "treasonous."

Unfortunately, courage, and political courage in particular, were in extremely short supply among Democratic leadership in 2002, and it remains in short supply today.

[Malva Zebrina]

16. absolutely--thanks for that post

I agree, without shame or guilt.

[Bandit]

17. For over a year the Democrats actually had the Majority in the Senate

They had the power and didn't use it. They passed virtually every single thing Bush* presented to them. We share a huge responsibility for all that has happened these last three and a half years.

[Q]

21. Thanks for your honesty...

- Democrats were in the 'majority' for so long that they became complacent. I guess we always thought that the People would be on our side because we had their best interests at heart. But it seems we failed to recognize the GROWING power of the fanatical Right and their zealot followers.

- Now that the zealots have learned they don't NEED a majority of voters to 'win' the highest seat of power...they'll simply hold 'mock' elections and manipulate the electoral college vote with their money and operates in the 'right places'.

- And yes...we must share responsibility. We can do better. We MUST do better.

[Q]

27. He didn't 'deflect' responsibility. He placed in on...

...both Republicans AND Democrats. He spells it out in the first few paragraphs that it's the 'fault' of the "Neoconservatives". But Democrats are acting like they're not a working part of our government. Like they have an OPTION to not follow the Constitutional responsibilities of checks and balances. Once again they're acting like the bullied kid in the schoolyard that can't do anything about his lunch money being stolen every day.

- What this article is trying to point out is that Republicans are drunk drivers at the wheel and the Democrats are the passengers...afraid to take the keys away from the driver for fear of pissing off drunks everywhere.

[hippiegranny]

5. but "they" control all three branches of government

absolute power means absolute responsibility. the end.

[Q]

8. With all due respect...

...what you're saying is that we can't change anything until we're in the majority. But look at what the Republicans have 'accomplished' in a matter of two decades. They went from minority to majority...fighting and kicking all the way. They didn't just fall into a majority...they FOUGHT for it.

- Democrats need to dwell in a bit of introspection and come to an understanding of just WHY they're in the minority. It's not because of a inferior platform or agenda. It's not because we don't have a better idea for the future of America. It's that...like a kid being bullied on a playground...we've allowed the bullies to beat us up, take our lunch money and then GET AWAY WITH IT.

- We never stood up to them AS A PARTY AND SINGLE VOICE and say NO MORE!

[texastoast]

13. Hear, hear

The neocons certainly have a leg up by traveling to hell in whatever handbasket they are told to occupy and traveling together.

Prioritize the priorities, lay "minor" differences aside, and let's rumble.

[Mountainman]

15. We also had the press and TV news and talk radio against us.

I think that the right's rise to power owes the media a debt of gratitude.

Gore won the popular election but it should have been by a much wider margin. The constant attacks on his credibility were in direct support of the right.

IWR was supported by the majority of Americans. To go against it would have insured a Repub government for many years to come.

[Q]

19. That's because RWing ideologues own the American media...

...but I'm talking about something else. If Democrats...AS A PARTY...have nothing to say...there's nothing for the media to report.

- I have to say that I'm saddened to see that the RWing rhetoric about how Gore 'should have' won by a much wider margin has not only survived...but has taken root in the Dem party. Why is it that Dems seem to have forgotten the widespread election fraud and ILLEGAL SC decision when they discuss the 2000 'selection'?

- You can't provide any sort of proof that the 'majority of Americans' supporting attacking Iraq. It's a contradiction to say RWingers own the media and then give validity to polls that support their agenda.

- And how do you know that the Democrat's lack of resolve in fighting the Bush* cabal won't 'insure a Republican government' for many years to come?

[Cat Atomic]

18. There were plenty of CITIZENS protesting this criminal invasion.

But we were ignored by our corporate "democratic" leaders, and outright villified by the press.

[Q]

20. Is the Democratic party and their DLC bosses...

...ignoring the impact of the 'attack Iraq without any proof' vote? And let's not forget that more than a few brave Democrats stood up and resisted following Bush* like sheep to the slaughter. Remember Kennedy's speeches? Byrds? They and others KNEW it was wrong to invade Iraq. They questioned the motives and the timing. Why were they ignored? I believe it was because they were liberals and progressives...those the New Democrats and Neocons want silenced.

[Cleita]

25. I agree the DLC were part of the problem.

I think the Democrats are disassociating themselves with the DLC though, thanks to the work Dr. Dean did during his campaign pointing this out. I hope so anyway.

[Cleita]

22. All these publications stop short of saying what is really happening.

Americans are the hostages of a small group of Nazi-like cultists who were given a blank check to perpetrate these irregular policies. It's really no different than Neville Chamberlain, the British PM during the rise of Nazi Germany, handing over Austria and Czechoslavakia to Hitler because he thought Hitler had a point about the expatriate German settlements in those countries and that maybe he would stop invading other nations once he was satisfied with these little give aways.

[w4rma]

23. The Repugs control all three branches of government (even 7-2 on SCOTUS)

There has been so much crap going on that Democrats have a hard time choosing which crap to go after. Like most of the other corrupt acts that ShrubCo has engaged in, I think that Dems thought that this one wasn't going to stick either.

Imho, their tactics have been to focus on getting into power and changing things once in power, rather than fighting the Repugs and opening themselves up to controversy thereby taking the chance of lessening (and also enhancing) their chances of getting into power.

[Q]

26. "Opening themselves up to controversy"

- I submit that Republicans took power from us BECAUSE they opened themselves up to controversy and DIDN'T APOLOGIZE FOR IT.

- Have Democrats forgotten the 80s and 90s? In the 80s we had the VERY SAME group of people in power (sans Reagan) who were doing the very same things they're doing now. They sold American weapons to terrorist groups and worked with them to cause unrest around the world. They even helped the terrorist sell drugs to finance their operations. These were blantantly illegal actions by the Reagan/Bush government...but few on the Democratic side wanted to 'open themselves to controversy' and they didn't back those Dems pushing for prosecution. The Democratic party allowing these crimes to go unpunished set up a scenario where these very same people would be able to come back into government two decades later.

- The 90s is when the Democrats allowed the 'new' Republicans to frame the debate and walk all over them. This allowed the GOPers to take power away from them in 94. Democrats should have never allowed the bogus impeachment to take place...yet you had more than a few Dems (Lieberman included) backing impeachment on MORAL GROUNDS even though they couldn't define any type of 'high crime'. Republicans knew they had no grounds for impeachment. They pushed it forward with pure passion and resolve. Something Democrats seem to have lost long ago.

- American politics has always been about more than holding a majority. It's more about Leadership and LEADING your party by doing the right thing. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing...for the country and its people...and not worry about winning. People respect this type of leadership and will vote for the candidate with these qualities. The problem is that Democrats are perceived as playing it safe. Who can respect this when the country yearns for for strong Democratic leadership?

[Brewman_Jax]

28. Good point!

The republicans didn't let a minor thing like being out-numbered stop them from wreaking havoc. Those democratic gutless wonders watched and wondered "why are they doing this?" They rolled over and gave Bush* carte blanche to lie the country into war. Didn't even make them twist their arms to get the votes.

Why won't the democrats stand up and be democrats? Be the opposition! Worked for the republicans for the past 20+ years.

[librechik]

31. Iraq War Resolution was unconstitutional

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

(by Congressman Ron Paul, MD from Oct 2002)
snip
"Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from – rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution.

Controversial language is being hotly debated in an effort to satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed!

A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice."

ALSO: (pardon the long URL, tompaine is down temporarily)

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:6grzhvXLiB8J:www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9843+Iraq+War+Resolution+unconstitutional&hl=en
snip

"The First Lie (from TomPaine.com)

John C. Bonifaz is an attorney in Boston and the author of Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush. (NationBooks-NY, January 2004)

While all of the Democratic presidential candidates (except Sen. Joseph Lieberman) criticize President George W. Bush for his unilateral recklessness in starting a war against Iraq, they are missing a larger point: The invasion was not just reckless. It was unconstitutional.

It is time to set the record straight. The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress.

Those members of Congress—including certain Democratic presidential candidates—who voted for that October resolution cannot now claim that they were deceived, as some of them do. By unlawfully ceding the war-declaring power to the president, they allowed the president to start a war against Iraq based on whatever evidence or whatever lies he chose. The members of Congress who voted for that October resolution are as complicit in this illegal war as is the president himself."