The Nation

How Bold Should Kerry Go?

David Corn on May 27, 2004 - 4:57 PM ET

In late May, Senator John Kerry, being interviewed by Associated Press, said he would not appoint to the Supreme Court anyone who would "undermine" abortion rights. That was the customary position for a Democratic presidential candidate. But Kerry kept talking: "That doesn't mean that if [the Court was not narrowly divided on abortion] I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view." The interviewer had his headline: "Kerry Open to Anti-Abortion Judges." And before the story was published, the Kerry campaign found itself in another dust-up and had to rush out a clarification in which Kerry vowed, "I will not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who will undo" the right to an abortion. Two days later, a strategist for the abortion rights community--a veteran politico who has known Kerry for decades--was on a conference call with anti-Bush organizers in swing states. "Welcome to the exasperation of watching Kerry campaign," this person said. "The good news is he's thoughtful, intelligent and deliberative, the bad news is he's thoughtful, intelligent and deliberative. His mind wanders, he likes to see the other side, he ruminates, the shit hits the fan, and he has to backtrack. Get used to it."

John Kerry campaigning is often not a pretty sight. Democrats and others yearning for the defeat of George W. Bush will have to keep in mind Kerry's limitations as they assess the candidate and hurl advice at him (be bold, let Bush implode on his own, tack to the center, rally the base, talk about Iraq more, talk about Iraq less). In May, the media carried reports of panic among Democrats disappointed that, given the bad news from Iraq, Kerry had not opened a commanding lead over Bush. But there was no reason to view the absence of a massive Kerry lead as an omen of demise. As Kerry campaign people repeatedly point out, in 1992, before the conventions, Bill Clinton--now regarded as a political Superman--was running third in the polls behind the first George Bush and Ross Perot. Kerry was already competitive with Bush. And Kerry's record-setting (for a Democrat) fundraising--he bagged twice as much as Bush did in April--quieted some of the intra-party griping. "Because of the money coming in, the campaign is organizing in the swing states earlier than Democrats usually do," says one Kerry fundraiser. "It's not as early as it should have been--but earlier than usual."

The campaign has had troubles. Some Democrats knocked it for not including enough minorities. There was conflict between consultants. And it created a flap by floating the lousy idea that Kerry would not accept the nomination at the convention in order to continue fundraising. But if the campaign organization is, more or less, flying straight and adequately fueled, there still are two causes of concern: Kerry and his message. Are he and his ideas sufficiently well-known and well-regarded so that the candidate and his stands, not merely anti-Bush sentiment, can motivate potential Kerry voters? "It's no secret that what's driving the fundraising and support for John Kerry is anti-Bush, not pro-Kerry," says a Kerry fundraiser. "This election is about Bush. As long as John Kerry doesn't become a Michael Ducks, he's fine."

Is non-Dukakisness really the goal? Or does Kerry need to be a better and/or a bolder standard bearer promoting a more distinct and piercing message? A Democratic consultant not affiliated with Kerry notes the campaign's decision to focus its first ads on Kerry's life story, emphasizing his Vietnam days, "made Democrats outside the campaign nervous that Kerry was not out there defining hard issues differences with Bush." He adds, "By now in 1992 Clinton had already established he was all about improving the economy and dealing with health care. I don't think voters have any sense of what the Kerry agenda is. An issue agenda will show he's not just a rich guy, opportunistic and ambitious."

The campaign has announced the second wave of ads will be issues-oriented, and a senior Kerry adviser remarks, "People needed to know Kerry better. And we think the recent ads have worked." It's hard to tell. Bush's approval numbers were plummeting at the end of May, and Kerry was beating Bush in the match-ups. But polls suggested much of the public viewed Kerry as a whatever-it-takes pol. In one survey, only a third accepted the notion that Kerry says what he believes; 58 percent reported they think Kerry says what he believes people want to hear. And Bush scored higher on leadership traits, such as strength and honesty. A reasonable interpretation of these numbers was that Kerry was benefiting more from Bush's liabilities--mainly, the screw-ups in Iraq--than his own assets.

"Kerry's biggest problem is Kerry," says one of his fundraisers "When he says dumb things--like when said he didn't own a SUVA, his family did; when he said he voted for the $87 billion in Iraq before he voted against it--he gets hammered. I tell him, make sure you don't have to explain what you say." Kerry campaign staffers naturally downplay Kerry's miscues. "All this stuff about his statements and ruminations, I wonder if the voting public follows it," says one.

But Kerry and the campaign have yet to convey fully and widely that he is a candidate of strength, purpose, ideas and passion. Late-night host Craig Kilborn cracked, "I just saw John Kerry's new television commercial, and he said, ‘I'm John Kerry, and I approve of this message--if I have one.'" MoveOn.org has drafted a petition calling on Kerry to "go big" and be "bold." And reporters, Republicans, and others have asked, where's Kerry's plan for Iraq?

All this illustrates the problem with--or confronting--the Kerry campaign, for Kerry does have message, he has gone big on some fronts, and he has presented as much of a plan for Iraq as Bush. But none of this has been much noticed or covered. In the same interview in which he bungled the abortion question, Kerry said, "I've heard some people say, well, what's the message?…The message is clear, folks: We're going to make America stronger at home by being fiscally responsible, investing in health care and education, becoming energy independent, and we're going to make ourselves stronger in the world by restoring America's respect and influence with a better foreign policy. It's that simple."

It's not poetry, but it qualifies as a message. Kerry has pushed an energy independence initiative and a health care proposal both more extensive than anything produced by the Democrats in Congress. Yet there is the matter of his tone. He whacks Bush for pursuing "the most arrogant, reckless, and ideological foreign policy." But Kerry has backed away from the hard-edged populist rhetoric he deployed late in the primaries. Railing against revolving-door special interests is no longer a climax of his campaign speeches (though a Kerry ad recently blasted Bush for having "taken millions from big oil and gas companies.") Is he heeding the call of the Democratic Leadership Council and stepping toward the right in an act of ideological repositioning (that may or may not register with the small slice of undecided voters in a few key states)? Or is it more an issue of style?

When Clinton in 1992 wanted to prove he was a "New Democrat," he promoted welfare reform and showcased his devotion to the death penalty. Kerry has done nothing so dramatic. (He is an opponent of capital punishment.) He has talked about deficit reduction and supported certain tax cuts (while opposing breaks for the wealthy). He has straddled the line between the DLC and the traditional Dems without causing much fuss. To triumph in the battleground states, is it better for Kerry to be a populist firebrand who excites the Democratic base or a center-chaser who nabs swing voters? This is more a question of theology than a correct-or-incorrect choice. Neither path guarantees success. Ask Howard Dean and Joseph Lieberman. A longtime Kerry aide says, "Being perceived as a Kennedy liberal won't help, but he's been consistent, talking about equality and justice for working families. Some days it's heath care, some it's education. This is no fundamental shift."

On Iraq, Kerry has crafted a position that differentiates him from Bush but not in black-and-white fashion. "People keep coming up to us saying John Kerry should be more specific on Iraq," says former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke, a Kerry adviser, "and I ask them, have you read the speech he gave at Westminster College? And people say no." In that address, Kerry called for fully internationalizing the "transformation of Iraq." He urged bringing in NATO troops, establishing an international high commissioner for Iraq, and establishing a massive training effort to build Iraq's own security forces. To stabilize Iraq, he said, he would be open to sending more US troops. Kerry's position went beyond Bush's stay-the-coursism, yet it was no clear-sounding call for quick withdrawal. Here was Kerry nuancing his way through a tough call.

There have been debates on Iraq within the campaign's foreign policy team. "For a while," says a senior Kerry foreign policy adviser, "the debate was whether it was better not to offer an Iraq plan. Now there's a continuing discussion on how to deal with the changing realities in Iraq." But there are no indications Kerry or his camp feels pressure to consider pulling out the troops. "It has been clear to everyone," this adviser says, "that cutting and running is not the right approach and that Iraq can't be an American-only operation, that we have to broaden the international role dramatically. But one question has been, how hard do you hit the president? And we also haven't engaged the issue of an exit date. That's politically difficult because it would look like cutting and running. Kerry has to establish he's steely enough to do the job."

Another foreign policy adviser to the campaign notes, "most of Kerry's advisers want to get US troops out as quickly as possible. The issue is how direct to be. Perhaps there will be more political pressure for a pullout. I disagreed with him over his vote to authorize the war, but I've come round to thinking he has rather good political instincts about these matters." And while several Democratic foreign policy wonks outside the campaign have advocated setting a deadline for removing US troops, Kerry has not endorsed a D Day for disengagement. "It means," says Holbrooke, "hardliners get harder and wait you out. A hard date increases the chances of civil war. It's irresponsible."

"Kerry is playing it very cautiously," says a Democrat close to Kerry's foreign policy team. "It's a prevent-defense kind of game. He's counting on Bush to keep making mistakes. I'm skeptical of it. But it could work. My fear is that he's not setting a strong enough foundation for people not only to reject Bush but to embrace Kerry." Holbrooke argues that the main issue is the man, not the plan: "In temperament, style and experience, nothing could be more different than John Kerry and George Bush. That's more important than Kerry's plan." For his part, Kerry last month said of Iraq. "You have to give the president some room to get things done, but if he doesn't do what he has to do…." His voice trailed off. Then he added, "It's a very difficult thing, but I think the president has to lead. Really lead." That was hardly a stirring declaration.

The question for the Kerry campaign and Kerry himself is this: should the campaign and Kerry let Kerry be Kerry, or should he be nudged beyond his natural borders. Kerry is a traditional liberal with a careful manner who occasionally, but not steadily, displays commitment and passion. His leads in the polls are likely the results of events beyond his control. But circumstances change, and he has to prepare for that. Can Kerry make a deeper connection with voters without a sharper style or a sharper message? "It is fair to say that we haven't yet seen the John Kerry who can coldcock George Bush," says Ralph Whitehead, a professor of public service at University of Massachusetts. " He has the ability to bring himself to that point. He has time--the convention, the debates. But, certainly, Democrats would feel better if they saw a few flashes now. There is a lot of energy flowing into John Kerry from the anti-Bush forces. But not a lot coming out of him. He has not yet created a feedback loop." Democrats ought to hope he starts establishing such a loop soon--just in case being the other guy in the race, the one who isn't Bush, turns out to be not good enough.

********************

DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! An UPDATED and EXPANDED EDITION is NOW AVAILABLE in PAPERBACK. The Washington Post says, "This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research....[I]t does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer....Readers can hardly avoid drawing...troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment." The Los Angeles Times says, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case." The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations....Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." And GEORGE W. BUSH SAYS, "I'd like to tell you I've read [ The Lies of George W. Bush], but that'd be a lie." For more information and a sample, check out the official website: www.bushlies.com.

Nader Does the CFR

Katrina vanden Heuvel on May 27, 2004 - 1:57 PM ET

If only Candidate Nader were Citizen Nader. That's what I kept thinking as I listened Monday evening to his speech delivered in the citadel of America's establishment--the Council on Foreign Relations. When Nader castigated Bush for committing "high crimes and misdemeanors" by misleading the nation into a war "based on false pretenses," it may have been the truest thing ever uttered in the mahogany-paneled chambers of the CFR.

But while the message is strong; the medium is wrong. As The Nation has repeatedly said, America's consumer rights crusader got the important thing wrong when he decided to run for President this year.

At the Council, the mood was as if an exotic animal had loped into the building. Nader was greeted sourly by some, apprehensively by others, warily by many. A few leading Democratic Party fundraisers had come to check out his current message. Former Kennedy speechwriter Ted Sorenson sat in the front row--and seemed to welcome Nader's nod to Sorenson's recent book which includes a section on America's unmet needs. The crowd of about 150 people included affluent investment bankers, lawyers and assorted journalists and foundation types.

Peter Osnos--publisher of Public Affairs Books--introduced the speaker with a quip about how few people have enjoyed Nader's "political durability." He mentioned three others--"there's Fidel Castro, Bob Dylan and Jesse Jackson." And to put it candidly, Osnos said, "lately Nader has been driving many of his admirers nuts."

It wasn't only his admirers who looked like they'd been driven nuts. At times, it was as if the elaborately framed portraits of former Council chieftains like David Rockefeller were rattling on the wall as Nader issued a ringing call for Bush's impeachment.

In his speech, "Waging Peace, Advancing Justice, Promoting Security & the Civic Displacement of Corporate Globalization," (or as he joked, "how to twist the tail of the cosmos in 20 easy minutes"), Nader criticized the phony handover of sovereignty scheduled for June 30th and called on the White House to set a date to end its military and corporate occupation of Iraq.

In the Q & A period, Nader was grilled by several people about why he's running in a year in which the stakes are so high. Wouldn't he be a spoiler, as he was in 2000? (Readers of this space know his answer.) Nader's response that he could gain support among Republican and conversative voters disgusted with this administration was met with palpable skepticism. And, stubborn as ever, Nader didn't bend on his message that on the fundamental issues that affect the future of our democracy, the differences between the two parties are still virtually indistinguishable.

"Yes, the parties are polarized on social issues and access to civil justice and rights, but both parties have sold our politics to the highest bidder and are unwilling to challenge sovereignty of corporations over people. The rhetoric is different; the reality is not." That comment elicited a slight hissing in the room. Later Nader said, somewhat contemptuously: "We've been completely abandoned by liberals."

Nader's speech netted a story in the New York Times, which focused on Nader's call to impeach Bush. But there were a few other tidbits:

* Nader thought it was hopeful that there was "increasing rebellion among retired foreign policy and intelligence officials," and that "this war was waged against the considered opinion of so many of them."

* Nader consciously attempted to cloak himself in President Eisenhower's legacy by drawing a connection between his speech and the General's classic speech warning of the military-industrial complex. Any talk of cutting our bloated military budget is more taboo today than it was twenty years ago, Nader rightly observed. (He referred the crowd to the work of Columbia professor Seymour Melman.)

* The "drive to war" represented the "fragility of our democratic institutions. The "lack of any deliberative process by the US Congress, the lack of an investigative process by the media--which clicked their heels" is a "severe scar on our democratic process."

* The Founding Fathers, Nader said, "did not want the declaration of war put in the hands of one man."

* "The last war that Congress declared was the War on Poverty." If our institutions of government had worked, we might have avoided this quagmire, he argued.

* We have a messianic militarist as a President; and our re-engagement with the world is hindered because Bush talks like "an out-of-control West Texas sheriff" and has a flagrant disregard for the rule of law and for our constitution," Nader stated.

* Saddam was the US's dictator. The US supported him as a bulwark against Communists, Nader stated, and we averted our eyes to his atrocitieswhen it suited our strategic needs. "The economic sanctions imposedon Iraq were a clear violation of international law and contributedto the deaths of thousands of children."

* He decried the Administration's exploitation of fear since 9/11: "To say that President Bush has exaggerated the threat of Al-Qaeda is to trip into a political hornets' nest." But it is time to raise the "impertinent question" about whether we've seen a vast exaggeration of the threat of terrorism" for the purpose of fulfilling the GOP's agenda. "Chill the other party; chill dissent; distract attention from domestic necessities and from the fact that a lot of corporations who are pouring money into Bush's private kitty get a lot of contracts; and Bush maintained his position in the polls--until recently."

* Citing William James, Nader made the case for why "we need very, very strenuously the moral equivalent of war." We need a humanitarian foreign policy, he argued. It should be a "shame on our conscience that we can't find billions to pursue the goals of alleviating hunger, poverty, that we can't find the money to take on the greatest assault of WMD that is heading our way: tuberculosis, pandemics heading from China which will take hundreds of thousands of lives here, millions there."

* Nader has finally woken up to the possibilities of the internet, quipping that "Other than the use of the internet, presidential politics hasn't had an innovation since TV makeup."

* He believes that he will be on as many state ballots as in 2000.

* Asked about the veepstakes, he followed up on what he said on ABC This Week. "I think Kerry should pick Gephardt or Edwards. Either would help him. They're both good on their feet, have their own constituencies, and are already vetted."

* Called on people to support the work of Citizens' Debate Commission to challenge the two party corporate control of the debates. (Do it at least as an antidote to insomnia, he urged, prompting some laughter in the hall.)

* He spoke little about his recent meeting with Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry, but did say that when he asked Kerry how he would push through his energy independence policies,in the face of oil and gas and other energy lobbies, Kerry told him, "Just let me get in the White House and I'll use the bully pulpit." "I told him I just didn't think that was a sufficient answer."

The applause at the end was wary and light. Nader may have been invited into the citadel but he was not welcome for long. On the sidewalk outside, a lone Green Party member was leafleting. I didn't see anyone taking.

Gore Blasts Bush on Iraq

Peter Rothberg on May 27, 2004 - 9:42 AM ET

Last night, in another of a series of speeches sponsored by MoveOn.org, Al Gore spoke to 900 people at New York University in a talk that was interrupted by applause more than a dozen times. Gore accused President Bush of "utter incompetence" on Iraq, adding that the president had "made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States."

As Maureen Dowd noted in her New York Times column today, Gore's remarks represented "one of the most virulent attacks on a sitting president ever made by such a high-ranking former official."

Click here to read and circulate the text of this speech, click here to watch a webcast of the talk and click here for more info on Move.On, which is providing widespread support to the efforts to unseat Bush in November.

Help Stephanie Herseth

Katrina vanden Heuvel on May 26, 2004 - 4:13 PM ET

When I wrote about South Dakota populist Stephanie Herseth in this space in April, the polls showed her well ahead of her rightwing rival in the race to finish out Bill Janklow's Congressional term. And, although she still leads in the contest for South Dakota's only US House seat with less than two weeks left before the state's special election on June 2, new polls indicate that the race has narrowed, in large part due to the 1.5 million dollars spent on television advertising by national Republicans anxious to hold onto the seat.

Click here to read "A New Populist on the Block," my weblog detailing why Herseth represents the best of South Dakota's progressive populist traditions (although she isn't perfect--as some readers pointed out in smart comments.) And click here to donate urgently need funds to counter her opponent's war chest.

A Middle Class Scorecard

Katrina vanden Heuvel on May 22, 2004 - 12:56 PM ET

The non-partisan Drum Major Institute has just released its first-ever scorecard of votes on legislation that significantly impact America's middle class. In "Middle Class 2003: How Congress Voted," representatives were graded on their votes on key legislation that both helps the middle class (the American Dream Downpayment Act, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act) and hurts it (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act and the Death Tax Repeal Act).

The results are clear: legislators need to put their rhetoric about the middle class where their votes are. While the Senate earned a B grade overall, fully one quarter of Republican Senators received an F. The scores in the House of Representatives revealed a similar divide: the House received an overall grade of C, but ninety-nine percent of Democrats passed compared to only one-third of Republicans.

The GOP is good at talking the middle-class talk, especially during an election year. But what about the walk?

"Middle Class 2003: How Congress Voted" makes it possible to hold elected officials accountable for the legislation that determines the quality of life for middle-class families. Check out the Drum Major Institute's website for the scorecard which was sent home with every legislator as they return to their districts this week. It's a valuable tool for the press, policy makers and voters alike.

Can Iraq Get Any Worse?

David Corn on May 21, 2004 - 4:34 PM ET

Let's review.

* The head of the picked-in-Washington Governing Council in Iraq was assassinated just outside the highly protected command center of the occupation six weeks before a new but yet to be named Iraqi government assumes sovereignty.

* The Baghdad home and compound of Ahmad Chalabi, whose Iraqi National Congress received $33 million in US taxpayer money for providing wrong and misleading (deliberately so) intelligence on WMDs and other matters, was raided by US troops and Iraqi police, pursuant to warrants issued by an Iraqi judge. The early indications are Chalabi's gang may stand accused of a) corruption; b) impeding an investigation into possible corruption in the UN's oil-for-food program in Iraq; c) fomenting a coup or otherwise trying to interfere in the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq; d) engaging in espionage by sharing sensitive information with Iran; or e) all of the above. The raid came two days after the Pentagon stopped funding the INC and four days after Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged he had made false assertions about Iraq possessing mobile biological weapons labs during his February 2003 presentation to the UN Security Council. That charge had been based on intelligence provided by an INC source. At Bush's State of the Union speech in January, Chalabi was a guest of the president and sat right behind Laura Bush.

* An attack mounted by US forces near the Syrian border has led to charges that the American troops massacred a wedding party. The US military claims it struck a legitimate military target. Local Iraqi health officials maintain most of the victims were women and children.

* The prison abuse scandal rolls on, with more photos and more videotapes. Meanwhile, a soldier who worked for military intelligence at Abu Ghraib military has gone public with the accusation that guards at the prison were encouraged to abuse the prisoners. At higher levels, the US military and senior military officials have not been able to get their stories straight on who actually was in charge at Abu Ghraib and what interrogation practices were authorized (and by whom) regarding Iraqi detainees.

* The newspapers are filled with quotes from US officials working for the occupation authority who express despair and discouragement about the current situation and the road (or lack thereof) ahead.

* There are signs that security in Iraq is deteriorating further. Iraqis complain about kidnappings and lawlessness. American reporters, by and large, rarely venture beyond the Green Zone and their hotels. Earlier this week, a Time writer told me that the newsmagazine has only three people in Iraq. Much of the video footage shown on cable news stations has been shot by non-Americans hired by US media outlets. The war is too unsafe for Americans to cover. And reconstruction efforts are slowing down or stopping.

* Halliburton still cannot work up a legitimate bill for hundreds of millions of dollars in food services it has supplied in Iraq.

* Neocon Bill Kristol, one of the main promoters of the war, called George W. Bush's handling of the war "incompetent." Columnist George Will has accused the Bush administration of being unable to think clearly about Iraq. Senator Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the intelligence committee, has groused about "growing US messianic instincts." In other words, some hawk-mice are abandoning the ship. (They're not calling for withdrawal--the neocons, actually, are urging dramatically expanding the US military mission in Iraq--but they are distancing themselves from the commander-in-chief.)

* And remember how the war in Iraq was supposed to bolster the Middle East peace process? Tell that to the parents of the children recently killed in Gaza during a protest.

Can it get much worse? The sad answer is, yes. After the June 30 hand-off, the lines of authority could become less clear in Iraq. There will be a caretaker government supposedly composed of non-politicos. And the US military will have to coordinate its counterinsurgency operations with this group. Imagine the negotiations that will ensue, as the US military tries to mount operations against the various insurgencies. How much leeway will the new government provide the US forces? After the recent "wedding party" attack, will these Iraqi leaders permit the US to strike at will? It is not difficult to foresee US operations in Iraq turning into a collection of Falluja-like standoffs. And if the new Iraqi government is supposed to be representing the Iraqi people, how will it deal with Iraqi resentment against the US occupation and military operations? A few weeks ago, Gallup reported that 57 percent of Iraqis want US troops to leave immediately. If that's an accurate reflection of popular will, how can the new sovereign government permit US forces to stay and have a free run of the country? How can the Bush administration claim it is fighting for democracy in Iraq, if it keeps troops there in defiance of Iraqi public opinion?

These are difficult questions. No wonder Bush's handling of the war in Iraq wins the approval of only a third of the American public in recent polls. Yet there do remain the diehard Bush defenders. A few days ago, I was debating Jed Babbin, a contributor for National Review Online, and he declared--no ifs, ands, or buts--that "we're winning the war in Iraq" and that the American people had full confidence in Bush. I asked for evidence of the latter proposition. He noted that he has been able to visit the heartland of America and suss out what "the people" are thinking. Bully for him. In another debate, George Neumayr, the managing editor of The American Spectator countered my pessimism by noting that Bush was doing a fine job and any criticism of him was both unfounded and counterproductive (read: of aid and comfort to the enemy). These and other traditional cons have yet to follow Captain Kristol off the reservation--though CNN's Tucker Carlson has mea culpaed his prewar enthusiasm, blaming his hawkishness on an unnamed pal who persuaded him to ignore his own instincts and ride along to the sound of the guns.

In the midst of this recent slide, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (of the Cheerleaders for Chalabi crowd) begrudgingly admitted the administration might have made one or two slight miscalculations. But the bigfoots--Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld--continue to duck responsibility for their misjudgments. Bush may still be taxing himself trying to come up with an answer to the question posed at his last press conference: can you think of any mistakes you have made as president? At the time, none came to mind. And he has not gotten back to us on this subject. As for Cheney, it would be encouraging to see him--the godfather of the administration's neocon cabal--working hard to get back from Chalabi the $27 million the United States wasted on this neocon darling, was convicted in Jordan of massive bank fraud. Perhaps Cheney can ask US troops to seize Chalabi's compound and assets and sell them off on eBay: "Item No. 23: Iranian tapestry rug, suitable for use in the office of a head of state." (Chalabi pals at the neoconnish American Enterprise Institute appear to be standing by their man in Iraq. Danielle Pletka, AEI's veep, dismissed the Chalabi raid as likely "political manipulation in order to disable somebody who has been a thorn in the side of the" occupation authorities. So it's Paul Bremer's fault. Catfight on the right!) And while Rumsfeld has expressed regret that half-a-dozen GIs turned Abu Ghraib into their own personal dungeon, he has yet to apologize for--or even acknowledge--the woefully inadequate planning that occurred for the post-invasion phase of Mission Iraq. A year ago no one, Rumsfeld said, could have predicted the troubles of today. But military and foreign policy experts back then foresaw precisely the problems that now confront the United States. But Rumsfeld thought he knew better--or perhaps he didn't think. He should be accepting responsibility for that screw-up, not the sadistic antics captured on pixels.

The bad news about the bad news is that there is not much reason to expect a change in the trend. Forget the John Kerry plan--whatever it may be. If he is fortunate enough to win (and he ought to be careful what he wishes for), he won't assume office until January 20. By then the first round of elections are scheduled to take place. But, no doubt, the situation in Iraq will have changed so much that whatever Kerry has to offer today could well be irrelevant by then. For now, it is Bush the Infallible who is stuck with the mess in Iraq, and the nation is stuck with him.

******

DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! The Washington Post says, "This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research....[I]t does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer....Readers can hardly avoid drawing...troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment." The Los Angeles Times says, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case." The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations....Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." For more information and a sample, check out the official website: www.bushlies.com.

Fight for Your Right to Protest

Peter Rothberg on May 21, 2004 - 3:53 PM ET

Last week the antiwar coalition United for Peace and Justice's application for a permit to rally on the Great Lawn in Central Park in Manhattan on August 29th was denied. The rally is planned to be a key part of what organizers (and police) expect to be a massive demonstration on the day before the 2004 Republican National Convention begins. UFPJ's attorneys appealed that denial. Earlier this week the appeal was also denied.

Far from a radical cause, the city's refusal to grant the permit has sparked editorial condemnation from three of New York's daily newspapers as well as criticism from municipal labor unions and numerous members of New York's City Council, including Council president Gifford Miller, all of whom are calling on Mayor Michael Bloomberg to reverse the decision and allow the march to lawfully proceed.

As Rupert Murdoch's strongly pro-war New York Post put it: "A gaggle of lefty agitators wants to convene in Central Park this summer to give President Bush a little grief. But the Parks Department says no, because they might bend the grass. Well, too bad. 'Keep Off The Grass' appears nowhere in the First Amendment."

UFPJ is asking people to call Bloomberg to politely protest the city's denial of our right to rally in Central Park on August 29. You can email the Mayor by clicking here or call his office at 212-788-3000. It's also useful to let the Parks Commissioner, Adrian Benepe, know how you feel. Her office can be reached at 212-360-1305.

And, be sure to check out the UFPJ website for updates on this struggle to secure the right to protest, as well as information about the full range of planned protest, cultural and educational activities while the Republican Party meets in New York City.

Bishops vs. Kerry

John Nichols on May 19, 2004 - 11:02 AM ET

Though it does not dominate the front pages in the same way that arguments about Vietnam medals and current war catastrophes have, one of the more bitter debates that has developed during the current presidential campaign involves the question of whether Catholics should vote for John Kerry, a Catholic, for president. The Roman Catholic bishop of Colorado Springs, Michael Sheridan, recently issued a pastoral letter arguing that Catholics ought not receive communion if they vote for politicians who defy church teaching by supporting abortion rights, stem-cell research or same-sex marriage.

Kerry does support abortion rights and stem-cell research. He's not for same-sex marriage, but he's otherwise supportive of gay rights initiatives. So, in Bishop Sheridan's view, voting for the presumptive Democratic nominee would, at best, be wrong, and, at worst, downright sinful. And Sheridan is not alone in griping about Kerry's pro-choice stance; a number of bishops have threatened to deny communion to Kerry and other Catholic politicians who fail to follow church teachings on abortion and other hot-button social issues.

But what about politicians, like President Bush, who violate church teachings with regards to launching preemptive wars and imposing the death penalty? Should conservative Catholic politicians who back the president and his war be denied the Eucharist? Should their supporters sanctioned?

That's the critical question for the bishops who are going after Kerry, Wisconsin Representative David Obey and other politicians who have not always followed church teachings on social issues but who hold views that are closer to those of the Vatican on economic issues, the death penalty and matters of war and peace.

Father Andrew Greeley, the sociologist and author who is one of America's most prominent Catholic thinkers, raised the question well when he noted recently that, "(The) Pope and the national (Catholic) hierarchy also have condemned the death penalty and the war in Iraq. Are these bishops willing to deny the Eucharist to Catholic politicians who support the death penalty or the Iraq war? And if not, why not? Moreover, will they tell Catholics that it is a sin to support an unjust war and to vote for a candidate who is responsible for such a war? And, again, if not, why not?"

Don't get Greeley wrong. He's opposes abortion, and that puts him at odds with Kerry.

But, as Greeley notes, abortion and gay rights are not the only issues this fall. And, on some key issues, Catholics like Greeley find themselves close to Kerry, a death penalty critic who, though he is hardly anti-war, has challenged the Bush administration's management of the current fight.

"I subscribe to the consistent ethic of life that the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin enunciated some years ago," explains Greeley. "I believe abortion is wrong. I believe the death penalty is wrong. I believe preemptive war is wrong. I will take seriously the 'pro-life' enthusiasts when they are ready to protest against and denounce the death penalty. I will take them seriously when they also denounce criminally unjust wars."

Greeley gets to the heart of the matter when he suggests that, by focusing so much criticism on the pro-choice stances of Kerry and other politicians and failing to address so many other issues, church leaders such as Bishop Sheridan run the risk of appearing to be "doing the Republican National Committee's work for it."

Kerry's Exit Strategy

Katrina vanden Heuvel on May 18, 2004 - 9:35 PM ET

The facts on the ground are inescapable--the US occupation of Iraq must be ended. Over the last several weeks, many of the nation's pundits, policy-makers and military brass have concluded that "the American position is untenable," to quote former US ambassador to the United Nations and Kerry adviser Richard Holbrooke. One Pentagon consultant spoke for many in the military when he referred to Bush's Iraq policy as "Dead Man Walking."

Meanwhile, the Army Times called on Donald Rumsfeld and other senior defense officials to step aside in the wake of the metastasizing Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal--"a failure that ran straight to the top."

Support for the occupation among both Iraqis and Americans is also eroding quickly. Recent Coalition Provisional Authority polls found that 80 percent of Iraqis distrust the US. And, according to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup, the majority of Iraqis now want the US to leave Iraq immediately, while only a third of Iraqis believe the US-led occupation is doing more good than harm. (And that poll was taken in late March and early April.)

In the United States, the most recent polls found that 60 percent of Americans think that we've "gotten bogged down in Iraq." Moreover, by a 54 to 44 margin, Americans say that unseating Hussein was not worth the mounting cost in blood and money.

America's politicians, of course, are trailing behind public opinion. In setting the parameters of this debate, neo-conservative hawks like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz–and even some leading Democrats--have presented the world with a false choice. "Stay the Course," they urge, because if we leave Iraq now, we will consign the country to civil war and an Iranian-style dictatorship for years to come.

At this point, there are no good options but Kerry, sadly, has bought into this assumption by making the case that the US must remain in Iraq lest it descend into chaos. Shorn of the neocons' pipedreams for a democratic Iraq, Kerry's rhetoric is, essentially, an "Internationalization of Staying the Course."

But, by staying the course, America risks doing much more harm than good. We create new recruiting tools for terrorists in the region with our widespread abuses and neglect hotbeds of terrorist activity along the Pakistan-Afghan border. We will simply trap the US and UN in a spiral of unending violence, as the stand-offs in Najaf and Falluja demonstrate. And the occupation itself is breeding instability and violence, while strengthening the most radical Islamic forces. The world will grow even more cynical about America's global intentions, Iraqi morale will keep plummeting, and the UN's credibility as an independent body will continue to erode.

While the neocons frame the debate over Iraq as a war between light and darkness, civilization and terror, democracy and Islamic-fascism, the uprising against the Americans is, in fact, nationalist in character. War in Iraq has never offered the hope of finding Osama bin Laden, avenging 9/11 or dealing the terrorists a major military or psychological blow.

"Iraq's twentieth century resistance to foreign threats has typically been national in character, not separatist, beginning with the revolts against British occupation in the 1920s," wrote William Pfaff recently in the International Herald Tribune. America, Pfaff argues, must leave Iraq soon based on a strategy of "Iraqi national interest and Iraqi nationalism"--real sovereignty that grants Iraqis full responsibility for managing their nation's resources, security and foreign affairs.

Kerry has the opportunity to articulate just such a bold vision--let's call it the "Internationalization of Withdrawal." The capacity to admit a mistake and change course for the sake of the nation and the world is the ultimate test of any true leader.

For the sake of our nation's credibility; of the untenable security situation; the mounting US and Iraqi deaths and casualties; and of the worldwide crisis of confidence in the United States triggered by Bush's unilateral policies, America needs a Kerry exit strategy.

Here at home, the political landscape is shifting rapidly to pressure Kerry to change course. On May 18, thirty-nine groups--organized by the Win Without War coalition--launched a campaign calling for withdrawal from Iraq. They plan to use email and telephone campaigns--as well as public protests--to push Kerry and Democratic members of Congress to craft a credible exit plan.

As one of the key organizers put it, "there's a lot of frustration among some people that Kerry has not distinguished himself from Bush on this policy." Kerry should seize the moment, they argue.Still, many of the coalition's leaders intend to vote for him in November--and not Ralph Nader, who has called for the US to pull out of Iraq in six months. As someone involved in Win Without War's work made clear: "We do not wish to complicate or oppose" Kerry's campaign. "But the peace movement must stand for what it believes is right.and become an independent factor that politicians cannot take for granted. We appreciate Senator Kerry's criticism of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, but we not agree that more American troops should be sent to that unlucky country. We hope Senator Kerry will remember his Vietnam experience as he reflects on the crisis in Iraq."

The same day Win Without War launched its campaign, two leading foreign policy establishment figures called on Kerry to craft an exit strategy. In an op-ed in Tuesday's Washington Post, James Steinberg, former deputy national security adviser in the Clinton Administration, and Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, argue that it is critical to set a date to get out. (Both men have advised Kerry.)

Kerry now has the opportunity to join not only a swelling movement for withdrawal, but also to ally himself with many leading military officials--and with the increasingly demoralized US occupation forces and their families--who are saying that this is a war we cannot win, and one that will bleed both the American forces as well as the Iraqi people. It is clear that only the Iraqi people can successfully fight for their own future.

Kerry can say that he agrees with a majority of Americans that we were deceived about WMDs, credibly declare victory by calling for early elections to be administered by the United Nations or other international organizations and endorse a hand-off of genuine sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

As soon as those elections are over, our job would be done. We don't need long-term bases in Iraq, and we should respect the Iraqi people's right to self-determination. Kerry should make the case that by leaving Iraq quickly and responsibly, America will improve its security, not weaken it.

If he can muster the courage, Kerry certainly has the background to take on this president and re-frame this debate. He also has the moral authority to do what is right for America and reject the politics of caution that so far has defined his campaign and disappointed so many supporters. Kerry saved the lives of his fellow soldiers in Vietnam and later was the eloquent and moderate leader of the veterans' antiwar movement.

While I still strongly believe that Ralph Nader has made a terrible mistake by running in a year when all energy must be focused on defeating Bush, he is now challenging Democrats to give Americans a clear choice in Iraq. Kerry would be wise to offer some bold ideas for creating a smarter, safer security policy and giving the Iraqi people a genuine opportunity to figure out their own future.

Powell Admits False WMD Claim

David Corn on May 17, 2004 - 12:31 PM ET

It would be a foolish endeavor to call for this Republican Congress to mount a thorough investigation of this Republican administration. But what else is there to do in response to the comments made by Secretary of State Colin Powell this past weekend?

Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell acknowledged--finally!--that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. (Remember the drawings he displayed.) Yet Powell said on MTP, "it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading." Powell did not spell it out, but the main source for this claim was an engineer linked to the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, who is now part of the Iraqi Governing Council.

Powell noted that he was "comfortable at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community." In other words, the CIA was scammed by Chalabi's outfit, and it never caught on. So who's been fired over this? After all, the nation supposedly went to war partly due to this intelligence. And partly because of this bad information over 700 Americans and countless Iraqis have lost their lives. Shouldn't someone be held accountable? Maybe CIA chief George Tenet, or his underlings who went for the bait? Or Chalabi's neocon friends and champions at the Pentagon: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle? How do they feel about their pal, the great Iraqi leader, now?

For months after the invasion, George W. Bush told the public that he had based his decision to invade Iraq on "good, solid intelligence." Does he still believe that? Has anyone told him that his government was hornswoggled by Chalabi, who was once convicted of massive bank fraud in Jordan. (Since Bush has said he does not read the newspapers or pay much attention to conventional media, he may not have heard about Powell's remarks unless an aide bothered to brief him on them.) And in January, Dick Cheney said that there was "conclusive evidence" that Saddam Hussein had manufactured bioweapons labs on wheels. Is he willing to say he was wrong?

For his part, Chalabi has not shown any regret. In February, he told the London Telegraph, "we are heroes in error....As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important." [UPDATE: On May 20, Chalabi's compound in Baghdad was raided by US forces while Chalabi was present. Iraqi police, who participated in the raid, seized documents and a computer belonging to Chalabi. Several members of his entourage were taken away. Other offices of Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress were raided. A senior coalition official told Associated Press the raids were conducted pursuant to warrants issued by an Iraqi judge. And US officials in Iraq have complained that Chalabi has interfered with an investigation into corruption in the UN-run oil-for-food program. "I am America's best friend in Iraq," said Chalabi.]

Perhaps the previous--and apparently fraudulent-- allegations made by the Chalabi gang are no longer "important" for him. But Powell--fronting for Bush--placed his credibility on the line before the war. A Powell associate told The New York Times that Powell is "out there publicly saying this now because he doesn't want a legacy as the man who made up stories to provide the president with cover to go to war." But if Powell did not make up the stories himself, he was none too reluctant to peddle them. And he has displayed little outrage in public that he was turned into a fibbing pimp for the war.

In fact, at the time of his UN presentation, there was reason for Powell and the administration to be suspicious of the claims Powell were hurling. After his UN speech, several experts in the field of bioweapons said that it was possible for Hussein to develop mobile bioweapons labs but not likely that he could. "This strikes me as a bit far-fetched," observed Raymond Zilinskas, a former weapons inspector. Why did Powell and the CIA trust the word of a biased source that could not be confirmed more than the expertise of independent scientists? The answer is all too obvious. (There were plenty of other problems with Powell's UN performance. For instance, he maintained that one Iraqi military official had ordered another to "clean out" an ammunition site that was about to be inspected; but the official translation of this intercepted conversation, which was posted on the State Department website, did not contain that order. Powell also claimed there was a direct and close connection between Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist operating in northern Iraq, which was an area outside of Baghdad's control. But Powell provided sketchy evidence regarding what is probably a complicated, perhaps even competitive, relationship and one that apparently had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.)

On Meet the Press, Powell said of the bioweapons claim, "I am disappointed and I regret it." But that's not good enough. Powell provided cover for Bush's case for war. And he's still providing cover for the Bush administration overall. Why is he not angrily calling for an inquiry into how Chalibi flim-flammed the CIA and the administration? Why is Powell sticking around and helping Bush get reelected, when it's expected he will resign after that and leave the public with an administration that is not moderated (to the extent that it is) by the presence of this presumably sage grown-up?

Think about it. The secretary of state revealed that he, the CIA and the administration were conned (perhaps too easily) by exiles supported by the Pentagon, and this fraud helped set the stage for a war and a bloody and difficult occupation that still is claiming the lives of Americans. If this is not cause for investigations, dismissals, and angry statements from congressional leaders and administration officials, then what is?

******