Gerson: "very nearly manageable" Iraq worth regional war
Brian Beutler joins me and no doubt others in the ranks of "GersonWatch", those hardy online few who are monitoring former Bush speechwriter Michael "Axis of Evil" Gerson's rise to Washington Post punditry:

To me, the fact that Michael Gerson was awarded--as a gift for his fabulous service to our nation--a regular column in the Washington Post is one of the great outrages in the history of political punditry.

Beutler dissects Michael Gerson's weak arguments about Iran, Syria, and Iraq wonderfully. After all, it's hard to think of any other foreign power mucking about in that corner of the world for no good reason, so why should adjoining countries be? But in a target rich op-ed environment, there just wasn't enough time for Beutler to hit every target -- like Gerson's "deft" admission that Iran and Syria can't be all to blame for what ails us in Iraq:

This is not a complete explanation for the difficulties in Iraq. Poor governance and political paralysis would exist whether Iran and Syria meddled or not. But without these outside influences, Tony Blair told me recently, the situation in Iraq would be "very nearly manageable."

It's hard to decide who's more stupid here -- Blair or Gerson. To me, at least, "very nearly manageable" isn't logically distinguishable from "unmanageable." But whatever it was that Blair was driving at, Gerson's op-ed thus boils down to advocating escalating the war in Iraq with hot pursuits of hostile forces into Syria, risking -- no, creating -- regional war. The beauty part, Gerson assures us on Blair's authority, is that even if these outside influences from Syria were eliminated at great cost, we would finally have a merely unmanageable situation in Iraq. Well, what the heck're we waitin' for, boys!

Tellingly, Gerson displayed very nearly the identical blind spot in the column I wrote about a couple of weeks ago. In that one, he wept bitter tears about our abandonment of Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge -- overlooking that U.S. escalation of the Viet Nam war to Cambodia was itself a key milestone in the Khmer's rise to awful power. It's not even as if Gerson is unaware of the analogy in this week's column -- he just thinks it works for him, recommending "taking limited but forceful action against Syria's Ho Chi Minh Trail of terrorists" (emphasis added).

Gerson's motto: one colossal mistake in judgment deserves another.


=====
EDIT, 7/22: Title changed from "Gerson: 'very nearly manageable' just not bad enough for me" -- Gerson's point was even more stupid than I first described. I regret the error. posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:32:00 PM -- |    

 
Maybe this time they'll find his head

Washington (CNN) -- President Bush will undergo a routine colonoscopy Saturday, and will transfer power to Vice President Dick Cheney during the procedure, expected to take about two and a half hours, the chief White House spokesman said.

Tony Snow said Friday that the procedure, during which a doctor looks for any signs of cancer, will be carried out at Camp David, Maryland, and the president will be placed under anesthesia.

Bush's last colonoscopy was in June 2002, and no abnormalities were found, Snow said.

(hat tip: Lisa) posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:29:00 PM -- |    

 
In which I attend the Filibuster Rally
It's now two days since Senate Majority Leader Reid forced Republicans to actually conduct a filibuster against an "out of Iraq" bill instead of just signaling one. Having agreed with others that was precisely what Senator Reid should do, I was inclined to join a MoveOn/Americans United for Change/VoteVets/NOW/Code Pink/etc.-publicized rally on "Filibuster Eve" to celebrate and encourage Democratic resolve.

So I went, eventually joining roughly 500 or 1000 people on a plaza a block away from the Capitol. And I sincerely applauded each and every speaker of the evening's lineup -- Reid, Schumer, Pelosi, Boxer, Murphy, Durbin, Mikulski, Levin, Waters, Woolsey, and many others -- many of whose remarks are captured on a Senate Democrats video.* But each time I was done clapping, I resumed holding aloft one of our local-issue "IMPEACH THEM" signs. I was generally quiet about that, except when a speaker's remarks seemed to justify my calling out "Impeach them!"

On stage, though, as I mentioned in a comment to the Moyers item below, it seemed to me Democratic leadership showed a remarkable and steely determination not to look at that sign, or refer to the issue. Between that and what seemed like a lack of resonance for pro-impeachment shouts (and yet less for some of the more persistent heckling) I felt a bit marginalized, discouraged -- and was starting to regret I was "going off message" on an evening when Democratic leadership was, after all, trying to do the right thing.

Now Hecate's fine account of the evening has encouraged me to revise those reactions. For one thing, she reminded me of how some Democrats on stage both stayed on the "don't let them block out of Iraq" message and conveyed they knew that wasn't all there was for the 110th Congress to do:

Boxer got it. She said, "You've got a lot that you want to say, and I want to hear it." Mikulski got it. She said, "Tonight, we're voting to end the war. You know, and I know, that there are other votes that we need to have." John Lewis got it. Mendez got it. Barbara Lee got it. There were a lot of Dems who got it.

For another, between her, althippo, and others, I realized "impeachment" wasn't just me and some guy heckling away 10 yards to my right -- it's been everyone I've heard from about that rally. Now surely that's because I tend to know more about people who agree with me than people who don't, but I also surely wasn't as isolated as I managed to feel. (See "solitary" below, I suppose.)

I'll back up for a moment. The rally was a block away from the Capitol; however, having figured I'd just follow others to the right spot, I instead went directly to the Capitol, where I figured the rally would be.

Naturally, this wound up being the better part of the evening for me, though it started off slowly. The scene on the East steps of the Capitol was of a bunch of journalists hanging around, waiting for the Senators to make their exit. A fellow on a ten-speed identified me (sandals, shorts, t-shirt) as the likeliest kindred spirit,** and asked me who I was covering the event for -- I guess I had set my sign down. "Just me," I explained -- I was just there to hold up my sign so the Senators could see it.

Then a guy from the Boston Globe struck up a conversation; he turned out to be Bryan Bender, and I happened to recognize his name from having listened to some public radio show earlier in the day (he'd talked about the NIE estimate that we seem to be growing Al Qaeda rather than shrinking it). He felt it was likely we'd start getting out of Iraq within a year, because the top brass were actually starting to worry about readiness, recruitment, etc. (Being skeptical -- I don't think the military brass matter all that much to Bush either -- I allowed "from your lips to Bush's ear.")

Anyhow -- taking time off to wave my impeachment sign at John McCain fleeing the scene in his limo, and at David Brooks moping around on the stairs -- I told both of them about next Monday's Takoma Park City Council impeachment vote, as well a German reporter from Duesseldorf's Rheinischer Post, who was also curious about the sign. Bender told me he'd nearly moved to our fair city; I hope he makes the visit this Monday.

But other reporters kept their distance -- I seem to recall Brooks looked away -- and then the Democratic leadership appeared. With a swarm of cameramen and reporters shadowing them, the group proceeded over to the rally area; I imagine some of them must have seen my sign, but I don't know.

So was I right or wrong, productive or counterproductive with my little off message presence? A couple of days later, I think maybe the occasional exasperation from the stage was a hint us off-message folks had done OK after all. "We've got to stay unified," Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) would plead. "Be quiet," Harry Reid snapped at part of the crowd -- I didn't hear what prompted that, but assume it was more impeachment talk -- redeeming that moment by segueing into a minute of silence for troops in Iraq. Hecate describes another hint of tension:

Reid stepped up to the podium and said, "Friends, give me your attention." A woman yelled out, "No. You give us your attention. Impeach!" Reid had to pause a moment and reorient himself.

I'm sympathetic to Reid. He does a pretty good job, though I wish Senate Democrats hadn't given in on the supplemental appropriations bill. But another Senator -- Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse -- inadvertently crystallized for me what was wrong with making "out of Iraq" the only goal. In a perfectly well-intentioned speech, Whitehouse implied -- I'm paraphrasing -- that getting out of Iraq would make things right again. It would give the world and Americans back an America that leads by example -- the "America they knew."

No, it won't.

Getting out of Iraq will be very, very hard -- that's why they call it a quagmire, as eRobin likes to say. But we'll owe the world, ourselves, and the dead and wounded so much more than that. We'll owe them our best shot at holding Bush and Cheney accountable for that war, and for so many other abuses -- all while hiding for cover behind Americans who gave the last full measure of devotion. And the way to do that is to


Impeachment isn't "off the table"; it never was, it couldn't possibly be. Speaker Pelosi may have once said lame duck status for Cheney and Bush is good enough for her, but as I said before the election, that isn't good enough for me and a lot of others. I think she may have heard us Tuesday evening.


=====
* Many more videos of the "Filibuster Rally" were posted by Iraq Summer, a campaign of Americans against Escalation in Iraq.
** He was from "yellowcakewalk.net"; here's their post about the day.

UPDATE, 7/20: Via linkbacks to Hecate's post, more reflections on the rally -- and the tensions there -- by paradox at "The Left Coaster" and this by Lurch at "Main and Central":

Note to Senator Reid: It would be a really, really good idea to do this twice a week. You will draw the audiences, although I’m sure you want to talk to them, rather than having to listen to them. I think you’ll find, however, that the audiences will get larger, and you’ll end up getting fired up yourself. Let’s face it: we both know that the Senate is too clubby; you Dems think it’s a nice genteel men’s club, and the Republicans understand that they get to club you like baby seals.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:15:00 PM -- |    

 
Moyers airs "Tough talk on impeachment"
Conservative Clinton-impeacher Bruce Fein and progressive "The Nation" editor John Nichols joined forces on PBS's "Bill Moyers Journal" last Friday. The duo -- probably unthinkable ten years ago -- were on to discuss and urge impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for a pattern of executive overreach that is "totally anathema to a democratic society devoted to the rule of law," as Bruce Fein put it. As ever, the PBS show's web site has made the transcript, audio recording, and full video of the show available (via the "Tough Talk on Impeachment" home page)*, and it is an exceptionally valuable production.

Regrettably or not, the show begins with a somewhat lengthy retrospective of the Clinton impeachment. But on balance, the introduction is useful to compare the gravity (or lack thereof) of the charges against Clinton with the grievous abuses of executive power by the Bush administration.

When Fein and Nichols (who recently authored "The Genius of Impeachment") turn to the need for Bush and Cheney's impeachment, the show becomes fascinating, as two patriots -- one an old-school conservative, one a progressive liberal -- advance complementary, mutually reinforcing arguments for impeachment. Fein was positively eager to speak out -- with what one might call unimpeachable credibility -- on this administration's numerous specific, patent abuses of power, which he rightly terms "[m]ore worrisome than Clinton's-- because he is seeking more institutionally to cripple checks and balances and the authority of Congress." Fein also stressed how impeachment is intended to be about "political crimes against the Constitution," as he quoted Alexander Hamilton at a Senate hearing on Bush's signing statement abuses.

Nichols in turn, provides a perspective on what he calls the "organic" fizzing up of impeachment sentiment, and on how impeachment was conceived by the framers of the Constitution and its ratifiers, the people of the United States:

An awfully lot of Americans understand what Thomas Jefferson understood. And that is that the election of a president does not make him a king for four years. That if a president sins against the Constitution-- and does damage to the republic, the people have a right in an organic process to demand of their House of Representatives, the branch of government closest to the people, that it act to remove that president.

A poignant part of the discussion was about the lack of leadership -- at least so far -- in Congress on this issue. Not to disrespect Dennis Kucinich and the band of co-sponsors for his H.Res. 333 bill for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney, but we need names like Pelosi, Murtha, and Hoyer attached to that bill, and names in the Senate like Leahy, Lugar, and Warner openly discussing "the I-word." Fein:

But in the past, there's always been a few statesmen who have said, "You know, the political fallout doesn't concern me as much as the Constitution of the United States." We have to keep that undefiled throughout posterity 'cause if it's not us, it will corrode. It will disappear on the installment plan. And that has been true in the past. When we had during Watergate Republicans and remember Barry Goldwater, Mr. Republican, who approached the president and said, "You've got to resign." There have always been that cream who said the country is more important than my party. We don't have that anymore.

Well, I have to hope we do. In fact, I have hopes that we do right here in Montgomery County. During the July 4th parade here in Takoma Park, Chris Van Hollen (D-MD-8, and chair of the DCCC) was challenged by Hank Prensky, a local impeachment supporter -- and former city councilman -- whether he would sponsor Kucinich's H.Res. 333. It was a parade, not a press conference, so Van Hollen wasn't ready to commit right then and there. But he did say that the Libby commutation was making him willing to consider co-sponsoring that resolution.

Actually, I don't think supporting impeachment needs to be conceded to be the "risky" move it's often portrayed to be. Clinton's impeachment was unpopular because he was deservedly popular and the basis for impeachment -- pace Fein and others -- was trivial. By contrast, Bush is deservedly unpopular for many of the same reasons he's impeachable -- he's a reckless, arrogant screwup, both in the everyday sense and, more to the point, with respect to our Constitution. The proof has been out there for years; we just need to all admit it to ourselves.

That said, digby was right a couple of weeks ago to call impeachment a "nuclear" political move: it is nothing less than the attempted reversal of the (generally accepted) results of a presidential election. Were there not so many grounds for it, I'd be reluctant myself, and indeed I was reluctant to support impeachment for too long. As I tell people who ask whether it's too late by now: they're right -- I should have started a month sooner, sorry, trying to make up for lost time now.

I'll admit I was quite pleased to see two thinkers like Nichols and Fein reiterate points I've made myself on this issue by now -- particularly about the dangers of letting a presidential powers expand unchallenged. Nichols (emphasis added):

On January 20th, 2009, if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account this administration will hand off a toolbox with more powers than any president has ever had, more powers than the founders could have imagined. And that box may be handed to Hillary Clinton or it may be handed to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama or someone else. But whoever gets it, one of the things we know about power is that people don't give away the tools. They don't give them up. The only way we take tools out of that box is if we sanction George Bush and Dick Cheney now and say the next president cannot govern as these men have.

I continue to be nonplussed by acquaintances I meet during petitioning who consider what I'm doing a waste of time -- more often than not precisely the kind of activist people who I'd have expected to support it. In one case, a fellow who works in the environmental movement flatly and bluntly called it a "stupid" idea -- and then seemed to suggest that resolutions about gas-powered leafblowers were more important. Or, to be charitable, perhaps he meant that was more what a local city council is usually for.

But political institutions -- including city councils -- are also there to provide leadership when that's a scarce commodity. As Nichols suggests, the stakes couldn't be higher. If nothing else, this is about the country we will bequeath to our children. That seems at least as important as gas-powered leafblowers to me.

Meanwhile, I've done nowhere near enough justice to the quality of the conversation between Moyers, Fein, and Nichols. If you click on one link here this week, make it this one. There's a wealth of linked material at the site as well.


=====
* Click on the "Watch Video" button along the upper left margin of the page, just below the image of a ticket to Andrew Johnson's 1868 Senate impeachment trial.
** Image adapted from the image of that ticket, dated March 13, 1868 instead of 2008. Eerily similar to what would be the case for Bush, Johnson's richly deserved impeachment came late in his richly undeserved presidency. posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:45:00 PM -- |