THE TANTRUM

Bush threw a tantrum this week, something not unexpected from the head of the political party of the pampered, spoiled, cowardly and irresponsible. I could expect no more from Bush nor from his rubber stamp, degenerate coalition in Congress. The reaction from the mass media, on the other hand, was nothing short of disgraceful. I literally thought someone had played a joke on me and switched the channel from CNN to Fox when I was listening to CNN's blatant anti-Pelosi propaganda regarding her trip to Syria. The Washington Post sounded like it was written by Rove.

Even as many of Bush's most vile collaborators and apologists rush headlong for the exits and as the clamor for his impeachment grows louder by the day, Rove can still muster the faux self-righteous fury of the Right Wing Echo Chamber to inundate the population with their twisted and perverse interpretation of reality. As Neocon propagandist Joe Klein, suddenly awake to the reality of being perceived as being too firmly wedded to losers-on-an-epic-scale, writes in the new Time

The three big Bush stories of 2007-- the decision to "surge" in Iraq, the scandalous treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for tawdry political reasons-- precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).

Iraq comes first, as always. From the start, it has been obvious that personal motives have skewed the President's judgment about the war. Saddam tried to kill his dad; his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam. There was payback to be had. But never was Bush's adolescent petulance more obvious than in his decision to ignore the Baker-Hamilton report and move in the exact opposite direction: adding troops and employing counterinsurgency tactics inappropriate to the situation on the ground. "There was no way he was going to accept [its findings] once the press began to portray the report as Daddy's friends coming to the rescue," a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission told me. As with Bush's invasion of Iraq, the decision to surge was made unilaterally, without adequate respect for history or military doctrine. Iraq was invaded with insufficient troops and planning; the surge was attempted with too few troops (especially non-Kurdish, Arabic-speaking Iraqis), a purposely misleading time line ("progress" by September) and, most important, the absence of a reliable Iraqi government.

General David Petraeus has repeatedly said, "A military solution to Iraq is not possible." Translation: This thing fails unless there is a political deal among the Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds. There is no such deal on the horizon, largely because of the President's aversion to talking to people he doesn't like.

Nor, apparently, does he like anyone else talking to people he doesn't like. To be honest, most presidents try to make sure they maintain control of the foreign policy agenda. Bush's foreign policy agenda has been an unadulterated disaster that has laid our country low in the eyes of the entire world. Just 6 short years ago the U.S. was not just the most prestigious country-- and perceived to be the most powerful-- but also the most admired and beloved. After 6 years of Bush and Cheney, America is hated, distrusted and perceived to be weak and feared the way a wounded, irrational animal is feared. Yet Bush ordered Jimmy Carter to not visit Syria. Does anyone remember Bill Clinton having a public breakdown and screaming like a 2 year old when House Speaker Newt Gingrich (accompanied by one Rep. John Boehner) went to China and stomped all over the Clinton Administration's careful-- and successful-- diplomacy?

Dr. Steven Porter, who is running for Congress against Bush Regime rubber stamp incumbent Phil English (PA-03) sent me a note this week that I'm certain he is comfortable with me sharing with you:

The recent visit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Syria marks a significant change in American foreign policy, a change for the better, a change not to the liking of President Bush and the Project-for-the-New-American-Century advisors who puppeted him into his disastrous Iraqi misadventure.
 
It is a policy of conversation instead of confrontation, a policy of adult minds as opposed to minds beset with the neurotic illusions of greed cloaked in the rhetoric of Christian righteousness. By having the courage and maturity to simply speak to Syria, Ms. Pelosi has told not only Syria, but all the Middle Eastern nations that both the Congress and the people of the United States wish to treat other nations with equality and dignity. The difference between the reaction to Ms. Pelosi and former reactions to Bush and his ambassadors like Secretary of State Rice is significant. 
 
As a result of the climate Speaker Pelosi has tried to generate, Syria has now declared a willingness to negotiate an equitable solution to the Palestinian situation with Israel. Israel has reciprocated. Iran has released the British sailors being held hostage (no doubt spurred on by closed negotiations in which an Iranian diplomat was also released as a kind of quid pro quo). The impending disaster of another U.S. invasion against Iran has been eased.
 
That is quite a list for one simple trip by one U.S. leader. Yet, there is more, if one reads between the lines.
 
Ms. Pelosi has also reinforced the idea that a woman of courage and character can play upon the international stage. And, finally, she has subtly acknowledged that the deaths of people in wars can be viewed in different ways on different sides of the battle lines. To spell this last point out more clearly, she has hinted that the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians at the hands of an American invasion are not simply "collateral damage," to use Donald Rumsfeld’s heartless words, but no less barbarous to the people of the Middle East than the heartless murders of Saddam Hussein.

History will judge Bush and his supporters, not the least of them Congressman English of the 3rd CD of Pennsylvania, in the harshest of terms. It is time the American people did so, as well.

Today's NY Times carries two relevant pieces worth looking at, an editorial, The Real Fumble in Damascus, and a news report by Helene Cooper and Carl Hulse. Both address The Tantrum.

The tone of the complaints-- particularly Vice President Dick Cheney's public characterization of her visit as "bad behavior"-- contrasts sharply with the administration's silence about a similar trip to Damascus a week ago by Republican lawmakers, Representatives Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Robert B. Aderholt of Alabama...

Ms. Pelosi, in a telephone interview from Lisbon on Friday, said she could not account for the Bush administration's assault, which she at one point equated to a tantrum. (She said her children were teasing her about Mr. Cheney’s accusation of bad behavior.) Defending her trip, Ms. Pelosi said that members of Congress had a responsibility to play a role in national security issues and that they needed to be able to gather information on their own, and not be dependent on the White House.

"I am used to the administration; nothing surprises me," she said. "Having said that, I hope we can have the opportunity to convey to the president what we saw."

..."We understand our responsibilities when we leave the country," Ms. Pelosi said. "On all the issues, it was a very direct message, very consistent with the Bush administration's message." She said her message "was not always the one everyone wanted to hear."

"I come back thinking, all right, we will get through their tantrum," Ms. Pelosi said, in a reference to the administration, "but the fact is, we accomplished what we set out to do. I think we improved the understanding among the different parties."

Today's Times editorial took the reporting to its logical conclusion.

There is at least one point on which we and the critics of Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Damascus can agree: It is the White House, not the speaker of the House, that should be taking the diplomatic lead. But the Bush administration has far more appetite for scoring political points than figuring out whether talking to Syria might help contain the bloodletting in Iraq or revive efforts to negotiate peace.

So long as Mr. Bush continues to shun high-level discussions with this troublesome but strategically located neighbor of Israel, Lebanon and Iraq, such Congressional visits can serve the useful purpose of spurring a much needed examination of the administration's failed policies.

... In the administration's perverse view, the only legitimate time for negotiations would be after the most contentious and difficult issues-- Syria's support for Hamas and Hezbollah, its meddling in Lebanon and open border with Iraq-- have already been resolved. Thus, what ought to be the main agenda points for diplomatic discussions have been turned into a set of preconditions designed to ensure that no discussions ever take place. As the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, Congressional representatives of both parties, this page, and many others have pointed out, Washington should be eager to raise just those issues, along with the possibility of a land-for-peace deal with Israel, directly with Syrian leaders.

With Congress on break, the Regime has been able to dominate the mass media with it's narrow partisan message. One day Bush is spewing out Rove's patently absurd canard about the terrorists following the American military back home and the next day he is twisting reality to claim it is the Democrats who are jeopardizing members of the military. The irony of a Regime that has pulverized the military through misuse and abuse accusing its supporters and defenders of jeopardizing it should be lost on no one. Howard Dean refused to let Bush get away with his calumnies. "Our military is now stretched to a breaking point. Just this week, the Army announced that they'll send large division units back to Iraq without giving them at least a year's rest at home, as the Pentagon standards require. Because our forces have been so badly depleted, the Pentagon just yesterday announced that they're deploying an additional 12,000 National Guard Reserves to Iraq... We believe that we ought to refocus our military efforts on Afghanistan and on fighting terrorism. We've presented this plan to President Bush, but he stubbornly refuses even to discuss it. We intend to see that the troops get what they deserve and we will not give President Bush a blank check for a war without end."

He won't talk to Iran. He won't talk to North Korea. He won't talk to Syria. Now he won't even talk to the American people's representatives. The Democrats don't want to impeach him; they really don't, but soon they may have no choice. We need mature adults running the government.


UPDATE: OH, AND DID I MENTION HE'S GOT HIS BOBBLEY HEAD UP HIS ASS ON CHILD PORN TOO?

Susi Bright elegantly explains how the Bush Regime exploits child porn, does nothing about helping abused or exploited children and how all this ties in with the firing of the 8 U.S. Attorneys.