The Doctrine of Waaahhhhh: Cheney's Distortions and Lies

If Dick Cheney's recent interview with John King on CNN served any purpose,  it was to demonstrate the the arguments of the Bush Administration still have no wisdom and consciousness.

The former Vice President made two main points: the Obama Administration is using the economic crisis as a pretext to strengthen the Federal authority over private sector, and the US is getting less safe day by day. As for any responsibility that his own Administration might face for economic failure, well, the Bushmen had faced a global financial crisis and disasters like Katrina. So while the Bush Administration had done its best and can not be labeled as “unsuccessful”, Obama is clearly ruining the economic and the political systems of the US.

Shall we run an eye over these arguments and, with a tap of the analytic finger, knock them down?

CHENEYISM No. 1 – "Increasing Authority of the Government over the Private Sector"

But the key, I think, is the extent to which they fix the problem with the financial institutions in the society. That is a federal government responsibility. It is the banks, it is the Federal Reserve, it is the FDIC, it is all of the financial regulations and management of our currency that is a federal responsibility... I worry a lot that they are using the current set of economic difficulties to try to justify a massive expansion in the government and much more authority for the government over the private sector, and I don't think that it is good.

I think the programs that he has recommended and pursuing in health care, in energy, and so forth, constitute probably the biggest expansions of federal authority over the private economy in the history of the republic.”
My own belief is that the way we grow the economy, create jobs, create wealth is in the private sector. The government does not do that.”

Mistake No: 1 - Shooting himself with his own gun:

Cheney: “I don't think you can blame the Bush Administration for the creation of those circumstances. It is a global financial crisis....People with their savings being diminished because of the state of the economy, [are] reluctant to spend; trying to hang on to everything they can, and, naturally, it results in a slower level of economic growth.”
A moment's reflection might reveal that people be in attempt of holding on to everything they can, not because the government is lecturing citizens not to spend, but because they are reacting against a partially-free-market economy. They are doing so because investment nor putting money in banks is perceived as ‘plausible’, given that both the credit costs for banks and the cost of investing in the private sector --- during a downturn in demand for "private" goods --- are very high.

If the liberal system is economically damaged and if this crisis becomes a global one, then someone should remind Mr. Cheney that the capitalist world economy always rests upon the sovereignty of states (state intervention) and the inter-state system and global measures. Governments in the capitalist mode of production remove blockages and deadlocks within the system; when the private sector has nothing to open up the system during a crisis, that private sector needs government interventions. Instead of hiding behind senseless clichés, Mr. Cheney should have stated his hope for and belief in the Obama Administration as a supporter of the capitalist system and the private sector.

Mistake No. 2: The assumption that the private sector alone can lead the economy, even during the crisis

Cheney: “We are seeing an argument made that we have got economic difficulties, therefore, we are going to have a cap and trade program with respect to carbon emissions. That is a huge energy tax that is going to be applied across the society.”

Not necessarily. If the capitalist system is in a crisis and there is a decrease in the hegemonic (American) power --- simply put, if the gap between the US and other core areas such as South Asia in the accumulation of capital has been getting smaller --- then the US must focus on a sustainable high-technology production to renew the global system's infrastructure. The revolution in the 1490s was mercantilism; it was factories and industrial infrastructures in the 1890s; and it has been communications since the demise of the Soviets. This time, the revolution cannot just be wished up from the private sector: with the US in a financial crisis thanks to the huge tax cuts and the trillion-dollar-plus "War on Terror" of the Bush Administration, government intervention is inevitable at this stage.

A useful perspective on this comes in Susan George's article "Of Capitalism, Crisis, Conversion and Collapse: The Keynesian Alternative" on the unsustainable ecological crisis. George asserts that eco-friendly industries and products would have huge export value and could quickly become the world standard through the environmental Keynesianism.

Someone should remind Mr. Cheney that while the US built up a budget deficit of more than $2 trillion between 2002 and 2008 when the US has spent more than $1 trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq, and when the accumulation of capital has expanded geographically with the emergence of more "semi-peripheries" in the midst of a global economic crisis, it is only the US Government that can save dollar's future.

CHENEYISM No. 2: "The US is Getting Less Safe"

Cheney: “President Obama is making some choices, in my mind; in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack....I guess my general sense of where we are with respect to Iraq and at the end of now, what, nearly six years, is that we have accomplished nearly everything we set out to do.”

Do I need to re-state that one in seven Iraqis are homeless, that hundreds of thousands have been killed, that the escalation of Sunni v. Shia and Arab v. Kurdish escalations has laid dynamite, for future generations, that the supposed fight in Iraq against terror has brought a rise in terror from the Kurdish-backed PKK in northern Iraq and from Iran-backed Shia militias, that democracy has brought undemocratic regulations by Shia-dominated government? (For further information please read Juan Cole's striking arguments.)

Cheney: “The fact is, the violence level is down 90 percent. The number of casualties and Iraqis and Americans is significantly diminished.”

This does not demonstrate success. What does it mean even if violence had decreased 99 percent? Who is responsible for the violence in Iraq since 2003? Mr. Cheney's statement is nothing but an escape through simple and indigested data.

Cheney: “The defeat of Al Qa'eda...”

Since there were no Al Qa'eda bases or headquarters in Iraq in 2003 if Bush and Cheney had been intent on destroying bin Laden and his men, then they would not have deployed 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan and 176,000 US troops in Iraq.

Cheney: “A major defeat for the Iranians living next door to Iraq...”

Did I miss something? Did Iran suspend or give up its nuclear enrichment program? The argument of "defeat" of Iran's "terorrists" in Iraq seems to be little more than an excuse for the price tag of more than $1 trillion for US operations.

Cheney: “I think if you hark back and look at the biggest threat we faced after 9/11, it was the idea of a rogue state or a terrorists-sponsoring state with weapons of mass destruction... What happened in Iraq is we have eliminated that possibility.”

If we are talking about possibilities, can we claim that because there might be a nuclear war among states in the future because the US has the most of the nuclear warheads in the world? Indeed, wouldn't it better to call on the international community for an anti-US offensive campaign so that those bombs would not be killing us or future generations? That is the level of the nonsense in Mr. Cheney's statement.

CHENEYISM No. 3: The Reasons We Are Less Safe Now

Cheney: “I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11.”

"Those programs" include CIA "black sites" around the world, the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, state-sanction "enhanced interrogations" by the military and CIA, waterboarding, the muddled procedure of miilitary commissoins to try those under the deceptive label of "enemy combatants". Apparently, the best way to keep the US safe comes down to torturing humans.

CHENEYISM No. 4: It's All OK Because of 9/11

Cheney: “We made a decision after 9/11 that I think was crucial. We said this is a war. It is not a law enforcement problem. Up until 9/11, it was treated as a law enforcement problem. You go find the bad guy, put him on trial, put him in jail.... Once you go into a war time situation and it is a strategic threat, then you use all of your assets to go after the enemy. You go after the state sponsors of terror, places where they have got sanctuary. You use your intelligence resources, your military resources, your financial resources, everything you can in order to shut down that terrorist threat against you... When you go back to the law enforcement mode, which I sense is what they are doing, closing Guantanamo and so forth, that they are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that is required, and that concept of military threat that is essential if you are going to successfully defend the nation against further attacks.”

The discourse of the "War on Terror" strengthens the "US" v. "Them" rationale, projecting the enemy threat, blurring any empathy or even recognition of the "Other", and supporting policymakers' quest for power through "security".

The former Vice President's statements are far away from an honest reflection, both of what had happened during the Bush Administration and what has been happening since the takeover of President Obama. Indeed, Mr. Cheney's lies and allegations reveal that we have been lucky to survive the Bush Administration. However, what about the ones who lost their lives under tons of US bombs while sleeping in their beds?

Thank you, former Vice President, for that reminder. Thank you very much.

Three Degrees Of Engagement: The Obama Message To Iran

Latest Post: Iran Responds to Obama New Year Message

So President Obama, following weeks of discussion within his Administration, has made a very public move towards Iran with his Nohruz (Iranian New Year) video message. Will this clear away the "muddle" of US policy, which we were discussing only yesterday, and offer a productive resolution of the difficulties in US-Iran relations?

Here's a three-step process to follow the road of engagement:

1. US STRATEGY

The Obama message is a public diplomacy masterpiece, similar to his January interview with Al-Arabiya speaking to the Arab and Islamic worlds.

Like President Bush, Obama spoke to the Iranian people about their heritage and achievements and a common sense of humanity. Unlike Bush, however, Obama also addressed directly Iranian leaders with the proposal of a diplomatic route to settlement of the issues in US-Iranian relations, overcoming the hostilities of the last 30 years.

That is a huge difference, as it sets aside the impression that US policy is seeking a "velvet revolution" for regime change.

The public diplomacy of Obama's general statement, however, did not even begin to outline the US approach to the "issues". Beyond the call for Iranian leaders to choose peace, Obama did not refer to the Iran nuclear programme. Nor did he broach the regional issues (Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine) shaping the US outlook.

That's to be expected, of course, in a message of goodwill: no need to complicate New Year with an overload of politics. Still, it means that the second step is awaited, and this has to come from Tehran not Washington.

2. IRAN'S RESPONSE

It would be foolhardy to expect Tehran to make any commitment or to raise the issues that Obama did not specify. There is, after all, a Presidential campaign being waged in Iran. President Ahmadinejad will not make any concession on Iran's current position, and it would be electoral suicide for any of his challengers to address the nuclear or regional issues in detail.

The most, therefore, that can be expected from Iran is a general response to match Obama's overture. That will still be very useful in "decoding" the Iranian perspective on engagement. Who offers the response? Does it propose direct talks? If so, will those talks occur before the elections in June? Is there a reference to the specific possibility of US-Iran co-operation on Afghanistan?

At the same time. this would only be a proposal to discuss. It would point to the continuation of the limited private talks that have probably occurred and possibly direct contacts later in the year.

Which puts the central question back to Washington.....

3. THE BROADER US APPROACH

The unanswerable question which has been percolating beneath US discussions since January is what happens if "engagement" doesn't unfold according to the American diplomatic script. Is the process one which will accept a negotiation with Iran to meet the interests of both sides? Or is it a case of seeing if Iran will diplomatically accept all US conditions and, if (and when) it does not do so, putting on more economic pressure?

Obama's message raises the prospect of a genuine negotiation, yet the pointed challenge to Iranian leaders to show that they are peaceful also indicates that Washington wants the higher ground from the start of talks.

In itself, that general position is to be expected. It is also to be expected, however, that Iran will portray itself as the peaceful party and ask the US to mend its past ways.

What is important is that Washington does not follow Obama's message by trying to box Iran in on issues such as the nuclear programme, Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, and general relations with the Arab world. The Clinton tour of the Middle East was foolish, if not dangerous, in its ham-fisted attempt to unite Arabs against the Tehran menace, thus isolating Iran from any place in the post-Gaza discussions and outcomes.

That Clinton approach raised the spectre of a Dennis Ross, who has long advocated the velvet fist strategy, shaping US policy. It's a prospect that Stephen Walt has warned against, in a blog that we have reprinted today.

It is too much to expect Washington in the near-future, as Walt suggests, to re-define its strategy so it will accept an Iran nuclear programme. What is important, however, is that the US does not follow Obama's message with pressure for further economic sanctions and that it damps the public rhetoric blaming Tehran for stoking every Middle Eastern fire.

In short, if there is a period of relative silence, rather than diplomatic fury, then the prospect of engagement- long-term engagement- is very real.

[Read the full text of Obama's message to Iran here]

Israel's Challenge: The Durban II Conference on World Racism

The Durban II Conference, also known as the Second World Conference against Racism, is going to commence on April 20. Since the articles of draft documents were being discussed and shaped during the preparatory meetings, the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzip Livni, has warned the UN that Israel would not attend to the upcoming conference if the Israeli politics labeled as “Zionism”  were considered as racist again.

The latest draft resolution for the conference is remarkable in its criticism of Israel, even in  comparison to the declaration of the first conference. There is no attempt at a balance between the right of Israeli security and the right of self-determination of the Palestinians. Indeed, in addition to pointing out the one-sided racial discrimination against Palestinians, there are three significant references: the Gaza situation, the Israeli "Wall" running through the West Bank, and the Syrian Golan Heights. The worst-case scenario for Israel, is that these references will bring in the International Court of Justice, as the judicial body of the UN, to rule on the norms of international law under the Occupied Territories.

In 2001, both the Israeli and American delegations withdrew from the first World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, claiming that the language of the draft declaration was “anti-Semitic” and “full of hatred.” The "shocking" vote for the declaration was interpreted as a revival of the UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted in 1975 but annulled in 1991, which stated that Zionism was a form of racism and racial discrimination.

Yet, the US and Israeli lobbies were successful in their "non-participation". The final text of the conference did not include the language accusing Israel of racism. Indeed, it aimed at neutrality in its treatment of the State of Israel and the Arab world. For instance:

• “63: We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize that inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon al States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion.”

• “61: We recognize with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas against Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities.”

• “150: Calls upon States, in opposing all forms of racism, to recognize the need to counter anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and Islamophobia world-wide, and urges all States to take effective measures to prevent the emergence of movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas concerning these communities.”

This time, Israeli diplomats are expecting a tougher process. The draft resolutions of the Durban II conference, possibly bolstered by the Gaza War, are portraying Israel as an occupying state carrying out racist policies.

The latest revised version of the reviewed text issued on 23 January 2009 states:

“(Re-emphasizes the responsibility of the international community to provide international protection, in particular from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, for (Palestinian) civilian populations under occupation in conformity with international human rights law and international humanitarian law;).”

“(Reiterates that the Palestinian people have the inalienable right to self-determination and that, in order to consolidate the (Israeli) occupation, they have been subjected to unlawful collective punishment, torture, economic blockade, severe restriction of movement and arbitrary closure of their territories. Also notes (with concern) that illegal settlements continue to be built in the occupied (Arab) territories (since 1967);)”

“Expresses deep concern at the plight of Palestinian refugees and other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories as well as displaced persons who were forced to leave their homes because of war and racial policies of the occupying power and who are prevented from returning to their homes and properties because of a racially-based law of return. It recognizes the right of Palestinian refugees as established by the General Assembly in its resolutions, particularly resolution 194 of 11 December 1948, and calls for the return to their homeland in accordance with and in implementation of this right.”

In this text, only the Palestinian side that must be protected, and only they suffer from unlawfulness. Only they are oppressed because of war --- there is no reference to Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Fatah --- and because of Israel’s policies based on racial discrimination.

Specifically, the declaration asks the International Court of Justice to give its advisory opinion on the Israeli Wall in the West Bank as both a symbol and an instrument of the occupation:

“(Reiterates deep concern about the plight of the Palestinian people (as well as inhabitants of the other occupied territories) under foreign occupation, (including the obstruction of the return of refugees and displaced persons, and the construction of the segregation wall,) and urges respect for international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law, and calls fir a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region;)”

“Calls for the end of all actions violating international human rights and humanitarian law, the respect for the principle of self-determination and the end of all suffering; calls also for the implementation of international legal obligations including the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Wall and the international protection of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

The draft then offers a vital sentence in parentheses: “(Proposal to include reference to Gaza situation – language to be provided).” This inserted sentence could, for example, call for the Israeli officials who ordered Operation Cast Lead and the generals who carried it out as "war criminals" to be judged in the International Criminal Court.

The most important point outside the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is probably the reference to the Syrian issue. The drafting committee is underlines the Israeli occupation and the Israeli ‘racial discrimination policies’ against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights:

“(Expresses deep concern at the practices of racial discrimination against the Palestinian people as well as (Syrian nationals of the occupied Syrian Golan) (other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories) which have an impact on all aspects of their daily existence of all such practices;)”

Yet it is here that there may be a possibility for both Israel and a positive outcome. While Tel Aviv has urged the US, Italy and Canada to boycott the conference, American support on the sidelines for an approach to the Syrian issue may be acceptable to the Israelis. Indeed, both the US and Israel may see the Syrian initiative as an opening for dialogue between Israel and Palestinians, as well as loosening the ties between Damascus and Tehran that hve developed since 2001.

Only last week US Secretary of State sent two officials, Jeffrey Fletman and Daniel Shapiro, to Damascus. She also visited Turkey and announced that President Obama would be coming to Ankara in April. This pointed to Turkey's positive mediation role in the Israeli-Syrian dialogue and its place in the solution of the water problem arising from the use of Golan Heights between Syria and Israel.

Obama and Brown: So long, and thanks for all the DVDs

There is perhaps no stronger indictment of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown's recent visit to the White House and Congress than this morning's slow-news-day-controversy over President Obama's gift to the PM. Brown's presents for the new president were carefully considered, symbolic offerings- a pen holder carved from the oak of HMS Gannet, which took part in anti-slavery operations (and whose sister ship became the Oval Office's desk), and a first edition Churchill biography. Obama, on the other hand, gave Brown some DVDs- the diplomatic equivalent of Marks & Spencer vouchers. Brown's visit to Washington wasn't a failure, but it was about as meaningful and thought-provoking as that DVD boxset.

Some are suggesting that Brown was snubbed by Obama, pointing to the brevity of their meeting as well as the lack of a formal dinner and the cancellation of a joint press conference. The truth is that the Obama administration, up to its eyeballs in economic and foreign policy crises, has no use for a lame duck British Prime Minister with close ties to the Bush-loving Tony Blair. Like an unwanted if generally affable houseguest, Brown was politely greeted, dispatched, and forgotten about.

Much the same happened at Congress. If you have a spare 34 minutes you can watch Brown's address:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W-AJRo5G4I[/youtube]

If you don't, let me summarise: "America is wonderful!" (applause). "We're knighting Ted Kennedy!" (applause). "America was a staunch ally in World War 2!" (applause). "We stood together after 9/11" (muted applause). "Terrorism and Iran are grave threats!" (applause). Then, the riskier content- "The economy and the environment must be fixed" (cautious applause). "America landed on the moon!" (baffled applause). "End the dictatorship of oil and tackle climate change!" (silence). Brown closed with a linkage between the Rwandan genocide, African poverty and- weirdly- "expensively funded madrassas teaching innocent children to hate us." Not Rwandan children, surely? No explanation was offered, but neither was one required. And Brown signed off (applause), ending what could be his last official visit to the US.

Bobby Jindal Tells Massive Lie, Many Too Busy Laughing At Him To Notice

Scott's analysis this week has, rightly, centred on President Obama's address to Congress. Elsewhere however the buzz has been about what came after, in Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal's pre-taped response. Enduring America may already have scientifically proven that Sarah Palin will be the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 but Jindal's star is rising within the GOP and he's seen in some quarters as a potential challenger to Obama in 2012. So what went wrong for him on Tuesday? And if this speech doesn't kill his career will his lie- about helping a now-dead Sheriff fight bureaucracy to save lives during Hurricane Katrina - do so?

Jindal's canned response has been variously described as hokey, homespun and just plain condescending. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow was left stupefied, briefly losing the power of speech before remarking on the hyporcrisy of a Republican invoking "government failure during Katrina as a model for how to move forward as a country":

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOFcaYljKfc[/youtube]

So far, so bad for Jindal. But the following day bloggers at Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo began to raise doubts about Jindal's story of standing alongside Sheriff Harry Lee, as he announced he'd rather be arrested than prevented from sending out volunteer rescue boats which lacked the correct insurance:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N8U4zVmJPs[/youtube]

The story is false- Jindal's office has admitted that the governor overheard Lee, who died in 2007, telling the story in an interview several days later. Jindal used a story stolen from a dead man as the centrepiece of Tuesday's GOP response, and in ten short minutes the future of the Republican Party became a laughing stock and a liar.