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.

Engagement with Iran (Postscript): Did US Tell Israeli General to Take a Hike?

Related Post: Engagement with Iran - A Hopeful US Approach
Related Post: Engagement - And There's Hope on the Iranian Side As Well....

A story from Israel's YNet News on Monday raises the prospect of a Washington rebuff to Israel on how to approach Iran.

The article begins with a statement of the Israeli hopes for a hard line towards Tehran: "IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi (pictured), who is on an official visit to the United States, told his American colleagues Monday that the Iranian threat could still be handled via sanctions, but stressed that an Israeli military strike was a "serious" option."

It soon becomes clear, however, that Ashkenazi was told to put his airplanes away by US National Security Advisor James Jones, Dennis Ross, the State Department special advisor on Iran, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "[Ashkenazi] did note that economic sanctions on Iran remain the preferable option at this time."

Even more interesting is this note, which I don't think was picked up in the American press: "Later Monday evening, Ashkenazi decided to cut his visit to the US short, in order to attend the government's meeting Tuesday on the prisoner exchange deal meant to secure the release of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit."

Yeah, right. Ashkenazi is far from a central figure in the political talks with Hamas on Shalit. What is more likely is that, having originally scheduled a five-day stay in the US, the General saw that Tel Aviv's agenda was going nowhere. That interpretation is given even more substance by this denial, which still raises a smile:

IDF Spokesman Brigadier-General Avi Benayahu said that "the decision stemmed from his desire to attend meetings regarding Shalit's retrieval, but it is not to be taken as a reflection of any possible outcome of the negotiations."

Washington's rejection of Ashkenazi's approach is solely on the military side of the Iran question. What remains to be seen is whether, after Hillary Clinton and Dennis Ross floated the idea of a harder diplomatic line with Iran during the Clinton wide ride in the Middle East earlier this month, others in the Administration --- possibly eclipsing Clinton and Ross --- are also going to rebuff Tel Aviv's insistence on tougher economic sanctions.

Engagement with Iran: A Hopeful US Approach

Related Post: Engagement - And There's Hope on the Iranian Side As Well....

On Friday we suggested a handy three-step process to evaluate the significance and impact of President Obama's message to the Iranian people and leaders.

Wow, only 48 hours later, we're at Step 3: The US Reaction to the Iranian Response.

Even more surprising, and indeed reassuring, that reaction seems to have fulfilled our hope "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".

Fed by Administration officials and European diplomats, New York Times reporters Helene Cooper and David Sanger write that Obama's message is “part of a strategy intended to emphasize a positive message to Iran in the prelude to that nation’s presidential election this summer. Among other measures being weighed are a direct communication from Mr. Obama to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, and an end to a prohibition on direct contacts between junior American diplomats and their Iranian counterparts around the world.”

Even more importantly, at least in the short term, the President “had set aside for the next few months a quest for more punitive sanctions aimed at Iran”.

The statements indicate Washington's recognition that the Iranian leadership would be in no position to move to direct, general talks before June's Presidential election. And, while it is unclear if the officials spoke to the Times before Ayatollah Khameini's remarks on Friday, there is no hint in the article that the Supreme Leader's comments will alter the American approach.

Cooper and Sanger are led by their sources to a detailed reading of Obama's signals in his message: “[He] directed his comments not just to the Iranian people but to Iran’s leaders,...he referred to Iran as 'the Islamic Republic',... [and he] went so far as to quote the medieval Persian poet Saadi.” Far significant, however, is the clue that Washington and Tehran have worked out the Iranian participation at the US-led conference on Afghanistan in The Hague next week.:”Iran is expected to send a delegation, and a senior administration official said Mrs. Clinton would probably greet Iranian officials on the sidelines.”

This is all encouraging, especially in contrast to the Administration's march to possible disaster in Afghanistan and Pakistan, even if the approach may not be completely the product of American desires. Moscow seems to have played a part in its rebuff of any linkage of US-Russian talks to a shift in its position on Iran: “Russia in particular appears unlikely to support tougher sanctions until Mr. Obama demonstrates that he has first gone significantly further than President Bush did to engage Iran.”

Engagement: And There's Hope on the Iranian Side as Well....

Related Post: Engagement with Iran - A Hopeful US Approach

Juan Cole, one of the shrewdest American analysts of Iran, complements our optimism on the developments in US-Iranian relations in his blog today.

With the considerable advantage that he reads Farsi, Cole is even upbeat about Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei's weekend statements:

[Khamenei] said Saturday, "Of course, we have no prior experience of the new president of the American republic and of the government, and therefore we shall make our judgment based on his actions."

The US corporate media mysteriously interpreted Khamenei's words as a rebuff to Obama, but in light of the phrase I just quoted, I can't understand how they reached that conclusion. Certainly, he did say repeatedly that Iran has had a pretty horrible experience with the United States, and that it would take more than some nice words to change Iranian minds about Washington. You could say that this was a grumpy old man response to Obama's call for engagement. But you can't call it a rebuff, since Khamenei explicitly says that he has no basis for making a judgment about the Obama administration as yet, and will respond to its actual concrete policies.

Cole lays six practical steps that Khamenei wants from the US for better relations and concludes:

This speech laid out the initial Iranian bargaining position. It has everything but the kitchen sink, and maybe it even has the kitchen sink. It is like in a US department store when the salesman tells you the refrigerator is $1200 but in fact you can bargain him down to $1050.

Khamenei Adopts a Wait and See Attitude to Obama;
"If You Change Your Attitude, We Will Change Ours"
JUAN COLE

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Saturday, "Of course, we have no prior experience of the new president of the American republic and of the government, and therefore we shall make our judgment based on his actions."

The US corporate media mysteriously interpreted Khamenei's words as a rebuff to Obama, but in light of the phrase I just quoted, I can't understand how they reached that conclusion. Certainly, he did say repeatedly that Iran has had a pretty horrible experience with the United States, and that it would take more than some nice words to change Iranian minds about Washington. You could say that this was a grumpy old man response to Obama's call for engagement. But you can't call it a rebuff, since Khamenei explicitly says that he has no basis for making a judgment about the Obama administration as yet, and will respond to its actual concrete policies.

Interestingly, the French news agency, Agence France Presse, got the story right, entitling their article, "Iran ready to change if US leads way: Khamenei."

And, the Iranian Press TV had an even more enthusiastic headline: "Iran vows response to real US change."

He said that the Iranian public would be offended if anyone addressed it with a discourse of carrots or sticks. That was when he immediately excused Obama from any such charge, saying the latter had a clean slate.

Elsewhere in the address he pledged, in AFP's translation, "If you change your attitude, we will change our attitude."

Iran's leader pointed out that the name of the US in the world at large is mud because of offensive US policies (he is probably thinking of wars of aggression, torture, etc.). He counsels that the US should change its behavior so that gradually its would gain the esteem of the world.

Khamenei did specify the practical steps the US might take to show it was in earnest.

1. He implied that the US was behind Sunni terrorism against the regime in Iranian Baluchistan near the the Pakistani border (Baluch are Sunnis and tribal and dislike the Persian, Shiite government in Tehran. Some observers have accused the US of fomenting terrorism among such minorities, and Khamenei appears to accept the theory).

2. He implicitly complained about continued US support for and use of the Iranian terrorist group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose base in Iraq (given them by Saddam to harass Iran) the US continues to maintain and guard despite the Iraqi government's desire to close it down and expel the Mojahedin. The US State Department has declared the MEK a terrorist organization, but the Pentagon is said to still deploy its members for covert ops inside Iran. In these two points, which are allusive in the speech, he is essentially accusing the US of being a major sponsor of terrorism.

3. He complained that the US continued to accuse Iran of sponsoring terrorism.

4. He complained that the US continues to accuse Iran of trying to build a nuclear bomb. (Khamenei and all Iranian government officials strongly deny that charge, saying they only have a civilian research program for energy purposes; US intelligence assessments back Khamenei up on all this, but the Washington politicians still routinely speak of taking strong measures stopping Iran from getting the bomb. Khamenei views such talk as a threat of aggression and sees the nuclear issue as a mere pretext for US neo-imperialism. The US dominated Iran during and after WW II and made a pro-monarchy coup in 1953, saddling the country with a megalomaniac shah who was subservient to US interests, until the 1979 Islamic Revolution).

5. He complained of continued US economic sanctions and boycotts.

6. He complained of US support for Israel.

This speech laid out the initial Iranian bargaining position. It has everything but the kitchen sink, and maybe it even has the kitchen sink. It is like in a US department store when the salesman tells you the refrigerator is $1200 but in fact you can bargain him down to $1050.

Khamenei also warned Obama to listen directly to Khamenei's own words: "Contemplate carefully my words. You must under no circumstances give them to Zionists to translate. Rather, consult with righteous persons." Well, the crack about Zionists is unfair, but Khamenei is obviously correct that his speech will be distorted by the Neoconservatives who desperately want the US to go to war against Iran.

I hope Obama will in fact get a good translation and analysis of the speech, which is far more welcoming of a potential change in Washington, and shows far more willingness to negotiate, than the corporate media in the US are reporting.

Daniel Brumberg points to Iranian desires for a concrete set of achievable proposals and impatience with a vague "process" of open-ended talks. It should be remembered that the would be a domestic cost for hardliners to pay if they opened to the US, and the cost would be perhaps unbearable if they brought nothing back from the negotiations in the end.

Pakistan: Chief Justice Chaudhry Reinstated; What Next for Zardari?

Related Post: Pakistan - A Political Deal for a New Coalition?

A week after President Asif Ali Zardari gave way to the demands of the Long March,  Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry (pictured) was formally restored to his position in a flag-raising ceremony at his house.

Now the real contest between the Presidency, other political parties, and the courts begins. The easy case will be last month's barring of former President Nawaz Sharif from office and the removal of Sharif's brother, Shahbaz, as chief minister of Punjab. This was always a political, rather than legal, manoeuvre, and the Zardari Government's concession that it will seek a review of the decision indicates the Sharifs will be "legitimate" politicians very soon.

More intriguing will be the Supreme Court's position towards Zardari. The judges installed by Zardari's predecessor, Pervez Musharraf, rubber-stamped an "amnesty" from the corruption charges that had forced Zardari into exile. I suspect that a political deal will trump the law, and the charges will not be reinstated; however, public pressure for a strong, "independent" judiciary may make life troublesome for the President.