Barack Obama’s mantra of change sounds eloquent on the campaign trail, but as we have pointed out repeatedly there is an enormous gulf between what he says and what he does. It is one thing, for example, to tout womens’ rights. But those exhortations ring hollow when we learn that Barack pays his women staffers a fraction of what he pays his male buddies. Is that change you believe in?

We are promised a movement that rises above the crass partisanship of the past 8 years. Great!! Except Barack’s team during the last week of the campaign bans three major newspapers, who just happened to endorse John McCain, from riding on this campaign plane. That’s just good old fashioned hardball politics. I get it. But spare me the sanctimonious bullshit that Barack is espousing a new, kinder form of politics.

So excuse my doubts that Barack is anything other than another clever, traditional, self-serving politician. I remember the promises of George W. Bush being a uniter not a divider. Well we all know how that promise turned out.

I am glad we will soon be rid of the Bush national security team. Not only will Bush go down in history as the worst President–a man who squandered international support, an 80% favorability rating, and a budget surplus–but his National Security Council was particularly dysfunctional.

The key mission for the National Security Advisor is to play traffic cop. He or she must force the various bureaucracies to come to agreement on contentious policies. Bush’s team was a complete fucking joke on this front. Neither Condi Rice nor her successor, Stephen Hadley rose to this task. During much of Bush’s first term the Department of Defense ran circles around Bush. Rumsfeld and his old protege, Dick Cheney, conspired successfully to force their will on others. Rice and Hadley just watched and did nothing.

James Risen reported an excellent account of one this behavior (see here):

Author James Risen notes the US military’s rules of engagement in Afghanistan states that if US soldiers discover illegal drugs they “could” destroy them, which is “very different from issuing firm rules stating that US forces must destroy any drugs discovered.” An ex-Green Beret later claims that he was specifically ordered to ignore heroin and opium when his unit discovered them on patrol. Assistant Secretary of State Bobby Charles, who fights in vain for tougher rules of engagement (see November 2004), will later complain, “In some cases [US troops] were destroying drugs, but in others they weren’t. [Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld didn’t want drugs to become a core mission.” [RISEN, 2006, PP. 152-162]

Let’s watch carefully who Obama tabs for his National Security Advisor. If it is Susan Rice then we are looking at a reprise of the Bush Administration’s administrative dysfunction. Obama’s Rice, like Condi, is a very intelligent person, but has a well-earned reputation for not being able to organize a three car funeral. Alternatively, someone like Richard Clarke, another Obama supporter/advisor, is an accomplished bureaucratic manager. He would be a definite upgrade.

Over at State the Bush Administration was a bust. Colin Powell helped lie the country into the Iraq war and Condi Rice has continued her same “stellar” performance at Foggy Bottom (the nickname for State Department reflecting its location on what once was swampland). Two names have emerged in the running for the State job–John Kerry and Bill Richardson. It is probably worthwhile to go back and figure out who was the first to throw Hillary Clinton under the bus. Each is likely to insist that their critical endorsement paved the way for Barack’s victory and therefore each, at least in his own mind, deserves to be the Secretary of State and help lead the world to a new era of peace and justice.

Some Obama disciples–obviously folks accustomed to using hallucinogens–suggested bringing back Powell for an encore. WHERE THEY ASLEEP DURING POWELL’S U.N. PERFORMANCE? If Barack goes down that road, we should really call into question the insistence that he is a “brilliant” guy. Some have suggested that a Republican like Chuck Hagel or Dick Lugar would be an excellent gesture that Barack is serious about a bipartisan approach to policy. There are two ways this would happen–No Way and No Way in Hell!!!

My guess is we are likely to see someone with a Chicago connection snag the State slot. This is the fun part of the election, watching the rearranging of the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Stay tuned.

UPDATE–After further checking it looks like John Kerry, who endorsed boy wonder on January 10, 2008, wins the sychophant contest for sucking up to Barack. He beat out Richardson by more than two months. Does that give him the edge?

Leave it to Pat Lang to thoroughly skewer the myth and legend of Colin Powell. Powell is a quintessential creature of Washington–smooth talking, handsome, low-key, and relentless in the task of butt-snorkeling. Powell did not achieve what achieved by challenging Presidents and senior commanders on matters of principle. Nope. He followed the parade, another way of saying going along with the crowd. Pat writes:

I watched this. I suppose that President Obama will find something for Colin Powell to do for the next few years, but that will be unfortunate.

Powell is someone who truly “blotted his copybook” as the Brits used to say. After a lifetime of service and achievement, Powell chose in the end to “drink the koolaid” that flowed in the bloodstream of the Bush/Cheney/neocon regime that has ruled the United States for the last eight years. He was Secretary of State at a time when his firm opposition, and ultimately his resignation would have crippled the onrushing utopian crusade for Westernization in Iraq.

He did not choose to follow that path. Instead, he chose to believe the corrupted judgments of an intelligence community leadership that betrayed the country and the armed forces by producing nonsensical estimates designed to create support for war among an ignorant and bellicose public that hungered for revenge aganst an enemy they could not even define.

Today, when he was asked by Brokaw about his role as perhaps the greatest enabler of the Iraq War decision, he took shelter behind the collection of garbage that was served up in 2002-2003 by George Tenet and company as justification for war.

For Shame! For Shame!

He should hide himself and hope that someday men will remember the good of him and not the worst. pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081019/pl_politico/14714

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell

PS Contrary to Brokaw, on MTP, it does not appear that Powell commanded an infantry battalion in the 101st Division in VN. Comment?

Once again Powell does the wrong thing at the wrong time. Should Obama be elected, the turd he will deliver as President will leave a legacy on par with that of George W. Bush. At least Powell will have the “distinction” of having supported both nitwits.

UPDATE–I did not hear Powell’s comments on Meet the Press yesterday, but I just saw the transcript. Powell is so disingenuous that one almost does not know whether to laugh or shriek in rage. Consider the following from Powell:

I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.”

Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim; he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian.

But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America.

Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?

Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

The facts are that Obama has not “always been a Christian.” That is not true. Barack’s mother was at best an agnostic. She professed no faith. His step-father, Lolo Soetoro, was a muslim. Barack’s father was a muslim. Barack during his time as a child in Indonesia was a muslim. There is no evidence I have seen that Barack continued to practice Islam after moving back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. But the notion that Barack has been a life long practicing Christian is pure, unadulterated HORSE SHIT!

But it is not the matter of being a muslim that is so concerning. Barack’s long association with the likes Louis Farrakhan, a Black Muslim, is alarming. The Islam espoused by Farrakhan is not mainstream. Anything but. So yes, I have a problem with someone who pals around with the likes of Louis Farrakhan. People like that should not be President or work for a President. Very simple. That kind of anti-semitism cannot be tolerated.

Powell also tries to pretend the notion that Obama is “associated with a terrorist” is a hypothetical. Sorry. But established relationships with William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Mike Klonsky, who either directly participated in terrorist attacks in the United States or supported groups who did, is no hypothetical. Obama has buddied up with terrorists and refuses to account for his actions.

But we should not be surprised. Colin Powell refused to listen to the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research objections to CIA efforts to cook the intel on Iraq. He ignored them and took a bogus case for war to the UN. So when it comes to the matter of the war in Iraq, judgment, and a Presidential endorsement, Powell is consistent–he is consistently wrong.

But first, I do want to point out that a lot is going on AGAIN with ACORN. Sen. Cornyn of TX (R) is pushing legislation to stop all taxpayer dollars to ACORN. Yes, it seems that since 1998, ACORN has received $31 MILLION of YOUR taxpaying dollars. You read that right - this very partisan organization (despite their claims) has received $31 million TAXPAYER dollars.

See, I don’t want ANY partisan organization to receive taxpayer money. Not ACORN, not Faith-based organizations, not any partisan organizations. Non-partisan only, I say.

Now, Senator Cornyn isn’t sure he can get our money BACK, but he does want to staunch the flow. Remember that Chris Dodd also tried to get 20% of the bailout repayment to go to ACORN, National La Raza, and the National Urban League. Do the math - 20% of $700 billion dollars = $140 BILLION dollars. OF YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

Thank heavens that got kicked out, but what does that say about what ACORN really does that Dodd and others wanted to funnel them that kind of money?? Mighty suspect, if you ask me.

Oh, and more misogyny with Sarah Palin as the target has been out this weekend, especially a YouTube video. I refuse to give it any more play, but it featured a former NFL football player knocking Gov. Palin to the ground and rendering her unconscious. Again - the attacks on her are attacks on women, pure and simple. There is no other way to paint it. They aren’t attacking her POLICIES, they are attacking her GENDER, same as they did to Senator Clinton. Why women would still support a party that treats them so shamefully is beyond me, but that’s just me. There us an excellent post at No Quarter entitled, “Dear Sarah, Dear Sister” on this topic that is WELL worth reading.

Okay - now for a light moment. My mother read this to me from the Charlotte Observer, her local paper. My mother had five children, a pertinent piece of information for this article, which is entitled, “Are We Really Sure Deep Throat Wasn’t A Woman With Kids?”

They say talk is cheap, but not when it comes to talking on the phone when kids are around. Its author is Tracy Curtis, who apparently knows whereof she speaks when she writes:

If they hadn’t revealed who Deep Throat was back in 2005, I would swear it was a woman. A woman with children.

That would have explained everything. Why she couldn’t talk on the phone with the Washington Post. And why she had to secretly meet the reporter in a parking garage.

And it wouldn’t have been because she was afraid her kids would hear her spilling secrets about the Nixon administration. It’d be that Bob Woodward couldn’t hear a word she was saying because of all the kids screaming in the background.

I think my mom could agree with that. In my family, there are three boys and two girls, all about two years apart. Oh, we could get into some trouble, I’ll tell ya.

Why is it that every time a mom gets on the telephone, the world around her crumbles? And I can speak for all moms, because when I talk to another mom and I’ve got my kids all around me, I can hear her kids all around her. In fact, every conversation I’ve had this week has ended with a blood-curdling scream in the background and then “I gotta call ya back.”

I know THIS is true. When Mom would get on the phone, we’d stand there going, “Momma, Momma, Momma, Momma…” What am I saying - we STILL do that!

Any normal person would call the police. But if you’re a mom, you just hang up and finish making dinner. No biggie.

My initial theory was that I call too much attention to myself when I get on the phone. I’m too obvious. I’m too happy and excited to just be having conversation beyond which Power Ranger is the strongest. And my kids can’t handle it. They have to be right under foot with my full attention.

I’m imagining that a lot of you moms out there are nodding your head up and down at this point. I reckon it must be true, because I know WE did that, too. I bet we could have been out in the yard, up in a tree or something, and as soon as Mom got on the phone, there we’d be! “Momma, Momma…”

So I started sneaking off to make calls. Bathrooms and broom closets became my regular haunts. Dial quickly and quietly and speak in low, robotic tones that won’t be picked up by ears conditioned to “Sesame Street.”

And it worked. For a while. Until somebody had to go really bad and I had no choice but to let him in. And turn on the lights.

Ms. Curtis is lucky. She has the benefit of CELL phones!!! Mothers of people my generation (and older) weren’t so lucky. About all our moms could do was say, “I gotta go kill one of my kids now,” and hang up the phone attached to the wall.

There are lessons to be learned from Watergate. Particularly if you’re like me and you desperately need to have a conversation. They knew it back then and I know it now. You gotta have a plan.

When Bob Woodward wanted to talk to Deep Throat, he’d move a flower pot with a red flag on the balcony of his apartment. And Deep Throat scheduled meetings by inking a clock face with the time on page 20 of Woodward’s copy of the New York Times.

So now, when I want a call from a girlfriend? I stick my husband’s Clemson (Clemson? Ugh. Not even UNC?? Sorry - longstanding NC v. SC university rivalry!) flag in our azaleas. Then my girlfriend confirms the meeting with a smiley face on page 20 of my Parent Magazine. And then we meet at the farmers market, in the shadows, by the cantaloupes.

We don’t share government secrets and we don’t rat anybody out. But for the lengths that we go to, to have a complete conversation, 10 minutes of uninterrupted gabbing is plenty exciting. tracyobserver@yahoo.com

No doubt - I think my mom’s best opportunity to get some peace and quiet was when we all went to school. That was about it, until we went to college. It didn’t stop us from being bratty whenever we came home, though. I guess some things never change…

Therein lies the comic relief from me for the time being. I hope it gave you a smile as you ponder why the Obama people are giddy that Gen. Colin Powell, he of the “white powder” before the UN to get us into the Iraq War in the FIRST damn place (and another excellent article which I recommend to you, “Powell Endorses Obama, and Supporters Pee Their Pants in Glee.”). Or how many of these multiple-times registered people will be voting in this election, and how often. Or has the NY Times officially become a paper on the lines of the National Enquirer after their smear piece on Cindy McCain? Inquiring minds want to know! Ahem. But for now, I hope you can have a smile for a moment, anyway…

Obama supporters blogged endlessly about Hillary and blamed HER for the war. They were vicious and vile. Hillary suffered in the primary for that vote. (people forgetting that Kerry and 75% of the Senate voted Yes also…)

But Obama pounded that point in the debates, over and over. She voted for the war, and he didn’t. (even managing to fool his supporters into believing he actually HAD a vote at the time)

So, today, Powell comes out and endorses Obama and the Obama media and bloggers are going apeshit. Blathering on and on about how great this is for Obama. Crucial endorsement…what a coup….a ringing endorsement!

With eloquence and humility, Former Secretary of State and retired General Colin Powell just provided a ringing endosement of Barack Obama as President for the United States.

In a major slap in the face to his “friend” John McCain, Colin Powell today on Meet the Press has endorsed Barack Obama. While the GOP will poo-poo this as a big who cares and that nobody votes based on endorsements — it is actually not.

There are many more, as you can imagine. I don’t need to link to them all. Just flip on any news channel, other than FOX.

So, let me get this straight - Hillary Clinton in voting for the Iraq Resolution, based in large part, due to the evidence that Powell provided, is portrayed as the devil, lacking judgment, and unworthy of being President.
BUT, Colin Powell, this guy: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council

This guy, who convinced millions of skeptics in America that we were in danger, and needed to go to war with Iraq? And now, his endorsement is the icing on the cake, the crown jewel, a slap in the face to McCain?

Dean had this to say, “Our party has been a no-majority party for a long time. The fact is that the Democratic Party is made up of lots of different people” and “If you look at folks of color, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white — excuse me — in the Republican Party.”

And here are Dean’s words recorded for posterity’s sake:

But many people are saying that a vote for HRC or McCain is a racist vote. Aside from the utter ridiculousness of THAT position, it brings up an interesting question. Why is racial politics suddenly the most important thing in a Presidential election?

Read more ->

It is as if the far left only want to elect Barack Obama BECAUSE he’s AA. The attitude is he is somehow the only candidate who can “heal” our country.

From what? Racism? THAT’s going away if he’s elected? Or maybe we’ll just have more set-asides, more affirmative action. Then everything is solved and we can all just walk away? Yeah, right.

Is Barack Obama the “medicine” that “white America” is supposed to take to make things better? (And at what point are other racial groups allowed to weigh in - if ever?) Obama’s supporters constantly talk about racial politics, as if there were no other issues and as if it were a two-race discussion. At this point, it seems as if Obama’s campaign can ONLY talk about racial politics - the politics of anger, name-calling, and long-held grievance. This is our middle east.

Some people may think the rise of racial politics this cycle is due entirely to the tough race for the Democratic nomination. Don’t believe it. This will engulf the general election to the extent the Obama campaign can drive that process as well. It makes sense since Senator Obama is yet a relative lightweight on national-level issues to focus the race on what he represents rather than what he has done or might do. Race may be his true bona fide, so he has got to keep our eyes on that issue to the exclusion of others or bring it in wherever possible. Kind of counter-intuitive, but it has worked so far.

Here’s a bit of heresy: maybe racism is NOT the MOST important problem we have right now. Maybe energy policy or the Iraq war might just be a wee bit more important. And these issues affect everyone as equally as anything can.

But putting our internal racial struggles front and center instead of how our country will respond to global problems is indulgent to me. Any person with the skills and intelligence should be electable as President, female, male, race-whatever. But that person should focus on American politics and American problems AS A WHOLE. Fighting for this job based on racial politics should be a red herring. Many “I won’t vote for Obama” people would have voted for Powell. I want to know what a President will do to reconstruct our monetary policy, restructure our standing with other countries and spend our taxes as wisely and productively as possible. I want to know a nominee has thought of these things or worked closely on these issues before.

Quite frankly, I think it’s energy policy. That’s an arguable point, I’ll agree. Some may say the Iraq war and some may say global warming. That’s fine with me. But don’t you think any of these issues are more compelling right now than making “whitey” take his medicine? Will racial politics get Obama elected? If that’s why, then we’ll get what we deserve. More arranging of the deck chairs as the ship of state sinks ever lower.

Joseph C. Wilson IV is a retired career diplomat, a former U.S. ambassador, presidential foreign-policy adviser, and author of “The Politics of Truth”

Sen. Barack Obama declared in Pennsylvania on March 27 that his foreign policy would “return” to that of George H.W. Bush and that Sens. John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton both had strayed from that model. Having served in the first Bush administration, as acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the first Gulf War, and subsequently as ambassador to two African nations, I cannot fathom what Obama is asserting.

His entire foreign-policy claim that he would be a better president than Hillary Clinton rests on the slender reed that he possesses intuitively superior judgment, which would have led him to vote against the Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq had he been in the U.S. Senate in October 2002.

The first President Bush (Bush 41), of course, has publicly supported his son (Bush 43) throughout the second conflict in Iraq.

When Saddam Hussein’s troops invaded Kuwait in August 1990, I was in charge of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, responsible for the safe release of Americans held hostage, and I personally confronted Saddam to persuade him to depart Kuwait peacefully. It was axiomatic in our approach that the only way to influence Iraqi behavior would be to threaten military action in the event Saddam did not respond to diplomatic demands. If we were going to make those threats credible, we would have to be prepared to act on them, which we were, and which we did, with full international backing.

What would Obama have done differently in the first gulf war from what he claims he would have done in 2002 had he been in the Senate at that time? In 1990, Saddam was deemed a threat by the first Bush administration. Senior administration officials threatened military action while working toward a diplomatic solution. Congress was ultimately faced with a vote to support the president’s approach. Some Democrats, including then-Sen. Al Gore, voted with the administration, while a majority voted against.

Obama claims that an antiwar speech he made while running for state Senate in the most liberal district in Illinois is proof of his superior intuitive judgment. But if Obama had been in Washington at that time, participating in the national debate, he would have come face to face with Secretary of State Colin Powell, the same Colin Powell who, as Gen. Powell, was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first Bush administration, the one Obama wishes to emulate.

Powell would have told him, as he told the other senators he briefed at that time, including Sen. Clinton, that the president wanted to use the Authorization for the Use of Military Force resolution not to go to war but, rather, as leverage to go to the United Nations to secure intrusive inspections. George W. Bush repeated this claim publicly.

Would Obama’s intuitive judgment have led him to defy Powell while still remaining faithful to his fantasy of the “wisdom” of the Bush 41 foreign policy? Perhaps Obama would have urged a summit with Saddam Hussein, with no preconditions, as he has since proposed as a means to “transcend” traditional foreign-policy methods with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Secretary of State Jim Baker did meet with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz before the launch of Desert Storm, but this meeting was for the express purpose of conveying to the Iraqis the military consequences of not departing from Kuwait before the Jan. 15, 1991, deadline. There was never any question of demeaning the presidency by an unconditional summit for the simple reason that presidents don’t haggle. That’s why presidents have secretaries of state.

In fact, Obama’s understanding of foreign policy is extraordinarily limited. He has had one job in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: chairman of the Europe and NATO subcommittee. He has not held a single policy hearing in that capacity because, as he said in a debate, he has been too busy running for president. He has not even taken a fact-finding trip or provided any other oversight.

As to Obama’s self-promoted “judgment,” which judgment would that be? Would it be to follow the path of Bush 41: tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action, as in the first gulf war? Would it be to ignore the rationale put forward by Colin Powell in the debate on the second gulf war? Would it be to vote exactly the same way Sen. Clinton did on war-related issues since he became a U.S. senator, which he has? Or is it simply to criticize from the sidelines with the benefit of never having had to face tough decisions with real consequences?

The next president will be presented with two difficult wars, U.S. moral authority at low ebb, and unprecedented complexity of our relations with the rest of the world. Obama has no record whatsoever, only his utter absence from his committee responsibility. His claim to be the one true heir to George H.W. Bush is a misguided illusion and no substitute for offering more about what foreign policies he would actually follow.

Can you imagine another prominent African American politician using this language? Can you see the dignified Colin Powell using this dog-whistle? How about the politically moderate Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, Harold Ford, Jr.? Or the passionate Congresswoman Sheila Lee Jackson? Never. To truly transcend race is to reject the use of race in a divisive manner. Not only has Obama not rejected using race divisively, he has given birth to a whole new justification for the use of bigoted and racially divisive language and innuendo. In fact, Obama is exploiting the pain of racism experienced by African Americans to manipulate the emotions of anger and guilt as rallying cries for his ambitious assent to power.

The decision by Obama to use race against both Clintons has been well-documented and brutally effective. Obama has elicited black racism and defended it by appealing to white guilt. His defense of Revered Wright’s anti-American, anti-white racism was political contortionism in the extreme. His comment following his speech that his grandmother was a “typical white person” solidified for many people that Obama was not just of Rev. Wright’s church, but also one of Wright’s most enthusiastic disciples.  

In many ways, Obama is the opposite of who he proclaims himself to be. He claims to be from outside of Washington, even while serving in the United States Senate, and his candidacy is supported by the Party’s most powerful powerbrokers.  

He claims to be post-racial while practicing racial politics. As Christopher Hitchens, no friend of Mrs. Clinton, writes about Obama’s excuses for Revered Wright: “[I]s it ‘inflammatory’ to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it ‘controversial.’ It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood.”

Because Obama’s candidacy is based on his biography and race, the Left - including most liberal bloggers, The Nation magazine, George Packer of the New Yorker, MoveOn.org - have endorsed Obama for offering a “transformative” opportunity. This is simply a code word for purifying the nation by electing a black man. It’s tokenism in the extreme, and it’s significant that none of the liberal elites have endorsed Obama for his policy proposals, which as Paul Krugman has pointed out are rather impotent and to the right of Hillary Clinton.

If we are going to elect someone because of their color, it should be because that person wants to heal the nation. For example, Nelson Mandela, upon becoming the first Black president of South Africa formed the Truth and Reconciliation commission, refused to hate the whites who imprisoned him and his countrymen, and insisted that one form of hate could not replace another.

Obama says “the anger is real” in the black community. If that is the case, we must meet our racist heritage with a genuine attack on all racism, including the racism that Obama is generating against non-blacks.

As PM comments on mydd.com:

What Obama has done is to open all kinds of wounds without offering remedies. He has successfully divided the Democratic Party by using race for everything as his campaign/political strategy for political gain.

This situation of Obama and Wright is just between those two — the indiscretion of a guy (who perhaps never planned to run for the highest office) associating with a pastor who preaches anti-American sermons. If some people, most people find it unacceptable in a future president, that is their prerogative and right. This Wright scandal has nothing to do with race, I repeat, nothing to do with race. For him to have made it such, is something to be shunned.

Obama’s racial politics are not the overt racism of George Wallace standing at a school door and proclaiming “segregation now, segregation forever.” It is the more odious kind; it’s the accusation of racism when none existed, the implication, the dog-whistle, and the double entendre. It is perhaps more divisive and hateful because it’s nearly impossible to defend yourself from the accusation. Bill Clinton really was saying that Obama’s position on the Iraq War was a “fairly tale.” It really did take Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson to pass Civil Rights legislation.  

As Sean Wilentz writes in The New Republic regarding Obama’s use of race: “A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the `race card’ were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students.”

The absurdity of the accusation regarding the Clintons’ alleged use of race brings into relief Obama’s repugnant racial strategy. In Democratic primaries and in the General Election, Clinton clearly would want to have as many black supporters as possible.

To paraphrase Senator Ted Kennedy speaking of George Wallace, Obama’s racial politics not only need to be repudiated, they need to be defeated. As Democrats, if we are to be congruent with who we say we are, we must wash the stain of racial politics from our party forever.

I could no more vote for Obama than I could vote for George Wallace, and the reasons are much the same.

Except for an inside-the-beltway tidbit here and there—for example, about how the pitiable secretary of state Colin Powell had to suffer so many indignities at the hands of other type-A hard chargers, Frontline added little to the discussion. Notably missing was any allusion to the unconscionable role the Fourth Estate adopted as indiscriminate cheerleader for the home team; nor was there any mention that the invasion was a serious violation of international law. But those omissions, I suppose, should have come as no surprise.

Nor was it a surprise that any viewer hoping for insight into why Cheney and Bush were so eager to attack Iraq was left with very thin gruel. It was more infotainment, bereft of substantive discussion of the whys and wherefores of what in my view is the most disastrous foreign policy move in our nation’s history.

Despite recent acknowledgements from the likes of Alan Greenspan, Gen. John Abizaid, and others that oil and permanent (or, if you prefer, “enduring”) military bases were among the main objectives, Frontline avoided any real discussion of such delicate factors. Someone not already aware of how our media has become a tool of the Bush administration might have been shocked at how Frontline could have missed one of President George W. Bush’s most telling “signing statements.” Underneath the recent Defense Authorization Act, he wrote that he did not feel bound by the law’s explicit prohibition against using the funding:

“(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq,” or

“(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.”

So the Frontline show was largely pap.

At one point, however, the garrulous former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage did allude to one of the largest elephants in the living room—Israel’s far-right Likudniks—and their close alliance with the so-called neo-conservatives running our policy toward the Middle East. But Armitage did so only tangentially, referring to the welcome (if totally unrealistic) promise by Ahmed Chalabi that, upon being put in power in Baghdad, he would recognize Israel. Not surprisingly, the interviewer did not pick up on that comment; indeed, I’m surprised the remark avoided the cutting room floor.

Courage No Longer a Frontline Hallmark

Frontline has done no timely reportage that might be looked upon as disparaging the George W. Bush administration—I mean, for example, the real aims behind the war, not simply the gross incompetence characterizing its conduct. Like so many others, Frontline has been, let’s just say it, cowardly in real time—no doubt intimidated partly by attacks on its funding that were inspired by the White House.

And now? Well the retrospective criticism of incompetence comes as polling shows two-thirds of the country against the Iraq occupation (and the number is surely higher among PBS viewers). So, Frontline is repositioning itself as a mild ex-post-facto critic of the war, but still unwilling to go very far out on a limb. Explaining the aims behind war crimes can, of course, be risky. It is as though an invisible Joseph Goebbels holds sway.

Too Late

On Monday evening I found myself initially applauding Frontline’s matter- of-fact, who-shot-John chronology of how our country got lied into attacking and occupying Iraq. Then I got to thinking—have I not seen this picture before? Many times?

It took a Hollywood producer to recognize and act promptly on the con games that sober observers could not miss as the war progressed. Where were the celebrated “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD)? Robert Greenwald simply could not abide the president’s switch to “weapons of mass destruction programs,” which presumably might be easier to find than the much-ballyhooed WMD so heavily advertised before the attack on Iraq. You remember—those remarkable WMD about which UN chief inspector Hans Blix quipped that the U.S. had one hundred percent certainty of their existence in Iraq, but zero percent certainty as to where they were.

Robert Greenwald called me in May 2003. He had read a few of the memoranda published by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) exposing the various charades being acted out by the administration and wanted to know what we thought of the president’s new circumlocution on WMD.

I complimented him on smelling a rat and gave him names of my VIPS colleagues and other experienced folks who could fill him in on the details. Wasting no time, he arrived here in Washington in June, armed simply with copious notes and a cameraman. Greenwald conducted the interviews, flew back to his eager young crew in Hollywood and, poof, the DVD “Uncovered: The War on Iraq” was released at the beginning of November 2003.”

So Frontline is four and a half years behind a Hollywood producer with appropriate interest and skepticism. (Full disclosure: I appear in “Uncovered,” as do many of the interviewees appearing in Frontline’s “Bush’s War.”)

Actually, the interviewing by Frontline occurred just a few months later. I know because I was among those interviewed for that as well, as was my good friend and former colleague at the CIA, Mel Goodman. I was struck that Mel looked four years younger on this week’s Frontline. It only then dawned on me that he was four years younger when interviewed.

Have a look at “Uncovered,” [http://www.truthuncovered.com/index.php ] and see how you think it compares to Frontline’s “Bush’s War.”

Safety in Retrospectives

It also struck me that producing a Frontline-style retrospective going back several years is a much less risky genre to work with. Chalk it up to my perspective as an intelligence analyst, but ducking the incredibly important issues at stake over the next several months is, in my opinion, unconscionable. The troop “surge” in Iraq, for example.

Only toward the very end of the program does Frontline allow a bit of relevant candor on a point that has been self-evident since Cheney and Bush, against strong opposition from Generals Abizaid and Casey (and apparently even Rumsfeld), decided to double down by sending 30,000 more troops into Iraq. A malleable new secretary of defense would deal with the recalcitrant generals and pick a Petreaus ex Machina of equal malleability and political astuteness to implement this stop-gap plan.

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist/author Steve Coll, with typical candor, put the “surge” into perspective:

“The decision at a minimum guaranteed that his [Bush’s] presidency would not end with a defeat in history’s eyes; that by committing to the surge, he was certain to at least achieve a stalemate.”

Given this week’s fresh surge of violence as the U.S. surge is scheduled to wind down, even a stalemate may be in some doubt. But, okay, small kudos to Frontline for including that bit of truth—however obvious—and for adding the grim background music to its final comment: “Soon Bush’s war will be handed to someone else.”

Rather Not, Thank You

Intimidation of the media is what has happened all around, including with Frontline, which not so many years ago was able to do some gutsy reporting. Let me give you another example about which few are aware.

Do you remember when Dan Rather made his Apologia Pro Vita Sua, admitting that the American media, including him, was failing to reveal the truth about things like Iraq? Speaking to the BBC on May 16, 2002, Rather compared the situation to the fear of “necklacing” in South Africa:

“It’s an obscene comparison,” Rather said, “but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around peoples’ necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be neck-laced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck.”

Talking to another reporter, Dan told it straight about the careerism that keeps US journalists in line. “It’s that fear that keeps [American] journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore-in on the tough questions so often.”

The comparison to “necklacing” may be “obscene” but, sadly, it is not far off the mark. So what happened to the newly outspoken Dan Rather with the newly found courage, when he ran afoul of Vice President Dick Cheney and the immense pressure he exerts on the corporate media?

We know about the lies and the cheerleading for attacking Iraq. But there is much more most of us do not know and remain unable to learn if Rather and other one-time journalists keep acting like Bert Lahr’s cowardly lion in the Wizard of Oz before he gets “the nerve” and courage.

For Dan Rather, the fear would simply not go away…even after leaving CBS for HDNet and promising that, on his new “Dan Rather Reports” show, viewers would see hard-hitting and courageous reporting that he said he couldn’t do at CBS.

Will it surprise you that Dan Rather cannot shake the necklace? I refer specifically to a program for “Dan Rather Reports,” meticulously prepared by award-winning producer, Kristina Borjesson. The special included interviews with an impressive string of first-hand witnesses to neocon machinations prior to the US attack on Iraq, and provides real insights into motivations—the kind of insights Frontline did not even attempt.

Nipped in the Bud by the “Dark Side”

Last year Borjesson’s taping was finished and the editing had begun. Borjesson’s requests to interview people working for the vice president had been denied. But, following standard journalistic practice (not to mention common courtesy), she sent an email to John Hannah in Cheney’s office in order to give Hannah a chance to react to what others—including several of the same senior folks on Frontline last evening— had said about him for her forthcoming report.

At that point all hell broke loose. Borjesson was abruptly told by Rather’s executive producer that by sending the email, Borjesson could have “brought down the whole (‘Dan Rather Reports’) operation.”

The show was killed and Borjesson sacked. For good measure, she was also accused of “coaching” interview subjects and taking their words out of context. Since neither Rather nor his executive producer would provide proof to substantiate that allegation, Borjesson took the unprecedented step of sending her script and transcripts to all her interview subjects, asking them to confirm or deny that she had coached them or taken their words out of context. Not one of them found her script inaccurate or said they were coached. She has the emails to prove this.

This sorry episode and Frontline’s careful avoidance of basic issues like the strategic aims of the Bush administration in invading and occupying Iraq are proof, if further proof were needed, that the White House, and especially Cheney’s swollen office, exert enormous pressure over what we are allowed to see and hear. The fear they instill in the corporate press, and in what once was serious investigative reporting of programs like Frontline, translates into programs getting neutered or killed outright—and massive public ignorance.

Some consolation is to be found in the good news that, in this particular case, Kristina Borjesson is made of stronger stuff; she has not given up, and was greatly encouraged by how many of the very senior officials and former officials she had already interviewed consented to be re-interviewed (since the tapes belonged to the “Rather Not” folks).

Now who looks forward to being re-interviewed?

Borjesson’s original interviewees took into account her problems with the cowards and the censors—and her atypical, gutsy refusal to self-censor—and went the extra mile. A tribute to them as well, and their interest in getting the truth out.

Borjesson is now completing the program on her own. Look for an announcement in the coming months, if you’re interested in real sustenance rather than the pabulum served up, no doubt under duress, by Frontline.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington, DC. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer in the early sixties, then a CIA analyst for 27 years. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

This article originally appeared on Consortiumnews.com.

SECOND VIDEO:

Fox News has several more videos available on the speech today. I am still looking for video of Neal Cavuto’s interview of Newt Gingrich. [I FOUND the video and it's above.] Yes, again, think of Gingrich what you will, but he was incisive on the problems with Obama’s speech today. (Gingrich was also on O’Reilly later, but the Cavuto interview was better.)

Of note, I thought Obama looked like “death warmed over” today. He is gaunt — like he has lost weight — and he has aged 10 years in two weeks.

I also noted that the applause was sparse. Perhaps it was that the audio didn’t pick up the applause? But I didn’t hear any of the supportive applause or shouts that one is used to hearing when he speaks.

::::::::::::::::::::

Joshua Pundit blog:

Here’s what then Secretary of State Colin Powell had to say about it:

“Today I have instructed our representatives at the World Conference Against Racism to return home. I have taken this decision with regret, because of the importance of the international fight against racism and the contribution that the Conference could have made to it. But, following discussions today by our team in Durban and others who are working for a successful conference, I am convinced that will not be possible. I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of “Zionism equals racism;” or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world–Israel–for censure and abuse.”