Blair, Bush and Democracy

Blair, Bush and Democracy

By Jerome Grossman

After more than a decade as Prime Minister, super politician Tony Blair has resigned his powerful leadership position under the pressure of fallen approval ratings from the British public. Now that Blair is out of power, political observers have begun to analyze his tenure and its meaning for democracy in Britain and around the world.

How was Blair able to retain the leadership of his party and the nation in the face of strong opposition to his Iraq policy by a margin of more than two to one, opposition that has been passionate for years? If he had an ideological blind spot on the war, why didn’t his party oust him when he began to lose seats in the House of Commons?

In a democratic system all power flows from the voters. They vote for members of Parliament, whose responsibility it is to represent the masses. The members in turn elect a leader who takes power when he has a majority. The Prime Minister, after winning a general election, can do pretty much what he wishes. Party favors and party loyalty give the PM power virtually unchecked. Blair whipped Parliament into supporting the Iraq war obtaining 578 out of 646 seats, selling a short war against a weak opponent, a war sponsored by big brother George W. Bush and his invincible superpower. It did not work out as anticipated and the British people want to get out of the war – now.

But why is it so difficult for the politicians who constantly praise the idea of democracy to bow to the will of their own people. British and American politicians find reasons to continue the occupation of Iraq even though the people regard the war as a mistake and want to save the lives of their soldiers. Here are some of the reasons: the Iraqi factions will kill each other; they will kill our troops on the way out; they will seize our equipment; they will create chaos in the region; they will sell their oil to someone else; they will conquer the world with their headscarves and AK-47s, etc, etc. Leaders have a perfect right to try to convince the people on policy but there must be a time limit to prevent dictatorial conduct. How many years of fruitless fighting without popular support?

Blair metamorphosed himself from a politician who prided himself on his sensitivity to public opinion when running for office to one who prided himself on his ability to ignore it when he achieved power. So did George W. Bush. When defying public opinion Blair and Bush regularly said, “I know I'm right about this, I will be true to myself.” Both are proud of their stubbornness and even insist that they are doing God's work. Are they practicing a modern version of “L’ Etat, c’est moi” (I am the state) and the divine right “Dieu et mon droit” (By God and my Right)

Both have succumbed to a form of magical thinking about their ability to will away obstacles and opposition. In their resolute belief in themselves, not the will of the public, they attack the very basis of Democracy, a decent respect for the opinions of the people.

The Relentless Liberal: A Bio

...I’m a follower of Theodore Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt, a
Republican, in a whole series of debates that he had with Woodrow Wilson
in 1912 when he was the Bull Moose candidate, he said that corporations in
America have become so big and so strong that there needs to be a
countervailing power to control them, and that the only possible power big
enough to control them was the federal government. Wilson didn’t believe
that. Wilson said, “Let’s cut corporate America down to size.” Theodore
Roosevelt said, “That’s impossible.” The dynamics of the modern world
under capitalism tend toward the growth of large corporations with semimonopoly
positions. That’s my basis for supporting a big government, is to
control big corporations.
At the same time I lived through all the provocations of J. Edgar Hoover....

Great interview about trying to end the war in Vietnam. Has anything really changed?
Click here: Biography of the Relentless Liberal

The Next Vice President

The Next Vice President
By Jerome Grossman

Some Democrats believe their dream ticket for 2008 would be Hillary Clinton for President and Barack Obama for Vice President. It won't happen. Yes, Hillary is the likely nominee for president at this time but she is unlikely to select Barack as her running mate.

Personal like or dislike will have nothing to do with the decision. The Vice President is selected to win a state or increase constituency support for the ticket. In 1960, John F. Kennedy needed Lyndon B. Johnson to carry Texas. In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt needed John Nance Garner to carry Texas. In neither case, was there affection or affinity. It was strictly business, the political business of winning.

Obama, Senator from Illinois, is not necessary for the Democrats to win that solidly Democratic state. In 2004, John Kerry carried Illinois 55% to 44%; in 2000, Gore beat Bush there 55% to 43%. The Democrats hold the governorship, both Senate seats, both houses of the Legislature and a majority of U.S. House seats.

Would Obama increase the African-American vote nationally for the Democrats? Only marginally. They already vote about 90% Democratic and Hillary does not need validation with that constituency.

As the party nominee, Hillary will be looking for a Democrat who would bring a state or two to the Electoral College that do not usually vote Democratic. In New Mexico, Bush defeated Kerry narrowly 50% to 49%; Gore carried the state by a mere 365 votes. The Democratic governor, Bill Richardson, was elected in 2002 with a 55% of the vote. Democrats have also gained control of the state legislature, one senator and one of three U.S. House seats.

Forty two percent of the population of New Mexico is of Hispanic origin, Arizona 14%, Colorado 17%. Hispanic Americans now comprise 15% of all Americans and is the fastest growing minority. Richardson comes out of that community, father was an Anglo, mother Hispanic. They know him and his background. While they vote Democratic narrowly, this constituency offers an opportunity for significant Democratic expansion.

If not Richardson, the vice presidential nominee will be someone who can make a difference in the Electoral College. For the Democrats, politics in 2008 is desperately about winning, love and sentiment will have to wait for another time.

Epitaph on a Tyrant

Epitaph on a Tyrant

Perfection, of a kind, was what he was after,
And the poetry he invented was easy to understand;
He knew human folly like the back of his hand,
And was greatly interested in armies and fleets;
When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter,
And when he cried the little children died in the streets.

January 1939
W.H.Auden

My Position on Iraq By Governor Bill Richardson

My Position on Iraq

By Governor Bill Richardson

I believe that we need to withdraw all of our troops within six months. That's all of our troops. Other than the customary Marine contingent at the embassy, I would not leave anyone behind. And if the embassy isn't safe, they're coming home too.
No airbases. No troops in the Green Zone. No embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, because we know what that means. It means our troops would still be out on patrol - with targets on their backs.
A regional crisis is worthy of military intervention. A true threat to our country's security is worthy of war. But a struggle between a country's warring factions, where both sides hate the United States, is not worthy of one more lost American life.
With all due respect to my Democratic colleagues, Senators Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and Biden have all voted for timeline legislation that had deliberate loopholes. Those loopholes allow this president, or any president, to leave an undetermined number of troops in Iraq indefinitely for the purposes of training Iraqi security forces and providing force protection. Troops protecting troops training troops? We've heard this before - it sounds a lot like Iraq today.
For those who believe that we should leave behind a residual force, one question must be answered: how long does that force need to be in place before we can leave? One year? Two years? Ten?
There is not a single sign that Iraq is improving. To the contrary, every indication is that it's getting worse, and a smaller force will do nothing to change that.
How many more Americans must die before we leave an Iraq that will be no better off than it is today? And in a war where American troops are the number one target, who are the poor souls being left behind?
Congress should use its authority under Article One of the Constitution to de-authorize the war and require the president to withdraw ALL troops - and the President cannot veto that. If they don't do it, I'll issue the order on January 20th, 2009.

Obama: The Hawk and the Dove

Obama: The Hawk and the Dove

By Jerome Grossman

Barack Obama is the phenomenon of this presidential race, with the power to draw huge crowds and raise millions of dollars. I first met Barack Obama in 2003 when he was the outsider in the crowded field for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Illinois. After his stunning speech at the Democratic National Convention, I discussed issues with him at a private meeting. I was impressed with his acumen and progressive insights. That is why I was so surprised by his flawed proposal for a military attack in Pakistan.

On August 1, Barack Obama delivered a bold speech calling for the partial withdrawal of U.S. troops from a Iraq but leaving a substantial residual force there and the redeployment of troops into Afghanistan, and even Pakistan.

“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges, but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in these mountains who murdered 3000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again.,,,,.. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

This Pakistan policy is counterintuitive for a liberal Democratic candidate, proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than the failed policies of President Bush. Moreover, it makes no sense militarily, diplomatically, legally and politically. It will not increase the safety of Americans, but will put them at greater risk, as did the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq. Let me count the flaws.

1. Obama proposes a military action that would require troops we do not have.

2. Obama proposes publicly a military action that requires complete surprise, thus alerting those to be attacked.

3. Obama proposes an invasion based on pre-emption, an illegal policy under international law and the United Nations Charter that will frighten every nation and make them more anti-American.

4. Obama proposes an invasion of a nation allied with the U. S.

5. Obama’s proposal attacks the sovereignty of Pakistan and could trigger the overthrow of President Musharraf, an ally and a subsidized friend.

6. Obama’s proposal could result in Islamic religious parties coming to power putting them in control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

7. Obama’s proposal would have the U.S. fighting in three Muslim countries simultaneously, proving to many of the 1.3 billion Muslims that there is indeed a crusade against them.

8. Obama's proposal is likely to encounter serious tribal resistance of the kind that has prevented President Musharraf and his large army from establishing control.

9. Obama's proposal needlessly and publicly provokes a nuclear-armed power.

10. Obama’s proposal weakens the non-proliferation treaty by suggesting to all nations that nuclear weapons may be necessary to discourage US military preemption.

11. Obama’s proposal may encourage Bush to invade Pakistan himself under the political cover that the original idea had been proposed by a leading Democrat. Public resistance to a Bush invasion would be dramatically weakened.

12. Obama’s proposal weakens the political prospects of the Democratic Party in the 2008 election by alienating the liberal base.

Obama can do better and he should start by changing his foreign-policy advisers who obviously think first of military solutions to problems. Iraq has proven that the political and diplomatic initiatives are the only workable policies in the Middle East. It is no secret: General David Petraes says it repeatedly.

And for those who worry about the U.S. Presidential election, and who doesn't, I have not endorsed a candidate and have no plans to do so. Hopefully, the Democrats will nominate an authentic liberal in the tradition of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to nourish the soul of the party; peace, equality and social responsibility

A Threat to Civil Liberties

A Threat to Civil Liberties
By Jerome Grossman

I am appalled by the new law passed by the Congress controlled by the Democrats that expands the government's power to wiretap phone calls and e-mails on American soil without court oversight. This Protect America Act of 2007, drafted by the White House in virtual secrecy, received no committee hearing, no input from the public. The new law allows the National Security Agency to spy freely on foreigners overseas and the Americans with whom they communicate without a warrant. The law gives the power to design and supervise the procedures to the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence; in effect, the government will be monitoring itself. The law passed the Senate 60 to 28 with 16 Democrats in favor and 227 to 183 in the House with 41 Democrats in favor. Democratic leaders, Senator Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not organize opposition. Where was the liberal outcry from civil libertarians protecting privacy? Where were the conservatives concerned with the expansion of big government? The founding fathers of our republic set up a system of countervailing and balancing powers vested in the Executive, the Congress, and the Judiciary in the interest of restraining government power. This law is contrary to these basic principles and should be opposed or modified when it comes up for renewal in six months.

President of the World

President of the World
By Jerome Grossman

American citizens will vote on November 8, 2008 for President of the United States, choosing an executive who will manage their country for the next four years. Citizens of other nations believe that we are actually selecting the president of the world, an executive with the power to influence and even determine their lives.

Calling the U.S. a superpower, even the only superpower, really understates the dominance of America over every other nation. It is a colossus that cannot be challenged militarily or economically at this stage of history by a single nation or any group of nations.

Militarily, the U.S. spends more on weapons than all other nations combined, possesses the most modern and formidable weapons and has not hesitated to use them. The only nation to have used atomic weapons on people, it has engaged in nine wars in the last 17 years on three continents; it is currently fighting in two countries and threatening others. Its military and political leaders regularly say, “No weapon is off the table,” an implicit threat to use weapons of mass destruction. In fact, it has threatened to use nuclear bombs forty times since Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

Economically, the U.S. with 4% of the world population has 25% of the world production and controls even more with its financial system. The dollar is the dominant instrument of exchange, the World Bank and most international financial institutions are controlled by the U. S. and the United Nations does the bidding of the U.S. most of the time.

Culturally, the U.S. market is dominant, affecting sport, music, art, and even lifestyle. English is the most popular first and second language with every nation, made necessary by U.S. military and economic dominance.

The rest of the world has a love/hate relationship with the U.S. born of admiration of American accomplishments and fear of its potential use of power. For at least a century, the U.S. has been expansionist, driven by its own strength and international weakness, seeking markets and comparative advantage in accordance with its capitalist ideology, believing in the mission to remake the world in the American model.

A prime instrument in this crusade has been the American presidency in which centralized power has been vested, bypassing the slower and more democratic style of Congress for speed and efficiency and in the interest of the business elites who run the system. Autocratic methods are used in the name of democracy.

The President controls intelligence; with the bully pulpit and the monopoly of information, the President is virtually unchallenged when he summons the nation to war. The President now interprets laws passed by the Congress and appoints the federal judges who will support his interpretations. The President exercises surveillance in a variety of forms over all 300 million Americans to protect them from dangers that his intelligence operation identifies.


To survive, foreign governments and their citizens must be alert to the tendencies of American presidents and how they will use their awesome powers around the world. Will they be considered enemies subject to military and economic punishment if they oppose U.S. policy? Must they be with us or against us? Will they be subject to wiretapping and satellite surveillance? Will their citizens be seized by intelligence operatives, incarcerated in secret prisons, sent to nations that torture? Will their currencies be attacked if they fail to buy U.S. bonds in sufficient number? Will they be subject to regime change?

They can't be too careful. There is an 800 pound gorilla in the room, and he is effectively the President of the World. Survival for other nations would seem to require attempts to game the American political system by influencing the choice of President by campaign contributions from their émigrés who have become U.S. citizens and retaining Washington lobbyists in the style of U.S. corporations. For years there has been agitation for world government. It may be achieved in the guise of American Hegemony.

Over the decades, under both Republican and Democratic leadership, the U.S. has amassed 737 military bases in 130 countries. Iraq would be number 131. Has the world already been occupied by the U.S.? Has all humanity already voted for President of the World? As American voters prepare to elect the next president, they should be asking themselves and the candidates about the expansionist policies, whether it is in the long-run interests of the United States and if they are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices of money and blood.

Al Qaeda and the US homeland

Al Qaeda and the US homeland
By Jerome Grossman

Only one day before the crucial vote in the U.S. Senate on the amendment sponsored by Democratic Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island calling for a specific date of US force reduction in Iraq, the Bush administration issued a National Intelligence Estimate on Al Qaeda. It was clearly an attempt to influence the vote by exerting pressure on wavering Republican senators and to frighten the American public.

The Democrats worked hard on this legislation: holding a candlelight vigil in front of the Capitol, organizing an all-night “filibuster” at which more than fifty senators spoke on the Iraq war, encouraging public rallies all over the country, and approaching Republican senators in an attempt to reach the 60 vote threshold. With only a slim chance to win, they attained a majority, but not the supermajority.

The vote was 52 -- 47. Every Democrat voted yes except Johnson of South Dakota, who is ill, and Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who seems to be following biblical instructions to kill all the Amalekites. Four Republicans voted with the Democrats, Collins and Snowe of Maine, Smith of Oregon, and Hagel of Nebraska; three are up for reelection in 2008, all are feeling constituent pressure on the unpopular and unsuccessful war in Iraq.

The NIE report is classified, but a declassified summary of the central findings on terrorism found that Al Qaeda had “protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability.” This raises sharp questions about the success of the administration's counterterrorism strategy as well as its judgment in making Iraq the focus of that effort.

The administration has told us that two thirds of the Al Qaeda leadership has been killed or captured since September 11. Now it says that it has reconstituted itself in the Wild West tribal areas of Pakistan, is stronger than any time in years and is actively plotting new attacks on the American homeland. However, we have been told that Al Qaeda can not use phones or electronic communications for fear of disclosing their location, that the leaders are living in caves, that bin Laden is sick or dead and has not been heard from for more than a year. US satellites regularly photograph the areas of Pakistan in question so that our subsidized ally, Pakistan, could use these pictures to snuff out any suspicious activity. Administration officials are now threatening to invade Pakistan to destroy the Al Qaeda base. That would increase to three the number of Muslim countries where US forces were fighting, increasing the credibility of those who call the invasions a resumption of the Crusades.

There are six million Muslims in the US, all of whom are probably wiretapped and mail-opened , yet no sleeper cells have been revealed. The few alleged conspirators arrested in the US, have been hopeless amateurs or senders of “charitable” donations to Middle East “causes” Only last week the head of the US Department of Homeland Security said that he had a “gut” feeling that the U.S. homeland would soon be attacked, hardly a serious warning.

Without seeing the entire NIE, it is impossible to make a complete evaluation, but the contradictions between the report and other government statements leads to a suspicion that this intelligence may be at least partially political. After all, we went to war in Iraq for false reasons, some on purpose, some perhaps inadvertent. It will take years before government intelligence will be wholly accepted by the public as totally objective and professional.

Complete Troop Withdrawal or Force Reduction in Iraq

Complete Troop Withdrawal or Force Reduction in Iraq
by Jerome Grossman

Virtually every amendment and resolution currently before Congress fails to call for the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Instead, an unspecified number of troops would be allowed to stay for an unspecified time for three purposes: to defend US installations, to train Iraqi soldiers, and to fight terrorists and Al Qaeda.
This is a mandate to continue to do what US forces have been trying to do for more than four years. Military experts estimate that about 80,000 troops would be required to fulfill the three tasks, while some say the entire 160,000 presently deployed will be needed. If the American military has not accomplished its objectives with 160,000 combat troops, how can it be successful with fewer troops?
The insurgency in Iraq is composed of multiple groupings:
1. The religious, who consider American occupation a continuation of the Crusades of the 11th and 12th centuries.
2. Nationalists who wish to expel the American occupiers of their homeland.
3. The Baathists, seeking to regain the power they had under Saddam.
4. The Sunnis, who seek to avoid the minority status that might mean death or poverty.
5. The Shia, who can’t wait to enjoy their new power after suffering for centuries.
6. Criminals and gangsters, having a field day due to the breakdown of law and order.
7. Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia, composed mainly of religious foreigners who are strongly anti-Western, though relatively few in number.

While these competing groups may have multiple motivations, the American occupation of Iraq is the strongest. It enables the insurgents to gain support from the rest of the Muslim world. A continuation of the American occupation, even one reduced in size, will not succeed in defusing the insurgency but could instead stimulate it, particularly if the occupation is viewed as permanent.
The Bush administration has been criticized at home for not having an exit strategy in the Iraq War. This entirely misses the point: observers and media abroad believe there was never an intention to exit. We have more than 737 military bases in more than 130 countries, manned by hundreds of thousands of soldiers. These bases enable the United States to perform the historical role of the sole world superpower. Establishing bases in Iraq would give the United States a decisive role in oil production, in protecting Israel, and in further extending US hegemony.
Politicians from both parties who agree with these aims realize that they can only reduce public opposition to the Iraq War if they lower the number of American casualties. One solution under consideration is to move the entire American operation to the Kurd sector of Iraq, where the population and the government would make us welcome. There are rumors that negotiations are in play right now with the Kurds and their neighboring enemies the Turks, who are determined to prevent an independent Kurdistan that would destabilize Turkey. In such a situation, American combat would be limited to air warfare, reducing our casualties and making the continuation of the occupation more politically acceptable at home, if not abroad.
Nothing less than the complete withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq will decrease the worldwide hatred and distrust of the United States. The occupation of Iraq must end so that our country can rebuild its relationships with the Muslim world and nations worried about American military power.
Any law passed by Congress that includes the three exceptions to total withdrawal would give President Bush or the next president authorization to continue the war. That would be a strange act, considering that the senators and representatives who voted for the October 2002 original authorization have been apologizing for their votes ever since.
Here they go again.