Monday, January 07, 2008

George McGovern: George W. Bush is Guilty of "numerous impeachable offences" and Dick Cheney is a Chicken Hawk

This is not the first time that McGovern, who lost to Nixon his own bid for the White House, has slammed the Bush administration. In the Washington Post, McGovern charges that the case against Bush is 'far stronger' than the case against Nixon. [See: BBC: McGovern urges Bush's impeachment]

The former US senator from South Dakota had already excoriated Dick Cheney for lying about Bush/GOP tax and budget policies as well as Cheney's "chicken-hawk", arm-chair imperialism.

George McGovern: Cheney is wrong about me, wrong about war

By George S. McGovern, GEORGE S. MCGOVERN, a former US senator from South Dakota, was the Democratic nominee for president in 1972.

April 24, 2007

VICE PRESIDENT Dick Cheney recently attacked my 1972 presidential platform and contended that today's Democratic Party has reverted to the views I advocated in 1972. In a sense, this is a compliment, both to me and the Democratic Party. Cheney intended no such compliment. Instead, he twisted my views and those of my party beyond recognition. The city where the vice president spoke, Chicago, is sometimes dubbed "the Windy City." Cheney converted the chilly wind of Chicago into hot air.

Cheney said that today's Democrats have adopted my platform from the 1972 presidential race and that, in doing so, they will raise taxes. But my platform offered a balanced budget. I proposed nothing new without a carefully defined way of paying for it. By contrast, Cheney and his team have run the national debt to an all-time high.

He also said that the McGovern way is to surrender in Iraq and leave the US exposed to new dangers. The truth is that I oppose the Iraq war, just as I opposed the Vietnam War, because these two conflicts have weakened the US and diminished our standing in the world and our national security.

In the war of my youth, World War II, I volunteered for military service at the age of 19 and flew 35 combat missions, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross as the pilot of a B-24 bomber. By contrast, in the war of his youth, the Vietnam War, Cheney got five deferments and has never seen a day of combat — a record matched by President Bush.

Cheney charged that today's Democrats don't appreciate the terrorist danger when they move to end US involvement in the Iraq war. The fact is that Bush and Cheney misled the public when they implied that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. That was the work of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda team. Cheney and Bush blew the effort to trap Bin Laden in Afghanistan by their sluggish and inept response after the 9/11 attacks.

They then foolishly sent US forces into Iraq against the advice and experience of such knowledgeable men as former President George H.W. Bush, his secretary of State, James A. Baker III, and his national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft.

Just as the Bush administration mistakenly asserted Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks, it also falsely contended that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When former Ambassador Joseph Wilson exploded the myth that Iraq attempted to obtain nuclear materials from Niger, Cheney's top aide and other Bush officials leaked to the media that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent (knowingly revealing the identity of a covert agent is illegal).

In attacking my positions in 1972 as representative of "that old party of the early 1970s," Cheney seems oblivious to the realities of that time. Does he remember that the Democratic Party, with me in the lead, reformed the presidential nomination process to ensure that women, young people and minorities would be represented fairly? The so-called McGovern reform rules are still in effect and, indeed, have been largely copied by the Republicans.

The Democrats' 1972 platform was also in the forefront in pushing for affordable healthcare, full employment with better wages, a stronger environmental and energy effort, support for education at every level and a foreign policy with less confrontation and belligerence and more cooperation and conciliation.

Cheney also still has his eyes closed to the folly of the Vietnam War, in which 58,000 young Americans and more than 2 million Vietnamese died. Vietnam was no threat to the United States.

On one point I do agree with Cheney: Today's Democrats are taking positions on the Iraq war similar to the views I held toward the Vietnam War. But that is all to the good.

The war in Iraq has greatly increased the terrorist danger. There was little or no terrorism, insurgency or civil war in Iraq before Bush and Cheney took us into war there five years ago. Now Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism, a bloody insurgency against our troops and a civil war.

Beyond the deaths of more than 3,100 young Americans and an estimated 600,000 Iraqis, we have spent nearly $500 billion on the war, which has dragged on longer than World War II.

The Democrats are right. Let's bring our troops home from this hopeless war.

There is one more point about 1972 for Cheney's consideration. After winning 11 state primaries in a field of 16 contenders, I won the Democratic presidential nomination. I then lost the general election to President Nixon. Indeed, the entrenched incumbent president, with a campaign budget 10 times the size of mine, the power of the White House behind him and a highly negative and unethical campaign, defeated me overwhelmingly. But lest Cheney has forgotten, a few months after the election, investigations by the Senate and an impeachment proceeding in the House forced Nixon to become the only president in American history to resign the presidency in disgrace.

Who was the real loser of '72?

...

We, of course, already know that when Cheney endorses a war, he exempts himself from participation. On second thought, maybe it's wise to keep Cheney off the battlefield — he might end up shooting his comrades rather than the enemy.

On a more serious note, instead of listening to the foolishness of the neoconservative ideologues, the Cheney-Bush team might better heed the words of a real conservative, Edmund Burke: "A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood."
McGovern, of course, was the anti war movement's last hope. His choice of Tom Eagleton sank his bid for the White House. The GOP had therefore wasted a lot of effort sharpening daggers. But --I suppose they considered it good policy to stay practiced.

Nixon soon ran into problems. In the summer of 1973, under Nixon's orders, the Air Force bombed so-called communist positions in Cambodia. Congress tacked onto an appropriations bill a section cutting off funds for Nixon's illegal operation which clearly violated Cambodian sovereignty. Meanwhile, a federal district judge in Brooklyn issued an injunction to halt the bombing immediately. These events and the emerging revelations that the opposition had broken into the Watergate Buildling to bug Democratic phones touched off major constitutional struggles of lasting political and military implications.

Certainly, Daniel Ellsburg played his role in Nixon's eventual demise. But, regrettably, Nixon resigned before a definitive court opinion or his impeachment and trial could have established inarguable precedent. Even the articles of impeachment deal primarily with the concept of "obstruction" and less with the very substance of Nixon's imperial and imperious regime.

We all know the US was wrong to have been in SE Asia. But we have not established case law to keep us out of similar acts of vainglorious imperialism in the future. Thus --we are stuck with the GOPs half-baked, sophomoric dreams of US empire.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

A "new book"...oh yeah, that proves it all. What ever does it matter? We, the U.S. not only supported, but help create both those tyrants, not to mention the Taliban. THAT is what we should really be addressing in this country, the how and why of our own behavior and the billions of dollars we spread in armaments and corruption. The deranged, arrogant, elitist over class and their delusional extremist right-wing enablers have driven this country to the brink, exploiting every avenue of ignorance and greed. We working folks are about to take it back, or at least have a few shots at it. Because if we do not, what was started in this country, and everything generations have worked towards may possibly by lost for ever.

"The business of this nation is business" has not panned out so well. Conservatism, along with all of its contrived warfare economy and jingoistic bluster is and has been the utter failure of the last half of the twentieth century, not only for the U.S., but for the global community in general, just look around you. The business of this nation should be about ideals, justice and progressive society, built on the foundations left in "The rights of Man", and "The age of reason" along with the tools and legal documents drafted by the founders. Those were just to be starting points, and the most intelligent of the founders mentioned this several times. They also mentioned it would be no easy task to maintain a progressive society, and that our greatest enemies were to be found within ourselves.

We have all but disregarded their warnings, and have not even protected what was drawn over two centuries ago, that is pathetic, and treasonous. So, when the status quo elders, the ones at the reins of power a short time ago, the ones who did nothing as the corruption seeped into the process, not as the exception, but the rule, the very leaders who allowed this radical right-wing shift, during their tenures bemoan bi-partisanship on c-span, all I have to say is: FO.

benmerc

Anonymous said...

The lie continues about alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. These claims have been soundly refuted from multiple credible sources including a US Senate Intelligence Committee Report and a declassified US Defense Department Report both of which discounted any significant links. These represent considered views by the best of US Intelligence from a broad range of sources in Iraq and the region, and from within Saddam's inner circle. Here are some relevant links: (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)

This is from a Think Progress quoting from the Sep 2006 Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase 2 Report:

[Bin] Ladin generally opposed collaboration [with Baghdad]. (p. 65)

According to debriefs of multiple detainees — including Saddam Hussein and former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz — and capture documents, Saddam did not trust al-Qa'ida or any other radical Islamist group and did not want to cooperate with them. (p. 67)

Aziz underscored Saddam’s distrust of Islamic extremists like bin Ladin, stating that when the Iraqi regime started to see evidence that Wahabists had come to Iraq, "the Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution." (p. 67)

Another senior Iraqi official stated that Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called Saddam an "unbeliever." (p.73)

Conclusion 1: … Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa'ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al Qa'ida in particular… Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa'ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin. (p. 105)

Conclusion 5:… Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. (p. 109)


The CIA also learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein’s inner circle that Iraq had no past or then contact with bin Laden and that Saddam had considered him an enemy of the Baghdad regime — that’s according to the US Senate Intelligence Committee report quoted previously. The Defense Dept report also said the same thing.

In regard to al Zarqawi: before the US invasion he operated out of territory controlled by the US’s Kurdish allies in the north of Iraq. He was effectively outside of Saddam’s control. He was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to various intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda in early 2004, only following the US invasion.

Somebody wrote a book? We have two official US Government inquiries all saying the same thing: there were NO al Qaeda- Saddam links.

Anonymous said...

"Somebody wrote a book? We have two official US Government inquiries all saying the same thing: there were NO al Qaeda- Saddam links" - D

Exactly, the facts are what people need to be exposed to, and comprehend. As usual, you have come through and posted what is for the most part, intelligence's data collection and assessment concerning this issue. Right wingers crack me up, when they do not like the government facts and figures, it's all: "Black helicopters" and "Liberal press" and when the government is lying, cheating, stealing & killing for some trumped up corporate cause, it's A-OK, and to question it is Un-Patriotic. Fucking morons.

Just because some wing-nut and their latest greatest propaganda snow-job of a story has been released, these people believe they may continue to avoid the truth about the lies and failures of their corrupt leadership and their distorted errant world view. Wow, life has been that easy , well wake up, the Bush/co days are coming to a close, better go find your favorite rock anonymous.

Also, thanks Len for posting this piece by George McGovern (first person I ever threw a lever for) was good to see a retired leader as McGovern come out with the unmitigated truth, to counter those hucksters in Oklahoma, and their ridiculous assessment of American politics, completely ignoring the off balance and extreme movement of the "center" into the realm of the right-wing sphere.

Yes, I did not seem to be able to find the McGovern piece in any of the MSM, maybe it was tucked somewhere, don't know...but there was plenty on Chuck Hagel, Sam Nunn, David Boren etc. et al and their phony little "Bi-partisan" pow-wow. Oh, yeah...I forgot, it's that "liberal media" hiding all the liberal/left wing factoids.

benmerc

Unknown said...

To be honest, I will not sit through a stupid Flash intro to see a flashy presentation put together by a PR form. Screw 'em. I have enough to do.

As for books --I might write my own book about how the US is like Frankenstein. All out monsters are of our own creation.

Great comments benmerc and damien.

And, benmerc, as for casting your first vote for McGovern, there are certainly worse things that one could do with his first vote. I can sum up that campaign succinctly: McGovern told the truth and Nixon lied his ass off.

Going back a little further, Humphrey inherited LBJs muck up of Viet Nam. All Nixon had to do was promise a "secret peace plan". It remained a secret for all his life.

The right wing is still at work undoing the New Deal, still trying to erase the memory of FDR --even if they have to re-enact Pearl Harbor to do it.

God, how I hate the liars of the rightwing| Please excuse the redundancy of that statement.

Anonymous said...

I say this and do not mean any condescension, but son, I like what you write. I'll be checking back on you from time to time. (p.s.: I hate cowboys)....jealex2 at googlemail. Keep up the good work!

Unknown said...

Jack, thanks for posting and welcome. Glad you found something here that you like. You will also like the regulars who post here. We've turned this comments section into a back porch.

I understand why you might "hate" cowboys and, given what Bush has done to the image, I agree with you.

But --most of those folk are phonies like Bush. Most of the "old" cowboys, I grew up with were good, hard working folk. My father taught me how to ride and to rope. And, in those days, I daresay, most were what we would now call "populists".

In fairness to real cowboys, the discovery of oil inspired an in migration to Texas of cutthroats, thieves, swindlers and other fast buck artists who couldn't tell a horse's head from his ass. One of those phonies occupies the White House. According to Laura Bush, George was caught trying to milk a stallion.

In Texas, even the "rancher class" --owners of large stretches of land, primarily open space --was eventually corrupted when oil was discovered on their lands. Oil changed everything.

Thus, a whole new class of people were attracted to Texas for the quick bucks that oil came to represent. The history of Laird Hill in East, TX is most instructive. Originally and appropriately named "Pistol Hill", it sprang up almost overnight. It was oil --not cows --that inspired this ruthless, classless lawlessness.

Most of this influx had no interest in cows or horses but dared to sport a hat and call themselves cowboys. They were derisively called "drugstore" cowboys.

Unlike Bush, I have real credentials. My family was settling Texas before Stephen F. Austin got his first land grant. And --unlike Bush --I do not "affect" a phony Texas accent.

I recommend Edna Ferber's "Giant" --it's a pretty good description of how oil totally screwed Texas up.