Washblog

Jim started by saying : "If you just read the Seattle Times or P-I , maybe the New York Times, you have no idea what's going on". That's no surprise to us, right?

McDermott told us that he had invited his colleagues in Congress to join him; five (unnamed) had agreed to accompany him, and he kept them up to date with his plans by email. One by one, however, they dropped out, leaving him to go it alone, accompanied only by Dal LaMagna, founder of Progressive Government.org, now allied with the Backbone Campaign. Dal produced the very polished video/graphics presentation from about 12 hours of video.

Jim and Dal left on November 8th, the day after the election, "while all of you were still celebrating the Dems taking back congress" ("or mourning for the Republicans," he added as an afterthought).

Jim has contacts in the Middle East who had arranged several days of non-stop meetings with educated Arabs, including a dinner which was intensely conversational, judging by the video. Syrians would not make appointments with him, though; they said the U.S. government would have to go through diplomatic channels. Jim emphasized that he was not officially representing the U.S. government or Secretary Rice; he was just a member of Congress who would like to hear what they had to say, but the Syrians declined.

The parade of guests speaking their minds reminded him of his years as a psychiatrist: long days with no break between very intense sessions. The presentation introduced these people with their photos one by one, then featured their comments in a collection of videotaped clips, organized into several themes. Some spoke in Arabic with English subtitles added; others were fluent English speakers. Some were Iraqis, other from Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestine. Among them were government officials, tribal leaders and members of the "intelligentsia".

Our actions are wiping out the educated class in Iraq. They're leaving the country in droves, for obvious reasons.

The video was loosely organized into themes: "Mistakes of the U.S." and "Possible solutions".

MISTAKES:
It was repeatedly asserted:

A. No one trusts the Bush administration.

B. General Bremer's actions were disastrous for Iraq, criminally stupid. He destroyed the stability of Iraq by disbanding an army of about 500 thousand. That's a lot of unemployed young men with grudges and guns; many are now what we call "the militias" or "insurgents".

Bremer wiped out the civil structure by ousting all the civil servants for being members of the Baath Party, which was a requirement of civil service under Saddam.  Result: 70% unemployment. Of those who've been replaced (by nepotism, cronyism) many don't know what they're doing. And who are the present U.S.-approved Iraqi police and Army? Some are criminals and unreliable opportunists.

Bremer left the Iraq-Iran border unprotected, leading to the wide perception "He handed Iraq to the Iranians". There used to be 25 checkpoints on the I-I border, now there are two.
(So, has Bremer received the Medal of Honor yet?)

C. Promoting Chalabi caused huge resentments.

D. The lack of Arabic speakers among U. S. troops and subsequent communication difficulties is a huge problem.

E. The U.S. employs unfair double standards for Arabs & non-Arabs, causing much resentment.

F. U.S. troops terrorize families and enrage Arabic men when they "clear neighborhoods": kicking open doors in the dead of night, pulling people out of their beds, arresting family members, barking out orders in the few Arabic words they know. Harassing their women, especially, is an unforgiveable affront to Arabic men.

F. Sunni-Shia animosity has been provoked by "outsiders". (I'm a little fuzzy on this point) Before, there was much interaction & intermarriage between those groups. (I recall that Riverbend's blog made this point awhile back.) The current attempts to separate the two sects amount to "ethnic cleansing"; ghetto-izing the towns will be counter-productive.

G. Bush pursuit of "victory" could go on forever under these circumstances.
One man concluded: "I don't know what on earth can be done with Iraq."
Another: "It reminds me of what Winston Churchill said: `Americans always do the right thing--after they've tried everything else'".

I expected Abu Ghraib to be one of the obvious mistakes, but I didn' hear it mntioned.

WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL
according to this list of guest commentators:

1.Listen to the right people, not ideologues and neocons. (McDermott acknowledged Bush would never do that; he listens only to a handful of advisors.)

2.Rehire the technocrats; bring back civil servants who know their jobs. (Electricity? Water? If they haven't fled the country?)

3.Recall Army units, let the Iraqis self-police the personnel they choose to accept.

4.Negotiate with Resistance: what we call insurgents.

5."Freeze" Iraqi Constitution: it was not written by Iraqis, but Americans who obligated them to propose it to the public.

6.Diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria ; notify  Iran we are closing border.

7.Close border: Move troops from urban areas, where they are highly visible sitting ducks, to the border where they could guard the checkpoints. Obvously to do this they would first have to engage with Iran and let them know the action is non-threatening, see above.

8.One-Iraq state, no proposals to break up Iraq into 3 sectarian divisions

9.A multi-state PEACE CONFERENCE

10.Turn over Occupation to UN By end of 2007--no U.S. troops
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hate to be so cynical, but I can't see the Bush administration doing any of these actions, can you? That would be admitting they were wrong before.  

We have a new Secretary of Defense, Gates, but McDermott pointed out he was up to his ears in Iran-Contra 20 years ago.  Government appointees are chosen for their loyalty to Bush and the Neocon agenda, and their lack of moral conscience. Nothing else matters. Gates follows the pattern. (That's me saying that, not J. McD.)

A number of questions were asked.

This man said: "Bush has once or twice admitted "mistakes were made," although those mistakes are never named. The Democrats are repeatedly challenged to come up with a better plan. It seems you have one here. Both the mistakes and the better plan should be widely publicized, don't you think?"

McDermott acknowledged that he would like to do that, and this very same presentation would be shown to the congress shortly.  (Applause)

Q: (politely) Bush's approval rating is lower than Nixon when he resigned. Isn't it time to think of impeachment? (Loud applause)

McD: [paraphrasing] We don't want to put our attention on an impeachment proceeding, because it would make it that much harder for the new congress to accomplish its ambitious agenda, trying to fix pressing domestic issues. Bush only has two more years, then we will be rid of him. Besides, it would only result in Cheney being president--we don't want that either.

(disappointed silence)
This man said (somewhat less politely):
"That sounds like it came straight from Nancy Pelosi! Bush is a LUNATIC and criminal who is destroying our country and must be removed!"

McD. [paraphrasing] "I would like to be rid of him as much as anyone! And I DO believe that what he's done could be classed as war crimes.  But our system makes it difficult to remove a leader--this is what we do instead of have a revolution. It's not like a parliament where he'd be subject to a Vote of Confidence. If so, he'd have been out a year or two ago.  WE only have a majority of 51% in the senate, maybe only 50% [note: obviously referring to Lieberman]. We don't want to throw the government into the kind of gridlock it was while they were doing this to President Clinton.

Besides, it takes so long that by the time we get to that point this administration will be on its way out....We plan to "isolate" him as much as possible while we focus on our agenda, which is the most important..."

(disappointed silence)

MY QUESTION: I wanted to ask about investigations of Hallibuton and the other war profiteers. Seems even a Republican would find it difficult to publicly vote PRO-corruption and massive fiscal waste, knowing he'd have to explain that next time he was up for re-election. But McDermott didn't call on me.

THE IMPEACHMENT ISSUE:
Judith Shattuck said to me afterwards "I hope the Dems aren't painting themselves into a corner with this `impeachment is off the table' stuff."

Seems the Democrats really are "on message"--that they are NOT pursuing impeachment, and no doubt that message IS part of the Pelosi strategy.  Maybe it's smart.  If they did so, it WOULD distract from any other agenda, and it wouldn't be well underway til close to the end of the year, and by then the Dems will be VERY preoccupied with the 08 election cycle.

But it doesn't mean impeachment won't happen. I'm reminded of this diary:
Lincoln: `Abolishing slavery is off the table'
and this:
Impeachment and the Overton Window? The Overton Window is the incremental process of converting an idea from unthinkable to acceptable to policy. It doesn't happen overnight.
And this:
New Mexico Legislature to Get Impeachment Bill

The gradual momentum towards impeachment could come from outside of congress. The people. The states. Bush & Cheney themselves--ASKING for it, by continuing their course of reckless warmongering and utter contempt for the constitution.

"Isolate" Bush? One boasting fool who has veto power and his finger on the nukular button? Who listens only to criminals, syncophants and perhaps the voices in his head?

"Only" two years?  Dear god. That's two YEARS, not weeks or months. I cringe to think of the further damage that can be done.

It's possible to ignore the elephant in the living room for a long while. Step around it...avert your eyes, talk of other things. It'll only be there another two years anyway.  But when it's defecating on your furniture, stepping on your children, crashing through your picture window and rampaging across your neighbor's property? The elephant has to be taken out...permanently.

McDermott himself reminded us (in reference to Iraq) that every rep needs to hear from his constituents. Otherwise they can say to him "Jim, I'm not hearing anything about this..." We are YOUR reps, he said, we respond to YOUR input..."Mr. Reichart, for example, you from the Eastside, I don't think anyone has sat down and had a talk with him..."

So, with that in mind, every politician should be confronted with the  "I" word every time he leaves his office, and should have to explain their position...over and over and over.

I expected Jim McD to exit quickly once the long talk and the questions were over. But a half-hour later he was still in the lobby, talking in the middle of a dense crowd.

Thank you, Jim McDermott.