Politics and Other Dirty Words
Cry Havoc

by Joshua Samuel Brown

As of July 30, 242 American soldiers had died in Iraq. Averaged, this is a casualty rate of around two per day. That’s two sets of friends and families a day getting the hard word that someone they love has died in a conflict begun under false pretenses by a small group of wealthy industrialists reveling unabashedly in the spoils of war.

And it seems that with each pair of body bags comes another report that exaggeration and outright fabrication were used to justify this war. Even the castrated mainstream media can’t keep the public from believing that their president is a liar. In any other democracy, whatever opposition there was would be driven mad by the stench of blood, failure and deceit and begin circling in for the kill.

But not in America 2003, where the only real political opposition to a corrupt and illegitimate regime comes from an ineffectual Democratic Party.

Of the major DNC contenders, only Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich have come out swinging hard, not merely against Bush’s handling of the war, but against the war itself. At a July 18 press conference in Des Moines, Dean leveled a blistering series of questions practically accusing the administration of premeditated deception.

Kucinich best distinguishes himself from the pack, calling the war “wrong regardless of its outcome,” and advocating an immediate return of American troops.

But Dean is a long shot candidate at best, and as refreshing as Kucinich is, he has zero chance of actually making it to the Superbowl. Barring some strange occurrence (General Ramsey Clark being drafted, for example), the Dems will likely wind up running someone whose Iraq policy is almost identical to Bush’s. In this, Lieberman would be the best choice. A staunch supporter of the administration in most foreign policy matters, the only thing that makes Lieberman stand apart from Dick Cheney is his yarmulke.

On Iraq, John Edwards is Lieberman without the yarmulke. “My position is very clear,” reads his website. “The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.” If his position has changed recently, he hasn’t bothered to tell his webmaster.

Bob Graham might be an interesting candidate, having voted against the war on grounds that “the war on terrorism should be our top priority.” In order to be taken seriously, however, Graham will need to lose the Highlights for Children writing style used on his website: “Bob Graham was a fervent supporter of America’s brave men and women in uniform…he never doubted that they could quickly dispel the evil Iraqi dictator.” Aiming for the under-12 vote is a poor strategy in a country where the voting age is 18.

Of the contenders that might seriously threaten Bush, only John Kerry has tentatively dipped his toe into the cold waters of dissent by declaring on CNN, “We now know that the administration went to war without a thorough plan to win the peace” and that it was “now time to face the truth and change course.” But how far Kerry will go remains to be seen, either as an anti-war candidate or as a candidate, period.

The Democratic Party machine is like a rock tumbler: It spins endlessly, goes nowhere, and smoothes the edge right off everything within it. In recent years, it has displayed an uncanny knack for producing politicians who are nearly indistinguishable from Republicans in every aspect save one: They lack the fanatical desire to win at all costs.

That the administration has egregiously abused its post-9/11 license to ill is clear. The question is, Can the Democrats muster up the will to fight back? Bush and his motley crew of industrialists, religious zealots and cold war throwbacks are among the meanest to ever hold the White House. They’ve shown time and again that there are no depths to which they will not sink to get hold of and keep the reins of power. What none of the democratic contenders are acknowledging (not publicly, at least) is the fact that even if one of them manages to get more votes than Bush in 2004, that doesn’t mean that he’ll be president in 2005. Just ask Al Gore.

For the Democrats to even have a chance, they’ll need to lose the gloves and nominate a scrapper willing to use every available weapon. The rising body counts and increasing catastrophes of an ill-conceived war will present opportunities for political haymaking, though these will not be pretty. But these are not pretty times. For the damage that’s been done to America domestically and internationally to be undone, the Bush Junta must not merely be beaten; it must be driven from power decisively.

Back to Top