Press Action ::: The ‘Anybody-But-Bush’ Movement

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

The ‘Anybody-But-Bush’ Movement

Why the ‘Major’ Democrats Should Be Denied Membership

By Mark Hand

The results of the Democratic Party’s Iowa caucuses surprised many people because the media had spent the last few months driving home the notion that Howard Dean would have the Democratic nomination wrapped up by February. With John Kerry and John Edwards back in the picture due to their strong showings in the Iowa caucus vote and with Wesley Clark supposedly gaining momentum in New Hampshire, the story-of-the-day in the mainstream press is how the Howard Dean movement has lost its luster.

The emergence of the two Johns and former NATO Supreme Commander Clark should also draw attention back to the strategy of many Democrats during the past year to support “anybody but Bush” in the 2004 presidential election. The Iowa results, indeed, have thrown the race for the nomination wide open, if you are willing to define wide open as a competition among the media’s anointed major Democratic candidates who are like-minded in their centrist-to-slightly conservative stances on the issues.

With Dean coming back to the pack, Democratic activists will once again begin to emphasize that any of these men vying for the nomination would be a welcome alternative to Bush. Given that it may take at least a couple months before we have a clear picture on who will be the chosen Democrat to run against Bush in November, the “Anybody-But-Bush” slogan likely will gain in popularity.

If the Democratic strategy is going to be “Anybody But Bush” in order to dissuade third-party spoilers from entering the race, it’s then important to remember how the “major” Democratic nominees, including each of the members of Congress vying for the Democratic nomination except Dennis Kucinich, have capitulated to Bush and the Republicans in Congress on the important issues of the day. Based on their voting records, one must question whether Kerry, Edwards and Clark are qualified to run a campaign in which they are the standard-bearer for the “Anybody-But-Bush” movement.

The defining deeds of the past three years that have galvanized certain groups of people across the political spectrum against the Bush administration are two-fold: the Bush administration’s invasion/occupation of Iraq and the Bush administration’s implementation of the Patriot Act/war on the Bill of Rights.

Where do the “major” Democrats stand on these issues and do their stances qualify them to carry the mantle for the “Anybody-But-Bush” movement?

It’s certainly not news to anyone that John Kerry and John Edwards (along with also-ran Dick Gephardt and Joseph Lieberman) voted to support the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq and the passage of the Patriot Act. Here we have the two defining issues of the day that have enraged so many Americans. And yet, the top two vote-getters in Iowa vying for the opportunity to compete against Bush for the White House fully endorsed the Bush administration’s approach to these issues.

Shouldn’t their votes endorsing both the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the passage of the Patriot Act prohibit Kerry and Edwards from receiving support from the Anybody-But-Bush movement? Let me repeat: On the most important issues of the day, Kerry and Edwards supported the Bush administration, that notorious organization in Washington that so many Democrats claim is driving this country to ruin.

Only when it became obvious that the U.S. occupation of Iraq was facing “problems” did Kerry discover that he really opposed the war after all. As for the Patriot Act, Kerry has said the law’s original intent was to respond to the needs of the country after Sept. 11, 2001, and to expire with a sunset clause in a few years.

In a recent speech in Florida, Kerry spoke of the good portions of the Patriot Act, especially how it gives the federal government powers to fight “terrorism.” As Rick Klau explains: “But anyone who’s passionate about the Patriot Act would rather see the government try again and narrowly tailor a law aimed at fighting terrorism instead of trying to fix a very broken law. And if they heard Kerry’s response, their only conclusion would be that he supports the Patriot Act.”

John Edwards, the one-term senator from North Carolina, said in the fall of 2002 that “the time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.” With this belief, Edwards signed off on the Bush administration’s plans to invade and occupy another country.

At the time, Edwards explained his reasons for giving the Bush administration a green light to invade Iraq: “Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies — including our vital ally, Israel. For more than 20 years, Saddam has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every possible means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he has used them in the past, and that he is doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability. We must not allow him to get nuclear weapons.”

Democrats have vigilantly kept track of what they view as the lies of George W. Bush. Why don’t Democratic activists, if they truly believe the Bush administration is driving the country into a ditch, keep a record of the same lies of their own party members? To put a different spin on the United for Peace slogan, “Edwards lies. Who dies?” Thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of U.S. soldiers have died due to the lies of not only the Bush administration but his Democratic sympathizers in Congress.

Like Kerry, Edwards voted for the Patriot Act in the fall of 2001. But now he believes some provisions should be repealed and replaced. “I would establish new protections for Americans’ personal library and business records, limit the government’s authority to search homes without giving people notice (so-called ‘sneak and peek’ searches), and require the Justice Department to disclose more information about its use of special surveillance powers,” Edwards says. “While I support many provisions of the Patriot Act, I believe these reforms will prevent abuses without getting in the way of needed anti-terrorism measures.”

Writing on National Review Online, Rich Lowry comments: “The locus of forgetfulness is the Democratic presidential field, as Rep. Dick Gephardt, Sen. John Edwards and Sen. John Kerry all voted for the Patriot Act and now attack Attorney General John Ashcroft for having the temerity to use it.”

And what about the brand-new Democrat, Gen. Wesley Clark? Should he be welcomed into the “Anybody-But-Bush” movement?

Clark served as NATO’s supreme commander during that organization’s 11-week aerial bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999. In the years since then, Clark has continued to voice public support for the bombing campaign and invasion. Certainly, there are differences between the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq and NATO’s military campaign against Yugoslavia. But both involved the bombardment and invasion of sovereign nation-states. Can Clark seriously argue that he offers much of a real alternative to Bush when it comes to overseeing the U.S. government’s military hegemony around the world?

NATO’s aggressive actions against another nation-state should have galvanized a wide segment of public opinion against the Clinton administration. But since it was a Democratic administration taking the radical militaristic approach, hundreds of thousands of Americans were not out in the streets protesting the action as they were prior to a Republican administration’s planned invasion of Iraq. The bombardment of Yugoslavia was the Clinton administration’s “Iraq.” Clark supported it. Why should we believe he wouldn’t send the U.S. military on similar excursions into other nations if elected president?

In a Washington Monthly piece from September 2002, Clark wrote about how Slobodan Milosevic was hoping the NATO alliance “would crack and the bombing campaign would fall apart. Instead, NATO’s determination increased over time and the bombing intensified. He was hoping that neighboring countries, such as Bulgaria and Romania, would not cooperate with the West, and indeed, large majorities of their citizens initially opposed the war. But the power of NATO extended even to these countries, which at that point were non-members. We simply made clear to their leaders that if they wanted to be considered for eventual membership in NATO—and they did, very much—then they’d have to help us against Milosevic, which they did, quickly.”

Clark’s account reveals someone who is proud of his command over the bombing of a nation’s people into submission. Clark also relishes how the bullying tactics of NATO and the United States proved successful in convincing the nations on Yugoslavia’s borders to support the bombardment.

As for Clark’s stance on the Bush administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq, the former general said in April 2003 that Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair “should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.”

A few months earlier, in January 2003, Clark explained to CNN that if he had been in charge, “I probably wouldn’t have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we’re here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations.”

In February 2003, Clark told CNN: “The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we’re going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world’s got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with.”

Like Edwards and so many other Democrats, Clark also lied about Saddam’s weapons. How many Iraqis have died?

As establishment Democrats gain momentum in the presidential race, some members of the mainstream press are likely breathing a sigh of relief. In both its news reporting and on its editorial page, the Washington Post, for example, has not hidden its disdain for Howard Dean. Although they may not have the Democratic Leadership Council credentials of Joseph Lieberman, the Washington Post would likely feel comfortable endorsing John Kerry, John Edwards, or Wesley Clark for president. If the contest is Dean vs. Bush, however, the Washington Post will likely either endorse Bush or offer no endorsement at all.

Even though the Washington Post takes an establishment approach to its reporting and editorials, the newspaper still has a stake in perpetuating the myth of it being a crusading, liberal newspaper. The celebrated muckraking reporting of the Watergate era is what put the Post on the national map. If the Post found itself in the position of endorsing Bush for president in an election against Dean, the newspaper understands such a move would further erode the myth of the so-called liberal media and give its readers additional ammunition to portray the newspaper as a tool of the ruling class.

Mark Hand is editor of Press Action.

More from Mark Hand