Democratic oversight vs Administration hubris - oh, what a massive fight is coming

1. Ten Blockbuster Hearings -- by Chuck Collins/The Nation

On May 9, 1975, a Senate committee chaired by Frank Church subpoenaed acting CIA director William Colby during an investigation of intelligence agencies. Colby (after practice sessions with President Gerald Ford's chief of staff, Donald Rumsfeld) was grilled about US covert operations, illegal assassinations and domestic spying abuses. The stunning revelations of the Church Committee hearings were followed by several years of rigorous Congressional oversight and reform legislation.

How can progressives best grab the momentum from the November elections to promote bold initiatives to end illegal war, fight poverty and inequality, and rein in the corporations that are destroying our democracy? Congressional oversight hearings could be one critical tool. And that's not as boring as it sounds.

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are in line to chair ten of the twenty standing House committees and as many as thirty-five subcommittees. If they are media savvy and work creatively with activists and affected communities, they could turn humdrum hearings into blockbuster investigations that wrench the nation's attention away from Britney and Paris (not the city) and onto the pressing matters of our time. And while the Democrats' narrow majority will make it difficult to pass very much progressive legislation in the 110th Congress, well-designed hearings could lay the foundation for significant reforms in the medium and long term.

While impeachment may be "off the table," Congress has a duty to investigate executive-branch misconduct to insure that such abuses of power never occur again. The wider public will be repulsed if Democrats appear to copycat GOP partisanship with vindictive investigations rather than solutions to the nation's urgent problems. Thus, rather than going for Bush's jugular, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will probably first take up the matter of "signing statements"--the President's practice of indicating the provisions of new laws he doesn't intend to enforce--which effectively undermine Congressional legislative intent and powers. This will wisely begin the process of laying out, case by case, the unconstitutional usurpation of power without deflecting media coverage from other urgent matters.

I have received hundreds of suggestions for hearings (add yours at www.ips-dc.org/hearings ) and have filtered the ideas through the following strategic prisms: Do they advance a bold progressive vision and connect to organized movements? Do they tell dramatic human-interest stories and lay the groundwork for progressive policy victories? Do they look forward and showcase new ideas but also put irresponsible corporations and the Bush agenda on the defensive? What follows are ten proposed hearings, culled from the suggestions of others and my own investigations, that would underscore the important progressive narrative that "we are all in this together" and expose the greed and selfish corporate interests undermining our common good.

1. The Katrina Divide. When the levees broke, more was revealed than just FEMA incompetence and presidential indifference. We got a horrifying picture of an America deeply fractured along lines of race and class. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita dramatized the results of two decades of "shift, shrink and shaft" antigovernment policies that, through privatization and corporate cronyism, have fueled the greatest polarization of income, wealth and opportunity since the Gilded Age.

Congress should team up with grassroots groups to hold hearings in Biloxi, Mississippi, and the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans to keep the oversight fire lit under FEMA, HUD and other federal agencies. But hearings must also revisit the larger questions of accountability and national direction: How did we allow this to happen? How can we prevent it from happening again? How much economic inequality should our society tolerate?

2. War Profiteering. During World War II Franklin Roosevelt said, "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster." While FDR set the moral tone, it was Senator Harry Truman who led a bipartisan investigation that saved taxpayers more than $15 billion ($200 billion in 2005 dollars). The current Congress should invoke Give 'em Hell Harry's investigative legacy by kicking off war-profiteering hearings at the Truman Presidential Library in Missouri.

The Government Accountability Office recently identified thirty-six areas needing urgent Congressional oversight. At the top of the list was investigating the billions squandered by the Defense Department in the most privatized war in US history. The number of private contractors in Iraq is now more than 100,000, nearly approaching the size of our military forces stationed there. Incoming Government Reform Committee chair Henry Waxman should subpoena CEOs of military corporations to answer tough questions. He could query Halliburton CEO David Lesar about his company's waste of taxpayer money and equipment, overbilling and poor services. George David, CEO of United Technologies, should be asked why he is suing his Pentagon patrons to block the release of Black Hawk helicopter inspection reports. David Brooks, formerly of DHB In- dustries, can explain how many lives were endangered when the Pentagon was forced to recall 23,000 bulletproof vests of his company's subsidiary--and whether he used ill-gotten profits to throw a $10 million, celebrity-studded party for his daughter. Members of military families who held bake sales to buy body armor for their children fighting in Iraq should also be asked to give testimony, alongside that of the profiteers.

3. Torture. Congress should investigate and expose the Bush Administration's involvement in torture and the abhorrent practice of "extraordinary rendition," the sending of detainees to countries known for practicing torture. A key witness could be Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen of Syrian descent who was detained at Kennedy Airport in New York City in 2002 and accused of having links to Al Qaeda. The United States "rendered" Arar to Syria, where he was held in a dungeon for ten months and tortured. Although the Canadian government completely exonerated Arar and the head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police resigned in disgrace, the Bush Administration has refused to clear Arar's name and to explain why he was "rendered" to Syria. Congressional hearings should lay the foundation for laws banning engagement in torture--either by US personnel directly or through outsourcing via rendition.

4. Unequal Sacrifice and the War. Representative Charles Rangel, the incoming chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, caused a ruckus when he proposed reinstituting the draft. But Rangel makes an important point that hearings could examine further the issue of unequal sacrifice and how our country's privileged and political elites are AWOL from military service.

We already have a backdoor draft through the military's use of multiple deployments and stop-loss policies, which have involuntarily retained some 85,000 troops beyond their expected or contractually agreed-upon term of service. Backdoor draft hearings should involve listening to families at National Guard and military bases around the country.

Unequal wartime sacrifices have taken their toll on active-duty military and recently returned veterans. There have been horrifying reports of traumatized soldiers being returned to combat zones. "We know so many stories of servicemen and -women with severe post-traumatic stress syndrome who should be getting the care they need, not facing redeployment," said Nancy Lessin, co-founder of Military Families Speak Out ( www.mfso.org ). "One mother found her son sitting on his bed with a pistol in his mouth, contemplating suicide after receiving a letter putting him on a short list for recall to Iraq--where he had already served two deployments."

Representative Bob Filner, the incoming chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee, has pledged to convene hearings about the unmet needs of recently returned veterans and their families. Filner should invite all other committee chairs and the media to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington for the first hearing.

5. Runaway CEO Pay. Nothing symbolizes our polarizing "two Americas" more dramatically than the 411-to-1 ratio of average CEO compensation to average worker pay. The system is full of perverse incentives for CEOs to outsource workers, goose stock prices and collect more millions.

Representative Barney Frank, the incoming chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has already pledged to hold CEO pay hearings. But the discussion needs to go beyond disclosure reforms to underscore the profound power imbalance between imperial corporate managers and other stakeholders, including workers, shareholders and communities.

Hearings are an opportunity to expose and change the culture of greed. Witnesses should include the abundant number of Warren Buffett-like business leaders who believe that reining in CEO pay is good for business. April 2007 hearings should feature the freshly disclosed top earners from 2006 along with infamous CEO compensation consultants and Lee Raymond, retired CEO of ExxonMobil, who could be queried about his $400 million retirement package.

6. Wealth Inequality and the Estate Tax. The wealth gap has reached unprecedented levels--and the racial wealth divide persists despite expanding homeownership in communities of color. We should investigate the ways the estate tax, our nation's only tax on inherited wealth, can help close this wealth divide.

After a decade of hysterical "death tax" propaganda, Congress should hold hearings to set the record straight about the benefits of taxing inherited wealth. Hearings could explore how the estate tax could better reduce the democracy-distorting concentrations of power and wealth--and whether revenue should be channeled to programs that broaden economic opportunity.

One witness could be Bill Gates Sr., who refers to the estate tax as an "opportunity recycling program" and urges that revenue from it be dedicated to a "GI Bill for the next generation." After World War II our nation expanded opportunities through homeownership programs, small-business development and grants that enabled millions to get higher education. Many people of color, however, were excluded from those programs because of racial bias. Progressives should champion a bold and inclusive new wealth-broadening program that speaks to the aspirations of people left behind in our apartheid economy.

7. Concentration of Corporate Power. Twenty-five years after the Reagan Administration gutted our nation's antitrust enforcement capacity, we have an unprecedented concentration of corporate power in virtually every sector of the economy, including banking, telecommunications, meatpacking and oil refining. Corporate consolidation corrupts the nation's politics and marketplace, especially in the media industry. Hearings should not only investigate the impact of corporate consolidation on consumers but on all levels of the economy, civic life and culture. Mergers and consolidation in retail, pharmacy and food industries have extinguished local businesses and turned Main Streets into bland homogeneous strips.

The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should launch robust antitrust hearings as a first step in exploring the impact of corporate concentration on our society. How did corporations gain so much power with so little social accountability? How have corporations undermined government oversight, taxation and regulation? Should we rewire the rules governing transnational corporations, including federal chartering and monitoring?

8. Oil Industry Influence. As part of the first 100 legislative hours, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged that the new Congress will vote on legislation to eliminate archaic subsidies for Big Oil and channel funds into alternative energy efforts. Hearings should go further and expose the corrupting influence of Big Oil lobbying on our foreign policy, energy policy and tax code. Why has our country remained addicted to oil? Why do we continue to give privileged status to the retrograde government of Saudi Arabia? Why will China surpass us in the next decade as a leader in green energy technologies? From oil industry involvement in Vice President Cheney's secretive 2001 energy task force to the myriad provisions inserted into the tax code at the behest of the oil barons, the hardwired privileges of Big Oil are pervasive.

Hearings should expose the campaign contributions of Big Oil and their relation to policy outcomes, laying the groundwork for new and aggressive campaign finance and lobbying restrictions. Another worthy topic: the influence of Big Pharma on health policy and the credit-card industry on lending and bankruptcy laws.

9. Censorship of Climate Science. One of the clearest examples of the corrosive power of Big Oil can be seen in the debate over global warming. Here the stakes are no less than the future of the planet. Climate scientists believe we are at a tipping point--that we must take dramatic action in the next five years if we are to reverse unbridled fossil-fuel consumption. But instead of addressing the problem and leading the nation in adopting appropriate measures, the Bush Administration has been censoring and suppressing climate science, setting back our needed responses by a decade.

Hearings can make up for lost time by bringing forward leading climate experts and activists to suggest voluntary and legislative action. But we must also investigate the Administration's unseemly efforts to censor or block sound scientific research. Let's subpoena Philip Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist who became chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and repeatedly edited and altered scientific climate reports to downplay links between greenhouse gases and global warming.

10. A Real Security Budget. Congress's security budgeting process has little to do with making our country and planet more secure--thanks to military industry lobbyists, a Pentagon fetish for glitzy weapons and a Congress that views military pork as an employment program (which explains why more Homeland Security funds are spent per capita in Wyoming than in New York City). The common-sense wisdom, from the 911 Commission to peace groups, is that we spend way too much on weapons and not enough on nonmilitary security efforts, including diplomacy, effective international aid, peacekeeping and programs to prevent proliferation of nuclear materials. The Iraq War further drains resources from nonmilitary strategies, fostering a vicious cycle of violence.

In 2006 a prestigious group of security specialists issued a call for a "unified security budget," proposing multibillion-dollar shifts in budget authority between military, homeland security and nonmilitary measures. But Congress is incapable of moving toward rational budget allocations because of committee budget fiefdoms. Progressive Democrats advocating a rational security and foreign policy will run smack into these structural impediments, including the feeding frenzy over the Pentagon's daily allowance of about $1.1 billion.

Hearings may be helpful, but the entrenched corporate and national security state interests are so powerful that stronger medicine is required. Democrats should create a Select Committee on National Security and International Relations to look at the crosscutting requirements of the post-cold war world. This select committee should be empowered to recommend a reorganization of security-related budget writing that transcends current committee structures. Outside these hearings, peace and genuine security organizations should utilize their most creative educational tools, dramatizing the urgency of reorienting priorities.

Progressive lawmakers should launch several other committees over the next two years. Members of the Progressive Caucus are proposing a Select Committee on Poverty, Inequality and Opportunity in the House. A Select Committee on Federal Elections and Democracy could investigate the myriad problems with voting technology, voter suppression and the archaic Electoral College. A Select Committee on Infrastructure could investigate the condition of our bridges, highways and transportation systems, as well as our technology infrastructure needs.

Don't just ask what your Congress can do for you. Progressive community activists and independent media need to maximize the synergy between hearings and organizing, bloggers and policy-makers. The hearings of the coming year will be what we make of them.

[Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, where he directs the Program on Inequality and the Common Good. He is co-author of the forthcoming book The Moral Measure of the Economy (Orbis).]


2. Start Preparing Now for the Coming "Cataclysmic Fight to the Death" -- by Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith

While the November elections provided the Democratic Party a public mandate to end the war in Iraq, President Bush has signaled his intent to utilize his institutional powers as Commander in Chief to maintain and even escalate the U.S. commitment, public or congressional opinion notwithstanding. The Democratic leadership has removed two obvious ways to stop him - impeachment and a cutoff of war funds - from the table. Some Democrats have even indicated they will acquiesce in the sending of tens of thousands more troops to Iraq.

For those for in Congress and the public whom acquiescence is not an option, there remains an indirect route to challenging Presidential war-making power and force withdrawal from Iraq. That is to so discredit the Administration in the eyes of the public that neither Republican politicians nor the military, the intelligence agencies, the foreign policy establishment, or the corporate elite will allow it to continue on its catastrophic course. That requires a devastating exposure of the criminality, corruption, stupidity, and false premises of those who are making the decisions.

The road to withdrawal from Iraq, in short, may run through a congressional hearing room. But whether it does will depend in large part on how Democrats go about their investigations and how much the public demands they truly confront the Bush administration's criminality.

Just in the first three weeks of the session, Senate Democrats plan to call at least 13 hearings on Iraq. 1On the House side, Rep. John Murtha has promised to hold two hearings a day for several months beginning on January 17th, and many others are planned as well.

The Democrats' investigations could follow either of two strategies. One is to use hearings simply to service their '08 election goals by revealing some blemishes in Bush's Iraq policy -- while letting the war, torture, spying, and other crimes continue unimpeded. The alternate is to investigate with the intent of driving a dagger into the soft underbelly of the Bush juggernaut - its criminal violation of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. and international law and its criminal coverup of its abuses.

The upcoming hearings will undoubtedly include demands for information that the Administration has up till now refused to provide. The consequence will be a power struggle which could - if Democrats so choose - be the defining moment in the effort to establish legal and constitutional accountability for the Bush administration - and thereby force it to end the war.

The Bush administration has been historic in its refusal to share information with Congress or the public. It has strong motivations to continue to conceal such information, such as avoiding humiliation, further public exposure, and probable criminal liability. It has sent strong signals it will indeed refuse to provide such information. As Time magazine wrote just before the election,

"When it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush's understanding of the presidency, the President's team has been planning for what one strategist described as 'a cataclysmic fight to the death' over the balance between Congress and White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is 'going to assert that power, and they're going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation." 2

As a result, the U.S. is headed toward what Tom Engelhardt has called "the mother of all Constitutional crises." 3

Indeed, that crisis has already begun. For example, just after the elections the Justice Department, in response to an ACLU suit, disclosed in court the existence of directives from the President and the CIA General Counsel that may have authorized torture and other illegal interrogation techniques. Sen. Patrick Leahy, incoming chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, immediately wrote Attorney General Alberto Gonzales requesting the documents and related records. On January 2, Leahy released a letter from the Justice Department refusing to provide the documents on grounds of national security and executive privilege. 4Leahy decried the refusal and added, "I have advised the Attorney General that I plan to pursue this matter further at the Committee's first oversight hearing of the Department of Justice." 5

This is just the first of what are likely to be myriad such conflicts. Both sides are likely to maneuver to determine the issues over which the climactic struggles will arise. The Administration will probably maneuver for issues on which it can make a strong national security case. Congress will probably seek to steer confrontation to issues like war profiteering on which the Administration will appear to be withholding information for self-serving reasons, e.g. avoiding embarrassment or criminal culpability.

Constitutionalists, progressives, and the public should support the congressional assertion of the right to know, whatever subject emerges as the decisive bone of contention. However, they should ensure that this does not become a means for either side to take other important but more controversial issues (such as the origins of the war and the commission of war crimes) off the table.

The Administration has been preparing for this situation for a long time; news reports indicate that even prior to the elections it hired lawyers specifically to plan for such a contingency. It is likely to use a variety of delaying tactics, diversions, and pseudo-compliances to bring the issue to a head at a time most advantageous to it. It is also likely to engage in counter-attacks, such as the recent attempt by its prosecutors to use a grand jury subpoena to force the ACLU to turn over all copies of a classified document. 6(The revocation of its demand also shows the effectiveness of firm resistance to Administration intimidation.)

Notwithstanding Administration delays and diversions, Congressional access to Administration documents is likely to become a serious power struggle quite rapidly after the opening of the new Congress. A plausible scenario looks something like this:
--A congressional committee will request information.
--The Administration will stonewall.
--The committee will issue a subpoena.
--Amidst a sea of justifications and vilifications, the Administration will fail or refuse to produce documents.
--The committee will pass a contempt citation.
--The Senate or House will pass a contempt citation.
--The contempt citation will be referred to the Justice Department.
--The Justice Department will fail or refuse to bring contempt charges.

At that point Congress will have several options:
--It can make angry noises while in actuality accepting Administration intransigence.
--It can pass legislation establishing a special prosecutor.
--It can appeal to the courts by suing the Administration.
--It can establish a select committee or otherwise threaten impeachment against whatever officials it decides to hold accountable, from the President and Vice-President through cabinet members and other top officials.

What choice Congress makes will depend largely on public perception of and response to the situation. For example, in the Watergate scandal, public outrage at the "Saturday Night Massacre" tipped the balance toward congressional impeachment hearings. On the other hand, public disapproval of the attempt to impeach President Clinton actually contributed to a Democratic victory at the next elections.

Constitutionalists and progressives need to start planning proactively to prepare the public to respond appropriately and effectively to this impending confrontation.

First, that requires an on-going interpretation to people of what is happening and what it means.

Second, it involves defining venues for action in which large numbers of people can participate. Rep. John Conyers' mobilization of popular support for demanding information about the Downing Street memos represents on a small scale what will need to be done on a larger scale.

Third, it requires creating some kind of infrastructure or rapid-response network with the capacity to support such a mobilization.

Fourth, it calls for a broad coalition that reaches far beyond progressives to include conservatives committed to the rule of law and a broad public concerned about the abuse of presidential power and the preservation of democracy. Such a coalition already exists in nascent form, for example in the Constitution Project, which has brought together such improbably allies as Al Gore and Bob Barr to articulate concern about Bush administration abuse of presidential power.

The power and willingness of Congress to affect Bush's Iraq policies depends on utilizing the vulnerability of the Administration and its Republican supporters to severe loss of effective power, criminal investigation, and/or impeachment. That vulnerability is likely to be greatest, in turn, where the Administration can be shown to engage in Nixonian abuse of government power to suppress information in its own interest.

A defeat of the Bush administration on the right of Congress and the public to know what the government is doing can be the starting point of a broader effort to establish institutional and cultural vehicles for controlling executive power - in short, for a transition to democracy.

(Jeremy Brecher is a historian whose books include Strike!, Globalization from Below, and, co-edited with Brendan Smith and Jill Cutler, In the Name of Democracy: American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond (Metropolitan/Holt). He has received five regional Emmy Awards for his documentary film work. He is a co-founder of WarCrimesWatch.org. Brendan Smith is a legal analyst whose books include Globalization From Below and, with Brendan Smith and Jill Cutler, of In the Name of Democracy: American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond (Metropolitan). He is current co-director of Global Labor Strategies and UCLA Law School's Globalization and Labor Standards Project, and has worked previously for Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and a broad range of unions and grassroots groups. His commentary has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, The Nation, CBS News.com, YahooNews and the Baltimore Sun. Contact him at smithb28@gmail.com)

1 Jeff Zeleny, "Awaiting Bush's Iraq Plan, Democrats Weigh Replies," New York Times, 1/4/07.
2 Karen Tumulty, Mike Allen, "It's Lonely at the Top," Time, October 29, 2006.
3 Source?
4 "Comments of Sen. Patrick Leahy" January 2, 2007, including link to Justice Department letter.
5 "Comments of Sen. Patrick Leahy"
6 Adam Liptak, "U.S. Subpoena Is Seen as Bid to Stop Leaks," New York Times, 12/14/06.


3. Beltway Insiders Versus Neo-Cons
Clash of the Elites
By JOHN WALSH/Counterpunch

Atitanic power struggle is being waged within the policy elite or power elite, or more simply the U.S. ruling class. The clash is taking place over the war on Iraq, U.S. policy toward Israel--and ultimately over the best way to run the U.S. empire. The war on Iraq is shaping up as such a disaster for the empire that it can no longer be tolerated by our rulers in its present form. The struggle is as plain as the nose on your face; nevertheless it draws little comment. One reason is that we are taught to view matters political through the prism of Democrat versus Republican, whereas this struggle among our rulers cuts across party lines. On the "Left," few so much as allude to this internecine war, much less use it to good effect. This is apparently due to a very rigid, very dogmatic view of how empires function, indeed how they "must" function, and due to a fear of being labeled anti-semitic and thus running afoul of the Israeli Lobby. In many cases this silence reflects an actual sympathy among "liberals" for neocon foreign policy, either out of a latter day do-gooder version of the White Man's Burden, or an attachment to Israel.

This struggle is in no way hidden and definitely not a secret conspiracy. It is out in the open, as it must be, since it is in great part a battle for the hearts and minds of the American public. This fact makes the absence of commentary about it all the more chilling. The fight among our rulers sets the neocons against other very important elements in the establishment: the senior officer corps, represented by Jack Murtha and Colin Powell; the old money like Ned Lamont; the oil men, like James Baker (With Baker against the war, how then can oil be the only reason for the war?); those who want to see the American imperium run effectively, like Lee Hamilton and Robert Gates of the Iraq Study Group; many in the CIA, both active duty and retired; policy makers like Zbigniew Brzezinski who has long opposed the war which he has ascribed to the influence of certain "ethnic" groups; and even former presidents Gerald Ford who kept his mouth shut and Jimmy Carter who has not and whose frustration with Israel and the neocons is all too clear in his book "Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid."

Influential voices tied to the ruling circles include some writers for the militantly anti-war publication of the Old Right, The American Conservative.
On the other side are the neocons, based in the Washington "Think" Tanks, in the civilian leadership of the pre-Gates Pentagon, in Dick Cheney's office, in large parts of both parties in Congress, and in the editorial and op-ed pages of the print media. Most of the House and much of the Senate is still under the control of the neocons thanks to the fund-raising exertions and threats from AIPAC and its minions. Hence, the most powerful political allies of the neocons are the leading Democrats, who indulge in the most intense and shallow anti-Bush rhetoric but are reliable allies in the neocon crusades in the Middle East. The neocon side has relied heavily on the power of ideas,. This in turn hinges on the second rate level of those writing for the mass media who think little for themselves and go along with whatever framework for policy discussion is put forward by the neocons. Good examples of this are most op-ed pages, TV programs like the Sunday morning talk shows, Weekend Edition on NPR and Washington Week in Review on PBS. The neocons have not dominated the weekly news magazines, with the exception of U.S. News and World Report, but they are working to remedy that. Witness, for example, the adoption of William Kristol as a star columnist at Time!

Given this balance of forces, it would seem that the neocons must lose _ but the outcome remains an open question. If they do prevail, that will be the end of our democracy and freedoms as we have known them. If you have any doubts about that, consult their philosopher, Leo Strauss. The neocons cannot be automatically counted out, even though their base is narrow, for they can draw on all the resources of a mighty nation state, Israel, a modern Sparta, with its vaunted intelligence services and special forces which span the world and operate in the U.S., as well as its ability, if it desires, to launder cash and deliver it to U.S. operatives. And of course the war profiteers like Halliburton and others love the Iraq adventure. The arms manufacturers may be less happy with it, since money is not being spent on profitable high-tech weapons which do not have to function but rather on highly unprofitable "boots on the ground."

The public forays of the anti-neocons in this struggle are well-known. James Wilson in the New York Times, accusing Bush of lying about uranium from Niger; Richard Clarke's expose on the incompetence behind 9/11; the exposure of Judith Miller as lying about WMD, thus corrupting the NYT reportage (even the Washington Post, dominated as its opinion pages are by the neocons did not allow its reporting to be undermined by the likes of Judith Miller); the antiwar stance of John Murtha indicating the unhappiness of the senior officer corps with the dominance of US Middle East policy by the Israel-first neocons; Mearsheimer and Walt's paper, as important for who wrote it as for its content, which finally took on the Israeli Lobby, the core adversary of the anti-neocons; and most recently Jimmy Carter's book which inevitably raises the question of the shedding of American blood to preserve Israeli apartheid and to lay waste every and any nation perceive by Israel to be a threat. Add to this the report of the Baker Commission and the near-simultaneous removal of Rumsfeld and his replacement with a member of the Baker Commission.

The biggest blow to the neocon agenda came from the people themselves, in the form of the 2004 election defeat of the Republicans. Unfortunately, this defeat amounted only to a registration of national disgust over the war in Iraq but not one which would result in policy changes since the establishment Dems are solidly neocon in their foreign policy _ especially when it comes to the Middle East and Israel. The same is true of many progressives. One looks in vain for a reference to the Lobby on the Michael Moore web site for example or in the missives from UFPJ or from "P"DA.

Two questions emerge. Are there advantages to be gained from this struggle for the peace movement? Most definitely. We are being provided with powerful testimony from the most unassailable sources _ Jimmy Carter, Richard Clarke and Mearsheimer and Walt to name a few. And we should not allow this important information to be discredited by the neocons. The leading anti-neocons are not anti-empire, but at least they want to end the bloody war on Iraq and the dominance of Israel over key segments of U.S. foreign policy. That is a step forward. And second, given the key power of the Israel Lobby, can the peace movement fail any longer to ignore it as though it were irrelevant? Absolutely not. We ignore it at our peril. And we must get rid of all fears of being labeled as anti-semites. Most Jewish Americans, much to their credit, oppose the policies of the Lobby, which in the long run may be responsible for stirring up considerable anti-semitism in the U.S. and around the world. Would it not be wonderful if an anti-Lobby organization of Jewish Americans emerged with a title like "Not in Our Name"?

Finally, given the balance of forces at play, it is difficult to discern what Bush is likely to do in the coming days and months. The punditry is now predicting an escalation of the war in Iraq (aka a "surge"), but Bush surprised once with the firing of Rumsfeld of which there was no advance hint _ quite the contrary. He is certainly under enormous pressure to alter course, and he may have to do so no matter how much he recoils from it. He may even do so after a "surge" which could be used as a smoke screen for a policy shift. But escalating the conflict even temporarily will sink his ratings below 30% and make him the most unpopular president in history. We shall see.

(John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com)