The Dogs of War

By: William Rivers Pitt

"In a battle all you need to make you fight is a little hot blood and the knowledge that it's more dangerous to lose than to win." - George Bernard Shaw

Polite language and deference to a foe are the signature characteristics of the Senate. Members refer to each other as "distinguished," and great effort is often made to make a point without being too viciously pointed.

One need only observe the friendly hand Strom Thurmond occasionally places on the shoulder of Hillary Clinton to see this politeness in action. Thurmond presided over the impeachment of Clinton's husband not long ago, yet when together the two of them appear for all the world to be long time golfing buddies.

Make no mistake, however. A full-fledged battle is about to break loose in that hallowed chamber. The indolence of August will very shortly give way to cries of "Havoc!" and the dogs of war will slip the leash. Those who have been frustrated by the apparent meekness of Senate Democrats will soon be given cause to snap their heads around in surprise.

The plan behind the relative silence of the Democrats has recently become clear. Consider our current situation under reversed circumstances. The GOP, a party filled with professional screamers, would by now be hoarse of voice from all their bellowing. They did the same during the Clinton administration, and their exertions cost them two House Speakers, not to mention a safe majority margin in Congress.

Tom Daschle is smarter than that. He and his compatriots have been giving Bush & Co. enough rope to hang themselves.

They have done so in relative silence. Yelling would have made Democrats appear the bad guys, and the airwaves would have flooded with petulant Republicans mourning the death of bipartisanship.

The silence of the Democrats has allowed the GOP to pass a ruinous tax cut, one which is causing them to try and pick the lock on Social Security and Medicare. That tax cut has also caused Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to run through the Pentagon with a scythe, slicing off a carrier battle group and about 15,000 troops, because he can't pay for them anymore. Help is definitely not on the way. The military has been had.

The silence of the Democrats allowed Bush's energy plan to pass the House. The Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve is on the chopping block, as are the basic ideals of environmental preservation. Karl Rove has been reading from the wrong set of index cards on this one, because a majority of voters care a great deal about being able to breathe.

The silence of the Democrats has allowed Bush to make a decision about stem cell research that will eventually come back to haunt him. Scientists are asking where exactly those 60 stem cell lines are, and where they came from. If the research Bush has allowed yields fruit, the question of allowing more will become pressing. Bush will not be able to dodge the pleas of sick people, especially if they are famous.

The silence of the Democrats has caused Bush's faith-based initiative to self-destruct under its own ponderous weight. The director of the program recently resigned, and questions have been raised as to whether or not the whole idea, as conceived by Bush, is too controversial to implement. Revelations that the Salvation Army intends to discriminate against gay employees under this program have not helped matters.

The silence of the Democrats has caused several Republicans to begin eating each other quite publicly over the question of judicial appointees. Senator Lott blasted Senator Leahy, the Democratic chair of the Judiciary Committee, for holding up Bush's appointments. Leahy turned around and told Lott to pound sand.

Lott had all the background information on Bush's appointees away from the Committee, thus making it impossible for them to do their work. Leahy patiently explained this, making Lott look like a sneaky little fool. On the heels of this came several angry statements by other Republicans, to the effect that the GOP's heel-dragging on appointments during the Clinton administration has turned around and bitten them on the backside. These Republicans stated publicly that the GOP caused the logjamming, and have expressed sympathy with Democrats on the subject.

Bear in mind as well that it was Lott, on the heels of the Jeffords defection, who called for open war on the Democrats. He is going to get his war in very short order, and he will live to regret his rash words.

When the Senate reconvenes, the Democrats will have quivers filled with gleamingly sharp arrows, thanks to their strategy of silence. The surplus is gone, thanks to the tax cut. Social Security and Medicare are imperiled, thanks to the tax cut. The military is weaker, thanks to the tax cut. A number of Democrats, including Kerry of Massachusetts, have vowed to do whatever is necessary to thwart any drilling in Alaska. Many members of Congress have pledged to revisit the stem cell decision.

These are all knots in the rope from which Bush's political maneuvers will soon swing. The strategy of silence is about to yield great dividends, all of which will play out against the backdrop of the onrushing 2002 elections.

Some may say that silence equals complicity, that the lack of fight from the Democrats has allowed these great evils to become reality. The fact is, however, that nothing Bush has done is carved in stone. The tax cut can be rolled back, thus restoring the surplus significantly and providing money for Social Security and Medicare. Though the House passed the drill-happy energy bill, it is not a living thing until it passes through the gauntlet of the Senate. The bill will not do well there.

All of these Bush catastrophes can and will be fixed. In the process, the GOP and Bush will appear to be exactly what they are - corporate raiders with little care for the well-being of the common American. The recent silence of the Democrats will give way to principled arguments against everything Bush has tried to do. Those arguments will resonate, and shall prevail in the end.

It will be polite, but it will be war. If the GOP thought August was hot, September will come as a nasty surprise.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 21, 2001

Answers

I'm shocked! Why, who would expect a Bush-Bashing article to appear in the 'Liberal Slant'?

Good job Debra!

-- So (cr@t.es), August 21, 2001.

Just wanted to let you know what we're talking about Soc.

;)

Besides, I don't know that there is a place to go without a 'slant'. It's only when we take all the 'slants' into consideration that we'll begin to see the whole picture, IMO.

So, what do you think? Think the dogs of war are about to slip the leash?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 21, 2001.

You're right, Debra. Liberals ARE talking about this. It's not so much 'Bush bashing' as it is 'Democrat bashing.' I've read everything from 'The Dems are wearing pink tutus.' to 'Can they walk upright after spending so much time bent over?' Personally, I laugh at a lot of it and take a 'Wait and see' attitude.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 21, 2001.

I strongly resent the racist name of this publication. I thought that Liberals were more sensitive.

-- (Xao Li Tsung @ Chop Suey.City), August 21, 2001.

Anita, have you ever read the Liberal Slant? Follow the link at the bottom of the political commentary. There is some good stuff there.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 21, 2001.

Debra: You ask a liberal if she's familiar with The Liberal Slant? Surely, you jest. If I still have time and my eyes aren't yet bleeding, I check out the editorials from ALL sides AFTER I've scoured the news. The Liberal Slant doesn't offer as much as say Online Journal, and most often they're simply rehashing or "lifting" a concept from someone else, but they're worth a weekly peruse.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 21, 2001.

"good stuff", LOL!

-- Have you (hugged@tree.today), August 21, 2001.

LOL Anita.

(Online Journal's good too)

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 21, 2001.

The Nation, The Guardian, The Progressive, Mother Jones, The Daily Worker

-- (Leon Trotsky @ the.Gulag), August 21, 2001.

The silence of the Democrats is the silence of the lambs. They have no issues. Raise taxes in a depression? Get real! The Dems have been snookered by Bush's rope-a-dope. Silence is their only recourse.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 21, 2001.

Debra: Here's an article from another liberal rag: The LA Times that discusses a book that's looking into the silence [and MAYBE the coming "Dogs of War."] I've got to ask myself, however, how this Miller guy got a middle name of Crispin. Was his mom looking at a cereal box?

LA Times article

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 23, 2001.

Anita, thanks. That was interesting.

Leon, do you have a link for the Daily Worker?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 23, 2001.

Commrade Debra,

The Daily Worker has morphed into The People's Weekly World, not to be confused with The Weekly World News.

Power to the people!

Leon

-- (Leon Trotsky @ Dmitri's.dacha), August 23, 2001.

Lars: Where, exactly, have you read [seen] that the U.S. is in a DEpression? It lookes [to me] like it's pretty hard to establish that the U.S. is in a REpression.

Where are we now?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 27, 2001.

Anita--

I was just trying to be congenial to Dems. Isn't depression how you guys would characterize it?

No, I would not call it a rePRESSION

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 27, 2001.

Lars: I'm not a Dem, so I don't know HOW THEY classify it. I just read a lot [from ALL sides.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 27, 2001.

Lars: O.K. I GI now [Maybe I should wake up and log on EVERY night.] Repression. Jeez...ReCESSION!

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 28, 2001.

Debra: Pitt posted another on the "Dogs of War", in case you didn't see it. THIS one is simply an article from the newspapers. As I said, this rag tends to rehash things one has seen elsewhere.

Who let the dogs out?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 29, 2001.