The Emperor Bush and his clothes

By Ellen Ratner
President Bush has not had a good week, even his friends are starting to say, ''The Emperor has no clothes,'' especially as it pertains to the Iraq war and the deteriorating Middle East security situation.



Former Speaker Newt Gingrich spoke in a no holds barred interview with Greta Van Susteren on Friday evening saying, ''I think we ought to have the nerve to look it in the eye and understand. We were just defeated in a small war by Iran, Syria, and the terrorists in Hezbollah.''

Speaker Gingrich went on, ''What I find worrisome is that the administration is convincing itself this is a victory. The administration is saying Hezbollah was defeated. I don't see any evidence that Hezbollah or Iran or Syria see this as anything but a great victory. And so I think the administration is frankly completely out of touch with reality in south Lebanon right now. I don't understand why and I don't understand what's going on at the State Department and the White House that would lead them to be this far away from the real world.''

Then came Senator Chuck Hagel on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. He said, ''We don't have any good options. We've got a mess on our hands in the Middle East. We've got two wars. We just lost four Americans yesterday in Afghanistan. Things aren't going well there. We've got a peace in Lebanon that is barely holding. '' Senator Hagel favors direct talks with Hezbollah, Iran and Syria.

What both men alluded to is what is obvious, the traditional methods of war are not working here and the administration is insisting on a strategy that panders to its base but has no basis in reality.

Nineteenth-century military theorist Karl von Clausewitz wrote that war is an extension of politics by other means. Yet the Bush administration is unable to use war to achieve any type of political victory except within its own territory. The cost of the Iraq war is over $308 billion dollars and tens of thousands of lives, but peace has never been further away. Sectarian violence has been at an all-time high in July. According to the August 15 edition of the New York Times, over 3,400 Iraqi civilians died in July – 110 per day.

Newt and Chuck are stating the obvious about Lebanon. There is a domino effect taking place in the Middle East and it's not a tip towards ''pro western democracies.'' Hamas won the election in Israel back in January. Most recently Hezbollah has wounded Israel's reputation as arguably one of the finest militaries in the world. The only one saying Israel won is George W. Bush. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is invoking the destruction of Israel as often as Bush invokes the War on Terror. The difference is that Mahmoud can buy and ship a lot of Qassam Rockets with oil steadily above $70 a barrel and he seems to be quite adept at war by proxy given Iran's influence in Iraq and Lebanon.

There was a famous bumper sticker in the 60s that said, ''War is not healthy for children or other living things.'' It looks like other living things includes George Bush's political career.

Glasnost for the U.S.

By
I often sit next to the Russian Tass reporter in the White House press briefing room. Lately I've seen my Russian colleague smiling and shaking his head a lot. I often ask him why he's smiling. He frequently comments on how little information the press is given in both countries. His country's leadership can spin and mislead as well as mine. He marvels at the similarity between the Kremlin and the White House. The Russians did, however, have one brief shining moment.



In 1985, then Soviet Party Chief Mikhail Gorbachev began a revolution toward Democracy. He called it ''Glasnost'' which in Russia means ''openness.'' He began his quest of Glasnost in the hope that pressure would build on people in his party to support economic restructuring, which he called Perestroika. Archives opened up, the press wrote the truth about Stalin, privileges of the ruling class were exposed and people began to have a positive feeling about the government.


The Bush government doesn't speak Russian when it comes to Glasnost. The administration's appetite for secrecy would rival that of any Russian leader. The only problem is they are governing America, not Russia. Openness and transparency are founding principles of our nation. Now even congressional Republicans have added their voices to the chorus of congressional discontent – a chorus that up until now was mostly made up of Democrats. They want openness and honesty (as in honor) restored to the White House. According to Congress Daily, this week House Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis and Energy Subcommittee Chair Darrell Issa, (both Republicans), accused the Interior Department of giving oil companies a multi-billion dollar windfall by erasing provisions from offshore drilling contracts. Davis and Issa want the e-mails and documents to clear up who did this. But so far ''mums the word'' from the Department of the Interior – color me surprised.

Another Republican, Sen. Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, went after his own party's administration for keeping Intelligence Committee reports on Iraq classified just ''cause.'' Roberts says the reports, ''better informs the public, but that does not, I repeat, does not jeopardize intelligence methods.'' He went on to say that his committee would stand for nothing less than the declassification of this material and he added, ''Neither will the American people.''

This week's cloaking of the real truth did not limit itself to hiding information about Iraq or making oil companies richer. The Bush administration even went so far as to as stonewall a Commerce Department report on the overseas loss of jobs to the American worker. It released a 12-page summary last September, but as National Journal reported, Tennessee Democratic Rep., Bart Gordon, found that the summary had ''downplayed the significance of off-shoring'' among a host of other omissions he found by comparing the final report with the summary. It had taken Gordon almost a year to get his hands on the final report. If the Bush administration was responsible for writing Cliff Notes, ''The Jungle,'' by Upton Sinclair, would have been a nice story about a family-owned meat packing plant.

Speaking of classics, Americans are starting to feel like it's the year 1984. An innocent trip to the library yields an electronic trail for Big Brother to track and retain. Now Big Brother doesn't even want us to know how the computer matter we read in a library can be tracked. This week Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with four Connecticut librarians when she ordered a lower court to fully disclose FBI records concerning the FBI's tracking of a library user who might be using a computer during a certain 45 minute period in 2005. Remember the Mad Magazine cartoons of the spy sitting on the back bumper of a Soviet car with a listening device? This is hardly different.

Finishing off the week was the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication's resolution condemning the ''anti-press'' policies taken by the Bush administration. The Association resolution asks the Bush administration to stop the control of information. Their concerns include reclassification of documents and the intimidation of journalists.

So does the Bush administration sound like the old Soviets? Or even the new Russia? Maybe Bush and Putin really did have that understanding when President Bush looked into Putin's eyes – they both understand secrecy. But President Bush is still accountable to the American people and they are saying in one voice, the time is now – Glasnost for us too.

What would Kissinger do?

By Ellen Ratner
The Syrian Embassy in Washington, D.C. is less than three miles away from the State Department but it might as well be in Antarctica given the amount of communication that has taken place between the Syrian Ambassador to the United States and our State Department.



According to Ambassador Imad Moustapha, he has not had contact with the diplomats from the United States in a year and a half. Jim Pinkerton, my Fox News sparring partner, and I did what our State Department refuses to do, we paid a personal visit to Ambassador Moustapha. We also did something else our State Department refuses to do, we went to the Ambassador's homeland to see Syria for ourselves. The Ambassador was cordial and extended the warm hospitality of his culture by sharing Syrian coffee and pleasant conversation with us. He did not say much for a former academic but certainly seemed open to discussion.


The same was true when we went to Syria. Everyone talked freely, and offered opinions with respect to the state of the strained U.S.-Syrian relations. The college students we met at the University of Damascus, when asked who their favorite American journalist was, enthusiastically stated, ''Thomas Friedman.'' Yes, they knew he was Jewish. They appreciated his insight and candor. The Syrian college students were more engaged with U.S. policy (and one of their favorite American actors, Will Smith), than we are with their leadership. Go figure.

The current crisis in the Middle East is neither child's play nor a time for tit-for-tat and gratuitous flexing of egos. The crisis has all of the elements that began World War I, a pointless war, that resulted in an even larger war.

Diplomacy, or lack thereof, can get caught up in that all too familiar junior high school/family feud dynamic. Sunday's edition of the New York Times details historical negotiations that have been bogged and broken down to the peril of all parties. Sometimes the breakdown is a matter of form over function. The Times list includes the shape of the table in the 1969 Vietnam talks, the speaking time allotted for Jordan and Palestinian leaders in the 1991 Middle East talks, and the location of the 2001 Israeli-Palestinian truce talks – all resulting in negative outcomes.

But leadership involves getting beyond these dynamics. Leadership means getting beyond, ''I am mad so I won't talk to you.'' Leadership means talking to people you don't want to talk to. Making sure there is some kind of ongoing diplomatic relationship with a country that might hold the keys to securing a cease-fire, as well as tone down Hezbollah, does not seem to be rocket (or even missile) science.

As I write this article, Secretary Rice is winging her way back to the United States after a weekend of terrible violence in Lebanon with mounting civilian casualties. The State Department says they canceled her trip to Lebanon. Lebanon said they canceled Secretary Rice. But, if you look at the map, there are other countries in the region that America's diplomat in chief could have visited. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and of course, Syria are all stakeholders in this current conflict.

What would former statesmen and women have done in the same situation? I cannot imagine that Henry Kissinger would not have hopped on a plane and landed in Syria, even if Syria had said that they did not want him. In fact, he made at least ten trips to Syria and countless others to the region while he sat in Secretary Rice's chair. In 1973, he helped obtain a cease-fire between Egypt and Israel and then he spent months shuttling back and forth working to achieve real and measurable peace with Egypt. Kissinger also worked with the Syrians so that the border with Israel would be secure.

Children play a game of ''let's pretend.'' Governments can't afford to.

Secretary Rice and President Bush are pretending that Syria isn't in the game or even in the room, except when they want to parade out a boogeyman to blame for instability in Iraq. They have written Syria off as being part of any solution.

This is not new behavior for the Bushies. The word around the State Department right after Bush became president was, ''Do the opposite of whatever the Clinton administration did.'' This explains why Korea and the Middle East were initially ignored. Eventually however, they both got the attention of this administration. It looks as if Secretary Rice would like to return to the ''talk to the hand'' school of international relations. It is time to stop worrying about protocol and egos and start exhibiting real leadership before things get beyond anyone's ability to stop the spiraling violence.

Democrats to 'minimum wage' war

By Ellen Ratner
Democrats are hoping the minimum wage will do for them what gay marriage did for the Republicans. Get out the vote. The key to this year's mid-term elections is going to be voter turnout. People caring enough about a stated issue of a proposed candidate/party to come out of their homes and vote.



Republicans are still putting up gay marriage ballot initiatives in hopes they'll succeed in yet another election. Democrats have searched for their "get out the vote issue" and may have found two winning themes: Iraq and minimum wage.

Unless things make a quick turn around and Americans stop being injured and killed, the Dems can count on voters in certain districts to be angry enough to vote. But, is it enough to seal the deal? Not yet. They need a pocket-book issue. One that Sally Soccer Mom and Joe Lunch Pail can identify with. Gas prices certainly weigh in here, but what really can be relied on to get voters mad is when the folks in Washington decide they're going to live way better than the average American.


So, two weeks ago the Democratic leadership came up with their gay marriage item. A minimum wage increase. Traditionally, that does get many people to leave their homes, but this time the Dems are hoping to tap into that 1994 Newt Gingrich voter rage. They are planning on legislation that ties any raise in congressional pay to a raise in the minimum wage.

Taxpayers and working people should be outraged. The statistics are overwhelming. In a report titled "Their Fair Share," Senator Kennedy's staff documents that since the last time minimum wage was increased in 1997, the president's salary has increased 100 percent and congressional salaries have increased 24 percent. That 24 percent was accomplished by eight pay raises since 1997. Current pay for a member of Congress is $165,000 and will be $168,500 if the current House passed pay raise is approved by the Senate.

Today a family of three making minimum wage makes $10,700 per year, which is about $6,000 less than the poverty line for a family of three. The value of the minimum wage has declined since the last raise by almost 21 percent. Now, a worker has to work 80 hours at minimum wage to afford any two bedroom apartment in any state in the country. Six and a half million workers would get a pay increase if the minimum was increased. That's a big boost to the economy in terms of spending power and opportunity for Americans less fortunate but who are hard working. States with a higher minimum wage have not found any harm to their economy.

College tuition has increased 36 percent in public two-year colleges and 45 percent in public four-year colleges. Without serious academic or athletic talent there is no way children of families living on minimum wage can get ahead and become part of the American dream.

Those who make minimum wage don't tend to vote at a high rate, but Americans respond to fairness. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool arch conservative will admit that eight pay increases for Congress and none for Americans who work at minimum wage jobs is just not fair.

The Democrats need to make these facts known by ads on the Internet, TV and radio. By appealing to Americans' sense of fairness, and stopping the kings and queens of Congress from making laws that benefit themselves and not the American people, they will get out the vote and win.

So, how is democracy working Mr. President?

By Ellen Ratner
Once it was apparent there were no ''weapons of mass destruction'' in Iraq, President Bush's justification for invading Iraq morphed into a broader security argument. His premise was that democracies are inherently more stable and peaceful than any other form of government. President Bush surmised that democracy would break out in the Middle East. Iraq would be the shining example for others to follow – oil and American-made SUVs for everyone.



Democracy is budding in the Middle East, but it is anything but stable or friendly to U.S. interests and security, economic or otherwise. Iran has a hard-line extremist running the country who denies the Holocaust ever happened. Iraq's religious leaders have more power than any elected governing body. The misery index continues to rise, along with the violence. A free election also brought Hamas to power in Israel. Hamas took over the new Palestinian parliament in January of 2006 and the peace process has been on a downward slide ever since. Remember Hamas? They are the ones who claim they will not rest until Israel is the size of a postage stamp.


Lebanon also has a political party whose primary platform plank is the destruction of Israel. The party's name is Hezbollah. Like Hamas, before they took control of the entire Palestinian parliament, Hamas pretty well controlled Gaza, just as we are seeing that Hezbollah controls Lebanon. And it doesn't take a Mossad agent to know that Hezbollah and Hamas both receive aid from Iran.

The U.S. has done Iran an enormous favor by invading Iraq. We got rid of their No. 1 enemy, Saddam Hussein. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction had gotten rusty and turned into duds, but he had an enormous standing army that he didn't mind sending into Iran. The two nations kept each other in a state of arrested violence. With Iran's enemy Saddam Hussein out of power, Iran began to feel more empowered. It has allowed Iran to become the super power in the region.

The Iraq war caused us to take our eye off of Iran. While we were busy fighting in Iraq, Iran was busy developing new strategies and new weapons, including drones. Saddam had only one drone, Iran now has enough that they can afford to export them to Hezbollah. While insurgents (Shiites and Sunnis) were blowing up oil pipelines in Iraq, Iran was making the money to continue supporting terrorism by selling its oil to the world, namely to our friends in China and Russia.

Thanks to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the borders between Mideast states have become very porous, allowing Iran to fund and supply the region's renegades with impunity. The average man on the street in Iraq armed with an AK-47 and some explosives now believes he can take on a real superpower – The United States Of America. Hezbollah has been acquiring rocket missiles for years. They have made their way from Iran to Syria to southern Lebanon. According to a State Department source, Hezbollah has thousands of rockets.

We have tried force in the region. We have tried democracy. Yet the region is more unstable than at any time in recent memory. Our only option is diplomacy and economic incentives. Two and a half years ago I was in Syria. The European Union was there at the same time on a trade mission. They get it. Engage them economically. Every secretary of state with the exception of Secretary Rice has been to Syria. Secretary Warren Christopher spent the better part of two weeks during the Clinton administration in Syria. Secretary Rice has yet to travel to the region during this current crisis.

We have let the European Union take the lead on diplomacy with Iran. It is time that we stepped up to the plate and take a more active role in the Iran-Syria incentives sweepstakes. Politics is a chess game, and when we leave an open square someone else steps in. It has been important to the voters in South Florida that we not engage directly with Castro's Cuba. Instead, we are spending $80 million dollars beaming television and radio signals to their populace hoping to put democracy in place when Castro dies. Nothing has changed in 45 years. Let's not make the same mistake with Iran and Syria. It is time to engage in real diplomacy with real incentives from the free world and real concessions on the part of Iran and Syria.

As for democracy, President Vladimir Putin said it best when pressed about the state of democracy in Russia. After President Bush told reporters at the G-8 summit that he had told the Russian leader that people in the U.S. wanted Russia to promote the sort of democratic institutions that exist in Iraq, Mr. Putin's response was: ''To be honest, we certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq.''