Bush's Watergate?

Could Abu Ghraib prove to be George W. Bush's Watergate?

Short answer: I don't know, but I doubt it. Now I haven't read the latest Sy Hersh piece yet, or any of the current Newsweek stories, so my opinion might not be as well-informed as it could be. But I think if this is what brings Bush down, we might not even know it for a long while to come.

The first problem with the Watergate analogy has to do with the political landscape. If you go back and look at how events played out in '73 and '74, the erosion of Nixon's support as new revelations came to light, there does seem to be a parallel to how events are unfolding now. But remember, at the time of Watergate Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. They had all the investigative machinery at their disposal--and they had the support of a few within the Republican Party (e.g. Howard Baker) who were motivated by some combination of principle and pragmatism, and worried that the Nixon scandals could relegate them to the minority forever if they didn't show up on the right side of history (and the news). So pressure from Congress--and possibly the armed forces and/or other institutional actors, depending on how far down the rabbit hole one chooses to travel in contemplation of "who was Deep Throat"--helped bring all that stuff (the crooked fundraising, the IRS abuses, the CIA stuff, the dirty tricks on the campaign trail) to public attention.

Now, I actually believe that when the history of this time is written, we're going to see a similar array of shady doings (and that's an understatement). I don't generally think of myself as a conspiracy fetishist, but I do believe that the same type of hands-off, if-I-don't-see-it-it's-not-real "management" that led to Abu Ghraib has manifested itself in all kinds of other areas. If you really want to get your blood boiling, check out the current issue of Mother Jones--it could be Your Infurational Reading--and learn about the contracting/outsourcing abuses tied into this Iraq war. Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) has all but admitted that this stuff is going on, but just chalks it up to business as usual during wartime.

Unfortunately, the probable extent of the scandals makes it less likely that this extremely partisan Congress will okay any serious investigation into the wrongdoing. It would take a mass defection of the Republican moderates--McCain, Chafee, Snowe, Collins--out of the Party for the investigative wheels to turn out of the control of administration allies like VA Sen. John Warner, whom I doubt will let this get to a point where it could really cripple the president. I also don't think there's a John Dean or Elliott Richardson or any other people of integrity left inside the Bush administration who would stand up and say "This is wrong." And the biggest difference between Dick Nixon and Dick Cheney is that, without a question, Cheney would have burned the tapes...

Big Difference Number Two from Watergate to today is the media environment. Bush has a quarter of the population mobilized 24/7 thanks to Fox News, right-wing radio and their echo chamber/enablers in the "mainstream media." The reporters can't do it themselves in a world where their corporate bosses are often huge Republican loyalists. Sy Hersh obviously is still out there, and some of the Washington Post reporters have shown signs of life, and even the Wall Street Journal has some pretty good investigative journalists. But I'm very skeptical that a media establishment in which Greg Palast, the very best of his kind in America, can't get a job (he mostly works for the BBC) will give whatever they find a significant airing. If the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, and the lies about billions of dollars in the Medicare farce didn't get people riled up, what will? Yes, maybe the pictures do make that much of a difference, but we're starting from a place in which a large chunk of public opinion doesn't seem to mind that these dark-skinned furriners got whut wuz comin' to 'em.

Where this really hurts us, for now, is in the court of world opinion. I don't like to write this, but the chance to "succeed" in Iraq is likely gone; we probably should think about least-worst options for disengaging there. Eventually, the right-wingers who see foreign affairs through Mussolini's prism of "many enemies, much honor" will be outnumbered by those who understand on pragmatic grounds that the venality and thuggishness condoned, if not mandated, by the Bush Administration has made the world a more difficult place for Americans. Political re-alignment could follow, and presumably a Democrat--or. maybe, a responsible Republican who adheres to real conservative values--will come along to start cleaning up the mess.

But it will take years to do so. And that doesn't even address the damage they're doing to the economy...

I do think Bush will be defeated this November, if they allow us a relatively fair election. But the verdict of history will be far more harsh than whatever verdict the voters are likely to render.