Expats Against Bush

Oops, did I say we won?

Well the blogosphere is in an uproar over Dubya's remarks at a press conference in which he disavows responsibility for the "Mission Accomplished" banner that hung on the tower of the USS Abraham Lincoln during his laughable victory speech back in May. Many others have already pointed out how demonstrably false this is, and once again journos have started to smell blood in the water as Bush seems to have stuck his foot right in it again.

What's interesting to me is that everybody seems so wrapped up in jumping up and down and screaming "Look, he lied again!" that nobody's remarking on why he lied.

If Bush were following his normal protocol, when confronted with the question about the prodigal banner he would have simply answered that we have accomplished our mission and that what's happening now is just a cleanup phase. Sure, it's an outrageous falsehood, but it's pretty par for the course with him. There would have been the usual blog outrage, but it would fall off the radar fairly quickly; he tells so many whoppers that next week's efforts almost always overshadow today's dishonesty. Our memories are short and our senses are numbed by so much disinformation.

So why did Bush distance himself from this banner? As soon as it came out you could almost hear a collective "hold on, we may have something here" from the audience. No more the brash and arrogant conquering hero, GI George stood back and denied any involvement in carping over a victory that now seems hollow and premature. The fact that he was unprepared for this question, and came out with such a surprisingly inept answer, surely indicates growing chaos within the upper echelons of the White House. They are really starting to feel the heat on Iraq, and there must be some internal pressure on Bush to start toning things down, managing our expectations. Too bad it looks like they hadn't quite finished this week's lesson. Like the little boy standing up in history class and stating that Abraham Lincoln won the Revolutionary War, Bush has made an astounding boo boo and has nowhere to hide. Bush has attempted his own brand of Lincoln-related revisionism, and it will be hard for the mainstream press not to call him on it.

I hope they do. It's taken long enough, but it looks like the press are finally waking up and asking the hard questions.

Not all of us Americans are evil

Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, has a little confession to make to Guardian readers: Not all of us Americans are evil.

My thoughts exactly.

Although I have to be honest, aside from an occasional blip, I've had nothing but good vibes from the Brits I know. Then again, it's been a long time since I've been fresh off the boat - I don't know how a newly-arrived Yank, complete with sharp twang and bright clothing, is received by John Bull.

Two words: Emperor, Clothes.

In Paul Krugman's new NYT piece A Willful Ignorance, he talks about the national state of delusion that the Bush administration has actively encouraged throughout the government, the press, and, by extension, the public consciousness, and the routine extinguishing of any meaningful debate or even discussion on the root causes of terrorism.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the major reasons we have to get together to throw Bush out on his ear. He lives in a fantasy world. If, as claimed in this piece:

President Bush was genuinely surprised to learn from moderate Islamic leaders that they had become deeply distrustful of American intentions.

Then we clearly have someone who is so out of touch with the realities of the situation in which we now find ourselves that he poses a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States. I am a student of national security, and I have watched with horror as Bush has made misstep after misstep - whereever there has been a fork in the road, Bush has invariably chosen the most shortsighted and easily-debunked path. He has left us in a position of such national vulnerability as to almost merit criminal charges.

I don't believe Bush is a bad man; I believe he is simply in way over his head, and constantly fighting to stay above water. He flails around wildly (you can see the panic in his eyes sometimes) and will grab onto anything and climb up on it to stay afloat, never noticing even then that he is drowning that which is aiding him. But this behaviour is clearly inexcusable in a national leader. We need someone who has thought 5 moves ahead in the chess game of international politics, not someone who is surprised that his pieces are not where he thought he left them.

Why's Bush coming again?

Hooray for Roy Hattersley in yesterday's Guardian who is a bit puzzled as to the reasoning behind Bush's visit next month:

Has anyone yet explained why President George W Bush is about to make a state visit to the United Kingdom? In my time at the Foreign Office, the supreme accolade of an invitation from Her Majesty was only awarded after long deliberation had convinced the prime minister and foreign secretary that Britain's national interest would be served by arranging for the king, queen or president in question to perform a number of meaningless ceremonies and eat numerous mediocre meals in the company of the royal family. What do we have to gain by feting President Bush?

Not very much, by my reckoning.

We found "terrists", but no nukes

Couple of gems from the good old Washington Post.

OK, so you invade a country. Some of the people there aren't too happy about that and start fighting back. Many people are killed.

By the way, apparently that's a good thing.

Sometimes I fantasize that Bush is sitting there in the Oval Office talking to reporters, and from somewhere off to Stage Left a giant shepherd's crook appears and yanks him out of frame.

Still, I guess suicide bombings beat mushroom clouds. Oh, except there were never going to be any of those. Apparently. Sorry about the mixup.

Antiwar movement chaos

A sure-to-be-controversial piece in Salon [subscription] today on the antiwar movement and its self-destructive nature:

The rally was just the latest example of liberal confusion and mixed messages over postwar Iraq, as progressives try to figure out how to oppose Bush's policies in a way that doesn't punish the Iraqi people for the administration's mendacity. Angry at the way Iraq's reconstruction has turned into a bonanza for Bush's corporate cronies, powerful Democrats along with some Republicans have tried to block grants to rebuild Iraq, and progressive groups have adopted nativist arguments insisting that Americans' money should be spent in America. What's lost in such reasoning, of course, is any sympathy for beleaguered Iraqis, whose misfortune it was to live under Saddam Hussein, and be liberated by a president who lied to his own people and alienated the world.

This is a refreshingly candid look at the current state of the antiwar movement. Now that the war is "over" at least in terms of the conquest phase, the makeup of the antiwar movement (as measured by the protesters) has changed, apparently shifting from Joe Public to Stalinist Sue and Anarchist Amy.

I personally don't think we just just up stakes and leave Iraq. That is just not viable. We made the mess, it's up to us to clean it up. We have to face facts, we are running an Occupation. Even if (please America) Bush is thrown out on his ear next year, whoever succeeds him will still have to deal with an American presence in Iraq. That's simply all there is to it. Even if the UN steps in in a significant way, it's still our mess.

But we don't have to like it. And we can't let Bush forget he's the one that got us into this mess.

I have to admit (much to my chagrin) I didn't get involved in the antiwar protests in London back before the war - partly due to laziness and/or scheduling conflicts, to be sure. But I also had a sense of unease at sharing a platform with some of the groups that fell (and presumably still fall) under the antiwar umbrella. I wanted to express my extreme disapproval of the war, but at the same time I didn't want to pick up the paper and see a picture of me standing next to someone burning an American flag or carrying the slogan of some totally irrelevant (to an anti-war protest) activist group.

I've always felt that progressive protests shoot themselves in the foot to one degree or another by not staying on-message and by encouraging every radical with a bongo drum and a whistle to join in the "fun", whether or not it actually advances the cause. I was impressed with the massive antiwar protests in London because it was the everyday man and woman that came out to march, rather than the "professional protesters" that will show up to any progressive protest regardless of the protest's goals. What does Joe Public think when he sees the same group of shrill, screeching radicals show up at every demo? He might actually agree with the message of the protest, but as soon as he sees the Professional Demonstrator he thinks "f*cking hippies" and turns the channel in disgust.

Everyone's obviously entitled to their way of protest, don't get me wrong. When CNN reports that 100,000 people march on Hyde Park or on DC, I suppose the makeup of the protesters doesn't matter that much. But there's no denying that the progressive movement suffers from regular and predictable PR problems. I mean, for Pete's sake, how does International ANSWER, the group behind the protests covered in the Salon article, think it's going to get across to the mainstream public when it's sponsored by the Stalinist Workers Party? That ain't gonna fly.

Now where does that leave us? Well I for one am still going to march against Bush in November, no matter what the placards and banners around me say. My conscience demands it. But I will do so in a manner which best represents my status as an Expat Against Bush: calm, reasoned and purposeful. I hope other expat Americans will join me.

No doubt there will be people marching alongside us whose messages we may not completely agree with. Politics (and protests) make strange bedfellows. You can only represent yourself at the end of the day, just make sure it's done in a way that you're able to live with years down the line. And make sure you're marching for the right cause, and for the right reasons.

UPDATE

Since I first posted this, I've seen this post on the Belligerent Bunny Blog. While I totally disagree with much of Anna's conclusions and it's pretty clear we wouldn't get along politically, you can see the kind of foolishness I was talking about above. It's possible that a backlash against progressive demos could come out of images like this. That's not what anyone wants.

An old family friend wrote to say:

We dealt with that constantly during Vietnam. A half million people could march, and the media focused on the twenty people snake dancing and screaming through the crowd beneath a Soviet Union flag. Still, once you start limiting people's access to demos, you set up ridiculous problems. They end up sniping at you (this back when that meant bad words not bullets), claiming you don't believe in free speech etc., and the conservative columnists leap on that. And they legitimately claim, why do you keep me out and let them in? All you can do is hope that most people get the message about the majority of demonstators, and not the loud and colorful few.

Al Jazeera on the upcoming Bush visit

Interesting. Whilst parsing Google I came across this article on al Jazeera's website which discusses the various ways in which Dubya's visit in November is being scaled back in anticipation of the protests which are spiralling into legendary status.

I know that al Jazeera are probably not Dubya's biggest fans (who is?) but it is interesting to see that they're cottoning on to Bush's PR problems four weeks before he even gets here. I hadn't realised the Ramadan angle either. That's got to have potential for additional bad feeling amongst the Brit Muslim contingent.

Political leanings of the expat community?

Bill over at Outside Counsel has posted a link to ExpatsAgainstBush along with an intriguing question:

Actually, it would be interesting to see how Americans overseas shake out on the question of current US leadership. Even if you were to somehow control for American military stationed abroad, I think they would still be overwhelmingly Republican, but that's just a hunch.

Hmmm. I've no doubt the military arm of the expat community is pretty conservative, but I wonder about the civvies.

If you accept that the expat community are generally going to be middle class and well educated, then where does that leave us? I will go out here on a limb and say that those of us who have embraced moving abroad as a choice and an exploration would probably be of a more liberal disposition. Then again, that's just my hunch. I wonder about the political leanings of those who view their expatriate status as a burden rather than a privilege. Then again the desire to stay close to one's family is universal, as is the desire to explore, so all this may just be conjecture.

But there's a factor in the expatriate community that must be allowed for: unless you live in a walled off compound (Bahrain anyone?) surrounded by other Yanks, you're going to be influenced a bit by the natives, especially if you like them and respect them. I'm definitely more liberal than I was when I moved to London. This is not an impressionable college student here. I've just found that you get exposed to a much larger range of opinions and facts than you would back home.

I am in no way anti-American, and neither would I expect are the vast majority of the expat community. I love my country and will return there someday. But we live in a world which is increasingly distrustful of America (unless you watch Fox), and there's no denying that living out there in that world has an influence on expat opinion, for good or evil. I've not heard any gung-ho expats chiming in yet, but I've gotten links and emails from any number of liberal expats.

Surely there are conservative expats? Where are they? Are they blogging? Is it just deeply uncool to be a pro-Bush expat?

He can dish it out....

.... but he certainly can't take it.

The consequences of his little war, that is. Let's just sweep all this under the carpet, shall we? Let's all tune into Fox and play like happy children, there, that's better.

I guess "Bring 'em on" didn't refer to coffins. Am I missing something?

Hearing that "3 soldiers died today" has become strangely anodyne. It's just a meaningless statistic. Rarely do we hear the names of these soldiers or how they died. And apparently we won't be seeing any funerals either. I wonder if the local press are reporting on the bodies coming home to the small towns of America.

How dare you wear a flight suit and strut about on an aircraft carrier, even as you hang our boys out as bait? How dare you praise them even as you try to bury them? Even the ones that come home only half-dead are getting the shaft.

Does anyone else really, really want to see Bush in a debate with one of the Democratic candidates? He would get his throat ripped out.

Anyway, on to bigger and brighter things. Have had a couple more links coming in, big big thanks to Follow Me Here for a whole heaping load of traffic, and to fUSION Anomalog and (Southern Cross) Words as well.

Bush Heckled in Ozzie Parliament

In a sort of vindication of the Bush team's decision not to have Bush address the House of Commons here in the UK in November, apparently he was heckled when he addressed Parliament in Oz. All I can say is, boys, good on ya!

And Mr Bush, you just wait till you get here. You ain't seen protests yet!

Adam Morris on Expat Pundits

This is a bit old (only about a month) but good - Adam Morris, an expat himself and part of the Open Source Politics site, wrote a nice piece about the unique perspective that expats such as ourselves can give on the burning issues of the day. It's a nice pat-ourselves-on-the-back piece that boils the issue down succinctly.

Where are the other candidates?

I have to say that in my limited Googling conducted on behalf of this site, I've been well impressed with the online support behind Howard Dean in the expat community, and a bit puzzled at the apparent lack of a visible expat support network for the other candidates. The Dean phenomenon is well-documented, even so I was surprised at the scale of the expat supporters, and at their organisation.

That being said, this is a candidate-neutral site until the official Democratic candidate is chosen next year, so I want to hear from the other candidates' expat supporters? Where're the Clark, Gephardt, Kerry or Lieberman expats? Chime in, send me some links and I'll get them on here.

PS You may from time to time notice what appear to be spelling errors in some words (e.g. "organisation"). I've actually just worked in London so long that English spellings and phrases have crept into my writing. I apologise (sic) for any distress.

Bush a liability to the GOP

In the past few months we've finally begun to see signs of cracks in the foundation of the Bush Administration. The mainstream American media are finally waking up from the self-imposed hibernation they've been in since 9/11, and starting to smell blood in the water.

Every once in a while there's a news story that puts a smile on my face. Take for instance a piece by the Washington Post that Jesse Berney over at the Democratic Party blog has flagged to our attention. It appears that some Republicans are sensing a sea change and starting to put some distance between themselves and the administration.

To me, this is great news for 2 reasons. One is that there is a sea change occurring, the other is that it's actually being reported by the American mainstream media. I've been pretty appalled at the docile way in which the American media has been shying away from the hard questions the last couple of years, and being exposed to the media here in the UK on a daily basis.... well, there's just no comparison.

I have Sky, the satellite service, and all the news channels are bunched together so you can hop from channel to channel comparing the variations in coverage. Sky News, well, pretty unremarkable really. BBC 24, always my first stop. CNN International... OK as long as they're not in debate mode. Then we come to Fox. Well I'm not going to beat a dead horse, but 3 things always happen when I click onto Fox. 1) I turn the volume down. Why does Fox have to be so damned loud? Maybe it's because hot air forces shouting. 2) I turn the channel, because I can't stand more than a few seconds of chest-thumping, flag-waving propaganda at a time. 3) I wonder, why the hell is Fox even allowed out of the country? who in the UK would ever depend on Fox to get their news? (Answer: Fox is on Sky because Rupert says so).

Anyway, enough ranting. Just glad to see some good news.

New friends

Thanks to everyone that's linked to the site already, just in the last day!

First off there's my good friend Kevin C Murphy who's been in the blogging business since day one, with his excellent Ghost in the Machine. Kevin used to help write speeches for a certain Mr Carville, so he knows a thing or two about politics.

Secondly, Corinne of the Howard Dean UK group and Dean04Worldwide was kind enough to provide a link, for which I am very grateful, and Kristy of Web Goddess fame has chimed in as well.

Hopefully with the help of these first few link-ins we can spread the word and get more and more expats involved in the fight!

Wanted: Poster and Banner ideas

Over the next couple of weeks ExpatsAgainstBush.org will be creating some banners and posters in downloadable PDF form that will be suitable for use in antiwar and other protests.

We have quite a few ideas down already, but we would appreciate any suggestions as to slogans that would be appropriate for banners or posters. We're looking for short, sharp statements that convey that we are American and we're not happy with Bush.

For instance:

I AM AMERICAN
I AM ASHAMED

Any ideas will be gratefully considered.

November 20th: London protest against Bush state visit

On November 19th-21st, George Bush will be in the UK on the first official State Visit of a sitting President of the United States in the 52 years that Queen Elizabeth has sat on the throne. He will stay in Buckingham Palace, and the red carpet will surely be rolled out for him - but only inside the gates of the Palace.

Outside the gates, which he likely won't pass through on the ground, will be turmoil. Bush himself will be arriving (and presumably departing) via helicopter, and will in typical fashion be shielded from any negative protest actions or hostile crowds. In fact, not only has the once-mooted triumphal motorcade down the Mall been canceled due to fears of a massive PR disaster, but a visit to the House of Commons has also been ruled out for fear that the Blair government can't even trust his own party's MPs not to cause a disruption. Classic.

What will happen is a massive Stop Bush protest in London on the 20th of November, which is being organized by the folks at the UK Stop the War coalition. You will recall their very successful large-scale protests in the runup to the Iraq war, which saw an unprecedented groundswell of everyday people coming out to voice their displeasure at the unfolding events.

I want a visible American expatriate presence in the Stop Bush protest. I have talked to the Stop the War folks and they are happy for us to come on board. I will be making up placards and other materials to identify us as Americans, so that we can show the world that we are here and we are unhappy. We have been under-represented so far, but we need to start standing up and getting organized.

This is an open call for protesters for November 20th. If you're in London or can get to London, you're American, and you want to stand up and be counted, get in touch!

ExpatsAgainstBush.org is Live

Hi all and welcome to the inaugural post at the new weblog for ExpatsAgainstBush.org, hosted by the kind folks at TypePad.

My name is Luke Robinson and I'm starting this site because as an expatriate American I feel sometimes as if I'm a bit distant from the political process at home.

I feel like as one of the three million or so Americans living abroad that we are under-represented in the grander political picture.

I know that a significant percentage of us have watched in embarrassed horror over the past 2 years as the current administration has squandered the world's goodwill with increasingly shortsighted, incompetent and perplexing domestic and foreign policy choices.

I want to get involved, I want to do my part, and I want to help make progressive American expatriates a player in the international political game. We have a voice. We have an unique perspective on world events because we can see the daily effect that Bush's failed agenda is having on our world.

My intent on this site is to provide a resource to expats who want to get organized and tell the world they've had enough, and to help expats prepare for the 2004 Presidential Campaign from abroad.

For the record this site is candidate-independent until the 2004 Democratic Convention in July, when we will throw our small weight behind the official Democratic contender and begin organizing absentee ballot drives. That does not mean that we do not welcome non-Democrats at all; it merely reflects the realities of the current political situation, which is that the best chance of getting Bush out of office will indoubtedly come out of the Democratic Party.

Over the next few weeks I will be providing details of news and events relating to the upcoming campaign, as well as country- and city-specific details of upcoming protests and meetings.

Now let's get started.