Verbosities

The entire government has failed us on Iraq - Countdown with Keith Olbermann - MSNBC.com

The Democratic nomination is likely to be decided... tomorrow.

The talk of practical politics, the buying into of the President’s dishonest construction “fund-the-troops-or-they-will-be-in-jeopardy,” the promise of tougher action in September, is falling not on deaf ears, but rather falling on Americans who already told you what to do, and now perceive your ears as closed to practical politics.

Those who seek the Democratic nomination need to—for their own political futures and, with a thousand times more solemnity and importance, for the individual futures of our troops—denounce this betrayal, vote against it, and, if need be, unseat Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi if they continue down this path of guilty, fatal acquiescence to the tragically misguided will of a monomaniacal president.

Don't ever say Olbermann never goes after the left after this. The triangulation and dancing on the head of a pin is sickening. That people believe the troops will be left unequipped, stranded, and in unnecessary danger if a blank check doesn't hit the president's desk is an absolute travesty of dishonest marketing-speak which has turned the entire issue into a discussion not about the legitimacy and/or righteousness of a war, but instead about the safety and support of our troops in the middle of it.





Glenn Greenwald - Salon

What does seem clear is that one of the principal factors accounting for the reluctance of Democrats to advocate de-funding is that the standard corruption that infects our political discourse has rendered the de-funding option truly radioactive. Republicans and the media have propagated -- and Democrats have frequently affirmed -- the proposition that to de-fund a war is to endanger the "troops in the field."



This unbelievably irrational, even stupid, concept has arisen and has now taken root -- that to cut off funds for the war means that, one day, our troops are going to be in the middle of a vicious fire-fight and suddenly they will run out of bullets -- or run out of gas or armor -- because Nancy Pelosi refused to pay for the things they need to protect themselves, and so they are going to find themselves in the middle of the Iraq war with no supplies and no money to pay for what they need. That is just one of those grossly distorting, idiotic myths the media allows to become immovably lodged in our political discourse and which infects our political analysis and prevents any sort of rational examination of our options.



That is why virtually all political figures run away as fast and desperately as possible from the idea of de-funding a war -- it's as though they have to strongly repudiate de-funding options because de-funding has become tantamount to "endangering our troops"

This isn't a pass for the Democrats. Olbermann's dead right when he asserts that the people elected the Democratic majority to end this war. You can talk about the weakness of the majority and inability to override vetoes all you want, but we're nearly six months into this legislature's tenure, and there's not a single pelt on the walls of Pelosi or Reid that symbolizes a victory on the issue of Iraq*. There hasn't been political retribution that forces the administration to triangulate their position, there's no bitter pill for them to swallow, nothing.



What's the consequence of sending the same supplemental Bush vetoed back to him two, three, eleven more times until he's forced to sign it? That you'll have to go on the Sunday shows to explain yourselves? That in the next election cycle your move to end the war will be painted as "weak on national security?" That somehow you believe the talking points shift to assign Democrats all the "blame" for the failures in Iraq if you legislate the withdrawal?



I think the leadership believes Bush is not only continuing to singe his political legacy, but is torching the whole of the Republican party by association. I think the leadership is confident the handling of this war won't improve the situation, and I think they think 2008's election cycle could result in a Democratic administration and even a Democratic super-majority in both houses.



I still think it's bullshit. Democratic legislators were elected to end this war. So end it already - it's what we're paying you to do.



*Nor is there a pelt on Waxman's wall yet, but I think he's a hell of a lot closer with his oversight than Pelosi and Reid are on the war.

Powered by ScribeFire.