Letters to the Editor
-
Simple answers to simple questions
am I the only one who noticed that Petreaus sounds an awful lot like "betray us"?
No.
<http://www.hoffmania.com/blog/2007/09/from-the-pen--3.html>
-
You raise some interesting points
Mr Greenwald, but really I don't think we should judge these things until Gen. Petraeus delivers his report in September.
-
Evenson:
I mean, yes, it's plainly obvious to anyone with half a brain that not only is that what she meant, but more importantly, the impression she meant to convey, but technically, what she actually said is not a lie, but is actually just meaningless foolishness.
I didn't say that Matalin's statement about Americans believing the war can be won is a lie. I said that claim was dubious . The claim I said was a lie is her claim that most Americans now support the war.
-
kinfalk
As long as we are on Bush's topic, it's all about him.
And that's what the little narcissist wants, isn't it?
***
That a lame duck is getting away with setting the topic of discussion is more than absurd...it's catastrophic.
The Democrats' formulation - for better or for worse - is the exact converse. Some time ago, the Democrats in Congress were faced with a pivotal fork in the road. Do they work tirelessly to put an unequivocal end to the occupation (risking, in their eyes, the "stabbed in the back" millstone), or do they protest and complain about the occupation but do nothing substantively to stop it, hoping that anger over Iraq will overwhelm the 2008 election and ensure that a Democrat wins?
They have clearly chosen the latter. They have a triangulating eye toward 2008, the presidential election. Notice the narrative already threaded throughout many of their statements: at the end of the day, it is the President's call, not Congress' (a dubious proposition at best), and if you want an end to this war, elect a Democrat to the presidency.
The fundamental and existential risk of this formulation, of course, is that the Democrats could just as easily end up "owning" the occupation as much as the Republicans, and they provide Republicans significant cover for staying the course in some form or another. They also risk alienating - indeed, have already alienated - their core constituencies, and pulling down their approval numbers due to such alienation, resulting in a false media narrative that the public distrusts "extremes of both sides," and that an antiwar position is still an extreme position. After all, Republicans say (McCain said it most recently), if Democrats in Congress can't even stand up for ending the occupation, then desiring to end the occupation must be oh-so radical and unserious (poll numbers proving the opposite be damned).
The Democrats, in other words, have made a craven and unprincipled calculation, not realizing that taking bold legislative steps to withdraw our troops would in fact strengthen their image as leaders in the eyes of the public, energize their very important base, and still keep Iraq as a central issue in the 2008 election, to their benefit. The biggest thing keeping them from realizing these truths is their mindless internalization of the GOP talking point that conditioning funding on withdrawal would somehow "endanger the troops." The reason for this internalization, and an independent reason for their political choices, is the presence of a significant number of hawks and "moderates" in their midst, and the residual conditioning that when a Republican waves a flag, they must sit down and shut up.
-
Same old same old
The DC media establishment (or, more properly, establishment media, because it represents, promotes, answers to, and really is, the establishment), with rare exceptions (who are generally if not exclusively outside the DC media establishment, such as Olbermann, Scheer, Hersh, etc.), exist to support and reinforce the existing establishment consensus on what is and should be done. They will not challenge this consensus because they cannot challenge it. Not without serious repercussions to their careers and social standing in this establishment, at least.
And, like I said, they ARE the establishment, so it is pointless to expect them to report on and spin the news in ways that more accurately reflect reality and thus contradict their consensus views. And so, anyone who's looking for a more accurate and honest portrayal of what's actually going on in Iraq, and what needs to happen, is quite naive (no such people here, of course!).
As for the political establishment, well, the far right continues to either believe in the war and the likelihood of eventual success, or in the belief that even though it's likely a failure, to admit this and get out would be a terrible mistake, both politically at home and geopolitically in the world, and thus we must stay, not to win, but to avoid the appearance of defeat, and only get out when we can at least present the illusion of success (or, better yet, when Dems control the presidency, allowing them to be blamed for once again "stabbing American in the back", as they did after Vietnam, or so they belief and contend).
The true left--and despite what many people seem to believe, it does exist in DC, albeit in insufficient numbers to make a difference there--is and always has been against the war, and wants us to pull out. But it simply does not have sufficient numbers or influence to do so at this point--and likely never will, just as was the case during Vietnam. Doves never control the debate in the US. Never have, and likely never will. They can only nibble away at the margins, hoping to influence the true decision makers in the center.
Which leaves that broad center, consisting of so-called "moderate" Repubs, "moderate" Dems, and centrists of all stripes (i.e. partisans who are willing to compromise and vote with the other side on any given issue). And they do not appear ready, willing or eager to shift the consensus in any meaningful way, having arrived at a position that on the one hand admits that the war was a mistake and has been going terribly, but on the other holds that we cannot get out because of the potentially adverse regional, geopolitical (and, although they'll never say it openly, political) consequences of doing so.
I.e. they've basically adopted a somewhat more watered-down version of the consensus far-right position on the war, with a few conciliatory bones thrown to the left to placate it, a la what is known as concern trollism in the blogosphere. And they currently control the debate, because they represent the crucial swing votes that will determine which side gets its way. And right now, of course, this obviously favors the far-right side. And it favors it because of a combination of political fear (if we oppose the war, the RWNM will smear us and voters will vote us out of office), cynical political opportunism (the longer we let the war drag on, the worse it is for Repubs in '08), political war profiteering (the war represents lots of revenue and jobs for certain states and districts), delusional wishful thinking (hey, maybe this surge thing really is working), and just plain apathy (we're going to pick up seats in '08 anyway, so what difference does it make?).
So, due to the way that our political system operates, both formally and effectively, we have arrived at a consensus position in which it is acknowledged by all but the most die-hard far-right liars and nutjobs (who are clearly still a not insignificant minority) that the war isn't going well, and doesn't show much sign of getting much better, but we can't get out nonetheless, because, um...we should support the troops and those poor Iraqis, and something about Pottery Barn and Iran and Jihad and such. This is both the media and political consensus, even allowing for variations within it. And we seem to be utterly unable to break out of it, despite, as Glenn points out, the public having long ago rejected this consensus or anything close to it.
So how do we break free of this inherently skewed--and, I believe, unstable and untenable--consensus, and move the country to finally begin getting out of Iraq? Will such a shift originate from within the establishment, perhaps among its younger, less entrenched and more ambitious, restless and perhaps even principled members, who are growing weary of this consensus AND see a political opportunity in bucking this consensus given that the public clearly supports this? Will it come from the older and more established members of this establishment, who are starting to fear a voter backlash against their continued support for the war that might boot them out of office in '08? Will it come from outside the establishment, from bloggers, activists, principled journalists, progressive politicians, etc.? Or will some set of external events permit or force the establishment to change its consensus in favor of getting out (e.g. either a real quieting of violence in Iraq, or a marine barracks-like attack on US troops--which I of course am NOT hoping for)?
Beats me. But something's got to give, and soon. The status quo--both in Iraq, and in DC--simply cannot continue much longer, without it imploding and/or exploding for all concerned. It is inherently unstable and unhealthy, and something's got to give, fairly soon.