[Previous entry: "God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers"] [Next entry: "Five Tried for Italian Banker's '82 Death"]

10/07/2005:

"Gore: t is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse"

I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions.

How many of you, I wonder, have heard a friend or a family member in the last few years remark that it's almost as if America has entered "an alternate universe"?

I thought maybe it was an aberration when three-quarters of Americans said they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11, 2001. But more than four years later, between a third and a half still believe Saddam was personally responsible for planning and supporting the attack.

At first I thought the exhaustive, non-stop coverage of the O.J. trial was just an unfortunate excess that marked an unwelcome departure from the normal good sense and judgment of our television news media. But now we know that it was merely an early example of a new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time.

Are we still routinely torturing helpless prisoners, and if so, does it feel right that we as American citizens are not outraged by the practice? And does it feel right to have no ongoing discussion of whether or not this abhorrent, medieval behavior is being carried out in the name of the American people? If the gap between rich and poor is widening steadily and economic stress is mounting for low-income families, why do we seem increasingly apathetic and lethargic in our role as citizens?

On the eve of the nation's decision to invade Iraq, our longest serving senator, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, stood on the Senate floor asked: "Why is this chamber empty? Why are these halls silent?"

The decision that was then being considered by the Senate with virtually no meaningful debate turned out to be a fateful one. A few days ago, the former head of the National Security Agency, Retired Lt. General William Odom, said, "The invasion of Iraq, I believe, will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history."

But whether you agree with his assessment or not, Senator Byrd's question is like the others that I have just posed here: he was saying, in effect, this is strange, isn't it? Aren't we supposed to have full and vigorous debates about questions as important as the choice between war and peace?
commondreams.org

Dems' Strategy on Iraq: Hit the Gas When You Can See the Cliff Up Ahead
...The fact is, Harman's efforts will likely be nothing but another veiled attempt by the insulated Democratic "Strategic Class" in Washington to continue perpetuating the worst right-wing lies about progressives on foreign policy. You know the lies: progressives are unpatriotic because they opposed blindly invading Iraq on the basis of what we knew were clearly fabrications; because progressives advocate for a more multilateral, cooperative foreign policy, they are weak; And because progressives want our military to actually focus on the real enemies in the War on Terror (ie. al Qaeda and the 9/11 bombers rather than Iraq and Saddam Hussein), they are not tough.

These lies, mind you, haven't gained real traction without the help of self-destructive Democrats themselves. People like Harman, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) have all openly reinforced these "Democrats-are-weak-on-national-security" lies in order to get themselves headlines. It is the political equivalent of saying "Thank you sir, may I have another?" instead of simply calling out the right-wing spin on progressives' defense positions for what it is: a bunch of steaming horse manure.

And remember -- America knows it is horse manure. The public opposes the war, wants an exit strategy, believes the conflict is damaging U.S. national security, and thinks the war is hurting the effort to win the War on Terror. It seems the only people who are unwilling to say that the "weak-on-national-security" line is a lie are Democrats themselves -- the very people being smeared with the lie in the first place.

Instead, Democrats have refused to support legislation forcing the President to outline an exit strategy from Iraq, and have sent their top leaders out to telling the public that the party simply doesn't need a coherent position on the War. Just see profile-in-courage Rahm Emanuel's embarrassingly inane verbal acrobatics on Meet the Press this last week. Then, read here and here his cadre of D.C. Democratic operative friends kissing his ass for the performance and praising him as a saint as American troops are left in a violent quagmire (hmm...wonder if anyone is jonesing for a nice fat DCCC consulting contract?).

True, we shouldn't be surprised by the "Strategic Class's" behavior. Harman and the elitist cadre of foreign policy "experts" in D.C. are by and large people who never have to actually experience the bloody, life-and-death real-world consequences of their complicity in the neocon's pro-war agenda. These people, who have paralyzed the party from taking an official and coherent position on the war, are the personification of the thumb-in-the-wind political prevarication that the public disdains.

But even these morally bankrupt souls have to be able to see the obvious, right? Even if they are willing to sell out America's national security in order to feel "tough" and "strong," at the very least shouldn't they still respond to their own selfish electoral prospects? Can they not understand that ignoring Iraq is not only hideously heartless and woefully weak, but also politically precarious as the 2006 elections approach?