Rachel Maddow's Campaign Asylum: Still Stupid On Iraq
By Nicole Belle Friday Sep 14, 2007 4:47pm
Rachel looks at the Democrats that are still buying into the White House framing on Iraq.
Seriously, it's a simple equation: He who frames the issue WINS the debate. If Frank Luntz can figure this out, why can't our Democratic representatives?
Frist.
UH-OH. Does George know about this?:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070915/ts_nm/iraq_dc
:)
Phooey.
This is why I've been insisting for ages that we ONLY refer to the OCCUPATION of Iraq. We are not at war - there is no enemy state against which we are struggling - and calling this a 'war' lends it too much moral authority. Besides, you CANNOT win an occupation, you can only END it. And that's what we're faced with in Iraq - there is no "win" that can be achieved, so the right-wing framing would leave us in Iraq forever. Which is of course the goal.
We must ONLY refer to the OCCUPATION OF IRAQ. Otherwise we let the neocons frame the argument, and we automatically lose.
It's not rocket science : the more a candidate receives in campaign contributions from corporations and the rich, the more they will adjust their speech to please them . If Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich decided to whore themselves out, you wouldn't hear them say " Bring the troops home ! " again .
Good segment. I vomit in my mouth just a little bit every time I hear Hillary or Obama blame the victims. I wish Rachel would start mentioning people that actually have it right, like Dennis Kucinich. People need to know they have an alternative, otherwise they're just going to be indifferent about the whole race and not vote at all.
Rachel is AWESOME!!
?Umm Hello MIKE GRAVEL!
Dear Dan Abrams,
Give this woman a show. She is as smart, charismatic and funny as anyone on tv
I will vote, as long as there's a single troop in there that we are taking out or maintaining, either way, I will vote for the money necessary to protect them. Period.
---Sen. Joe Biden
Well, I have just torn enough hair out to spite my head. Biden's sentiment is not just stupid; it's dangerous. It's stupid because the maladministration has demonstrated time and again that appropriated funds do not get to the troops anyway. Millions of dollars are wasted on shoddy equipment and "protection," while millions more simply go missing. MISSING!!
More importantly, however, Biden has essentially announced that he no longer believes in the checks and balances written into the Constitution's war powers. The president is the commander in chief. He gives the orders. He says, "go," and the troops go. It's that simple. But the authority to give the command comes from Congress. Only Congress can declare war, and only Congress can appropriate the funding for war.
So, when a president decides to say, "go," the troops go. Is this always done with Congressional authority? Of course not. Sometimes, the president has emergency decisions to make. Other times, he's not actually carrying out a "war." But what if he is carrying out an illegal war? Congress can say, "no" to the funding, or impeach him. Those are the only Constitutional options. Moreover, they are Constitutional duties.
Naturally, this system needs revising. It doesn't work. The executive is increasingly (exponentially with this maladministration) claiming unilateral (or "unitary" under these wackos) military power, and holding the troops hostage. And Joe Blow, here, has now said that NO MATTER WHAT, if the president decides to start a war, he's gonna fund it. Period.
And he has the nerve to guise the undermining of our very republic in terms of principles and morals. As though "protecting" the troops means giving war-hungry presidents all the money they request to send them wherever he wants, whenever he wants. Yes, I'd feel very protected if I were a troop.
Platoon! The president has announced he's launching you to the sun. I don't think it's wise, but he's made clear he's doing it anyway. But I'm on your side. I'll give him the money to do it, in the hopes that he'll buy you sunglasses.
Joe Biden: Stupid and Dangerous.
Seriously, it’s a simple equation: He who frames the issue WINS the debate. If Frank Luntz can figure this out, why can’t our Democratic representatives.
I'd like to launch a preemptive, defensive strike. Nicole Belle's point is a good one, a needed one. And her saying it does not mean that she blames Clinton, Obama or other Democrats for the war, or that she has exculpated Bush.
Maddow is very, very sharp, and has an entertaining style to boot. I hope she keeps getting coverage.
Here's another one from Bush: he said American wants to help the Iraqies fight "the enemy." Since this is a civil war where Iraqies are fighting Iraqies, who then is the "enemy." Both sides are Iraqies. It's nonsense.
It's just more of Bush's deceptive and misdirection talking points to keep the blind 28% of Americans who follow Bush from waking up,
I give up on this war, really.
This president is going to leave this pile of crap for the next president, and
you can be equally sure that in a few years the public (the same morons who
by a 70% margin believed in this war back in 2003) will come to blame
Democrats for the failures of this war.
I'm surprised that for any vote on this war, that all Democrats don't just abstain
and let Republicans vote up or down on this debacle.
asdf @ 7:
I know. I am slowly but surely getting a girlcrush on her.
I'd vote for Rachel in a heartbeat.
Ah Rachel Maddow ! Pretty and intellectually rigorous. Makes me wish I were lesbian. Wait, I am but trapped in a man's body alas.
Don't take this wrong. I like Rachel, thinks she's extremely intelligent, etc., etc...
...but am I the only one who thinks there is enough physical resemblance to Tucker Carlson to suggest "separated at birth?" If only she would try on a bowtie...
Love her! I want to have her baby..except I'm a guy and that probably wont work on several levels....
OHIO IS THE 3RD GREATEST STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Manila Ryce @ 6:
I suppose if you think that's the basis of this verbal practice. But who's that stupid?
This myth about 'iraqi gov't performance' is CODE for 'we can't talk about Bush's permanent airbases or about how he took over the country in order to drive us to his war against Iraq.'
Blaming the Iraqi gov't is a way of talking about what can't be talked about. IF the benchmarks and the Iraqi gov't aren't/don't meet, then the EXCUSE for our being there is degraded. If that is degraded, then the idea of pulling out becomes tenable.
Otherwise, the issue is Bush's illegal invasion and his illegal control of our war powers, a topic which cannot be broached within OUR barely functional gov't because THE COUP IS STILL TAKING PLACE, and the Republican party is up to their eyeballs in its treason.
LOVE how Maddow pretends like this shit is oh so cute. Why doesn't she get a clue?
Karen @ 10:
Joe Biden: We knew who he was twenty years ago.
If anyone is still shocked, haven't been paying attention.
Albatross @ 4:
It's an illegal invasion, but 'occupation' has a legal definition, and this is not that.
This is the GENOCIDE OF IRAQ.
iraqconcilable @ 5:
Rep. Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN. If that's not a whore, then what is?
The suggestion that money is the only parameter is nonsense. IF Kucinich was as brave as his words, he would have stood up to the 2004 massive vote-fraud in the city he mayored. Instead, he laid low and hoped for the hawk to eat someone else. Not exactly as brave as fighting the hawk when he was on the hunt.
I sense the quivering hands of the DLC behind those idiotic comments.
Way to go Rachel!
kiemer @ 25:
If you're referring to my comments, then go fish. I am not a supporter of the DLC -- I support Howard Dean of the DNC, and Speaker Pelosi of the progressive wing of our party, and as of last week, Senator Edwards because he was elected in 2004 and not allowed to take office. i do NOT receive income from the party or any of its associated elements.
Maddow's point has been made by plenty of people. It's clueless, and I'm certainly not proud of this 'blame the Iraqis' strategy. But a code is needed, and that's the one that allows for calling for withdrawal without tackling the issue of hanging Bush first.
Sorry if I squashed the thread.
All Bush ever wanted in Iraq is the oil. the reat of his rap is BS. He will stay until he gets it or is out of office. The Dems could stop this war now by defunding it right now without even consulting the Repubs. It's BS that the need veto orride votes. They don't, the can just pocket ANY further funding.
They are just scared of the Bushies saying " you don't support the troops. you don't supprot the troops...." , like a school child's taunt.
The dems just have no courage. 70% of the voters want this stopped now. Dems are just willing to ride on into the election a year from now, let another 1000 soldiers die than take a risk of jepardizing their impending victory in 2008.
Dems; the 4000 dead so far are Bush's, all further deaths are on your conscience.
Check out this blogger, helping Democrats take back reframing the war and everything else:
http://typingincaps.blogspot.com/
Rachel is "scary" smart. Maybe, like, 200+ IQ. I've been wondering whether she has the potential really make a move. What does someone like that aspire to? She could run for office, but doing politics (as opposed to talking about politics) is boring (too much idle chit-chat) for a braniac. I suppose could do high-level communications/policy for an administration. Or maybe she'll just teach college, write books, and mix drinks....
The answer: Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer, et al. The Democratis neocons.
60's hippy @ 28:
The dead is something like one and a half million. Added to the 1-2 million who died during the sanctions, and the profitable genocide of Iraq continues.
Democrats are not sufficiently in control of the government to do what you apparently think they should simply be able to.
• Something that completely misses this disaffiliated leftist perspective of yours is that the Justice Department is out of commission. Without a functional JD, there is little way that the Congress can pretend to censure or impeach, order criminal investigations or stop a war.
Gonzales was driven out. That took six months, and it was time well spent. Now we need to get an AG who will allow special prosecutors to be assigned. Without the DoJ backing the rule of law via special prosecutors there is not that much that a nominal majority leadership can deliver, as you have observed. The removing of Gonzales is DIRECTLY due to the hard work of Chairman Waxman, Chairman Leahy, and Chairman Conyers. Your applause, your thanks? No, just bash the Dems for whatever is next on the list of barriers to justice to be overcome.
I'd settle for just hanging out with Rachel. I think I'd get smarter just from the proximity.
See:
War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/29/1322235
The Democrats are equally responsible for our criminal warmongering foreign policy since the 1950s.
juanchopancho @ 34:
Well, that's just false. The primary falsehood is that there is some sort of continuity over that time period on the Democratic side.
If you take out the LBJ aberation, and the odd difficulties Carter faced, the history of the last 40 years would have been DRAMATICALLY different. If Kennedy had not been killed, or if McGovern had become president instead of Nixon, or if Carter had a second term and Reagan didn't win, many of our current situations would have been better resisted.
Gore won in 2000, and Kerry won in 2004. The list of Clinton's aberrant foreign policy actions is only slightly larger than Carters. The overwhelming warmongering and disastermongering of the Republican party, Bushes and Co., and LBJ accounts for most of the fucked up foreign policy of my long lifetime by far.
Dems by contrast established FOIA, FISA, the UN, FEMA, the Education Dept. and the Fairness Doctrine. The Democrats are not the problem to anything like the degree of the Republican party, long may it suffer for its crimes.
"If Frank Luntz can figure this out, why can’t our Democratic representatives?"
Most of them have. They're completely onboard with the Boosh regime.
Because the Demcoractic leadership is part of the GOP. They are in on it, and complicit, taking their orders from the same GOP consultants that order the MSM what vital news stories to ignore.
There are only about 5 real Democrats in Congress, Kucinich is one of them.
Rachel says what makes sense. Why isn't the country listening, and throwing the BS leadership out, and prosecuting them? Rachel's excellent points:
1. US incompetence can't implement governance in Iraq four years on -- Blaming the victim/target of invasion.
2. Problem for the President: Who is stupid enough to keep troops -- which have been denied funding -- in harms way?
She's even hotter in glasses. [Swoon] :-)
• Something that completely misses this disaffiliated leftist perspective of yours is that the Justice Department is out of commission. Without a functional JD, there is little way that the Congress can pretend to censure or impeach, order criminal investigations or stop a war.
More smoke screen from an intellectual middle roader. Of course they have made some porgress elsewhere, but your comments have nothing to do with the fact that Pelosi could pocket any further war funding bills and let Bush come begging to them. In that achieveable scenario they coud dictate the terms of the funding to get the troops home and they could stop the war NOW. It has nothing to do with the Justice department or any other lame departments filled with bushies.
It has only to do with the Dems not having the courage to follow the mandate from the last election. They have the power, they are just pretending not to and all the media are dutifully quoting this talking point " they need 61 votes to override the veto". BS
Paul @ 36:
When you use the word 'most,' you just ignore the fact that you're lying? I'm just curious.
Comrade Rutherford @ 37:
That's hilarious. Apparently you have a definition of Democrat that is all your own. Here, let me help you:
FIVE VOTES NAY ON IRAQ RESOLUTION:
60's hippy @ 40:
That's your claim, but in fact the threats and treason of the R party and Bushco make such harebrained concepts MOOT. It is not possible to stimulate a Constitutional War Powers crisis in the middle of a Constitutional War Powers crisis -- especially not with a 5-4 Court.
You apparently haven't paid attention to the threats. Apparently, YOU didn't get a bag of anthrax in YOUR mailbox.
That's your claim, but in fact the threats and treason of the R party and Bushco make such harebrained concepts MOOT. It is not possible to stimulate a Constitutional War Powers crisis in the middle of a Constitutional War Powers crisis -- especially not with a 5-4 Court.
You still have said nothing about the fact, not "hairbrained scheme", that they can, right now, effect a stop of the war by not sending thru funding legislation. Dennis Kucinich, amomg others, has declared this in several public statements.
As along as you and others buy into the bushies attempts at distracting from this real option, the bushies win, laughing all the way to the oil profits bank.
It's not about a constitutional crisis, it's not about votes to override a veto, it's about the Democratic majority having the courage to just de-fund.
I usually agree with Ms Maddow but to some extent I do believe that at a certain point, years after the elimination of Saddam, whom they all hate, they have to assume some responsibility for at least trying to run the basic functions of govt. One can't give a pass for doing nothing forever. I know it's a complete mess but they should at least look like they want to function.
I do agree with the second point, stop the funding. The Pentagon has enough to give the troops everything they need by rearranging spending priorities. Bush's invasion and occupation IS the problem.
60's hippy @ 44:
Trust me, it's a Constitutional crisis. You ignore the obvious national security context. Rep. Kucinich can squawk all he wants about what is supposed to be possible, but that does not make it so, as his own inability to produce demonstrates.
Remember when Kucinich was impeaching Cheney? Whatever happened to that? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Paul in LA @ 46:
60's hippy @ 47:
I think I will not trust you to get the facts right. The power of the purse is an uncontested and absolute right of the Congress. There is not now, nor has there ever been any constitutional crisis over funding authority by the Congress. Just because Dems don't have the courage to use it doesn't make the right invalid. Impeaching Cheney ALSO has nothing to do with it. If you stay stuck on the side issues, the Bushies win.
The Dems right now have the legal authority to de-fund the war, tell Bush "you have enough money to get the troops home safely, if you don't it's your fault".
The Dems probably won't, because they are scared of Bush or of the public, or something. But they could easily do this if they decided to actually end the occupation of Iraq. Every time a Dem says that they don't have the veto over ride votes they are guilty of omitting the fact that they don't need a veto over ride.
60's hippy @ 48:
Just found this on the web. A little more sophisticated version of what i am saying. http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2007/09/iraq_strategy...