There are all kinds of compelling reasons to get the Bushes out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. sooner rather than later. Saving lives otherwise wasted, violated, destroyed or merely treated with contempt has got to be priority one. Saving the Constitution and the great country it created probably is number two, followed closely by beginning to heal our planet and protect its future.
But somewhere on that list is the chance to restore sanity, reason, respect and solutions to our public discourse. In so doing, we also remove a huge burden from all of us: having our intelligence routinely insulted by this administration, and most importantly the complicit, craven and stupid media who do their bidding. If I have one bone to pick with Bill Moyers, it's that he wouldn't just come right out and say "You know, Tim, in reviewing what was said at the time and what has actually happened, would you be prepared to admit, at least, that, in retrospect, the statements of you and your colleagues were, even if honestly unaware how they played into the White House's plan, shockingly inaccurate, unrealistic and occasionally just plain stupid?"
'Cause how could Timmeh answer that question? Well, he could repeat his performance in pleading some ignorance, some over-enthusiasm and otherwise stipulate that the best guess in 2001 was that black really was white, or at least very light gray, or certainly closer to vivid fuchsia than indigo, couldn't he? And I'm sure he would, noble sycophant par excellence that he is.
But what if we stopped listening to the talk of "legislating defeat" so wonderfully reprinted in the (of-course-not-at-all-complicit-or-stupid-beyond-belief) media, the talk of "mandating surrender", the talk of "giving in to the terrorists", and actually, just for once you know, said, "Okay. The cat's out of the bag. The Democrats, backed by the vast majority of the American people, do want to surrender, IMMEDIATELY... but not in Iraq. No the Democrats simply want Congress and the White House to SURRENDER AT ONCE... to reason. And it wouldn't hurt if you folks in the media tried it, too."
This all comes on the heels of listening to Mitch McConnell on NPR use the baldest, most ridiculous framing possible to support the President. Framing that has been on view for 5 years now. Framing which is so idiotic it hardly needs a second thought to counter, and framing which the not-at-all-so-stupid-and-slavish media has never once actually questioned. Here's the frame: regardless of what goes on in Iraq, "we are fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here", and "because we are there, because we are on offence, we have not been attacked here since 9/11." McConnell's not the only one; Giuliani seems to like this frame too for some reason.
Now, surrendering to reason for one second, what do these two statements mean:
1- We have to keep throwing our children into the meat grinder there, in order to avoid having them attacked here. Uh huh. This means that there are no circumstances under which Americans will not be indiscriminately killed--all we can do is select the location of the deaths. THIS is the President's plan? And this is what the media laps up, because it's not-at-all-unable-to-see-how-co-dependent-it-is? BRAVO! For the first time in history we have a President who believes that the winning platform is not "I will protect all Americans", but "I will protect some Americans by demanding that others sacrifice themselves". And the media doesn't think it fit to once question this brave, wise approach? At times like these, one can only imagine how much better a President Spongebob Squarepants would have been.
2- We have not been attacked since [we were attacked on] 9/11. This would be the height of brilliance were it not so incredibly, mindlessly stupid. It's almost as if they are daring the media to state the obvious: Um, yes, but isn't it true that we weren't attacked any time previous to Bush? So your saying that Bush deserves the utmost credit for firmly closing and guarding the barn door once the horses have fled? But, and let me get this straight, the Democrats deserve nothing but scorn for actually having protected the horses previously, and for suggesting that we try and get them back in by, GASP!, opening the door first?
So where does that leave us? With false accusations that Hillary is Hitler in drag (or that she blogs at FDL, and Jane is Hitler in drag), with attacks upon the Democrats for actual demanding to see what we bought for 3 trillion dollars, and with the Broderization of Reid for having said "the war in Iraq is lost". What's lost is our virtue, our worthiness of consideration, our place in the world, and yes, our sanity. We are a clinically insane country right now. No ifs, ands or buts. Not one "journalist" has asked a single meaningful question of these morons, despite their of-late decision to be a fraction less supportive. Like, "Sen. McConnell, if the Democrats are indeed surrendering in Iraq, exactly WHO are they surrendering to? Can you tell us?" Because from what I can see, surrender is not even a logical possibility!! As long as we are merely obstacles in a civil war, we don't even get to decide to surrender!
And one last stupidity--"we can't set a date for withdrawl because the enemy would wait us out". Well, as for the enemy, see immediately above. This is Bush's Catch-22: we can't hold the Iraqi government's feet to the fire, because that would only embolden the enemy. And we can't leave, because that would only embolden the enemy. And we can't really put more boots on the ground, because we don't have any more boots and that would, uh, embolden the enemy. And we can't even consider the possibility that our strategy might not be working because... you guessed it, that would embolden the enemy. In other words, there are no options that do not involve emboldening the enemy save one: slowly, gradually, surely waiting until enough Americans are dead that someone takes away the keys to the car for good.
Sounds like a good strategy to me--did Petraeus get the memo?