Like many of you, I consider
Billmon to be the most astute commentator anywhere on the Lebanon war. He's shown a level of prescience and a sophistication of analysis that leaves other writers very far behind. Earlier this week, he
upset a few apple carts when he said:
So here's my confession: At this point I really don't give a flying fuck whether the Democrats take the House or the Senate back. No, wait, that's not true. The truth is I hope they don't. It wouldn't save us from what's coming down the road, in the Middle East and elsewhere.
This brought strong responses from dKos's very own Carnacki, who wrote an impassioned open letter to Billmon, and also from Steve Gilliard who wrote the following:
If you're making minimum wage, you need a Democratic Congress, if you want to be treated with stem cells, if you want to get an abortion... if you're fighting with the VA, it fucking matters. If your kid is in Iraq, it fucking matters. Fuck the shit which comes with Bush, there are people who need the help, even minimal help, a Democratic Congress can provide.
*
Today, Billmon writes what I can only imagine is his response to the above people. He doesn't mention Gilliard or anyone else by name, but this is what he has to say, in a post grimly entitled The War Party (and he doesn't mean the Republicans):
On Ned Lamont:
Oh I know Ned says he's anti-war, but he only means the war in Iraq. The war in Lebanon, on the other hand, is just fine by him. And he's already pledged he'll be just as staunch a friend of Israel and the Israel lobby in this war as Holy Joe ever was or ever could be. So bombs away.
On Howard Dean & Harry Reid & the Democratic leadership's recent excoriation of Nouri al-Maliki:
I think the moment when I realized the Dems once again were going to be -- would always be -- dutiful spear carriers for the neocons was after Howard Dean and company treated the Iraqi prime minister's recent visit to Washington as an opportunity to do a little pro-Israel pandering of their own..
..the more I thought about it the more I realized that a party leadership that really cared about bringing the troops home probably wouldn't be so cavalier about trashing a guy who is actually a pretty crucial part of making that possible.
..when the time comes to choose (for Israel, or against war with Iran) I fully expect to see Ned Lamont in the front ranks of the pro-war phalanx, right next to the last great white Democratic anti-war hope, Howard Dean.
And this is where he directly addresses points such as Gilliard makes:
People tell me I shouldn't get hung up on this because, you know, if the Dems get in they'll make sure the seniors get their Social Security checks a little faster -- or they'll keep the Supreme Court out of the hands of legal madmen or do something about global climate change or save the whales or whatever else it is that's supposed to make the Democratic Party infinitely preferable to the Republicans.
It's not that I discount these differences entirely -- although they're easily oversold. But compared to the fate that awaits the republic, and the world, if the United States deliberately starts a war with Iran, those other considerations start to look pretty insignificant. I mean, we're talking about World War III here, fought by people who want to use tactical nuclear weapons. I'm supposed to put that out of my mind because the Dems might be a little bit more generous about funding the VA budget??? I'm sorry, but that's fucking nuts.
*
I just want to say that I think the old man has a point.
What exactly is the Democratic Party going to do, when the sheer momentum of events threatens to hurtle us all into a wider war in the Middle East?
Is Dean, Reid et al's support of Israel really so one-sided and blind that they will follow AIPAC and the neocons into World War III?
What about the left blogs and blog activists? What about the netroots? What are the positions of Kos, Daily Kos, and the many many bloggers out here?
Are we all shills? Is Billmon right that the Dem leadership are all willing sheep being led to the fight? Is Ned Lamont another warmonger as long as it means keeping on the sweet side of Israel's supporters?
Frankly, I'm worried and confused because nothing clear is coming out of the Democratic leadership on the question of a possible war with Iran. I suspect that this has something to do with the fact that the leadership itself is totally fucked up as to its stance on Iran and Israel.
What are we looking ahead to?