This diary is inspired by the recently vanished diary
about Andrea Mitchell's callous dismissal of the news that wasnt, that "everyone knew" in 2002 but few dared utter, ie, Bush was gonna make war on Iraq, PERIOD. She said anyone who didnt know had to be "brain dead."
First post attached described contempt for Andrea's statement, and I agreed. But there is more contempt to go around and, if we are to be honest, it doesnt just belong to the media or the GOP re the drum beat and the cover up for Bush's bogus case and longstanding plan for war.There is a missing PARTY to this ugly misadventure, and it must be said.
So here is what I said in response to the contempt expressed, about where my own contempt lies and why ...
I totally GET your anger, it's well stated .. in all your points.
True, true and true again.
Fuck the media drones. Fuck Andrea.
BUT ... actually, her statement, her mocking words, illustrate, in neon lights, what upset so many of us when we became enraged by the IWR votes and the resistance of far too many Dems to making the case against Bush's push to war. THEY werent brain dead, they KNEW.
I have often criticized Kerry, Edwards and my senator, Hillary (to name just three high profilers) for this, but, sadly, we can insert a bunch of other Dem leaders' names, who are similarly culpable. I have criticized them for their behavior, not only in their votes, but AROUND those votes, for what they said and didnt say, and an outrage left UNexpressed that needed to be expressed. It still needs to be expressed. But instead there is silence. Why? Because to speak to this would necessitate the sort of honesty and humility most of them simply do not possess. It would unleash the necessity to fess up to a horrible negligence of duty and enabling on their part -- that of being willing to help grease and/or willfully ignore Bush's fast track to war.
I mean, honestly, just like Andrea Mitchell said, one would have to have been "brain dead" not to know. Certainly this statement is one I have thought, in my own paraphrased version, when it came to beltway insiders, players such as Kerry, Edwards, Hillary, et al, ad nauseum. Surely, they smelled the odor of a trumped up case for war stewing in the crock (o'shite) pot. I wasnt privy to the inner corridors of power, but I KNEW, and many millions of others had a clue as well-- hence all those millions of "focus group" marchers world wide.
THAT is something many on this board dont want to hear or discuss, because there is a conflict between the urge for party solidarity and WINS, and the desire to speak truth to power. But, really, if we are going to disinfect the party of all the go-along behavior, we must be honest and make them know we will never lose our anger over this faux pas. And we must not urge into the presidency leaders who err so badly in their judgement, if we want to end this madness, this modis operandi in our political landscape.
THIS faux pas was not over voting for the myriad of other despicable things some of them vote for -- (not necessarily those senators named in my high profile trio, but think Landrieu, DiFi, Nelson et al et al et al, who also voted for the IWR).This was for WAR, on the Express Track.
But Wellstone, Rangel, Boxer, Feingold, Nadler, Byrd, Kennedy, Murray, McDermott, et al et al et al KNEW what was cooking. They voted NO.
What made the difference for them, but not the others?
I know this is sticky, I know this is difficult ...
But it is timely for me, because just today I was thinking about Thomas Friedman and Hillary Clinton. Thought of him cause I heard on Cspan he has a new column where he supports upping the troops and the warring to quell this Iraqi disaster. I thought of how disgusted he makes me, due to his high profile urging of this war in the lead up. So, Im muttering aloud to my boyfriend, "Yeah, you can come to me with your advice, Idiot, I'll maybe give you an ear -- ONLY after you apologize for your fucking war drum beating, you pompous fool!"
And then I thought, but why is Hillary any different? She went on MTP a few weeks before the IWR vote, and seemed quite relaxed and even positive regarding the impending war. She was signaling how other Dems would vote. I knew that as soon as I heard and saw her. She gave a robust endorsement of regime change to boot: "Oh, I have ALWAYS supported regime change!" ...
I know how deeply and successfully Hillary Clinton turned away from the antiIraqWar actions in her own state and the city where her office is located: NYC, Manhattan. I know how deeply and successfully she ignored every fucked up thing you and I know about this war, both before, when it began and up until now. She positioned herself as a pro-military senator, and there she has stayed, but in the worst conventional manner of being promilitary and prowar. She will offer no sorry words of concession regarding the wrongness of the case for this war, unlike the GOP rep. Walter Jones, from North Carolina, who now says the case was bogus, the guys are dying for nothing. This guy is the Freedom Fries guy.
So where lies the difference between having comtempt for a Thomas Friedman and a Hillary Clinton, on this issue?
I would like to know.
And I would like to know how we stop not just our media (the Andreas and Thomases) from fucking with the people, but our politicians (the Johns and Hillarys) as well.
Do we, if we keep giving them a pass?