Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Today is the first day since March 2003 that the U.S. has not been actively at war in Iraq. On Tuesday, President Barack Obama marked the end of combat in Iraq with an Oval Office speech thanking troops for their sacrifice.
It was never clear why we were there in the first place -- President Bush's rationale for the war shifted from links to 9-11, to weapons of mass destruction, to creating a new democracy, to Saddam Hussein being a bad man. But there were no links to 9-11 or weapons of mass destruction. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a bad man, but as Richard Engel told us last night, there is still no real democracy in Iraq and the country has become a "basket case."
On the occasion of President Obama's speech, the Republican leadership decided they and President Bush should get more credit, especially for the surge in troops that was supposed to lead to an Iraqi government and hasn't.
In the opening segment of last night's show, Rachel Maddow made this assessment of the war in Iraq:
Two American things have been accomplished in Iraq. Tens of thousands, more than a million Americans served their country in a horrible war for seven and a half years under horrible circumstances and under political leadership that was not honest about why they had been sent there. Those Americans are to be honored for what they did and what they gave and they are to be taken care of as veterans now that they're home.
The other accomplishment in Iraq is that we have finally found a way to leave, to get combat troops out, now.
Those two accomplishments belong to this president, who's overseeing the withdrawal from Iraq, and to the people who served -- the people who served honorably for these seven and a half long years.
Credit for all the rest of it, for the made-up reasons for going in, for going in in the first place, for letting Afghanistan spill out of control in favor of this war, for the constant revisions for the justifications for war to obfuscate the craven petty radicalism that really started -- Republicans, you guys can go right ahead and take that credit. Go right ahead. Credit where credit is due.
Republicans, this one's yours. It's got your name on it.
Leave a Comment:
For those who want to THANK Bush & give him CREDIT for ending the war in Iraq: He deserves thanks & credit the same way that Ted Bundy needs to be thanked & given credit for helping to solve the murders of the innocent girls he killed!
Bush /Cheney need credit for lying us into war, destroying American lives, utterly ruining our economy, eliminating jobs, giving tons of our hard earned money to their rich friends & ruining our reputation worldwide. The line starts here....
Thanks GOP! Much appreciated!! Just like the Native Americans wanted to "thank " Lord Jeffrey Amherst(commander of the British forces during French and Indian War --1756-'63) who conceived of the idea of "humanitarian aid" in the form of blankets -- infected with small pox.... afterall, he could have set the hounds upon them instead..... Whatta guy, huh? Whatta party, huh?
This is the REAL reason we went to Iraq!
The rest is all BS
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=2806
Magi: You are forgetting Colin Powell. He played a crucial role in getting us there.
Andy, and bailed shortly thereafter.
Back to Mike, I know there must be tape somewhere ('cause I remember watching it) of George the younger saying, "Heh, afterall, this guy tried to kill my Daddy." The exact moment the American Military become an instrument of personal vengeance. I bet there was alot of wanting to finish what his father had started - afterall George the Elder was roundly critizied for not taking out Saddam when he had the chance and George the younger wanted Daddy's acceptance. Certainly a way to do that was take out his old enemy.
Presidents who never served in the military consistently get this country into extended wars...no one hates war more than a soldier. They're the ones who have to fight.
I never thought the war in Iraq was about anything other than money to line Bush's and friend's pockets.
I come from a large military family (both parents, two brothers, countless aunts, uncles, and cousins) and support the troops is all that they do. But even many of the past and current members of the military in our family were out-spoken against the Iraq War.
Thanks Rachel & crew... this is the reality that people have a difficult time acknowledging. God bless the troops who serve without regard to politics. They deserve our most fervent support.
The people who send them to war deserve our endless scrutiny. Thank you for not letting the spin machine go on unanswered. It gives me hope that there is still rational, compassionate and logical thought to be found.
RattlepantS,
I agree on the "endless scrutiny" point - especially now that the State Department and Special Forces have taken over from the Pentagon and the regular troops in Iraq.
But, making so clear a distinction between troops and the people who send them to war is begging an issue. And, does so at the expense of a small nation of 27 million (before the bombing) inhabitants with a land mass a little more than twice the size of Idaho.
I say 'begging an issue', because there was no draft for this war. There were no press gangs. Every soldier who served enlisted voluntarily. Each had his or her own reasons for doing so. Some of those reasons were altruistic, some bordered on psychopathy (and I say this based on what some of the soldiers have said for themselves...I will gladly cite sources, if pressed to do so).
Iraq and its people have been brutalized and traumatized by the troops who volunteered to unquestioningly take orders from the "people who sent them," to kick down doors and pull triggers against people who, prior to the invasion/occupation, had never done any of them harm. Think of the long term health costs for US troops and multiply that by about a thousand to get a feel for what the health costs for Iraqi civilians will be going forward. The Iraqis did not choose this war. The US choose it. And, the US troops that went to war chose it.
That's the issue I think is begged every time a patellar reflex genuflection is made to the 'sacrifices' that have been made by members of this professional army. The discussion tends to end with that genuflection, and the "rational, compassionate and logical thought" process then fails to move forward to consider what we have done to the 'other' people. Then, because the thought process ends with the genuflection, the endless scrutiny you speak of never actually takes place.
Thank you for opening a space for this discussion.
"Every soldier who served enlisted voluntarily. Each had his or her own reasons for doing so. Some of those reasons were altruistic, some bordered on psychopathy..."
Correct, there was no draft. But the men who volunteered who were not psychopaths still put their lives on the line, and a good many of them believed that they were doing the right thing. Their altruistic faith was not necessarily misplaced; it was exploited by those who desperately wanted to expand the U.S. military and financial empire, hence the constant lies and the shifting justifications for the invasion.
The problem is that WE allow the pro-war elements to frame the terms of debate; the discussion need not end with genuflection, but it always will if we allow the discussion to be defined in the jingoistic catch phrases of the false patriot. I don't see that the distinction begs an issue, but rather demands a better and more forceful focus on the issues with which you wish to frame the argument. If such a genuflection truly ends the discussion, then it indicates a failure to convincingly present the arguments that would negate the opposing perspective.
Annie: hear from the elder generation a thought that the Vietnam War was similar to the Iraq War in all ways (dubious political circumstances, unclear motivations, greedy corporations, cold-war thinking, etc.) EXCEPT that our troops were drafted then and NOT volunteers. That meant that if you could obtain a deferment for college attendance, or if your dad knew somebody important who could get you into the National Guard (like W's dad)...you didn't have to go over there to crawl around in the jungle to trip booby traps and be shot at by snipers and bombed by your own airforce. OTOH, if you were poor, black, unconnected, flunked out of college or were unlucky enough to lose in the draft lotteries of the last years... The most awful thing about this was the way the rest of us -- me included, as a young anti-war activist -- treated the returning veterans. We just might have learned from our past mistakes here. Let it be.
That was a very good assessment of the Vietnam War CarolinaLady.
It was Vietnam that people started getting wealthy off war.
Cameron Bay in Vietnam was built up by Brown and Root Construction. Back in those days that was a multi-billion dollar construction project. Know who owns Brown and Root now? You guessed it--Haliburton.
War is young men dying and old men getting wealthy, as pathetric as that is.
And that is exactly what Iraq was all about--defense contractors getting stinking wealthy.
Larry, I have to disagree with your statement that "It was Vietnam that people started getting wealthy off war". In our own nation, war profiteers have been around since the beginning of the republic. In the Civil War, there were a number of profiteers on both sides. In WWII, there were ongoing congressional investigations of Bush's grandfather and Averill Harriman, among others, for not only engaging in war profiteering, but also doing business with the Nazis. FDR told them to drop the investigations in 1943 because he felt that if the allegations came to light, they would harm the war effort.
War profiteering has a long history in other parts of the world too. Probably the only relatively new aspect is the idea of permanent war solely as an economic boon to a selected few. In almost all wars before Iraq, companies made money from war, but the war was fought for other reasons entirely, such as resources. Iraq changed all that, as I still believe it was only fought to help oil companies get access to Iraqi oil, and to provide no-bid contracts to many of Bush's friends. War fought exclusively to empty the pockets of a nation's own citizens is a new and novel development by the neocons. Apparently they forgot that when you go to war to pillage, it is supposed to be the enemy that you pillage, not your own people.
You're probably right Uff. It just seemed so obvious in Vietnam and really explained why we invaded and occupied Iraq for no reason at all.
I used to work for a defense contractor and I know the abuses that go on--it's like free money--low quality product for the highest possible dollar.
Cheeky B,
I agree with everything you wrote.
I expect close to 100% of those who enlisted believed they were doing the right thing, each for his or her own reasons. And, I strongly advocate treating those who come back from war with respect and giving them the care they require.
You write:
I may have used the term 'begging an issue' a little loosely...
...though, certainly, a lot of people went to war and supported war on the basis of propositions that should have required proof....
What I was trying to get at, though, is similar to what you talk about when you advocate a more forceful focus on the issues, and question why we let pro-war elements frame the debate.
I'm trying to advocate for a thoughtful examination of what the issues ARE, now that the State Department has moved in to control the theatre of operations in Iraq. How do we frame a debate that will examine the facts on the ground and understand what a lasting American presence in that country will really entail, how it will function, and what blowback might be expected from it?
That's the main issue that I fear is "begged" (i.e. overlooked, ignored, swept under the rug) if we focus too tightly on supporting the troops.
Carolinalady,
I am of your generation. I, too, remember the Vietnam war. I remember it was followed by the 'Vietnam syndrome,' a general anti-war sentiment which was successfully 'kicked' by the 1991 invasion of Iraq. The decision to use a professional high-tech army instead of a general draft was very much a part of the strategy to win the hearts and minds of the American people to support another foreign adventure. It worked.
What really worked wonders, though, was 9/11. That is surely the key event that has justified all kinds of military operations in Muslim lands. It was such a huge godsend to the Bush administration and to the military-industrial complex that one has to wonder whether they might have done something to arrange it. Why is it that so many people have a hard time asking themselves whether the lies did not start with Iraq but on 9/11? Given the Bush administration's record of mendacity regarding WMD and Saddam's relationship with Al Qaeda, do you really have such confidence that they told us the truth about 9/11?
They didn't.
ae911truth.org
What a tremendous waste of life. Both ours and theirs. To this day, I do not understand why the cabal of bush, cheney and rumsfeld are not in prison. But at least cheney no longer has a pulse so that's something.
Our apparent endless ability to be hoodwinked and then forgive is beyond reasoning. Obama called it "going forward, not looking back" when he decided not to open investigations into the treachery and treason that got us into Iraq. Maybe he came to see that there was more going on than even he wanted us to find out.
I'm glad our troops, most of them, are out of that hell hole. Lets get the rest of them home, then pull out of Afghanistan and let them all do what they are destined to do, which is continuing the endless war and living under violent and demented regimes.
bush was against the surge before he was for it. then JCS chair gen shinseki warned there were insufficient troops for an occupation & was run-off. remember the ridiculous ASSUMPTIONS that we didnt require as many troops since we'd be greeted as liberators & the only resistance were "dead-enders". >the surge completely vindicated shinseki who continues to serve as sec of the VA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki
And of course, remember that Wolfowitz testified that the war would pay for itself, and Rumsfeld testified that the war would last no more than about 6 weeks. With geniuses like that at the helm, it's no wonder that things turned out as horribly as they did. I guess the conservative agenda to put the worst incompetents into government paid off handsomely, (if you were a defense contractor).
I'm all for giving Bush and Cheney ALL the credit for the Iraq war...a totally useless waste of money and human life. I'm all for trying both Bush and Cheney for Crimes Against Humanity for getting us into that criminal action. America (and the World) would be a better place with Bush and especially Cheney were behind bars for the rest of their lives.
Thousands of people lost their lives in a war fought principally due to the lust for power of the Bush administration. Let us never forget the grave injustice of this loss. Personally, at the very least, I would like to see the former Bush administration apologize to the world for their actions. I also think that the actions of the Bush administration may well be such that they constitute crimes against humanity and as such they should be put on trial by the world court. How else can the accountability of those who were responsible be reasonably judged by those of us who are mere citizens of the world? Now is the time to acknowledge and learn from our mistakes in order that we not repeat them again such as in Afghanistan or elsewhere.
I can hear it now:
Obama: "Thank you, Mr. Bush. I never could have ended the war if you hadn't started it."
Bush deserves as much credit for ending the war as Obama does for starting it.
The Bush administration=war criminals, all.
But we don't believe that international laws like that actually apply to the US. After all, the Geneva Conventions are merely "quaint", according to Gonzo.
Yes to all of the above.
Call John Boehner at 202-225-6205 and tell him that you disagree with his speech and will not give credit to Republicans for the argue given that they got us into the war on false pretenses, failed to launch the war with sufficient troops, sidetracked our military from the real objective- capturing Osama bin Ladin, etc.
All I want out of that useless waste of space Boehner is his exit from Washington in January.
I sincerely feel that now that the Iraq War is over, that George . Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of the Bush Administration that were involved in the atrocity, should be placed on trial for crimes against humanity. They must be held accountable for the lies that caused the needless deaths of civilians and military personnel.
Give the Bush Administration a trial Iraqi style- or Nuremberg style. There would be impisonment and executions.
Exactly. Kucinich already did the hard work finding 35 articles to charge them with.
What REALLY gets under my skin is the fact that not only did they lie, but they took advantage of the American anger after 9/11. Anger that is obviously justified however to go so low as to use a day as shockingly monumental as that day to further your interests at the expense of other human lives regardless of the outcome.....that pisses me the hell off!!! It's disgusting how they are slowly getting away with that even when there is video proof of their lies.
ON MSNBC a couple of days ago, a former Bush administration official, (I believe it was Dan Senor), expounded the meme that the real reason for the war was----wait for it---- to help channel the anger of young arab men into something constructive. The "idea", and it is almost offensive to term it as such, was that if we got rid of Saddam, all these angry young men would suddenly put away their anger as they worked to build a strong democratic government in Iraq. Of course, they wouldn't feel any additional anger from the deaths of another 100,000 Iraqis, or the displacement of 4 million more, or the total destruction of Iraq's infrastructure, or the occupation by over 100,000 American troops, or the construction of massive US military bases in the country. No, they would just toss off those trivial matters, and suddenly become happy politicians.
So who is dumber here, the idiot who verbalized this "idea", or anyone who even buys that line of bull?
Interesting comments but as a Mother of a soldier who actually served in Afghanistan/Iraq, all I can say is Obama was right not to call Bush out. Americans don't want to believe and even know the hold truth of the War Crimes committed by the Bush Administration and how our soldiers were really treated for 7 years. The Media/Press weren't allowed to report the dirty truth, as we see today many Americans still think of Bush as a hero. History will saw the United Nations can still bring War Crimes charges against the Bush Administration but if not then these evil people will be judged by God for doing Satan's work. Obama is right to turn the page of US history because he doesn't want to get caught up in the mess Bush/Cheney made.
Remember when Barack took Michelle on a date night to NYC, then GW took Laura to dinner in Texas but his Father paid for all the guest dinners/drinks as they were told to cheer Laura/George as they entered. Talk about sad, even Daddy Bush went for a pizza and the people walked out calling him the Father of a War Criminal.
I hope your child came home safe and sound jackierawlings.
Speaking of war crimes, I still have visions of Sadam dropping people through shreders feet first or giving them a nice cool acid bath to get the sand and dust off.
I'd say Saddam has already received his punishment for the crimes he committed. Too bad we can't say the same for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Addington, Rice, Bolton.................
Saddam at least died like a man. I would like to borrow the rope from Moqtada Sadr and hang Bush with it. But most of the people blogging here still don't understand just how evil Bush is - and he's just a chip off the old block. His dad is a real-life Moriarty of crime, operating from behind the scenes since the end of the Second World War, involved in nearly every dirty secret covert criminal operation for the last sixty years.
I believe it Tony...like Nixon kept muttering about the missing minutes of the tapes..."The JFK thing...the JFK thing." Bush senior et al. are up to their furry eyebrows in the most evil events ever recorded on the planet of their time...
We Had a Dream
As President Barack Obama addressed the nation on August 31, 2010, he gave the appearance of a frightened executive reading a text written for him by a terrorist faction holding his family at gunpoint in a locked cellar. It is obvious that the reality of American government has finally found its way into Obama’s psyche. Below is the speech he should have given:
“Two years ago I campaigned for the presidency of the United States on a ticket of change and reform of the American political process. Despite the fact that the American people provided the votes to enact these changes, the Republican Party along with the multi-national corporations, which own it, continue to possess the financial clout to hold our economy hostage. While not surprised, the number of Democrats whose influence can be bought by these same private interests gravely disappoints me. My naïve belief was that the American people’s outcry for change would have, in some way, tempered their greed however, I had to face the reality that dollars trump change every time. As promised in my campaign, I am ending the combat mission in Iraq on schedule. I have been advised to give a modicum of credence to the success of the surge without mentioning that it was preceded by a surge of capital in which Maktada al-Sadr was paid $350 million dollars in “damages”. In return, he agreed to dismantle his militia, which numbered over one hundred thousand. All other prominent warlords were similarly bought-off. Dollars prevailed in this instance also. To avoid a drastic interruption in cash flow to Halliburton and General Dynamics among others, I have relocated their collective enterprises to Afghanistan. This will afford them the opportunity to seek a more lucrative location for their next venture. I will also commit fifty thousand advisory troops to remain in Iraq to protect American interests such as General Electric, AT & T, Exxon Mobil, Coca Cola, etc. I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the American military for having made so many sacrifices under false pretenses. However, after the Republican corporate majority exported your jobs for more profit, the only remaining employment opportunities were, unfortunately, in the military. Your idealism regarding the protection of the American way of life as well as the American people themselves will never be taken for granted. History will hold you in high regard. Luckily, Blackwater is developing its own army to protect these same multinationals thus producing numerous continued employment opportunities.
In closing, I would like to reaffirm that the American people are clamoring for change. If that change requires sacrifice and effort, then let us leave things as they are. The devil you know is safer than the devil unknown. God Bless America.”
Well said and far to much truth for the American Public. We simply want someone to blame and someone to adore. If those that we adore are the loudest and most closely align themselves with our uneducated opinions, we'll rely on them to tell us what and who to hate and blame.
That's why rush and beck are so popular.
So Rachel, please tell us the answer to the the question. Why did we go to war in Iraq if it wasn't WMD, Oil for Food program at UN, What was it?
OMG... no..... OIL? how can that be? Oh that's right Dick did say the Oil contracts there were going to pay for the war. But did we get any contracts? NO... So what about those brave 4500 young Americans that we sent there and died? We should be naming Oil Companies with the names of dead soldiers. We own them something Honorable.
I was surprised to hear from you that "we" - meaning U.S.-based oil companies did not get any oil contracts. If this is true, I wondered what that 50,000 troop "non-combat" occupation force is still doing there (not to mention at least as many private "defense contractors")? I checked Google news and came up with this Sept. 1 article from UPI reporting Halliburton's new oil contract in Iraq:
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2010/09/01/Halliburton-wins-contract-for-Iraqi-oil/UPI-10461283345373/
Then there is this article reporting eleven oil contracts signed by the Iraqi government:
"The Oil Ministry has signed 11 contracts with foreign oil companies since last November to revolutionize and boost Iraq’s largest oilfields, including Rumaila (BP and the Chinese National Petroleum Corp.), West Qurna Phase 1 (ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell), and Zubair (Eni, Occidental Petroleum and the Korean Gas Corp.)."
http://www.iraqoilreport.com/politics/oil-policy/expanding-oilfields-versus-ancient-farmlands-4952/
If that is the case, should we not be thanking Saddam Hussein for "drawing" us into a war as opposed to Bush for taking the bait?
Wow...I agree with most of the comments posted. However, I wonder, how many of us actually go and tell our Republican friends this information or speak freely and negatively as they may feel it's okay to do in our presence-myself included? How can we expect one man to truly effect change if we don't stand behind him and have the courage to push our elected leaders to make a change also. The war is/was horrible and many honorable people have died all over the world because of greed at the expense of human life. Instead of complaining (which is valid, btw) though, we need to stand together as the "Vote No" Republicans have done every day of President Obama's campaign and truly make a change by saying "Yes" we still believe and speak that into existence so we can impact our economy and the workforce in positive ways and get this country moving forward faster. Money doesn't always win...especially if you have faith and believe in a higher power, God Bless and I sincerely mean it.
Hi Rachel...I have been a fan of your fairness and honest reporting for some time. Last night your first comment seemed thoughtful and good concerning the President's speech on Iraq withdrawal. Then you got angry and criticized the speech for the President's reference to Bush. understandably, Bush's actions made us all angry, however, that is the past. I agree with Obama that we must move forward. Anyone can take down a speech. Even the Gettysburg Address has been criticized by people who didn't know what they were reading. As a country we have so much work to do. We need to work together to get it done. I feel of late that you are not seeing the forest for the trees. Sure there are many bad trees, but the forest is worth saving. Railing against "trees" in the President's speech is disheartening. Getting out of Iraq is huge. Many of us did not want to go into the war but it is still remarkable that we are getting out. This President needs our support. If we are to get though this difficult period, reinstate a manufacturing base, rebuild the crumbing infrastructure and much more, we need to get behind the leader. Not blindly, but not nit-pickingly (is that a word?) either. I very much appreciate you, your courage, your humor, your intelligence and hard work. Thank you.
this was a remarkable piece. rachel and trms at their best. can we please get a medical report on mr. obama? i think someone has stolen his backbone. does he really think republicans won't throw his olive branch down a wood chipper?
In your comments on this topic yesterday you said - " President Obama is a forward looking man and does not dwell on the past ...". I must say welcome back from your hiberantion! and also hope that Obamacare does provide for hearing loss.
You certainly have worked hard to be recognized as the Queen of the Obumma Fluffer Posse aka MSNBC.
PS: Never imagined folks of your orientation enjoyed fluffing so much :)
Andy, if you don't like "Obamacare", as you call it, you are still free to choose any overpriced, underperforming insurance company you like. But of course, you already knew that, but just had to toss in a good falsehood.
If you are truly looking for fluff, be sure to tune into Fox for their interview of practically any repub you can name.
Uffdaguy : Here are my 2 cents on Obamacare:
1. The ONLY way to sensibly provide all Americans healthcare is a "single payer system". Anything else is political demagoguery and does nothing but put the country into future problems like Social Security, Medicare/ Medicaid and the sham Medicare prescription reform passed by the Repubs. If the country has to and wants to bear all medical costs - why the hell do we have insurance companies in the middle to siphon-off 20 -30% of available resources?
2. Every thing is underperforming in this country starting with our government and the President. We did not chose this President to take baby steps - we knew the country needed urgent repair and we somehow believed that this guy is different. Alas! this has turned out such a bad prank on ourselves. The guy is totally incompetent and could not run a lemonade stand.
I totally agree on the single payer system. At the very least, Obama and the dems should have had that on the table from the start. By not even supporting that, they also doomed the public option. Never, ever, go into a negotiation with the least you want or expect to get. Always go for more, and have your real goal as a fallback position.
As for Obama's competence, it seems to me his biggest failing has been the naive belief that he would ever get repub support for a single thing he proposed. After the first couple of times, it was apparent that they will oppose him on everything, even if it was a non-binding resolution that said "Mondays are worse than Fridays". Dems didn't want to be seen as ramming legislation down the throats of the country, and repubs wanted dems to take the blame for any legislation that passed. Well, by taking the tack they have, dems will still get the blame for legislation they passed, especially because it is weak, and repubs will still claim it was rammed down our throats. I think it is a little ridiculous to claim Obama as incompetent when he actually got some healthcare reform passed, the first president to do so, as well as some financial reform. Were they all we wanted? Hell no, but that does not equate to incompetence.
I'm not sure what your answer is to "incompetent" Obama. Do you want to turn the reins back to the repubs so that they can resume their rapacious ways with our tax money? Do you want to let the Tea Party run things, a group that would have to make vast improvements to rise to the level of incompetence? Or maybe have a true progressive challenge Obama in the primaries of 2012? That will guarantee defeat.
I could care less how good a businessman Obama or any other president is. The last businessman in office was Bush, and we all know what a disaster he was. We need someone who is smart, thoughtful, and knows what he/she wants to accomplish.
Uffdaguy : You seem to be agreeing that a healthcare system without a 'single payer' is essentially a political sham to pad up this guy's otherwise ultra-thin resume. No, I do not think Repubs have to be blamed for anything OBumma has not been able to accomplish - with an overpowering majority in both the houses I place the blame solely on our President and the Dems. Just to refresh your memory, Repubs were able to push through anything they wanted and they did not have these numbers in the Congress. So, let us be honest with ourselves, the Progressives are being let down by the folks we elected to change the things as they were. No ifs, buts or may bes!
NO, I do not consider Obamacare an achievement in light of above. Obamacare eloquently highlights the incompetence of this man who was not even able to control his own herd and has piled upon us a system that may not tackle the real problem and complicate fiscal health of the country down the road.
No, I do not want Repubs to get the reins back and the last time I checked Tea Party is not a recognized or established party. You seem to suggest that the only alternative is to follow an incompetent leader out of fear of Repubs taking over. I believe that progressives have been put in this rat-hole by this psyche only. Why should we settle for a sub-standard representative of progressive ideals? Why should we settle for a spineless leader who can not walk the talk? Why should we settle for a rank mundane politician who speaks well but does nothing to match those words? We should not take that any more. The fear of losing 2012 should not convince us that we need to continue with someone we already know is grossly incompetent. So whether we have to challenge this guy from left' right, center, up or down we gotta do it otherwise we lose not only in 2012 but for years to come.
Comparisons to Bush are not necessary - he is long gone. And if that is the yardstick of brilliance you use, then you do not know the meaning of incompetence. Being smart and thoughtful is good, but the competence of a President is defined only by his leadership and to make the right things happen for the people despite opposition. And on that score, he has already proven lesser than Bush - and let me tell you that is no ordinary accomplishment!!!
Democrats did not have an overwhelming enough margin to get progressive legislation through, given the fact that the Republicans filibustered everything in the Senate and there were enough sell-out Democrats available to go along with them on anything really progressive. But I would rather have seen Obama go down fighting for something really progressive, like Medicare for all, than sell out to the insurance companies as he did. And I don't think he would have gone down. He could have gone to the people with a "Medicare for All" campaign and stayed with it if necessary all the way up to the 2010 elections. Then Democrats would have something real to campaign on now. The base would be enthusiastic. Instead of leading a fight like that, he just turned it over to Congress and said "you guys come up with something".
I've always felt the unfortunate reality in the way Rachel's show points out TRUTH night after night - is the fact that the people who need to hear it most don't watch msnbc. Fox doesn't deal in truth, at least CNN sniffs at it occasionally, but that's about it.
For MSNBC to get viewers, it will have to stop Bobby Gibbs from putting together their programming slate every day.
The reason they lag in viewership is because like Fox they cater only to their own choir and in MSNBC's case that is awfully small!
Andy
Fox may caterer to their viewers but they are all such terrible singers!
Maria,
Yeah you are right Fox has terrible singers but their concerts are sold out.
So what. No accounting for taste.
Maria: Are you suggesting that the listeners of Fox are somhow inferior humans to your exalted self who watches MSNBC?
Oh please Andy quit it with the inferior?superior nonsense. It's annoying and counterproductive.
Maria: you wanted the taste to be accounted for. I don't know what else could you be implying other than that Fox watchers somehow lack taste that you possess.
One reason for low viewership for MSNBC can be that there are fewer people in this country that are as tasty as you are. Do you come with fries or onion rings?
Andy
Thank you for calling me tasty!! I'll have both please!
Maria: Shall I super-size them? Are you sure you do not want your usual Happy meal - remember it comes with an OBumma toy?
Oh no Andy you don't have to super size it. That would be too much food. Sometimes less is more. You're witty repartee is astonishing dear. Really an OBumma toy? How long did it take to think it up?
Again takes for calling me tasty. :-)
Maria: Where have you been getting your Happy meal dear not to know about OBumma toy? There already are two editions of the OBumma toy - one that sings "Yes, we can" and the other that sings "Why should we". Lady you gotta hurry up before they both vanish.
You are welcome - I am always in awe of tastier people.