Olberman blasts Dems over War Funding

I was worried that with the Democrats grabbing control of Congress, Keith Olberman may become a bit too easy on Democrats. His January interview with Hillary Clinton did little to change that.

But a recent "Special Comment" -- easily his most powerful one yet -- is a pretty harsh condemnation of the Democratic leadership, and rightly so.

The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans; The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

[...]

You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions—Stop The War—have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.

What "the enemy" wants

The other day Pat suggested to me that Lieberman was right to say that if the US were to leave Iraq it would satisfy "the enemy." (For clarification purposes, though Pat originally supported the war and the occupation that has followed, he now wants the US to withdraw its troops.)

Nothing infuriates the left more than when those in favor of the war suggest that to leave would bolster the enemy. But it's nearly impossible to argue that this isn't the case. Of course our defeat plays into the hands of our enemy, that's what defeat in war means.

I took issue with this assessment arguing that al Qaeda (who is often cited as America's main enemy in Iraq) benefits from the US presence.

It is certainly not impossible to argue that leaving would not bolster "the enemy." (Of course, you fail to say who the enemy is, and no, its not obvious. Is it Iran, al Qaeda, who? The distinction matters, different groups will have different reactions to a US withdrawal)

In fact, it is almost impossible to argue that our continued presence isn't bolstering the enemy ... if the enemy is, al Qaeda, leaving Iraq could hurt them considerably. The US occupation of Iraq has empowered al Qaeda to new levels.

In the latest edition of Foreign Affairs (the publication for the Council for Foreign Relations -- hardly a a group of left-wing pacifists) Bruce Riedel makes a similar argument.

(Bin Laden) seeks to, as he puts it, "provoke and bait" the United States into "bleeding wars" throughout the Islamic world; he wants to bankrupt the country much as he helped bankrupt, he claims, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The demoralized "far enemy" would then go home, allowing al Qaeda to focus on destroying its "near enemies," Israel and the "corrupt" regimes of Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. occupation of Iraq helped move his plan along, and bin Laden has worked hard to turn it into a trap for Washington. Now he may be scheming to extend his strategy by exploiting or even triggering a war between the United States and Iran.....

"[I]t is time to recognize that engagement there is more of a trap than an opportunity for the United States. Al Qaeda and Iran both want Washington to remain bogged down in the quagmire. Al Qaeda has openly welcomed the chance to fight the United States in Iraq....

"Rather than reinforce its failures, the United States should disengage from the civil war in Iraq, with a complete, orderly, and phased troop withdrawal that allows the Iraqi government to take the credit for the pullout and so enhance its legitimacy.

I am not sure I agree with him that Iran wants the States to stay there for much longer. I think Iran feels adequately empowered by the US failures at this stage. They know the coming realignment of the region will benefit them, but I think at this point they view the US as a destabilizing force in the region who will only contribute to further problems along their border if they remain in Iraq.

Nonetheless, I think he is right to say that al-Qaeda would prefer the US to stay in Iraq. The US presence "emboldens" them more than a withdrawal would.

Lieberman sinks lower

In today's Washington Post, Sen. Joe Lieberman has written an op-ed so egregious that it prompted Garance Franke-Ruta to ask: "Did Joe Lieberman just call the Democratic leadership pawns of al-Qaeda?"

First Lieberman goes all John McCain on us and tries to paint Iraq in an absurdly optimistic light.

In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis -- particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.

Of course this conflicts with virtually all other accounts, including that of former Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi, who is saying that the "surge" may be a waste of time.

Later in Lieberman's op-ed, he goes all Joe McCarthy (or is it Dick Cheney) on us.

When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.

What Democrats conceded with the Iraq Bill

If one is deciding whether or not to celebrate or bemoan the latest budget for Iraq, passed narrowly in the House, consider the following from Kucinich (Emphasis is mine):

$120 billion for an escalation of the war, the privatization of Iraqi oil assets and a possible extension of the war into Iran. And the President said he will veto this because it's not enough. By showing such a weak position against the Administration and the war, the Democrats have thoroughly undermined whatever bargaining position they could have had.

A valid point, even pragmatically speaking. Knowing that the bill serves zero chance of passing the Bush veto, and will presumably be drastically weakened from the sausage making fest that is the lawmaking process in the US Senate, it is troubling to know what the Democrats have already conceded

1.) The Iran language which wold have forced Bush to go to Congress in he wanted to use force against Iran, was stripped from the bill -- no small matter. To Pelosi's credit she insured progressive congresspeople who were upset about this that she would force a vote on the issue. Still, it is an unfortunate sign that the Blue Dogs are successfully playing this card.

2.) Allowing Bush to use word acrobatics, or outright dishonesty to avoid the benchmark provisions. Pelosi has even said that for this to work it requires the President to be honest about the progress, which is a scary proposition indeed.

3.) $120 billion in funds, enough for Bush to continue this deadly occupation for the duration of his term. Just think about that: we are starting the effort to end the war, by giving a boatload of cash buy the weapons that will inevitably maim thousands of civilians and serves to fuel radicalism and attacks against the US.

4.) Not a word about private contractors, which, as Jeremy Scahill (and Garrett Ordower) note in Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army , make up nearly half of our forces in Iraq. Without accounting for them, we are starting by allowing nearly 100,000 mercenaries to remain there indefinitely, and without any accountability. This can hardly be called an end of the war knowing this.

Now, I should note that I don't think supporters of this legislation, be they David Sirota, or progressive members of the Congress, or the bloggers over at MyDD, are sellouts or wish to continue the war. Most of these supporters, I think, have the right intentions, and indeed we do need to work together on this issue: we are on the same team in a sense. They understand the political obstacles in the way, most notably from the Blue Dogs in Congress. Lord knows Nancy Pelosi has an incredibly difficult job. I just wish more of the leaders of the progressive movement who are not politicians, but bloggers, writers, activists etc ... would keep staunch pressure on the Democrats to do more. We know that we will not get everything we ask for -- but let us ask for it nonetheless. As Howard Zinn noted the other day, as citizens it is not our job to endorse the ends of what is legislatively possible, but to support what is right, and what is just.

If Congress thinks it must compromise, let it. But we should not encourage that. We should speak our minds fully, boldly and say what is right, whatever they decide to do..

And frankly $120 billion for this criminally stupid war, is none of those things. That progressive citizens feel compelled to look at ending this war through the cold lens of political calculation that members of Congress do, is rather disappointing.

So I do think some are overstating (also here) the new power that the progressive caucus has in light of this great "victory." It seems the Blue Dogs were successful in thwarting the will of the American people, who want to end this war. I don't mean to sound too cynical. This was and is a painful process, but at least wheels are in motion, however slowly. Congress is light years ahead of where it was in 2004, for example, and there are signs of progress. But we are not close to ending this war, not with proposals like this, and we ought to understand this as we move forward. .

But move forward we must. So lets get to work.