The People's House
Many of the MSM media outlets emphasize the narrowness of the House vote for the beginning of withdrawal at a date (somewhat) certain. But that's not the main point at all, of course. The main point is that the House vote aligns with the wishes of the majority of the electorate, and that this majority is growing. Public opinion is crystallized in this momentous, and historically very rare vote.
Remember how the MSM decried Speaker Pelosi's alliance with John Murtha? Congressman Murtha's relationship with the Pentagon has been critical to the Speaker's mustering of a majority for this vote.
The Senate will have an increasingly difficult time avoiding an echo of this vote.
Only a significant turn of events in Iraq can change the political momentum. Lincoln needed to take Atlanta in 1864; Roosevelt needed D-Day to take place by the summer of 1944; Eisenhower couldn't run in 1952 on a promise to stay in Korea; Nixon needed to run in 1972 on a promise to end the Vietnam War. In the American democracy, the electoral cycle puts time limits on military strategies.
I think it's fine that the MCMers* emphasize the narrow Democratic win on this vote; it serves to emphasize the role of not only the Current Occupant (as Garrison Keillor recently referred to Bush) but also that of the Republicans in Congress.
It's not just Bush's War--it's the Republicans' War.
If the MCM just keeps on making that point it may serve a purpose in spite of its usual efforts, to put it kindly, to retain access.
*MCMers--Members of the Mainstream Corporate Media
April 26, 2007 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd add one word;
Its the Republicans' "unjustified" war.
April 26, 2007 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the first time
Broder's column prompted me to write a comment over at the Washington Post. Excuse the self-promotion, but here is what I had to say.
aMike
April 26, 2007 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reed Hundt says:
"Remember how the MSM decried Speaker Pelosi's alliance with John Murtha? Congressman Murtha's relationship with the Pentagon has been critical to the Speaker's mustering of a majority for this vote."
The MSM runs with whatever the right wing noise machine puts out there. The last two Presidential elections showed that. Too many of the Washington Press Corps who pass for "journalists" today seem to live inside a box which seems to be an echo chamber.
Russert, Broder, Schieffer, Malveaux....when as the last time either one of them broke a story or did a controversial report?
When was the last time you saw a member of this gang introduce an original thought?
Watch their analysis of the Democrat's presidential debate, just don't expect
one of them to see anything different.
April 26, 2007 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone see Bill Moyers Journal last night on PBS? It is a must -see. You can see it all at Think Progress. It details how almost all of the MSM rolled over for the Bush lies and spin and how they were actually afraid to challenge the false facts because what if THEY were wrong?
Knight-Ridder was pretty much the only media member that actually did research and made phone calls to refute what was being put out there.
Cheney's office leaking to the NYT and then quoting it to prove that their lies were true.
Colin Powell's testimony was so full of holes that Knight-Ridder reporters were sure it would all come down on their heads, but no one challenged anything.
The MSM was terrribly at fault, but worse, in my opinion were the Congress, who had the duty to evaluate the information before they voted. They were unforgivably cowardly, or dishonest, or ignorant (perhaps a combination of the 3).
It is truly sickening. Now the spin machine is aimed at Harry Reid. Just for reminders, this is what he actually said:
"And as long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course - and we must change course."
This is defeatism? No, the Bush regime has shown us all what real defeatism looks like. They just have a different name for it: Mission Accomplished!
Jan
April 26, 2007 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan,
I saw the Moyers show; it was good to see Moyers naming names and showing those clips.
Since the run up to the war Knight-Ridder has consistantly been the best in covering this whole IRAQ fiasco.
April 26, 2007 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly did! I had cut the public television station here from my donation list in no small part because they had cut Now from their program schedule and only restored it after Moyers had left the program and it had been reduced to a half hour. But yesterday I sent them the first donation I had sent in years, and let them know it was occasioned by the addition of Bill Moyers Journal to their program lineup.
Watching it, I was reminded of some lines from Robert Frost's "Choose Something Like a Star":
We ask a certain height of journalists, too. We need them to stay themselves against the sway of the mob.
April 26, 2007 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan,
I haven't seen the Moyers show yet, but will eventually be looking at. Your comments are very good and I concur.
I have so MANY unanswered questions about what happened in Congress, due to things that happened around the same thing.
For example:
1. Bush said he wanted to obtain justice on behalf of the victims of 9-11. Yet, after he demanded the Taliban turn over OBL, and they agreed (with certain conditions) he refused to even talk to them. Within 6 months of 9-11, OBL was no longer of concern to Bush.
2. What EVIDENCE backs Bush's claim that OBL was responsible for 9-11? The FBI's own 10 Most Wanted Terrorist list does feature OBL -- however NOT for 9-11. The reason? The FBI doesn't have what they consider conclusive proof that OBL WAS responsible for 9-11.
3. Who, other than administrative lackeys provided testimony regarding Hussein's alleged WMD? Two UNSCOM inspectors (Ritter and Blix) were speaking out publically that there WERE no more WMD.
4. The UNSCOM inspector reports were/are available at the UN website.
5. Our own CIA interrogated Kamel Hussein (Hussein's son-in-law) when he defected to Jordan. Kamel was the head of Iraq's WMD program and he stated they had been destroyed -- which tends to be corroborated by both Ritter and Blix.
6. WHY didn't Dubya have 9-11 investigated as a criminal act? Apparently, Clinton had the FBI investigate the first bombing of the WTC -- which DID result in the capture, trial of, and subsequent imprisonment of the principals involved.
7. The claim that Hussein "gassed" the Kurds. An investigation was conducted by the Army War College and they dispute that claim. They believe that the Kurds were killed by a type of agent that Iraq did not possess, but that Iran did.
There are TOO many things that still don't make any sense at all and have certainly weighed into my disdain for the Bushies.
April 27, 2007 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed,
I wish I shared the same sentiment. I find it hard to believe that this congress, so full of representatives that voted for this war, and giddy at their sense of newfound power, are suddenly representing the eletorate honestly. No doubt the anti-war sentiment pervades the electorate - I just don't find it as momentous as it should be.
Perhaps it is a a moment worth remembering because the electorate and its representatives are actually aligned. I'd like to think that wasn't the case, but I am pretty sure that now is as good a time to vote against the war as there ever has been, for donkeys and elephants alike.
April 27, 2007 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Nice touch Nancy!!!
My idol..one of many Reed!
Gen William Odom,
Democratic Party Weekly Radio Address
Transcript and stream mp3
April 28, 2007 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should the Senate and House not find the votes to override (and that's likely), I have a suggestion that I posted elsewhere. The suggestion is to fund the war. I can't think of a better way to end it. Do you agree with the logic below?
The Iraq war has been funded through emergency supplemental funding (off budget) since its beginning. But clearly, this has been an action of great fiscal irresponsibility, as the result has been a huge surge in the nation’s debt.
Since it is clear from the administration and its generals that 1) the surge will take a long and indeterminate time and 2) due to fiscal constraints, we are sending troops that are not fully prepared or armored and 3) continuing to borrow money for a long and indeterminate time is fiscally irresponsible and unsustainable, I would propose, therefore that any supplemental funding be accompanied by a substantial, supplemental emergency terror fee.
Since 1) borrowing by the US treasury disproportionately impacts future social security recipients and 2) every individual making more than $97,500 does not pay for social security (and could care less if social security is not available in the future), every individual making more than $97,500 or couples making more than $195,000, should pay a flat supplemental war on terror fee of 15% of all gross income (not adjusted gross income) on the amount in excess of that stated above. This fee will be retroactive to Jan 1, 2007. The war on terror fee will remain in effect until 1) the Executive Branch declares that the war on terror is over and 2) damage to nation states where the war was fought in order to keep the terrorists from fighting us here, is paid in full.
Be patriotic. Support the war on terror! Right. But if you are rich and you’re being forced to pay for it?? With your own money? Never!!! But, this will appeal to Republican fiscal conservatives, (better yet, it’s a flat fee that appeals even more to certain Republican groups). However, it will likely rip apart their base of supporters. It's basically "Put your money where your mouth is; get your political base to fund it". Support for the war will vanish. Timelines for withdrawl will see tremendous bipartisan support.
April 28, 2007 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink