Happy Memorial Day, everyone.

And since this is a holiday for our military, thanks to them and thanks to the whole lot of TPMers who know that the best way to support the troops is to argue for the type of leadership who will deploy them wisely and only for good cause.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Soldiers serve in war and presidents make policy.
The soldiers good service does not make bad policy good.
Defending bad policy, or pretending that bad policy is good
is an offense against the soldiers who serve in good faith.

Hi. One thing to remember, in the spirit of this Memorial Day: the term _casualty_ DOES NOT equal _combat-related fatality_, which I think is what the figure you're quoting represents. Casualties would included soldiers incapacitated on account of wounds as well as those missing, etc., and as such the total of U.S. casualties in Iraq is approaching the 24,000 mark. The fatalities figures typically don't include soldiers who have been killed through accidents or by their own hands; nor of course are mercenaries of U.S. nationality working in Iraq on contracts included either. Equating _casualty_ with _fatality_ is something I expect to see from online posters from the right wing, who are generally a) enamored of military terminology; b) all the same, are too ignorant to use it properly; c) have an interest in making the numbers seem smaller than they really are.

Vetos do not get him money.  Vetos are a standoff.  The Dems should have taken up other business until Bush was ready to cave.

It is bad enough when Publicans make up reality.  The fact is, mere omission was all that the Democrats needed to keep Bush's blank check away from him.  Omission does not require a majority, it just requires the Democratic leadership to be courageous.  Courage is what was required.  Of course, that is an awful lot to expect from this lot.

People in America labor under the delusion that their are two main parties, the Dems and Repubs.

Wrong. There's one party, the Corporate War Party that has two wings; the Dems and Repubs.

The War Party only caters to Americans who are either wealthy or connected.
If you're not either of those, T.S.

The Corporate War Party's only platform is power and money. The currency they use to obtain these is the blood of others.

The rich start and profit off the wars and the poor, fight and die in those wars.

Is this a great country or what?

greg bacon
ava, mo

~

Are you inferring that War is a Racket? ;^/

You and General Smedley Butler would get along famously...

~OGD~

It is becoming manifest yet so incompressible. Bush, Cheney, the neocons, Rudy McRomeny, their propagandists at the Corner (National Review), Weekly Standard, the neocon editorial crowd at WaPo.

Their continued demagoguery and blatant lies to distract from their responsibility for the continued needless deaths and maiming of American troops, and to justify their horrific decisions. (Fight them there not here, continue the war or betray the troops, support Guantonomo and destruction of the Constitution)

They have positioned themselves squarely against the democratic process (lie to the public and use fear, not to mention use the Justice process to maintain a one party state). They are positioning the Constitution as their enemy.

They subscribe to an anti-democratic, authoritarian, fear mongering ideology that is looking more and more like the popular authoritarian fascist views of the 30s.

I'm uncomfortable with the whole characterization of "the Democratic Congress" period, much less as wussies. Exactly who were wussies. They got their act together to vote almost uniformly on quite a lot in the first five months, both domestic and foreign, and that depended on the unlikely margin they have of half a vote at best (counting Lieberman). That includes the vote against the war, which we won.

Once Bush vetoed that, we lost a second vote, on funding. But even so we got plenty of Democratic support, including people this forum (and I) usually deride, like Schumer and Clinton. And I can understand why it was hard to keep others in line. It's a big party compared to the GOP's ideological agenda. We'd already lost, so someone in Nebraska could think, why should I stick my neck out, when it won't end the war? And right after the vote, the MSM right away characterized it dutifully about a vote against funding our troops.

So let's just feel at least a little relieved that even some wimps took a gamble. We're working toward real victory in 2008, and it'll help to get over the idea that it doesn't matter who wins. Sure, I'd rather Gore, Edwards, or Obama runs than Clinton. But I can see Gore thinking, oh, screw it, they'll just call me a sell-out again anyhow.

Oh, and on tlees idea of sending the last measure over and over: is that so that one day Bush will find God? Or another God than the one who sent him to war? Can you name one measure in history, about anything, whether trivial or meaningful, in which Congress won by sending the same bill every other week? Seems like there's an inflated idea of Congress's role in the balance of powers, and the only explanation I can give is, again, this self-righteousness that wants to feel cool but ends up wanting to hand things over to the right. Look, I know I'm a lefty. What do I have to prove?

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

In the main, I agree. However there is a difference between the parties, in that a sizable portion of the Repug base are now pro-fascist, brownshirts-in-waiting; that is, they are pro-preemptive war, pro-torture, pro-wiretapping, anti-Bill of Rights, etc., ad nauseam. The Dem base, at least, is for the most part totally in opposition to this anti-American contagion. While I think most Dem elected officials are in their hearts with the base, they surrender their gonads at the portal of entry to power in the USA. That is the price they pay for accepting the dirty money they need to get elected in our corrupted system. Somehow we must reawaken the FDR concept that the Democratic Party exists in opposition to the Economic Royalists, and for the support of the Constitution's main thrust - the support of the General Welfare Clause. Unless and until we rebuild that FDR coalition (which was unbeatable, by the way), nothing will change. Well, actually a great deal will change. We will lose our republic, our freedoms, our soul and incredible misery will ensue.

UA

The Dems cave.

Cindy Sheehan calls it a day.

Happy Memorial Day everyone!

TPMers,

Kindly stop by when you have a moment to visit our Honor Roll of Veterans. If you have a name you wish included, we will be happy to update our list. Please email me or simply comment at the Honor Roll here.

Well, yes, you managed to put it in much more concise terms than me. The point I was trying to make is how do we get the Democratic Party, or perhaps a new party born from the chaos that is coming due to the essential ungovernability of our country as things stand, to respond to the wishes of the Dem base, with a lot of Independents, some Libertarians and few honest Republicans thrown into the mix? I fear that will only happen with the advent of the above mentioned chaos; something on the order of the Great Depression, which is the last time a fundamental phase-shift in the political order was effected (at least in the positive sense).

UA

And so Cindy Sheehan gave up on the Dems...

Truth is, the Dems never deserved her.

Listen to that little shit, Rahm Emanuel, on Memorial Day!

I view this as the beginning of the end of the President's policy in Iraq in this way. It ends the blank check on more troops…

The guy is a coward who thinks we're all idiots!

Will anyone please give me a single reason why I should not despise that unctuous weasel with every fiber of my being?

Poor Cindy. The craven hypocrites in Congress were never even worthy to tie your shoes.

By next Memorial Day, another 1000 young Americans can be mourned. Thanks Rahm for the fresh supply!

Andrew Golis created this thread for us to record our Memorial Day reflections. I came to the thread late, having spent many hours on the road following visiting kin at a military installation north of Nashville, attending a Memorial Day Ceremony at a new military cemetery and checking in to a motel outside of Galesburg, Illinois, at 11:00 p.m.; still en route to our final destination in Iowa, but too pooped and stiff to continue further. By the time I got here, this thread had taken on a life of its own, as threads do.

At 7:30, waiting for the relatives in the next room to awaken, I don’t expect to have time to develop my thoughts fully. I probably will post something on my little blog later in the day. But let me at least give you all a sense where my thinking is heading. Historians have the interesting task of drawing persons’ attention to events, ideas, trends, and people more important than the historians themselves. Memorial Day, for me, brings two persons living millennia apart, into collision: Pericles, and Emma Goldman.

Pericles’ Funeral Oration as recounted by Thucydides, became the model for Memorial Day Speeches such as those I heard yesterday. In the form I present it to my students, there are no headnotes. If you follow the link, I’d advise skipping them in order to confront the man and the form of the address directly. Here’s a sample

Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbors', but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty an obstacle, but a man may benefit his country whatever the obscurity of his condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life, and in our private business we are not suspicious of one another, nor angry with our neighbor if he does what he likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained in our private business, a spirit of reverence pervades our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for the authorities and for the laws, having a particular regard to those which are ordained for the protection of the injured as well as those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment.

And we have not forgotten to provide for our weary spirits many relaxations from toil; we have regular games and sacrifices throughout the year; our homes are beautiful and elegant; and the delight which we daily feel in all these things helps to banish sorrow. Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of other countries as freely as our own.

Then, again, our military training is in many respects superior to that of our adversaries. Our city is thrown open to the world, though and we never expel a foreigner and prevent him from seeing or learning anything of which the secret if revealed to an enemy might profit him. We rely not upon management or trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands. And in the matter of education, whereas they from early youth are always undergoing laborious exercises which are to make them brave, we live at ease, and yet are equally ready to face the perils which they face.

I didn’t hear Bush speak yesterday. I’m fairly certain I didn’t have to: I’ve read Pericles.

Emma Goldman, rounded up and deported for exercising the freedom of speech guaranteed her under the First Amendment, had a very different take. She remarks in her essay, Patriotism, a Menace to Liberty,

Gustave Hervé, another great anti-patriot, justly calls patriotism a superstition--one far more injurious, brutal, and inhumane than religion. The superstition of religion originated in man's inability to explain natural phenomena. That is, when primitive man heard thunder or saw the lightning, he could not account for either, and therefore concluded that back of them must be a force greater than himself. Similarly he saw a supernatural force in the rain, and in the various other changes in nature. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.

Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.

The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that, from early infancy, the mind of the child is poisoned with blood-curdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached manhood, he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner. It is for that purpose that we are clamoring for a greater army and navy, more battleships and ammunition. It is for that purpose that America has within a short time spent four hundred million dollars. Just think of it--four hundred million dollars taken from the produce of the people. For surely it is not the rich who contribute to patriotism. They are cosmopolitans, perfectly at home in every land.

These two views challenge each other across the millennia. They also live side by side in our culture, and indeed, inside many of us. We don’t lack the capacity to hold two opposing views simultaneously. What I hope to develop later are some patterns I perceive: the way Pericles’ view comes to the fore when the culture feels threatened (and the ability of members of the political class to use fear to evoke Pericles), and the way Goldman is forced upon us, like it or not, when we confront the disasters created by Periclean hubris.

aMike

Actually you provide exactly zero evidence in contradiction to what I said.  BZV, bellow you, provides a coherent account that both explains your claim and my standard understanding and, if you read it, you will see it does indeed cite the date 1956 as a critical date.

Since you have moved to the level of mocking me, I will just point out that you are an asshole. 

Can you name one measure in history, about anything, whether trivial or meaningful, in which Congress won by sending the same bill every other week?

Not exactly, John, but searching my memory for an example I came up with Frank Water's The Man Who Killed the Deer.  In that novel the good Tewa governors persistently floored the return of the Sacred Blue Lake to Taos issue in every meeting with government agents, and they refused to discuss any other issue until that one was resolved.  I guess that forced the Tewa to continue living in mud apartment buildings at the expense of brand new sparkling house trailers, eh?  But it wasn't fiction - and they won out eventually and got back their holy lake.  From Dick Nixon, no less!

Neoboho

The Dems did hand Iraq over to the right.

deleted

Hear! Hear!

Tom

Yes, I know you've heard this, but it bears repeating:

Economists know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

That said, my daughter has a double major.  You guessed it:  Economics, and (mercifully) Spanish. 

Jan

This comes from Oscar Wilde who said " A cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

Tom

I didn't realize you were an economist.