Obscenity, Arrogance, Impeachment
I heard Ed Schultz talking about his appearances lately in which he threw the impeachment word out there. He's been helping to push the cause, having been turned towards impeachment by the Libby commutation.
He talked to Pelosi, who now says impeachment has always been on the table. He talked before a crowd, mentioned the "I" word and got a lot of applause, which appeared on C-SPAN. And he appeared on Hardball, Mike Barnicle subbing for Chris Matthews (via Crooks & Liars):
Ed Schultz: There's polls out there that say that 46% of registered voters want this man impeached. The Democrats are behind the curve, they need to get with the American people and get aggressive.And that led to the subject of how out of touch Washington in general is, and a very appropriate word was used to describe The Beltway:
Mike Barnicle: There's also something going on, you mentioned the Beltway having, no matter how you feel about this war, there's something that verges on the obscene about the politics of the war being played out in Washington while all these funerals are being conducted across the country.Karen Hanretty, The Gropenator's former spokeswoman, chimed in:
But then I'll tell you what also is, I think, obscene to people, is the idea that you would conduct a war based on polls based, versus principle. ... Now, you might not agree with, you might not agree with the President's principles, but the idea of running a war based on polls ...Karen Hanretty might be right if they were talking about some other war that had been fought on principle. She'd be even closer to right if they were talking about a war at all rather than an occupation.
However, what would she call invading a country based on a desire to do so for matters other than national security and using marketing techniques and fearmongering to convince a large majority of the populace (reflected through polls!) that it's a good idea? I'd call it freakingly, outrageously, humongously obscene.
Anyway, what does this "running a war based on polls" really mean? Does it mean, "we asked 1000 Americans which direction Able Company ought to go: 10% said North; 12% said South; 7% said Other Direction; and a whopping 81% said WTF kind of stupid poll is this?!? or its near equivalent."
Of course it doesn't mean that. Polling against a war means that the war is obviously FUBAR in some way. I happen to be a member of that subset which thinks this particular war was FUBAR from the outset because it was unprincipled and false; but there is a larger segment who previously supported the President and have now come to the realization that not only is the Iraq Occupation FUBAR, but our own Bush Occupation is skirting too closely to the shoals of FUBAR Island.
What Karen Hanretty was doing was further laying the groundwork that some are working on: blaming the American public for when we are forced to leave Iraq to the uncontrolled chaos that we started. After all, our cowardly Congressmen will have bowed to the polls.
Nevermind the fact that the President had majority support of the populace; nearly unanimous support from Congress and the So Called Liberal Media; carpal tunnel syndrome from all the blank checks he had to endorse; complete autonomy and no Congressional oversight in the conduct of the war and occupation. It will still be someone else's fault that we didn't entirely tame that beast, bending it to our will.
Apparently, there is something unprincipled about finally seeing the huge, growing stack of human bodies and getting angry and queasy about contributing blindly to the piss-poor strategery that refuses to even attempt to adapt.
And that's truly what the polls are all about. It's not an attempt by the public to run an occupation by popular opinion, it's a reflection of the opinion of the populace that no one is really running anything (at least nothing that would lead to a somewhat successful occupation rather than huge wads of cash for war profiteers).
The public swallowed the President's line about Iraq, and he would have gotten away with it if it had worked (the meddling kids and their dog only got attention when they were being marginalized and ridiculed). He was given every tool to make it work, and he didn't do it. And in the face of glaring facts that everyone can plainly see, he refuses to acknowledge his mistakes or try to change. Except to throw more bodies at it and demand more carte blanche unaccountability.
All he had to do was make it work. Since it was unworkable to begin with, all he needs to do now is admit the colossal mistake he made and change. That's also unworkable given a particular attribute of our President.
Above in the ellipses of Karen Hanretty's little speech on obscenity, and then again at the end of what she had to say, Ed Scultz said this about the American people, their opinions, and the President's relationship with them:
The American people have to matter ... The American people have to matter. And he has been totally arrogant to their feelings.
I think that just about sums it up.