Col,

"It utterly escapes me what these fools are thinking."

My guess - to make the administration look bad.

You have a large segment of the American population who want us to leave Iraq. Furthermore, you have many Democrats in Congress who want us to leave Iraq as well (can't remember the specific name (Reid-Levin?) - that calls for benchmarks and drawing down of forces in Iraq). Reid and the Dems know that the war is not popular and not going well.

What his statement (and the news conference in general) does is provide the context to rub the Iraq war shit into the noses of the Republicans.

Think about it - the Bush administration is backing a government (and leader) in Iraq that have come out against one of our allies. It's gives the Dems some leverage with the American public (support for a long standing ally - Israel) while simultaneously calling attention to (though not explicitly) the Bush administration's hachet job of the MENA.

My guess - to make the administration look bad.

Well, the Democrats then have as little sense as the Republicans. They are making all of USA look bad, all to spin an issue for domestic gains.

I think Americans may have misunderstood what democracy is. Read something somewhere on the post-war development of democracy in South Korea and Japan. Japan is not a democracy (said the article), since there is little virulent debate - not a lot of Lounsburys over there - and the same party has been in power for 50 years. That's what Americans wanted. Whereas South Korea went through some upheavals in the early 90s that shook off US political manipulation, paving the way for a real democracy as we know it in the West, contrary to the wishes of US government.

It's pretty daft to assume a democracy would have to be pro-western.

"Well, the Democrats then have as little sense as the Republicans. They are making all of USA look bad, all to spin an issue for domestic gains."

I take it you aren't well acquainted with the political landscape of the United States. What do you propose that the Democrats do? Condemn Israel outright? Given that the majority of Americans (on both sides of the political spectrum) generally support Israel, how fast would you think the Republicans would use said condemnation against the Democrats? They already have used 9-11, the GWOT, and the war in Iraq to paint Democrats as soft on national defense, supporters of terrorists, cowards who would "cut and run" in Iraq and not "stay the course" (and other such garbage). How do you think Bush was re-elected?

Any attempt by Democrats to score political points against Republicans (and the administration) in the current political environment of America helps bring them closer to gaining a majority in Congress in 2006 (and hopefully the Presidency in 2008). Otherwise, we (and the rest of the world) are likely to get more of the same from the Republicans. Do you really want THAT?

Klaus,

Well, it's a bit of meandering off the topic, but it's not really fair to describe Japan as a relative "non-democracy" to South Korea: Japan is a lot like, say, Sweden--stable to the point of moribund sometimes, while South Korea is like Allende's Chile, extremely fractious and internally divided. I'm not so sure if I'd think Chile in 1972 was necessarily more "democratic" than its Swedish counterpart.

@eponymous

Well, then the issue is that American voters fall for that crap. If Democrats have to fight Republicans by outclassing their stupidity to gain voters, then it's a lost cause to begin with. Common sense apparently doesn't get voters.

@kao

Wasn't me, was the article. Let's see if I can dig it up. And Sweden has had plenty of different governments from left to right. I'd say there is something eerie about having the same party in government for 50 years.

The line eponymous pitches about US politics is the same apologia you see repeated from the people that man the daily kos ship. When they talk about being pragmatic, they don't actually mean coming up with a coherent pragmatic policy, rather, they simply refer to the superficial political positioning that will shelter them from Republican spin. What they don't seem to understand is that you can't pitch a coherent pragmatic policy that absorbs the reality of the situation and say the retarded shit Howard Dean has just said. Furthermore, this kind of neurotic dance they engage looks ridiculously transparent, and simply makes them less and less credible. Any person who does not realize that trying to outdo the current Admin's pro-Israeli stance is a lost cause cannot possibly claim to be pragmatic. And assuming that you do win elections on account of retarded shit like this, you will have to adopt that retarded rhetoric into policy once you are Prez or the majority in Congress, because you will be paranoid about losing the next elections, which is all that matters for people in this mode of thought...and then expect the rest of the world to believe that being a "Democrat" magically (to use the site owner's preferred lingo) protects you from being equally retarded.

klaus - And Sweden has had plenty of different governments from left to right.

Oh, I wish. The Social Democrats have held control of the government from 1932 without interruption, except in 1976-82, again in 1991-94, and when agreeing to head a coalition during WW2.

(On the main topic: I just learned Howard Dean as head of the Dem party has decided that Nuri al-Maliki is a vicious "anti-Semite" for failing to condemn Hizbullah, and doesn't deserve American support. It would all be funny if it wasn't all so sad.)

alle:

I agree - it is a sad state of affairs. I would dearly love it if the Dems weren't forced (to some degree) to take the stance that they have (in re Maliki and Hezbollah). But I see it for what it is in this instance - the Dems throwing an anvil to the drowning Bush administration policy. The Dems know, you know, I know, a whole bunch of people in the know that Maliki can't very well condemn Hezbollah.

But the average American sure as hell doesn't know it. There are still to this day many Americans who STILL believe that Saddam Hussein has something to do with 9-11 and that there were significant caches of WMDs found in Iraq after the US invasion. Mind you, not as much as before, but in enough numbers to make it politically difficult for the Dems to make any headway against the current Republican dominated Congress. Keep in mind that the end-game here for the Dems and their supporters is this - TO GET US OUT OF IRAQ.

aegean:

"Furthermore, this kind of neurotic dance they engage looks ridiculously transparent, and simply makes them less and less credible."

Of course its ridiculously transparent, to you and I - but we are not the intended audience. And I would debate on whether it makes the Dems look less credible. It sure as hell doesn't make them any less credible than the Republicans/administration.

"Any person who does not realize that trying to outdo the current Admin's pro-Israeli stance is a lost cause cannot possibly claim to be pragmatic."

Who said anything about being pragmatic? As I stated to Klaus, you must not be famaliar with the political landscape in the US at present. It's so fucked up you wouldn't believe it.

"And assuming that you do win elections on account of retarded shit like this, you will have to adopt that retarded rhetoric into policy once you are Prez or the majority in Congress, because you will be paranoid about losing the next elections, which is all that matters for people in this mode of thought...and then expect the rest of the world to believe that being a "Democrat" magically (to use the site owner's preferred lingo) protects you from being equally retarded."

No - being a Democrat doesn't magically protect one from being retarded. But the Democrats have fuck all to do with the way the US is currently viewed by the rest of the world. The current administration and Republicans have done that largely by themselves. Granted, some Democrats have supported the Republicans/admin in what has transpired - but it's not the faction that is currently trying to change things.

And I would disagree that the rhetoric would necessarily need to become established policy. Its already established policy that the US is a strong supporter/ally of Israel. However, I don't think it's the Dems position (at least from what I understand) that this support is as UNCONDITIONAL as the current administration's support has been. We wouldn't likely be in the current situation had a Democratic president been in place (A Dem president would have likely put more pressure on Olmert from the outset - if not to stop the war, then at the very least to put pressure on him to not escalate or call for a cease fire. We also would probably NOT be in Iraq, which changes the dynamic of the situation considerably).

Wouldn't it be a better idea to call the bluff on the republicans instead of playing their game? One has to stand up to this myth-making when it appears, not go along when the myths are accepted.

Jon Stewart was right: In the Star Wars universe, Democrats are Ewoks at best. Christ, are the only decent people in USA these days comedians?

Sort of like in King Lear, the fool speaks the truth.

Party politics aside -- is there a real debate on what the US should do in Iraq anywhere? I'd sure love to read it, because I for one can't make up my mind one way or the other.

It's now getting to the point where a premature troop pullout, and accepting total defeat and civil war, actually sounds like a reasonably good idea. At least I'm not seeing anything better coming out of Washington, and "staying the course" is clearly not a viable option.

Who said anything about being pragmatic?

Well, this is what you wrote:

What do you propose that the Democrats do? Condemn Israel outright? Given that the majority of Americans (on both sides of the political spectrum) generally support Israel, how fast would you think the Republicans would use said condemnation against the Democrats?...How do you think Bush was re-elected?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this has a clear "Come on guys, this is the reality let's be practical" tone to it. So yes, it does look like you're trying to defend their gibberish by claiming they're being pragmatic. Let me remind you that Dean's exceptional horeshit did not have anything to do with praising Israel, it had everything to do with condemning al-Maliki and suggesting that no more money should be spent on the reconstruction of a country the US invaded because they're full of nutfucks who at the very least think Israel's assault on Lebanon legitimizes the ensuing Hizbullah resistance.

They already have used 9-11, the GWOT, and the war in Iraq to paint Democrats as soft on national defense, supporters of terrorists, cowards who would "cut and run" in Iraq and not "stay the course" (and other such garbage).

From my understanding, the Democrats seem to be mocked by the average American not only for being weak but also for their whole schtick of trying to look tough (going back at least to the Dukakis-tank thing, I believe). I'm sure some advisor told Dukakis that if he wanted to beat the Republican spin about looking weak, he'd have to expose his balls on a tank. Oops.

Of course its ridiculously transparent, to you and I - but we are not the intended audience. And I would debate on whether it makes the Dems look less credible. It sure as hell doesn't make them any less credible than the Republicans/administration.

Well no, my point was that it does make them less credible to the average American. Let's take a specific Dean example. The US rightwingers seem to have had a field day when Dean just had a keffiyeh around his neck at some rally. First off, let's realize that any previous pandering to Muslims has been more than nullified by this recent how-dare-a-sandnigger diatribe (of course, if he was being realistic about getting elected he wouldn't have bothered about pandering to the Muslim vote to begin with). Second, the rightwingers apparently launched an all-out assault in trying to persuade people that a keffiyeh was "jihadist chic wear". At this point you would have to concede that they probably had an easy time of it, after all, you yourself attest that average Americans believe a lot of retarded shit. So basically, any time Dean attempts to go out of his way to get the Jewish vote, all the "Republican spin machine" has to do is flash a picture of Dean with the keffiyeh, and there goes all those "hard-earned" points. So all I deduce from this is that Democrats fucking blow at playing the game.

We wouldn't likely be in the current situation had a Democratic president been in place

Yes, thats too bad. From where I stand though, the Democrats seem to have gotten dumber after the 2000 elections. And from the outside, their approach appears exceedingly narcissistic. Instead of, "We [the US] broke it, we fix it" they seem to be saying "They [the Republicans] broke it, so we don't have to fix it." Its somewhat amusing that Colin Powell is said to have played that card as well. The assertion being that he was more than happy to keep the State department out of the post-invasion mess, probably fearing that it would be made the scapegoat for the failure. Sensible from a personal liability standpoint, not exactly considerate however.

And I would disagree that the rhetoric would necessarily need to become established policy.

Again, I would have been more easily convinced of this prior to 2000, before the Democrats became so neurotic and hungry. From what I've seen, I don't think they're immune from using policy to pander for continued power in the event they are elected.

So did anyone stumble across this? Well hidden.

Hollywood ironically swallows Bush propaganda.

Rather liked Dennis Hopper. Certainly prefer my celebs to keep their mouths shut about politics.

Ironic that they 'support democratic societies' while giving the shaft to democratically elected Hamas and Hizbollah. But I'm sure they don't know or are aware of that. I hope so, anyway, otherwise it'd be too much doublethink for me to bear.