Joe’s new pal thinks the Iraq War is “a pink elephant”

I don’t post too much about the Connecticut Senate primary pitting Joe Lieberman against his upstart challenger Ned Lamont: I try to keep things local with an occasional post on some federal issue. (Plus I save the other stuff for the American Prospect.) But today I feel compelled to write on some remarks Bill Clinton made while stumping for Joe yesterday. They sure as h*ll p*ssed me off:

In a 23-minute speech, where his statements were often cut off by applause, Clinton called the controversy over the war in Iraq “the pink elephant in the living room,” which should not divide Democrats, who are minorities in both the U.S. House and Senate.”The real issue is, what are we going to do now?”

The friggin’ pink elephant in the living room?

You know, I would trade my right arm to swap President dinky for Clinton. In a heartbeat. Say what you want about his sexual proclivities or his “slick-ness,” he was a hellva better President than our current fella. (Of course a house plant could run the country better, IMHO.) But this reminded me how he used to p*ss me off when he was the Prez.

So the Iraq War is just a “pink elephant in the livingroom.”

Forget the thousands of servicemen and –women who have given their lives in the conflict. Forget the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis. Forget the fact that our security is now compromised by the war – our borders remain porous because the war is sucking up federal funds, we’re unable to threaten North Korea or Iran militarily because our armed forces are bogged down in an unwinnable quagmire. Forget the fact that the war is draining our coffers, increasing the deficit and push our collective future down a sinkhole. Forget about the rudderless administration’s inability to deal with the war.

And above all, forget about Joe Lieberman’s unwavering support for a President’s failed, aimless, and incompetent war policy. And forget the fact that Lieberman claimed that anybody who disagreed with him – and the President – was an unpatriotic America-hater.

Forget all these irritating little details. It’s just a “pink elephant.”

These people just don’t get it. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton and the conservative and out-of-touch DLC unveiled their new agenda: the “American Dream Initiative.” (Notice the not-so-subtle reference to MLK’s “I have a dream” speech.) It’s not a bad deal, the initiative, which seeks universal health care for children (not enough, but I’ll take it), retirement pensions for workers, and easier access to college. Good.

But the DLC’s initiative doesn’t even mention the number one issue important to U.S. voters: the pink elephant.

Yet as a platform for Democrats, the initiative is notably silent on what could be the overarching issue of the 2006 elections: the Iraq war. Clinton said the omission was deliberate, since the plan focuses on domestic policy and expanding and strengthening the middle class.

Why are “centrist” Democrats still pretending the war doesn’t exist? Don’t we need a plan for Iraq? Shouldn’t the Republican party be forbidden from meddling in foreign affairs? Haven’t we made enough mistakes?

Look. Most people think the Iraq war has been bungled from the beginning. To avoid the topic is foolish. We demand accountibility.

  1. Mark T

    I doubt Iraq was bungled. It was a grab – Iraq had oil, we’re on the downside of Hubbert’s Peak, and wanted control of that oil (while installing a puppet government to assist us). They had to tell a few lies to get the American people to support it, but that’s always been the case. Remember Tonkin? Did the Democrats really believe the lies? I doubt it.

    So anyway, if the policy is to grab oil and install puppets, then the policy appears to be going forward, hampered only by Iraqi resistance. If both parties agree on the policy (save a few malcontents), then both parties are going to downplay the war as a campaign issue. Indeed they do.

  2. Come on! You may be right about the invasion’s purpose to grab oil supplies, but you don’t think Iraq was bungled? Plenty of old-school conservatives are aghast at the operation. Brent Scowcraft, for example. And don’t tell me Scowcroft isn’t interested in oil.

  3. Mark T

    You’re right. But I bristle when opposition to the war is based on the premise that it wasn’t done in an efficient manner. The subtext there is that the invasion was justified, only bungled. Opposition should be clear – the invasion was illegal and immoral, and the US is responsible for every evil that follows, including every death. The US owes huge reparations to the country of Iraq and the individual families who have lost family members and property. Not that we’ll ever pay a penny. Just stating the obvious.

    Saying “Oops, we screwed up!,” or running for office promising to introduce efficiency to an illegal operation doesn’t begin to cut it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,689,175 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,736 other followers

  • July 2006
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: