Olbermann and MSNBC Flunk Backbone Test

BULLETIN: MSNBC TV NEWS MANAGERS AND KEITH OLBERMANN CLASSIFIED INVERTEBRATES.

I watched all of MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” last night, and quite a bit of “Scarborough Country”. Not one word was said about the big story of the day, which I quoted and discussed in my previous post.

Yesterday MSNBC online reported that the Democrats had eliminated from proposed legislation the requirement that Congress approve an attack on Iran before Bush could launch such a war. Politicians said that the reason for the elimination of any restraint on Bush was Israel’s fear of Iran. What could be a bigger story than that? “Democrats Clear Way for Bush Attack on Iran Due to Israeli Concerns”.

Please read the full story I posted yesterday if you haven’t. The big point now is that last night Olbermann/MSNBC TV avoided the most important story altogether and found the US Attorney General scandal so fascinating (even though no laws were broken) that virtually the entire hour-long program was filled with Attorney General Gonzales and the usual “celebrity” sewage.

It seems that every time I stray from my original announced aim in VIEW FROM THE MOON – to provide important facts that are missing from mainstream news coverage in the United States – events bring me back on track. It also seems that those events are almost always related to Israel and its supporters – whether it’s a Zionist Harvard law professor attacking Jimmy Carter for supporting Palestinian rights or the present case, in which the United States Congress, incredibly, has abdicated all responsibility for preventing Bush & Co. from starting a war with Iran.

If you think about it, this is one of the worst things that has happened in a long time. If our politicians are going to throw us to the war dogs for Israel’s sake, isn’t it time to analyze and ask questions?

First, why should “Israel’s fears of Iran” have any impact on the U.S. Congress at all? In case you haven’t looked lately, Pennsylvania, Florida, Maine, Iowa, and Arizona are on the North American continent, not in Palestine.

Second, Israeli concerns about Iran are childish anyway. Even if Iran does try to develop atomic weapons it would take at least ten and probably fifteen years to do so. Besides, Israel already has its own nuclear arsenal, as well as a much more powerful military than Iran, courtesy of the U.S.A. It's as if the United States were quaking and wringing its hands today because Gautemala began a nuclear power program.

Third, why would the Israeli Lobby strive so hard to eliminate the requirement of a congressional green light for a Bush attack on Iran if it weren’t to guarantee that widespread American public opposition to such an attack could find no expression in Washington? Bush can be trusted to start any war that Israel wants, but if congressional approval were required, there would be just a tiny chance that Congress would flash a red light. A tiny chance indeed, considering the Israel Lobby’s power over Congress, but perhaps a chance.

Democrats are still trying to lie their way out of the quicksand of their advance approval of the Iraq war. What possible excuse will they invent for having let Bush know that he has a free hand to attack Iran?

If There Was Ever Any Doubt. . .

BULLETIN: UNITED STATES NO LONGER MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH

If there was ever any doubt about whether a tiny Jewish colony in Palestine can control the foreign policy of “the most powerful nation on earth”, this story should put the doubt to rest.

Next to getting the U.S. troops out of Iraq, the most important demand on most voters' minds last November was that the Democrats do something to prevent Bush from starting a new war – specifically, against Iran. We now hear that the ever-heroic Democrats are dropping legislation which would require that Bush get approval from Congress before moving against Iran!

What could be worse for the Dems than once more, as they did before the invasion of Iraq, to give an irresponsible megalomaniac carte blanche to invade a Middle Eastern country? This time they can’t hide behind the “we didn’t know any better” lie over which they’re still rending their garments. They don’t even have that feeble an excuse for ignoring their people’s and their country’s interests.

Their reason for abdicating the right of Congress to veto a Bush attack on Iran: “There is widespread fear in Israel about Iran.”

Is that any reason to give a green light to a new war for the United States? Is there “widespread fear in California about Iran”? Is there “widespread fear about Iran in Minnesota or Michigan”? Not likely. What could there be to fear?

We see in this AP article a blood-chilling example of the power of the Israel Lobby over the Congress. Ironically, while the Democrats suffered dissolving spines, Cheney was giving a speech to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, probably the most powerful component of the Israel Lobby.

How much hard-biting analysis of the Israel influence on the junking of the Iran legislation will we hear on MSNBC tonight? I’ll wait to judge the status of Keith Olbermann’s spine until I see what he does with the story on his show.

Updated: 11:07 a.m. ET March 13, 2007
‘WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iraq a requirement that President Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
‘House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials said Monday.
‘The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.
‘Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview that there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.’

Even from here I can hear the squeak of the twisting of congressional arms by AIPAC.
--------------

And Now,
Good News:

Except for almost all their newspapers and television networks, Americans do NOT want Lewis Libby pardoned.

According to a new poll from CNN, most Americans do NOT want President Bush to pardon Vice President Cheney's convicted former chief of staff Lewis Libby. "Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose a presidential pardon for former White House aide Lewis 'Scooter' Libby after his conviction on perjury and other charges related to a CIA agent's exposure, according to a CNN poll out Monday," the news network reports.
Less than 20 percent support a Libby pardon.

Cowardice, or Business as Usual?

I don’t consider myself naïve, but I confess that I thought the Democrats would make a big difference in Washington after the November elections. Visions of bold Democrats wiping Congressional corridors with Republicans must now go the way of the Tooth Fairy. What we see instead is an exhibition of spineless cowardice.

But wait. . . “Cowardice” implies that because of fear one avoids something he knows he should do. Simply running out of a burning house isn’t cowardice because no duty is being neglected. What do you call a situation in which a political candidate insincerely promises to do certain brave things which he or she has no intention of doing? What of the Democratic candidates who knew throughout their campaign bravado that they were just mouthing words, with no intention of acting?

I say that “cowardice” is an appropriate word, but I think it should be classified as worse than simply running away at the last minute because one is scared. The Democrats’ cowardice is aggravated by untruthfulness, by fraudulent promises about things they had no intention of doing.

They were elected basically for one reason, and they know it: To get the United States out of Iraq. Yet ever since the election they have backed away from that duty.
Their behavior confirms what I have written here before: The federal government is first and foremost a giant, ongoing job fair, and each election is a job-grabbing greased pig chase. The only thing that matters to politicians is getting elected and staying elected. And their dementia worsens once they taste the glory of life in Washington.

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) said last night on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” that his fellow Democrats know they were elected to stop the war and yet are doing nothing because they are frightened of being accused of “not supporting the troops” and because they voted for the war in the first place. Ironically, the reason they voted for the war in the first place was fear of being called “wimps” and . . . guess what? . . . being accused later of “not supporting our troops”.

If Democrats automatically sink to the lowest level of brainless Joe Six Pack WWF Patriotism for fear of losing votes, that means that the U.S. is in effect being run by the lowest forms of intelligence in the land. (Hooray for democracy!) If Democrats are more concerned about losing their jobs because Grandma might falsely accuse them of not financing armor for her grandson than they are about ruining their country with a lunatic war, they are proving the truth of every criticism I’ve made.

A “New York Times” article of February 5 prompted me to write this post. Excerpts:

“But while Democratic critics may wish to challenge the administration’s blueprint, political and fiscal constraints will make it hard for them to assert their own priorities.
“In theory, the budget presents the Democrats their first real opportunity to rewrite the administration’s policies, especially on tax cuts, that they have been attacking for six years. But in practice, Democrats know that the only way they can find the revenue to restore the administration’s proposed spending cuts would be to cut back on military spending, delay their stated intentions to balance the budget or rescind the Bush tax cuts in future years. They are not especially eager to do any of these.
“’The long-term budget crisis appears so distant that it’s going to be very hard to get politicians excited about it this year,’ said Robert D. Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute. ‘No one wants to risk popular support by doing something courageous.’”

Addendum

(Please read today's first post before this one.)

I received an email today from Howard Dean. Yes, Howard Dean himself. Can you believe that? He wants me to buy a Democracy Bond.

But seriously folks, his message bothers me for the same reason that Rep. Murtha and Sen. Rockefeller bothered me last night. Here's what he wrote:

"'Elections have consequences.'

"In 2006 Americans sent a crystal clear message. As the war in Iraq continued and ordinary people struggled to make ends meet, scores of Republicans at every level of government were removed from office by the voters, every single Democrat running for reelection as a Senator, Governor, or Representative was reelected -- every single one.
It didn't happen by accident. It happened by building a strong opposition party with a clear message of change."

What bothers me? Dean's statement, summarized, is, "As the war in Iraq continued, loads of Democrats were elected." He could just as well have written, "As it snowed in Montana, Americans voted for Democrats." Just what "crystal clear message" Americans sent is left to the imagination by Dean's oblique statement. He is more interested in applauding all the new jobs for Democrats than in encouraging confidence in Democrat plans for getting us out of Iraq. He had an opportunity to characterize the "clear message" of the voters as a demand that Democrats end the war in Iraq, but he didn't do that. He settles on an unspecified message of "change". It's pretty easy to promise "change".

I am not criticizing the people I voted for before they've had a chance to get into action, but wishy-washy words make me nervous. I'm beginning to feel as if I'd picked up what I thought was solid rock only to find it sifting as sand between my fingers.

Democrats' Determination?

I watched several resurrected Democrats interviewed last night on television (two by Keith Olbermann -- Senator Jay Rockefeller, House Select Committee on Intelligence, and Rep. John Murtha), and I felt as if a chill wind had blown through a warm room.

I believe in Santa Claus, and in spite of my writing that there is no important difference between the Democratic and Republican parties when it comes to things that count the most toward our national survival, I shared the general feeling after the November election that we had voted resoundingly to end the Iraq war and get the American military out as quickly as they could turn their tanks around. I dreamed that the Democrats would sweep in like a tsunami and tumble the Bush policies into oblivion.

If there was one theme to the Democrats’ election campaigns other than “we have better morals than you do”, it was, “We’ll end the war and get out of Iraq!”

Well, what I heard and saw last night was pitiful waffling. I wanted something along the lines of, “Okay, Bush, you’re finished! We’re cutting all funding for your war that we have any control over, and we’re hobbling you so you can’t send more troops over there.”

I wanted to witness vein-bulging indignation, podium-pounding determination, and promises of quick and effective action. I wanted to watch Democratic generals leaping out of trenches waving their swords toward the White House.

Instead I heard weasely, hand-wringing, “What can we do’s?” and “Bush will find ways to do what he wants no matter what we do.” Worse, I endured wimpy, “We will take a thoughtful and measured view of what is best for our country; we will evaluate all the related matters with statesmanlike responsibility; we will not do anything rash or irresponsible.” Everything short of, “We will not do anything.”

Translation: “We’re frightened to refuse to fund Bush’s military disasters because we’ll be accused of not ‘supporting our troops’ and not being patriotic.” That’s the same reason the Democrats voted to enable the Iraq war in the first place, thus abandoning any high ground they might have occupied.

Further translation: “Politicians get into less trouble by doing nothing than they do by doing something. But look at the bright side: You can always count on us to say things that sound good.”

I truly hope that my first impression is wrong, and that the Democrats act on their mandate to get us out of Iraq swiftly and make it impossible for Bush to start any new wars, as by attacking Iran or Syria as Israel’s surrogate. I do not think that the House of Representatives and the Senate need be the limp wet rags those Democrats interviewed last night seem to think they are.

The main problem -- other than breath-taking ignorance of the world and its history on the part of most politicians of both parties – is that (sorry to repeat myself), democracy in the U.S. takes place at a giant job fair, with each election a tug of war which results in more lucrative jobs for the winners and their entourages than for the losers. The only thought of most politicians is to get and keep those jobs . . . the ONLY thought.

I know I shouldn’t vote if I know it doesn’t do any good, but it seems that by each election time I’m so angry at the incumbents and their lies and crookedness that I go to the polls just to vote against them so I don’t have to look at their faces for the coming term.

Let us hope that after the Democrats finish congratulating themselves and decorating their offices and collecting gavels that they actually do something about our foreign affairs mess.