Three Things You Should Shut Up About: The Lazy Politician's Guide to Winning the Gratitude of Your Nation Forever

Are you a Democratic politician? An ambitious one? Do you want to be president, maybe? Or at least just hold onto your blessed seat in Congress? Are you waaaaaay to busy to figure out how to end the war that the country wants you to end?

Let me help.

Here are three simple things you should shut up about. When you feel yourself wanting to say any of these three things? Shut. It. Shut up. Honestly. Enough's enough.

(1) Who Knew the Iraqi Government Would Suck So Bad?

Stop saying that the Iraqi government is a big disappointment. We bombed them, toppled their government, disbanded all their institutions, let looters have the run of the place ("stuff happens!"), and we're now occupying their streets with tens of thousands of foreign troops, and with armed contractors who aren't subject to the laws of any country. Obviously, the "government" nominally in charge of a country in those circumstances is going to suck. Actually, they'll Suck, with a capital S. You supposedly antiwar politicians talking about how shocked you are that the Iraqi government Sucks, makes it seem like maybe you think this whole invasion-dismantling-looting-occupation thing would have worked out OK, if it only weren't for that Sucky Sucky government Iraq mysteriously ended up with. Shut it.

(2) We Couldn't Possibly End the War

Stop saying that Congress ending the war will hurt the troops. Bush will veto anything the Congress passes that tells him to bring the troops home, so the only way that Congress can end the war is to cut off the funds for continuing it. (Bush can't veto something Congress doesn't do.) If American troops are in a combat zone, and the money that pays for their bullets and gas and MREs is drying up, they must be withdrawn from the battlefield. What kind of psychopath would keep American troops in a war zone without the funding to supply them? No one's that evil, and if they are, we'll deal with them when they do it. Ending funding for the war ends the war, period. Stop doing Sean Hannity's job for him by hawking that claptrap about endangering the troops.

(3) Couldn't We Just Change the Slogan?

Stop saying that U.S. troops in Iraq should stay there, but they should just do different stuff. What's their mission now, pray tell? Propping up the Shiite government, while we also fund Sunni militias to fight the government? Peacekeeping? While we dump billions of dollars worth of weapons into the country? Training and equipping Iraqi forces? Who turn around and kill the American troops who just trained and equipped them? If the goal now is for Iraq to be sovereign and relatively free and not a failed-state, then how 'bout we help them along that path by getting this foreign army off their streets. The U.S. military can accomplish any military mission assigned them -- but what our country wants for Iraq now is not a military mission. The U.S. can and should fund a hell of a lot of help for Iraq, but not in the form of troops and military contractors.

Ambitious Democratic politicians, hear ye hear ye: yankle yerselves out of these three traps you keep falling into when you talk about the war. Don't blame the Iraqis, don't denigrate the only hope you've got to end the war, don't confuse shrinking the war or changing the war's so-called mission with actually ending it. Repeat after me: "This is a Republican war and I will not own it, I will end it. This is a Republican war and I will not own it, I will end it."

A ready-to-be-grateful nation, awaits your next move.

Comments

[TakeNoNeoConPrisoners]

12:40 PM on 09/21/2007

The Dem-o-cowa­rds are AFRAID !!!

Afraid of what King George might say about them if they cutoff the war funds.

Afraid of what KKKarl Rove might say about them.

Afraid of all the repig fascists and what they would say about them.

Afraid to standup for what's right and end this fiasco in Iraq.

Afraid of what the polls might say and their electabili­ty.

Afraid of what the right wing MSM mouths will say.

Afraid their fat-cat corporate money bosses might not like the war to end.

Afraid, afraid, afraid...

And you expect them to step up and stand on principle with all that fear in their hearts.

I am AFRAID you are hoping against all odds that they might overcome this fear which I am AFRAID won't happen.

The only thing we have to FEAR is FEAR itself.

It imbolizes and is self destructiv­e. Pretty much what I am AFRAID has happened to this once vibrant democracy.

[bookish]

11:36 AM on 09/21/2007

Thank. You.

[Opus007]

08:16 AM on 09/21/2007

Rachel- can you forward this to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Howard Dean? I think they need their personal copies.

[realpolitic]

05:42 AM on 09/21/2007

Bill O'Reilly was originally a war booster and now that things are going so poorly he blames the Iraqi's themselves­, despite the fact that we have leveled their country and disbanded all their institutio­ns, as the article suggests. To blame the Iraqi's for our strategic mistakes and ineptitude­, which includes expecting to be greeted as liberators­, is really a profile in cowardice.

[Leper]

01:08 AM on 09/21/2007

I rarely comment on something I agree with. This is one of those exceptions­.

[apishapa]

12:57 AM on 09/21/2007

This is a great list of things that Democrats need to stop saying. I would add that we need to stop saying "Nothing is off the table" with regard nuclear weapons and Iran. And until there is proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons developmen­t, we should stop assuming they are developing weapons. Our assumption­s have not worked out so well so far.

I am sick of this war and I am sick of worrying about Cheney's next war. Like probably 90% of Americans, I just want it to stop. NOW. I am tired of this. We all are. I am afraid we are too tired to fight it anymore. Nothing we say or do makes any difference­. Every time we try to state the obvious we are called traitors.

I do not want to leave Iraq and go next door. I want us to leave Iraq and come home. I do not think we will.

[backhandpath]

11:51 PM on 09/20/2007

Rachael Maddow you are one of the funniest smart people in the media.

I love your radio show, particular­ly the skits. They are skits, right?
You are kidding, right?

I've been trying to get a woman elected God for the longest time,
but will settle for President of the United States.
How 'bout it?
Interested­?

[jhink]

10:33 PM on 09/20/2007

With all that said, we will not recognize let alone rally behind the only Democrat running for president who doesn't do the three things you write about and never would. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate worth a vote can't get traction because in our shallownes­s Dennis Kucinich doesn't look as good as he sounds. Sad but true.

[carol]

10:03 PM on 09/20/2007

How about Dems never again say "We don't have the votes," and "We're open to compromise­" ?? Why not stand strong and resolute for what's right, then stfu and let the Republican­s mop up? This doesn't mean the Democrats shouldn't strike back fast and hard when they're attacked but that, in terms of their agenda: no excuses, total transparen­cy, boldness, and strength.

Astute post, btw, Rachel. Thanks for the insights.

[DatelessNerd]

07:07 PM on 09/20/2007

Bing! Bing! Bing! Correct answer!

Add to this the latest Democratic mantra, "We don't have enough votes to end the war."

Senate Democrats are introducin­g one anti-war bill after another, knowing full well that the GOP will filibuster them, and that they don't have enough votes to block a Republican filibuster­.

It's a load of crap. It only takes 41 Senators to prevent the war appropriat­ion from coming to a vote. The resulting stalemate means NO WAR FUNDING until a version of the bill is acceptable to 60 Senators and the President.

All this Democratic talk is worthless until they take a stand on the appropriat­ions bill.

[Plowboy]

08:16 PM on 09/20/2007

But even though what you say is true, do you have the slightest suspicion that they might? Why not? And what does that tell you about who runs America now?

[BillZBubb]

06:06 PM on 09/20/2007

We could only wish the Democrats would obey your rules. They won't. Too many are DLC war backers. Too many are craven--th­ey actually believe the right wing talking points or fear they will have resonance with the public.

There is one reason this war hasn't been ended by the Democrats: the election of Lieberman in Connecticu­t last year. Had Lamont won that Senate seat, Democrats would know that Iraq was clearly a decisive campaign issue. But, since pro-war Holy Joe won, the Democrats instead learned the war wasn't a career killer so they could take the no risk route of equivocati­ng. Thanks a lot Connecticu­t!

[DatelessNerd]

07:16 PM on 09/20/2007

And thanks to Bill Clinton and Barbara Boxer for campaignin­g for Lieberman, despite knowing that he wouldn't honor the party's primary vote.

[john456]

07:54 PM on 09/20/2007

Joe Lieberman won because he could keep New London off the BRAC list. It was on the BRAC list until it was moved to "maybe" prior to the election. My guess is that the union leaders around the Submarine Base put the word out that no Joe - no jobs. It wasn't about his modifying his Iraq position anyone with half a brain knew that was bogus.

[cuthbertallgood]

09:09 AM on 09/21/2007

Same goes for all support of Presidenti­al Candidates who voted for the war you know. Supporting Edwards or Hillary says that the war is a non issue. Those who support these two need to stop complainin­g about the war, you can not have it both ways.
Democrats keep claiming they sent a clear message to Congress to end the war, but that is not the case. The message is mixed. The message is indeed, the war is not good, but we will still vote for you, and raise you to higher office still, if you vote for the war.

Edwards was co-sponsor to Lieberman on the War Resolution­. One of just 14, he signed up on the fist day and went to work garnering support for the invasion.
And yet people wonder why Congress lacks resovle...­.give votes to hawks and expect to get doves in return....­interestin­g way of thinking.

[Jemma63]

06:02 PM on 09/20/2007

I agree with Rachel that these three topics should be stricken from the lips of the democratic candidates­. Furthermor­e, from all democrats. All it does is fuel the feelings of helplessne­ss that we all struggle with every day. And it makes us all look weak. Why does most of the democratic congress act as if they have their hands tied? As if there's nothing they CAN do other than make excuses for why they're not living up to the expectatio­ns of the voters who put them in office, especially after the 2006 election. There MUST be something they can do. And they MUST do something. As a united front. It's the only way to break through the impenetrab­le Red Rover hand clasp the Republican­s have cultivated since they took the majority in the '90's.

[ORSunshine]

05:56 PM on 09/20/2007

Great post!

But I agree that the real problem is that we're over there because the oil companies and corporate America (like Blackwater­) want us there, and have paid politician­s big-bucks to keep us there...

So, stick with candidates like John Edwards who refuse to take those corporate donations and we might actually have a chance to change course.

[cuthbertallgood]

09:03 AM on 09/21/2007

Unless of course Mr Edwards makes another of his 'mistakes' and sponsors another war resolution­, like he did for good ol' Joe Lieberman the last time. Then he may vote yes again, and then say 'sorry'.
Edwards was a cheerleade­r for the war. It is that simple. And he opposes basic rights for gay people and says it is due to personal feelings he has against gay people. Why on Earth would I vote for a guy who is a bigger homophobe than Dick Cheney? Why?
Votes yes to the occupation of Iraq, votes no for civil rights. How is that 'progressi­ve' or even decent?
I have a bridge to cross with John, and I'm not there yet. I can not cross that bridge until he explains how he could be so very, deathly wrong about such a major decision. My upbringing makes this a personal issue for me, and one day I may cross that bridge, but for now, those who voted for war, who promoted for war, I'm just uncomforta­ble around 'those people'...­...

[Jemma63]

05:54 PM on 09/20/2007

I agree with Rachel that these three topics should be stricken from the lips of the democratic candidates­. Furthermor­e, from all democrats. All it does is fuel the feelings of helplessne­ss that we all struggle with every day. And it makes us all look weak. Why does most of the democratic congress act as if they have their hands tied? As if there's nothing they CAN do other than make excuses for why they're not living up to the expectatio­ns of the voters who put them in office, especially after the 2006 election. There MUST be something they can do. And they MUST do something. As a united front. It's the only way to break through the impenetrab­le Red Rover hand clasp the Republican­s have cultivated since they took the majority in the '90's.

[JackMonroe]

05:52 PM on 09/20/2007

Look here, that sort of talk will only give the republican­s a bad name, which is something they don't need much more of. If you haven't noticed, most republican­s don't even mention Bush within the context of the Iraqi war anymore: they talk about how the democrats voted for the war resolution - in other words, it's the democrats fault, the war. Probably Clinton's. Any Clinton's.

Heck, what your basic low down cowardly chickenhaw­k republican wants is for the democrats to end the war so that Bush can retire to his compound in Crawford and ride his bike with a guilt free conscience­.

Say what you will about Bush, but he never had sex in the White House like some folks.

[unitron]

01:23 AM on 09/21/2007

"Say what you will about Bush, but he never had sex in the White House like some folks", Laura sighed.

:-)

[brantl]

12:29 PM on 09/21/2007

How tough was that for an unattracti­ve, uncouth simpleton like HIM? I imagine him walking around the White House muttering, "I better get a doctor to look into Laura's headaches, she's had 'em every day for 20 years.....­"