There have been many comments and diaries over the past couple weeks that have spoken of accountability, but mostly in terms of holding our Democratic Nominee accountable.  Something I've seen come up time and time again is Obama's responsibility to secure his base (us) in order to get elected.

As informed and mobilized members of society, we've had a strong hand in selecting our Democratic nominee.  What about our responsibility?

Snark aside, we all realize this netroots firestorm is damaging his campaign.

For Mediaprof's diary on his contemplating suicide, Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 05:00:36 PM PDT.

"If I had known how easy it was to get a restraining order, I'd have done it sooner." said my brother's ex-wife, Ms. M.

It was about 2 weeks after Mother's Day in 2007 that my brother's ex-wife, Ms. M, sought and got her first restraining order out and it was against me.  Now, 6 restraining orders and 13 months later; my brother's daughter, Miss L,  who just turned 18 got her first restraining order out against her father...to prevent him from coming to her high-school graduation.   I got my first ever restraining order, at my ripe old-age of oh-never-mind.  How much thought goes into restraining orders?  Is it even PC to ask that question.  I never knew anyone, ANYONE, who ever had a restraining order:  either seeking a restraining order or getting one.  This is a horrible first for my family.  And I am to blame.

What makes this so odd is that I'm handicapped and in a motorized wheelchair.  How could I be a threat to anyone?   How could a restraining order against me destroy my brother's relationship with his children.  Should I live or should I kill myself tonight.  Read on...

A lot of people are blaming the MSM for their willingness to be led by the nose by the WH in selling the war in Iraq. Well I got news (no pun intended) for a whole lot of people. There is a whole lot of blame to go around. To be perfectly fair not everyone was fooled. There were those who said whoa up there Hoss. One of which is running for President. Also most of the people on this site. But, at the time, thinking people were far and few between. More below the flip.

Some of my family are avid Bush supporters... STILL...
ANd when I tell them that the Iraq War was all Bush's idea, and a REpublican war that we got into because of fabricated artificial facts (Lies!), they immediately want to share the blame with Democrats by bringing up these comments from the left?
So what do you say to explain these comments from pre- 9-11 and pre- bush?
ANd how do you explain the ones that are the result of BUsh's witholding of facts and misinformation propaganda?

  not that is going to matter but I started this diary a week ago, then when my computer comes down, all this about clinton hits so forgive me for sounding like everyone else
   "Blood in the water, sharks will feed". Of course that is to scare you. A LOT! why am I trying to scare you, aren't we suppose to be the party that is tired of being scared? I thought so too. but you know it's 3am ever 24 hours in DC and their could be a phone ringing... WHAT THE F#$K is that!
    To those that support Mrs. Clinton, have you told her how shameful you feel watching that ad? I do, I would if Edwards or Obama had did the same thing. I get the point, Clinton being the First Lady and one term senator does have more time dealing with other nations, and other people, but you know what her husband didn't when he was first elected, and remember Cheney and Rummy has a lifetime of being in the washington bubble, and look at the hell we are in now.

I tell people, that in America, "popular opinion" dictates truth ... no matter how many facts will prove otherwise; if it's a popular opinion - it won't change easily.

You can't really say that Republicans haven't been plotting a strategy on Iraq.  Not for removal of the troops, for avoidance of blame.

There had already been plenty of dress rehearsals for an updated Dolchstosslegende, one in which every theme around "we would have won, too, if it hadn't been for those cowardly Dems" could be recycled, expanded, and used as part of the umbrage to drive the next war.  But with yesterday's Washington Post editorial, the Republican exit strategy from blame went into a new phase of rapid withdrawal.  

What the Republicans -- and the Post -- are trying to sell now is the idea that, despite having called Democrats every imaginable name for even considering the idea, having used every possible procedural dodge, and having continued to toss a wrench into the works of every sign of progress, Republicans were just about to make a deal.  Suddenly they all agree that things are going badly (what? even in the lovely Indiana-style markets?) and that they don't back Bush (unless, of course, he asks for anything -- anything at all).  They were really about to sign on.

Sen. Johnny Isakson expected to be bored by the war speeches on the Senate floor Tuesday night; instead, the Georgia Republican was riveted by the passionate debate and spent hours soaking it in. But Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, a recent GOP convert to the antiwar cause, fumed that her new Democratic allies had forced a showdown just as a bipartisan consensus appeared to be emerging.

In other words, if Democrats hadn't pushed so hard for getting the troops out, Republicans would have gotten the troops out, despite passing on every previous opportunity.  A paragraph later, it's revealed that while Republicans "blocked a simple-majority vote," Harry Reid didn't just shelve a defense spending bill, he "stood at the front of the chamber and shut down the war debate, probably until September."  Who knew Reid had such power?

The Post's coverage continues into profiles of four lawmakers.  (It's interesting that Johnny Isakson is the the Loyal Republican while Jan Schakowsky is the Antiwar Liberal.  No slant to those labels.)  Giving plenty of occasion for those who have carried Bush's water to claim that they've had second thoughts.  Oddly enough, the Post writers never point out the disconnect between calling last week's debate "premature," complaining about Reid's actions, and then claiming that nothing can be done till we get Patraeus' report in September.  And while the Democratic actions were "partsian," Republican actions in blocking a vote get a single mention. Apparently you can be frustrated that someone won't let you do something you didn't intend to do in the first place.

What will happen once we get to September?  Let's revisit that Wikipedia article on Dolchstosslegende.

After the last German offensive on the western front failed in 1918, the German war effort was doomed. In response, OHL arranged for a rapid change to a civilian government. General Ludendorff, Germany's Chief of Staff, said:

   "I have asked His Excellency to now bring those circles to power which we have to thank for coming so far. We will therefore now bring those gentlemen into the ministries. They can now make the peace which has to be made. They can eat the broth which they have prepared for us!"
...

As the Kaiser had been forced to abdicate and the military relinquished executive power, it was the temporary, "civilian government" which sued for peace - the signature on the document was of the Catholic Centrist Matthias Erzberger, a civilian, who was later killed for his alleged treason. This led to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Even though they publicly despised the treaty, it was most convenient for the generals — there were no war crime tribunals, they were celebrated as undefeated heroes, and they could covertly prepare for removing the republic which they had helped to create.

All the credit, none of the blame.  I wonder how many times that memo will be handed out at Fox?

While no one blames our nation’s troops for not pacifying Iraq solely through military actions, critics everywhere have hounded our Democratic soldiers in Congress for not quickly, successfully, and single-handedly pacifying our nation solely through boisterous legislative conflict. Especially on funding for the Occupation, these critics want "backbone," "accountability," or "courage," and, when they think that these are somehow lacking in others, they promise to simply stay home with their like-minded friends or to take later electoral vengeance on those they consider unprincipled, uncooperative, and cowardly. How Bushy.

First of all...hats off to (George Washington) Kos for rallying the troops.     This is a struggle that will involve losses as well as wins.  

Having said that our proxy's in Washington still cannot frame the Iraq debate and instead cede the argument to the Republicans.

Apparently, there are two rationales for this spinal challenge--

1. Fear that they will be seen as weak by the Military and subsequently suffer at the polls.

2. Do not have the numbers to override a presidential veto and would rather keep their powder dry.

Let's help em out...

Texas Governor George W. Bush, June 23, 2000, blaming the Clinton administration for high gas prices because they were in office for seven years and gas prices were rising:

There seems to be an effort out of Washington to blame me for rising energy prices. And the American people don't buy that. It's the -- Clinton-Gore administration's been there for seven years, we're more dependent now than ever before on energy from foreign sources. And I am amazed that they're trying to shift the blame away from the people that are holding the office. And I resent that kind of politics, and so will the American people. ... And this is typical of an administration that refuses to accept responsibility. This is amazing. They've been in office for seven years, the price of gasoline has gone up during their period of time.

The price of gas that very week: $1.68 per gallon.

Former U.S. AID director Randall Tobias, who resigned yesterday upon admitting that he frequented a Washington escort service, oversaw a controversial policy advocated by the religious right that required any US-based group receiving anti-AIDS funds to take an anti-prostitution "loyalty oath."  --Source

I think I understand conservatives now. I mean, just look at it. Newt Gingrich attacks Bill Clinton for having an affair while Newt Gingrich is having an affair. Most of the family-values Republicans have had multiple divorces where they committed adultery. Any number of anti-gay religious leaders, like Ted Haggard, have turned out to be gay. Bush condemns Democrats for delaying soldiers' return home, and the next day his administration extends tours of duty from 12 months to 15 months.

Isn't it obvious? When conservatives say something is bad, when they attack someone for doing something they see as wrong, it's because they are doing it. It's guilt talking. When conservatives do something they see as immoral, they feel the need to assign that guilt. Unable to take responsibility for what they see as their own shortcomings, they assign the blame and guilt to others.

using the usual play from the gop playbook of rank hypocrisy and deception, guiliani recently trotted out the line that only a republican can protect the country from another terrorist attack.

as bizarre as it sounds, no one has really stated the obvious on this point.

until today, when dean finally stated the truth:

The ability of this administration, as well as the talking (and writing) meatsticks who are of the "pass the buck at all costs" or "blame everyone else" mentality never ceases to amaze me.  And now, after an illegal invasion and failed occupation which contained so many unfathomably huge tactical and logistical mistakes as well as monumental lies and dismissals of the harsh reality, here we are with a brand spanking new scapegoat:  Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The new cover of Newsweek proclaims "The Maliki Problem" and the corresponding article lays the blame for the current mess in Iraq – from the civil war to the political support that he and al-Sadr share to who Maliki chooses as his commander of Iraqi forces.  And there are quotes from people close to the administration, opinion by the Newsweek "experts" as well as republican officials in Congress, all bemoaning and blaming Maliki for what has now been nearly four years of a long string of uninterrupted errors.

I've heard this from Al Franken, Ed Schultz, a lot of Democrats in Congress, and now even some of the Republicans who are abandoning Bush. The thrust of it is, we offered Iraqis the gift of democracy, and they couldn't handle it or get their act together to police themselves and are too cowardly and disorganized to fight the insurgents. Therefore, we must threaten them with leaving or just leave since they are hopeless...

The Iraqi Shuffle...New generals, New Troops, a New Look...

By now, I am sure that many of you have seen this despicable quote from Bush regarding the Democrats:

However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.

Sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire, and that statement really got me thinking about who is really supporting "the terrorists".  And just so we are all clear on the definition of "terrorism", here it is:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Now, there is one political party whose actions have proven time and time again to fit that definition, and that party's name doesn't start with the letter "D".  So I am asking the following questions, you know - just out of curiosity....

Yes 'we' did.  Bush's war is being waged...as planned, - so that we stay in Iraq forever. Karl Rove said it this week... but the media let it pass:

"Presidential advisor Karl Rove blasted Democrats on Friday for even suggesting the U.S. withdraw from Iraq, saying the U.S. can't leave one of the world's largest oil reserves in terrorist hands."

It's not about having a source of oil... it's about controlling the distribution of oil the world over.  It's the pipelines, stupid.....

Never mind.  They're playing the semantics game. Is it "worse" now?  Geez.  It's can't be 'worse' if it wasn't there before.  Buscho made it happen....let's make that really clear.

Americans may not mind being lied into a war, but we sure don't like to then lose that war.

The Iraq War is lost, and at this point the blame falls entirely on the Bush Administration. Why aren't we pounding them for having lost this war?

Remember how they blamed liberals for "losing" China, and then Vietnam. In Iraq, the timeframe is still entirely on the Republican watch.

By asking NOW who lost Iraq, we can leapfrog a pointless debate on whether we have, in fact, lost it, and pin the blame where it belongs.