Sunday Discussion Group

June 18, 2006

Democratic leaders from both congressional chambers laid out an agenda for the future this week, describing their plans for a “new direction” for the nation. There was, however, no mention of the war in Iraq — in the agenda or at the press conference.

Now, this was not through neglect or oversight. The Dems’ roll-out this week was about domestic issues; party leaders unveiled a “Real Security” agenda in March. You may not have heard about it — the media was less than interested. Still, even if you caught the report, the party’s message regarding the war is a little, well, thin. The “Real Security” agenda calls for 2006 to be “a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty,” but not much else.

It prompted Matthew Yglesias to suggest this week that a) Republicans ironically are anxious to run a campaign on an unpopular war that they’ve bungled badly every step of the way; and b) if Dems try and shift the focus from Iraq to minimum wage, they’re kidding themselves.

Democrats need to be prepared to fight this battle. They need to figure out what they think about Iraq and then they need to put in whatever time is necessary to craft a compelling message out of that policy. And they need to do it before they get ambushed by congressional Republicans, and before something or other forces them to talk about the war.

Following up on the point, Kevin Drum argued that the problem isn’t Dems’ ineptitude; it’s their sincere internal disagreements over what, exactly, the party’s approach to the crisis needs to be.

Even if there were a compelling message just waiting to be crafted — about which I have my doubts — what possible message would satisfy Joe Biden, John Murtha, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman? It doesn’t exist. At the very top levels, senior Democrats disagree strongly and deeply about what we should do in Iraq. […]

There’s no question that Democrats ought to get their act together and put up a united front on Iraq. But how can they do that when no one agrees on what that front should be?

I’m not sure what the answer to that question is, but I’m hoping you might have some insights.

And as a side question: how is it that Republicans don’t have a unifying message on Iraq that satisfies John Warner, Walter Jones, Chuck Hagel, Rick Santorum, Donald Rumsfeld, and Chris Shays, but the GOP is considered unified on the war? And what might that tell us about what Dems should do about their own party’s approach to Iraq?

And as a side question: how is that Republicans don’t have a unifying message on Iraq that satisfies John Warner, Walter Jones, Chuck Hagel, Rick Santorum, Donald Rumsfeld, and Chris Shays, but the GOP is considered unified on the war?

Because though they may disagree amoung themselves, they ultimately say ” We support the President” and THAT is their unified message.

  • how is that Republicans don’t have a unifying message on Iraq that satisfies John Warner, Walter Jones, Chuck Hagel, Rick Santorum, Donald Rumsfeld, and Chris Shays, but the GOP is considered unified on the war?

    Because it doesn’t matter that they think. They will vote for whatever the White House tells them to vote for. Party over Country.

    If the Democrats take back one or both houses of Congress, they can’t back-seat drive. Other than a platform of “we will try to make the moron down the street see reason, and do everything we can to protect our boys in the meantime,” I don’t see it mattering in the real world.

    But I’m not sure how that translates into votes.

  • It seems pretty simple, really. There are two issues. One is about the invasion of Iraq as a geopolitical adventure. The other is about extrication from a dastardly situation.

    The first issue, you could say, is theoretical, now. I don’t know but I think there could be agreement that it was a very bad idea in the first place (not to be confused with a coordinated legitimate international operation under UN resolution).

    The second issue, which an elected Democrat would have to grapple with, is much thornier. Unfortunately (for Democrats), the so-called governing party has the upper hand. They have more or less delineated the optimum exit plan. Democrats can do little other than concur.

    Without seeming naive or irresponsible they have to go along with the ‘official’ line on Iraq: Setting the whole story up neat and nice then split like a weasel, sort of (permanent bases aside). So what can a Democrat say without appearing nit-picking? Cut and run? – I don’t think so. Quibble about tactics? – that appears to valid the war in the first place.

    C.B., I see your point. But maybe a clear distinction – reiterated – between disapproval of the war, on the one hand, and agreement on an exit strategy as a pragmatic necessity, on the other, would appear both responsible and convincing to the electorate. Are there Democrats who would stand outside such an enunciation?

  • “I’m not a member of any organized political party, I’m a Democrat!” – Will Rogers

    The GOP, no matter what personal differences there may be with regard to issues such as war and peace, civil rights, etc. is — first, last and always — the party of big business. That used to mean manufacturing, then it meant corporations, now it means multinationals. It is this over-riding focus — along with the undercurrent of race hatred — which always unites Republicans and forces them to set aside their “petty” differences, making them appear unified even with wackos or hillbillies who wouldn’t know a treasury bond if the ate one.

    The Democratic Party hasn’t voiced a similar over-riding interest since the time of FDR’s first campaign in the depths of the Great Depression (the “New Deal”). Truman was able to unite us (barely) around the end of WWII and its immediate aftermath (the “Fair Deal”). Jack Kennedy was able to unite us (barely) because of his charm and Nixon’s lack of it the new medium, TV. Since then it’s been factions fighting each other openly, or more often ignoring each other and political realities. What victories we’ve had (Carter, Clinton) haven’t been enthusiastic, compelling ones (contrast Reagan and even the Shrub).

    We need to “return to our roots”, namely, a New Deal for the American People. What’s wrong with that? Even now, nearly eighty years later, we still could make a good argument that amid the apparent (televised) wealth, America is poor: in spirit, in national purpose, in the way we treat our poor, in health care, in lack of education and wasted lives for many, in the way we squander the natrual resources with which we’ve been blessed. We have permitted our election machinery to come under the domination of big money and corrupt companies. We can do better, but we must first draw a line … huge, corporate wealth on one side, the rest of us on the other.

    I suggest that none of those Democratic front runners you listed is capable of calling for a New Deal for the American People. Certainly not with clarity and inspiration. John Edwards could do it. So could Al Gore (if he could be nudged out of his Hamlet pose). We can subordinate our “petty differences” for either man, but not for some focus-group corporate-marketing finger-in-the-breeze list under the lamely named “new direction for America” (ugh).

    Americans are hungry for a government which speaks to the great mass of us, which can truly give meaning and a deeper purpose to our lives. Reagan and Shrub’s electoral successes demonstrate that American character — even though they only sold us out (literally, through guest workers and out-sourcing), or in the words of Wm Jennings Bryan “crucified us on a cross of gold”. John Edwards could deliver a Better Deal if only the “leaders” would get out from under the thumbs of the costly consultants and get behind him.

  • The problem is that in order to present a united front, the Democrats must agree on a policy to support, and unfortunately that policy will be one that leads to a disastrous result. That’s not to say anything bad about the Democrats, since the Republicans have also adopted a policy, “stay the course”, that will lead to disaster. The time to avoid disaster was before launching this poorly planned invasion.

    It’s understandable that no one is enthusiastic about embracing a disastrous policy, or can agree on which disastrous policy to embrace. But thanks to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and company we are at a point where all options are bad — very bad. And there’s a very real risk that those supporting whatever policy is followed will end up being blamed for the now-inevitable disaster, even though the disaster is entirely the fault of the Bush administration.

  • “And they need to do it before they get ambushed by congressional Republicans”

    Where do you begin?

    First, no kidding! I feel like this is a bad horror movie where the characters simply can’t stop doing the same stupid thing over and over. [“maybe we should split up. . . again!].

    Second, can you really call this an “ambush”? How many times do you have to fall into the same trap before it stops being about how good the hunter is and starts being about how dumb the prey congressional Dems are? I used to want Dems to hire some of the guys who seem to be so good at winning elections on the Republican’t side, and now I’m starting to feel like everyone else in the entire world is able to see better than these guys.

    It’s time for a new group.

    “Americans are hungry for a government which speaks to the great mass of us, which can truly give meaning and a deeper purpose to our lives.”

    -Ed

    True enough, but its been true for two six ten fifteen forever. That’s why disingenuous Dems got thrown out under Newt’s assault, and that’s why disingenuous Repubs should have been tossed out a few years ago (but the party of sulking cats somehow couldn’t manage to flush the toilet).

    Remember Kennedy? Malcolm? Bobby? King? Remember Barak at the Dem convention? What are campaign contributions doing to help the young, exciting politicians and leaders out there get on a national stage? Nothing. Nothing at all. Because the Dems are rotten as a party, not just in the tired old “they can’t win” way, but in the “we’re old and comfortable and as long as I get reelected, who cares about the country” way. Witness the idea that the Dem party would support an incumbent DINO if he lost the primary and a real leader got a shot. Witness pulling Paul Hackett out of a race to favor some POS incumbent wanting to switch jobs (hey, if you’re not doing any real work anyway, who cares what your title is!).

  • I’m afraid eadie is right.

    Short of attacking the premise that terrorism is our leading problem – and the Democrats absolutely would not dare to go down that route. That bogeyman is unfortunately here to stay –
    the Democrats have only one choice, and that is to endorse
    wholeheartedly the Bush/Republican stay-the-course, the war in Iraq is central to the global war on terror mantra. Anything else will be seen as weakness and partisan carping.

    This approach effectively neutralizes Iraq, giving neither side the advantage. That leaves the domestic issues on the table, and the Democrats win big here.

    Cynical? Absolutely. But governance in this country is dead. All that’s left is playing politics. And at least the Democrats would do more for the people than the Republicans.

  • BushCo.’s defense of his decision to go to war in Iraq has always involved making the Democrats who voted in favor of the war his accomplices. This splits the party between those that enabled BushCo. and those that saw through the sales there is a difference between actively campaigning to take us to war, as BushCo. did, and going along with BushCo.’s ill conceived war, as many Democrats did

    pitch. The first step then is to unite the party behind the, by now obvious, proposition that the Iraq war was a mistake. The Democrats that voted for the war must own up to their mistake. While BushCo. will try to make hay of any such admission, there is an obvious defense. Democrats did not seek this war. It was BushCo. that actively campaigned for this war. Those who voted for the war must say, yes we bear some guilt for not having the backbone to stand up to BushCo. or for believing that BushCo. would act responsibly with the power we gave them, but this is by fare a lesser sin than BushCo. has committed. Today we stand before you willing to recognize our mistake and more importantly to do everything we can to correct it.

    The second part of the Democratic position is a tough one. What do they do to correct the mess which BushCo. has made of Iraq? In the short run the Democratic position could be we do not know the solution yet, but at least we know there is a problem that must be solved. We are working hard to find a solution which will extricate our country from this quagmire while recognizing our obligation to the Iraqi people for the mess we have made of their country.

    PS. Happy Father’s Day to any Dad’s out there.

  • Why not build a platform on going after Al Qaeda– you know, the folks who originally attacked us? This seems to be the place where Democrats can agree on what needs to be done… why not go with the flow on the Commander in Chief rhetoric: while George W. Bush is still busy fighting the last war (i.e., Iraq), Democrats can be the party that starts talking about the next war– the “smart war”– the war against terorrism. The Democrat party response to questions about Iraq should be that it’s Bush’s war to fight, we support the troops, and it’s time to start talking about what comes after Iraq, seeing how Bush has already laid down his conditions for “victory.”

    – keep hammering on the fact that Osama bin Laden is still hiding in Pakistan

    – we’re still not doing enough to cut off terrorist financing

    – we should be doing more raids to sweep up arms and ammunition to keep them from getting in the hands of terrorists

    – we need to fund (or increase funding) for Nunn-Lugar to get nuclear weapons under control

    – we need to work on diplomacy

    – make hints that we will be doing more to promote internal conversation about democracy in the Middle East

    We should be asking where the president’s plan is for dealing with international terrorism– not internal Iraqi terrorism– and put him on the defensive on that point. If all the Republicans can do is point to Iraq we need to ask what the president’s plan is for terrorism after the Iraqis finally “stand up.” Then, and only then, we can go on to talk about how the war in Iraq is tying down resources that we should be using right now to go after Al Qaeda.

  • I think Patience is on to something. Keep pointing out to the American people the incompetence of Bush (not directly, which can be played as an “attack on the President” for those who worry about such things) but by talking about the war on terror, about which most Americans would be completely in favor (bringing up of course that it’s worthwhile to keep those things that make us Americans – our civil liberties – and which the terrorists hate, and which if we lose the terrorists have won regardless). Play “where’s Osama Bin Forgotten”??? Play up the smart war, the one we win, and by so doing, point out the one we are losing by incompetence. Let the Republicans defend the Bushit, we’ll advocate for the real war.

    And play the hell out of “how did the United States become Woebegonistan?”

  • The simple american masses want clear choices, witness their choice of Nixon because he had a secret plan to ‘win the war’. The dems will have to come up with a sound bite to capture an idea, ‘Choose Not to Lose’ or something inane like that. Then we declare victory and get the fuck out. Dems will also have to grasp and love the slogans that will have the ‘thuglicans crying class warfare. They need to run a populist, tub thumping, muck racking rally to get a running jump at ’08.

  • Why not flip ‘cut and run’ on it’s head? Instead of a timetable for US withdrawal, how about a timetable for the Iraqi g’ment to get it’s act together? Call it tough love, or a threat – who cares? We can’t stay there forever, but we can’t get out until the Iraqi government starts to govern.
    Given the whole of security issues facing the US, we can’t afford to squander our resources in a country that’s spiralling into a civil war and poses no immediate threat to the US. The message should be the US is willing to help the Iraqi government to the extent that they are serious about a sustainable government and a stable Iraq.

  • The GOP’s unifying message is that they’re against anything that violates “their” vision of America. They present all opposition as being “unpatriotic.” So, all the Dems have to do is “out-patriot the Faux patriots of the GOP.”

    IRAQ—We’re not winning in Iraq because it’s the feather in Kid George’s cap. It’s about the only thing keeping the GOp alive right now. Not engaging the Republikanner on his/her/its military weakness is why the Dems are still in “the back seat.”

    ObL—The Dems should immediately call for Pakistani approval for the insertion of US troops—on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan, in conjunction with Pakistani military forces. A quick-in/quick-out maneuver to push Al Quaeda/Taliban elements out of their holes, and into a mechanized meat-grinder. This would likely resolve the bulk of the Taliban issue, while at the same time bring a fairly lawless area of Pakistan under control of its government—and establish an aura of mutual-forces coooperation between the two governments. If necessary, come back every 2-to-3 months, and do it again.

    IRAN—Imagine the appeasement of Hitler resulting in the Hitler having enriched uranium. Not “Germany,” but “Hitler.” The problem today is not a “nuclear Iran,” but a “nuclear Iranian mad hatter.” I think that, in a pinch, the Iranian government would boot the ayatollahs and their “puppet president” in a heartbeat Plus, what will the ayatollahs do, once the oil runs out? Right now, it’s their only real leverage. So, kick Iran in the knees—hard—by getting onto a crash program to “get America completely off petroleum.” This, by the way, would immediately shut down the side-issues of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Venezuela. Passing the technology to the EU would eventually cripple Russia’s oil/gas monopoly, with which it currently holds most of Europe hostage every winter.

    CHINA—continue (and move to improve) relations with Taiwan, and move quickly to normalize relations with Viet Nam. Let China know that the US will immediately begin exploring the industrialization of Viet Nam as an alternative to buying Chinese goods—and then, just do it. Let China resolve the North Korea issue, and remind them how expensive it will be to feed North Korea’s population when North Korea is spending all its own resources on a nuclear arsenal—and no Chinese ships are docking in US ports.

    DOMESTIC POLICY—there is only one, umbrella-like policy for the Dems to pursue. The “real” terrorist is the current adminstration. If there is to be a “global war on terror,” then the war must not only be fought everywhere else, but it must also be fought at home. So—the moment the Dems retake the Congress (and, given that Congress has the power to declare war), then the Congress must, for the sake of the nation’s survival, declare war on this heinous excuse of a president. Shut down his insidious programs. Investigate the blazes out of his “appointees.” Sever the right-wing pork from every spending issue—and let Kid George veto those bills. Put money back into social programs, and pay for it by ramping the tax-rates back to where they ought to have been kept. Give the troops what they need to fight—and win—or bring them home until the silly little twit at the Pentagon can do his job. If that doesn’t work—then by all means, crank up the impeachment machine. Nail Bush, nail Cheney, and pray to the gods that whoever’s Speaker of the House can do the job right—or for better or worse, we’re looking at a GOP landslide in ’08….

  • Step No. 1, which the Republicans understand, but the Democrats don’t is simple: define the other guy’s position.

    Republican define the Democratic position as “cut and run” and then they attack the Democrats for holding that position.

    Democrats do not need to agree among themselves on anything, but what the Republican policy has been. Democrats need to come up with an accurate, but highly pejorative summary of the Republican policy in Iraq.

    I don’t think that should be so hard. What’s the goal and what’s the means to achieve that goal?

    Basically, Bush wants the U.S. to stay in Iraq permanently, and, in order to accomplish that objective, he has to keep the Iraqi government so weak, that they cannot ask us to leave.

    Bush has done everything he can to keep the Iraqi government weak. The reconstruction was drained dry by corruption: so the Iraqi economy is on life-support, with electricity in the capital city only a few hours a day and no clean water. The training and equipment of the Iraqi Army has been an on-going disaster: the Iraqis are shamefully under-equipped, have recruited those with doubtful loyalty, and have been permitted to use inhumane tactics.

    The biggest accomplishment of the Bush Administration has been to prevent the Iraqis from resuming full oil production. Without the financial support of oil production, the Iraqi government remains decrepit. But, without Iraqi oil production, world oil prices remain high, stabilizing Saudi Arabia and helping Bush clients in Dubai, and, of course, Bush favorites in the Texas oil industry, including Halliburton, as well as Exxon/Mobil and the rest.

    Bush is in Iraq for the oil, with the objective of stopping Iraqi oil production, to keep prices and profits high for his friends. Make that story stick with the American people, and the Republicans are dead men walking.

  • If Democrats can agree on a pejorative description of the Bush policy in Iraq, they can disagree among themselves and still oppose Bush.

    Bush wants to stay in Iraq, by keeping the Iraqi State weak.

    Democrats can divide over whether it is better to strengthen the Iraqi government, so they can ask us to leave, or whether it is better to recognize that the situation is near-hopeless, and we should turn over life-support duty to the U.N., and get the heck out of Dodge. As long as Democrats agree that the goal should be to get out of Iraq, and that the Bush policy is to stay, the Democrats agree with the majority of Americans.

  • I think there is a simple, coherent story for the Dems to tell.

    After 9-11, we went into Afghanistan, rightly so, to get the people responsible for attacking our country and killinng our citizens. The Dems supported those objectives then and support it now.

    Unfortunately, the administration then lied to Congress and the American people and diverted our attention and resources into their war of choice in Iraq. The Dems supported it at the outset, based on the series of lies the administration told, because they relied on the administration’s story, as did all Americans, and will do whatever it takes to keep the country safe. The war in Iraq, corruptly and incompetently waged, has weakened our ability to fight terrorism (list umpteen reasons here) and squandered resources needed for our people at home.

    If elected, the Dems will refocus “the war on terrorism” on actual terrorists–fighting in Afghanistan (which is now going back to the Taliban), working with our allies elsewhere in the world through intelligence and criminal prosecution, and reforming the bereft Homeland Security Department here at home. We will outfit our troops with the best gear possible and take care of them better when they get home. We will also stop the corruption and better allocate our resources to help our people at home (insert Dem domestic agenda).

    Acknowledging the mess in Iraq, which has bad and worse options in order to resolve it, we vow to withdraw and redeploy our military to better fight terrorism, as soon as we can without abandoning the good people of Iraq (insert general principles of when we can recognize that moment and the person who be in charge of it–Wes Clark???

    I think any Dem who can’t get behind that story (and perhaps Lieberman is one because he loves the war in Iraq) should think about switching parties.

  • One more thing, I think the Dems should put forth the idea that the Repugs want to stay the course and that that is not acceptable as the course has been corrupt and incompetent. Dems slogan should at least have a notion of the positive, instead of just a “change” and Repugs position their change to be for the worst. (Can’t they get an advertising agency to think of something?!!!) They at least need “A Better Way” to introduce the idea that the course is debatable and not hopeless. “A Better Way” works well with “Had Enough?” too.

  • When are the Dems going to learn that they must fight a smart asymmetrical war? How do they get their message out.

    The Repubs have the high courts, big business funding, the voting apparatus, the mainstream media, the advantages of incumbency with gerrymandered districts, and presidential power to move and focus events.

    And in the other corner are the Democrats with a simple truth..
    We are losing our way of life. Our democracy is being stolen from within. We are being lied to, ripped off, and shamelessly manipulated for special interest gain.
    Democrats can make a contract with America to restore Democracy. reform corrupt practices, and make government work for the people.

    The propaganda war can be won only if a way is found to capture the attention of the American people outside of traditional media and politics as usual.

    We need A NEW AMERICAN REVOLUTION proclaiming freedom from corporate special interests. Pull out Paul Revere and the founding fathers and drape our cause in the flag.

    Republicans know the power of fear, it’s time for Dems to raise their own fear factor.
    The dems need to get the message out that we are on the brink of a massive failure of democratic government that will ultimately destroy our heritage of freedom. The dems need to show us that they are guided by a vision to restore democracy that does not include bundles of cash in their own freezers.

  • The democratic message should be simple and clear — the US is losing the War on Terror because of Bush’s incompetence.

    We can not afford the Bush promise of “more of the same”.

    Yes, it will take some sacrifice in the form of higher taxes to
    support a larger military. But the dems promise to provide the military
    the resources they need to win the war.

    Bush won’t do that because his tax cuts for the wealthy
    is more important to him then winning the war on terror.

    Just keep pounding the point that Bush is not serious about
    winning the war– otherwise he would not be trying to win it on the cheap.

  • It’s way too long to just paste in its entirety, but I strongly recommend Stephen Pressfield’s op-ed piece from this morning Seattle P-I. On tribalism, it has much to say about why we don’t understand what we’re up against in Iraq and Afghanistan. By extension — the difference between nation and tribe, between reason and religion — it also says much why don’t understand our domestic enemies, yahoots in the GOP.

  • Here’s a novel idea: Don’t take a stand on the Iraq war. Take a stand on the economy and general Republican ineptitude. Get the national security focus back on Bin Laden and real terrorists. Start hammering on healthcare. Reveal the “secret” of the US falling behind the rest of the world in education — or just falling behind period. And always recite the incredible Bush-created debt, and how it will effect our kids, our power, and our taxes.

    Of course Iraq is a major issue. But the Rupubs have made it one. GIVE Iraq to them! Make them own it. Let them crow about what a success it is. Give them what they wish for. And they’ll be really, really sorry.

    I like Ed’s post. We’ve reached a time when FDR principles and programs are becoming necessary. I think a good leader can achieve national sacrifice if he/she can convince the nation that it will be better off, safer, and more powerful.

  • Here’s a novel novel idea. I guess it’s highly un-American. Why try to win?

    Zooming out: Democrats are the Nice Guys, Repugs are the Hard Nails. Repugs create pigs’ breakfasts, Democrats come in and clean them up. It’s how it’s been in the see-saw of American politics for the last half-century or more. Why not just step off the plank? Leave the Repugs to wallow in their self-created mess for a round or two? — See how that works out.

    Just a thought.

  • Of course Iraq is a major issue. But the Rupubs have made it one. GIVE Iraq to them! Make them own it. Let them crow about what a success it is. Give them what they wish for. And they’ll be really, really sorry.

    No they won’t. Most people in this country consider ‘better on national defense’ to mean ‘better at killing swarthy people who worship the wrong god’

    Define the election in as a way, and the bigger butcher wins. The bigger butcher at this point is the GOP. I fully expect the Democratic party to nominate a butcher of its own, and lose, because she — I’m looking at you, Hillary — can’t point to any corpses of her own yet. If she could, she’d win.

    There will always be a big enough plurality in favor of murdering brown people to win a national election. The only time there’s a plurality big enough the other way is if the war costs too much.

    Our casualties are still an order of magnitude too small, and the real dollar cost is too cleverly hidden, for the ‘we-murder-brown-people BETTER!’ position to be a loser yet, either in the primaries, or the general election.

    We’re riding this one aaaaaallll the way down.

    I don’t expect the Republic to come out of this in one piece.

  • I say shove the Iraq war down the Repubs throats. The only way things are goinf to get better over there is for a change in civilian leadership here.

    The Bush Administration is not fighting the war to win, it’s just trying not to lose. Resurect the Viet Name-era claim that they’re not letting the soldiers win ( which I belive to be the case.) What are our troops doing over there other than serving as IED fodder for terrorists, insurgents or sectarian militias? Do we go on offensives anymore? Are U.S. troops involved in major operations? No. There sitting in bases and checkpoints hoping not to get shot at or blown up. Bush is providing Islamists who hate the U.S. with a constant supply of American to kill and exact their vengence. Bush is fine with Americans getting killed by ‘terrorists” as long as they are in uniform.

    The Dems would do well with saying what the parameters of winning in Iraq are. The longer we stay in Iraq, the less the chance the U.S. can claim any victory, real or moral, and the greater the liklihood of other entities being able to claim they defeated us. What Afghanistan was to the Soviets, Iraq is becoming to the U.S.: a never ending quagmire of an expensive military conflict with a steady stream of bodybags heading home.

    And just like the Repubs have trashed Iraq with their ruthless efficiency, so they are trashing American domestic policy. The Republicans are the party of trash (trash politicians like DeLay and the Dukestir, trashing our national solvency, trashing our national debate by concentrating on cheap political stunts like beating up on gays and trashing our international reputation as a nation of strong moral principle.) It’s time to take out the trash.

  • I wonder if anyone in the US has ever seen a horse-driven thresher? You can see a photo of a more advanced model (requiring 4 horses; the one I saw as a child had only one) here:
    http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kierat
    The horse, tethered to a long pole, plods round and round, activating the “beaters” via a geared mechanism.

    Every time I hear “stay the course”, I’m reminded of that horse… It, too, “stays the course”, having no other option. But it doesn’t get anywhere, no matter how many miles it travels during the course of the day.

    The same image comes to my mind also every time I hear we’ve “taken a turn in Iraq”. That horse, too, keeps turning all the time. But it still gets nowhere, no matter how much effort it puts into pulling.

    Bush and his misbegotten war in Iraq has turned us all into that horse — we’re tied to the mechanism, we keep pulling the war machine prompted by the whip (fear of terrorism), we stay the course, we make a turn ever so often… And we never get anywhere. It’s time to get unhitched from the contraption.

  • Given what Martin stated at the begining of this thread, that the GOP will always be unified so long as they say they support the President, I think that the Democrats might be able to find unity in an equivalent message: that George W. Bush got us into Iraq, and its his responsibility to get us out. He has recently made it clear that he intends to keep US troops in Iraq and for the US exit to be left for his successor to sort out. That’s unacceptable; George Bush got us in, George Bush can pass the buck. In fact, that’s a good slogan isn’t it? What’s the Democrats message on Iraq? George Bush can’t pass the buck. He’s got to figure out how to get our troops out and when, and he’s got to present a credible plan for doing that. If you don’t have a plan, you don’t have a course, so “stay the course” no answer. George Bush can’t pass the buck.

  • Why don’t the Democrats in Congress ask the Republicans to PAY for the war in Iraq? The vote in the House of Representatives certainly puts members on the record, so why not ask them to put their money where their votes are?

    If this is such an important effort why shouldn’t Americans pay for it with some sort of special “war tax”? Shouldn’t most Republicans be happy to support this particular tax?

    My seven grandchildren are already paying too much of the tab for the George W. Bush/Republican spending spree.

  • I think it’s a good idea to define what the war in Iraq is. It’s not a war of choice, it’s a war of amusement. Indeed, many Americans simply want to see ragheads slaughtered. But we’ve slaughtered about as many as we’re going to. The Iraqis are slaughtering each other.

    That’s why I say stick the war to the Republicans and let them own it. Because nobody cares about a democratic, stable Iraq — which is impossible anyway. Americans care about winning, and we ain’t gonna win, unless “winning” means leaving.

    The “war” is here, not in Iraq. It’s a war between fundamentalist jingoists and a rational and semi-rational opposition.

    So, what the Dems should do is not support the troops. They should PITY the troops (which is what I do). Leave the war to the halfwits who started it. And brand them as losers.

  • A convincing Dem narrative will be hard to construct until the truth about permanent bases and the U.S. gov’ts real objectives are laid out. RepubCo and ShrubCo are nothing but lobbying and force projection entities for corporations both domestic and international. There is no intention of leaving Iraq. That is a fact known by the most influential and highly placed politicians of either party. Dems must come clean and speak of the money lost to corruption, the lies that were the highway to hell, the diminishment of our military for corporate profit, the intent to subsidize America’s oil-garchey to the nth degree with soldier’s lives and taxpayer dollars. It hasn’t been about freedom and democracy. It’s been about money.

    The need for a “united front” is going to require some united honesty and gut checks beyond what may be feasible for many of our current crop of sitting politicians. An outsider without direct connection to faux war taint may be able to provide absolution to the fallen Dem’s and cleanse them with her/his purity. But first they have to want to be saved. And in this case, salvation and damnation go hand in hand.

    As tough as it is, and will be, someone with a compelling and credible approach has to get the ball rolling so others will fall in behind. The B.S. has to stop.

  • Wow, truly a lot of wisdom out there. I think Rich C might be on to something with the idea that this is Bush’s war. The mid term elections are for congressmen, not the presidency. What the hell is a congressman/senator supposed to do about the war? He’s not the commander in chief. He can ask questions, call for investigations, introduce legislation, vote one way or the other but ultimately its up to the president. I picture debates, stump speeches, etc., where the question, rhetorical or otherwise, is where do you stand on Iraq and I say the answer should be “George Bush, you got us into this mess, now what are you going to do to get us out?” Dems should tell their constituents that, if elected, they will not let Bush simply pass the buck, that they will hold him accountable in every way possible, that American lives are being wasted on a daily basis, dollars are being diverted from Americans, and that we are not safer than we were since ObL is still free, Iraq is now a haven for terrorists, N Korea has nukes, Iran will soon, etc. But the point should be that the mid terms should be about doing their job which is making sure the president is held accountable for what he’s gotten us into.

  • “There’s no question that Democrats ought to get their act together and put up a united front on Iraq. But how can they do that when no one agrees on what that front should be?”

    There are no good solutions to a war that was a mistake from the begininng. The time for a united front was when the invasion was being considered. Nevertheless, I find it interesting that the Dem’s are criticized for not being able to solve Bush’s fiasco — when Bush can’t solve it.

  • “Because though they may disagree amoung themselves, they ultimately say ” We support the President” and THAT is their unified message.” – Martin

    Than our message is “We support the American People and Military”, who happen to want out out of Iraq.

    • Comments are closed.