Sunday Discussion Group

April 8, 2007

The debate of how to fund the war in Iraq, at this point, seems to be a fight over swaying public opinion. I’m not sure who’s winning.

Over the last couple of weeks, the White House has been pushing the Bush line about as hard as it knows how. Dana Perino said this week that Congress is “thumbing its nose at the troops.” Dick Cheney delivered a speech (and told Rush Limbaugh) that Congress is “undermining” the troops. The president held a rare press conference to hammer the point, and devoted his weekly radio address to the subject.

I recognize that Democrats are trying to show their current opposition to the war in Iraq. They see the emergency war spending bill as a chance to make that statement. Yet for our men and women in uniform, this emergency war spending bill is not a political statement, it is a source of critical funding that has a direct impact on their daily lives. […]

If the Democrats continue to insist on making a political statement, they should send me their bill as soon as possible. I will veto it, and then Congress can go to work on a good bill that gives our troops the funds they need, without strings and without further delay.

We have our differences in Washington, D.C., but our troops should not be caught in the middle. All who serve in elected office have a solemn responsibility to provide for our men and women in uniform. We need to put partisan politics aside, and do our duty to those who defend us.

You’ll notice that the message hopes to serve several purposes. First, obviously, is to blame Congress, despite the fact that lawmakers are fully funding the war and the troops. The second is to make his veto pro forma, as if it won’t be a big deal when it happens. The third is to claim some moral high ground — the president will be rejecting funding for soldiers in the midst of a war, but he’s above politics so it’s perfectly acceptable. More broadly, it reflects a president on the offensive, despite being in a position of weakness.

Is any of this going to work? Are Dems responding as effectively as they should be? Is the media buying into the White House’s bogus narrative? And if so, how do Dems change the landscape?

Here’s Howard Dean’s Democratic radio address from yesterday, summarizing the Dems’ position.

We intend to see that the troops get what they deserve and we will not give President Bush a blank check for a war without end.

Contrary to what President Bush says, Democrats are funding priorities that Republicans have long ignored. We are providing $96 billion to ensure troops have the resources they need. We’re providing $4.3 billion to make sure they receive the health care they deserve and we’re providing $2 billion to secure our ports, mass transit and airports. That’s what President Bush calls pork. We call it supporting our troops. […]

Let’s remember this debate is not about President Bush, it’s not about Republicans or Democrats. It’s about our brave men and women who serve America. Together as Americans we have to stand up for our troops. The best way to do that is to get them out of the middle of a civil war in Iraq.

It’s right on the merit, of course, but you’ll notice Dean was a bit more defensive than Bush.

The national media doesn’t seem to appreciate the nuances here. On the NBC Nightly News this week, anchor Brian Williams asked Tim Russert if Bush, in threatening to veto an emergency Iraq war supplemental bill that would contain a timeline for troop withdrawal, was making “a calculated bet … that Democrats aren’t really going to vote to leave American soldiers high and dry in the middle of the fight.” There was no mention of Bush leaving soldiers high and dry in the middle of the fight by vetoing the measure that funds the war.

It’s certainly possible that Americans don’t much care about the GOP’s spin and the media regurgitation of it. Polls show strong support for Dems on policy grounds, and it’s possible the party is counting on the public to see through the nonsense. Is that overly optimistic?

And if Dems need to tighten their message, what’s the elevator pitch? I took a stab at crafting the outlines of a response earlier this week, and Kevin Drum tried his hand at speechwriting for a Dem looking for an articulate position, but I’m not sure the party is as on-message as it should be.

So, what does the landscape look like? Regardless of merit, who’s winning the debate? After the president rejects funding for the war, who’ll get the blame?

Discuss.

i said this before on this space, and i’ll repeat it today. if bush vetoes the supplemental spending bill, simply say, sorry george, that was the only choice you had, and you made it. then move on to other business and watch him squirm.

  • Is the media buying into the White House’s bogus narrative?

    You’re assuming that they sell the narrative on his behalf only if they buy it.

    I have a hard time beliveing they bought all the crap they cheerfully sold us in the past, through determinedly uncritical reporting.

  • i said this before on this space, and i’ll repeat it today. if bush vetoes the supplemental spending bill, simply say, sorry george, that was the only choice you had, and you made it. then move on to other business and watch him squirm.

    That works politically only if they start shouting from the rooftops well in advance (like, now) that that’s what they will do. (For the same reason, that Bush is planting in everyone’s mind the notion that his veto is a foregone conclusion.)

  • The President’s choice is to work with Congress and start planning our withdrawal today, or veto this bill and start withdrawal tomorrow.

  • Dem’s response: When the President sits down to read the bill he’s threatening to veto, he’ll know that Congress is fully funding the war and the troops. To veto a bill that provides full funding for our troops solely because the President does not acknowledge Congress’ oversight role is not only highly irresponsible but is detrimental to our men and women in combat.

  • It would help if the msm didn’t reflexively shout the W’s message from the rooftops and mention the dem message in paragraph 22, if at all. The message I’ve heard from Reid and Pelosi and Dean, et al has mostly been right on the money. (Obama blew it when asked what would happen if Bush vetoed the bill by saying of course tehy would vote for the funds.) But the msm gives W a bigger bullhorn cause he’s de prez and a reThug and reThugs are strong on security and military and Dems are wusses. It is their theme. It’s what they push.

    I’m being pretty negative. The reporting is marginally better, but not nearly enough.

    I think Pelosi has found exactly the right tone when talking about w and crowd – call them children (they are), call their behavior tantrums (it is), act – and be – the reasonable adults in the room. The American people understand this, it is the msm that is way behind the curve.

  • One of the messages of the election of 2006 is that a clear majority of voters prefer Democratic priorities at this point. This funding proposal of the Democrats is responsible to the preference voters articulated last November. Since the Democratic legislation funds current military operations as well as specifically funding areas the Republicans have conspicuously ignored, the Democrats should definitely hold the line. Dean is simply making absolutely sure the public realizes the Dems are funding the current current situation and is providing additional funding in other critical areas. The Republicans are backed into a corner hence being forced to catapult the propaganda, as usual.

  • ..but you’ll notice Dean was a bit more defensive than Bush
    Too true.

    The war is illegal, it was a mistake, it is a disaster, and it must end. The best way to stand up for our troops is to get them out as soon as possible. Funding should be used for that goal and nothing else.

    would have counterbalanced the debate more decisively.
    ..“a calculated bet … that Democrats aren’t really going to vote to leave American soldiers high and dry in the middle of the fight.”
    So where has the Deciderer suddenly evaporated to?

    .. it is a source of critical funding that has a direct impact on their daily lives. […] a good bill that gives our troops the funds they need […] a solemn responsibility to provide for our men and women in uniform ..”
    — conjures up the image of a steely-eyed junkie who’ll do anything for his fix.

    Where is Total Abstinence when we really need it?

    If the Chjimp-in-Chief had the power to put the troops in how come he’s impotent to pull them out?

  • First, the climate. A majority of Americans want out of Iraq within a year (although the start seems to keep shifting). In November, they elected Dems in part to do just that, and they’re going to be pissed if Dems don’t do something — which they have. Bush, on the other hand, chose to escalate after the public spoke in November. So far, so good.

    Second, the spin. Dems need to counter the WH with one voice saying — we passed your funding, and then some. Bush is vetoing the conditions — which is the only way we can do what we were elected to do without abandoning our troops. This is so simple an idiot could understand it, so the real task is calling press conferences every hour if that’s what it takes to get this on the air and in the papers.

    Third, the emergency. There is none. Dems have responded to this request faster than the last two Republican Congresses. Bush didn’t even sign the last one until June (if memory serves). So, there is no emergency — yet. But if Bush keeps ignoring the will of an elected Congress and the American people, he will create an emergency. This needs to be part of the anti-WH-spin message.

    Last is a personal peeve that the public would never get, but why in the hell after all these years is the war still being funded through supplementals? The annual US military budget is larger than the next 14 top spending nations combined (again, if memory serves) without Iraq. My guess is (1) Bush figures he can always get his way with the supplementals, claiming “emergency” and thus be relieved of any real accountability, and (2) the famed military-industrial complex won’t accept less cake in order to get more icing.

  • (12 cont’d. — forgot to answer the question) So far, the WH has had an edge in the media, but their arguments are transparent and they started this with public opinion against them. By showing resolve and launching a concerted PR effort to counter the WH propaganda, Congress could increase their public support. If they don’t, or can’t, and Bush wins, there’ll be no stopping him. God help us.

  • Maybe I’m whistling in the wind, but shouldn’t the Democrats, given their huge media handicap, be aiming for a message that is more blunt, more stark, more brutal, and more distinct?
    Why mince words? Get to the root and nub of the issue. Push it out and stick to it.

    I repeat my little stab at sound-biting:

    The war is illegal, it was a mistake, it is a disaster, and it must end. The best way to stand up for our troops is to get them out as soon as possible. Funding should be used for that goal and nothing else.

    No good?

  • I agree with Goldilocks…the Dems should stop playing footsy and firmly state… per Goldi:

    “The war is illegal, it was a mistake, it is a disaster, and it must end. The best way to stand up for our troops is to get them out as soon as possible. Funding should be used for that goal and nothing else.”

  • If Bush wants to complain about the Democrats leaving the troops without funds or equipment they just need to run repeat clips of Rumsfilled uttering those nine little words:

    “You go to war with the army you have…”

    The Democratic Congress needs to hammer home the message that the problem of ill-equipped, under-trained soldiers didn’t suddenly spring up on November 8th, 2006. They need to ask repeatedly and often:

    “If Bush couldn’t give the troops the proper equipment and training (and care – see Walter Reed) with the Ankle Grabbing 109th Congress, why will an additional shit load of money make a difference now?”

    (Perhaps they shouldn’t put it quite that way…)

    I’m not over-worried about the “message” the public is getting from the media or Democrats or Bush. The public has made up its mind. The White House is still operating on the December 2001 “Let’s get those bastards!” calendar. The rest of the world has moved on and doesn’t particularly care if BushBrat has caught up or not, they just want this shit to end.

  • Beep52 in #12 has the points very clearly stated. We just need to hammer those every time a Democrat speaks, and people like Obama need to either do it or shut up about it until it’s resolved. (It’s stupidity like that that makes me think the “too inexperienced” point is quite accurate about him and worries me about his candidacy)

    Dean’s points were all good – they just need a less-explanatory, less-apologetic tone. There’s nothing to apologize for here. Keep pointing out the money is there, it’s the president who doesn’t want to do what the American people want done with the war.

    “We gave him the money. Why does the President refuse to listen to the American people?” Make him answer that one.

  • The last time Congress refused to fund a President’s illegal war, he found another way to get the money — by trading arms for hostages.

    Could this be the real reason Bush Jr. is so furious at the Iranian-British prisoner deal, it robbed him of his Plan B?

  • #17 is right on point:

    “We gave him the money he asked for. We even increased the level of support to the troops. Why does the President refuse to listen to the American people? This country doesn’t want to stay in Iraq’s civil war. This country does not want to destroy our military.”

  • ATRIOS WEIGHS IN THIS MORNING ON THE LARGER TOPIC OF MEDIA FAILINGS THIS MORNING:

    “Back to Normal

    There are moments when it seems our collective press has retrieved a bit of sense and decency, when the right wing noise machine is flailing around without a script, and when coverage of news events seems to be almost fair and balanced.

    And then there are weeks like this, when CNN and the WaPo decided to turn Nancy Pelosi into enemy #1, without any real prompting from the noise machine, for reasons which they couldn’t actually articulate.

    And that’s why blogging is such a long hard slog.

    -Atrios 11:27”

    http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_04_08_atrios_archive.html#117604619999750157

  • Dems should continue to publicly investigate and expose the pervasive ineptitude of Bush World. The neo-con strategists never imagined the day when they would be vulnerable to democratic subpoenas and are increasingly losing their ability to protect loyal “Bushies” from spilling more beans.
    I say take a page from Rove and attack, but Democrats should attack by exposing the truth., not distorting it. The more the Bush administration is discredited, the less it matters WHAT they say. Bush has been so consistently wrong on so many things, why should anyone take their crap seriously?

  • The Dems would be well-served to be seen with military types when they deliver these messages.

    Act amazed. Talk as if the president doesn’t appreciate the situation. Use the word competence- drop it three times or so in each statement.

  • Right now the president is trying to make defunding and what the Dems are doing sound the same. So the Dems should be making them sound different- should be drawing a distinction between giving the president the funding to do whatever misguided endeavor he wants to do, and giving the troops funding to do what they’re presently doing.

    That should be the focus, it should be the thesis that should be communicated, but don’t go on and on so it gets lost. If you have to say it in one sentence, or two at the very most. Don’t let arguing about the details of why you’re right cause the headlines to get lost.

  • I actually think Dean’s response was pretty good. It might have just benefitted by beginning with some variant of “There he goes again.”

    RoveCo really has a pretty limited playbook. When they’ve got nothing to stand on they always try to neutralize their opponent’s strengths by making the most outrageous accusations they can think up. There was a time when there was no real except to respond to that kind of attack head-on, but that was back when more than 1 in 3 Americans still believed a word these clowns say. At this point you only give power such shenannigans by acknowledging with anything more than a wave as you go by.

    So I think the most effective response to this kind of attack in general would boil down to:

    1. Dismiss
    2. Deride
    3. Hit your own message points hard, by way of correcting the record

    Above all, keep it short and sweet (so as not to exceed the political attention span of the average American) and ideally include a nice juicy sound byte or two. Steps 1 and 2 should be kept as short and matter of fact as possible and free of inflamatory rhetoric.

    So Dean basically started with step 2, kept that to a single punchy sentence, then did a pretty nice job of presenting the Democratic message in a brief and quotable package. I give him high marks for all that. All he was missing was maybe just a one-liner explicit dismissal of the Republican talking points. That was kind of implied but most people don’t pay as much attention to politics as we do and I’m not sure the implication was obvious enough.

  • Make that:

    “…There was a time when there was no real alternative except to respond…”

  • Bush is quite likely to win this battle but lose the war. So to speak. I suspect that too many dems will ultimately be willing to cross the aisle ‘to support the troops’.

    However, I agree that so far Pelosi has been responding well. It’s getting to be time to ratchet up. Stand up next to some retired generals and talk about the damage Bush is doing to the military, and how to support the military by ending the war. Emphasize that the war is illegal and that Bush is running it incompetently.

    Then pass a more severe budget that increases the money for military raises, for recruiting, for military hospitals, for replacement equipment, for head-wound research, for body armor research, for assistance to military families (especially National Guard people on extended & multiple tours), for urban warfare training, for investigations into Halliburton’s misappropriation of funds and supplies that should have been supporting the soldiers, and which contains greater funds for withdrawing the forces even sooner, but which provides no funds for other operations past Memorial Day.

  • It is time for a strong, unambiguous pushback to ShrubCo and WarCo. The election made an irrefutable statement about the majority of the country’s opinion of this SNAFU in Iraq.

    The administration is making irrefutable statements, (veto threats, blatant escalation of troops even beyond what they’ve said, desperately hiding the costs of the war), about their diamond hard commitment to keeping the war going until Shruby is out of office.

    Pelosi’s approach is the right approach. Move forward while acknowledging any whining or tantrums on ShrubCo’s part with a clear explanation of why that’s exactly what they are. With the trip that she made to the Middle East and her blunt assessment of Shruby’s response, Pelosi symbolically went up to Shruby in mid-rant and put her hand right through him. She wiggled her fingers around in his vacant cranium and waved her hand back and forth through space in his infallible deciders gut. He’s not there anymore. He never was. Just listen to him pathologically lie in front of the whole world. He’s gone in almost every sense of the word.

    Bold confrontation utilizing the undeniable truth. It’s working. Not overnight. But it’s working.

  • The Dems need to call Bush on what he’s really doing — hiding behind the troops. If I was a Dem leader I would go out and simply call Bush a pussy for being to scared to approach the warring parties within Iraq and getting them to start resolving their differences and quit the killing. Instead, Bush is being a wimp and making the troops pay yet again for his failings. Bush is an utter failure at diplomacy and he’d rather sit back and watch troops die than to take actions of his own to prevent that. The troops have done their part, it’s time for Bush and his State Department team to do some of the heavy lifting. Bush is simply hiding behind his mother’s skirt instead.

    Furthermore, Bush is willing to use our troops as a hostage to score political points. It’s reprehensible for Bush to even mention that if funding ran out he’d still keep the troops over there without enough guns, bullets, food and gas for their vehicles to protect themselves. What kind of a Commander in Chief would threaten to do that to the troops underneath him? It is not the Democrats that will leave the troops high and dry, it’s the C-in-C that threatens to keep them there where he knows the money has run out. The Dems need to call Bush on this super passive-agressive BS. No one is a victim when they can see an inevitable outcome slowly approaching and not changing their ways to avoid it.

  • And in whatever tasteful and respectful ways possible, the war needs to be brought home.

    The video of the son in elementary school who ran to his soldier father in the classroom and was so emotionally distraught that he was speechless was worth millions of words. On how many levels could a caring human being relate to that scene? 12,000 more National Guard troops are going so Shrub/Cheney/Kristol can continue to have their war?

    Payday lenders are specifically targeting the environs of young military families so they can rip them off by using the vulnerabilities created by a critical member of the household being called to fight in a contrived fiasco.

    It makes me sick.

    America is listening. Dem’s must tell them the truth.

  • The country wants the troops to return home. We elected a new congress to bring them home. Bush won’t listen. He would rather let the troops die in Iraq than accept the mandate of the American people.

  • The simple, three-line message. (Pay attention now, MoveOn; this is your cue):

    *****The United States Congress provided the troops with more funding, equipment, and medical care than George Bush wanted.

    George Bush vetoed that package.

    That’s because George Bush thinks that George Bush is more important than the troops.*****

    It’s simple, and it strikes to the heart of the matter—that this isn’t about winning the war; it’s not about the troops; it’s about George W. Bush.

    Play it long and hard, people—and we’ll bring this monster down by Midsummer’s….

  • Congress is confusing to most Americans. Too many bodies to keep track of, and legislating — doing actual work, instead of posturing, which is much of what any executive branch does — is dry, technical, and above all, bad TV.

    A surprising number of people don’t even know who controls either House, for example. In 2003, a majority surveyed, IIRC, thought the Democrats controlled both Houses. And though they generally love their own member, they think the rest are crooks and hacks — been that way since the days of Mark “America has no native criminal class — except for Congress” Twain.

    As a result, picking on Congress is always a winner.

    So I expect Junta Boy will win, but as an earlier poster said, only this battle, not the war.

  • As to claims that the “surge” is working…

    al-Sadr calls for attacks on U.S. troops
    By SAAD ABDUL KADIR, Associated Press Writer Sun Apr 8, 9:09 AM ET

    BAGHDAD – The renegade cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged Iraqi forces to stop cooperating with the United States and told his guerrilla fighters to concentrate their attacks on American troops rather than Iraqis, according to a statement issued Sunday.

    In the statement, al-Sadr — who commands an enormous following among Iraq’s majority Shiites and has close allies in the Shiite-dominated government — also encouraged his followers to attack only American forces, not fellow Iraqis.

  • The nephew of a friend of mine is facing his fourth deployment in Iraq…he’s in either the Guard or Reserves, about 40 years old, works as a prison guard here, physically uninjured but now suffers from nightmares (maybe some kind of low-level post traumatic stress disorder???). I don’t think the multiple tours this guy has endured – and the stress he suffers – is unusual.

    His family is inconsolable that he may return to Iraq…that includes his father.

    I think the Dem’s will be surprised at the amount of support they get if they stand firm on bringing the troops home.

  • This really does boil down to the petulent incompetence of George W. Bush.

    He plans to veto funding for the troops so he can continue to conduct the war in Iraq without any accountability to the American people. He will not tolerate any challenge to or check on his authority. He has no plan to compromise; that is only for others to do.

    The bill provides more funds for the troops than the President asked for, but that’s not good enough. He wants to deny the voters any voice in conduct or conclusion of the war in Iraq. By threatening a veto, the President thumbing his nose at the American people while he uses the troops as political body armor. If Bush vetoes the funding, he is actually telling the American people, “It’s my way or the highway,” and “I do not care what you think. I make the decisions.” This is not democracy, and this is not support for the troops. It is the Commander in Chief making yet another political gambit with brave men and women of whom we have already asked everything.

    Congress is providing funds for the troops in a manner that holds the President accountable for his conduct of the war in Iraq – nothing more and nothing less.

  • I agree with several of the points made.
    An attempt needs to be made by our ‘spokesperson’ delivering the message.

    —-> Keep It Simple Stupid —- > That is the reason the Republican (Rove) message has been so successful.
    – Use soundbites in short sentences.
    – If it doesn’t fit on a bumpersticker, it’s too much info.
    –
    Anybody remember… Mission Accomplished – You’re with us or with the Terrorists – Defeatocrats – In their last throws – Support the Troops – Global War on Terror – etc…

    Democrats need to distinguish something: “Supporting the Troops” is NOT the same as “War on Terror”. Bush really wants the general public to believe that the one can’t be separated from the other… WHY aren’t any of the Senators / Representatives given it a better effort by making the distinction?

  • All he was missing was maybe just a one-liner explicit dismissal of the Republican talking points. — CalD, @25

    “The president has distorted the truth. As usual”

    Why, or why, can’t we call a spade a spade, when it comes to authority? Why do we pretend to respect a man who doesn’t deserve it and call it being respectful of the office? He has befouled that office, and it’ll need thorough scouring before it can be respected again. And, by the time this asdministration is done with it, Truth will be so contorted it’ll need a chiropractor to straighten it out.

    PS Before anyone mentions it… I’m reserving: “He lied. As always.” for Cheney.

  • Perhaps the real question is whether anyone, other than the 25% who still support Bushco in some way, still believes or even cares what he says? The same question might be asked about the compliant and complicit parroting media who have been the Rethug echo chamber since boy-king got appointed to the job. Brian Williams and Russert can fluff themselves up all they want, but who is it exactly that listens to them anymore?

  • That’s why you have to keep on using ‘little’ words, and ‘short’ sentences, otherwise those 25% won’t understand. Then again, even that doesn’t help with those type of people. I’m at a loss trying to even comprehend what makes them act and believe the way they do.

  • Bush hyper-personalizes everything. I say, push him to keep doing just that.

    There are ways to frame this that connect back to his arrogance, his zealotry, his bad judgment and his incompetence.

    The two key points are painfully simple:

    1) Democrats *are* providing the funding requested, and then some, to support the troops in the field.

    2) Bush and his gaggle of ideologues and dimwits have dug us a deep hole in Iraq, committed us to a needless, tragic mistake that was flawed in concept and butchered in execution. He so badly wants to keep digging that if he can’t have the money “his way,” he won’t take it at all–but Democrats in Congress, acting out the people’s wishes as expressed last November, are determined to take away his shovel.

  • Here’s the elevator pitch. Bush needs to sign the supplemental to get the money to the troops as soon as possible. The deadline is far into the future, and he has months to argue over that. The important thing now is to get the money to the troops.

  • dajafi (#41),

    That’s why I like the idea of starting Impeachment hearings immediately. They’re probably not going to lead anywhere because Congress people are basically cowards, afraid they’ll lose their cushy turn (or lifetime appointment) at the trough.

    But just the process of gathering facts, the recital of facts from a long stream of witnesses, could keep Bush and Cheney nervous till the next Inauguration. And the beauty of hearing is that the ONLY people involved are those who control the committee, i.e., the Democrats.

  • What runs through all of this, on both sides, is some unspoken sense that the war is a given: some external phenomenon that has an independent existence that we may observe, or even participate in, but cannot influence, control or end. In that respect it appears more akin to global warming than a consequence of policy. It’s very convenient to appear helpless in the face of a God-given demand for troops and funds when you have an addiction for such things. On the other side of the coin, when you want to do something illegal, it is equally convenient to claim unlimited powers as a Commander-in-Chief. When they were desperate to have a go at Saddam they brooked no obstacle. Now, when told to stop the fiasco, they plead helplessness: the troops they were so eager to send in are now, apparently, beyond their power to remove. To where has so much flaunted prowess so conveniently evaporated?

  • The primary obstacle in this battle of words over the war is “support of the troops,” and neither side has recognized reality.

    Supporting the troops is a touchy subject, fraught with excessive emotion. We hail them as “heroes,” a term that, personally, I think should be reserved for real heroes whose actions are above and beyond the call of duty. That wouldn’t include some finance officer in the depths of the Green Zone.

    The troops, like Bush, work for us. They joined voluntarily, and they didn’t join the Boy Scouts. They joined organizations whose sole purpose is to kill on behalf of the American people. War isn’t a sporting event. Military service isn’t an academic program. And the sheer financial cost of the half a trillion dollars we’re spending on Pee Wee’s Big Adventure is a colossal and avoidable expense.

    There’s no denying that the troops are at great risk, and even though they’re volunteers, they shouldn’t be ordered into pointless, stupid wars. If we actually value them and their service, we — who give the orders — should be able to determine, through our government, when to deploy them and when to bring them home.

    The facts are that George II gave the orders, committed them to battle, and the country they were sent to invade and occupy was not and never has been a threat to the United States.

    The longer they stay there, the more we compound and sustain the disaster Bush has created. And the longer we prolong the senseless danger and agony of young American men and women. While the White House keeps parading individual gung-ho soldiers, desperate to go back to Iraq, there are many more who have figured out they’ve been “had.” Just like they did in Vietnam.

    I’m convinced that there will be a greater bloodbath in Iraq when our troops leave. But I think that will happen if we leave ten years from now or tomorrow. There’s a way out. There’s no need for an expiration date. We just bring them home, and if anybody gets in their way, they get waxed. That, unfortunately is the only scenario of “victory” George Bush has left us with.

    Those are the facts both Democrats and Republicans should be agreeing on and acting upon.

  • Steve #32 and Suzy F #44. Surely the issue here is ending the Iraq war, bringing out the troops and instigating regional healing. Whether Bush survives or falls is incidental. Of course, it would be satisfying at a gut level to see him punished for his crimes, but I think the public at large are more concerned with an end to American military presence in Iraq than a lynching of Bush.

    You’ll argue that the two are inextricably linked, and you’d be right, but in terms of achieving the goal of ending the war Bush is largely irrelevant. There are currently ongoing procedures that involve vastly more complex political, administrative and logistical intricacies than facing down a whining Bush barrage.

  • Just reading back over some comments I missed earlier. CaID @25 calls for a a nice juicy sound byte. He thinks All he [Dean] was missing was maybe just a one-liner explicit dismissal of the Republican talking points. He’s right, these one-liners and soundbites are crucial. I’m always trying to find that pithy package that does it to a t.

    What about:

    We support the troops not the war.

    For me, that just about does it.

  • Oh, Jeez, Jurassicpork (#48), the Pelosi/Bush photo caption made my week! Merci beaucoup!

    (Pardon my French.)

    Al

  • Goldilocks, they are inextricably linked, and i can be even more brief than my earlier quote (and put on the brass knuckles as well):

    “The Troops (accompanied by the image of flag-draped coffins) or the Tyrant (accompanied by a picture of GWB).

    It’s Your Choice.”

    Change the first line to “(picture of flag-draped coffin) OR (picture of GWB). You’re now down to two pictures and four words.

    When the ReThugs start to howl, give them a “Cheney” reply.

    This is a war. No—not the Iraq War, and not the War of Terrah. It is a war between the forces of Truth and the forces of Tyranny. Taking the high ground just makes you an easy target. Waiting for someone else to wage the war for you is defeatist. This war must be waged in both strategic and tactical terms and methodologies. Hit your enemy hard, with the sole intent of inflicting operational damage. Then before he recovers and counters, hit him again. You want an effective protest? Put the picket signs outside Americ’a high-schools when the recruiters pay a visit. Start telling these kids not to enlist. You want an effective protest march? Put 50% of your marchers at the starting point, and the other 50% at the end-point where the rally’s planned. Breaking up the march midway becomes ineffective. They cannot stop a moving target en-route and a stationary target at the destination simultaneously

    This is the War for America—start thinking in terms of battlefield maneuvers and tactics. Bush’s poliocy hacks lack that kind of experience—and it will show on an embarrassing scale if they are forced onto a veritable “battlefield….”

  • Ed, #43:

    While I get what you’re saying, and agree that it would be useful for even more facts to come to light, I simply don’t have enough faith in our chattering classes that “the story” would be how dishonest the admin was getting us into the war, and how horribly they’ve botched it at every step since. The truth is that anyone open to hearing all that knows it already.

    The media will take any opportunity to make stories about “the fight” rather than the facts. As soon as “impeachment” is mentioned, they’ll switch to “the Democrats want payback.” Look at the wankers poo-pooing Waxman and Schumer for pursuing the Attorneys purge!

    Given half a chance, they’ll make Bush a martyr on the cross of Democratic “vindictiveness and partisanship.” Thus, while impeachment is certainly valid on the merits, it’s not worthwhile for us to pursue. Better to let Bush keep damaging the Republican brand; with any luck, and any brains, we’ll be winning elections on his incompetence and mendacity until Jenna and Not-Jenna are toothless old drunken crones.

  • All this stuff doesn’t matter for as much as it could if liberals can’t find a way to counteract the inroads the conservatives have made in influencing the media. You have to trust people that are smart and you can’t abandon working on crucial endeavors just because you think you won’t win. Republicans could spyware your computer, could watch your websites to figure out what your strategy is going to be- well then you don’t use a computer on the internet. You don’t give up, you try to figure something out. The usual way people get defeated is they give up too early.

  • Swan @53 makes a good point

    It seems that in general ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ are more apt to forgive opponents, which can’t be said about right wingers, neo-cons, Christian Conservatives and Evangelicals (keep in mind I am not mentioning Republicans in general, because not all Republicans are bad)

    There are still tons of those right wingers and their ilk who are still mad about Former President Clinton, just for being alive. They still bring up Kennedy’s accident. Anything any liberal has ever done seems to be brought up at any occasion. They are bitter and can’t seem to get over their own lies, hence it is much easier to pretend that the ‘others’ are a lot worse.

    Keep believing in their on delusions. There are medicatons for that, but then again, you’d have to take them to be helped.

  • I think the Dems have been pretty much right on with this whole thing. there’s very little that can be done to sway the 25%, and the media is just too stupid for words, for example their dismissal of the Gonzales scandal for weeks, and their refusal to actually change their policies after their complicity in the Iraq war bamboozlement.

    I think we need to meet his threats with a promise:

    Keep it simple. Just say “If Bush vetoes the funds for the troops because he wants to continue his endless and unpopular war, that is not the fault of congress. And if Bush leaves our troops in harm’s way after he cuts off their funding, congress will need to impeach him.”

    Bush is gambling with other peoples’ lives. He’s trying to double down. It’s time to send him packing before he gets more people killed than he has already.

    • Comments are closed.