Liberal Moths: Let's Not Get Too Close To The WMD Light

Watching GD over a long period of time is like sitting on the back porch at night - a noisy, contentious porch - and watching moths flit from light bulb to light bulb, with random abandon.

There is almost a comical indecisiveness in the way the moths flit back and forth.

"No! I like this one!!"
"Wait! Over here is better!"
"Better go back to that other one again!"

Each light bulb, representing the latest misstep by the Bush regime, draws us all in, as our hunger - our raw, visceral hunger to bring Bush down gnaws at us, distorting our sense of proportion and reason. Almost every week brings a new light to our porch, each with a new legion of moths ready to pledge allegiance to the drip, drip, drip, of Watergate.

Most of us have seen what happens to moths who get too close to a lightbulb outdoors. Not a pretty coating, eh?

Enough with the metaphor, let's just get to WHY getting excited about the WMD issue is yet again an example of hopeful liberals (hopeful should be a given for us) once again setting themselves up for failure.

First, too many Americans are still convinced of the righteousness of the cause in Iraq - "We got rid of Saddam!" - so that claiming a lie (we are all agreed there, it was a lie, and inexcusable for its human cost) about obtaining uranium will hardly be enough in and of itself to make the bulwark of self-satisfied Americans change their minds about the whole venture. It will bring no revelation, long-term or otherwise, that well, as our friend Earl would say, "Golly Lurlene, our great president was given bad information by the CIA, and it was probably some French spy who lied to them!" Trust me, Americans in denial WILL come up with the most convoluted rationalizations to look the other way when their PretzelKing lies to them. A compliant media is always there to help. Any media which does dare tell the truth is just "liberal" and out to get Bush anyway.

So get me a beer, Lurlene, a wrasslin' match is on after O'Reilly!

Second, it concentrates all of our energy, considerable as it may be, into serial single-issue scandals, where we keep putting all of our hope eggs into one basket(damn metaphors, can't escape them - maybe I need to dredge up a fable), convincing ourselves with rationalizations even Earl would envy, that by gosh, THIS is the one! THIS is the end of George W.! Patience! Watergate took time too, you know. Meanwhile, hope's liberal graveyard has memorial headstones for Enron, 9-11 Hearings, Tax Cut backlash, and quite a prominent one for the 2002 midterm elections.

I would agree that we all need patience in all regards fighting Bush. Patience is a virtue, so let's put it to work on the one goal that IS attainable: Voting the bastard out. Participate in voter registration drives, volunteer for your candidate, and as Jim Hightower urges us - agitate, agitate, agitate. Talk to the fence-straddlers who aren't completely enamored of Bush, no matter where they stand on Iraq. They are there for the winning, and WMD lies alone - alone I must emphasize - cannot do it. They need a comprehensive picture that convinces them Bush is the wrong choice on every level.

This is why I sigh in exasperation every time I see our collective will get hung up on the latest headline grabber. Attention spans are short for most people these days, and there will always be a new headline tomorrow, right? I admit I am curious about what light will attract our attention next. What latest nugget of Bush Badness will get our hopes up with breathless anticipation that, by Enron's Ghost, THIS is it!

Drip.

Drip.

.... nothing.

Still not convinced? Still think the WMD issue has legs and untapped potential?

Ok, here are some more ways to refute your arguments.

How about the long-term economic costs? Now THAT is a way to get American's attention - their wallets!! The bad economy shows no signs of getting better, and it would be hubris unmatched anywhere for Bush to try yet another tax cut for the super-wealthy, while Iraqi invasion costs skyrocket. More soldiers get picked off. Morale declines. Jobs at home still hard to find. Granted, this isn't romantic like a WMD scandal, and in some ways less desirable. So as a result, we have many liberals pining for the long ago victory of Watergate, which was not only a triumph of good, it was achieved by the most unlikely series of events and leaks to fall in our favor. It was such an anomaly of time, people, and place, that you would win the lottery three times before any of it could transpire again. So yes, it is the more mundane that will bring Bush down.

Let us not forget the most negative cost of Watergate: It not only inured Americans to more serious scandals by fostering a deep-seated cynicism, it made us look hard at ourselves and acknowledge that we failed ourselves in our choice of leaders. We weren't perfect after all, and we had Nixon to show for it. These days, few are willing to submit themselves to such critical self-examination. In this era of sanctimonius 'patriotism', we dare not think in any but the brightest and most self-congratulatory terms. WMDs or lies about uranium won't undo that, folks.

The more mundane will bring him down. The ballot box, in which we all must fight for ballot box safeguarding, or not let the whole deal get close enough to steal, is one way out. The economic ruin at home may be another way, and that's nearly too high a price. Not mundane at all would be the greatest price, however, and that is the cost in lives abroad, soldiers and citizens of the occupied lands alike. We must hope that the soldiers are not subjected to greater sacrifice to feed the Bush regime's ambitions, and hope (here is a positive example of what hope is good for) that this ISN'T the reason Bush is kicked out. No one's life is worth bringing him down. The body bag count is not an option. Let us all hope for the most mundane to prevail.

Whether you are convinced or not by the above arguments, we are all in agreement about the costs of allowing Bush one more day in our White House. Just please remember there is more than one way to flex our muscles at him than grasping at the latest misdeeds. Make your effort comprehensive and long-reaching. You're not moths, people. So get step away from the hot bulb, and mix it up with the rest of us in the backyard of America. Work, and fight, together.

no amount of failures or reality checks can make 99% of people here stop having blind optimism or desperate hope that Bush will ever be held accountable. Even saying " I told you so" a million times is not enough. Some people don't want to learn.

I do think that the pressure must be kept up.

Lies need to be exposed and hammered.

But the fight is a 15- rounder....there isn't any knockout punch ...
keep fighting...recruit...spread the word...

Nobody said it would bwe easy to re-defeat Bush and his allies.

and no fucking way in hell....Bush is the problem that untaps a WHOLE LOT OF BAD KARMA...that stretches a LOT further than some American political tactic.

It's time for some clear logic to be applied to human civilization, and this political shit where people make war for political claptrap MUST BE EXCISED!!!!!! If the United States means anything, we must treat the rest of the world like we ourselves wish to be treated....come rain, or come shine. If it means jack-shit, then the hell with it...it menas jack-shit.

Yes, I know my uncountenanced intellectual brialliance overwhelms no one, but I'm tired of altruism being absolutely false on its face.

How about the long-term economic costs? Now THAT is a way to get American's attention - their wallets!! The bad economy shows no signs of getting better, and it would be hubris unmatched anywhere for Bush to try yet another tax cut for the super-wealthy, while Iraqi invasion costs skyrocket.

You are totally right. It is simply the cost of this war that will tell in the end. We cannot sustain 1 billion dollars a week, and there is no end in sight. Rummy can sit there all he wants and say, "We don't know, we don't know," but that just begs the question.

Good ol' capitalist America clearly understands a cost/benefit ratio. Unless Bush comes up with some really convincing WMD's, I think this will simply and slowly bring him to his knees. (Along with the rest of us, unfortunately.)

And of course not to mention the cost/benefit ratio of American lives.

- When the entire mainstream media is on the same page as DU

- When the administration lies are as clear as windowpane and getting refuted hourly on the pages of the main newspapers

- When the TV is doing its job

- When the officials are demonstrably scared

- When the insiders begin talking

it is time to grab the single issue and pound it home.

Just mentioning that the bucks will get him if the lies don't. ;) I'm feeling fairly optimistic. Unless he comes up with real honest-to-god WMD's, I think he's toast over the next year.

I think there are enough of us to go around, to chip away at all of this from different angles. I won't begrudge you your pounding - your books, your essays, radio appearances, and the like, are evidence enough that spreading the word and pounding the points home DO work. Valuable, and valiant, efforts. I am no different - I hope my writing also makes a difference. We're hanging together, Ben Franklin style. I am just calling for a sense of proportion. I DO agree that the WMD issue has damage potential. I just don't think it can do it alone. I cringe at the "toast" being flung around, and think to myself - there HAS to be a better way to look at how Bush can be defeated.

So I urge you, and anyone else reading this, please don't take my words as a plea to quit or give up... by NO means. We just need to distribute our efforts in different ways. But fight we must, and will!

A 'big picture' angle, if nothing else.

Thanks for reading, and giving me feedback. Always appreciated!

is what you are saying. I agree completely.

Here's the little picture:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=36287&mesg_id=36287&page=

Let's add it to the big picture.

I'll be another, and thousands and thousands of us together can provide one helluva canvas. :-)

and, who has our voice at this time? What are they saying?!?!?

I heard Kerry say good things (which I didn't expect) on Wolf, but looking for everyone else now...except Kucinich who has expressed things that make me think he hasn't ever accepted Bush. And, of course, other progressives who have at least said something.

Hopeful (should be a given) liberals setting themselves up for failure?

I am offended on so many levels by ^^^ statement, that I don't know where to begin - I'll be short.

We come here for many reasons - discussion, congregation, commiseration, to find and share information, strategize, empathize, etc, etc, etc. We are over 29,000 strong on this site.

I disagree with your premise that we are "hung up on the latest headline grabber". We are "hung up" on the * cabal, a stolen election, the * sellout of democracy, the dismantling of social programs, corporate ownership of the govt and the 4th arm, and most important for me, the fact that our troops (kids, brothers, sisters, family members) are sent off to die in Iraq BECAUSE BUSH LIED.

The WMD claim is BULLSHIT.

NO BLOOD FOR OIL.

I am not a fucking moth, I am a mother, sister, aunt, and still heartbroken fiancee of a young man long dead as a result of the Vietnam war. I am a woman who grew up during the 60's, lived that fucking conflict in my home each night, and lost my future to it.

Don't forget, Vietnam was based on a lie too, and 58,600 beautiful young American troops (and over 2 MILLION Vietnamese, Laotians, etc.) died as a direct result of that lie.

Greg's death was the turning point in my life. After he was blown apart in a god forsaken field in southeast Asia, I participated in every possible way I could to bring an end to the Vietnam war - and I KNOW I was part and parcel of bringing thousands of young men and women home - and I did this in spite of the well meaning but unsolicited advice my family and friends - like you - tried to give me.

The Irag "lie" is based upon an imaginary "mushroom cloud" created and given lip service by evil men preying on the hearts and minds of our nation. Those same men send our troops to die so they can grow richer in wealth and power - and we should be 'patient"? I was patient from 1965-1970, and I have no "patience" left.

Deja-fucking-vue.

Please, do not try to dissuade me from doing what my conscience and my heart demands that I do. While you may not mean too, your post denigrates my purpose in being here, along with that of countless others. I'm a passionate person who comes to DU for passionate discourse and camaraderie, and I'm happy to know people who feel the same way.

I welcome disagreement, but I think you took certain points of mine in ways I couldn't have intended.

I'll address a few points:

Hopeful (should be a given) liberals setting themselves up for failure?

I am offended on so many levels by ^^^ statement, that I don't know where to begin - I'll be short.

We come here for many reasons - discussion, congregation, commiseration, to find and share information, strategize, empathize, etc, etc, etc. We are over 29,000 strong on this site.

We're all hopeful. None of us want to fail. I merely think that if too many of us are hell-bent on ONE method of fighting push: Serial Scandals, as it were, then we could be setting ourselves up for, if not failure, than yet more disappointment. Recent history is a more valuable guide than the 1960's or 1970's. Serial Scandals are not having the effect on Bush we desire. Some, yes, but the one we desire seems to be 30% approval ratings and being ran out of town on an impeachment rail. As I have argued, we need a sense of proportion. No evidence so far, that this is even remotely iminent. I think he can be defeated, but it will take a confluence of events, not a Single Issue.

As for your last point above, that is exactly what I was doing: STRATEGIZING. Offering MY take on how we should go about fighting Bush. Am I not "commiserating" with my fellow travellers? Must ALL threads in GD be a homogenous glop of groupthink??

I dispute your figure of 29,000. A good chunk of them are banned disruptors, returning exiles, and like me, veterans with new names for personal reasons. I am sure more READ the site without registering or posting, and if we hope to lure them in here for strategizing, commiserating, and whatnot, then we better show them we are diverse thinkers who can conceive of more than one way to skin a Bush.

I disagree with your premise that we are "hung up on the latest headline grabber". We are "hung up" on the * cabal, a stolen election, the * sellout of democracy, the dismantling of social programs, corporate ownership of the govt and the 4th arm, and most important for me, the fact that our troops (kids, brothers, sisters, family members) are sent off to die in Iraq BECAUSE BUSH LIED.

I never said "we" are. I was aiming it at a portion of the GD regulars. Unless you are one of them, it wasn't aimed at you. If you are one of them, just what is wrong with being SHOWN that maybe your way is self-defeating and dead-end? Read again: I said MAYBE. Savvy?

Yes, I know Bush lied. Can't you do better than protest march sloganeering as a response?

I think my post came out clearly in support of the troops returning safely and that their losses are unaccepetable because of Bush's policies. How did you miss my point?

The WMD claim is BULLSHIT.

Yes, I know. I am angry too. I refuse to lose my temper, and let reason prevail.

NO BLOOD FOR OIL.

Yes, yes, I know. But this is more protest sloganeering for the streets. What good are you doing shoving it in my face? I am the choir here, and you're preaching to it, sister.

I am not a fucking moth, I am a mother, sister, aunt, and still heartbroken fiancee of a young man long dead as a result of the Vietnam war. I am a woman who grew up during the 60's, lived that fucking conflict in my home each night, and lost my future to it.

Don't forget, Vietnam was based on a lie too, and 58,600 beautiful young American troops (and over 2 MILLION Vietnamese, Laotians, etc.) died as a direct result of that lie.

Read my concluding sentences. I SAID you aren't moths. I drew you in (like a moth) to read my post, and then respectfully showed why you are wrong, and why you are NOT REALLY MOTHS. *sigh*

Don't lecture this son of a Vietnam vet on the lessons of Vietnam, thank you. Like most Generation Xers, I grow weary of the sanctimony of Boomers saying "We were there!!". I grew up in the toxic Nixonian shadow of Watergate, and don't need to be reminded of ANYTHING about government lies having the power to harm.

Greg's death was the turning point in my life. After he was blown apart in a god forsaken field in southeast Asia, I participated in every possible way I could to bring an end to the Vietnam war - and I KNOW I was part and parcel of bringing thousands of young men and women home - and I did this in spite of the well meaning but unsolicited advice my family and friends - like you - tried to give me.

Greg didn't die in vain as long as we ALL fight for what is right, no matter how we choose to do it. I honor his memory just as much as you, and I thank you for telling me my "advice" is "unsolicited". I post here at the pleasure of the admins of the site, not yours. It is solicited as long as YOU click on my thread. If you don't want my advice, DON'T READ IT.

Plus, the protestors didn't end the war. Sorry. They had SOME effect, but it was faint in the shadow of the military realities over there. The failure of "Vietnamization" of the troops as a strategy to parlay the fighting away from us and onto the South Vietnamese, and the continued strength of the NVA, made the military reality clear. It was time to turn tail. I know that thinking the protests helped satifies your conceits (a common boomer malady), but if the tide wasn't turning against the U.S. on Vietnamese soil, the 1973 Paris accords would have been delayed indefinitely. What happened IN Vietnam, and in the halls of the Pentagon, always mattered more than the protests or public opinion.

The Iraq "lie" is based upon an imaginary "mushroom cloud" created and given lip service by evil men preying on the hearts and minds of our nation. Those same men send our troops to die so they can grow richer in wealth and power - and we should be 'patient"? I was patient from 1965-1970, and I have no "patience" left.

Deja-fucking-vue.

My plea for "patience" was a way of using the language of the "Serial Scandal" folks against them. THEY are always the ones advising "Patience! This is Watergate again!". I think patience is needed, but not in the way that they advised. You are more patient than I am if you think your way works better.

Please, do not try to dissuade me from doing what my conscience and my heart demands that I do. While you may not mean too, your post denigrates my purpose in being here, along with that of countless others. I'm a passionate person who comes to DU for passionate discourse and camaraderie, and I'm happy to know people who feel the same way.

I am NOT trying to dissaude you. What is wrong with trying to look at something differently? Why does that bother you? I am thinking wladenx is right: There is no changing the mind of a reactionary.

You are right about one thing, I was NOT trying to denigrate you or anyone else.

I am passionate too: About reason. Passion untempered by reason will lead you down a road at last as sad as the one you took over three decades ago. But I never said you had no right to be passionate! I don't claim any special powers over you or anyone.

The more I read your inflammatory response, the more I think your comprehension of my original post was lacking.

Ah well. Thanks for reading and providing your feedback.

War pushes my emotional triggers - I am reactionary on this issue, however my ability to comprehend is fine. Perhaps you are unaware, but your initial (as is this subsequent) post is full of triggers that do elicite emotional "reactionary" responses, and I doubt I am alone in feeling as I did upon reading your post.

I welcome disagreement, but I think you took certain points of mine in ways I couldn't have intended

I'm certain of it.

If I may, what you said in a nutshell was/is:

You perceive many here on DU to be unfocused (not able to see the big screen) as they "fly" (moth analogy) from issue to issue in hope that the issue de jour will be the one! that brings the * to its knees.

The WMD issue (or any other) alone isn't enough because "too many Americans are still convinced of the righteousness of the cause in Iraq", and "it concentrates all of our energy, considerable as it may be, into serial single-issue scandals".

You conclude that the "collective" would better spend their energies "working and fighting together".

How'd I do?

As for your last point above, that is exactly what I was doing: STRATEGIZING. Offering MY take on how we should go about fighting Bush. Am I not "commiserating" with my fellow travellers? Must ALL threads in GD be a homogenous glop of groupthink??

Frankly Coyote, you came across as lecturing from where I type. Remember, none of us are you, and you are going to elicite reactions when you make inciteful provocative posts. Despite your "I SAID you aren't moths", in your concluding paragraph you state "You're not moths, people", but go on to finish with "So get step away from the hot bulb".

Did I take a froggy leap? Don't think so.

I never said "we" are. I was aiming it at a portion of the GD regulars

You said "collective". Isn't that synomous with "we"?

Like most Generation Xers, I grow weary of the sanctimony of Boomers saying "We were there!!".

Sactimony? How old are you anyway?

In re the 29k figure; take it up with Skinner, Earl and Elad since that's the figure posted on the front page of DU.

Look Coyote, I am not going to be drawn into a battle of wits with you, hell I'm sure I'd lose. And I'm not the enemy, okay, so no need for ad hominems. And geezie peezie I hate to dissect posts like this - I find this type of interaction to be non productive.

So I could go on and respond to each of your points (some of which are very valid and well thought out, and others which seem downright rude), but I don't want or need too. Let me bottom line here;

From where I sit: You raise excellent points while at the same time some of your delivery raises hackles. You can mock my thoughts and feelings & you can ridicule my words (your response is full of slings and arrows), and you did push emotional triggers within me in your initial post.

But you are also preaching to the choir, Coyote, albeit I'm in the soprano section. Your words don't motivate me to action, I was front and center and involved in backyards all across this nation since long before you were born, and I continue to fight for what I believe in each and every day.

I am also more than a name and words on a discussion board, and I am a part of this community, a part of the "collective" your ideas are suppose to appeal to, a part of the "collective" you adress your thoughts to. You write, you provoke, you push buttons -- and these can be and are good things -- and yet you are not always going to like what you hear in return. My response to your initial post is just one such example. That's life but that's how we learn, and I wish you well as you do.

*on edit -

Short/sweet -For me, it's not so much WHAT you said, as it is HOW you said it.

I teach public policy. So, while I ardently hope that one of these issues will wake up the body politic, I'm fascinated that so many intelligent people consistently think that "this is the ONE!"

Yesterday I was told strongly on and off the forum by DUers that I was wrong about waiting to see what the Sunday a.m. programs brought. Why? Because its a "blog world now!" Sure, they are important, they are influential, and they can get things through the fog ---sometimes. Most people still think that the "web" or the "internet" is useful for three things: porn, news/sports updates, and buying stuff. They think most people in "chat rooms"---as I hear sites like this called constantly=--are sort of odd lonely people with massive conspiracy complexes. This brings me to my point that is in sync with the original poster: most people are going to assign this to "error" and "honest mistake in service of getting rid of a greater evil!"

Some here thought the switch in the final weeks before war to an emphasis on "liberation" rather than WMD was out of fear of getting caught in lies. Sort of...but it was obvious from a rhetorical/psychological perspective that it was a "feel good reason for the already convinced suburban middle class." that it also provided "insurance" in the event of this sort of week was also obvious.

This a.m., I watched the sunday shows with colleagues and with a focus group. No one thought Rumsfeld "frightened" although several thought the admin people were in a corner at moments. All, including some liberals, thought they "did a good job of explaining."

I maintained yesterday in a pm with someone that all they had to do was mount any sort of defense that allowed them to ask for the benefit of the doubt. they only had to be adequate enough to allow the audience to fill in the blanks for them with the language that audience had been taught: Bush is a basically honest straight shooting guy. Any sense that the press was pushing hard was "evidence of their bias"---yes, even Fox got that among people who sneered at the mention of them. YEs!

Did this put a "ding" in the shiny armour? My judgment and that of my colleagues was : yes. Will this somehow blossom into "watergate?" We sincerely doubt it. The Republicans have closed ranks however messily, the Democrats are not pushing hard, this has no soundbites and, Bush is distant from it. Our focus group of 20 saw him as not central to it and the WH spokesmen this a.m. managed to further that illusion. (the trip to Africa during this helped alot---he wasn't seen as ducking the domestic press and all statements were secondhand. nicely done.)

Their defense looked pathetic and nervous to us on DU and related sites because we've followed the escalation of the rhetoric pre-war and questioned the "evidence." To Joe and Jane Average, this is exactly what the WH has said: "one sentence" "sixteen words" and "a datapoint" that was given to the President by the people employed to closely evaluate data, and if Rumsfeld, et alia looked "nervous" most of our middle-of-the-road voters thought that this was "normal" given what one called "the relentless coverage this week."

On a hopeful note: they are a bit more wary or cynical of him than they were and the continued cost of Iraq in terms of human life is more damaging than this by a long shot.

You can call the ignorant or sheep but you would be wrong. They are all educated, all vote, all are white and middle class. They work hard and rely on TV for news. In short, they are most of your neighbors and most of your coworkers and they are who the national candidates really care about and who the pollsters try to call to get the "national pulse." Until they are moved to real anger, nothing has "legs." the media can help with that or subdue that impulse. Here they have raised interest but have not followed through.

PS. On many threads people suggested that the WP story might not have been seen by hosts before shows this a.m. Believe me, they knew its contents before you ever heard of its publication. That is how this game works. If they didn't press that point: and most didn't. That was, to those of us who do this professionally, the real telling moment in this saga.

Thanks for a thoughtful, "inside" view. Gives me plenty to ponder.

Perhaps some of the best analysis I have read here on this forum in months.

People here on DU often forget that there is a world of difference and perception between the average voting public and activists on political internet forums.

"You can call the ignorant or sheep but you would be wrong. They are all educated, all vote, all are white and middle class. They work hard and rely on TV for news."

I don't call them sheep. Actually I think refering to most of Americans as "sheep" is condesending and counter productive. Not all people focus on politics. Not even most poeple focus on politics till it gets near voting time. Most Americans watch a segment or two of news each day, read a few headlines and chat a little with their friends. Unless there is a really big story that directly effects their daily lives they are just not going flip between all the news channels and log on to internet message forums on a daily basis. Many of these average Americans whom are called "sheep" are educated, intelligent people whom all have their own areas of interest and talent. For most, politics to the degree we follow it here is just not the norm.

The long view is what is needed in politics. Stories like Niger-Uranaium each take a certain toll. Sometimes they backfire. Sometimes they turn out to be bigger than we imagined. But sitting around expecting Bush to go "down" everytime the press get a bug up their ass and actually ask the tough questons is only going to lead to dissappointment.

Here is an example: Many people on this forum think of ENRON and see a scandal that the Bush Administration escaped from. They didn't escape at all. For some percentage of Americans, the impression was left that Bush was too close to big business. The reason DU folks were so distraught when it faded from the headlines is that they had the ridiculous notion that Bush would "go down" over it.

The bottom line is that most Americans are not sitting on the edge of their seats everyday waiting to see what Karl Rove or Terry McAuliffe is going to be doing at any given time. Most Americans don't know, or probably even much care, who those people are. The news for most people is just sort of a snapshot of what is generally going on. It is not an ongoing story that they follow each and every day catching the nuancies and subtleties of each of the main players.

Most Americans generally think Bush is a straighshooter. The Niger-Uranium story will leave an impression for many Americans that perhaps Bush is not quite so forthcoming afterall. Still, without evidence of some significant crime, most people are just going to take Bush's word for it for now. But as no WMD's are found, and questions mount, Bush's credibility and popularity is slowly being chipped away.

Will something likely happen in world events causing Bush's poll numbers to go back up at some point? Probably, infact, I'd say most likely. But, each one of the stories does a certain amount of damage by leaving the impression with people that he is not necessarily as trustworthy as they once may have thought. Negative stories like these about Bush also have a cumulative effect, in that over time people think that perhaps it is time to give someone else a chance to run the country.

Imajika

I just heard a woman say that the credibility issue MAY be enough to unseat Bush, but that this situation is not the same as Bush's no new taxes fall.

You can only hope so. I suppose your strategy will out.

I may be hot footing it out of here if you're wrong.

:shrug:

I hope they have a "plan" this time

"If they didn't press that point: and most didn't. That was, to those of us who do this professionally, the real telling moment in this saga."

Good point.

Too many folks here in America trust him way too much. Folks need to skeptical of him so that they will be more open to the Democrats who campaign against him.

Bush would win the election right now on name recognition alone. He does like Saddam did and has plastered his face everywhere and in many media outlets and other places there is no criticism of him at all, it's not even allowed.

Dems need name recognition and right now the most name recognition will come from slapping around Bush which also serves to sofen him up. Later on, when the media coverage is (I hope) more willing to cover Dems for the campaign, Dems can move the source of attacks on Bush and the Republican Party from the candidate to other sources, including sources such as the candidate's campaign manager, and the candidate can run on their plan for America.

Note, this is pretty close to Bush's strategy in 1999 and 2000. It was a good strategy and we should learn from it.

Also, Bush *is* techically impeachable on what he has done, therefore it is ethical to attack him and unethical not to attack him. Folks *expect* the opposition party in a 2 party system to attack the other one when there is a problem, this helps to alert the people that there IS a problem. Of course, IMHO, there aren't enough ethical Republicans in office to impeach him though, but that also helps by making it easier to take them out in the elections because candidates can attack them on their unethcial actions and close ties to Bush.

the choppy, typo ridden (and poor grammar syntax at moments) has to do with doing this on a laptop on the quick). Thanks for reading it and thinking about it---my inbox is full of angry people who have suggested I be "less negative" or, in one wonderful and hilarious moment, suggested I read my own book for what the writer called a "sane and progressive view." You betcha bob, I'll get right on that.

The point is as you all noticed is that this IS a "dent" this is a "drip" but don't count on this topic to do more than "soften up" or "damage" the ediface of "honesty and integrity" maybe it will, maybe it won't but its "legs" depends too much on knowing too much detail.

I know some of the timeline and can spot the lies this a.m. and some of you can do it in much greater detail---we are like little political policy wonks. Someone who doesn't spend all their time here or somewhere like it finds the "explanations" credible even if they are uneasy.

Celebrate the "unease" build on the "unease" but remember the difference between your (our!) free time on DU and that of someone who is doing something else equally valuable.

Now, got to catch a plane! Talk to you later, I'm going to test whether you really can rig up the seat phone into the laptop and hold a connection!

I agree on the most part with that great post. I have used the DRIP DRIP mantra, but keep trying to caution people from getting over zealous. I wrote in another post that we should not get excited until a public investigation. We cannot scream for joy until * is out of the corrupt (white) house.

In this current culture of manufactured fear and warped notions of patriotism, Pride has become a substitute for rational thinking and reason.

We are trying to push a rock up the hill called public apathy.

If you're urging us not to hope for a resignation, impeachment or even change of majority war support out of the WMD issue, I concur.

But what this issue does is what nothing else has done yet: expose Bushco as liars, hypocrites and demagogues.

Joe Sixpack says "Yeah, so somebody lied. Hey! They still kicked that Saddam guy's butt." But somewhere in his gut the part he remembers is they lied. The press will never accept him on the same terms again. Bushco's credibility will be challenged again and again from here on out.

In the end, the illusion of Shrubby's cred is the only thing that he had going for him. Everyone knows he's a jerk. But people thought he at least was a straight shooter. Little did they realize he shoots only from the hip.

"No this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But perhaps it is the end of the beginning." -- Churchill

His fumbling on foreign policy is correlated with his drop in the polls. Many are becoming worried about the troop deaths, while more are thinking Bush was exaggerating the evidence before going into Iraq.

While I doubt this issue will be another Watergate, I believe we should beat this issue until it dies. The more damage we can do to Bush's image on his only issue, foreign policy, the better.

We should be using shock and awe against Karl Rove.
When he is almost unable to keep that sixth ball in the air, we should throw him the burning baton.

20% fewer people think he is righteous than thought so two weeks ago. Persue successful strategies like challengeing the administrations lousy foriegn policy, not unsuccessful ones like focusing only on the economy. We lost on it in 2002 because people thought father W made them safe. The DLC has nothing different to offer on that issue anyway.

First, Coyote, thanks for a post that created a good, solid discussion.

In reading the responses, I am encouraged by the level of reality-based thoughtfulness that exists on this site.

It also struck me that perhaps the major benefit to the controversy over the Uraniaum claims is that the mainstream press will no longer take the word of the Bush Administration without question, without critical analsys.

That being said, it is incumbent on people like us to keep questioning the administration; to raise issues; keep the press apprised of their equivocation; and, above all, show the public through any and all means possible the REAL AGENDA OF THIS ADMINISTRATION!

A belated welcome to DU. :-)

We ALL share the deep hunger I spoke of. How we channel it is up to us. I urge everyone to find their own way, but I am wary of the gnashing of teeth if we continue to be frustrated with the old ways. Then, the in-fighting and eating of our own on the presidential race.

THIS ELECTION IS OURS TO LOSE.

Bush can be beaten for any or all of the reasons cited above, but not if we eat each other alive before the primaries.

I think you're absolutely correct. We can play the "he mislead" us game all day, but it won't get us anywhere on its own. But here's what it does politically: it makes the people doubt Bush. They already know he's stupid (they do), but that became an endearing quality for many. The doubt is now there, whether it manifests itself in immediate palpable terms or not. Every question asked can now raise more doubt. The "Bush knew" 9-11 story had no legs because people still trusted Bush. Wait until the new commission comes out. Will there be anything there to get him impeached or any kind of story that lasts longer than a week? Probably not. But does it erode that "aw shucks" veneer? Yep. Most people in this country don't follow politics. They read the front page of their local paper, maybe take a glimpse at their AOL homepage, watch local news, but that's it (we've all seen the Leno schtick where he asks the simplest current events questions). So it's always about narrative: what simple story line will stick? And we could see a new one developing here (of course, the fact that Bush lies out of his ass is no new narrative around here). Unlike the repubs, we have to be careful not to overplay our hand. I love the drip, drip, drip. Keep on dripping all the way to Nov. 2004. I don't need a splash. Just drip, drip, drip (ever seen a stalactite or stalagmite?). All of his slogans (you know, the ones he violates within 48 hours) will be force-fed to him during the campaign. Now it's just a question as to who will deliver them to him. But that's another thread.

Most of us here are just happy to see one more nail in Bush's coffin...and in an area that was considerd his strength (military). Forgive us if we're excited, but I think you must step back & see that most progressives ARE taking a comprehensive approach to getting Bush out of office this time.

I do agree however that we must not let ourselves live or die on the media's latest "story du jour", because it will only distress & discourage us from the big picture.

Whether it's happy horse puckey or not. I NEED a few minutes now and again to think for just a minute that Bush is going down. Otherwise, I would perish from the anguish over what is happening.

Give me a lightbulb a month......just to keep me alive until election 2004....... foolish or not...I need it.

better get busy and start pitch'n in is what i say.

the more darts we can throw, the BETTER :bounce:

so get wit da program... 'MOTH'

psst... pass the FLAME ;->

peace

and i agree (well said too,btw).

although i feel the Niger lying is important on matters of integrity; i really do think this is the stepping off point for us and in a larger sense the media. The Data Dump by this Admin to conceal the true nature of our economy that was reported on the other day should be,imho, a glimpse at the real threat to these lying bastards.
The Dump mixed with in with the Iraq War- man are the American people going to be pissed when the layers are exposed to them.

it's one of many battles that we can fight and win on.
stay the course.

from people who love to give advice to "us" liberals. Lots of this "don't push the WMD" stuff going around. To that I say, "shove it".

The Bush Administration used information known to be wrong, doctored intell, pressured the intelligence community to fudge conclusions, and out and out lied to the people about INVADING another country and now we are in a real fuckin mess because of it. And you think that we should leave it alone?

Pinch a tent between my nuts and live there.

it's a definite now

I didn't say DON'T PUSH it, just don't hang all of your desperate hopes on it. That is, unless you LIKE being shit on and disappointed.

Do you REALLY think that this issue ALONE can bring him down? I am big enough to admit when I am wrong. Are you? Are you willing to resign your DU name if you are?? I know I am! How is that for big balls? I'd bet big money I am right, and you will be left flapping in the toasty GD breeze.

Like I told another poster, no one is making you take my advice or anyone else's. I was offering an ALTERNATIVE POINT OF VIEW.

Can you, as a progressive person, deal with that? Because the prospect of pitching a tent between your tiny nuts seems like a waste of my time. :-)

I agree with your concerns

I just dont share them

HIT EM WITH WHATEVER IT TAKES! THEY'RE *NOT* STRONG ON DEFENSE AND NATIONAL SECURITY!!!

The reason we are always dependent on one issue, is because of naysayers who kill every issue that falls into our laps. If the economy were a big deal right now, they would try and kill it too.

Maybe there is an upside to this uranium controversy.

I just e-mailed CNN and told them that the ultimate casualty of this episode is the President's credibility. From here on, everything he tells us will be held up to the light and skeptically examined. In truth, that may be the best thing that could happen because the Bushies have taught us a new form of grammar. (e.g. naming legislation exactly the oppostie of what it actually does, running two completely unrelated thoughts together so they come out as the same (9/11 and Saddam)). No more goodwill Mr. President. You recklessly squandered it and for what reason I do not know.