A Serious Question

About the political strategy of the Iraq War? And I know that Dean, Kucinich, and General Clark are vocal critics of the war, as are the majority of the people here at DU. However, my question is, is this the best strategy against Bush and Cheney? This is a very complex issue that needs rather deep contemplation, in my opinion. Because, our inclination is to scream, "The war is wrong and we need to shout it toanyone that will listen!" However, I think that is the wrong approach.

Note today that Cheney is on the Heritage Foundation circuit and early TV speech pushing the war: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/cheney.terror.ap/index.html
Also, note that Dubya himself was doing the hard sell yesterday.
This is the strongest card the Repubs have. Those that criticize them on this issue only empower their position even further, is my conclusion.

So, my opinion is that although we disagree with war and the false pretensions of the war, we must be very smart about how we disagree with the war. We must do so in such a way that does not empower the Bush and Cheney Administration and the Repub voters. Some issues are strong enough to sell themselves, just like a good product. The war is one of those issues. We don't have to be hypercritical of the war for the people to see what is happening. In fact, we need to approach this issue in such a way as to diminish the support for Bush and the war.

We need the soft sell in this very partisan environment. We need leaders that say we need to make sure we succeed in Iraq but we are not so sure of the way the Bush Administration is handling it? They need not be antagonistic but, at the same time, plant the seed of doubts in those minds that incline to support Bush on the war, and who would automatically shut you off if were very vocal about it. Since this is the issue that will either put Bush back into the White House or send him back to Crawford, it behooves us to think wisely about how we approach this issue.

But the reality is that we are there now. We must make the best of a very bad situation. The American people want to be assured that we all have the interests of the nation at heart even if we disagree with each other about what to do about it. I think if our leaders come out very strongly against this war, it plays into the hands of Bush and Cheney, and gives them the momentum to claim the issue that they believe will put them back into the White House. We must find a way to "defuse" this issue. We have to do it in a very subtle way, in my opinion.

I have only recently come to this conclusion. I do not support this war in any way but my vocal criticism is not going to carry the day. "Anti-war" has never been a winning formula in circumstances such as these, no matter how principled the stand. We can continue to be "anti-war" but we must do so in a more subtle way, so as to let people see what is happening and come to their conclusions without partisanship cementing their conclusions. What is the best way to keep the Repubs from winning the election on this issue, is my question.

;-)

No time to cautiously creep.
Be fearless.

But the emotional response I expected from some...

Meaning?

"This is a very complex issue that needs rather deep contemplation, in my opinion. Because, our inclination is to scream, "The war is wrong and we need to shout it toanyone that will listen!" However, I think that is the wrong approach."

Read further...

just have to be unafraid to say it.

recommend Plaid Adder's piece--it is really quite excellent. ;-)

It is not working at diminishing the support for the war or changing any minds. And unless we do that, Bush will own the Iraq war as his issue and it could very possibly put him back into the WH. It's that important.

so long as our side allows him to.

but Americans have become just too comfortable and cowardly.

Incompentence and lack of vision on the part of the administration.
That the hallmark of the admininstration is that they don't think things through.

But at the same time, we have to let the American people know that we want the mission to "succeed". Success, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=510733

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

But will it sell? I think we have to say the very same thing you say but in such a way so as not antagonize those that have already had their views cemented about their support for the war. It doesn't matter to them that there are no WMDs. It was still the right thing to go in there and get Saddam. You are right but I fear your position is the minority and will only give strength to the Bush and Cheney campaign. I think there must be a better way to "sell" your idea. And it is my opinion that if we are more subtle with the soft sell, these minds may open up just enough to let the truth slip in. As it is, the division and partisanship has shut off all reason and truth.

I mean look what California just voted for. The hardest guy they could find. Hard body, hard accent, very hard skull.

If the Terminator's election doesnt' teach us this, nothing will: power is more attractive than weakness. Unfortunately, what with the whole he man/girly man kick that American men seem to be on right now,
any attempt at the kind of nuancing you're suggesting is going to be read as wussiness. They've been doing that to Democrats for years; how many times have you heard someone call a Democratic candidate a 'waffler'?

I'm not suggesting we run Sylvester Stallone; but I do think it could only help us if our elected representatives would show some balls. Showing balls, after all, is really the main reason why Dean became the frontrunner. Well, all right, everyone all down the line, even Carol Moseley-Braun, sound off like you got a pair. That's the language people understand. You come out swinging. "Bush lied, the war is a failure, America needs a strong and COMPETENT leader and I will be that person. I am strong, I am invincible, I can tell you in words of one syllable how I will save you from the beast that this war has become. I will wipe the floor with George 'Girly man' Bush and when I am done you will look up at your new master with love and gratitude and I will lead you out of this mess."

It depressed me incredibly to write that paragraph, but by God that's the level of discourse we're working with. Well, fine. Who died and left the Republicans king of testosterone? The truth can have balls just like a lie can. Go out there and flaunt 'em, I say.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

But I think the majority of people that supported this war are not going to be easily convinced they were wrong. As you know, it doesn't matter to them that no WMDs were found. They think it was sufficient that we "got rid of Saddam" and that alone was reason enough to go to war. I agreed with your tactic until just recently. I don't think it is working and I don't think it will work. I think it only emboldens them.

and listening to coworkers reasons for voting and how the media went full bore for Arnie I feel the "issue" that needs the most attention is the "message". It goes like this...

Dems get painted with the same-difference as repubs brush, they are bashed right AND left for lack of a message(although for different reasons, right says we have no message, left says we need to get our message out there). The uninformed populace, or UNPOPS, are easy prey to a message - "compassionate conservative" for example, which actually means socially liberal fiscally responsible DEMOCRAT. bush* got his "message" out there and it didn't matter that it was a lie, he never intended to actually govern that way. In the debates when Iraq is brought up, the answer is to bash bush*(not hard enough imo), but that leaves our nominees open to the "where's your plan?" and "The dems won't fight terrorism" attacks. We all know those are bullshit, but none of the nominees ever end up bringing their criticism around to a solid plan and then tack on a easy name. Dennis gave his plan to get us out and took a step in the right direction with that move, but what about WINNING the war on terra? Simply getting out is important, but winning is more important.

One of our nominees HAS to be bold enough to say they will WIN the war on terra(I use terra to mean Earth on purpose, for that is what it is), this will bring people to them to find the safety and comfort they/we are all looking for. Is there a quick solution to the WOT? No. Can a convincing candidate make a well thought out plan SEEM like a quick solution? YES.

Finessing the issue causes entanglements,
when the Neocons only way out now
is enlarging the scope.
Creating more Chaos re:
Syria, Iran, Andes.

If you must, go w/ Praetorian Guard,the CIA.
The CIA will not be scapegoated by
WH. Watch Walter Pincus WP
for windvane-IMHO

But I think it is not necessarily the wrong side to be on in the upcoming election but we must be very careful where we tread. This is hte only issue they have and we need to weaken them on it? What is the best way to do that. I think when people continue to see these bodybags coming in and see the futility on the faces of our GIs in that place, it is not a hard sell. It is a soft sell.

Futility is the right word kentuck.
But more than that.
IMO-80% of pop. is just trying to
eke out a living.
It's the 10% on either side that makes or breaks.
The 80% will come around when:
1) the # of GI's KIA hits a certain point.
noone knows what that point is.
2) the Corps. start losing $ on the enterprise.
3) Internicine Warfare ie. the Praetorian
Guard/CIA.

We were right. Our 10% will be left
standing when the dust settles.
That's my goal

I listened to the question that Candy Crowley asked Kucinich about the conditions under which he would be willing to use military force, after reading off a long list of interventions of which he had been a vocal critic. He rambled on for a bit about the Constitution, but he never really got to the HEART of the matter. I would have addressed it in another way.

The Constitution, the document upon which our nation was founded, said that one of the purposes of founding the United States of America was to "provide for the common defense." And I am all for the providing for the common defense. The problem is that we have, over the years, increasingly twisted this philosophy of "providing for the common defense" into one that is all about "protecting American interests overseas."

Inevitably, those "American interests" have been about securing natural resources and expanding markets. Democracy has been just an empty word in most instances. Even some of the wealthiest industrialists of the late 19th century recognized this when they formed the Anti-Imperialist League.

What I believe is that we need to revert back to the idea of providing for the common defense, and get back to the original definition of that term -- for it was none other than our founding fathers who warned us of the danger of becoming involved in foreign entanglements. In the case of human right abuses and the need for international intervention, we already have an organization dedicated to that purpose -- the United Nations. And rather than tearing that institution down in pursuit of selfish "overseas interests", we should be working to strengthen it to work for ALL the people of the world. Only by following that course will we be able to create a more peaceful, more just world.

Hell, Dennis's candidacy is all about telling basic truths. But I think he really missed a grand opportunity to tell one here, and instead reverted just to the idea that we were "led to war in Iraq on lies". The people have ALWAYS been led to war on lies. The problem isn't necessarily this one instance, but rather the fact that we have allowed the basic aims of the country to be bastardized in a "power grab".

So much that people believe is dependent on how we say it. We need to be smarter. Of course, Dennis was correct. But he was speaking from his heart and from emotion when he says the war was based on "lies". But the majority of people that supported this "war" are not going to buy it. We need to weaken and diminish Bush's support on this issue if we are going to take the White House. In order to do that, we need to be speak the truth as we all know it to be, including Dennis, but in a more subtle and indirect way. Because this is an issue that will sell itself unless we try the hard sell and get the door slammed in our faces is my point.

edited for "heart"

God forbid that any of our great leaders and forebearers show an ounce of passion in their mission to make it a better world and fight the good fight.

God forbid that Martin Luther King, Jr walk on eggshells.

"We need leaders that say we need to make sure we succeed in Iraq"


I'd rather not blow more smoke up America's collective backside. We are not going to "succeed" in Iraq. We failed the moment we invaded the country. It cannot be undone and cannot be repaired. There will be chaos. There will be much, much more bloodshed, there will probably be civil war. Not the US or the UN or anyone else can prevent that. We need to give people the cold, hard facts. The best we can do is declare victory and get out ASAP. Let the UN take over as they seem to be willing to try and manage our massive, bloody blunder.



"But the reality is that we are there now."


Three words: Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam

It was the rationale day after day, year after year..."Well, we're there now and we can't just leave." Yes, we could and should have long before millions of people lie dead in Southeast Asia and 58,000 Americans were shipped home in body bags.

Yes, I realize Iraq is Vietnam; however, the refrain seems to have reamined the same.

We need to face up to the fact that we can't fix that country and install democracy. We need to provide a lot of aid for rebuilding then stand back and the Iraqis decide their own future.

Iraq for Iraqis.

Success does not mean the same to you as it does to Halliburton and Dick Cheney. Success to me would mean that we withdraw our troops and permit the UN to put together a government in Iraq. However, to yell loudly that we disagree with Bush and the majority of the American people that supported this war and don't really care if we find WMDs or not, is counter productive, in my opinion.

or stay the hell home and not run for office. ;)

It's about how smart they take a stand. No need to cut their throats in the process. We can be a whole lot smarter than that.

has always been confronted by this issue in times of "war". What to do? What to say?
A large dilemma right now is how to counter the barnstorming tour presently in full swing by these WH operatives (propaganda). If we send out Dems to tell the truth, even that is questionably unacceptable. We might need to start by laying some groundwork for the premise that Iraq is a "conflict" or police action, rather than a war - revisiting Vietnam. That might conflict some Americans.
I agree with you, Kentuck, that the opposition's approach to a warmongering administration is not always so simple or clear as it would seem to be.
I suppose it's too late to educate our neighbors and fellow voters. I conclude that it's to the advantage of politicians to have a failed educational system. It assures their contined tenure in office - ruling an ignorant class. "People are the strangest and most gullible humans I know".
...O...

And they are in a full PR propaganda swing as we speak. Our leaders need to respond but with more than just "Bush lied about the war." They need to plant seeds of doubt or water those doubts that are already there in a smart and deliberate way. It is about the psychology of the voters. Those that connect with the minds and hearts of the voters usually win.

but I will respectfully disagree. The tide is turning. There are soft undersides to this beast.

R's hate to spend money. We're practically burning it in Iraq. We are in terrible debt. We are losing soldiers at alarming rates. No one is helping us (except of course for the Coalition of the Willing (TM)) and nobody likes us. There are factions in the misAdministration and then there's the whole Wilsongate issue. Figure in the spooks are pissed and Voila!! Advantage: Dems.

Approach will be key. You do not want to alienate those who were for the war, obviously the blame must consistently be squarly placed at Bush's door. The Congressional Dem candidates that voted for the war should be especially helpful with this, having been shown bullshit from Team Bush....they should be vocal about having been lied to and should garner much empathy from voters who were also duped. Those who were against the war should obviously tell voters it was Team Bush who lied to them and who have cost them all this blood and treasure. Clintonesque I-feel-your-pain is the approach to take here.

It is a great advantage if used wisely.

Julie

I agree.

Deficit, Debt, Red Ink, Iraq receiving monies Americans don't get but need desperately. Focus on the Money not the morality. Republicans have no morality and the only thing they worship is money. Most Americans will listen to money talk but not Anti-War or Anti-American which they see as the same thing.Make them justify Haliburton getting billions while Joe Six-Pack is in debt over his head. Credit Card bills keep piling up while all our money goes to Iraq. Stress the costs.

This is our issue! We have the truth on our side. We should not let Bush and Cheney steal it from us. Which is what they are in the process of doing, in my opinion. It is about communication.

You are essentially recommending LESS truth in a situation already dominated by lies. You are recommending that Democrats be WEAKER and more PASSIVE and COMPROMISING, in a situation where they already are feeble, cowardly, & so compromised that it's hard to distinguish them from Republicans.

Talk of "soft sells" and "not being antagonistic" and "being more subtle" and "But the reality is..." -- all this phraseology is the language of rationalizing sellouts.

As CWebster noted above, you are talking just like the DLC. You are saying that the best way to oppose the war is to oppose it less and more feebly.

Your last sentence, expressing fear of seeming "too partisan," is really nauseating. It could have been written by Al From.

It is about not losing the election because we are too passionate and emotional about an issue which we should own but because we are not too bright, are willing to give it to the Repubs and let them steal into the White House once again. It is not about not speaking the truth. It is about speaking the truth in a manner that people can understand without looking like a wild-eyed maniac.

" It is about speaking the truth in a manner that people can understand without looking like a wild-eyed maniac."

so you're a maniac if you call a lie a lie, rather than squeaking about misspeaking?

(Shit, I didn't mean for that to rhyme.)

I think it's an example of what kentuck is talking about here. We don't need to refrain from telling basic truths, we need to be concerned with the way in which we FRAME them. Framing is everything in modern politics, the Republicans are masters at it, and we just plain suck.

Standing on a stage and ranting about the "lies upon which Bush drug us to war" is not going to win the election. People are used to being lied to about military interventions. The key is in framing the issue in a manner that gets people to view it from a different perspective.

That's not backing down. That's being smart.

"because the SOBs lied, your son or daughter might be killed by an Iraqi sniper. Because the SOBs lied, Social Security might not be there for you. Because the SOBs lied, billions are going to companies owned by Bush's friends to rebuild Iraq, but we supposedly can't afford to rebuild everything that needs to be rebuilt in this country."

In other words, show them how this war affects them personally.

seek to to ADVANCE important truths. Kentuck sounds like he's mainly advocating a "softening" of the truth. Your idea educates the public about US imperialism. Kentuck's approach merely seeks to avoid irritating people who are unprepared to hear the truth. There's a big difference between those approaches.

Yes, framing is everything. A nice touch in your approach, for example, is that you actively try to educate about imperialism, but you make the lesson easier to swallow by framing it with reference to the founding fathers & the Constitution.

I agree that Dennis muffed that opportunity last night, too.

IMO the best possible stance for the dems is . . .

We doubted the reasons for the war and we have been vindicated to a great extent. Saddam is gone now and that is good.

But we are in trouble there and we're all Americans in this together. What can we do now, working with the adminisration, to help get America out of this mess with a minimum number of deaths of American GI's.

***************** OTOH

Of course, this plays into the hands of Rove who has successfully painted the dems as wusses unwilling or too cowardly to face down the terra'ists - as our gunslinger president has been doing.


I wonder if we'd get any points on this from the "morans in the middle"? Probably not, especially since Rove will have the RW media spin it as a cowardly "appeasing the terra'ists" move - while taking full advantage of whatever legislative cooperation we offer.

On edit: That's the problem. Rove has us in a Catch-22. We can either become neo-cons or remain the hopeless cowards that we are - too afraid of world opinion to defend our own nation against the terra'ists.

The critical issue that the Dems should focus on should be how 'w' is handling the post war "peace". We know that 'w' went to war to create a forward military bass in the heartland of the oil producing Arab world. That and the rather more complex neo-con connection with Zionist Israel. But the post war swamp has put an end to those goals. We cannot afford to rebuild a country half way around the world with 25 million people who hate our guts. Especially when much of the money will be wasted on hugely inflated contracts with American Corporations that waste away most of the money.

The Democrates should push the issue of pulling out and sending in a multi-national peace force under UN control. That is the simple, easy to understand issue that most Americans can relate to. Bob

He's rattling Cuba's chain now....

Maybe somebody should say something.

Like we cannot afford another war. We can't afford the wars we are in. We should not be spreading fear amongst people for political purposes. We understand there are people in Florida that would like to see this happen but it is not in America's interest and it is irresponsible to talk such nonsense.