Iraq Pushback: Soundbites Work

In the midst of the Repub full-court-press on Iraq intelligence (Bush's speaches in Pennsylvania and Alaska, the RNC Video) Dems need to keep thier wits about them. One thing the Repubs have done repeatedly is boil the issue down nice chewey easy-to-swallow soundbites. The tendency to launch into a long verbose detailed arguement to refute their claims simply isn't good enough. It's clear from watching Hannity go against Dennis Kucinich last night that you need laser-like precision to cut through thier B.S. We have the factual upper-hand, we need to press it. We need to go for the jugular, one or two sentences, quick points, killing strokes, each and every time.

Politics has become exactly like advertizing - it's all about the catch phrase.

On the flip I have a few suggested phrases to start things off, and I hope we can seriously begin developing more - clearly we have the brain power.

Crossposted on Dailykos.

• Congress does not receive copies of the "Presidential Daily Briefing", so how could they have the "Same Intelligence" information?
  
  
• The Senate and House Intelligence Chairmen and Commitee members receive information that is <b>not available</b> to the full House and Senate. Again, not the same.
  
  
• Neither the Senate Intelligence Report or the Robb-Silbermann report analyzed how intelligence information was <i>used and possibly distorted</i> by the Administration. That analysis was postponed until "Phase II" of the investigation which has not even occured yet.
  
  
• The National Intelligence Estimate that was eventually given to Congress just days prior to the Iraq War vote was not voluantarily provided by the Administration and only occured as a result of pressure from Senators Graham and Durbin.
  
  
• All indications of connections between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein came from a single source, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who was exposed as a fabricator by the Defense Intelligence Service in Feburary of 2002. Why wasn't Congress told this in October?
  
  
• All indications of continued Iraq WMD developement programs came from a single informant code=named "Curveball", a source who both German Inteligence and the DIA consider to be "not reliable". Why wasn't Congress informed that he couldn't be trusted?
  
  
• Both the Senate Intelligence Report and the IAEA found that the Niger-Uranium purchase documents were most likely " a forgery", and the matter was referred to the FBI for Investiation.
  
  
• The National Intelligence Estimate included a rebuttal by the State Department INR analyst to claims that Saddam was attempting to reconstitute his Nuclear program as "inadaquate to support such a judgement". We know now from the Dulfer Report that the INR assesment was exactly correct. Not all the intelligence was "Dead Wrong", why didn't anyone listen?
  
  
• Inspectors on the ground in Iraq during late 2002-2003 claimed that U.S. Intelligence on Iraqi WMD's was "garbage" right until Feb of 2003, one Month before the War began.
  
  
• Why did Bush choose to launch the attack in March of 2003 when Saddam hadn't hindered the UN inspectors in any way?
  
  
• Many countries did not agree with the Bush Analysis, including Britain who said "the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." in the Downing Street Minutes - while France, Russia and Germany all voted against increasing pressure on Saddam prior to the War.<br>
  

Vyan

Clear, simple, direct and .... TRUE!

not convincing to any beyond the already converted. That's a nice bumper-sticker, yes - but it actually takes a little more to take somebody like Hannity (whose having a total field day with Bush's Speeches) down.

Vyan

Who is responsible?

Never let up on this!


Lied. Died. Cheered.

the Iraq War Resolution - it's was the "President's Determination" to go to War.

IMO Technically this is a violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution which states that only Congress has the ability to declare war.

Vyan

I used to think that too, but turns out that all our crying hoarse last year this same exact phrase is having resonance now, now that the facts behind our succinct position are making their way to the general public.

So the moral is clear: have bumpersticker phrases, but have the facts to support them.

You can fool all of the people some of the time with catchy phrases, but if the facts do not support those, sooner or later this old adage will earns its stars...

It's really about having the supporting facts and presenting them in a clear, concise and convincing way. However, it you overdo it - if you oversimplify - you aren't convicing anyone anymore because your presumption in a four or five word sentence has to be that they already know and agree with what your saying - yes?

That may make people feel good - which isn't a bad thing - but it doesn't help bring down those who might be teetering on the fence to your side.

Vyan

up to a point, only, though.

I think that people do not consciously fall to either side of the fence because of catch phrases, but when facts inexorably start pointing one way, then the subconscious catch phrase summary begins to resonate.

In fact, for pushing people over that last bit of resistance, seems like catch phrases are actually essential. The proverbial last straw or last nail on the coffin...

This is only my theory in its nascent stages...