What I have been seeing from Democrats thus far is a bunch of gobbly gook. Read Carl Levin's joint statement with John Warner after their trip to Iraq. They talk about all the complexities of Iraq, but only wait until the end to say they are "not optimistic". As Salon has pointed out, this gives the Right, with corporate media complicity, a chance to spin statements to their own ends. From Sen. Clinton to Senators Levin and Durbin, their words have been twisted. Concludes Tim Grieve:
We'll admit it's a fine distinction, but it shouldn't be so hard to understand. Is the "surge" having some success, in some areas, in reducing the levels of violence in Iraq? Yes. Is the overall "strategy" working -- that is, is the Iraqi government using the "breathing space" it's getting to do the things it needs to do? No. While it's certainly in the Bush administration's interests to conflate the questions and confuse the answers, the White House has people on staff paid to do just that. Journalists aren't supposed to be doing it for them.
But, Mr. Grieve, the media has been doing this for a long time. We should count on them doing it, as Digby has been tirelessly documenting. The media will gravitate to the right wing propaganda, and we only have a chance in hell of counteracting it if we .... fight back. Hmmmm .... where have I heard that before? Oh, I know, it was three years ago, when the Swift Boat Liars attacked. That long, hot summer of 2004. The conventional wisdom that Democrats have insisted on is the lesson learned from that summer? It was John Kerry's fault. Screw him.. Gee, how is that lesson working for us now, when not only are we facing lies about Iraq, but old lies about Vietnam? Funny how the only Democrat I know who has been engaging the Pubs on this is John Kerry. Where the hell are all the other Democrats in counteracting the two great lies from 2004 that won't die? (#1 about Vietnam and #2 about Iraq).
Now I'm just sitting here at home with my kids. I'm an amateur. So pardon my non-professional stab at counteracting the relentless propaganda we are being bombarded with. I admit freely to borrowing from some of the oratorial power of John Kerry's words against the Iraq War from 2006 and beyond. Hope he doesn't mind the mild plagiarism.
Here is Bush:
"Our troops are seeing this progress on the ground. And as they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question: Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they are gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq?"
And here, standing in for the Democratic leadership, is the fabulous stay at home Mom, Beachmom:
The troops have done their job. But the Iraqis have not done theirs. No amount of military missions will solve the fundamental problems of Sunni vs. Shia. It is time to change the strategy in Iraq, instead of a continued course sure to fail. Set a deadline to put the Iraqis on notice that the United States military will no longer serve as their security blanket while they continue to argue without any progress. It is the right thing to do for Iraq, America, and to honor the service of our troops.
Now, professional writers within the Democratic party: improve on my words, get the blogs to say it, the liberal pundits on TV to say it, the liberal op-ed writers to say it, and elected Democratic officials to say it. Because if you don't, then it proves to me that the lesson learned from 2004 -- that you fight back when attacked -- has been forgotten. And it is our troops and the national security of our country that will suffer the consequences as a result.
On my blog, I say it's all you need to know about Hillary in one sentence. She thinks Bush's surge is a success.
I too keep waiting.
"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. ... We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again."
Sounds a bit more reasonable in context, doesn't it? Here's Media Matters' full expose of the ridiculous press coverage of this supposed admission by Clinton.
Obama and Edwards attacking her for saying what she said is exactly what's playing into the Republican message machine, not Clinton for speaking the truth. They're going to attack Democrats no matter what they say; do you honestly think otherwise? The recourse is not to play defense, it's to play offense and hit them back hard.
"They're going to attack Democrats no matter what they say; do you honestly think otherwise? The recourse is not to play defense, it's to play offense and hit them back hard."
We agree on this, at least.
But, I have to agree with Obama and Edwards on their take on Clinton. Sorry. Hillary is trying too hard to get Republican votes at this point in the process. She's acting like she has the thing wrapped up, primary-wise and she's now on to the general election. She is only going to get more conservative later. Is this the best we can do? And if so, what hope is there?
To me, Hillary had no business ever saying that the surge was working in Anbar province. It did not need to be said....what possibly could be her reason? Guaranteed they will misuse her words to their advantage. Yes Democrats need to parse their words or find another job. It's the way the game is played.
The Republicans have the upperhand because of how they talk to the American public. They provide the easy, black and white answers to every issue that they can think of to the voters. We, the Democrats, have the right answers too and we must start speaking up or we will not only be in the minority....we may not even exist in the future.
Wake up Virginians, Americans, Democrats. Do you really believe George Bush and his Congressional Republicans have our best interest in their minds and hearts?
It is time, as I've repeatedly stated in my diaries, for Democrats to stop the Tevyaesque fairness claptrap of "on the one hand...but on the other hand...." This will ALWAYS be misused by the media and the Republican party, and the resulting effect is to portray Dems as FULLY agreeing with Bush, et al.
The Republicans have learned to vote as a bloc, and these bloc-heads have controlled the national discourse for too long. The "moderates" in their party vote for Bush when push comes to shove, despite their rhetoric and self proclaimed bilateralism. Look at King in N.Y., often portrayed as one of the moderates: his vitriol could have poisoned to death a million Kurds. Look at Snowe, Collins, Graham, etc. On the big issues, they'll almost back the President, no matter what they've said to the contrary. Dems need to find a better way to speak, and the best place to learn is by looking at videos of, say, Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham, men who will never give in.
I also don't really feel the need to be brow beaten, having been engaged in the struggle against the Republicans for many years now and having contributed to more than one victory.
The recent DK offensive over FISA smacks more of an intra-party power grab than anything else.
My purpose today is a swift kick in the butt for Dems to get moving in combatting the propaganda. And I am talking about elected Dems and those in the "business". I have no doubt that grassroots activists like yourself are already on board to fight.
Our MSM journalists may be generally lazy, but they at least tend to be sentient when given half a chance. The corporatist pressures to fan the current Cheney/Bush neocon propaganda must be immense: i.e., play ball or lose advertising revenue; play ball or get fired.
Yesterday's WaPo op-ed piece (which smacked of Fred Hiatt's obsequious handiwork) on the next preemptive target, Iran, was an especially egregious example of the sewage now floating along the White House's reliable transmission belts.
It is possible to follow the White House's script pretty well just by keeping at hand a copy of the last century's most prescient political novel and checking off the appropriate passage for the day. Here is Orwell's template for today:
Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous, and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist....In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones; but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world.
--George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
"I think everyone is missing the real problem with Clinton's statement before the VFW convention on Monday. Her biggest "gaffe" was saying that we have to prepare to fight the new war. Not new diplomatic tactics, not we should be preparing to withdraw from Iraq immediately. Instead, we get... we should be preparing TO FIGHT the NEW WAR. What problem does Clinton think she can solve with a new war? Join me after the fold to discuss."
She seems to glide so seamlessly into Bush-lite that I cannot understand why Kossacks, for example, get excoriated for criticizing our own side of the aisle. Soemtimes, it is just necessary. This is as good as it gets, folks. As I said above, from here on out, following primaries, candidates will tack further right. I hate to think what we'll get from Hillary then.
Bob Johnson was thinking along the same lines, and has a really good diary about his ideas of how to talk about this:
An excerpt:
-- The surge is NOT Petreaus' strategy (it was neocon Kagan's)
-- Nearly every military strategist, including Petraeus, has suggested that even getting a handle on the insurgency would require anywhere from 300,000 to 500,000 troops
-- We don't have 300,000 to 500,000 troops
-- The "surge" is nothing more than a shallow, cynical Washington political ploy that uses our brave fighting men and women as pawns
-- The surge has no more a chance of stabilizing Iraq than the purple fingers did
-- There are no good options in Iraq, but the our continued presence is not improving the situation