This is going to get REALLY nasty

[diplomats]

The WH is beginning its PR counteroffensive, and the Democrats know it and are ratcheting up the pressure, too - witness Dick Durbin. I, for one, an glad the Dems grabbing this by the throat and not letting go. This is going to be one huge, bloody battle. I say, "Bring it on!"

[Kazak]

1. *ducks head*

:kick:

[dwillison]

There is the possibility that this could bite Democrats

in the ass. I have that sinking feeling that the
party is attaching a whole lot of political weight
to this story, saying a lot of things on the record.

[ex_jew]

11. And if they just sit there like feeble pinheads,

is that the ideal position to be in ? I doubt it !

[CWebster]

12. Are you crazy?

What did cowering ever achieve?

Truth is on our side. Attitudes such as yours defeat us EVERYTIME?

*)(*&%&*&()()__(*&^%$%$$

[tomp]

16. the dems don't want "the truth"...

...they want what works for them.

[PretzelWarrior]

50. so what? same with Bush, same with Greens. it's all political

and the TRUTH staring us in the face is that there is a difference between DEM an GOP parties. BIG DIFFERNCES> THis country would be in much much better shape with Gore in charge. He might even be meeting regularly with SENATE majority leader Tom Daschel right now.

I hate what Bush has done to this country. He himself said it. "I'm the master of low expectations." NO SHIT. He slid into position to steal elections by lowering the intellec of voters, lowering their expectation of him, and now we as a nation have a very low expectation about the future: "Hope we don't have a terror attack and I don't get laid off." WTF??? That is not what America is about. We have Bush to blame for this environment that makes people weak while the powerful kick their ass all over the field.

[displacedtexan]

13. so it's better to hide and wait?

i respectfully disagree.

[Classical_Liberal]

14. Doing nothng has bit us in the ass. The poll numbers aren't going

down because of the do nothing strategy.

[caledesi]

15. LOL! You want to talk political weight and saying things on the record?

Try the SOTU. Now we are talking BIG political weight (invading a country and thousands of people dying based on lies). Uh, I do believe that was very much "on the record."

[spanone]

17. Gotta start somewhere

The dems have to start challenging the THUGS at some point.

[Bandit]

22. Please tell me what hasn't bit them in the ass since Republicans took over

:shrug: I really don't care for cowards. Just remember "Nothing Ventured ~ Nothing Gained"

[Emboldened Chimp]

33. No, it's going to bite * in the ass

He's the one who staked his entire presidency on this war, and the larger so-called "war on terra." Rove wants to use the worst tragedy on American soil for *'s political advantage. People are starting to see through the BS, and once it becomes apparent that there was no legal or even moral basis for an invasion and subsequent occupation, and once people realize that this asshole manipulated their fear and anger over 9-11 for this shit, then he is toast. The Dems should hammer his ass every single chance they get.

[caledesi]

53. You go manco!

[PretzelWarrior]

49. SO WHAT????? goddammit. stop with the cringing everyone

these folks betrayed the Democratic cause by keeping tight lipped about the war beforehand. THey had BETTER be opposing Bush at every turn right now. THey need to shed light on the machinations on these "Evildoers" that have infiltrated the white house.

Do you realize something? In the old days, we used to refer to the worry of infiltrators from Russia and communism hijacking our political process.

Well, this time it is the nation of Israel that has infiltrated our top positions and steered our foreign policy squarely in the direction of their interests instead of USA interests.

KICK THE BUMS OUT

[aquart]

55. Yes, thank god.

These are not supermen we're fighting. Just because they believe they're superior beings does NOT mean they are.

All they have is money. My plan is to make them spend every dime in vain. Their PR campaign starts today. Oh, I quake.

From here on out, Bush is not a chimp. He's a pig with lipstick.

[dwillison]

5. There is the possibility that this could bite Democrats

in the ass. I have that sinking feeling that the
party is attaching a whole lot of political weight
to this story, saying a lot of things on the record.

[GumboYaYa]

9. Does it really matter?

Under any circumstances if *Bush catches Saddam and finds WMDs he is hailed as a hero and wins big in 2004. Regardless of what happens now Bush is a proven liar. We are taking one of his greatest political assets away from him. Also, I am sure the Dems have much more information than we are able to access from googling. With the level of criticism rising each day and big Repukes coming out for investigations (Hagel), they must already know that they have the goods on the Chimp.

[Trajan]

20. There is a possibility this could SINK the GOP .....

as it should .....

BETTER to die on your feet than live on your knees .....

Grow a SPINE ! .....

[Cha]

2. Yeah! Bring it on you lying mags!

:kick:

[mopaul]

3. no kiddin

it's hit the fan. blood in the water. this is going to be a serious crisis like we haven't seen in generations.

[angka]

18. bring it

what a time in history to be a history major!

[LiberalLibra]

4. I've been waiting for the one issue that would cause the neo CONS to......

....fall on their own sword and I think this is it. I also think that's what the Dems have been waiting for as well. As Huffington said, paraphrasing here, "this is not like Watergate, this is even bigger".

You are right though, this is going to get ugly, real ugly, careers and reputations will be ruined over this one.

[nostamj]

7. huffington...

the question should be:

What didn't the president know -- and why didn't he know it? And why does he know less and less every day?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/huffington/2003/07/16/state_of_the_union/index.html

[blm]

6. The press had to LET them be heard.

Any other time Dems spoke up in the past two years, the press mocked them and kissed Bush's ass even longer. Most of the time, the press wouldn't even give notice if the Dems did speak out.

[julka]

10. somebody linked to that exact story yesterday, quoting Barney Frank

anybody remember that.

he said almost exactly what you did.

asked why NOBODY in the press showed up for some news he had that contained material very damaging to the junta

[ewagner]

8. hold on

It is not in the nature of the top guys in this administration to "fall on their swords". They will fight hard and dirty to keep themselves in power. Witness what the bushies did to McCain in S. Carolina.

This is going to get nasty. This forum can go a long, long way in reinforcing the fortitude of our elected leadership (Durbin, Obey et al) in getting to the bottom of this.

This is just the begining.

[Wapsie B]

19. Yeah!

Let's shine the light of day on these roaches! I don't see any of the neocons falling on their sword for this or anything else. This is a fight to the death. A serious can o'WHOOPASS is being opened on the little repugs as we speak.

[Classical_Liberal]

21. They will fall on the swords before Bush does

count on it. The trick today is to intimidate Dems with Blair. If Blair participates he isn't an ally of the democratic party.

[poskonig]

23. Nasty is better!

One, we'll be on offense, making Bushit play some 'D' for once. His polls will sag because of this -- the only question is how far. Going negative hurts them a *lot* more than it hurts us at this stage. The Republicans should be thinking of a way to change the subject; winning this debate, or even trying to close it, is a dead-end.

Secondly, lying about nuclear weapons to start a war is serious business. It should be investigated regardless of the political implications.

[catmandu57]

24. It's about time

I'm positively sick of taking a fucking beating, it's way past time to get up and start swinging. If they want a fight bring it on, we can give as well as we get, better. CAN DEMOCRATS FIGHT? aLL DAY AND THROUGH THE NIGHT!

[Tigermoose]

34. Props to Columbia

kind of a second home for me.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

25. Which corporations are paying Bush for war - let's name names

NAME NAMES - Halliburton is one. Who is the chief executive? What is his name? Where does he live? Who is on the board of directors? How much money have they given to Bush?

Our soldiers are being used as security guards so Bush's cronies can make some money.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

26. Here's a big mistake of the present spin

This adminstration, and really watch for it in tonight's press conference, is playing the "exact" word game. The press hasn't picked up on this matter completely. They haven't had to. This scandal-in-the-making has had legs of its own. But if they find WMD, then things change for the dems. It gets harder. The dems. need to let the administration play the exact word game. Counter this offensive with the facts we have about the reality of nukes, how they got the info., etc. But let them keep hiding behind EXACT words. The real damage on THIS matter has been done. Bush's credibility has taken a major hit. Questions are beginning to surface about the policy of preemption: THANK GOD (what took so long?). If WMD surface, the dems. have to hold the administration accountable for their EXACT words. How many thousands of tons? What range missiles? Those EXACT words were tied to a policy of preemption. The press is too lazy to make this connection, and the right wing think tanks will be blast-faxing them with all sorts of distractions and disinformation. We've already seen WMD quasi-morph into weapons programs. That hasn't taken hold. If WMD actually surface, preemption and EXACT words have to come to the fore. Anything else and the dems. lose on this issue.

All of this, mind you, has our occupation (a failing occupation) as a backdrop. Combine this with the fact that we're calling up 100,000 National Guard, and the public will have open ears to legitimate questions. The press loves a scandal, as long as it's easy to present and easier to digest. The dems. need to start laying the groundwork for the surfacing of WMD: they need to keep naming the exact numbers the administration gave, and they need to tie it to preemption. For example, instead of saying, "I hope we find WMD," say, "I hope we find the 270 tons (or whatever the number was) of VX gas that the adminstration claimed Iraq had that justified this preemptive war. I, along with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, voted for this war, because, let's face it, 270 tons of VX gas in the wrong hands is dangerous. But we don't go to war over a dozen vials of anthrax. Let's be honest." You know this administration will claim 2 barrels of VX gas as a major find. You can't simply respond and make it look like you're making up excuses. You have to frame this narrative before it takes hold. It must become a repeated talking point so that it becomes the framework for any WMD that turns up. WMD, any WMD, unfortunately, is the framework from which we are working. But it's not too late, not even close.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. Not true. If they find them now it gets harder for the republicans

because then they have to explain what took them so long, and why they are dropping this now. The window of opportunity to lay a bombshell is gone.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

31. Logically, you're correct.

Unfortunately, logic has little to do with press coverage. If WMD are found, that's the easiest story possible. It makes it real easy for repubs. to say, "We found them, what more do you want?" I'm very dubious the dems. will come out on top if WMD are found if they don't start laying the groundwork now.

Your point hinges on this: if we find them, having to spend months digging them up, then we rely on the press and the dems' talking points to demonstrate how this still doesn't make the cause for preemptive war. We lose on that one. There has yet to be a repeated rhetorical context for this point. We'll have to play catch up trying to make this point and end up look like we're grasping for political straws.

What took them so long? No one will care. They can point to WMD (no matter how much). We will look petty. We have to get out in front of this one.

We'll see.

[Classical_Liberal]

36. I believe Ritter, and don't think they exist

I am willing to take that risk because if we don't we will lose anyway. The yellow cake lie only adds to the evidence that they don't exist. If W can't be gotten on this he cant be challenged on anything really. I don't think we have anything to lose.s Your arguments are also counter intuitive, given the fact that the careful people are not the ones responsible for the W lowing in the polls. The people who attack W are. This go slow approach was brought to usby the people who brought us the dismal failures of 2000 and 2002.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

41. Sorry, Classical Liberal, you're wrong.

You don't have to put all your eggs in one basket. We don't get too much out of simply saying, "They don't exist" (and I agree with Ritter as well; they don't exist). But if two barrels turn up, with your strategy, we're dead (which you admit above).

Classic game theory is based on a zero-sum strategy, and is the foundation for the best political theory. My scenario is based on a zero-sum strategy. But as a backdrop to this strategy, we have our failed occupation, the further deployment of troops, and Bush's credibility takes a hit for the Niger flap. Take all of this into consideration, my zero-sum strategy puts us way ahead. By jumping on the EXACT words used to describe WMD and a policy of preemption, we can counter the administration's spin if, IF, even a slight amount of WMD surface. And we really lose nothing in the process. True, the immediate political gain isn't as much if we do what you suggest.

Your strategy, if it fails, has the potential to rebuild Bush's credibility (in the press and for its viewers), makes the occupation worth while, justifies sending in more troops. We lose a lot. I base this all predicated on what the spin will be, which is predicated upon the extant narrative alive in the mass media (not on the sites we visit). The spin will be VERY simple for the administration: we were right all along. We said there would be WMD; here they are.

I respect where you're coming from, Classical Liberal; I'm just not convinced it's a winning strategy. I don't want Bush impeached; I don't want a knock-out blow. I like the drip, drip, drip. Then Bush can slither his way back to Texas.

[Classical_Liberal]

43. Your stategy just leaves Bush credible

nobody is putting all their eggs in one basket. We have several other arguments to trot out if if fails. I don't care whether he is impeached. If he isn't we have a hell of an issue to campaign on.

[grytpype]

29. "But if they find WMD, then things change for the dems. It gets harder."

True, but the US has looked EVERYWHERE now, and nothing turned up. And none of the thousands of tortured, bribed Iraqi prisoners have pointed to any WMD either. Now the Junta is claming we'll find evidence of a PROGRAM, they aren't even predicting finding WMDs themselves any more.

[GumboYaYa]

30. Did yousee Brokaw last night

interviewing David Kay, an American weapons inspector?

They were standing in a room filled with hundreds of boxes of papers.

Kay was saying that he hopes to build an air tight case that Iraq had a WMD PROGRAM.

Sorry, but I don't think a bunch of boxes of docs will satisfy the American people now.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

35. The weapons program argument is easy to defeat.

I wasn't talking about the waepons program spin. The mess we're in in Iraq now renders weapons programs spin moot. Heck, even the mention of preemptive war makes the point moot. The press can deliver that simple message. It's an either/or. My post is concerned with real WMD.

[Classical_Liberal]

38. What WMD? The Yellow Cake is already an admitted falsehood.

I just don't think they are their. Bresinsky doesn't either.

[Classical_Liberal]

39. What WMD? The Yellow Cake is already an admitted falsehood.

I just don't think they are their. Bresinsky doesn't either.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

32. I agree, they probably will find nothing.

But it doesn't hurt to prepare. We lose nothing in framing the debate towards preemption and scant amounts of WMD.

[Classical_Liberal]

40. I think that is what the present spin is already

So what's your beef?

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

42. Go back and read my original post.

Maybe you can show me precisely what you disagree with. I'm talking strategy, not whether they will find WMD or not. Maybe this is where our disconnect is.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. Playing careful when we have nothing to lose is just not my thing

I am so glad the Democrats aren't listening to this advise anymore.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

45. What is careful about what I recommend?

I'm missing something here. If no WMD show up, that's pretty easy to point out and devasting to the administration. Do we really need to say "I told you so" to win politically? Can't we preface everything with, "IF they find WMD, and that's a big IF . . ." and then continue with what I think they should be doing strategically? It's not contradictory in anyway. And it save a number of our candidates. Maybe here is where we differ; I'm not thinking of strategy in terms of one horse in this race--I'm thinking in terms of a party offensive as a whole.

You write: "I am so glad the Democrats aren't listening to this advise anymore." Cheap shot, I suppose. Perhaps well deserved. But I'm not seeing too many pols. (especially pres. candidates) throwing bombs, saying point blank: "We WILL NOT find ANY WMD." They always hedge their statements. We will get torched if something turns up, and we have done nothing to set up a rhetorical foundation to counter it. They have more resourse than we do. We are always playing catch up in the spin game. It would be nice to get out in front.

Thanks for the discussion, Classical Liberal. I hope you see my posts not as an attack on you but as a challenge to your strategy. We both hope for the best ends, I'm sure.

Cheers.

[Karenina]

47. Hallo Grendelsuncle!

I think you are making a subtle point that seems to be whizzing past most who have responded to you. It's about laying the foundation of "exact" words as a "strategy," much as one looks several moves ahead in a chess game. It's "framing the debate." Perception has always been more powerful than fact. It's another of those great asymmetries. I have really enjoyed your posts and do admire your thought process.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

52. Thanks, again, for the kind post, Karenina. And you're right.

Right now, it's about laying a foundation. We always have to think ahead and always have to be framing multiple narratives simultaneously. The repubs. have an awesome infrastructure--numerous think tans, numerous publications, an absolutely ubiquitous presence on TV. Their blast-faxing operation is blinding. They can respond to events almost immediately, and if they need more time, they undergo a disinformation campaign to keep all messages muddled. Our side has to be more diligent. We have to look at what they've done and turn it back on them. They're playing the exact word game, primarily because they messed up in their first "move." Now we do a little poltical jujitsu.

This is all theory, of course. But what the repubs. have in brute force (money and media) we have to make up for with wilyness. Again, thanks for responding, and summing up better than I ever could (obviously) my own argument.

[Classical_Liberal]

48. They aren't showing up

sI don't believe the will.

[Capn Sunshine]

46. HOW can Finding WMD NOW make it "harder"

Talk about revisionist history! They are trying to make the public forget that the reason to attack was URGENT because Saddam HAD WMDS and was going to use them on our troops!

The argument started to crack when he didn't
and now is completely apart because they werent even accessible, if the indeed exist at all, orplaced in an area that could be gotten with the ease necessary to deploy them in a combat situation.

Whatever dem is mouthing this is one of the BFEE moles IMO.
:nuke:

[Individualist]

28. The 16 words has become as infamous

as the missing 18 minutes of Oval Office tape transcriptions in the Watergate case!

[ilpostino]

37. Seque

As I've said before, I think the real impact of the Niger story will be seen in how it shapes perception and debate of the 9/11 report. We know that Clinton's people handed off intel. about Osama bin Laden and we know the Bushies either ignored it or put it on a backburner. Mishandling intel. will now be seen in a broader, more explosive context. I mean how do they defend relying on patently bogus info to launch a war while previously ignoring info to defend against an attack? Once both realities are on the table, the stakes are raised way beyond where they are today.

[DagmarK]

51. The issue is: did Saddam pose an imminent threat

to the United States of America to justify pre-emptive war?

the White House used the yellow cake forgery as PROOF that Saddam posed an imminent threat. It was the ONLY way to go to war without a UN resolution. And it was based on a lie.

That makes the US guilty of war crimes.

It doesn't matter if they find a vat or two of anything!

Bush also said, and these words will haunt him, no matter what is found (er, planted) in Iraq......"45 minutes to ground zero in the USA!"

This WHOLE manufacturing of 'intelligence' was created to circumvent the United Nations. It doesn't matter what might be found.

Granted...what the press and the sheeple do with that issue could be a blessing to bush...........

[ward919]

54. The answer is, "NO!"

After 12 years of sanctions and bombing by US and UK tearing up their infrastructure, starving their people, and pitting one group against the other, Saddam was only a threat to Iraqis and it should have been left up to them to oust him. Isn't that how Saddam got into office in the first place?

[grasswire]

56. ah, a strategist

Thanks, grendels, for your thoughts.

A major failing of Dem leadership is its ability to strategize. Some I see on DU would be a major improvement over the people who are getting paid for the task.