Richardo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-24-05 02:26 PM
Original message |
A Modest Proposal: Let's start referring to it as 'his war in Iraq'; |
|
Edited on Wed Aug-24-05 02:26 PM by Richardo
... not 'the war in Iraq'.
The polls are showing that 60%+ of poll respondents are in doubt about the war and/or are dissatisfied with Smirky's handling of the war.
Let's REALLY make it personal. "His war" could very well resonate with the 60%+; and we'll need them in 2006. :)
|
nickgutierrez
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-24-05 02:32 PM
Response to Original message |
|
:thumbsup:
Calling it "his war" attaches the many failures in Iraq that have not yet been attached directly to *, from the lack of diplomacy before war, to the missing WMDs, to the impending civil war. It also allows people to seperate the war from the country, which seems like it would make the war easier to oppose.
|
DarkmoonIkonoklast
(829 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-26-05 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
8. missing WMDs? WHAT missing WMDs? |
|
How about "illusory WMDs"?
or maybe "imaginary WMDs"?
or could it be "hallucinatory WMDs"?
hmmm...
Could the shrub be on LSD WMDs?
|
AnarchoFreeThinker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-24-05 02:42 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I'm in. Excellent point. |
Chichiri
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-24-05 02:45 PM
Response to Original message |
|
To some extent, people are doing that already. But to universalize it would be a great thing.
|
Richardo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-24-05 02:50 PM
Response to Original message |
4. While I'm at it, here's another phrase that frosts me: "In a time of war". |
|
Used of course as a blank check to give him whatever he wants.
"We must stand by the president in a time of war."
Bullshit. As if it were purely defensive, instead of his choice.
I'm reframing this too, using: 'during his war' instead. See how much popular support it gets when framed: "We must stand by the president during his war."
|
DarkmoonIkonoklast
(829 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-26-05 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
Sanity Claws
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-24-05 02:52 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I've been using that term for a little while. I've also seen protesters use that term on signs.
|
Chichiri
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-24-05 04:40 PM
Response to Original message |
DarkmoonIkonoklast
(829 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-26-05 07:17 AM
Response to Original message |
7. seems like a no-brainer to me... |
|
... but then, we've got a puppet in the White House and the Devil's Spawn playing Gepetto...
Hmmm... maybe we should call it the Rove War? :banghead:
|
johnnie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-26-05 07:22 AM
Response to Original message |
10. I automatically say that |
|
I can't say "the war in Iraq". I either say "his war" or "georgie's war". Good Idea though, let's get it out there. :thumbsup:
|
terrya
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-26-05 07:25 AM
Response to Original message |
11. It is his war. That's exactly right. |
|
He wanted this damned war. He was the one in a rush to get us over there. He's the one who ultimately signed off on it. He's the Commander-in-Chief who bears full, ultimate responsibility for every single soldier killed or wounded.
I completely agree with you, Richardo. Let's make it personal.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 06:16 AM
Response to Original message |