Hey DU--how's about we all take time out and work

[LandOLincoln]

to arrive at mutually agreed-upon definitions of "anti-war" and "pro-war" vis-a-vis the situation in Iraq as it is now?

Because IMO the charge that any Democrat who isn't for an immediate (like tomorrow) and total pullout of U.S. troops and personnel from Iraq is therefore "pro-war," is completely inaccurate, divisive, doctrinaire, and downright Rovian in intent (and result).

For instance, even Russ Feingold agrees that it would be unwise to pull out immediately (he's proposed we be out by December of 2006), but so far he alone--AFAIK--has escaped the charge that his stance is "pro-war."

When we've arrived at satisfactory definitions of "pro-war" and "anti-war," we can work on our own definitions of "stay the course" vs. "cut and run."

My hope is that once we've defined our terms, we can come up with our own catchphrases to replace the divisive, simplistic, Rovian framing that far too many of us are using against far too many others of us.

Finally, the definitions will and should rightly be nuanced; the catchphrases can't be (3-4 words each, tops).

Have at it!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. How about calling the sides

Plan and No Plan?

The people with plans have a method by which we leave Iraq. Those who favor immediate withdrawal would explain the particulars; usually I've heard they would be in favor of getting the UN in to supervise things, but it could be whatever details they like. Those who favor taking more time could explain their plans as well-and I've read some quite detailed ones here on DU-one fellow suggested that we train Iraqis in another country and then sending them back home-this was second in a ten point porgram (Number 8 was to try Bush for war crimes-I really LIKED that one!).

Bush and his minions, on the other hand, have no plan. All I hear is spouting about Saddam and 911 and this and that, much of it muddled and much of it misinformation.

[Adelante]

16. This was done in Bosnia and Kosovo, wasn't it?

"here on DU-one fellow suggested that we train Iraqis in another country and then sending them back home"

It makes a great deal of sense.

[Cocoa]

2. who do we trust?

when Feingold says shoot for 12/06, does he really know "we" are all correct that pulling out now is the correct course, but he's "afraid" to take that position?

Or, does he believe that shooting for 12/06 is the BEST position to take?

I trust him, I think he's proposing what he thinks is best. I trust him.

The people I don't trust are the ones saying we can't trust anyone.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Yes, Feingold is great at his stated position....

which is really the same as Clark's, without a plan, but with a timeframe....

They are both for changing the course and if not, then getting out.

I say without a plan, because Feingold is not suggesting what should be done for that year and a half he is giving as a window, for what to do prior to the troops leaving......because in what he writes, he is asking the President to come up with the plan instead and present it to congress...

My resolution does not dictate deadlines or dates certain. And it does request flexible timeframes for achieving our goals in Iraq rather than imposing any, because drawing up timeframes is best and most appropriately left to the Administration, in consultation with military leaders. And, of course, any timeframe has to be flexible -- there are variables that will affect how quickly various missions can be accomplished. But it's hard to conceive of an effective strategic plan that isn't linked to some timeframes. That is what the Administration needs to share.
snip
Mr. President, it is also clear that we must not accept a false choice between supporting the status quo in Iraq and "cutting and running." The status quo -- staying a rudderless course without a clear destination -- would be a mistake. The course we are on is not leading to strength. In fact, Mr. President, I am concerned that it is making America weaker and our enemies stronger. --Russ Feingold
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/05/07/Iraqstatement.htm

"Intense American diplomatic and political engagement in and support for Iraq will likely last long after the troops' mission is accomplished and they are withdrawn. I expect that we will continue some important degree of military and security cooperation with the Iraqis, as we work with them and with others around the world to combat terrorist networks, whether they are operating in Iraq or Afghanistan or England," said Feingold.

"But it's almost as if talking about completing the mission in Iraq has become 'taboo,'" said Feingold. "It's time for senators and Members of Congress, especially those from my own party, to be less timid whilethis Administration neglects urgent national security priorities in favor of staying a flawed policy course in Iraq.http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/05/08/iraqwithdraw.html

"We have to go on the offensive to show the American people that we're not afraid to disagree," Feingold said.

He said he believes that an immediate withdrawal does not make military sense but that the public needs reassurance that the Iraq operation is moving purposefully toward completion. "We need to talk in Congress about this more openly and freely," Feingold said. "There's a rudderless quality that is making people nervous."
(Emphasis added)
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5579747.html

Helen Thomas....."Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis. is proposing a total pullout of American troops by Dec. 31, 2006. Why wait a year?"
source: http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=...

Actually that's a year and a half, but who's counting?

So Fiengold's plan is no plan at all, but rather a demand for the administration to come up with a plan. His pull out date demand is not to be defined as an "immediate pull out"...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Lordy.

nt

[renie408]

12. One thing I AM for...

is getting the American face off the reconstruction efforts ASAP. I think we should stay involved both financially and with physical support, but I think it would be WAYY better to get the UN involved and a REAL international effort under way.

[Adelante]

17. getting the American face off the reconstruction

Oh, yeah. Me, too.

[Kahuna]

38. Here here! Unfortunately because of the insurgence..

it will be difficult to get international assistance. We have thumbed our noses at them over and over. Why would they risk their necks for us now?

[LandOLincoln]

3. Kick

because I see thread after thread of people arguing over terminology and framing.

Stop arguing and DO SOMETHING about it for a change, dammit.

[bee]

4. yeah.. Ive got one

how about "make it right"
for those who are not pro-war, and dont necissarily agree that it was warranted and/or legal.. but feel that we should make every effort to FIX what * broke. Not cut-and-run, not stay-the-course, but MAKE-IT-RIGHT!

[Sparkly]

6. I like that -- or "Get in Deeper" vs. "Get it Right" vs. "Get Out Now"

Of course, "get it right" means getting out, too.

[renie408]

14. EXACTLY!! n/t

[LandOLincoln]

24. "Make it right" is good,

but we need to make it mean something very specific. I've seen a suggestion that Halliburton be charged with rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure (at least I think that's what the poster was suggesting) but IMO that would be unwise, to put it mildly.

Halliburton needs to be OUT, and I mean NOW. That goes for all other non-Iraqi contractors as well.

We have to put Iraqi rebuilding in Iraqi hands, and make it possible for Iraqi engineers, Iraqi architects, and Iraqi contractors to do the work.

They need their jobs back. They need their lives back. They need their country back.

But first and foremost, they need their water and power back.

[Sparkly]

5. Stay the Course vs. Change the Course? nt

[bee]

8. I like that... but Im not sure if "change" is enough..

how about.. "Correct the Course"

[Sparkly]

13. That makes sense!

:hi:

[Adelante]

18. Yes

I like that a lot.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Stay the Course vs. Change the course, and if not, the "get out"...

We know that staying the course is not the answer.....that's for damn sure!

[bee]

10. I prefer "correct" the course

only because it implies that the current course is WRONG. which I think we all agree on.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Certainly, that's a good reason to use correct.....

Correcting the course and if not let's get out!

Hey, I like that!

It needs to be a bumper sticker to add pressure to the stoopid guy in the WH!

BUSH, CORRECT THE COURSE IN IRAQ, GET OUT, OR STEP ASIDE!

[renie408]

11. THANKS!!

We went to the Cindy Sheehan support demonstration in our area yesterday and I managed to avoid discussing immediate withdrawal and what I thought about it the whole time.

Cause while I never supported this war and I think it has the potential to be the most awful thing that has happened to the Middle East, our country and the world in general in my lifetime...I also don't think immediate and total withdrawal makes sense.

We owe those people clean water, power and some hope of safety. I am not sure how we go about accomplishing those things, but I don't think we can manage it if we just completely leave. We have started a civil war there and it just doesn't seem right to say, "Well, shit. This isn't what we expected. Our bad. We're outta here." I know that 'we' (me and the people who were against the war) did not do this thing. But I still feel like we are responsible for fixing it. Just as I feel that we are all responsible for each other as members of a global community.

So I am definitely NOT pro-war. But I am not pro pullout either.

[bee]

19. I totally agree.

I am completely anti-war. But we have RUINED these peoples lives and we need to make it right. They DO deserve water, electricity and safety. And WE ought to be the ones to give it to them. But do I think it should be our military? HELL NO!

I propose we pull every soldier out immediately, and force the war profiteers, Haliburton et al, be 100% responsible for doing right by the Iraqi people. It was THEIR war after all and they have been the ONLY ones to benefit from it. They should therefore be held responsible, and made to provide 100% of the manpower and funding required to re-stabilize the region. Problem solved.

[renie408]

22. Who is going to protect the contractors while they work?

Who is going to train the Iraqi army so that they can help insure the peace their people deserve? And your idea sounds great...but has NO chance of happening. None. Zip. Ain't gonna happen.

So why not try to figure out something that DOES stand a chance of happening?

[bee]

23. Let Cheney figure that out.

And of course it has no chance of happening... but in a perfect world... thats how it would be. I can dream cant I?

As for a "real" solution, even if I COULD come up with one, which Im not saying I can, who the hell would listen? Sad fact is... that even while viable plans are offered... Wes Clarks for one... bushco doesnt give a damn what anyone else thinks. And our real chances of changing the course of this disaster are slim to none....

he doesnt care about polls, he doesnt care about public opinion, and he sure as hell doesnt care about the Iraqi's. So until he's gone... its all just imaginary anyway.

[renie408]

27. That is the easy way out

Saying, "It's all fucked up and nobody is going to listen and there is nothing we can do." is a cheap way of shrugging off responsibility, if you ask me. I know you didn't ask me, but you responded to my post, which gave me a chance to stick my foot in the door.

How's about let's THINK?? And write our elected officials. And hold up signs on street corners. And bug our conservative voting friends. And compare notes and come up with ideas and find good people to run for office and buy really on point bumper stickers....and do just about anything else we can think of.

Being cynical is a waste of time and I personally find it lazy and annoying.

[bee]

31. ok .. first of all

I dont know WHAT would give you the idea that Im NOT doing any of what you suggest. I can assure you that I am doing absolutely EVERYTHING in my power to restore hope and integrity to our system of government.. even to extent that I have begun working from home so that I can devote a larger portion of my time to the cause, which I do, to the tune of 7 hours or more every DAY. So for you to say that I am politically "lazy" is not only completely inaccurate, but totally assumptive. I do however, find it necessary to maintain some sense of REALITY with regard to my expectations for our current situation. And the reality is that until we release the bushco stranglehold on our government NOTHING is going to change. And to imply otherwise is nothing other than wishfull thinking.

PS.. When YOU quit your day-job in order to spend all your time rallying for the dem team, THEN you can criticize my "cynicism".. until then, keep in mind that drawing unfounded conclusions about someone you know nothing about, and assuming based on ONE comment that they do less to further democracy then YOU... is INCREDIBLY rude and THATS annoying.

[renie408]

34. Let's see...

>>As for a "real" solution, even if I COULD come up with one, which Im not saying I can, who the hell would listen? Sad fact is... that even while viable plans are offered... Wes Clarks for one... bushco doesnt give a damn what anyone else thinks. And our real chances of changing the course of this disaster are slim to none....

he doesnt care about polls, he doesnt care about public opinion, and he sure as hell doesnt care about the Iraqi's. So until he's gone... its all just imaginary anyway.<<

I think that's what gave me the impression that you have pretty much given up and are politically lazy. The fact that this thread is a PROACTIVE one asking people to come up with ANSWERS and all you had to offer was sturm and drang led me to believe that you had thrown in the towel.

It was not exactly a hard leap to make, given your responses in this thread. I am wide open to the idea that I could be wrong. I can only form opinions of the people who post here based on the words they write, though, and when you write like you did, it leaves the impression that you have fallen into inactive cynicism.

[bee]

36. You need to re-read the thread....

And while youre doing that... Please pay special attention to posts 4, 8, and 10 where I contributed to the original question raised by the initial post, and came up with phrases as requested by the poster.

Yet while I have offered real suggestions to the question at hand, YOU are trying to say that my attitude is one of inactive cynicism. Seems a pretty odd stance to take, considering I dont see a single PROACTIVE suggestion from you on this thread.

[LandOLincoln]

25. Well hell, why don't we just all shoot ourselves and get it over with?

[renie408]

26. I am sorry

Was that for me? Or for the "there's nothing we can do, it all sucks, the only thing left for me is virulent rhetoric" post that answered mine?

[bee]

28. hold on a second...

are you telling me that you honestly think theres a chance * will suddenly see the error of his ways? And if so, what evidence has he ever given you to support this?

[renie408]

32. NO, I don't...

But I also don't think that this is a dictatorship yet.

As we get closer and closer to 2006, what Bush and his close buddies alone think may become less important. If Democrats can come up with an intelligent, viable exit strategy (along with a lot of other stuff, I admit) we might get control of Congress back. And then Bush will be stuck as a lame duck second term President with crappy approval numbers, no real clout and a congress that is not in his pocket.

[LandOLincoln]

29. Sorry--I posted on the fly and meant my response for the

other poster, as you surmised.

Even so, it wasn't a particularly intelligent answer. I just get exasperated with people who continually cry "woe" and don't offer alternatives.

I think most of us are agreed that BushCo isn't going to do a damn thing except continue to take us off the cliff.

However, and at the very least, 2006 is just around the corner. If the whole shithouse hasn't gone up in flames by then (paraphrasing the guy in my avatar) and if the Dems can bag their &!@!# egos and present a reasonably unified front--and a PLAN--to the country by then, we might just manage to turn this thing around.

What else can we do?

[renie408]

33. Bingo!! About 2006, I mean

It's funny that I just read this post and that is pretty much EXACTLY what I just finished writing to the other poster.

[LandOLincoln]

20. Thanks! It's just painful for me to watch Dems beat up

other Dems, Progressives beat up other Progressives, over semantics rather than real differences.

Not that there aren't some real differences, mind you, but it seems to me that we'll have far fewer differences if we can define our terms.

Also, you said "We owe those people clean water, power and some hope of safety."

I agree completely, and I've come up with an analogy for our Iraq situation that isn't perfectly on point, but close enough, and it might just inspire somebody out there to come up with the catchphrase we need to scuttle Karl's "stay the course" and "cut and run" for good.

As far as I'm concerned, we've done to Iraq what the cops do when they take down the wrong house:

They kick in the doors, dump the drawers, punch holes in the walls, wreck the plumbing, terrorize the occupants

and then say, "Oops--wrong address. Sorry!" and split

leaving the household to clean up the mess, and sue the city for damages (and good luck with that).

No one in his right mind would argue that those people are not owed restitution and relief, am I right?

Anyway, hope that inspires some talented phrasemaker out there. I like what I've seen so far very much, but I haven't seen THE ONE yet.

[eridani]

42. What we owe them--

--is money so that they can get clean water and power for themselves. We don't need to be there to give it to them.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. It is a matter of intent even more than a plan

Can anyone say with honesty that idiot son's intent was not malevolent?

I dare say damed few, if any, Dems, not matter their posiiton, are malevolent. Hell, many Republicans are not malevolent in their intent.

But idiot son **is**. Period.

So then we get to the 'plans'.

I know Sens Clinton, Bayh, Feinstein, others seem to be (old framing) 'pro war'. I'm not sure I buy that.

People like Kerry, Edwards, others, who voted for the IWR are also termed 'pro war'. Does anyone really think that's true?

Then we have the ones like Feingold, Clark, others, who have plans (some well developed, some not so well developed) but do not see immediate withdrawal as a part of it. It is a virtual certainty that these people are NOT pro war, even though they call for continuing our involvement for some extended perriod (measured in months, not years).

A very few, such as Kucinich, have been very consistent in saying we should be out immediately.

But I do NOT for a moment see ANY of these people as 'pro war'.

[LandOLincoln]

35. Exactly! That's why we need to come up with

new terms/framing, and the sooner the better.

(BTW, I think even Dennis modified his demand for an "immediate" exit to mean "within six months".)

[Kahuna]

37. We should say that we are "anti-Iraq Invasion." To call our selves

"anti war" is to be labeled by the wingnuts as anti national security.

In theory I'm not for the immediate pull out of Iraq. I would prefer that me demand from the administration what our goal and mission is And then help them to plot a plan to accomplish the mission and get the hell out. I know. This is pie in the sky. So in lieu of expecting the administration to level with us, we make them set forth a plan to train Iraq forces, and give a specific number of how many forces are to be trained so that we can begin withdrawal as the training targets are met. Their soldiers should be replacing our soldiers as they become trained.

[LandOLincoln]

39. Okay, I got one! Kinda doubt that the Dems will want to

go with it, though:

How about

FIX IT OR FUGEDABOUDIT?

FIX IT OR FUGGIT

is pithier, but even less likely to be picked up, I would imagine.

****

Sorry, folks. Watching the Katrina/Big Easy coverage and trying to laugh so I won't cry. It's not working, though...

[1932]

40. The question should be are you far US empire (control) or not.

II think the US has no business leaving Iraq in chaos, but they also have no business being in Iraq controlling this transition to democracy.

[LandOLincoln]

41. Oh go away. This is my thread

and I'll be damned if I'll let you hijack it with your interminable whining about "empire."

[FrenchieCat]

43. 1932.....

[1932]

44. Well, I guess that's the only response you could possibly have.

Chage the subject. Pretend it's about my personally. Label discussion and debate "hijacking."

If you want to address the substance of my post, I'm ready.

If you want to make this into something else, that's something you can do amongts your friends.