What are we discussi ng?

get people's attention by pissing them off (read: misleading), the second part is the same thing countless other diaries have said - and said better at that.

There is no "war", this is an "occupation", don't let the Republicans "frame the debate", etc..

I don't think we needed to be insulted in the title and the opening paragraphs, just so we could hear the same things we've all been saying for quite a while now.

That's my opinion, at any rate.

It's a diary, not a dissertation.  It's touching that you're concerned for my fragile ego and mental state--but the fact that you've now spammed my diary with about ten sour-grapes critiques to cover for your initial misread has me worried about yours.  So "framing" is pointless, irrelevant old news to you, not worth discussing?  Fine--don't read about it, don't write about it.

There was supposed to be a disconnect between the lead-in/hook and the rest.  Sophomoric slurs like "democrat party" are of a piece with terms like "death tax" and "war on terror".  My point, which you've so amply demonstrated, is that we very often react vehemently to the one yet adopt the other unthinkingly, and to our detriment.  Yes, it's a simple argument.  Most political messages are.

If the "occupation" meme, the idea that our troops long ago accomplished what they were asked to do--and in fact have achieved 'victory' over 3 years ago--is all so bloody obvious that it's taken over Democratic discourse, I guess I've missed it.  Why not take Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished", the Purple Finger Pageant, and all the rest at face value, and make Republicans defend the ongoing clusterfuck?  AKA, declare victory and go home?

In any event, I'm sorry my diary was not up to the high standard of writing exemplified in your commentary and personal attacks here.  You're free to dismiss it as banal and repetitive, and indeed you have done so...over and over.