Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama to reboot his Iraq policy/rhetoric on Wednesday (295 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Framing is not a vital issue. (9+ / 0-)

    Ending the Iraq war is.  Meta-debates about what we call anti-terrorism efforts are politically stupid, and Edwards has wisely moved towards talking about his substantive policies rather than bumperstickers.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:17:37 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks - but, IMHO (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peace voter, Involuntary Exile

       as long as we, as HRC does, say that the Republlicans are politically (and I guess inferentially, in real terms) stronger on the GWOT then we are playing catchup.

       Part - maybe the largest part - of a Presidential campaign is about changing the framing - showing the electorate a new and brighter vision - one not rooted in the failed language and policies of the status quo.

       How do we do that if we do not start at the very core of the Republican fraud and work from there?

      •  The problem is that Hillary said the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        faithfull, ShadowSD

        Republicans are stronger, not that she talked about the GWOT.

        Obsessing over a label makes a candidate seem like he's more interested in confronting Bush's rhetoric than he is in confronting terrorists.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:31:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  framing is important (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nasarius, Geekesque, Boxer7, dotster

          not "Obsessing over labels", but framing.

          If you missed it, Glenn W. Smith's Rockridge diary The American Tragedy of Our Troops Held Hostage clearly lays it out:

          President Bush is holding our troops hostage and threatening them with death. Here is what he is saying to Congress:

          "Order me out of Iraq, and I will abandon the troops in the field. The blood of your children will be on your hands, not mine."

          Every coffin that comes home shows he means business.

          This is the ugly truth Congress wrestles with but will not name. Congress has been terrorized, like any family whose children are kidnapped and held hostage.

          Vote to stop funding? Vote for an immediate start to withdrawal? American soldiers will die. As they have been dying. Bush knows he can blame Congress and the public's lack of "will" for the continued horror.




          ````
          peace

          •  I think the important distinction (0+ / 0-)

            is reality vs deception.

            It's more accurate to call our fight against AQ a war than it is to call our attempts to broker a political consensus in Iraq a war.

            At least in the fight with AQ, there's an actual opponent with whom we are engaged in a struggle which can be measured in success and failure, victory and defeat.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:48:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Actually - in the NH debate (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geekesque, Involuntary Exile

           on June 3rd - moderated by Wolf Blitzer of CNN - this very question was asked of HRC and she said yes - she agreed with Bush and disagreed with Edwards that the Bush framing of the GWOT was right.  Link here;

            http://transcripts.cnn.com/...

           Sadly, because of the formats of these debates Sen. Obama did not get to weigh in.  I was not then and am not now being critical of Obama - just curious.

    •  George Lakoff would disagree (6+ / 0-)

      It is time to tell an inconvenient truth about Iraq: it is an occupation, not a war. In wars, armies fight to dominate land. The US won the war three years ago when Bush said, "Mission Accomplished". Then the occupation started, and our troops were not trained or equipped for an occupation under predictably hostile circumstances. Finally getting the courage to tell the truth that the US is an occupying force drastically changes the picture in Iraq. You cannot "win" an occupation. "Cut and run" does not apply to an occupation. Occupiers have to leave; the only question is when and how. Progressive Democrats agree that it should be soon; they only disagree on details. Political courage is called for. Truth now!

      George Lakoff




      `````
      peace

      •  Meh. Lakoff is overrated. (5+ / 0-)

        'Framing' often times gets substituted and conflated with meaningful policy debates.

        The difference between 'war' and 'occupation' isn't one of framing--it's a fundamental difference on the ground.

        The problem isn't that 'war' is an ineffective frame--it's that it's a misnomer that clouds the reality.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 08:37:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site