Skip to main content

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!

Rockridge Institute


We've begun with global warming.  Now the U.S. and its military allies need to face another inconvenient truth, this one about Iraq: This is an occupation, not a war.

The war was over when Bush said "Mission Accomplished." A war has one army fighting another army over territory. U.S.  fighting men and women defeated Saddam's military machine three years ago. Then the occupation began. Our troops were trained to fight a war, not to occupy a country where they don't know the language and culture; where they lack enough troops, where they face an anti-occupation insurgency by the Iraqis themselves; where most of the population wants them out; where they are being shot at and killed by the very Iraqis they are training; and where the U.S. has given up on reconstruction and can't do much positive good there.

The Occupation Frame fits a politically inconvenient truth. Most people don't want to think of our army as an occupation force, but it is. An occupying army can't win anything. The occupation only helps Al Qaeda, which Iraqis don't want in their country since Al Qaeda attracts foreigners who have been killing Iraqis.

Our nation has been held trapped in a fallacious War Frame that serves the interests of the Bush administration and the Republican Party. The term "cut and run," used to vilify Democrats, is defined relative to the following frame:

    There is a war against evil that must be fought. Fighting requires courage and bravery. Those fully committed to the cause are brave. Those who "cut and run" are motivated by self-interest; they are only interested in saving their own skins, not in the moral cause. They are cowards. And since those fighting for the cause need all the support they can get, anyone who decides to "cut and run" endangers both the moral cause and the lives of those brave people who are fighting for it. Those who have courage and conviction should stand and fight.

Once the false frame is set, it is hard to use any pure self-interest frame that ignores the just cause of fighting evil. That is the trap the Democrats have fallen into. Their proposed slogans evoke self-interest frames: John Murtha's "stay and pay and "John Kerry's "lie and die" have an X-and-Y structure that evokes, and thus reinforces, "cut and run."

These, as well as Senator Jack Reed's "The Republican Plan to Be in Iraq Forever,"
are self-interest frames that accepts the "cut and run" frame and says it is in our interest to leave. We  "pay," we "die," we are stuck there forever. As long as Democrats accept the war-against-evil frame, any self-interest framing will be treated as immoral -- acting as a coward, letting evil win out, and endangering our troops.

The Cut-and-Run Frame put forth as a reason why we cannot withdraw from Iraq fits a gallant war.  It does not fit a failed occupation. When you have become the villain and target to the people you are trying to help, it's time to do the right thing -- admit the truth that this is an occupation and think and act accordingly. All occupations end with withdrawal.  The issue is not bravery versus cowardice in a good cause. The Cut-and-Run Frame does not apply.

In an occupation, there are pragmatic issues: Are we welcome? Are we doing the Iraqis more harm than good? How badly are we being hurt? The question is not whether to withdraw, but when and how? What to say? You might prefer "End the occupation now" or "End the occupation by the end of the year" or "End the occupation within a year, " but certainly Congress and most Americans should be able to agree on "End the occupation soon."

In an occupation, not a war, should the president still have war powers? How, if at all, is the Supreme Court decision on military tribunals at Guantanamo affected if we are in an occupation, not a war? What high-handed actions by the President, if any, are ruled out if we are no longer at war?

Telling an inconvenient truth takes some political courage.

Rockridge Institute

Originally posted to Rockridge on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:07 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  But can we really do that? (14+ / 0-)

    By saying that we are occupying Iraq (even if it's true), it seemingly makes it easy for the other side to say that we are being anti-American (by calling ourselves invaders, etc.). Then how do we fight back against that? Or should we assume that more people have common sense than they did a couple years ago...

    BTW, tell Mr. Lakoff that I thought "Don't Think Of An Elephant" was highly informative, but it did not truly highlight a solution for our side than informing us what the other side does better than us. Thanks!

    Deny My Freedom
    "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

    by PsiFighter37 on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:06:54 PM PDT

    •  what are you worried about? (55+ / 0-)
      They're the ones who are on the ropes, defending their need to occupy a country.

      I absolutely agree with this diary, and I have, in fact, wondered for a couple of years now, why people still refer to the "war" in Iraq when it's anything but.

      It was never really a "war" to begin with.  It was an invasion, followed by an occupation.  

      Some call it "rape".  "The Rape of Iraq".

      The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

      by theyrereal on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:10:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the "rape" analogy (53+ / 0-)
        is quite apt.  

        Because we raped Iraq, and now wonder why the victim isn't in love with us.

        It's like "hey, at least you got laid, you ungrateful whore!"

        America acts like raping someone is doing them a favor.   And wonders, indignantly, why the victim now doesn't want to marry us.   The right-wing keeps telling us it wasn't a rape, it was a HONEYMOON.   And that any day now, the shy little bride will kick out her angry inlaws and be a grateful, obedient wife.

        The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

        by theyrereal on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:13:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I like that analogy........ (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elveta, high5, JuliaAnn, jfadden, greenearth

          When will the RAPE of Iraq end?  

          It has a nice ring to it.

          If the people lead, the leaders will follow.

          by Mz Kleen on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:51:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They WILL call us anti-American; fight back. (22+ / 0-)

            By saying that we are occupying Iraq (even if it's true), it seemingly makes it easy for the other side to say that we are being anti-American

            The right will call Democrats anti-American even if they jump up and down and call Iraq the bestest, most importantest heroic war ever.

            They'll call Democrats anti-American if every Democrat running for office has been awared 12 Bronze stars and lost 4 limbs in combat.

            They'll call Democrats anti-American even if every candidate is over 270 years old and signed the original Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

            The FACT -- the absolute, unobjectionable, military doctrine, international law standard and just plain common sense reality -- is that the US is engaged in an occupation.

            It's not even some inherently value-loaded term, "occupation":  'occupied Japan' didn't semantically make the U.S. the bad guys, it just distinguished it from the war phase.

            And usually the ones who make the strongest delineation in terms are the military establishment -- first and foremost because the equipment and personnel requirements for an occupation are astoundingly different than for an invasion and war.

            Call them out on their shit and don't put up with it.

            •  They're going to call us Anti-American anyway. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              redlami, el cid, Cronesense

              In fact, they do so on a daily basis.  Personally, though, I kind of like the Republican tagline of "cut and run" because it perfectly encapsulates the spirit of what we should do in Iraq:  We should cut and we should run.  Like hell.  Right fucking now.

              •  So Long As We're Clear (0+ / 0-)

                That it's FAILURE that we're "cutting and running" from. We're cutting and running from this administration's catastrophic failures that undermine our national defense and our troops. It is time to cut and run -- from this administration's failures and to a true plan for success.

                DEMS '06/'08: The American Restoration

                by TX Unmuzzled on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:27:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Too Strong to Take (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I don't think progressives win anything with the word "rape" unless it's literal. That is too strong a word and it implies wrongly that the United States is a rapist, even though the real implication is about the administration and its failed policy, I understand.

            The problem is that you don't get to make those distinctions once you've put the word into circulation.

            An "occupation" that was never approved by congress and that's evidence of a failed war plan by this failed presidency is probably strong enough.

            "We voted for the war, but not the occupation." Can Democrats use that really? Or, "We voted for the war, but not the incompetence."

            DEMS '06/'08: The American Restoration

            by TX Unmuzzled on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:25:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  was it rape? (17+ / 0-)
        Was it simply a war on Saddam Hussein, or was it war on the people of Iraq? Was it state terrorism?

        When the most high-tech and most powerful military  in the world attacks a third war country with no air defense--that we can safely bomb and attack with an unlimited supply of munitions--in my opinion that's a massacre.

        This is like a heavyweigh boxing champion killing a two year old infant with a gun. It's a barbaric crime.

        •  Well, there you have the problem (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wardlow, greenearth, left coast lad

          An occupation is of a hostile nation. There are hostiles enough in Iraq, but do they comprise the nation? The Kurdish nation we certainly did not go to war against. The Shia nation we've had some rough times with, but again it would be exaggerating to say we went to war against them. The Sunni nation - well, yes the 20% who are Baathist Sunnis in Iraq, who are essentially Saddam's tribe - yes we went to war against them. And yes they are fighting back - responsible for most all the massacres and IEDs.

          So: As far as the Kurds and Shia are concerned - that's 80% of Iraq - we've been liberatory. True, this frees them to take care of their Sunni problem, and also to form an alliance with Iran - hardly our gain in the latter. And yes, everyone agrees we should leave soon, aside from Bush's gang.

          But Japan and Germany and South Korea are still occupied by our troops. Occupation is something we generally do well, which has instilled more peace than war in this world. It wouldn't be a problem if this were another occupation. The problem is, contrariwise, this is a civil war and we're in the middle, because we can't politically afford to do the right thing against the broad Sunni (read: Saudi) sponsorship of terrorism and declare that it is the Sunni (read: Wahabbi sect) who are the enemies we should destroy.

          The real frame is: Bush is a coward who is afraid of taking on our real Sunni enemies directly, so he's skirmishing with their remnants in Iraq. He's losing the war on terror, destroying our Constitution at home, and causing us great shame in the world. Now he wants to divert us to Iran to further show the Saudis its not them he's after. Thus Bush is a fool, and a traitor. By not moving our troops from Iraq, and into Saudi Arabia, he is surrendering in the real war on terror. By not refocusing on Afghanistan, and the resurgent Taliban there, he is also a loser and a coward.

          •  Iraq is a recognized Nation/State (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Doesn't matter the internal compositon, it is an actual bonafide 'nation-state'--now what it will become is in the future, I suspect it might divide, but for right now I accept the legal standing, what it beomes in the future is another matter.

            We can say that polotical cleavages exist in every counrty--our own, in fact, the 'north - south' divide, so many different ones--but legalisticakky we are all one nation-state, same as Iraq.

          •  So, basically, Bush hasn't killed ENOUGH for you? (0+ / 0-)

            Bush is a coward who is afraid of taking on our real Sunni enemies directly, so he's skirmishing with their remnants in Iraq.

            How do you propose Bush do as you request?  150,000 plus dead is insufficient?

            As an Iraqi-American academic born and raised in New Orleans, this voter is not pleased.

            by naltikriti on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:18:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  This was eloquently argued (48+ / 0-)

      by ThereIsNoSpoon several weeks ago in How Can You Surrender If There Was Never a War? ... Some extracts:

      I've got bad news, folks.  OUR LANGUAGE ABOUT THIS CONFLICT MUST CHANGE ENTIRELY.  Not because of Zarqawi--but because the Zarqawi incident shows just how dramatically we walk into GOP rhetorical traps.
      When push comes to shove, Americans want to win.  Such is the eternal optimism of the American electorate that they will vote ... no matter what they say in the polls leading up an election, when they actually step into the ballot box, they're going to vote for the people who appeal to their pride and tell them that they will WIN..

      And with regard to Iraq, everything even our most progressive leaders say still falls into GOP traps guaranteed to ensure our defeat at the polls.

      The biggest and by far the most important bullshit assumption being made by all sides is that there is a WAR in Iraq.

      THERE IS NO WAR IN IRAQ.  There is an OCCUPATION.  And there is a resistance to said occupation.  This resistance takes many forms: criminal thuggery, despicable terrorism, sectarian violence, and guerrilla warfare.

      Allow me to repeat this again, ..... special emphasis:

      The "War" in Iraq is NOT A WAR.  It is an OCCUPATION.

      And this is absolutely critical.  It's critical because there is a HUGE difference between wars and occupations: Occupations can end only in WITHDRAWAL or in ANNEXATION; Wars can end only in DEFEAT or VICTORY.

      That entire diary is extremely good and worth reading ...

      I wonder ... did George Lakoff read it and learn from it?

      4 July 2006, Independence Day ... Day 1757, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

      by besieged by bush on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:55:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is a solution. (22+ / 0-)

      From my perspective (I am certainly not speaking for Dr. Lakoff), we simply refuse to participate in the frames. First, I don't think we have to do much of anything to end the occupation in Iraq. They will end it soon, and the more we engage in public debate with them, the more effective their framing is. They are actually relying on an anti-war grass roots movement -- it is something they have taught the public to hate over the last few decades. They are probably even funding and supporting it covertly. That is how the military industrial complex works. They are at the end of a war business cycle, and they now intend to withdraw from the failed mission blaming the anti-war grass roots movement for the "failure" and the "defeat". That allows them to claim the constitutional high road (deference to the electorate), maintain their political support (the hard core right will support them even more because they will withdraw whining loudly about how the damned liberals made them do it), and disengage the military and reassign it's budget to preparation for the next war. This will all happen without any real changes happening in the political fabric of the country. That leaves them in good position for the next cycle. I believe they call it "setup" or "position play" in billairds. The point is, the mission has served its purpose. There isn't any more money for the defense contractors to steal. The robbery has gone down. It's over.

      Where we loose is in letting the anti-war issue dominate the progressive movement. We will not be valued after the war -- we will be ridiculed for causing the country to loose it. We are not going to help ourselves from a perspective of trying to raise progressive values by participating in a staged romantic anti-war movement. Progressives should simply state that they disagree with the occupation and center their energies on making real changes in the political beliefs of the people that will prevent this all from happening again on schedule (somewhere between 10 and 20 years).

      •  Frames have a real function though. (8+ / 0-)
        A drawing by Picasso needs to be housed properly if it is to survive the elements and needs to be secured with the right materials.  what we need to do is show the voter the rotten cracked wood on the back of the current frame housing the drawing, and show them what needs to be done to save the drawing.

        This can be done by using the framing metaphor as functional need rather than aesthetic luxury.

      •  I agree completely . . . (9+ / 0-)

        . . . with this analysis.  They already know that it is time to end the occupation.  They are simply looking for a way to tar us with the "stab in the back" smear to cover their decision.  

        Which makes this a serious trap for progressives, if they aren't careful.  

        There may be a way out of it, and indeed, a way to turn the tables on them. I am working up an essay on this as we speak.  Should up in a day or two.

      •  Business of Stab in the Back (7+ / 0-)

        Here's a character in Margaret Atwood's The Robber Bride talking about Gulf War I:
        "In the long run - well, a lot of empires have folded because they overextended themselves.  That could go for either side.  But right now the States isn't thinking about that.  They love the idea.  They'll get a chance to try out their new toys, drum up some business.  Don't think of it as a war, think of it as a market expansion."

        Here's the archvillain speaking in Outlaw Nation  by Jamie Delano, a Vertigo/DC comic book, part of Time Warner AOL, published during the summer of 2001:

        "Gloves [a henchman] did good work in WW3, trashing all those piss-ant countries for democracy, fun and profit.  Heh! Nothing that boy liked better than to shit in a peasant's well and then sell him Coca Cola.

        "But a one-trick pony like him just couldn't make the evolutionary jump from cold warrior to new world orderly.  He blamed me when the collapse of socialism didn't roll out the absolute state of America called for in the grand design..

        "But the finance bombs of world war 4 make all the established conspiracies redundant."

        "World war 4...?" the hero asks.

        "Global capital's viral assault on the nation state.  Don't tell me a smart kid like you hasn't noticed?"

        That's the business end of the equation.

        As for the "stab in the back" frame/image/meme/metaphor/idea, that will always be available whatever the outcome of the war and the extent and character of the anti-war movement.  It is probably a good idea to talk about the occupation and what a war of occupation requires strategically and historically.  I would also suggest that the military itself is getting pretty weary of endless rotations under fire and would like to see a way clear to fewer deaths and casualties.  According to Hersh, only the Air Force (perhaps the most rightwing of the armed forces) is eager for an attack on Iran.

        "Progressives should simply state that they disagree with the occupation and center their energies on making real changes in the political beliefs of the people..."

        I would prefer to make real changes in the people's daily lives and let the political beliefs follow.  That's why I say that Solar Is Civil Defense.  Thinking of solar as civil defense, emergency preparedness, is a good way to start.  It can give people a little more safety and security through the exercise of their own power and imagination.

        Since I have friends in Iraq and Afghanistan and know children who may have to fight the next action in Iran, North Korea, or along the Mexican border, I  have to do something more than simply stating my disagreement with the occupation and moving on.  

        Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at

        by gmoke on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:41:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Could you please explain what you mean (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jfadden, Wary, greenearth, idiopath

        by the phrase "staged romantic anti-war movement?"  It seems to me that many groups opposed to the war have been

        1. stating that they disagree with the occupation, and
        1. centering their energies on making real changes in the political beliefs of the people that will prevent this all from happening again

        What is it about the grassroots, antiwar movement that troubles you?

        •  I regret that I wrote (6+ / 0-)

          in such a way as to be misinterpreted. I am on your side. I am an aging true liberal, and I love nothing more than grass roots resistance to corporate tyranny and unecessary war. I am not attacking you or criticizing you. What I was trying to explain is how the military industrial complex uses the anti-war sentiment to their own advantage. The real issue we are dealing with here -- the real villain -- is the defense industry and oil industry. They are very sophisticated-- socially, politically, and militarily. If they can keep the resistance based on anti-war sentiment alone -- a movement that will fall apart promptly when they withdraw the troops -- then they will do it. They've done it before. It works. When the troops come home, it just seems like nothing is important enough anymore to really organize and worry about. Everything just gets docile and the corporations start up their political programs again. Life gets worse for the poor, the churches go virulently right wing, and the whole process starts over again. The very people who ended the war get villified. I watched it happen. Anyone over 50 did.

          I am one of those who believe we can really change it if we do it right. The problem is that this is one intelligent and powerful foe. Eisenhower warned us about it. If we don't pay attention this time, we are just setting up the same scenario a few years down the road.

          It is not anti-war movements that "trouble" me. It is how they are manipulated by a very powerful and evil force that scares me. Peace.

          •  Be at peace. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I think your point is clear and that no one misunderstands. I do think the opposition enjoys that we experience fear and apprehension at their tactics and strategies, as much as they enjoy how easily the populace at large dangles at the end of their puppet-strings when they play the fear card.

            I think we just have to be calm and resolved and honorable about our cause and our responsibility. The momentum is turning, and I do believe that it will eventually be a rout. We just have to do what's right and have faith that will carry the day. I do believe it will, and I INTEND that it will even more than that.

            "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

            by BeninSC on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 10:09:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            They're directing and deflecting and setting up future business.

            How big a problem are we, then?

             Have we seen too much, tied together too many dots, filled in too many shadowy images, understood too much of the nefarious money laundering/patronage operational model in operation on so many levels?

             Did we, riding the net, come around at exactly the wrong time for their final assault on the Constitution and the fabric of this nation?

            Illumination is cheap around here.

            by walkshills on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:28:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  That's fine when they talk about flag burning... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ...ignore it and bring up the minimum wage instead, or  reflexively respond about universal health care. Flag burning et., gun control, gay marriage, al are nothing more than fluffy distractions. Ignore the bait and tell them "Let's talk about something important instead."

        But Iraq is too big to ignore. Personally, I like calling it the rape of Iraq. Let them defend that. I can pile up examples easily enough of why it's a rape.

        It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair

        by Noodles on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 10:36:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is a silly argument (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Reepicheep, smokeymonkey, idiopath

        The most harmful aspect of American culture is its belief in war.  The Military Industrial Complex is ubiquitous, and Daddy Warbucks fights back against anyone who says the truth.  That is why the ten pacifists in the country are attacked so viciously, as if they had the power to destroy AMERICA.  Even here on Kos, we are in thrall with the military and  search out people with military experience as if that gives them unusual wisdom, instead of a sign that at one time they were taken in by jingoistic propaganda.

        •  The idea that only (0+ / 0-)

          warriors are worthy of having an opinion is at the core of the conservative silencing mechanism. Yes, Kos himself would not be where he is if he didn't have the military background which "validates" him in the public eye. I found it interesting that on one of his early TV  interviews the military question came up. It was immediately followed by the question of if he had ever seen combat (presumably in order to probe for that "weakness"). I suspect that was because, after all, if you are going to spread liberal ideas -- there must be something wrong with your military service, or, worse yet, you don't have any! The underlying message is that you don't have a right to an opinion if you haven't served in the military, preferably in combat. I don't think the constitution reads that way. The right has spent a lot of money and a lot of time to make that attitude appear to be perfectly valid and unquestionable. It is absolutely false. There are many, many ways to serve your country other than combat. The beautiful part of it is, since we have had essentially an economic draft for some time, most virulent and critical young conservatives have NEVER served! They are too rich!

    •  I've actually worked in a frame shop. (27+ / 0-)
      In my experience the customers range a great deal between the stinking rich, and chiselers who think you are there to work for free, clean the glass, reuse their grimey matting and cartboard backing all for zero dollars.  Sometimes they are one in the same customer! But not often.    In between you have people on a budget who are uneducated about the process. Very few people are receptive about using archival mat materials UV glass and reasonable design solutions.  They think you are operating like a used car salesman.  And it's a shame.  Certainly these political terms like framing have given the job a bad name.  Often the framer is simply trying to explain to the customer a set of conventions about materials, presentation, and mounting methods.

      they always think you are trying to rip em off, especially the lower end of the price spectrum, but as an artist you do want to give the customer the correct info about preservation, design and colours.  Hell I often ended up giving a free seminar on DIY framing.  

      here's the problem with the framing metaphor some people ain't buying:

      If someone wants to house their print in a shabby worm eaten frame they are going to do so, if they would prefer to have a piece of glass cleaned rather than get a new piece, they will want that. if they want the cardboard backing that will stain their print or drawing they will do that.  If they want a dry mount instead of  taking on the expense of a frame that will protect their work properly they will do that. Finally if the rock bottom price of a metal frame is too much the customer will looked shocked and just stumble out shaking their head. Some customers are simply mad as well.

      And that's my point I suppose,  the punter consistently refuses to understand that if they have something intangible and precious they wish to protect like  art (or freedom) they are going to have to accept a few costs and become a little more trusting and store their art proberly and let the right people handle the picture.  They are going to have to listen to better educated people and accept that they are damaging their work if they use cardboard instead of rag,  a clip frame instead of a conventional frame with matting, a print squished against glass instead of one that uses spacers or UV glass instead of acetate.  

      A frame has a real archival function and is not supposed to con the eye or mind.  But in political parlance today this is what the frame means of course: How to con the voter.  here is my proposal.  emphasize the functional qualities of the frame:  

      Bush's frame  for America (how it functions) has us stuck with a colony of dead paper lice stuck under cracked glass, mildew growing between the yellowing cardboard and equally yellowed mat  and is cracked at the joints. The paint is also flaking and America is stuck on the frame with duct tape. the frame is backed with greasy butcher paper and the picture wire is slack.

      The Democratic frame should be newly milled teak, with a fresh piece of UV glass, a bright mat,  attatched with a linen tape hinge mount,  assembled in a clean workshop and sealed with dust cover.  

      But it doesn't mean that the voters will ever buy this frame.   it means that we can have a party we are proud of.

      •  It's always good to (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        walkshills, Elise, greenearth

        hear from someone who has actually worked in a field as opposed to those Ivory Tower academics who just reflect on it. Check this out. Your post is very good. Quite meaningful. I just couldn't resist!

        •  We got a lot of... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          walkshills, greenearth, idiopath
          ...those types in the shop.

          "How hard could it be to make a frame?" they seemed to ask themselves.

          •  I tried once... (0+ / 0-)

            ... to make my own frame for an oil-on-canvas painting executed by a friend (how hard could it be?)  The result was shameful, absolutely shameful!  You're worth every cent you charge, and the ones who walk away mad are kidding themselves.

            With respect to political "framing", your observation is excellent.  Experience, intentions, and substance count - everything else is just a sales job.  The frame should bolster, protect, and compliment the subject, not detract from it.

            "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." Benito Mussolini (1883-1945)

            by ShowMe Indie on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:55:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  This is great framing of framing ... (5+ / 0-)

        Honestly ... I valued this discussion of "political framing" from within the context of framing pictures/documents ...

        Thus, a post to RECOMMEND reading your post ... in addition to clicking that little recommend circle ...

        4 July 2006, Independence Day ... Day 1757, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

        by besieged by bush on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:18:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  thank you. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coloradobl, idiopath
          •  Also: thank you (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            besieged by bush, idiopath

            At first I thought you were all snark, but I got it a few sentences in.  Analogy and metaphor are extremely useful in helping everyone, including me, to grasp how we have been spun.  But, I admit, I've been spun since about 2nd grade regarding what America stands for.  And fitting with my rule that 'all systems are operational until you need them to be operational,' I've found out in later life that there has been some brilliant framing involved with my being spun.  Vietnam and Nixon were when reality and truth broke the mirror.  I was too young to remember the fights during the civil rights days of the early 60's, but I got it eventually.  Today, we are seeing that the public has been most artfully spun.

            Lakoff and this diary help to add another focusing lens.  I've read Orwell, but recognize that novel every day as I try to read and view 'the news.'  This is an incredible time we live in. Cognitive Dissonance is my themeatic way of expressing my own reaction.  War is Peace?

        •  Yes, I saw that. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          walkshills, greenearth

          Cognition is embodied! Thanks

      •  I get the same attitude from computer owners. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Private life is all about managing pain. In business and government, this means externalizing and deferring costs whenever possible.

        by sxwarren on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:59:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  IT'S NOT A WAR! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chimpwatch, greenearth

      Wow! Leading linguist catches on!

      Thanks, George. We need to send this message out to every damn politician and blogger we can contact.

      IT'S NOT A WAR!

      IT'S NOT WAR!

      What it is is what it always was: goddam evil naked aggression against a sovereign state, which can only be done by the United Nations after incredibly complex and restrictive rules.  As it should be.

      I wonder how long it will take the Democrats to stop saying WAR and start saying AGGRESSION.

      Our rise will begin then.

      No one in real life thinks it's a war. They understand what our leaders and pundits, including most of this blog, don't.

      It not A war. It's not war.

      God government or good government. You decide.

      by ormondotvos on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:02:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  amen (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's an occupation full stop.  What's so scary is all the military bases they're building there.  I read something today (probably some wing-nut) saying bases were built at some time or other in the past in other countries and they were abandonend and who cares about the cost and it's not such a big deal, etc, etc.  It's all so frightening.  If that's true, then if the bases are abandonned in Iraq, who paid for them in the first place and where did all the money go - pissed away in the wind probably.  Money better spent on things like health care here.

        Why are the people here who still vote for the ruling party so ignorant that they can't see what's going on?  Well, we know that.  They're ignorant full stop and don't want to educate themselves.  Ignorance is bliss for a lot of people!!

        It's an OCCUPATION not a WAR.

    •  Realize (0+ / 0-)

      ...that allowing the Republicans to call this a "war" rather than an occupation provides Bush's excuse to claim monarchical/authoritarian powers. They will call a ham sandwich a "war" just for the power. It is vital not to fall for it.

      "The survival value of intelligence is that it allows us to extinct a bad idea, before the idea extincts us." -- Karl Popper

      by eyeswideopen on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:16:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This has never been a 'war' (0+ / 0-)

      There was no 'war' declared by Congress--Constitutionally only 'Congress' can declare war--this was a 'use of military force'--we had no 'agressor nation' to declare 'war' against, only some fuzzy UN resolutions that Bush proclaimed was not upheld and only the Consrvative propganda machine in over drive with ads 'morphing' the twin towers into Saddam, into an American Flag and Bush's swooning speeches about 'evil.

      There never have been a 'war'--there was an invasion--use of military force--and an occupation which we are still at that now.

      The iraqi's want us out--they never wated us in there to begin with--

      It's all a very inconveniet 'truth' for the Conservative agenda.

      •  bingo. According to Merriam-Webster (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        This from a comment of mine from an earlier diary exhorting us to shutupshutupshutup about Iraq:

        Let's check the dictionary:

        occupation:...3 a : the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : SEIZURE b : the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force c : the military force occupying a country or the policies carried out by it

        War: 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict

        (bolding is mine)

        Attack on Iraq was never 'declared' or 'open'.
        The hostilities are NOT between states or nations.
        The 'period' has been defined by Bushco as unending.

        It's not framing to call an apple an apple and an orange an orange. It's simply accurate.

        Ann Coulter - Living Proof of Necrophilia

        by kamarvt on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:34:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Bush: "I'm an occupation president" (32+ / 0-)
    "I go to work every day with occupation on my mind".

    "You might say my main occupation is occupation".

    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

    by theyrereal on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:08:31 PM PDT

  •  But they would say (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WisVoter, Elise, HoundDog, greenearth, idiopath

    that Iraq ia part of a larger "War on Terror."  Even if it becomes accepted that Iraq is now an occupation, it can still be framed as part of a war.

  •  The Republican Plan is to 'Stay off Course' (11+ / 0-)
    "Staying the course" only makes sense if you are going in the right direction, which we clearly aren't.

    Wandering drunk, aimless and stupid is not a Foreign Policy...

    Evolution is the organizing principle of all known life; Your God is a theory postulated by goatherders before movable type.

    by The Baculum King on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:15:42 PM PDT

    •  This has been my contention for a long while (0+ / 0-)

      as well.

      Bush has indicated in at least one speech that he is more than willing to leave his dirty sheets for the next president to haul to the laundry.  I think more focus should be placed on his willingness to lie us into an occupation without adequate troops or supplies and WITHOUT AN EXIT PLAN.

      "Stay the course" is NOT AN EXIT PLAN, only a catchy slogan.

      "We'll stand down, as the Iraqis stand up" is NOT AN EXIT PLAN.  It is meaningless if the Iraqis are NOT being trained fast enough and in large enough numbers, as was apparent for a long part of this occupation.

      The Bush Regime, as that wonderful Galloway (spelling) guy from England stated, has been wrong about each aspect of the so-called Iraqi War.  Why should we now have faith that they will end it honorably?  

      The BUSH REGIME ensnared America in a trap to take us to war and continue to tighten the snare on our treasury, on our soldiers, and on our form of government as they conflate Iraq with the Global War on Terror.

      Americans gave Bush high approval ratings after 9/11.  They gave him the benefit of the doubt that he would do the right thing.  He has betrayed our trust time and time again.  

      He and his minions are NOT worthy of our trust anymore!

      It is plain as the nose on a dog's face.  Bush has betrayed the trust of the American citizens, so why trust him to extricate us from Iraq before his term ends?  

      "Cut and run" is just a phrase used to detract from the reality of what "Staying the course" means!

    •  Or a gerbil in a wheel (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Baculum King

      is good at "staying the course."

      "Help us to save free conscience from the paw -- Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw." --John Milton

      by ohiolibrarian on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:33:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Beautiful (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Elise, coloradobl, jfadden, greenearth

    And like Joe Lieberman, the only message that the Bush Administration has is: "Occupation yesterday, Occupation today, Occupation forever."

    •  Permanent Bases in the Middle East. (9+ / 0-)

      Several people in the Bush administration planned to invade Iraq before 9/11. Therefore 9/11 was just a very convenient excuse for the invasion. The real reason for the invasion was to establish permanent bases in the middle east to protect the flow of oil.


      Al Gore for President! The only viable alternative to Hillary!

      by drumroll on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 06:10:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That Would Be the Newest Occupation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
      •  Okay, my question is this. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Are the American people not okay with this?

        Let me expand on my question.

        What are we trying to win hearts and minds for?  Are we trying to persuade people to see other people in a more positive light?

        Suppose the man or woman on the street in a red (or blue) state sees Iraqis as an inferior people to be occupied.  Can we try to persuade people to a more, dare I say, humanistic view of life, as we try to reframe these things?

        As we say "this is what the Republicans are doing", can we also say "and it is not right.  It may be convenient; but it is not right.  Even the Bible points this out", etc.?

        Not only humanistic, but biblical: "Love God with all heart, soul, and mind, and love thy neighbor as thyself.

      •  Yes, (0+ / 0-)

        And isn't the newest budget argument about whether to include funding for four major permanent bases.  Didn't the money get denied, then sneaked back in.  How does that stand, anyway?  Are the bases funded or not?

  •  Its Over (7+ / 0-)

    The War Is Over.

    End The Occupation.

    Bring The Boys Home

  •  I'll see your reframing and raise you a (12+ / 0-)

    paradigm flip. What we really need to reframe is our notion of what constitutes an effective president (and congress). Sadly, we'll probably never see our leaders debate the war/occupation frame question to the extent they've argued about flag burning and same-sex marriage - you know, the important stuff.  

    "One cannot be pessimistic about the West. This is the native land of hope." Wallace Stegner

    by Mother Mags on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 05:39:14 PM PDT

  •  Ugh... (11+ / 0-)

    Reminds me of a friend of mine who is usually a fairly smart woman...when Saddam was captured she sent out an e-mail saying she was so happy the Iraqi's were free...I, ofcourse, dashed one back saying that was hardly the case as they had an OCCUPYING army of close to 200,000 in their country.

    It's the Iraq Occupation.  

    •  smart woman? (0+ / 0-)

      which planet was she living on?  Was she an expert on the middle-east, Iraq in particular.  Are you an expert?  How come you dashed an e-mail to her talking about an occupation when the occupation and it's oppenents only became news a few weeks or months after the invasion(not being greeted with flowers, etc., etc.)?

      I'm not interested in troll rating here (and I don't really know how to do it) but why can't you just stick to your own websites where you can all agree with each other in lockstep.  You're so transparent.

  •  Who is here from Rockridge? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Elise, greenearth

    Will you be discussing, in Lakoff's stead, or is this simply an echo chamber for George's (excellent) work?

    4 July 2006, Independence Day ... Day 1757, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

    by besieged by bush on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 06:21:51 PM PDT

  •  The wrong frame was the 'War on Terror' (18+ / 0-)

    When Bush first announced that we were at war against terror, back in the patriotic immediate aftermath of 9/11, I told everybody I knew that this was a ridiculous statement, but very few of them were willing to concede the point then, and certainly nobody in a position of national leadership wanted to quibble about a seemingly minor matter of language in the face of a national tragedy.

    But language matters, because it both reflects and shapes thinking, and if language is confused or nonsensical, thinking will be as well.  Why is saying that we are in a "war against terror" a disastrous framing of the issue?  BECAUSE BY DEFINITION WE CAN NEVER WIN!

    Wars are waged against enemies, which is why wars can be won.  But terror isn't an enemy; it's a tactic.  And it's a tactic that's been around for longer than any of us have been alive, for longer than our nation has been alive, and probably for longer than recorded history.  It has been used repeatedly, throughout history, in many conflicts.  And there is little chance that it will ever cease for long.

    If the war had been against al Qaeda, we might have kept our eye on the ball long enough eradicate al Qaeda in Afghanistan and not gotten distracted by Iraq and the allegations that it had supported terrorists.  (It clearly had, but not the ones who attacked us, which should have been our major concern.)

    I'll give the State Department credit for at least attempting to keep the language and thinking straight early on, when there were widely reported debates within the administration about whether our war should be against al Qaeda, or against all "terrorist organizations of global reach" (and if so, which organizations those were), or more generally against terror itself (or at least all terrorist organizations).  As I recall, the State Department argued for a more narrow focus, but as on virtually everything else, lost to the neocons who wanted a broader focus.

    So we are in a "war" that we can never win against a tactic that is as old as mankind, and while this "war" is going on, the President claims extraordinary "war powers" that, if they last until we win the "war," will last forever.  And thus far, to the best of my knowledge, no prominent national figure has yet objected to framing the issue as a war against a tactic, rather than an enemy.

    •  As Maslow said... (13+ / 0-)

      ...if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

      And, carrying it further, if your only tool is an army, every problem looks like a war.

      As long as we're reframing things, let's look at all the other "wars" that we (all of us, dems and repubs) have failed to "win" over the past century: wars on poverty, wars on drugs, wars on cancer, wars on communism, wars on pollution, wars on pornography, wars on illiteracy, wars on every damned thing...and in pretty much every case, whatever it was we were at war against has not only not gone away, but has grown.  Wars we've won? Those would be the ones in which an actual geographically locatable enemy was involved.  

      Have we "won" LBJ's war on poverty?  Have we "won" the war on drugs?  

      Of course not, for the simple reason that (to paraphrase leevank) you can't make war on an abstract noun.  I am also amazed that this has not figured more prominently in our national discussion.  I guess the politicians and the punditocracy figure we're too stupid to follow such an argument.  Or maybe they're too stupid themselves.  Maybe we are, and maybe they are...but we will (to carry my argument further) never win a war on stupidity.  

      Our national failure to enact foreign and domestic policies that are built on desired results instead of faulty analogies is something that will bemuse future generations of historians, assuming that there are any remaining.  We need to point out continually that there are other tools available to solve a lot of our that don't make us believe we're at war when we're not.


      •  right-wing talk radio meme (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jfadden, wardlow, greenearth

        For a few weeks they've been saying, "It's as if the liberals don't believe we're at war!"

        When the fact is, we're not.

      •  Do you believe in ...... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jfadden, greenearth

        (insert grand, abstract concept of your choice here).

        Like making "war on an abstract noun", I've always had a problem with the whole "believing in ..."  I may believe that God exists and has certain intentions and powers, etc.  But the "Do you believe in God? Do you believe in America?"  How do you answer that?

        Private life is all about managing pain. In business and government, this means externalizing and deferring costs whenever possible.

        by sxwarren on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:10:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The war on alcohol (0+ / 0-)

        heh, we won that one.

        But the war on drugs soundsl like the same ole prohibition song, just creating a vastly larger black market and organized criminals.

        And the other observation is we spend more problems setting up bureaucratic/political money farms than actually solving the problems directly, which would be vastly cheaper. There are many more tools.

        We've been sucked into the M-I thought plan since the 50s. It's hard to find the enemy if they're next door.

        Illumination is cheap around here.

        by walkshills on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:49:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Great comment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ppluto, greenearth

      and someone did a good diary on this subject not that long ago; you can't have a war against a noun.

      -6.88 -7.38 "A Government that makes peaceful revolution impossible, makes armed revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

      by CTLiberal on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:44:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  War on Abstract Nouns (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, jfadden, ama, greenearth

      The War on Terror is an excuse for a forever war, a war of discretion on anybody we choose, wherever they are, whenever we feel like it.

      It should be pointed out that Bush/Cheney et alia are not completely comfortable with the War on Terror idea.  At times they themselves have tried to change the moniker but now they're stuck within their own frame.

      That is something that can be used against them.

      Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at

      by gmoke on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:51:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely agree with this: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jfadden, greenearth

        The War on Terror is an excuse for a forever war, a war of discretion on anybody we choose, wherever they are, whenever we feel like it.

        But I have to admit that it's not clear to me how to use it against them.

        Care to elaborate on your thinking?


        Democracy is a contact sport...

        by jsmagid on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:58:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Using It Against Them (0+ / 0-)

          "It should be pointed out that Bush/Cheney et alia are not completely comfortable with the War on Terror idea.  At times they themselves have tried to change the moniker but now they're stuck within their own frame."

          That is what can be used against them.  They tried to change the terminology at least once with "Global Stuggle Against Violent Extremists" or GSAVE instead of GWOT.  If they are not sure whether it's terrorism or violent extremism then they aren't really sure of what they are doing are they?  

          Of course, there's also the disbanding of the task force that has been hunting Bin Laden for the last decade.  If they don't plan on bringing Bin Laden to book, then tell me again how we are fighting against "terror" and "terrorists."

          Let's look at all the different ways they've talked about terror and their lovely little war against it and point out the vacillations and mistakes and false moves, over and over again.

          Solar is civil defense. Video of my small scale solar experiments at

          by gmoke on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:03:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's some stuff to work with (0+ / 0-)

            If they are not sure whether it's terrorism or violent extremism then they aren't really sure of what they are doing are they?  

            This would be effective, but their flip-flop on this was short lived going back to GWOT pretty quickly making it unlikely to get much traction.

            Of course, there's also the disbanding of the task force that has been hunting Bin Laden for the last decade.  If they don't plan on bringing Bin Laden to book, then tell me again how we are fighting against "terror" and "terrorists."

            This has some potential IF this gets sufficient play to be generally know.

            Democracy is a contact sport...

            by jsmagid on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:31:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  'War on Ambush' George Carlin (0+ / 0-)

      Although I certainly agree the war should be the 'war on terrorists'. 'war on terror' is an asinine perpetual concept of inevitable failure and loss. It is as your state, impossible to win a 'war on terror'. As George Carlin eloquently summed it up the might as well start a 'war on ambush'

      But, do you really think violent Islamic extremism or AL qaeda was isolated in Afghanistan? Afghanis have to be the penultimate minority of Al qaeda and the movement.

      That's a dodge.

      •  Not Afghanis, but Afghanistan (0+ / 0-)

        Afghanis were certainly a tiny minority of al Qaeda, but that's where the leadership was located.  And if we had concentrated our military resources on wiping out the leadership and their protectors, we might have then been able to deal with the rest of the organization with primarily non-military means (law enforcement, intelligence (including covert operations), economic disruption, information disemination, diplomacy, etc.), all of which could have been done while arousing far less antagonism in the Muslim world than we have created by our actions in Iraq.

        The ONLY reason this had to be a war in the traditional sense of the term is that the leadership of al Qaeda was being granted sanctuary by the Taliban government of Afghanistan.

    •  No, it was the correct frame. It worked. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair

      by Noodles on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 10:40:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Whether it's a war, invasion or occupation, (12+ / 0-)

    it's a dumb mistake. Our US military has fought, killed, and sacrificed life and limb for IRAN. Whether Cheney was suckered into bullying our nation into war, or he knew Chalabi was lying and was in bed with Iran but thought the US would prevail anyway and would get those permanent bases in Iraq and that access to oil, it ain't gonna happen. Iran has moved in, the Shia majority now in power is allied with and supported by Iran, and they ain't gonna let us have permanent bases or access to oil. This entire war/invasion/occupation is FUBAR! The US is deep in debt, our democratic institutions have been shattered, we are hopelessly vulnerable to attack or disaster by global warming, we have ignored the need to respond to global warming and peak oil, and we can' get out of Iraq because our leaders can't admit they made a mistake. We're still killing Sunnis to serve Iran's strategic goal of becoming a mideast superpower.
    Iran, using Chalabi to convince Cheney to force the war in Iraq, has pulled off the most successful hoax in recent history, and the Cheney/Rove/Bush government has made the biggest mistake in US history.
    That's the truth and an effective message for democrats to take back our country.

  •  Occupation and democracy (7+ / 0-)

    I don't think this goes far enough.  Yes, we all should make sure to use the "occupation" language when discussing Iraq.

    But the fallacy is that American's don't like occupation.  Look at Israel-- regrardless of your position on Palestinian rights to their land, over time, the Israeli public has come to accept more and more horrendous occupation of a conquered territory--and the main reason they do so is fear.

    yes, the fear is manipulated by politicians.  but it is also real.  

    by making Americans afraid, Bushco can sustain an occupation indefinitely, always saying it is our occuption that is preventing our enemies from sending suicide bombers to shopping centers.  So long as americans believe this, they will support occupation.

    I think a better frame is to act out of our strength, not our weakness:  Let's anticipate the worst that can happen, and prepare to minimize it.  The cablenews is a problem here, because TV news in general has made Americans more afraid and less informed.

    So, lets call Iraq a failed occupation; done out of weakness, by a leadership who couldn't fight terrorists if they were given a play book that said "Osama bin laden determined to attack the U.S."

    Republicans:  the people who want America to hide under the bed because they are so afraid.  Democrats: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself!

  •  How To Win In A Debate Against A Repug Republican (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    How do I start a Draft Gore Movement..??
  •  Framing, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    something the Republicans excel at and something the Democrats need to learn.  

    An occupation is exactly what we're doing over there and exactly how this conflict should be framed by every Democrat.

    If everything was switched around and the Dems were in power, if it was the Dems idea to invade Iraq, you know the Repubs would be well organized and screaming, "OCCUPATION" at the top of their lungs to every news outlet there is.

    -6.88 -7.38 "A Government that makes peaceful revolution impossible, makes armed revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy

    by CTLiberal on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:33:57 PM PDT

  •  Smash Mouth Football (1+ / 3-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    Rita in DC, Webster, XStryker
    Live Free Or Die Trying!!!

    Stick it to the bad guys!!!

  •  It's definitely not a war. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    docangel, Mz Kleen, greenearth

    Wars are declared by Congress, according to the Constitution.  No such declaration has been made.   (The Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to cede that power to the president.)

    Moreover, this administration has yet to include the cost of the war in any of the budgets it submits to Congress.  A war is too big a thing to overlook.  Therefore, there must not be a war.


    "...the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart." -- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

    by Roddy McCorley on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:42:30 PM PDT

  •  you're 'winning' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth, Snarcalita

    if you're paying 2 billion dollars a week to the war profiteers that got you elected.

    It was never about anything more than money. And it never will be.

    "He lives most life whoever breathes most air." Elizabeth Barrett Browning

    "We don't do fours." General Tommy Franks (on Dkos)

    by SeattleChris on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:43:34 PM PDT

    •  Of course it's an occupation (0+ / 0-)

      That was the plan all along. It hasn't gone as smoothly as they'd like, but oil flow's restricted, prices are high and apparently oil companies extract maximum profits from it.

      They're even comfortable talking about going into Iran. I suppose they're trying to goad Israel into the fight one way or another, even if it means poking Tehran with a stick into aggression.

      Double those oil profits by utilizing a little more chaos? I dunno but obviously they've accomplished something they wanted well enough to take on more.

      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair

      by Noodles on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 10:25:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "The Republicans' Party" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    That's, by the way, the "frame" to use when referring to the GOP. "The Republicans' Party."

    They're not republicans. They're not even Republicans, who used to stand for fiscal conservancy and anti-imperialism and states' prerogatives. Those are actual moral stands (although I'd argue that the states' prerogatives one is weak and dangerous) that an individual can take and with which some members of the electorate will identify. This party is taken over by some smaller, isolated group. It belongs to those few, not to the many.

  •  Contradictions (4+ / 0-)

    Lakoff's work - both the complex stuff he's done in linguistics and the simpler stuff he's doing now in politics - is important. But in politics, despite my recommending this diary, I'm afraid he's being too simple - and projecting too much simplicity onto some of our better politicians. For example, the "stay and pay" and "lie and die" phrases - why claim they "reinforce" the structure of "cut and run"? Where's your evidence that they're reinforcing rather than supplanting? If a creature's settled into a particular niche in an ecology, another creature of similar form is the most likely to supplant it.

    Lakoff has quit thinking like a scientist, and instead is becoming just another consultant with his own set of fables - fables which, like those of most consultants, tell our politicians that speaking from their own minds isn't good enough, that they need to go to someone else, to some magical consultant, to get their messages - which will then be designer messages, and come across how genuine?

    Quite unfortunate. Professor Lakoff is off on the wrong foot here, and working to make sure our politicians also end up prone to continue to all-too-often get off on the wrong foot. This is in part because he enjoys the frame, "I'm brilliant, and you're not. I'm the professor." He is brilliant, damn it; too brilliant by half.

  •  Incredibly Good Reframing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AllisonInSeattle, greenearth

    This is a superb analysis of the strengths of the war frame and how to use the occupation frame against it.

    We should make sure every candidate we are supporting and working for reads and understands this analysis.

    We should also be sure we use it every chance we have in every conversation we have about Iraq.

    Lets get this frame out there!

    thanks again for excellent work on behalf of the progressive movement.

    Kos has unleashed my squeaking rabid fury. Pass the mint jelly please.

    by rabidlamb on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 07:54:08 PM PDT

  •  Iraq is the front is the war on terror (7+ / 0-)

    or so the Bush administration would have us believe. They would also have us believe that the joint Congressional authorization following the 9/11 attacks gave the President the authority to wage his own jihad against the terrorists. Jihads are never finished because fanatics can always see enemies where there are none. War is limited in scope, while a jihad has no limits. As long as the jihadist feels there is someone who does not support his narrow view of the world, the jihad continues. War has objectives. When these objectives are met, there is no need for the war to continue. The Congress authorized the President to use military force in Iraq at his discretion should diplomacy fail in order to protect the United States from the threat of Saddam Hussein and in order to enforce UN resolutions in regards to Iraq. We now know that the reasons for the use of force in Iraq were based on lies, making the entire basis of this war false. In any case, our objectives have been met. The fact that they were met before the war even started indicates that this war is over and should never have been started in the first place. Our occupation of Iraq is illegal by our standards and by international standards. Cut and run does apply when the invasion was illegal in the first place. The only honorable thing for us to do is to leave. We are in a situation comparable to the police raiding the wrong house. The Republicans would like us to stay and arrest everyone, while the Democrats would like us to apologize, make amends, and leave.  

    •  had enough? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fed up?
      •  Catchy but . . . (0+ / 0-)

        "Police raiding the wrong house" is a mistake which makes it catchy on one side of the equation but not both sides. Referring to Bush admin, it doesn't account for the fact they salivated in premeditation for a couple of years wanting to invade, so it wasn't a mistake. They wanted to invade this house. If referring to the Dems in Congress who approved the Iraq resolution on basis of false information -- that was a mistake for sure.

        Believe Magister needs a "not" in "Cut and run does apply when the invasion was illegal in the first place."

        With these two niggles said, great comment, Magister.

        Thanks to Harry, Steve & Ray for speaking truth to liars.

        by wardlow on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:33:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's an excellent analogy. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Opakapaka, greenearth

      All of it, especially the "police raiding the wrong house" is very catchy.

      I recommended your comment in the "Comment of the Day" diary.

      <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

      by bronte17 on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:11:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is the front now (0+ / 0-)

      Whatever the case before we invaded, unfortunately we can not turn the clock back. Make amends. that's a joke. If these people had the means to overcome brutal tyranny of the like desired by the insurgents in Iraq, they would have overcome Saddam. I think we are fooling ourselves to think otherwise or to think that we would not be handing the country over to our worst enemy if we leave it unstable. We just can't turn the clock back, however fucked up it was to go the way we did.

      •  Stay the course is not an option (0+ / 0-)

        It's true that we screwed up. But it's time for us to do the right thing by Iraq now. We need to get the UN and other countries involved, which we failed to do in the first place. The only thing that is going to lure other countries into helping stabilize Iraq is a partnership in developing Iraqi oil fields. This has to be done in a way that is beneficial to Iraq and fair to all participants. That means we give up whatever illusions we had of military bases and control of Iraqi oil and negotiate a deal that will rebuild Iraq, end the civil war, make sure that all factions participate in the Iraqi government, and create a partnership to develop and market Iraqi oil for the mutual benefit of Iraq and those countries willing to participate in maintaining security in the region until Iraq is self sufficient. All of this should be done under the auspices of the UN and not as a US dominated effort.

  •  We have already won the war (7+ / 0-)

    Cenk Uygur has a good post on this over at huffington post. Basically, he asks the question: haven't we won already? So why are we still there?

    We wanted to make sure Iraq was not developing WMD.
    We wanted to depose Sadam Hussein.
    We wanted a democratically elected government.

    So now what? Are we going to stick around till no more Iraqi's are shooting at our troops? Well that is just not going to happen. The main reason they are shooting at our troops is because we are there, and that aint going to change as long as we are there.

    Basically, we have accomplished what we set out to do. So why let the goal post conituously move?

  •  You are searching for rational, moral behaviour (9+ / 0-)

    from an administration composed of war criminals. The plan is to never leave. No one, Dem or Rep, is willing to ask why the US is building a string of monster US embassies and military bases in Iraq. They got a plan. Stay and manage the oil flow. Keep it under OPEC control, guarantee the Saudi's are happy and will continue to buy our debt. The big oil contributors remain happy while oil remains expensive. Thats the plan and its working. For them. We're screwed but the plan doesn't include us.

  •  George Bush's Occupation (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StuartZ, jfadden, greenearth, el cid
    How about this?

    George Bush has reduced our proud armed forces to an occupying army.

    The ultimate unpatriotic act by the ultimate unpatriotic president and his congressional lackeys.

  •  This is excellent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    People prefer to make their own mistakes, rather than have others correct their mistakes.  It may not make sense, but imagine if the Canadians invaded us and set out to turn our flawed health industriy into a more effective single-payer system.  The outcome would benefit us, but many US citizens would feel that it was not the Canadians' place to tell us how to do a bad job of health care.

    Irrational?  Maybe, but a well-known characteristic of human behavior.

    The Iraqis, many of them at least, would prefer to screw things up on their own, instead of having us unscrew them for them.  If indeed that is actually what we are doing. The massive scale of the US embassy in Baghdad suggests there may be some other agendas at play.

    Your point is right on the money: this is an occupation and our troops have not been trained to be colonial oppressors. Either they need such specialized training, or they should be permitted to go home to their families. They're being put in an untenable position, that no one dares to call by its right name, since it is not currently PC to act as a colonial power. Excuses must be found and repeated endlessly, but the fiction is wearing increasingly thin.

  •  'Republicans want to Stay and Pray' (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theyrereal, greenearth, el cid, va dare

    is a response phrase that was apparently coined by DKos member
    quaoar to describe the Republican approach succinctly:

    From 'Cut and Run' to 'Stay and Pray', by quaoar, Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 11:13:00 AM PDT.

    I think it has good merit, is a quick and easy to remeber retort. It rhymes and is funny and hence it will tend to stick and propagate better.

    rhmom contributed this bumper sticker for the slogan:

  •  Thank you sir! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Opakapaka, greenearth

    Have been pleased to see your recent diaries, and hope you continue the series.

    This one is brilliant, as usual. I'll put it to good use, thanks for the opportunity.

    Be good to each other. It matters.

    by AllisonInSeattle on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 09:06:15 PM PDT

  •  So what do we do? (0+ / 0-)

    What the fuck is your alternative? What does "soon' mean? We've heard it all man. Beat the damn dead horse some more. You want to play with semantics? Occupation? call it a fucking blue goose. To what end? What are the consequences of leaving Iraq? Does anyone ever address this in our camp? It's so damn lazy and insolent to ignore the consequences of walking away from Iraq now. For ten years the sanctions contained Saddam and protected Iran and Kuwait, but only exacerbated the horrific brutality unleashed on Iraqi citizens and actually provided Saddam with more income than he had before them. Those people are absolutely clueless and powerless do engender their own self governance. Everyone knew this was the crucial factor deposing Saddam. Would you leave them to even greater oppression now? However incompetent, deceitful and wrong this administration is, we need to face reality about the strength of the terrorist insurgency in Iraq and the vicious ideology of Islamic extremism that is focused on decapitating American values, our values, Democratic values. What is your plan and where does it take us and what is your future vision of combating AL qaeda. "We are doing the Iraqi citizens more harm than good"?? Are you brain dead? If you think for one second that the most violent, conscious-less, and brutal elements of Islamic extremism would not fill the power vacuum of an Iraq free of Americans with the blood and guts of Iraqi innocents on the edges of their scythes, I say you are turning your back on reality for a grotesquely gratuitous political glad-handing. The easiest thing to do in this world is continue to criticise this administration. Bush is a self interested incompetent buffoon! Wow, don't I feel proud of myself for saying that? Political courage? That and your piece is pure political cowardice. The terrorist threat was very real and rapidly expanding before Bush took office. Richard Clark knew it. Clinton knew it and you know it. The Republicans made every wrong decision, lied, and have finger fucked about everything they've touched. They also fucked Clinton's attempts to combat this enemy. We got it a long time ago. Rehashing that does nothing for anyone, anymore. My eight year old daughter understands it by now. And, it does nothing to address the future when hopefully the Democrats recoup control of our government. Courage? show me some courage on the left by showing me a plan, not this endless revelry in re-exposing the obvious negatives. Hillary Clinton gets it and has more balls (i.e. "political courage") than any other democrat in office and far more than this drivel about the definition of war.

    And for some of the other comments here. The Roman Empire was defeated in a brief moment of vulnerability by a band of hapless illiterate barbarians that sneaked into the capital with clubs, axes and blood lust in their eyes.

    •  Iran has won, and will bring order (0+ / 0-)

      to at least the Shiite two thirds of the former Iraq, and they will force the US military, weakened by its misadventure to build permanent bases and cheap oil, to leave, soon. It's not up to the US government any more. If the US could control events there, we would be doing so.
      Kurdistan has seceded and is safe, secure and intact. The Sunni lands will need to reconstitute, maybe as a protectorate of Syria or Saudi Arabia, and for the meantime will be a stateless country that is host to hostile extremists.
      Heckuva job, Dumbass Dick.

      •  I hope that pie tastes good. (0+ / 0-)

        Do you think the Sunni dominated countries in the mid east would stand idly by while Iran "stabilized" your random two thirds of Iraq? What concept of the tensions between Sunni and Shiite populations throughout the region do you have? Where do these gross assumptions come from. "Iran has won" what planet do you live on? Read the news. They will force us to do nothing of the sort. The Sunni lands are smack dab in the middle of the country. Who is going to chop that country up into pieces and think the Arab world, which hasn't forged any real political alliance whatsoever outside of it's oil cartel, ever, is going to peacefully allow any single states to act as "protectorates" of the pieces. Maybe? Maybe? Nice vision, I guess, except the part about Iran controlling even more of the worlds energy reserves. But, what pied piper is going to lead all the rat's out of Baghdad. A plan that pits heavily armed Sunni and Shiite theocracies against each other over control of a region, currently in a civil war between those very sects, and it's oil reserves, is is about the most insane idea I've heard. What if your scenario ignited armed conflict between the sects engulfing the entire Mideast. Maybe. At least your vision would maybe get China and Russia into a more proactive roles supporting Iran in the struggle over what parts of Iraq it shares contol of with Saudi Arabia, as they have such inticate energy ties with Iran. That would be cool. Maybe we need to think about this before the next election so we don't get our ass handed to us again as was the whole point of my rant.

        and calling me a dumb ass? that's just transparent.

    •  Hillary gets what exactly? (0+ / 0-)

      I can train a parrot to say "stay the cource."  That doesn't mean jack shit.  So, calm down and explain what the hell your talking about.

      •  Who said 'stay the course'? (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry I'm hot headed right now. I just don't' see any use in re framing and re framing the same argument about the illegitimacy of this war. And, thinking everything will just calm down if we leave is foolish. I don't buy that argument. I think it's possible to end this and quickly but just leaving with no specific plan for stabilization is an empty course of action. The idea of handing two thirds of Iraq to Iran doesn't deserve a reply but in the spirit of civility and to bolster my next comment their is worldwide and diverse ideological consensus that Iran needs to be contained, not expanded, because they are the 800 pound gorilla in the room threatening mid-east stability and global energy markets.
        What Hillary gets is the reality and importance of  continued Islamic terrorist threat, it's potential to expand rapidly with out our help. She gets that the sanctions were a band aid on a festering wound. She gets the essential element, now missing, in combating this very real threat which is overwhelming international consensus on Iraq. Immediate petitioning of the international community to combine resources to fight on a united front is what I've heard from her. And I think also that is what is absolutely essential to find peace there. She gets that walking away before stabilization is secured and thinking everything will fall neatly into place is a pie in the sky fantasy.

        •  and (0+ / 0-)

          she gets that a power vacuum in Iraq, regardless of the reasons we went there, would cause be a huge setback in the other war we are fighting that all democrats agree is legitimate, the one against terrorists. Look at Somalia now, Sudan, Look at pre war Afghanistan, Indonesia. Extremest Islamic terrorist ideology is powerful, eager and capable of filling political voids.

  •  Meh (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I do not see much useful in that at all.

    Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

    by Armando on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 09:39:14 PM PDT

    •  I don't get the whole Lakoff thing (0+ / 0-)

      it all seems rather academic and semantic--unreal.  As though the frame was the thing.

      •  You should read one of his books, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        like Metaphors We Live By.  Frames do deal with semantics, but words are how we build concepts of the way the world works.  So we use conceptual metaphors (or sometimes, frames) like "argument is war" or "time is money."  If "argument is war" we can "shoot down the ideas of others", or "blow that bullshit out of the water."  It's not that argument really is war, but semantically, that's how we conceive it.

      •  It is academic and unreal... (0+ / 0-)

        but that does not mean it is useless. Upthread I posted  an attempt at humor on the anti-intellectual sentiment and the emphasis on "real world" thinking which the conservative movement has used to steer the population away from disciplined thought.

        All cognitive theories are weak. They are mere starting points. All of them require a lot of indoctrination before they make much sense at all, and we can therefore easily question their usefulness. I can understand why Lakoff has less appeal to those outside the field of cognitive science than to those within it (and even a good part of those within it!). They are very abstract attempts at modeling something we know very little about. We do know that how people think is very counterintuitive. Competing theories often represent competing ideas that can be traced to the ancients. Rarely is there anything really new -- the names just get changed.

        The contribution of this very intelligent and talented academic is in offering up some potential explanations for how we as progressives are being controlled and for why we seem to be on an unbreakable losing streak. I, too, question the short and simple political version of framing. It has helped introduce me to Lakoff's academic literature though, and his work is brilliant.

        I would think the progressive movement needs help from anyone who offers. It seems clear that what the thugs have done to us over the last few decades clearly does have something to do with the way they use language. It is worth thinking about.

        •  perhaps (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          our loosing streak is in fact a result of the academic (and by that I don't mean simple)approach of our platform. "very abstract attempts to modeling something we know very little about" will never win an election. When was the greater population ever on the straight path of disciplined intellectual thought? Being out of touch with the average joe is not a democratic defense. Jimmy Carter was how many years ahead of his time? We still havn't cought up with him. Want to win an election, bring it down to earth. Clinton was an ace at translating his vast comprehension of cognitive political theory into simple comprehensable terms and effective action. And, the reverse, he could launch diologue over the most base human preogative into the lofty questions of the meaning of being. But he won elections with an almost patronizing rebuke of intlelectualism at the podium, and certainly with out the need of indoctrination lags. Are we going to be toying around with "framing" issues during the next election.
          The force of "inconvenient truth" is diminished in hair splitting (hyberbole) over rules of engagement in war. "Political courage" means taking risks in words and actions for the future before the puzzle is already solved. Academics don't take risks.

          •  I agree in part, but (0+ / 0-)

            I really don't see framing as a complex intellectual theory that we are going to sell to the electorate. Framing is an explanation of what is wrong with us, and it might could help develop effective progressive rhetoric. We have been asleep and inactive politically for so long that we have lost the ability to debate any issues. One reason for that is that we have lost control of the language. The language has been changed-- it has been modified by the conservatives. It has been changed so that there are no non-awkward or untainted ways to express liberal ideas. All available clauses for liberal assertions have been made aversive. To even engage in debate on an issue requires that a hundred false premises, carefully crafted with thirty years of propaganda and strict enforcement, must be accepted a priori. Those false premises are necessary to construct a sentence that doesn't sound like nonsense. Too many perfectly valid ideas have simply been placed off limits through years of official ridicule and punishment -- aversion conditioning. There are simply no terms to describe those ideas because the terms have been redefined negatively and evoke immediate prejudice. There is no comprehensible argument that can be made, because the only things that are comprehensible to the public now are based on (built out of) totally false assumptions. The linguistic web we have allowed the right to trap us in is tight -- and it is self-tightening. The more we push on it, the tighter it gets. We have to step back and understand what it is made of and how to cut through it. Framing is an effort in that direction. There should, of course, be other efforts. I am open to anything!

            •  agreed (0+ / 0-)

              and after calming down and rereading the diary and my post I find more agreement with Lakof than not. So the point is to create a new dialogue that coherently addresses the concrete consequences of our actions instead of blanketing the issues with common terminology that's been falsely characterized to the public. The one that pisses me off the most is how international consensus is ridiculed as weak and contrary to American ideals, makes my blood boil.
              I guess my rant was a bit off thread because I was addressing actual policy and not the impression made by particular words.

  •  Are you plagiarizing my posts, Mr. Lakoff? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Or do great minds simply think alike? :-)

    I made the exact same argument --that progressives & Dem's must correctly call Iraq an occupation-- when Congress recently debated Iraq resolutions (see here and here).

    And the need for Dem's to do this remains.

    Let me also re-post the 4 things every Democrat & progressive should be saying about Iraq, courtesy of Fighgting Dem Eric Massa:

    1. Invading Iraq was a mistake
    1. OUT is better than IN
    1. SOONER is better than LATER
    1. Take the occupation away from the politicians and let the Generals determine the fastest, most responsible exit strategy.
  •  It's Impossible to Lose an Occupation (0+ / 0-)

    It's also impossible to be a Wartime Commander-in-Chief of an occupation.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 10:08:14 PM PDT

  •  Dem 'Cut & Run' reverse frame (0+ / 0-)

    I know we've all been talking about the "cut & run" frame and I though maybe another way to reverse it's effect is to accpet it, but with a twist!

    Some random GOP stormtrooper starts railing on the Democrats for proposing a "cut & run" strategy. We can use that to our advantage and in the same time make it ours.

    The Democrats want to:

    "Cut" the failed Iraq policy out & "Run" a winable war
    "Cut" the republicans out & "Run" it ourselves
    "Cut" ...whatever and & "Run" something else too..

    You get the idea. There are so many things that we could use and instantly take the power away from the GOP. In one quick framing change we could actually gain. Let me know what you guys thing.

  •  Mr. Lakoff (0+ / 0-)

    This is the exact right frame - because it's the truth - and it will resonate as the truth with the American people. It's the way out.

    Like you said - it'll take political courage - I hope it still exists....

  •  what boggles my mind (0+ / 0-)
    is that there isn't an overall consensus between all thinking people that the desperation involved in the GOP's use of the term "cut and run" to describe the people who are actually, NOW, so completely in the right --

    Why isn't everybody just laughing their asses off over the Republicans transparent use of the term "cut and run".

    It's so absurd, yet the Democrats are all scared of actually being tarred with the "cut and run" brush that they start talking all seriously about shit, and come out looking like pussies.  

    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer -- Henry Kissinger

    by theyrereal on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:12:24 PM PDT

  •  it's an empire (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bryce in Seattle

    but don't expect a country that hasn't figured it out yet, with permanent bases all over the world and a neverending chain of wars strung all across the globe, to catch on now.

    take up the white man's burden...

    crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

    by wu ming on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:17:48 PM PDT

  •  Occupation (0+ / 0-)
    1. The US still occupies Okinawa, despite the demands of Okinawans to leave. There have been rapes of young women by US soldiers, even recently, and Okinawans have marched against the occupation.
    1. Britain forced the people of Diego Garcia off of that  island in the Indian Ocean and turned it over to the US, which occupies it to this day.

    The US is over-extended in many coutries, including Iraq and Afghanistan, which was the Waterloo of the Soviet Union. Over-reaching and over-extension in history generally precedes the end of empire.

    Whatever gains the US made in Afghanistan have been reversed, just as Soviet gains were reversed. I compare what the US is doing to the game of Risk. When you overextend your armies in Risk, you lose.

    Support Progressive Writers

    by skywriter on Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 11:28:48 PM PDT

  •  Hear Lakoff debate Luntz about this on NPR: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    biscobosco, LNK

    Lakoff and Luntz on NPR

    I've never heard anything more chilling than these two frame-fighters go at it on the defining issue of our time.  Luntz tries to come off as an everyman pointing out the big mean professor's use of repetition.  Luntz is the slickest and most powerful idea man in a party that rules all branches of our government, yet he thinks of himself as just-folks. At least there is hope that someday Luntz will realize he was as wrong on Iraq as he was on the environment.  What a flip-flopper!

    •  yeah I heard that also (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      everyone who didnt should pop over to NPR and listen.

      What was fantastic was that as usual, Luntz tries to pin the failings of his own methods on his opponent. I beleive he accuses lakoff of just "playing with words"what a joke! - that is exactly what they pay  Luntz the big bucks for - to play with words and put lipstick on all their pigheaded ideas!

      i think that lakoff responded with something about how important it was to give Americans the truth.

      I dont know if you are being snarky, but I dont think Luntz truly thinks of himself as "just folks"  that is just another one of his cute little acts.

      l'shanah haba'ah bilasvegas

      by biscobosco on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:12:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  On some level I think Luntz believes his own BS, (0+ / 0-)

        but your right, I should of said he "portrays himself as just-folks." He is very conscious of how he presents himself, yet he is so good at it that he seems natural.

        Lakoff responds by saying that "when you have heard 'occupation' as many times as you've heard 'War on Terror' the country will understand a truth."  -amen brother!

  •  Yup (0+ / 0-)

    It started as an invasion, and is currently an occupation.

    How it ends is yet to be determined.

    "...psychopaths have little difficulty infiltrating the domains of...politics, law enforcement, (and) government." Dr. Robert Hare

    by RubDMC on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:21:49 AM PDT

  •  Welcome Rockridge (0+ / 0-)

    There is much we can learn form each other.  We are of course natural allies.  We should work to increase the dialogue between us to further develop a coherent liberal message.  

    I’m glad to see it make the recommends list.  I’m sure this user ID will become well known around here if you continue to post quality work like this.

    If we abandon our allies and their issues, who will defend us and ours?

    by Bryce in Seattle on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:17:48 AM PDT

  •  Lakoff and Luntz on NPR (0+ / 0-)

    Frank Luntz and George Lakoff faceoff on NPR's All Things Considered.

    Listen to it ::HERE ::

    <div class="blockquote">"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -Wendell Phillips- US abolitionist (1811 - 1884)</div>

    by erinyes on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:28:19 AM PDT

  •  Ridiculing the 'war' meme will weaken it (0+ / 0-)

    The mere act of questioning and ridiculing the "war on terror" frame will undermine it's power. Could any sane person question whether WWII was really a "war?" The "Cold War" was also a propagandistic formulation, but no one could deny that there were thousands of tanks, missiles, and bombers pointed in the direction of the US and her allies. In stark contrast, the "war on terror" is both incoherent and pure fiction. If you really want to have a good time, point all of this out to a Bush supporter. When I've done this, the response is almost identical to that of the fundamentalist Christian when confronted by an atheist or agnostic. Belief in the reality of the "war on terror," like fundamentalism, requires faith.

    "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

    by chimpwatch on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:43:21 AM PDT

  •  NPR OnPoint: Lakoff interview (0+ / 0-)

    On July 5th show.  This airs 10am EDT on DC's WETA.  Check for your local station/time here.

    Subscribe to podcast here.

    •  Hm. Second half of the show. (0+ / 0-)

      Apparently OnPoint is a two hour show, with one topic for the first hour and another on the second.  Lakoff is on the second half of today's show (and WETA only airs the first half--sigh).

  •  Excellent (0+ / 0-)

    This is a fine illustration of how the Dems can seize control of the argument. From the get-go, the whole Iraq invasion was bought on the idea (frame) that  it was a war, when in fact, no war was ever officially declared. The Rove/Bush Cabal have been using this false frame to steal billions from the treasury and, of course, from the taxpayers, to enrich themselves and their partners through military/industrial/security contracts. Lakoff is referencing an extension of the war-frame fantasy.

    Of course it's an occupation. It's an occupation designed to control the flow of oil.

    Don't listen to what the Rove/Bush Cabal says. Instead, describe what they're doing.

  •  'surrender'ing civil liberties (0+ / 0-)

    Bush has surrendered our liberty to (try to) purchase security, which as Ben Franklin said, makes him (us) worthy of neither. We must realign the whole  spectrum--war (Iraq) is the only way these cowards know how to rule, the distraction which keeps America from smacking them as they pick our pockets, stovepiping our national resources into the coffers of 18 families. But why can't we hammer the theme of "giving up", "surrendering" our liberty (and not merely 'civil liberties', but LIBERTY, dammit!) out of fear ?

  •  Fantastic diary! It won't get picked up by Dems.. (0+ / 0-)

    The reason why this complete and thorough rejection of the Republican ideology wrt Iraq won't get co-opted by the Democrats anytime soon is that too many of them believe that we have a moral obligation to be in Iraq. There is still too much disagreement for the ideological tone to change.

    However, all anti-war DEmocrats need to read this diary, so...

    putting the riot back into patriot

    by Pop Zeus on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:19:55 AM PDT

  •  Antidote to 'cut and run'? (0+ / 0-)

    Anytime Rethuglicans use the phrase "cut and run" around me, I'm going to reply:

    "Democrats know better than to 'pull a Reagan' like that."

    Rubus Eradicandus Est.

    by Randomfactor on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:26:15 AM PDT

  •  A sweet MUST READ LINK (Thom Hartmann) (0+ / 0-)
    1. He explains it all very nicely:
    Published on Monday, June 19, 2006 by
    Reclaim the Issues - "Occupation, Not War"
    by Thom Hartmann

    2.  Has anybody discussed what is the best way to handle an occupation? To leave, let chaos get worse so one is justified in coming back full force with a coalition? UN? I'd expect an occupation to provide stability and basic services first and we are failing at that.

    3.  Is it time to ask for a debate: "Resolved that America is a to be a Nation, not an Empire"?

  •  Phony War (0+ / 0-)

    When Lakoff writes:

    Our nation has been held trapped in a fallacious War Frame

    It called to mind the Phony War:

    The Phony War (the Phoney War, in Britain), or in Winston Churchill's words the Twilight War, was a phase in early World War II marked by few military operations in Continental Europe, in the months following the German invasion of Poland. Although the great powers of Europe had declared war on one another, neither side had yet committed to launching a significant attack, thus there was relatively little fighting on the ground. The term has cognates in many other languages, notably the German Sitzkrieg ("sitting war," a pun on Blitzkrieg), the French drôle de guerre ("funny war" or "strange war") and the Polish dziwna wojna ("strange war"). In Britain the period was even referred to as the "Bore War" (a pun on "Boer War").

    Lakoff is right in that Bush is no longer entitled to claim his 'props' as a wartime president by virtues of maintaining an occupation in Iraq. His only claim to that 'fame' would be Afghanistan, which as mainly been waged by the Pentagon - certainly not by our troops on the ground - as a 'Phony War'

  •  Tell the truth (0+ / 0-)

    I appreciate Prof Lakoff's framing on the terms "war" vs. "occupation" (developed nicely by another diarist recently, as noted by others here), and I can see its usefulness in debates. However, as Mr. Lakoff details it, I think one can "cut and run" from an occupation if the Bushites argue the occupation is meant to counter the insurgency, so that piece needs further development (see below).

    To penetrate the media-political surreality, I think we must go much further: We must tell the truth.

    For example, Dems must find the spine to say (talking points):

    " We will tell the truth: We were lied to when we gave Mr. Bush authority to invade Iraq. That means the invasion was a mistake based on deception by the Bush administration. [Kerry made a grave error in 2004 in not saying this]. Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld seized that force authority under false pretenses and have now mishandled the aftermath of their invasion badly.  

    Do we 'stay the course' on a mistake, especially when the insurgency is largely in response to our prolonged occupation? No, that's absurd. Mr. Bush is ‘staying the course’ in the wrong theater -- he should have stayed the course in Afghanistan where the Taliban is now resurging. 'Cut and run' is nothing more than a schoolyard taunt. We reject it.

    It’s time to begin an orderly phased redeployment of US forces over the ‘horizon’; be available for continued security training out-of-country; provide economic assistance; and turn the permanent US bases into Iraqi university campuses.”

    Additionally, Lakoff asked:

    How, if at all, is the Supreme Court decision on military tribunals at Guantanamo affected if we are in an occupation, not a war?

    My understanding is that Bush is deriving his CiC authority to set up detainee tribunals from the 2001 AUMF before invasion of Afghanistan (to go after perpetrators of 9-11 attacks, AQ and those who support them), not from the Oct 2002 AUMF for invasion of Iraq. Am I wrong?

    Thanks to Harry, Steve & Ray for speaking truth to liars.

    by wardlow on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:00:19 AM PDT

Alumbrados, davej, Superskepticalman, Angie in WA State, DeminNewJ, Terri, TXdem, JR, snorfbat, Julian, RedMeatDem, Bill in Portland Maine, Blackwaterside, Pacific John, cmanaster, ferg, RW, Rayne, teacherken, casamurphy, cedubose, grumbleberries, human, Brian CB, Geenius at Wrok, bgod, queerbklynboy, Joan in Seattle, sen bob, Powered Grace, saraswati, Paul Rosenberg, wytcld, Winger, dengre, michael in chicago, Coldblue Steele, Shockwave, wu ming, LynChi, m maddog, MA Dem, Jim in Chicago, AWhitneyBrown, GayHillbilly, frsbdg, kdub, autoegocrat, x, pbsloop, Woody, frisco, roseba, Kaldis, Soy Lechithin, RubDMC, joel3000, bronte17, Joe Sixpack, Raddark, Naturegal, DrKate, Doc Allen, understandinglife, zdrake, weirdscenes, KBnNC, Glic, vmibran, taonow, drdave, House, Miss Blue, maven98, Nate Roberts, fumie, Jesterfox, antirove, Alna Dem, NinthElegy, Braindead, boot1780, hhex65, Mxwll, jsmagid, nj mom, Chicago Lulu, wordene, casperr, StuartZ, Noodles, susie dow, besieged by bush, tln41, Red State Refugee, Caldonia, Jill Lehnert, Black Maned Pensator, chantedor, cat chew, JackSlims, RenaRF, grrr, lcrp, Pirate Smile, dcookie, walkshills, AnonymousArmy, Bluefish, AllisonInSeattle, green917, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Mosquito Pilot, Steven D, mad cow, DrewDown, BigBite, sawgrass727, sxwarren, davidkc, greenskeeper, MichDeb, frostyinPA, jonathan94002, Skennet Boch, Fabian, ebbak, mediaprisoner, Bluesee, pattyp, SpecialEFX, Green Zombie, el dorado gal, Elise, docangel, coloradobl, LarisaW, subtropolis, saralee, Cook, OpherGopher, LibertySquirrel, PBen, kamarvt, clammyc, ajsuited, neatnate, ChemBob, snacksandpop, viral, Salo, thefos, boofdah, Mz Kleen, lennysfo, Crowdog, LNK, Frank Palmer, JoieDe, periphrastik, A Ernest Mann, eastvan, GreyHawk, annefrank, rpm5250, bmaples, dspivak, wardlow, wiscmass, LivesInAShoe, Rogneid, rsr, Blakbelt, kkjohnson, Alan Arizona, RoseRash, Mister Go, FrankFrink, JosephAZ, nyarlahotep, Thundergod, enoughisenough, Keone Michaels, ama, Opakapaka, BlueInARedState, SeattleChris, G Red, HoundDog, smokeymonkey, theyrereal, Wary, mcartri, carolita, Gasonfires, sailmaker, Matthias, greenearth, SherriG, souldrift, Conceptual Guerilla, DarkestHour, JCWilmore, HammClov, everhopeful, vickie feminist, CTLiberal, el cid, MarciaJ720, bunk, Dianna, va dare, means are the ends, Snarcalita, lorenzodow, AllanTBG, embra, joe12pack, bigchin, old wobbly, out of left field, BeninSC, Cronesense, idiopath, whl, Harmonious, drumroll, Eugene Stumpf, 0wn, rabidlamb

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site