Seven soundbites to use against Rove's "Cut and Run" talk
Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 08:29:44 AM PDT
Painting Democrats as cowards who "cut and run" seems to be one of Karl Rove's chief strategies for the 2006 midterms. Kudos to Congressman John Murtha for taking on Rove one on one. Here are some soundbites we should be using:
1. Republicans were for cutting and running before they were against it.
Here are the those very words in a discussion about the Republican opposition to fighting Milosevic (link):
The U.S. intervention in Bosnia, which many Republicans foolishly opposed, has worked out much better than they predicted. That progress, however, will be undermined if the United States cuts and runs in this latest instance of Milosevic's thuggery. Republicans can be proud that they led the drive to revitalize the NATO alliance by expanding it to three new states. But what will it mean to have expanded NATO last year, only to eviscerate it now?
Here is a good
PDF with a list of which Republican said what.
Here is something put up to promote Cheney in 2000.
Here is an abstract of an NYT piece in 2000 (link):
Dick Cheney, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, called today for a re-examination of the nation's role in peacekeeping missions around the world and said it was time to consider recalling American ground troops from Kosovo and Bosnia. ''I think it is important that we make sometimes difficult choices about when...
2. Bush was for a timetable before he was against it.
Think Progress had the goods on this one a year ago here.
"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
3. Republicans promised us hearts and flowers in Iraq. Our work actually got hearts and flowers. And we didn't have 2500 dead and 20,000 wounded.
See Greeted as Liberators:
The allied occupation of Kosovo, where Clark was greeted as a hero with not only flowers, but also billboards and a road being renamed for him, was planned and executed by Clark and Shinseki. It provides an interesting contrast to Iraq, where Shinseki was shut out of the planning, and in fact disparaged for his realistic assessment of what it would take to win in Iraq.
A picture is worth a thousand words. We've got our hearts and flowers right here:
Here is the Meet The Press episode where Tim Russert mentioned Cheney's prediction that we would be greeted as liberators. Notice that Cheney, with assistance from Tim Russert, talked about 9/11 in response.
4. The called Bosnia/Kosovo "Clinton's War." Why do Republicans only want to "stay the course" when it is Bush's War?
5. Bosnia and Kosovo in 2000 were way better than Iraq now. So who is it that really plays politics with wars? Not Democrats.
Here's Michael Kinsley (link):
If you're looking for revisionist history, don't waste your time on the war's critics. Google Cheney's bitter critique of President Clinton's military initiatives in the 2000 campaign, and specifically the need for more burden-sharing by allies and a sharply defined "exit strategy." At the time, about 11,000 American troops were in Bosnia and Kosovo working alongside about 55,000 soldiers from allied countries. If only!
6. "Stay the Course" is only a slogan not a strategy.
Wes Clark quote here.
7. Where is the necessary diplomacy? We need more than tough talk.
Here is Eric Massa (link):
Additionally, as I have said before (link), the basic underpinnings of this Bush strategy are flawed and cannot be executed so long as the neighboring countries do not desire us to succeed. We have to work the diplomacy as well. Successfully dealing with Iran is one of the most important aspects of that regional diplomacy. As Glenn Kessler has noted in today's Washington Post, Iran was willing to talk in 2003 and we turned them down. Using regional diplomacy is a key component of success in Iraq and here the Bush administration has also failed.
Permalink | 6 comments