By now it should be clear to even the most optimistic of us that Bush is going to veto the supplemental war funding bill no matter what occurs between now and when it hits his desk. If the interminable period of horrendous press about Alberto Gonzales hasn't convinced Bush to fire him, absolutely nothing is going to convince him to back off his promised veto of the war funding bill. So we, as a movement and as a party, need to look beyond the immediate debate and start planning for the next stage. Much as an experienced chess player controls the game by looking 6 or 7 moves ahead while his myopic opponent is just worrying about the current move, the Bush Administration and its sounding boards are aiming to control the debate over Iraq in the longer term if not the short term. And that is something we cannot allow them to do.
So the Congress will pass the war funding bill with a timetable, and Bush will veto it. Then what? There's been no shortage of suggestions about what Congress' next move should be, ranging from the intriguing (parceling out funding in short-term increments) to the idiotic (passing a clean bill). But if I'm being honest here, no option I've heard has sounded all that great. None of them has been situated at that nexus where the Right Thing To Do converges with a strong, overwhelmingly popular, politically unassailable language to sell that course of action to Americans and to a skittish congressional rank-and-file. And that is because of one unfortunate fact: as of now, Bush has the language of this debate on his side.
As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, the Bush machine has succeeded in establishing at least one major idea in the Iraq funding debate, and right now they are effectively resting their entire political strategy on it. In my book, that makes it an irresistible target for attack. It is this:
Funding the war is supporting the troops.
That this idea has both permeated the national Iraq debate and is very damaging to any attempt to end the war has long been recognized and lamented by the blogosphere. And yet no serious attempt has been made by the people representing us in this high-profile debate to undermine this concept. Occasionally I hear fatalistic grumbling about how unfortunate it is that Democrats have stood by and allowed this idea to gain currency. "Oh well," I hear them saying, "Too late now."
But the truth is, there is ample time left to change the terms of the debate. Harry Reid laid the groundwork for it a couple days ago, although I doubt, as some argue, that it was intentional. The key is not just to deny the Administration's talking points, but to positively assert exactly the opposite. There is a mile of difference between the two; the former is reactive and weak and allows Bush to control the debate, while the latter is proactive and strong and puts us on more even footing. This in turn allows us to better capitalize on the fact that most of the public is on our side. This strategy should be the fundamental driving concept behind the progressive side of the Iraq debate. Some examples:
Bush machine: Funding the war is supporting the troops.
Our response:
NOT: No it isn't.
BUT: Cutting Bush's funding is supporting the troops.
This is the crux of the debate, and also the area where Democrats have screwed up the worst. Democrats in Congress have effectively conceded the Administration's talking point, which is a dire mistake. Looking ahead, Democrats must portray themselves not as having allowed war funding to pass because they were so anxious to support the troops, but as a point of compromise in exchange for a timetable for withdrawal. This not only backs Democrats away from the "funding equals support" meme, it also portrays Democrats as reasonable people attempting to reach a compromise. It is not too late for them to start saying this. For many Democrats, after all, it is the truth.
Bush machine: We must pursue a strategy for victory in Iraq.
Our response:
NOT: Bush's strategy won't achieve victory in Iraq.
BUT: The war is already over. Bush lost it for us.
On this point, we're doing pretty well. More and more people every day, even including some loyal Republibots, are admitting that the war is over. But it must never be "we lost" or "America lost" or even, as Reid said, "the war is lost"; rather it must always be "Bush lost it for us". This both puts the blame squarely where it belongs, and allows no opening for the other side to accuse us of blaming the troops for losing the war.
Bush machine: The Democrats want to abandon our troops.
Our response:
NOT: The Democrats don't want to abandon our troops. Look, we passed funding!
BUT: Since the war is already over (Bush lost it for us), Bush is abandoning our troops by forcing them to stay in Iraq.
This has yet to gain any real traction in the mainstream debate. But it is important that we continue pushing the idea that Bush wants to let our troops rot in a war zone even though there is no hope of accomplishing anything by having them there (because Bush has already lost the war). Democrats, on the other hand, want to rescue them by bringing them home. This should be part and parcel of the more general meme that Bush doesn't care about the troops, which is well supported by facts (cuts in veteran's benefits, lack of body armor, sending wounded troops back to Iraq), but which could stand to see a lot more exposure in the mainstream media.
Bush machine: Bush has a plan for success in Iraq, and it is the Democrats' responsibility to fund it.
Our response:
NOT: Bush's plan won't succeed. Anyway, they did fund it, but he won't sign it!
BUT: Bush wants us to fund his plan for failure. It's the Democrats' moral responsibility to refuse to fund failure.
I could do this all day, but I think you get the idea. It's a classic exercise in the power of framing. The core concept is to subvert every talking point into its polar opposite so that it becomes a powerful argument in support of our side, rather than simply a denial of their argument. If you're a faithful reader of this blog, the individual talking points above are probably nothing new. What matters is the process behind them.
With the terms of the debate thus reframed, many of the post-veto options that looked perhaps a little imprudent or politically risky start to look not just viable, but positively attractive. It is far easier for Democrats in tough districts to "refuse to fund failure" than it would be for them to "cut funding for the troops". And yes, it would be great if so many of our elected Democrats didn't behave like political neophytes when it came to simple framing tactics like these, but until they catch on, it's up to us to help push the debate where we need it to be for the post-veto phase of this confrontation.
Ultimately we are in a good position in this debate because such a large majority of the country already agrees with us. But that by itself is not enough. People must feel comfortable in that agreement, and that means combating the Administration's attempts to make them feel ashamed of being on our side. We can't stop the Bush machine from continuing to use language that implicitly supports the war, but we can at least even the playing field by convincing the folks on our side not to do the same.