Hah, GOP wants an Iraq debate? Bring it on, wingnuts!

Now we're being told that GOP aims to blunt Democrats' stance on Iraq  - with this statement worded in this way in the GOP endorsing Moonie paper, the Washington Times.

I've got to hand it to the Republicans; they may be going off the cliff, but they're going off the cliff together, doing so with full confidence, all holding hands, and sounding out the same marching chants, assuming that when they fall, they'll land on a nice, big, soft matress.

I, on the other hand, am waiting for them - with a smile on my face - to go "Splat!"

So, here is what they have planned, in a Rovian style orchestration lead by the baton twirling McCain (McBush)

A Republican leadership strategy memo calls for an all-out attack on Democrats' "misinformation" campaign against the Iraq war as both parties refocus on the issue ahead of next week's update from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ryan C. Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

The memo instructs Capitol Hill Republicans to court conservative bloggers on conference calls and talk-radio hosts — including by holding a nationwide "radio row" on April 9 — to fend off Democrats' desire to "ignore reality and insist on immediate retreat."

Reality??? Try fantasy and projection! The truth is that there aren't very many Democrats (at least not in office) calling for "immediate retreat." Instead, they are calling for a phased withdrawl, i.e., a meaningful, measurable timetable for an exit from this quagmire, which is what  a majority of Americans clearly support.

The article goes on to refer to the use of surrogate groups, such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion, and mentions more lies, including by John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, who is addressing the American Legion today, and who is quoted, without irony, by the moonie paper as saying:

"Instead of talking about surrender, we should be putting our energy into making sure these men and women return home to the loving arms of the nation they left — and making certain all our veterans feel the enduring gratitude of those they fought to protect," he says in his statement.

"This is why the Republican budget for the coming fiscal year provided $49.2 billion for veterans' health care in fiscal year 2009 — $1 billion more than the Democratic budget."

Notice the language used - the word "surrender." This becomes one of their buzzwords to try to use against us, and against the Obama campaign, in the months ahead, even though our candidate can easily turn around, as he has been doing, and clearly explain that it was Bush who surrendered in the effort to go after Osama Bin Laden (or as some call him, Osama Been Forgotten) and to bring him to trial to face charges for 9-11. And as far as claiming to add the 1 billion for veterans' health care, this, of course, is a Democratic initiative that the liars on the other side are now taking credit for.

But back to Iraq, if these deluded chickenhawks think that we are on the "path to victory," when we are clearly not, and they want to attack us and our candidates on this message, I say, to quote one of their own: BRING IT ON!

Incidentally, in the CBS poll which I cited, even Republican voters think that the war is going poorly.

HOW IS THE WAR GOING?

Total
Well
25%
Badly
74%

Republicans
Well
49%
Badly
50%

Democrats
Well
8%
Badly
91%

Independents
Well
22%
Badly
76%

•  Bring it on, chickenhawks!

  And let the fight be somewhat bloody!

  by Randian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:40:58 AM PDT

  •  They want to party like it's 1972.

    Wrong year.
    Wrong decade.
    Wrong century.
    Wrong millenium.

    by Kimball Cross on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:47:40 AM PDT

•  Problem is

  our lovely corporate media will breathlessly repeat all the rethugs talking points as fact. Remember, they want McCain to win.

  Enough Americans have finally seen the light about this war that hopefully this tactic won't work, but always remember that republicans play dirty, and the media for the most part will give them a free ride.

  by bluestatesam on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:05:01 AM PDT

  •  We need to actively counter them

    You're right, of course, so the burden is on all of us, amnd on our leadership to do all that it can to blunt their message. I believe that this can be done, and done effectively. I think Barack is the man to be able to do this.

    by Randian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:11:27 AM PDT

•  Talk about "Leading with your chin"

  by CTMET on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:08:11 AM PDT

•  GOP doesn't think we are wasting enough there

  by LRT on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:13:16 AM PDT

•  Munchkins - Radical Right Radio talkers

  have orchestrated hundreds, if not thousands of reductionist republican messages over the last 20 years.

  We need to further marginalize these people, and they ARE marginal.

  How do we do it?  We make the so-called legitimate news outlets (MSM) aware that we won't accept their allowing the two-word reductinonist wordplay to be mainstreamed by them.

  How?  Letters to editors with counts of the number of times talking points are being repeated on their air and newspapers.  I'd start with Meet the Press, This Week with Stephanopolis, Face the Nation, Newsweek, et al, and your local newspapers.

  If they are doing bad journalism by not challenging talking points when they are being blatantly used on thier air, they need to be asked why.  If in their monologues, they are simply parroting talking points, they need to be asked why, and the world needs to be make aware that someone is watching and holding these lazy journalists to account.

  Attacking the jump to the broader media has to be a part of any bring it on challenge.

  by Ohiodem1 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:16:38 AM PDT

  •  Excellent suggestions!

    Its a matter of us doing these things rather than sitting backing and bemoaning how unfair and dirty the other side is.

    by Randian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:19:31 AM PDT

    •  Munchkin - Bill Krystol is EDDIE HASKELL

      A sniveling, manipulative twit that thinks no one can see through his sneering arrogance, with no substance.

      I'm going to do Rush Limbaugh next.

      by Ohiodem1 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:30:55 AM PDT

      •  Munchkin - Rush Limbaugh is PHINEAS T. BLUSTER

        or the Pillsbury Doughboy.  I like Phineas T. Bluster better.

        Does anyone else have any thoughts?

        Someone please do Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reily, Glenn Beck, Shawn Hannity and others.  This is fun!

        by Ohiodem1 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:34:26 AM PDT

        •  Or maybe THE PUFFERFISH

          who reeks of cigar smoke and poisons if he pricks you.

          by Ohiodem1 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:53:21 AM PDT

•  I fully expect Bush to come out and tell

  the American People that we need that oil. But only if he has to, to win. He will put fear into every person, that their cars will sit in their yards, while someone else gets the oil.

  by Owllwoman on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:18:28 AM PDT

  •  When we said No Blood For Oil! in protest

    Bush and Cheney's oily motives were being underscored. We need to reiterate that, and remind the parents of dead and wounded vets that their kids sacrified themselves for this reason.

    by Randian on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:22:53 AM PDT

•  Hah, sounds like they hope for MoveOn Part II

  General Petraeus comes to town so he can lie to Congress.  Yes, by all means, bring it on.  It's already apparent to the American people that the surge has failed.

  by noofsh on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:25:37 AM PDT

•  If the Dems stay in dry powder mode...

  Then I will no longer doubt that the fix is in.
  This is their shining chance to totally humiliate bushco, and their evil henchmen like boehner.
  Bring it on indeed.

  by manwithnoname on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:32:24 AM PDT

•  Rosen: Rolling Stone: The Myth of the Surge

  http://www.rollingstone.com/...

  by 1Eco on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:36:49 AM PDT