Putting aside the arguments over Kos' tone and phrasing, there is a very important strategic point to be taken from his post earlier today.
In short, Democrats cannot win elections -- and cannot stop the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration -- if they are perceived as "anti-war" in general. Rather, they must make it clear that they are "anti-THIS-war."
Moreover, since consensus is impossible within the party on immediate withdrawal, Dems need to focus on a withdrawal message that puts the onus on Bush to come up with a plan to fix the mess he's created. (As discussed below, Cindy Sheehan's diary entry today recognizes that the focus of the protests should not be on immediate withdrawal.)
Against that background, here are two suggestions for messages that (1) are simple enough for effective protest signs and (2) can be comfortably embraced by almost everyone in the party.
Message 1:
World War II: Necessary
War on Terror: Necessary
Iraq War: Unnecessary Mistake
Message 2:
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
DEMAND A PLAN
With respect to the second message, it's a suggested replacement for the popular "Support the Troops, Bring Them Home" message. Whatever its merits, the simple reality is that the original message does not unite us, and it will not enable us to have the strongest possible protest movement (i.e., one that includes a strong focus on supporting military families, troops, and veterans across the country, and can be embraced by tens of millions).
Cindy Sheehan implicitly recognizes this fact in her post today entitled "My Response to George" :
"She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it," Bush said. "I think immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake," he said. "I think those who advocate immediate withdrawal from not only Iraq but the Middle East are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States."
This is the biggest smokescreen from him yet. I didn't ask him to withdraw the troops, I asked him what Noble Cause did Casey die for.
Cindy's right. The focus should be on the absence of a coherent reason for this war, an absence that was painfully highlighted earlier today by Larry Johnson.
As Johnson explained, Casey Sheehan reportedly died fighting Al Sadr's forces, and now the Bush Administration is installing a government in which Al Sadr will be a major force. What's noble about that?
Which leads to the final suggested protest message:
Our Troops Died Fighting Al Sadr
The New Iraqi Government Embraces Al Sadr
Where's the Noble Cause?