It is important for progressives and Democratic candidates this fall, and in future elections, to understand how to deal with the debate narrative of elections that in the end decided the 2002 and 2004 elections and will again this fall. The media while trying to play "the referee" who gives credence to both sides, no matter how illegitmate the claims of Republicans. The illigetimacies are not always self-evident to voters, not the fault of anyone really. We can argue about the role of media, but in these controversial campaign times, journalists appear to merely be referees with only one rule- give both sides equal time, making both Democrats and Republicans fighting for the public's view of the truth.
Bush has started yet another debate offensive on Iraq and seeks to shore up just enough support this Midterm Election to maintain some sort of Congressional majority for th last two years of his term. It is obvious the strategy he is choosing for this debate.
It really is not a suprise of the grounds of which Bush has chosen his argument of staying Iraq without any defined means of strategically positioning our troops and resources. It is not enough to challenge the words of which Bush uses such as comparing the War on Terror to WWII and fighting communism. The crucial part of his whole argument for his policy in Iraq is centered on the outcome, bottom-line end: Withdrawal- the "only alternative of my opponents" has a much worse outcome for America in the War on Terror then my "Victory is certain but we have no idea of how to achieve it" (or as a smart Dem counter argument would "let's slowly bleed America to death policy", which is the terrorist's ideal policy).
Here is Bush's Speech in a nutshell:
The struggle for freedom is ages old and must be won and the abandonment of the engagement in Iraq would have catastrophic consequences for America and the freedom-loving societies of the world.
Here is where the Dems and thier debate narrative is always undermined. We offer no idea or vision of what will happen if we, as critics of Bush's policies, win the Congress. Hell I don't even know what the plan is on that. That is why the lax media still makes the assumption Dems are divided. Really Republicans are, and will start showing divisions if Dems push their ideas on furthering the War on Terror and forcing Bush to start defining victory and . But the split on Iraq for Reps will not appear naturally as facts come in. Dem leaders will should embrace Jack Murtha's plan of strategic deployment to move our troops from Iraq, and redeploy to ready for any other confrontations. Our troops out of the line of fire can do better monitoring Al-Qaeda and work with the Iraqis to attack any developing or established terrorist strongholds.
This is not to mention the national security strategy of the Dems must be predicated on letting the president fight the war on terror but forcing him to fight under the constitution. Otherwise, our Republicans believe that our Constitution is a useless document that hinders our society and its ability to protect itself.
Bush's assumption that The terrorists following us here must be challenged as we saw in Britain that terrorists can come from anywhere in the world. They are not all in Iraq.
We've had much practice arguing with Bush's claims on Iraq and we should be prepared. It is becoming clear that voters, what they want to know, can we leave Iraq withoout creating a much worse outcome in the Middle East than if we stay and let the wounds from the war in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq fester and become fatal for the whole region or do we leave Iraq to its leaders and work with them to fight its enemies and work with regional allies to confront enemies like Iran and Syria through tough diplomacy and negotiations?
Dem Bottom line outcome: The bleeding of the American Army, in troops, resources and morale, will slowly kill our ability to achieve what Bush claims he wants, a democratic and peaceful Middle East. It is obvious Bush wants that outcome through war, when it can be achieved through intelligence and strength, as was during the Cold War.