For the past two weeks Right-Wing Republicans have bashed Democrats who advocate redploying US troops from Iraq. Even though most Americans support redeployment, the Right slandered Democratic redeployment proposals as "surrender," "cut and run," and "retreat" before achieving "victory" in the "war in Iraq."
Surrender? Victory? War in Iraq...?
Today Baghdad was placed under a state of emergency, just as Basra was two weeks ago. How can a government declare a "state of emergency" if they are supposedly in the middle of a "war?"
They can't. The "war" in Iraq is over --we won it in about three weeks-- and we need to reframe the debate on how to redeploy from what is a post-war occupation.
Earlier this week, I
diaried about the futility of Congressional Democrats debating Iraq within the bogus Republican frame that it is an unfinished "war" we have yet to win, as opposed to what it really is: a
post-war occupation.
Underscoring my point, the Iraqi government today placed Bagdad under a state of emergency --something impossible in the middle of a supposed "war." The Republican Right has purposely and relentlessly deceived Americans about the state of Iraq, and Democrats have done little to counter their misinformation.
Here are my humble suggestions for how we must reframe Iraq --in our blog posts, letters, call-ins, and conversation:
1. AHEM! There are no WMDs! -- Obvious? Yes, but nobody is talking about it any more and it has been the most effective critique of the entire invasion. Remember: Bush unilaterally stopped UN weapons inspections to invade Iraq --before we had enought troops, allies or a post-invasion plan-- becasue we had to take away Saddam's alleged WMDs.
There were none, so WTF are we still doing there 3 years later, guarding government minsitries and airport roads?
The Bush-nits absolutely do not want to talk about WMDs. Intead they are trying tochange the subject by claiming we're in Iraq "fighting the terrorists," as in "the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11."
We must not let them get away with this and must remind people that the WMD mission is over and it was a failure. The first thing Dem's should say at the outset of any statement about Iraq is, "President Bush invaded Iraq to get Saddams WMDs, and as we know there were none."
2. We Won the Iraq War Over 2 Years Ago -- we invaded Iraq to get Saddam's WMDs, and achieved total victory over Saddam's military in about three weeks. His regime collapsed, we disbanded his army, killed or captured all of his cohorts, captured the lice-infested dictator in a spider hole, spent billions in reconstruction, and oversaw two elections. Saddam now is on trial.
The Iraq War was onme of the most lopsided military victories in history; anyone who claims we haven't achieved "victory" over Saddam is hallucinating or lying.
We simply must not let the wing-nutz get away with pretending we have not yet won the war in Iraq; it is the basic assumption behind all of their spin.
3. We're Running a Post-War Occupation in Iraq -- everything that has occurred since disbanding Saddam's army and jailing him is part of a post-war occupation.
The Right keeps insisting we don't talk about the good news --elections, rebuilding hospitals and schools, etc. Well, all of these are occupation & reconstruction activities, not warfare; we cannot let them have it both ways.
4. The Invasion and Occupation of Iraq helps the Terrorists -- Don't let the Bush-nits get away with their BS that redploying from the Iraq occupation helps "the terrorists." Terrorist attacks worldwide have increased since the Iraq invasion.
The longer we continue to occupy Iraq, the more we flame internal sectarian conflict and fuel recruitment for the al Qaeda terroists who attacked us on 9/11. We need to redeploy from the Iraq occupation and direct our resources into defeating al Qaeda.
5. Rumsfeld STILL Sucks -- 6 weeks ago, many of our most respected flag officers --including generals who served in Iraq under Rumsfeld-- we're demanding that the incompetent SecDef resign. After Bush insisted "I'm the decider" the Dem's dropped the subject.
Folks, Rumsfeld still sucks. He's still as culpable for the Iraq quagmire as he was 6 weeks ago. We need to remind people that Iraq will not improve unless and until we get credible, competent leadership of the mission, and Donald Rumsfeld is neither credible nor competent --he's a proven failure.
Criticizing the Republicans for offering just "more of the same" in Iraq is a decent counter, but nothing rallies opinion more than a person. And Donald Rumsfeld is the face of failure --highly unpopular, and well-know.
So what do you say, Dem's, Progressives, and all other ptriotic Americans? Let's not cede this all-important debate to dishonest opposition.