How Not To Deal With Bush's Veto? And Bad Headlines?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:59:46 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update [2007-5-3 11:45:52 by Big Tent Democrat]: MYDD is dismayed by this headline - Democrats Back Down On Iraq Timetable Compromise. No offense but when MYDD was cheering for this House Supplemental did it NOT know this headline was inevitable? The funny thing is the Dems backed down on binding timelines in the bill they sent to Bush. The one he vetoed. The Media is so bad they think the Dems are backing down now. Hilarious.

What do the American People think about Iraq? Do they have deep complex thoughts on partition and counterinsurgency tactics and blowback? Or do they just know that what they have been told would happen did not happen? That we have been there for more than 4 years and with no progress in sight? Do they know, in short, that the Debacle is lost? How do you argue the issue of Iraq now? Cliff Schecter and Sean-Paul Kelly endorse this approach from the Nelson Report:

On a related note, when will ANY prominent Democrat start using effective propaganda vs. Bush's Iraq War policies? Whimpering like Sen. Reid is so politically weak. Every supporter of the war should be grilled again and again with variants of the same question: ‘When are we going to stop arming and training more terrorists?’ We armed and trained Al Qaeda before they turned on us. We armed and trained Hezbollah when they were still a Shiite brigade of the Lebanese army.

There are a few problems with this one. The most important is that the Democrats have already won the argument on Iraq. The American People want out. There is no problem with Harry Reid's argument. The issue now is how to end the Debacle. I am for NOT funding on a date certain. Certain folks want to "ratchet up the pressure," whatever that is supposed to mean. To think the problem is Democratic rhetoric is to have swallowed the Beltway line whole. Surprising to see bloggers do that.

And there is another problem, Americans do not know Hezobollah from Shia from Sunni. Those of us engaged in the debate know it and I can tell you anyone who does know what Hezbollah is has already made up their mind on this. The oridnary American knows no more than the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee:

Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), who was Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi's second choice to head the sensitive and vital committee, did not know what Hezbollah was and incorrectly described Al-Qaeda as being Shiite rather than Sunni.
Rep. Reyes appeared disoriented when a reporter asked him basic questions about the Islamic groups that are the principal targets of America's intelligence agencies, including Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and others.

"Al-Qa'eda is what – Sunni or Shia?" Jeff Stein, the Congressional Quarterly magazine's national security editor, asked Mr Reyes. "Al-Qaeda, they have both," replied Reyes.

"You're talking about predominately?" Predominantly – probably Shiite," said the puzzled Democrat from Texas.

As Mr. Stein noted in his CQ column, "He couldn't have been more wrong. Al-Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an Al-Qaeda club house, they'd slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball."
He also asked Reyes about the terrorist group Hezbollah. "Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah..." he said, laughing. "Why do you ask me these questions at five o'clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?"

"Do you want another Hezbollah?" is not going to be the rallying cry on Iraq.

< Greenwald Skins Politico | New York to Introduce Wrongful Conviction Legislation Today >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

How Not To Deal With Bush's Veto? And Bad Headlines? | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

To Paraphrase Rumsfeld: (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by andgarden on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:33:14 AM EST

We end the debacle with the American public we have, not the one we wish we did.

It is sad (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by squeaky on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:46:38 AM EST

How ignorant we are about the people we are killing, torturing and jailing. Hezbolla should not even be on the terror list at this point. But I agree with you that details like that would only confuse the issue and be a total waste of energy.

The general truth is, if we ever were really knowledgeable about our enemies, we would not have enemies. Stereotyping has its function, it is like packaged meat v actually knowing the animal you are eating.

It all goes down a lot smoother with a big dose of ignorance.

Al Qaida (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by squeaky on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:41:35 AM EST

Juan Cole makes a good point today regarding the ignorance factor. Apart from trying to sort out all the sects it is important to point out that the insurgency in Iraq is homegrown, and nationalistic in nature. Al Qaida has almost zero influence there.

But one thing I advise candidates in both parties to do is start recognizing that what the US military calls the Iraqi insurgency is primarily Iraqi nationalists, not al-Qaeda.
The US military and politicians made a key mistake when they saw the North Vietnamese Communists of Ho Chi Minh as primarily Communists, when in fact they were Vietnamese nationalists. It was the nationalist component that proved so attractive to many of their collaborators in the south. After the North Vietnamese Communists took over they almost immediately had a firefight with Communist China. It would be tragic if the US makes another such error in Iraq. Bush and Cheney speak as though the enemy there is a terrorist international, a stateless al-Qaeda dedicated to establishing an Islamic superstate and bringing down the United States. That is 99.99 % wrong. Almost all those fighting in Iraq are Iraqi nationalists. Just as Communist Vietnam posed no real threat to the US and was of little use to other Communist states as an ally, so a post-US Iraq would be a country of Iraqi nationalists (with, admittedly, ethno-religious subnationalisms playing either a decisive or an important role).

Juan Cole


I don't think it's ignorance (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Warren Terrer on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:50:19 AM EST

It's intentional. In order to fit the Bush narrative that the US occupation of Iraq is welcomed by the Iraqi people and the war there is really about fighting terrorism, the Bush admin deliberately sticks to the lie that the insurgents in Iraq are foreign Al Qaeda members.

However, you could be right in that people who accept this narrative do so out of ignorance.


: The American People do not care (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 03, 2007 at 12:09:24 PM EST

about narratives and all that. They want out.
I will say that the obvious retort to the Al Qaida in Iraq business is to ask where is bin Laden and why are we not trying to catch him?

See this yet? (none / 0) (#1)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:15:29 AM EST

This probably also comes under the heading "How Not To Deal With Bush's Veto":

President Bush and congressional leaders began negotiating a second war funding bill yesterday, with Democrats offering the first major concession: an agreement to drop their demand for a timeline to bring troops home from Iraq.

Further down, Speaker Pelosi says:

We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together.

I think the vetoed bill sucked (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:32:31 AM EST

so I see no significance at all to this new kabuki.

Setting a date certain for NOT funding the war is really the only meaningful isssue now.


: That WAPO article also goes on with (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:03:33 AM EST

Democratic leaders have resigned themselves to losing many of the liberals they worked hard to bring on board the first bill. Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.), a leading Senate war opponent who helped to build Democratic consensus in the first round, said he will vote against the second version unless it includes "a binding approach to ending the war." Feingold is seeking a vote on legislation he co-sponsored with Reid to cut off war funding on March 31, 2008. But he added: "I'm willing to listen to other ideas."

Re: Pelosi's statement that (none / 0) (#5)
by Edger on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:51:10 AM EST

I have yet to see any indication from her that her "clear position" is that it is a position of strength that she intends to use to end the occupation.

Reid has been clear, but so far I have little confidence in Pelosi to do anything other than try to pull the wool over peoples eyes while she remains complicit with Bush.

She need to be pushed, hard, by public opinion. Educated public opinion.

It's interesting to note that on Tuesday May 01 U.S. Labor Against The War sent and open letter (.pdf) to the Members of the Out-of-Iraq Congressional Caucus asking the question "Why is there an oil privatization provision in the Supplemental Funding Bill and H.R. 508?", and explaining further that:

To find the answer to these questions, one needs to examine the actual hydro-carbon law under consideration by the Iraqi parliament, and understand the genesis of that law.
...
That law, if adopted as proposed, will enable foreign corporations to secure control over 2/3 of Iraq's oil reserves for 30 years or more, during which time the lion's share (as much as 87.5 percent) of profits will go to those corporations. Thus H.R. 1591's laudible call for equitable sharing will effectively apply only to that portion of the revenues (12.5 percent) generated by tapping Iraq's vast reserves paid by foreign oil corporations in royalties to the government of Iraq after they take their generous cut.

Again, a complete lack of IMAGINATION... (none / 0) (#7)
by Dadler on Thu May 03, 2007 at 11:17:28 AM EST

...proves to be the Democrats biggest failing. As uncreative a lot you will never find.