The invasion of Iraq was a distraction from the REAL war on terror.

[unschooler]

We need to say that over and over and over. It's the War on Terror, stupid, and democrats can win it because they won't be sidetracked by the rightwing's game of "Risk" in the middle east oilfields.

We're not the party of retreat or "appeasement." We have a winning strategy, and it doesn't involve diverting resources from the REAL War on Terror to fulfill Bill Krystol's pipe dreams.

We need to say that we are relying on our military, our police, and our firefighters to keep America safe, and they can't do that if they're deployed thousands of miles from our shores.

It's not about "McGovernism." It's about winning.

[electron_blue]

1. Trick or Treat! Dress up real scary-like and then run around and grab

all the contracts, er um, I mean candy you can.

[coalition_unwilling]

2. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no "War on Terror." There is

a "War for Empire" that uses Madison Avenue sloganeering (like "War on Terror" branding) to sell its oily wares to naive or unsuspecting consumers.

Iraq and Afghanistan were both battles in the "War for Empire," a war which we are in the process of handily losing if we haven't already lost it.

[unschooler]

6. True, but it's Madison Ave's best. It sells. It needs to be redefined

to distinguish national security from wars that do not make anyone safer.

The rethugs have succeeded based on their ability to frame the debate. This is a debate that we need to frame. We need to turn their own slogan against them.

[FrenchieCat]

7. The op is not referring to what is and what is not....he is

talking about election strategy based on the perception of the electorate.

If you really think that stating "there is no War on Terror" will gain votes for our Dem candidates...in particular those running in districts now held by Republicans (Defeat of the GOP in those areas will be the only way to regain the house.....not what happens in Blue areas already held by Dems)in order to win back the house....you are sadly mistaken.

Read the op again. It is a practical approach based on the facts on the ground...wether they are true or not is not the issue.......but what voters perceive is.

[coalition_unwilling]

9. So you're OK with a War for Empire, just so long as it's called a

"War on Terror"? It's positions like that that turn people like me off to politics and mainstream parties.

[FrenchieCat]

10. NOPE....

And you missed the point.

[unschooler]

11. Oh, please. Nobody here is "for" the Iraq war or any war for any reason

other than legitimate self-defense.

The point is that the slogan (no guns here, ok) can be turned against the republican spinmeisters who are trying to portray the democrats as the party that wants to "cut and run," which, like or not, works well for them.

We need to respond by saying that the "war on terror" is war that s/b fought in the ports and airports and through investigative police work, not in the middle east.

[ovidsen]

3. You're absolutely right

I thought the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson put it quite nicely this morning:

The War Bush Isn't Fighting

When unsmiling agents at the airport take away your contact lens solution, your toothpaste, and your cologne or after-shave, remember Osama bin Laden. Remember the real war on terrorism that the Bush administration and its allies decided not to fight, preferring cowboy-style military adventures.

The revelation yesterday of the elaborate plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean with liquid explosives reminds us of the real threats we face -- as opposed to the phantom threats that George W. Bush and Tony Blair have conjured to justify their disastrous war in Iraq.

Ain't it the truth?

[OregonBlue]

4. Agreed. One simple message, if we had spent the $300 Billion

on Afghanistan and ports security and going after al qa-eda, we would be safer. Iraq, a costly distraction that made us very, very unsafe!

[unschooler]

8. Exactly $300 billion wasted, and a failed security strategy.

How is Rove going to respond to that?

"Uh. Well. Just give us another few hundred billion bucks and we'll have something to show for ourselves."

Nobody is cutting and running. We're just getting started on the real battle that should have been started in 2001.

[OregonBlue]

12. The only response they have left BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID!!

[unschooler]

13. We are. That's why we need new leadership in DC. eom

[OregonBlue]

14. I'm not but then again, I live in a community of 250 in nowheresville.

Not exactly a terrorist target. I have to ask myself every day if I would feel differently if I lived in New York City. On the other hand my 82 year old mother lives in a big city and she thinks it all a crock. She's much more afraid of what she sees happening to our liberties than "terrorists".

[unschooler]

15. I'm not either, but "we" seem to be. At least the repubs are banking

on it.

[OregonBlue]

17. Hope they're in for a surprise. My mom is very quiet and never

discusses politics with anyone outside of the family or takes polls but, I guarantee she will vote for the Dems in November! Hope there are lots more out there like her.

[FrenchieCat]

5. I agree with you.

Those who would NOT think that Democrats have to stand tall and "take it to the GOP" on the issue of National Security with a clear strategy are not into "winning elections".

The masses have been made fearful by the GOP and their media....and ignoring their state of mind (even if it is the wrong state of mind to have) will not win us back the house or the senate. The seats we need to win in order to retake congress happen to lie in those districts in where Republicans are currently holding seats. These are areas where the ignorant Masses of voters buy into the fear the Corporate media peddles.

A Democratic primary is one thing......but the GE will be quite something else. It is the GE we need to win, and we need to make sure that Democrats hit back on the Media's GOP tact to make Democrats appear too weak to lead in "dangerous" times in this country....which is exactly the GOP's approach as we speak (unfortunately despicable, but sadly true).

[IndianaGreen]

16. Let's get away from the failed "Wars" on "terror" and "drugs"

If there is any lesson that should be firmly planted in our minds is that the use of the military for criminal activities involving narcotics and terrorism is counterproductive and leads to war crimes, human rights abuses, and a huge and expensive military.

You want to do something about the war on drugs, start with the supply side of the equation. Begin that treating drug addiction as a disease not a crime.

You want to do something about the war on terror, change a foreign policy that creates the conditions that give rise to terrorism. The US military, and the IDF, have done more to create terrorists than Al-Qaeda, Hamas, or Hezbollah combined.