Fineman on Hardball issues Dems a challenge re rationale for war

[LiberalHeart]

Fineman said the GOP has at least presented a rationale for the war in Iraq ("we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here") -- and said whether we agree or disagree with the rationale, at least it's something. He said the Dems have failed to counter that in such an easily accessible statement He has a point.

Anybody have any ideas about how to do counter the GOP about the same number of words they're using, and in language that will be memorable and resonate with the public?

Some stuff that might be considered when coming up with a statement would be what the GOP/Bush statement implies:

1. Iraqi and military lives are not as important as the lives of the rest of us. Nor are Iraqi treasures, buildings, and infrastructure as important as ours -- yet we claim to be fighting the terrorists, not the Iraqi people.

2. "It's better to fight a war where we can't win it rather than where we can."

3. Our borders haven't been secure enough to keep the "evil-doers" away from here (just think what all the dough that's been spent on the war could have done to tighten security here). Hmmm...maybe that's it: "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to tighten security here."

Please feel free to add to the list and contribute potential statements.

[blm]

1. Weapons inspectors and diplomacy first and war ONLY as a LAST RESORT

THAT is what most Dems were saying - Fineman is LYING when he pretends he doesn't know that.

[LiberalHeart]

5. No, this is something different...

He's saying we don't have the verbal nugget that rolls trippingly off the tongue. My words, not his, but it sums up what he was saying. The anti-war crowd comes up with plenty of reasons why the war is wrong, but not the kind of statement that is easily grasped by the masses and accepted as truth even if it falls apart when the "logic" behind it is examined.

BushCo marketed the war with an ad slogan. Dems have not fought it in the same kind of memorable and easily-quoted way. The argument, in the parameters of his challenge, isn't whether the war should be reduced to that -- but that slogans work, and we're still hoping the masses will ponder complicated arguments. I think he's right that it would behoove us to take on the BushCo slogan with a better one of our own.

[blm]

8. I disagree - War should only be used as a last resort

should be the mantra for any American.

That's what the flag Don't Tread on Me signified - We don't strike first but we will strike back.

[LiberalHeart]

14. I don't argue against the sentiment ... just its likely success.

By "success" I mean as a stand-alone statement that stays in the mind. And we're already there.

It has sickened me that Americans rolled over and accepted the notion of preemptive war. It's not the country I grew up in. I'm even old enough to remember when the Supreme Court didn't trump Democracy. Sigh.

[blm]

15. So Ben Franklin's, We don't strike first, but WILL strike back

then doesn't cut it either with the American people?

Listen, it all comes down to repetition - it doesn't matter HOW simple the statement gets, the Dems don't get 1/100 th the opportunity to have their sayings repeated ad nauseum.

And I also don't think the public WANTS jingoism anymore - after Katrina and this Iraq war, they want competence.


Fineman is an asshat if he doesn't believe that. he's just trying to attack Dems for nothing because he has less than nothing to attack them with.

[LiberalHeart]

19. Of course Ben's statement cuts it, but not in this case...

It doesn't apply because we've already struck, and the fact it was striking, not striking back, is too complicated to get across in a memorable statement.

I'm sure if you took a poll of American about whether they want jingoism, the overwhelming majority would say no. But them the overwelming majority would also be able to recite what BushCo says about fighting them over there.

We can't claim we don't have an opportunity to get our message out there. If we were delivering it, it'd get reported. And it'd get quoted. But it's up to our side to SAY it.

I don't think it works to our advantage to dislike Fineman so much, we just dismiss what he says out of hand even when he hits on something that could be instructive for us.

[blm]

21. Except he's operating in a preKatrina world

and as if 68% of the country isn't againt the Iraq war.

Sorry, but this is Fineman spinning Iraq war into a Democrat problem because they don't have a catchy slogan = and that's hooey.

[C_U_L8R]

2. How do you fight complete nonsense ??

"We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" ????

First who is "THEM"? Start unravelling from there. Cripes.
What utter baloney.

[rodeodance]

3. try: "there is NO rationale for this war"

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. I just started a thread along these lines based on something Clark said

"They don't have a strategy that will keep America safe. They have a strategy that will keep America at war and make us less safe,"

That's half of it anyway.

They have a strategy that will keep America at war. We have a strategy that will keep America safe. We respect our allies and welcome their help, we understand the importance of diplomacy and don't think talking with America's adversaries is an act of weakness. We will focus on real homeland security by putting our dollars to work protecting us in America, not bogging us down in protracted wars that make more enemies for America than we can kill.

[LiberalHeart]

7. I like that ... how about this, drawn more or less from Clark's remarks...

"Real homeland security begins here, not over there."

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Yup. Tag it after the part about the Republicans n/t

[LiberalHeart]

12. "more enemies than we can kill" -- brrrrr (n/t)

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. What's chilling is that it's true, Bush is killing our way into...

...facing a million more people willing to die to kill Americans. Brrrrr indeed.

[karynnj]

18. I like this

I would couple it with something (I'm sure Clark has many wordings) referring to fghting the real war on terror.

Fineman is being disengenuous - even in 2004 - Kerry and Clark spoke of homeland secutity being to secure the ports, the chemical plants and various forms of transportation.

[LiberalHeart]

20. Yes, but again that's the argument phase, not the quick slogan.

You can't put all those things into a handful of words the public will remember. It's what you use to support the slogan.

[tulsakatz]

6. there's a simple way to prove that's not true.........

...even if you believe that we're fighting them there so that we won't have to fight them here, there's a clear example that proves it's not a realistic statement.

For instance, the British have been one of our strongest allies in Iraq and yet terrorists attacked them on 7/7 so, clearly, they can do both at the same time.

[LiberalHeart]

10. True, but too complicated for what Fineman meant.

This is good stuff for the argument phase of the discussion of the war. But to summarize the reason(s) we shouldn't be there requires something simple that will be picked up the way the "fighting them there" phrase has been. Something as facile as GOP line. This is contrary to liberal thinking because we all like multi-layered approaches to issues, complete with white-paper style arguments -- and we gravitate toward the complicated, not the simple. In this case that's working to our detriment. We should have been out there from the beginning with something akin to the GOP line so we could shoot it down before it got such a strong and lasting toe-hold.

[Miss Chybil]

11. Well, it won't work to feel sorry for Iraqis. Americans don't care

about anyone but themselves. So, nix that slogan. As for the "rationale," there is none. Cindy Sheehan's, "What Noble Cause?" is pretty tight. The "fight 'em there" line "so we don't have to fight 'em here," is just plain bullshit. There are no Iraqis here trying to fight us. There never were.

I really don't think we need to stoop to neoconic depths to get the people's attention. They're figuring it out quite well by themselves.

[LiberalHeart]

13. We shouldn't be making people figure it out for themselves.

We should be there early and strong with the counter to GOP crapola. That's not stooping to Neocon depths. It's cutting the BS machine off at the knees.

[karynnj]

16. What about:

Redeploy for success, so we can fight the real War on Terror.

[remfan]

22. Ummm...how about

1) Fuck Fineman's challenge.

2) GOP Rationalizes Iraq Invasion and Occupation for the fifth or sixth time in three and a half years.

3) I'd rationalize this war of choice, but I choose not to at this time.

4) Don't run with scissors!

5) Sorry, Howard, but I prefer to keep my rationalizations to myself.

6) Rationale! The new board game that changes the rules with every throw of the dice!

7) Is that a rationalization in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?

8) Into every life a little war rationale must fall.

9) We're killing them over there because we can.

10) Howard Fineman is an idiot.

11) If wishes were fishes and rationales for war were necessary after the fact, the streets would stink of fish.

12) When Howard Fineman challenges you to a duel of competing rationales for war, does a bear shit in the woods?

13) If a tree falls in the forest, is bush still an idiot for invading Iraq?

14) If I had a nickel for every for bush photo-op over the last 6 years, how many nickels would I have?

15) Made In Taiwan.

[BeFree]

23. Alternatively

And sick as hell, but we could say:

One hundred thousand down, 25 million to go.

Thing is most freepturds think every Arabic person is an enemy and do consider turning the whole place into glass. Well, 25 million to go throws it back in their face and puts 'em out there on the fringe so that even neocon granny has to flinch.

[gumby]

24. Howard The Duck has just entered

The Land Of The Unredeemable, along with David Broder.

Today, Broder stood by his statement that Clinton's lie about Monica was far worse than Bush's lies about war.

Now, Fineman equates 655,000++++ dead to a Battle Of The Soundbites???

To quote 'War Games':
"Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

The winning strategy is not to play the game. One answer might be, "How is it possible to demean the needless deaths of 655,000+ people to the terms of a soundbite? That is way beyond any measure of human dignity Howard.

Fuck Fineman.

[ClassWarrior]

25. We have to "guard the gates" at home first.

From Jeffrey Feldman's FrameShop:

http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2006/03/frameshop_the_m.html

NGU.

[sandnsea]

26. Uhm, Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan

:shrug:

Did you just forget??