Democrats on Cue: "We Were Misled about Iraq."
The apparent foreign policy talking points of the Democratic Party: (reposted from August)
Who needs principles when you've got polling?
Who needs principles when you've got polling?
- Support the war and make compelling cases for use of force provided it’s popular.
- Articulating threats is risky politically. Responding to realized threats is not.
- Support military conflict provided it's winnable quickly.
- Rush to defend any peoples in danger provided Europe agrees and domestic elections are not within one year.
- Rush to defend any strategic US interests provided Europe agrees and domestic elections are not within one year.
- Use caring, empathetic language for those oppressed or killed behind iron curtains. This placebo approach can be couched in soaring rhetoric to persuade others of sincerity and earnest intents - very safe politically.
- The UN is the perfect forum for the above. Voting and debate on suffering plays well in US and world media.
- Remain keenly aware that Americans do not care about suffering they do not see (i.e. pre-invasion Iraq).
- Americans care a great deal about suffering they do see on TV (i.e. post-invasion Iraq) and will hold US forces as responsible for violence they perceive as new.
- Express vague, lofty concerns throughout beginning of conflict – politically safe and does not preclude you from claiming victory as your own or failure as someone else’s.
- Stand proudly behind any quick victory pointing to original support.
- Distance yourself from any sudden failures pointing to your original concerns.
- Protracted battle requiring sacrifice of blood or political capital is not advised - better to suffer a short, sharp defeat and exit theatre quickly.
- Short battle failures can be dismissed as the failure of subordinates.
- Most short battle failures will be forgotten as quickly as the next scandal or missing teen story.
- Short battle failures may even be termed successes should original objective have not been clarified in detail.
- Do not run the risk of articulating a vision. Vision may run afoul of changing public opinion and is considered retrograde by media.
- Conversely, as public support wanes, refer to the pre-war status quo as peaceful and not a threat.
- Do not address specific pre-war threats to Iraqi citizens, Americans, regional neighbors, or Israel. We do not believe public is informed enough to sustain attention on these topics.
- The moment Europe or the electorate begins to fatigue on realities of armed conflict; distance yourself from our original support reiterating how you were misled.
- If a clear scapegoat is available, place blame quickly. Use polling data to ascertain “jumping off point” and begin citing lies disseminated by your political opponents to start an unjust war.
- When questioned about original support for conflict, explain original support as naïve trust.
- At every opportunity, decry abuses of your trust and the American People’s trust.
- At every opportunity, decry missed opportunities to build non-existent coalitions.
- As opinion polls dip below 50%, deploy base to advocate retreat and silence any supporters of war effort.
- If immediate retreat is not feasible, demand artificial timelines, politically motivated timetables, and withdraw based upon non-tactical considerations.
- Refer to enemy prisoners of war as "detainees." This frames their capture as a law enforcement matter and suggests entitlement to attorneys and protections of US courts.
- Should situation continue to deteriorate, claim moral high ground by being first to demand an end to unjust war.
- Should situation improve, silence retreat advocates. Claim credit for good news items citing your original support.
- Qualify success or failure daily based upon media reported body counts.
- Be advised that major media will report primarily on the operational efficiency of the enemy (car bombings, suicide attacks, kidnappings, beheadings, etc…) and their death tolls.
- Media will not report on successful American raids, attacks prevented, diplomatic successes, “hearts and minds” activities, school openings, hospitals opening, infrastructure improvements, etc… Reporting American activities in positive light may jeopardize objective observer status.
- Use restraint when voicing support for American forces or reciting good news items seen online or in alternative media sources. This will be perceived by many in our base as cheerleading and is dangerous politically – not advised within one year of election.
posted by BohemianLikeYOU at 11/08/2005 06:13:00 AM
4 Comments:
Other liars/fabricators/spin meisters:
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.
I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.
Second, the criminal facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.
I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you think we'll still be fighting in Iraq six months from now?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, goodness, you know, I've never -- we've never had a timetable. We've always said it could be days, weeks, or months and we don't know. And I don't think you need a timetable. What you really need to know is it's going to end and it's going to end with the Iraqi people liberated and that regime will be gone.
So, Saddamm was not threat?
A threat to his neighbors, sure, one day. He wasn't at the time. Even Condy Rice thought so (of course that is pre-911 as you would say).
Frankly, I wish we could magically free North Korea, imagine the horror we will find there.
I agree. But, was Hussein a threat? If not, shoud he still be in power?
Post a Comment
<< Home