Letters to the Editor
Dana Runs
Published Letters: 161 Editor's Choice: 15
-
It's the wrong way to frame the issue.
[Read the article: Dem candidates weigh in on "Mission Accomplished"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Democrats are having too much fun bashing Bush with this to realize that they are approaching it wrong. Dems should all agree that Bush was right, and that the war ended on that fateful day. Ever since then, Dems should say, we have been engaged not in war, but in an OCCUPATION OF IRAQ.
Why?
Well, first of all, it's true. We toppled the Iraqi government. We chased Saddam away and ultimately found him hiding in a hole. We marched into his palaces and took over the operation of the entire country. We dismantled the army, and haven't fought an army since. We took control of the infrastructure, and rooted out all the weapons that the former enemy had. That's called winning the war.
Holding it is called an occupation. And that's what we've been doing for the last five years. The fact that people have been fighting and dying is a function of an occupation. People lose lives and find resistance in occupations all the time. That's why you have to occupy them, because if you didn't, you'd lose it. So, we have been occupying Iraq for five years, not engaging in a war.
Now, here's the key: Americans can support a war where lives are lost. They will not support an occupation. Calling this a "war" plays right into Bush's hands; it gives him extra strength and power. If no Democrat ever uttered the word "war" again, and instead used only the term "occupation," we would be able to frame the issue the way it needs to be framed: as an ongoing occupation, not a war that can be "won."
The American people won't stand for the occupation. And it makes it easier to understand. Why do you think that Bush Co. has never been able to define what a "win" of this war is? Because it's not a war, it's an occupation. You can win a war, you can't win an occupation. And that's why they can't define one.
Americans are allergic to occupations. America doesn't occupy other sovereign nations, especially when it costs American lives and there is no way to "win" it. They will then realize that it has no end unless they demand it. And of course, the way to demand it is to elect the Democratic candidates for president, representative and senator. Not McCain, and not the other Republicans. Americans will know this.
Bush was right five years ago: The war ended on that "Mission Accomplished" day. Ever since, we've been engaged in an occupation of a sovereign nation. An occupation we can never "win," and which will continue to cost American lives and foment unrest in the region until the day we do the right thing and leave.
It's an occupation, not a war. The war is over.
-
Bad idea
[Read the article: McCain wants joint town halls, Obama receptive to idea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One or two joint town halls might be okay, but McCain is proposing this only so he can appear of equal stature to Obama, where now he appears tiny and weak in comparison.
Plus, you have to suspect that the Republicans will find a way to seed the audience and questions, no matter how hard people try to make it fair. Republicans, for all their allusions to Reagan, still practice the politics of Nixon.
-
It's all about managing expectations
[Read the article: McCain wants joint town halls, Obama receptive to idea]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This would be a disaster for Obama. McCain and the media would portray Obama as a skillful and inspiring orator, and would set the bar very high for him. McCain would be cast as the "everyman" underdog who is no match for his slick and polished opponent. Thus the stage would be set for McCain's "victory." By merely breathing in and out throughout the entire town hall debate, he will be declared to have exceeded expectations and "won" the debate.
Bah. Stay away, I say.
-
So far, the posters are missing it.
[Read the article: Rezko rains on Obama's parade]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay, try to imagine this: You are hired by the Republican primary (or some related 527) and paid a million dollars to come up with a campaign ad that links Obama and Rezko in the most incriminating fashion. Truth is not an issue. It just has to seem terrible and affect millions of people who don't pay all that much attention to the facts, anyway.
What do you see happening?