You cannot honestly frame the debate, and the Neocons don't, then you must become expert at re-framing the debate in an honest manner that makes sense. And the Dems don't (can't). So you keep on having these false discussions such as Saddam planning 9/11, and how defunding this occupation of Iraq will leave our troops high and dry.

The Democrats need to recognize what's going on here and get lots better at countering it, because it won't stop. It will only get worse and that's because it works so well. Most Americans any more don't have the brain power to figure out the difference between what is being said and what is the truth. Hence the Clean Air Act, enhanced interrogation, unitary executive and on and on.

I think Senator Webb had it right back in April when the supplemental containing provisions for withdrawal timelines were passed and sent to the President for his veto... if I recall his words accurately he said "We've sent the President a check for the necessary amount and if he chooses not to cash it, it's up to him to say why."

Likewise, he's said "the war was won four years ago... the question now is how long the occupation will continue."

Everyone would have been a lot better off if the controversy had remained framed in these terms.

rational process. Gun control is not a rational process even though some gun owners lock up their guns so that their own children cannot use them, they oppose requiring child proof trigger guards. The other side make the irrational claim that there is no legitimate reason for anyone to own a gun. I do not think either side will shift their position because of a sudden onset of rational behavior.

It appears that about 30% of those polled think they are required to support the president no matter what he does. The people who wrote the constitution were afraid of tyranny and instability and set up barriers to tyranny that are in the process of being bypassed and it is irrational to stand silently by and let that happen (the cost of speaking out is to be called a traitor).

I'm not a big fan of the "framing" meme, but Democrats really have to learn how to take command of the public debate.

What they should have done was to rename and rewrite the appropriations bill (with the dollar amounts about the same, with strategic additions for body armor, etc.) under the name "Bring the Troops Home Safe Appropriations Bill of 2007" (and with the appropriate details in the body of the text).

Then when the bill is vetoed they'd have to hammer away at the "We passed a bill for the troops and Bush vetoed it" idea. Everybody saying it over and over again one after another.

Given the wretched media we have, we couldn't be sure that the message would get through. But that's what should have been tried.

GG:

But they ran away from de-funding because Americans did not, and they were too afraid of getting "hammered" to even bother to make the case.

The Democrats in Congress certainly understand the true meaning of "de-funding" and it's depressingly sad that they don't believe they can overcome the RW noise machine and educate their constituents-- or trust that their constituents already do understand, despite Faux News' blathering. In the case of my representative, it appears her constituents educated Jane Harman, a small bright spot in this whole dismal affair.

But when it came to actually vote on a blank check, Webb voted for it, saying that:

. On the one hand, I find myself unable to vote against a measure that is necessary to fund our troops who are now in harm's way. On the other, I will not relent from my continuing efforts to bring this occupation to an end.

So he bought into the frame as well. This is from someone at zero electoral risk. Regardless of how this all plays out, by 2010, this vote will be unimportant. So, in some sense, he actually believed this. He actually believed that the president's refusal to sign legislation that provided any oversight meant that, I don't know, what Glenn said, soldiers would run out of ammo, and be under fire because the Congress wouldn't sign a blank check.

In the Doonesbury strip for May 7, 2007, Trudeau pointed out just how ridiculous the defunding argument is, and even showed the complicity of the press in making the argument:

http://www.arcamax.com/doonesbury/s-189725-212008

However, if one missed that Monday strip, the strips for the rest of the week probably reinforced the argument because they are stand-alone vignettes taking the satire even further. See, for example, the one from Wednesday, May 9:

http://www.arcamax.com/doonesbury/s-189727-652224

I think Trudeau overestimated the intelligence of the public on this issue, and played right into the hands of the Republicans. I'm guessing that the Wednesday strip, viewed by itself, probably made it onto more than a few refrigerator and office doors belonging to people still living in Bush's fantasy world. Sadly, even first-rate satire simply bounces off the huge wall erected around these lies. Sigh...

Damned Americans, you'd think they would have chucked national pride by now. But no, their stubborn refusal to capitulate is causing all sorts of problems for the rest of us. Drat.

You are so right about the myth driving the Iraq debate and the Dems just agree with Republican talking points that make no sense. What Dems need is someone who can come right back and nip these myths in the bud before they get to be conventional wisdom with the public. We just let the media report these distortions and no one corrects them on it. The Dems should have a spokesperson who is there to take on these lies and go head to head with anyone on the other side and let the truth be known. As it is now if the public only hears one side of the argument their going to believe only the side they hear.