Addressing the big lie

[mmonk]

Should the Democratic party gloss over the big lie (that the invasion of Iraq was in response to 9/11) as the DLC democrats want or should the Democrats take a path of truth and expose it? In my opinion, if the country doesn't address it, Democrats will continue to have election day problems.

[indepat]

1. Couldn't agree more

[bryant69]

2. Do you understand what Republicans mean when they say that?

I mean there is clear political advantage in linking the two; and any claim that Iraq had a hand in 9/11 is total nonsense.

But they do have an intellectual framework that connects the two. It's a faulty framework (and I don't know how much they actually believe in it, since they clearly wanted to invade Iraq from the word go), but they do have it.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know that this is a homerun for us. It would depend on what the argument is. If the argument is "President Bush claims that there is a connection between us being attack on September 11th and the invasion of Iraq. He's a liar." I don't think that argument is going to fly.

On the other hand if the argument is "President Bush chose to fight the war on terror, brought on by September 11th by invading Iraq. This was a mistake, a tragic blunder that has cost us thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives." that might work better.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mmonk]

4. I disagree

[Lerkfish]

6. excellent point.

[bigtree]

18. Or, as Blair said a week or so before the London attack

Iraq was a "line in the sand" after 9-11, a show of force to bolster Bush and Blair's weak image after the bombing.

For Prime Minister Tony Blair, the road to Iraq started with 9/11. The British leader said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press that the attacks on U.S. soil fundamentally changed "the balance of risk" in the world, sharing President Bush's view that the tragedy had made a robust show of force an urgent priority.

The attacks, he said, made it necessary to "draw a line in the sand here, and the country to do it with was Iraq because they were in breach of U.N. resolutions going back over many years."

Sitting on a stone terrace overlooking the garden of his Downing Street residence, Blair reflected on how Sept. 11 convinced him of the need for a new approach to the threat of international terror.

"9/11 changed the whole picture for me, it changed the politics of how we dealt with the threat," he said.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BLAIR_INTERVIEW?SITE=APWEB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-06-30-05-40-05

[meegbear]

3. As the DLC democrats want?

Stories?
Links?
Articles?

[mmonk]

5. If you were for it

and still for it, what more could be said? I got their mailings in the run up to the last election.

[meegbear]

7. Then post 'em

I wanna know which members are which.

[mmonk]

9. I threw away

the copies of "Blueprint" that were sent. I joined them back in the Clinton era and quit during recent elections. I now think they keep the party unfocused as they co-opt many of the opposition views. I don't know if their website has any old writings or not. I suspect they are steering a little different course while the investigations are gaining traction concerning the Plame outing.

[mmonk]

8. The DLC consistently attacked

any truth tellers concerning the matter. They joined republicans in ridiculing Dean whenever he spoke the truth about Iraq. This war is really costing us. Isn't it time to come clean?

With investigations ongoing into the fixing of intelligence and all the connections Fitz is trying to unravel, I would think at some time for credibility, it will have to be addressed.

[HereSince1628]

10. Here...this sort of thing contributes to making the DLC seem

to be against the anti-war left which screamed bloody murder about the Big Lies leading up to war.

"We can't let those hearts be closed to us again. First and foremost, we need to bridge the trust gap on national security by spelling out our own offense against terrorism and clearly rejecting our anti-war wing, so that Republicans can no longer portray us as the anti-war party in the war on terrorism. We must leave no doubt that Michael Moore neither represents nor defines our party."

Blueprint Magazine, Dec. 13, 2004

[bejammin075]

14. Then ditch the DLC, fuck 'em

I'm not even a democrat, but I might be if the party truly fought for values, like, being against lies for war.

it seems only a small part of the party has that much integrity and courage. If there were a lot more John Conyers and Barbara Boxers, i'd be proud to register democrat. I used to hope a John McCain would stand up to bush, but that didn't happen. If McCain can take 5 years of solitary confinement, but can't stand up to Bush, then I don't have much hopes for anyone of integrity existing in the current republican party.

If someone lied about war, like Bush did, then there is no political calculation to make. the lie must be exposed. from what I can see of the DLC, it's the Republican wing of the Democratic party, always making the Dems fight with 2 legs and 1 arm tied behind their backs.

[wli]

11. expose everything

Blow the whole thing wide open. 9/11, election fraud, DSM, everything. Drag every Republican in office into court, and send the war criminals and criminals against humanity to be tried in the Hague.

[CWebster]

12. When they don't confront the reality

because of their own political miscalculation or poor judgement--or pandering to corporate and other AIPAC interest group priorities--or just to selfishly protect their own political skin---then there is no one to address the big lie--thereby perpetrating the big lie.

[halobeam]

16. I understand what you are saying.

Our battle is really with the lobbyists, IMO. It's their influence or ours that will win out over what actions our officials take. Unless these officials are TRULY threatened that they will NOT be elected again because they are siding with the lobbyists, then the lobbyists win. It's that simple. Part of this is our fault. Maybe not exactly yours and mine, but the collective public. They are clearly not getting the message that they will not be elected/re-elected if they head down the path that does not represent the people FIRST. The fall of the conservative party is downright helping us, but not addressing the root problem. Again, our fight is with the lobbyists. I would urge the simple message to our party, like a BROKEN RECORD: "Fight on the side of the people FIRST, or YOU WILL NOT HOLD OFFICE."

[KharmaTrain]

13. The Elephant's In The Room...Label The Elephant!!!

When I meet known Repugnicans or wingnuts, I always call this invasion "Bush's War" or "the Repugnican War". That used to piss them off, then they'd shrug, now you'll hear "hey that wasn't my war..."...the lie is out in the open and everyone's ignoring it and hoping this will go away.

For most the sheeple, Iraq is usually outta sight outta mind...they only see it when there's a bad day or when it's used as a political tool (9/11=Iraq=terror=fear=vote for me). Polls are showing that game is starting to wear thin as well...and there's not much left.

The danger is playing up the invasion is that people easily confuse criticism for this regime and their Pentagon lackeys with lack of support for the troops. While Democrats are the ones who stand for increasing help to veterans, but they don't get credit for that. We need to find a way to show that Democrats REALLY care about the TROOPs, we just have no need for their hack bosses and the politicians who are profiting from all of this. Honestly, I still am not sure how you seperate the two...yet. The anti-war movement was successful in doing this, and that's what made the movement far more popular.

Right now, the media is being forced to expose the big lie. Between the DSM, Rove"gate" and the continuing bad situation there, the corporate media is being forced to pay attention to the big lie...they just won't call it as such. It's time we did.

I wish Democrats would stop mincing words. It's time to say we were outright lied to and name the names of those who have and continue to lie. Not "misrepresent", not "miscalculated"...this invasion was based on LIES...and those who knew they were and passed them along...be it politicians or mediatypes...are LIARS!

Cheers...

[mmonk]

15. I must say

I like, "Label the elephant". Well put.

[mmonk]

17. In times like these,

if it's perceived you are playing politics with the middle, you will never gain the middle. The big lie will unravel at some point. By playing to a lie, when it's exposed, you get cynicism and third party candidates that may keep you from getting the prize.

[La Coliniere]

19. Truth is usually the way to go.

Too bad if those Dems who covertly reinforce the "big lie" get burned in the process. The DLC/corporatist influence needs to be diminished anyways if the Dems are to increase grassroots support.