Do You Agree With The Following, Or Is It Totally Off Base?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

I'm not sure. But reading another thread kinda put an impulse thought in my head.... ...That I wonder if I should be thankful Kerry and others didn't come out swinging so fiercely earlier.

I used to regret that stronger evidence/words weren't presented to General America loudly enough during the 2004 campaign, but now am starting to lean the other way. Firstly, without voter verified papor ballots we were probably screwed no matter what. Secondly, back then a lot of the country still wasn't open minded enough to listen in a factual way about damning evidence about the administration (weapons at al-qaqaa, remember that one?)

So I'm thinking maybe if they had come out swinging then, that many ears would've tuned it out, and it would've been spun against us terribly.

But look how far we've come in a year. The American people are overwhelmingly more receptive to hearing about the administration's failures now, cause they've seen them blatantly occur in front of them to such a degree that even the best spin machine can't hide them. I think messages that may have gone in one ear and out the other then, are sinking into the minds of the average american far more often now. Take today's polls for example.

So I ask you DU'rs, where do you stand on this issue? Should they have been louder then? Or is the time perfect now for the messages to start pounding away at the criminal Bushco?

[NanceGreggs]

1. You have an EXCELLENT point ...

As most Dems, I was disappointed with their silence back during the campaign on many issues.

However, had the facts (as we know them now) been reiterated then, it would have been, as you say, 'tuned out' by many who would have put it down to the same old/same old bickering between parties.

The truth (unfortunately) is like a new form of music: All the advertizing in the world can't make it catch on until the public is ready to listen to it closely, and appreciate its worth.

[MichiganVote]

2. Louder and arent't loud enough yet

[punpirate]

3. Only that there's been a price for that silence...

... thousands of unnecessary deaths. The truth isn't improved by waiting to tell it.

Cheers.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. I hear ya, But my point was whether back then it could've prevented that

price to being with, and if doing it now is more effective to be able to prevent the future price of further unnecessary deaths.

But I take it from your post that you think had it have been done back then, that the country would've been receptive and it would've changed the outcomes in Florida and Ohio.

[punpirate]

9. No, my post is just what I said...

... the truth isn't improved by waiting to tell it. Too many people didn't want to know the truth. That's no reason not to provide it. The press and the government cooperated in lies. That doesn't mean that they should have--and especially just because the conventional wisdom said that people wouldn't listen to it. That's never a good reason.

That's part of the reason why the Republicans are now attacking Democrats--because Democrats largely kept their doubts to themselves. If they had not, there would be no moral ambiguity for Republicans to spin later.

So, it was not only bad policy, it was bad politics, as well. There would be no need to talk of an exit strategy today had this evil business been thwarted before it could gain momentum.

Do I know that it would have changed the outcomes in Ohio and Florida? No, of course not. But, it remains a hypothetical for only one reason--those with the public's ear generally acceded to Bush's wishes, instead of challenging the propaganda offered up by his administration. That propaganda (and it can only be called that) should have been challenged, and debunked, if that were possible.

I believe it was Cicero who said, "The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil." Congress could have made a start on the path to that wisdom by acknowledging that they were being hustled and being rushed toward a judgment which has now been proven to be utterly insupportable.

Cheers.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Ok, I agree with you. However,

I really wasn't going back to the IWR in 02, I was talking specifically about campaign 04.

Going back to 01 I wish to hell that not only our Senators spoke the facts more, but also wish to hell I had known about DU then too.

(edit typo of 01 instead of 02)

[punpirate]

12. The IWR wasn't in `01...

... it was in late 2002. And what issue is on the minds of voters these days? The Iraq invasion, its failure and the reasons behind that failure.

Bush largely won, by a very slim margin in 2004, by pandering to people's fears, intimating (and in Cheney's case, saying outright) that Democrats couldn't protect the public. Had the Democrats said, en bloc, politely or otherwise, "put your faith in this man to protect you, and you're going to be sorely disappointed," what then would the effect of ongoing difficulties in Iraq and increased terrorism worldwide have been? The voters might have thought that the Democrats knew something they didn't and might be even more inclined to listen by election day.

My point is that we don't know because few of the leaders would stand up and say just that (even though it was the truth). After the difficulties surrounding hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, the backlash against Bush would have been even more extreme, because people don't like being lied to. Unfortunately, the Democrats didn't tell people the truth at a time when it counted, so the public is now left with sifting the evidence and contradictory statements for themselves.

I suspect that if there had been a concerted, large-scale effort on the part of Democrats to stop this war, or at least to delay the IWR until there were definitive reports from UNMOVIC, the public might have figured out that they, too, were being hustled--and that would have had an impact on the 2004 vote.

Cheers.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Of Course It Wasn't In 01

Thanks for alerting me to the typo.

Though I don't completely agree with your opinion, I do like your passion.

:)

[punpirate]

14. Well, it's not passion...

... it's common sense. In a society led by lies, lies become the norm--they become acceptable. Once that happens, democracy goes belly up. Have a look around you and see if you don't agree.

George Orwell said, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

Worth remembering.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Ok So You're Passionate About What You Consider Common Sense Then LOL

Seriously though, this isn't about condoning lies, or at least my argument completely wasn't. It was just a question as to whether the timing is better now for sake of Productivity or if it would've been better then. I understand your opinion that you feel it would've been better then. I appreciate your position.

[punpirate]

17. Ah, well, get back to me...

... in January, 2008, after we've had four more years of Junior, and tell me how good the timing was--for the sake of "Productivity."

You asked, originally, if your assertion made sense, or not. I'm suggesting not, for some fairly solid reasons, the simplest being that acquiescence to lies is never a good thing. The proof of that is we have Bush for another four years. There was no concerted effort to challenge Bush on the basis of fact on the part of the opposition when it counted, and Bush won.

What might have happened in 2004 if there had been a concerted effort to challenge him? We don't know. But, and it's a big but, we'll never know because it wasn't done. The results, at worst, would have been exactly the same. At best, they might have been different--much different. At least, now, the opposition might have been able to hold their heads high and say we stood for reason and prudence at a time when those qualities were required. But, they can't, because they let themselves be railroaded into an unwise decision about the gravest decision a country can make--the decision to go to war.

Maybe you see some political advantage in that very conscious decision to acquiesce to a bunch of crazy, mad assholes, but I don't. Not fighting the SOBs has given them the opportunity to do even more damage, at home and abroad.

Cheers.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. The Great Thing About Democracy Is The Ability To Hold Different Opinions

And I appreciate yours, regardless of whether I agree or not. As a couple points of note:

You say "fairly solid reasons, the simplest being that acquiescence to lies is never a good thing. The proof of that is we have Bush for another four years", however you go on to contradict that by saying even if they had come out with a concerted effort we don't know if it would've changed the outcome. If that's the case, then it is not proof of why we have * for another four years. Also the first part of the quote, I do agree with though I do not believe that saying the timing may be better now is condoning the acquiescence to lies.

I also am not positive I agree with the notion that had they have made the concerted efforted and failed, that it would still be better off. Part of the reason I posted this thread in the first place is because I wonder if we had, if by now when the public is finally awakening (albeit slowly) the best cases would've already been disposed with and ineffective for re-use.

My last comment would be that I hold the hope in my heart and strength in my fight that it will not be 4 more years of *, and can get back to you before 08. I am here at DU to assist in the fight to win back the House in 06, the Senate in 06, so that the impeachment proceedings and other Real investigations can finally take place.

[begin_within]

4. Kick 'em when they're down. They always kicked us, even when we were up.

[AZBlue]

6. I totally agree.

I've said this before and I think it's worth saying again: I think one fault of the Democrats is that we don't think about time and place. We don't look at this as a marketing issue, when that's all politics boils down to now. With any message, we have to consider timing and the source.

Or else we're shooting ourselves in the foot. Or, actually, we're handing the Republicans a loaded gun and then sticking our foot out to make the aim easier!

[prescole]

7. If there's one skill that dominates in DC

it's the ability to stick a finger in the wind and tell which way it's blowin'.
Maybe the Democrats were being shrewd, maybe they were being cowardly--the results will be the same, I hope...

[OnionPatch]

8. When Bush stole the 2004 election

The only consolation I had at that time was thinking along your line. I believed then, and I believe now that if Kerry had taken office, there would have been a lot of angst turned toward him because of the troubles W started. Bushco wouldn't have had enough rope to hang themselves. Now that they've had full control for a good stretch of time with no one else to blame, the public is finally starting to see what a failure Republican policy really is. It's like we almost had to hit rock bottom. It's sad, but at least now it's all out there in plain sight what they are all about.

[helderheid]

11. I think you make an excellent point and I look forward to what comes next

[Just Me]

16. Personally, I believe such a tactic a HUGE MISTAKE.

I understand that approach, assuming Americans are too protected to handle the raw truth. However, I happen to believe that, if our citizens are resilient enough to be exploited both economically and physically, they are resilient enough to handle honesty about the policies directing the destinies of their families and their country.

Treat the American people like they are capable, strong, intelligent, caring, democratic and resourceful enough to handle the truth,...rather than figuring they can't handle reality or contribute towards a better world. They deserve to be a part of the decisions which impact their lives.

Damnit!!! They are SUPPOSED to be the "rulers", the ultimate decision-makers of their own fate.

It's anti-democracy to hide the truth from "the people".