Challenge: THE question being formulated right now.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

I've just seen the Blair speech and the "press conference." From what I can tell, the repubs. are going to ratchet up the Saddam is an evil man rhetoric (yes, ratchet it up even more). But there will be a new twist, considering all of the events of the last week or so. They are going to march on our turf. They will have a new framework, aimed primarily at senators and congresspersons (look to the pres. candidates especially).

Here's the question (in some form) from repubs.: would you, senator or congressperson, knowing everything we know now about the intelligence process (Niger, Al Qaeda), about everything we have on file that you yourself have seen, about the ease of the war we undertook, about the tough conditions of the establishment of democracy, about the mass graves, about the imprisoned children, would you vote for or against the war in Iraq?

If the dems. don't take this seriously, their answers could hurt them. We know the answers here on this board. We can cite international law, chapter and verse, I'm sure. We can give complicated, thoughtful answers. But the repubs. can answer quite simply (made for TV, radio, USA Today): "Yes, I would vote again for this war. No questions asked. The world, and our citizens, are safer without Saddam."

Here's the challenge: how do you answer? Remember, it's not only the right answer that counts but the convincing answer as well.

[Sliverofhope]

1. Absolute kick

Everyone needs to read this. You have it right on. That's exactly the one question the * gang can use to turn the tables. Okay, peeps... this is gonna be a tricky one, especially for the spineless democrats. Everyone ought to spread the word about this question, because I'm absolutely sure this is gonna be the weapon.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. Here's the answer....

...I leave Moe's tavern, climb into my car shit-ass drunk, and drive away. On the way home I run over a serial rapist, and kill him.


Was it a good idea for me to get behind the wheel?
Am I a good driver? Should I drive drunk again?
Am I making my streets safer?
If I hit any other pedestrians and kill them, is that their fault for living in the same neighborhood as the rapist?
Should other people drive drunk on the off chance they might nail a bad actor, too?

[xray s]

3. I would vote against Bush's war plan

Which has clearly turned out to be a plan that leads to disaster.

I would vote for an international effort to oust Hussein, put him on trial, and ask him what exactly he talked to Rumsfeld about on the day this picture was taken (and how many innocent Iraqi's he killed and imprisoned the day it was taken, Oh...and what did he do with the gold spurs Reagan gave him as a gift)

[Eloriel]

4. My answer

We can't go around justifying an illegal war after the fact with other information. The case for war was NOT made on humanitarian grounds. Americans, and Congress, would likely not have bought that, and I don't buy it now. The rationale for war -- and war right NOW, if you recall -- was that Iraq was a serious and urgent threat to the United States. That was not true. We destroyed a sovereign nation, in defiance of international law, for reasons we now know were lies and hype.

Eloriel

[ewagner]

6. Good

Refine it. Shorten it...something like this?

...and you sir, if we said that we needed to go to war only because Saddam was a ruthless dictator, would you have voted for the war?



......uummmmm....that's not perfect but I'm sure somebody up here can refine it....no ego involvement here...just brainstorming

[Must_B_Free]

5. Already a failure!

If you knew you were being lied to, you WOULD NOT vote for war. NOONE WOULD.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

8. That's one hell of an answer.

This works really well because of all of the questions surrounding intelligence right now. We take back our turf a bit (this is good).

A dereliction of duty? Hmmm, a constitutional angle. Nice. Be complicit in an illegal war? "I couldn't in good conscience, under the oath I take for the U.S. government as a representative of our citizens, vote for this war. The info. was that bad, Tim (or Chris, or Bill, or George). It was that bad."

But is it convincing (maybe if I write the talking points it could be--though don't be surprised if you hear a hint here and there)? Will Americans choose legality over safety? We are a nation based on fear. You can't just take our scapegoat away from us. The safety issue is a tough one. The repubs. will go to the well every time. This is why the Rudd report will be used again and again and why the defection of (Ahhhhhhh, I forget his name--the domestic terrorism guy) to the Kerry campaign will hurt (I think he'll jump over to any campaing if Kerry doesn't win).

I like your answer. I just have to decide if I like it because it's right (which it certainly is) or if it's convincing (which it is to me, but the polling data may not bear this out).

[Capn Sunshine]

14. THAT'S THE ANSWER

Good one.MBF.


another version:
"IF you were lying to us then,why did you choose to put forward a lie at all? If what you assert about Saddam was reason enough after the fact, why wasn't it before?"

[BeFree]

7. I'm glad you asked...

Let's ay for a minute that the cause was just. That going to war is the only solution that was viable.

Then you have to ask, why was junk intelligence and junk politics used to prop up the warmongering? Why, if the cause was just, was all this BS dished out to the people and congress. Why weren't simple FACTS used to build the case?

Then you have to look at the management of the war itself. Why was the US unable to convince the UN to participate? What was it about this invasion that was so different than the first gulf war, that the UN, who played an active roll in that action, firmly decided to stay out of this one? Also, one has to wonder, knowing what we know now, why weren't the top military brass of the US listened to when reccomendations as to troop strength were made?

Then one must ask, why was there no plan for the peace? It seems this White House had no idea what to do once the major hostilities ceased. And they still don't some ten weeks later. Soldiers are still being killed and the economy is in deep trouble. Why, if the cause and mangement of the war is so correct, why are the people of Iraq so against our troops occupying their land?

Knowing what I know now, and with the lingering questions so much on my constituents minds as to the exit strategy from Iraq, I'd most assuredly vote No.

[msanger]

9. if the war was just

Then why wasn't that the case bush made? Why did he need to come up with lies and deception?

turn the question back on them.

[jpgray]

10. Tony's "I sincerely, honestly, truthfully, from the depths of my soul,

from the tips of my little toes, from each individual vertebrae, believe" comments have already worn thin. :)

[sandnsea]

11. Considering there was no imminent threat

and that the intelligence of a threat was manipulated, the lack of a reconstruction plan, the difficulty in winning the peace, and the continuing death of our soldiers, no sir, I would have continued to work within the UN for diplomatic solutions and used a military solution only when I could make an honest case to the international community.

John Kerry can actually say this because it's what he said on the Senate Floor when he gave his vote.

[Spazito]

12. I would vote no because

there was NO threat to the US or the world. It is simple. Pre-emption based on a lie is very dangerous and is not the SOLE perogative of the US once used, not unlike a court case setting a precident.

[arcane1]

13. hmm, they lied about nukes, al Qaeda, alum. tubes, IAEA reports...

how can we trust ANYTHING they tell us about Iraq?


1st thing I would say is let the inspectors stay (remember, BUSH kicked them out!!) and finish their work, let the International community figure out what to do with it... once the "threat to the world" is determined to be bullshit, the urgency dropps away, no?


let the neocons ask their questions to the mothers of the soldiers who died over these lies...

[welshTerrier2]

15. awwwww, that's an easy one ....

i watched a white house press conference for awhile today and even caught an earful of bush (i usually turn off the tv or radio when he's on) jabbering on about Saddam today ...

your question is an easy one to answer ... or perhaps not answer ...

the question reporters posed over and over and over today was: wasn't it wrong to MISLEAD the american people ... and time after time after time the answer came back: this Niger memo was just one small point in a much broader range of information supporting the case for war ... the President's decision to topple Saddam was the right decision ...

but that, and the question you raised, is NOT WHAT IS AT ISSUE ... we can debate the right and wrong of the war all day ... but that is not the issue at hand ... this is nothing but a dodge of THE question ...

THE question is: why did the president knowingly MISLEAD the american people and the Congress? it is not valid to argue that the decision to go to war was based on many factors ... the decision to go to war is NOT THE QUESTION bush must answer ... the question is: why did bush lie to the american people and the congress??

it is not appropriate to allow the ends to justify the means ... it doesn't matter whether bush wants to argue that this was just one little teensy weensy trivial detail ... putting the idea before the american people that Saddam was clearly in possession of materials that could quickly lead to his building of a nuclear weapon is hardly a trivial piece of evidence !! in fact, can anyone think of any piece of evidence that carried more weight with the american people than this one?? the Niger memo was central to bush's case for the war ... and don't get me started with those aluminum tubes ...

so, where does this leave us ??? the answer to your question is that 1. the president lied to the american people and the congress ... the war is NOT the issue ... lying is the issue ...
2. many democrats supported the president's call for war and he betrayed them ...
3. we are seeing the deaths of one or more of our brave young men and women everyday ... what is bush's exit strategy ??? the truth is he doesn't have one ... the truth is he doesn't have a clue ...
4. we are spending more than $4 billion a month during a time of record budget deficits
5. i do not believe we are safer now that we have destabilized Iraq
6. Saddam was a horrible, evil dictator but bush did not meet the long-held standard of "imminent threat" ... especially after the lies he told have come to light ...
7. we have set a lower standard for all nations to go to war ... the bush doctrine of pre-emption will prove to be a curse for generations to come
8. we have weakened the United Nations by ignoring its decision about the Iraq invasion ... the U.N. has many shortcomings as an agency for peace ... doing what we did only made things worse ...
9. the iraqi people do not want us to continue to occupy their country ... we should respect that ...
10. why does bush continue to give out lucrative no-bid contracts to his buddies at halliburton and bechtel?
11. why did bush say we might have to stay in Iraq for up to 2 years and now most of the generals there are saying at least five years ...
12. one general said we are now engaged in a guerilla war ... and yet bush thought it was OK to say "mission accomplished" in his big photo op on the aircraft carrier ...
13. we continue to underfund critically needed security services in local communities ... we are seeing layoffs across the country of police and firemen ... remember how bush stood shoulder to shoulder with these "heroes" in nyc after 9/11 ?? where is he now that the cameras have been turned off ??
14. so, if you're still with me after all this ... the answer to your question is: NO FUCKING WAY !!!

[ParanoidPat]

16. Throw them off balance....

.....answer their question with a question! :)

FRAME THE DEBATE!

Ask them "Where does it all lead?"

then as they stammer and stutter forcefully ask them, "WHEN WILL IT END?"

Before they have a chance to recover, point out we're still stuck in Afghanistan and use the 'Q' word in reference to Iraq!

Angrily remind them that Osama and Saddam are still on the loose and Al Queda is regrouping.

Point out that everything we've done so far has only increased tensions and risks to American interests in the region and there's no end in sight!

Ask them why they don't believe that war is a last resort and why they believe war is the only way!

While they hem and haw their way back to their prepared talking points demand to know,
"what exactly do you have against the due process clause in the Constitution?"

Then sit back and let them try to defend their position! :evilgrin:

[ewagner]

17. Excellent!

That was the point I tried (apparently unsuccessfully) ealrlier.

Don't let conservatives frame the debate with their pitiful "Do you still beat your wife?" questions.

You points are great. Maybe they can be synthesized to very short, succinct bullets.

[kentuck]

18. How can you prove we are safer?

If there were WMDs, where are they now? Are you sure they aren't in your home town? So if the Iraqi people love their freedom so much, why do they keep killing our troops?

[SpiralHawk]

19. They have no standing to ask questions

We will do the questioning. They owe us answers.

Stay out of the hypothetical morass. Stick to the facts. Bush lied, US soldiers died.

[Beetwasher]

20. Bob Graham answered that question yesterday in a nutshell

He said I didn't vote for the war and I still wouldn't. The more immediate danger to the American people is and was Al Quaeda and I would focus our attention on them. The Iraq war took resources away from the hunt for Al Quaeda and as a result, Al Quaeda has rebuilt and is now more dangerous than ever.