Reclaim the Issues - "Occupation, Not War"

[im10ashus]

by Thom Hartmann

Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase "War in Iraq" they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames.
There is no longer a war against Iraq.

It ended in May of 2003, when George W. Bush stood below a "Mission Accomplished" sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and correctly declared that we had "victoriously" defeated the Iraqi army and overthrown their government.

Our military machine is tremendously good at fighting wars - blowing up infrastructure, killing opposing armies, and toppling governments. We did that successfully in Iraq, in a matter of a few weeks. We destroyed their army, wiped out their air defenses, devastated their Republican Guard, seized their capitol, arrested their leaders, and took control of their government. We won the war. It's over.

What we have now is an occupation of Iraq.

cont'd...

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0619-22.htm

[OregonBlue]

1. Yes, and every Dem needs to start calling it the Iraqi occupation.

Every Dem and EVERY DEM POLITICIAN!

[Scriptor Ignotus]

2. K&R

Thanks for posting this!

It's time to start up our noise machine. My post today was on this very issue - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1460470&mesg_id=1460470.

[Biernuts]

3. I watched it and he said majopr combat was over, not the war

As a vet, I took that to mean maneuver combat. Besides, we still have bunches of troops in multiple theaters. Iraq isn't a war but an AUMF - Hillary and the rest voted that it was, not a declaration of war.

Minor point? Not if you're a vet trying to get title 5 (civil service) benefits for wartime service. OPM insists that we haven't been in a war since WWII because there has been no declaration of war.

To DVA's credit, they grant Title 38 (VA benefits) to all who serve honorably during this time.

[im10ashus]

4. There was never a war declared. Congress

But he did say "Mission Accomplished" which this veteran takes issue with.

By early 2003, the Bush administration, together with the governments of the United Kingdom and Spain, insisted that Iraq was not adequately cooperating with the weapons inspectors, and they lobbied for a second UN resolution that would threaten Iraq with war if it did not disarm by a specific date. However, the three allies eventually realized their proposal did not have sufficient backing at the UN, and on March 17, 2003, said they would not seek a vote on the new resolution. After abandoning his appeal to the UN, President Bush declared, "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security." On March 20, U.S.-led forces began an attack of Iraq.

[Tin Man]

5. K&R for the Occupation

You've raised an important point - the US is an occupying force in the midst of a civil war. The sooner we abandon the notion that our continued presence will somehow improve the situation (which runs counter to the trending of actual events since the beginning of the occupation), the better off everyone will be. It's exactly as Murtha claims - our presence doesn't ameliorate the anarchy, it only serves to compound it .

[bananas]

6. And we should refer to invasion by it's original name - O.I.L

Operation Iraqi Liberation.

[IndyOp]

7. Thom Hartmann is filling in tonight on Majority Report!!

While Sam is off supporting FUBAR...

Thom Hartmann's radio show plays 24/7 at
White Rose Society: http://www.whiterosesociety.org/Hartmann.html

[im10ashus]

8. Thanks for the link!

:hi: