Democrats should level with people about their "surge dilemma"

[Parisle]

In this morning's Slate, John Dickerson posts a maddening article detailing why democrats will not oppose Bush's "surge" plan with sufficient force to stop it. The reason is predictable,... in fact it goes all the way back to the original AUMF vote. In short, the democrats are afraid that any action to cut off funds for the Iraq war (or any other action, for that matter) will be interpreted by the electorate as "anti-GI" or "soft on defense."

My question is, "Why can't the democrats simply go before the American people and explain this dilemma? Why allow it to persist? In fact, why not get slightly more creative with the legislation involved?

Bush wants a line-item veto, eh? It seems reasonable that those legislators approving funds ought to be able also to stipulate how funds are expended, right? You don't just hand $50 billion to a president who has ignored reality and popular will,... and flown in the face of prevailing military wisdom and judgement,.. in order to pursue his disasterous war (and most likely to protect his own image) Invent the "line-item requirement."

Here's how it could go down. The democrats buy the broadcast air-time for a special address to the American people. Thirty minutes should be more than enough. Then one of them (not named Pelosi or Kennedy) takes the stage and delivers a carefully-crafted message which is simple, direct and, above all, truthful. (I'd pick Jim Webb)

Tell people that you judge from the last election that popular sentiments are running high for the democrats to do something about this war. But remind them that democrats know what it is like to be swiftboated by a GOP-dominated media (esp. PNAC house-organ FOX). Electoral politics can be tricky business.

Go on to say that the democrats are clearly anxious to spare this nation any further loss of life and taxpayer dollars on Bush's neocon fiasco,.. but they find it necessary to bring their case directly to the American people, rather than risk their overall effort on the disingenuous machinations of the GOP smear machine and their big-money patrons. Make it clear that the democrats hope only to engage in two years of "damage-control" for the time being,.. and after further gains in 2008, including hopefully the White House, they can begin putting the Constitution back together and restoring the Bill of Rights. Then there's the deficit, eh?

As for the war,... by all means exercise the power of the purse over this dictatorial-minded "war" president. Tell people that this is what you intend to do, simply because it is all you CAN do for now. But clearly specify that funds being approved are for body armor, vehicle armor, medical and other safety concerns for the troops ALREADY THERE,...... and NOT for 20,000 more combat-paychecks. Bringing troops home in expedient fashion is worth mentioning, too. You could round out the message by indicating a few measures planned to help the exhausted military get back to a healthy operating (and recruiting) status,.. and to improve services to veterans,.. especially wounded veterans.

Isn't this how you wish the American people perceived your intentions? Well then,... TELL them.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. There's nothing wrong or unpatriotic about demanding oversight

and accountability for both soldiers and allocated funds spend in the past, for the present, and in the future.

[Parisle]

2. Of course not,....

--- But in political terms, it may be advisable to explain to people that this is exactly what you're doing. It is sometimes necessary to claim the high ground in advance,.... before the FOX--Scaife-Mellon--Swiftboat thugs get a chance to frame the issue for you.

[bpeale]

3. as an American citizen first & foremost...

I would appreciate them telling me something like this. You could also ask the American people to let you know before Monday what you would like them to do on the war issue. We are not too stupid to help them make this decision. This could work for the good & people will remember it at election time. Mark my words.

on edit: Get the American people started being involved in their own democracy.

[Parisle]

4. Yeah, if they did that,......

--- Getting people more involved in their own political system would be a pinnacle achievement for the democrats.... Pelosi is on the right track,.. but the message needs to be more detailed and specifically addressed to the people,.... not blared out for the media and the other side. Screw the media and the republicans. Talk directly to Americans. That should help.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. The Burden/Dilemma Should Be on Bush/supporters

The burden really should be on the GOP to explain how throwing billions of more $$$ and troops into Iraq is SMART policy and stands a good chance of achieving whatever "victory"(whatever THAT means at this point) for our country the administration and its supporters are seeking. Throwing more $$$ and several thousands of more troops into the "crucible" of sectarian strife that Iraq has become without a clear & definable mission (at least none that I can see) may LOOK "tough" but I don't think it is particularly "wise" and apparently neither does a majority of the American public and the top military brass. Frankly, I don't see how the Democrats would end up looking badly by openly opposing such an escalation and attempting to defund it since a VAST majority of the public and even a majority of GOP Senators (at last count) don't support it either. The ONLY things that Democrats should be funding are supplies for troops over in Iraq NOW and for withdrawing our troops from Iraq ASAP. Bush has had a lot of opportunities to make smart decisions regarding Iraq (including not invading Iraq in the first place!) and each time his decisions/policies have made things worse (NOT BETTER) for the Iraqi people and for us and he shouldn't continue to be allowed to unilaterally dictate policy on Iraq.

[Parisle]

6. Of course it should,...

--- But arguing about the semantics or groundrules isn't going to get you anywhere. That's like a boxer saying it's up to his opponent to throw a better punch. Challengers always have to win on initiative. Better to control the discussion by taking the initiative. The democrats have to do more than just "oppose."