Listen, guys, I don't make 'em, I just post 'em.
August is a slow news month, trust me, Jon Benet would not get this kinda coverage in late October. Time for a more serious political post, though.
Talking Dog recently interviewed Blue Gal fave George Lakoff re his reframing ideas and the Iraq war. You may remember Lakoff from his "Don't Think of an Elephant!" book, a kind of political Bible for the Democrats a couple years ago, but now they've forgotten all about it because the party is too busy talking about Lieberman. Really Howard, let's make a statement that Ned Lamont is the Democratic candidate for Senate in Connecticut and "we will not talk about the opponent." Period.
Back to Lakoff. He has the best analysis of the whole "war on terror" talking points I've read:
The Talking Dog: How would you reframe the "war on terror", and in particular, WHAT WOULD YOU CALL IT, for one thing? Am I correct that in your view the fastest way to frame the Iraq war is to frame it as THE IRAQ OCCUPATION, to wit, when flight-suit-wearing President Bush gave his "mission accomplished" speech on the carrier Lincoln, we had, in fact, already won "the war", and left us with "the occupation"?
George Lakoff: There is no question that the occupation is and has been a disaster. ...We also have to get a handle on definitions. You can't have a "war on terror". Terror is an emotion-- it is not an army who fights to control territory-- the definition of a party that you have a "war" against. That's not what terrorism is about... Terrorism is more like organized crime. Indeed, immediately after 9-11, Colin Powell suggested that the 9-11 attacks be treated as a crime, and responded to as a crime, albeit a huge one. When we've been most successful against terrorism, it's been when we've treated it like organized crime -- combating it with spies, infiltrators, and with international police and intelligence cooperation. This is not an issue of war... it is more like busting a syndicate.
We seriously need to re-frame this "war on terror" "9-11" Republican talking point. In the same vein that I wrote about reframing the abortion issue, let's go over some ideas and please, please, let us all know your own suggestions in comments. Thanks.
1. Any student of US history remembers "the Communist threat" which led us to Vietnam and the same kind of quagmire we're in now.
I love bringing up the commies and I love the word quagmire and I love the Vietnam angle.
2. This war is putting our troops in harm's way only to benefit Halliburton and the members of the Republican party with ties to the oil industry.
Ditto the negative terms here: Halliburton (hiss), Oil industry (boo, hiss), and now, of course, the Republican party. (Bwa ha ha.) BTW don't just make this about lame duck Bush. Don't say "the President". This is about every single Republican member of Congress who held up their stupid purple fingers at that State of the Union Address and claimed success. Take your purple finger and stick it up your pee pee. Oh, and we threw your stuff out on the lawn. Get out.
3. This one from Hertzberg in The New Yorker (8/21, page 21) "George W. Bush's war of choice in Iraq is a catastrophe." To which we must add, constantly, "Why is Donald Rumsfeld still Secretary of
I like re-framing "war on terror" to "George W. Bush's war of choice." And Rumsfeld should have been cut loose immediately after Abu Gahrib. If Rumsfeld were to be cut loose now it would be an admission of a problem and it's too late for that. That's the point. But this "I'm the decider let me stick my head up my ass one more time for fun" is over. Incidentally, each member of this administration needs to be slapped about the head and shoulders with a twelve-pound fish.
Any other ideas?
(tip of something tasty to The Heretik)