Don't Think of a U.S. Soldier, Unarmed, Abandoned in Iraq's Civil War!
One need not be a linguist like George Lakoff to know that it's hard to win a debate on the other guy's assumptions. Or worse, the other guy's lies. For years Team Bush has sought to shroud their devastating and deepening Iraq occupation in the myth of troop protection. When they doled out contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater, it was about "funding the troops." Even as VA health services were threatened, it was about "funding the troops." Every yearly extension of the Iraq occupation is about "funding the troops." As Democratic leaders in Congress moved to hoist the white flag of surrender this week - giving Bush/Cheney billions more for Iraq without any timeline for withdrawal - we heard Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly assuring the media that before Memorial Day, "We will have legislation to fund the troops!" The shared pretense of the White House and Democratic leaders is that funding the Iraq occupation is somehow a program on behalf of the troops. Like a subsidy for family farmers. Instead of challenging this misleading rhetoric by saying "The only way to support the troops is by ending an unwinnable occupation and fully funding a safe withdrawal," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid proclaims, "We will never abandon our troops in a time of war." Along with the utterly confused: "No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats." What Democrats need to be saying, repeatedly, is that it's Bush/Cheney who abandoned several thousand U.S. troops to avoidable deaths in a disastrous occupation, and tens of thousands to horrible injuries. And that they're willing to abandon still more troops to unnecessary death and injury. Democrats also need to talk about polls that consistently show most U.S. troops in Iraq support withdrawal, as do most Iraqis. As Military Families Speak Out says: "Funding the war is not supporting our troops. The way to support our troops is to bring them home now and take care of them when they get here." Yet Democratic leaders are helping Bush/Cheney win the linguistic argument by pledging they won't "abandon the troops." The image Republicans want to plant in our head is that of a U.S. solider abandoned, unarmed on an Iraqi mean street. And that's exactly the image Democratic rhetoric keeps reinforcing. They're on the "Don't Think of an Elephant!" defensive. I'm well aware that recent Congressional proposals to withdraw combat troops did not win a majority (receiving 171 votes in the House and 29 in the Senate) - let alone the 2/3 needed to override a Bush veto. But one reason for their defeats is that Democrats are fighting the Iraq debate on enemy terrain. Another reason is that dozens of Democrats in Congress, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, seem bent on endless war. With such Democrats, don't bother challenging their rhetoric. Better to challenge them in next year's primaries.
Jeff Cohen https://www.jeffcohen.org/ is consultant for Progressive Democrats of America https://pdamerica.org/, former TV pundit/producer, and author of "Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
One need not be a linguist like George Lakoff to know that it's hard to win a debate on the other guy's assumptions. Or worse, the other guy's lies. For years Team Bush has sought to shroud their devastating and deepening Iraq occupation in the myth of troop protection. When they doled out contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater, it was about "funding the troops." Even as VA health services were threatened, it was about "funding the troops." Every yearly extension of the Iraq occupation is about "funding the troops." As Democratic leaders in Congress moved to hoist the white flag of surrender this week - giving Bush/Cheney billions more for Iraq without any timeline for withdrawal - we heard Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly assuring the media that before Memorial Day, "We will have legislation to fund the troops!" The shared pretense of the White House and Democratic leaders is that funding the Iraq occupation is somehow a program on behalf of the troops. Like a subsidy for family farmers. Instead of challenging this misleading rhetoric by saying "The only way to support the troops is by ending an unwinnable occupation and fully funding a safe withdrawal," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid proclaims, "We will never abandon our troops in a time of war." Along with the utterly confused: "No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats." What Democrats need to be saying, repeatedly, is that it's Bush/Cheney who abandoned several thousand U.S. troops to avoidable deaths in a disastrous occupation, and tens of thousands to horrible injuries. And that they're willing to abandon still more troops to unnecessary death and injury. Democrats also need to talk about polls that consistently show most U.S. troops in Iraq support withdrawal, as do most Iraqis. As Military Families Speak Out says: "Funding the war is not supporting our troops. The way to support our troops is to bring them home now and take care of them when they get here." Yet Democratic leaders are helping Bush/Cheney win the linguistic argument by pledging they won't "abandon the troops." The image Republicans want to plant in our head is that of a U.S. solider abandoned, unarmed on an Iraqi mean street. And that's exactly the image Democratic rhetoric keeps reinforcing. They're on the "Don't Think of an Elephant!" defensive. I'm well aware that recent Congressional proposals to withdraw combat troops did not win a majority (receiving 171 votes in the House and 29 in the Senate) - let alone the 2/3 needed to override a Bush veto. But one reason for their defeats is that Democrats are fighting the Iraq debate on enemy terrain. Another reason is that dozens of Democrats in Congress, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, seem bent on endless war. With such Democrats, don't bother challenging their rhetoric. Better to challenge them in next year's primaries.
Jeff Cohen https://www.jeffcohen.org/ is consultant for Progressive Democrats of America https://pdamerica.org/, former TV pundit/producer, and author of "Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media."
One need not be a linguist like George Lakoff to know that it's hard to win a debate on the other guy's assumptions. Or worse, the other guy's lies. For years Team Bush has sought to shroud their devastating and deepening Iraq occupation in the myth of troop protection. When they doled out contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater, it was about "funding the troops." Even as VA health services were threatened, it was about "funding the troops." Every yearly extension of the Iraq occupation is about "funding the troops." As Democratic leaders in Congress moved to hoist the white flag of surrender this week - giving Bush/Cheney billions more for Iraq without any timeline for withdrawal - we heard Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly assuring the media that before Memorial Day, "We will have legislation to fund the troops!" The shared pretense of the White House and Democratic leaders is that funding the Iraq occupation is somehow a program on behalf of the troops. Like a subsidy for family farmers. Instead of challenging this misleading rhetoric by saying "The only way to support the troops is by ending an unwinnable occupation and fully funding a safe withdrawal," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid proclaims, "We will never abandon our troops in a time of war." Along with the utterly confused: "No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats." What Democrats need to be saying, repeatedly, is that it's Bush/Cheney who abandoned several thousand U.S. troops to avoidable deaths in a disastrous occupation, and tens of thousands to horrible injuries. And that they're willing to abandon still more troops to unnecessary death and injury. Democrats also need to talk about polls that consistently show most U.S. troops in Iraq support withdrawal, as do most Iraqis. As Military Families Speak Out says: "Funding the war is not supporting our troops. The way to support our troops is to bring them home now and take care of them when they get here." Yet Democratic leaders are helping Bush/Cheney win the linguistic argument by pledging they won't "abandon the troops." The image Republicans want to plant in our head is that of a U.S. solider abandoned, unarmed on an Iraqi mean street. And that's exactly the image Democratic rhetoric keeps reinforcing. They're on the "Don't Think of an Elephant!" defensive. I'm well aware that recent Congressional proposals to withdraw combat troops did not win a majority (receiving 171 votes in the House and 29 in the Senate) - let alone the 2/3 needed to override a Bush veto. But one reason for their defeats is that Democrats are fighting the Iraq debate on enemy terrain. Another reason is that dozens of Democrats in Congress, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, seem bent on endless war. With such Democrats, don't bother challenging their rhetoric. Better to challenge them in next year's primaries.
Jeff Cohen https://www.jeffcohen.org/ is consultant for Progressive Democrats of America https://pdamerica.org/, former TV pundit/producer, and author of "Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media."