Talking Points

A look at the big Iraq talking points right now and my reaction to them:

-#1: The 'troop morale' talking point: Criticizing the war hurts troop morale.

I have to question if the people who spout this old chestnut truly care about troop morale. To me it seems just a more emotionally appealling way for them to demonize war critics and shame them into stepping in line. I seriously doubt the majority of soldiers care that politicians all the way here in America want to have serious, adult discussions about this conflict. This talking point is one that is likely spouted by the same people who believe putting a $2 'Support The Troops' magnet on their car fulfills their obligation to think about the war.

Soldiers are tough and put up with a lot of shit on a daily basis. They are living in a warzone where the person they see walking down the street could be their killer. The idea that their morale will go down not because they're stuck in a fatal quagmire watching their friends die, but because some people criticize the mission and want to bring them home, says a lot more to me about the people who say it than those they try to smear. No one is criticizing our troops, we criticize the mission that was forced on them and the Commander-In-Chief and Defense secretary who bungled it.

-#2: The WWII talking point: If withdrawal supporters like John Murtha were around during WWII, they would have advocated surrender and retreat.

Yes, because this Iraq mess is exactly like WWII. WWII was a preemptive invasion of a foreign nation for ill-defined reasons based on faulty and misleading intelligence that was supposed to last three days or so but instead will last three years or more and also destroyed U.S. credibility worldwide. Yep, that sounds like WWII alright. Also, it's not surrending if the people we 'liberated' are asking us to leave their country. That's called fulfilling one's promises.

-#3: The friendly disagreement talking point: The White House respects critics of the war, but just doesn't agree with their positions.

The White House stopped their torture-defending campaign earlier this month to smear war critics. At first, these critics were "dishonest" and "irresponsible" and aligned with "Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing" of the Democratic Party. But they quickly changed tune and now criticizing the war is an "entirely legitimate discussion", but the White House just begs to differ. What this basically amounts to is the White House putting on the white gloves before slapping its opponents. The rhetoric against war critics remains as firey and personal as ever.

-#4: The "we won't cut and run" talking point: The United States must stay the course in Iraq; we won't cut and run.

They just mean they won't cut and run on the Democrats' terms. It is known now the U.S. already has a withdrawal plan (that Gen. Casey prepared for the Defense department) and hints from Condoleeza Rice and others confirm it will begin next year. I'm sure Karl Rove is making sure this coincides with key phases in the '06 campaign season.

-#5: The 'watch us rewrite history' talking point: President Bush never linked Saddam and al-Qaeda.

Fox News tool Chris Wallace tried to help out the White House on this front yesterday. Wallace stated: "T]hat specific quote there where you say he couldn’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, he wasn’t saying that they were linked at all. He was saying one was as bad as the other, and when he said in that same answer something about that Saddam Hussein would like to use a terrorist network, he wasn’t saying that they would like to use al Qaeda. So you’re making a link there that the President never made."

Wallace ignores the fact that President Bush, and other administration officials, mentioned Saddam and Al Quaeda and 9/11 together in the same sentences in so many speeches in 2002 and 2003 that polls last year showed an overwhelming number of Americans believed Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Even though Bush had never said Saddam was responsible, they worded everything in a specific way knowing people would make their desired mental conclusion. Still, to say that Bush never linked them is a lie.

In just one speech in November of 2003, Bush said things like "Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks" and "Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training". These statements were, and are, untrue.

Watch Wallace spin like a dreidel here.


I'll stop here for now... before I hurt troop morale.