Rove/Limbaugh — Separated at birth? Or alter-egos?
Deconstructiong the New Bush Talking Point: Do You Want The US to Win the War in Iraq?
by John C. Dvorak
I did a little too much driving yesterday and in the process listened to a little too much right-wing talk radio. This included Bill O’Reilly’s show as well as Rush Limbaugh. Later last night I saw O’Reilly on Letterman. I also listened to a slew of wannabees.
Curiously I stumbled upon a new common talking point. Everybody who was obviously connected to the White House (Limbaugh in particular since he appears to vehemently defend anything done by the government no matter how onerous) kept harping on one question always worded exactly the same way, “Do you want the US to win the war in Iraq?”
It may have slipped past me if O’Reilly hadn’t thrown it at Letterman numerous times getting him to say something. Letterman refused to give O’Reilly the requested yes or no.
Limbaugh in the morning kept badgering guests who were even a little critical of Bush and Iraq with this exact same question.
The idea behind this question is obvious. It’s a no-win question for the hapless critic who actually answers the question with a yes or no. If you say Yes, I want the US to win the war in Iraq then you have to let things continue to go the way they are going so the US can “finish the job.” (Finishing the job is another ditty commonly used to shut up the opposition.) If you say no you do not want the US to win the war in Iraq then you are obviously a terrorist or a bad person. I mean you simply cannot answer no.
It’s a trick question.
So I thought about how you address this question for real results. One correct answer is the following:
“The US has already won the war in Iraq. Saddam is in chains, his sons dead. The army is dissolved. We are now occupiers fighting a peace and losing because we simply overstayed our welcome. There is no war to win now. We won. Mission Accomplished.”
Then to turn the question around ask the questioner. “Did we not know we won? Is that why you ask this question? Let me ask you a question. Do you think we should remain as an occupation army in Iraq forever and essentially bankrupt our own nation? Yes or no?”
You can add salt to the wound by asking them “How do you define victory?” Isn’t deposing the entire government and military enough to call it a win? Are they supposed to be writing poetry about us saying and how great we are before we declare victory? Exactly who are we fighting now? Seems to me that just capturing the leader is a win if you ask me.
Any thoughtful person should be able to defuse the specious “Do you want the US to win the war in Iraq” question if they see it coming.
That should shut them up I’d think.
People should start asking Dumbya that question after one of his rote “I have confidence in Rumsfeld” statements.
And actually, my answer would be, “No, I want the Iraqi government to win the war in Iraq. And it has become clear that they will not take the lead until we push them to do so with a concrete timetable for redeploying our troops.”
That would be a clever retort, yes.
“Yes. So does the military, hence their resentment of Rumsfeld. We’ve been doing Afganistan the Republican way and look how that worked out. That’s why I’m voting for people who might actually give our troops what they really need instead of working on legislation to make the world hate us, like reinterpreting the Geneva convention.”
Fundamental disagreement over whether Iraq is part of the war on Islamic terrorists. You’re absolutely right about knocking out Saddam, and leaving around the time of ‘Mission Accomplished’ would have made sense, even if it meant civil war or Iran’s takeover. Of course then all the critics would have gone after Bush for abandoning Iraq. At this point, leaving would amount to a victory for Al Qaeda and the like, as well as Iran who is the bigger threat long term. Letting the Iraqi army takeover is exactly what is happening.
I suppose this makes the r.w. media a useful tool, after all. They’ve framed their intended policies with a question. The intention is “Keep Republicans in Congress to continue the occupation / war / current circumstances / policies toward Iraq”. Thanx for the affirmation, boys. Since we’re not sucking cheap oil out of the country as a way of paying for this occupation, and since it is obvious too many folks in Iraq, and the Middle East in general, don’t want or can’t fathom western democracy, then the party is obviously over. Time to leave. After all, wasn’t “the war” supposed to be against the rats who attacked us? Or are we trying to build that link between Iraq and Afghanistan, with the bridge to nowhere not finished yet?
How about, “There is no war in Iraq. We are an unwelcome occupying army propping up a regime that does not have popular support. That’s not war, it’s suicide.”
Everyone else says “Can we win the war?”, “Who is the war with?” “Which side are we on, Sunni or Shiite?” “Isn’t the war with ourselves?, because we are the ones or destabilized the region, single handedly”
Basically they can’t win any argument on the war on Iraq and it will hurt them, if they keep bringing it up.
The problem is the war in Iraq as the question is framed isn’t the real war. The real war is an ideological one between Western ‘values’ and a Middle Eastern religion and peoples which rejects our insistence in replacing their values with ours. We were able to decimate and subjugate the Indians in the US because we out gunned them. Can’t do that in the Mideast. In fact, we’re clearly just making it all worse. Time to accept that and try to end the real war.
#10 Unca Dave, how are we insisting upon replacing Muslims’ values with ours? Our biggest ally in the region (Saudi) is also the most religiously reactionary and tyrannically anti-western in its government.
I admit that through globalization, sattelite TV and what-not, Westernization is on the march, but it is something that people in Arab countries are seeking, not something we are demanding that they accept.
The question as i see it isn’t “Do You Want The US to Win the War in Iraq?” but “What happens to Iraq if we lose/ pull out to soon?” Does the government collapse? Does a new Saddam Hussain take power? Does Iran take power?
Assuming Iraq is the new Vietnam do we want to complete that analogy by leaving a weak government to collapse under the weight of the radicals attacks or do we change the story by finishing what we started and leaving a strong government capable of fending them off?
I for one vote for changing the story.
John, your argument is sound and on the face of it, should end the discussion. Of course we know what it’s like to argue with idealogues.
What was the old line? Never try to reason with a pig. It wastes your time and it irritates the pig.
Wow, John…deleting my comment was *weak* and you *know* that.
John, I’ll buy you a case of your favorite beer if you delete *ALL* of his comments.
Thanks.
I’m in the process of a complete ban for people who never contribute anything to the comments but instead rank on the bloggers in complete disregard for the guidelines. It’s tiresome.
Hmmm.. case of beer, eh?
I had rather had listen to an entire amateur performance of The Mikado than these nuts. Serves you right for getting peeved.
The way I look at it is that it’s the 4th quarter, time outs are used up, and the star Quarterback has just been injured. At this point your looking for miracles. In order to attempt the miracle you have to put American lives on the line and I think we’ve done too much of that.
I think the question is better put by asking what is winning? Stay the course isn’t winning. I think you need a clear goal that’s possible to achieve to win anything. If I were running things, at this moment, I would start talking to Syria, Iran and all the Arab countries about the way they want to see Iraq. I’d also kick Israel in the butt and force a peace settlement. Arrogance and no knowledge of the middle east culture has gotten us so far down a hole we can’t see daylight anymore. It seems to me we’re heading down a road and don’t have a clue where we’re going.
I think people ought to remember that our troops exist to defend this country and nothing more. I think it’s clear that our troops are nothing more than walking targets for those that hate us. I think this so called war was lost 6 months to a year after we won the big battle. If the Iraq people had a choice of living like they are currently or having Saddam back I’m not sure Saddam wouldn’t look pretty good to them now. I can’t imagine living with no security and watching people die everyday. On top of all this is we have a government that won’t tell us the truth of what’s really going on and makes everything political ignoring the people putting their lives on the line everyday. If you don’t have faith in those who are conducting this so called war, that means you don’t have faith in those who are ordering our troops. I think supporting our troops also means not to have them give their lives in vain. That was done enough in Vietnam. I don’t have a clue what your talking about when you ask about winning? What is winning in Iraq?
This may be so obvious that it borders on duh-esque. But sticking with a winning plan is never a bad idea. Repeating overly simplistic talking points has served Republicans well. Much better than their fallback strategy of producing results. Having unified and reasonable responses like these (ideas backed by actual evidence) and using them with equal frequency wouldn’t be a bad thing to try. It’s never easy to get liberals on the same page, but if it can be done, now would be a good time. Obviously, Democrats having a plan and message of their own would be better, but this close to the election may not be the time for quantum leaps.
A cartoonist (wish I could remember who) summed up Dem/Repub differences like this: Democrats are better than Republicans because when they vote like Republicans, they do it reluctantly.
He was really talking about the Democratic Leadership Council, of course.
Democrats are just as owned by the war industry as Republicans, or at least they were. Party change or no party change, I don’t see much changing by way of policy. Might be fewer closeted deviants waving flags and a little less overt large-scale corruption with Dems in power, is all. Clinton killed 500,000 Iraqi children by withholding medicine and other necessities, according to UNESCO. Bush has killed, what, 600,000 Iraqis or so using bombs and rifles?
Well, at least Clinton and his party ran a healthy economy with a budget surplus instead of letting the corporations steal it all. I guess that’d be an improvement, if the Democrats could pull it off again.
#18. So it was the sanctions that killed all those Iraqi children and not Sadaam’s swindling of the oil-for-food money?
Yes, we won the war and now it’s just a matter of convincing the Iraqis by force to accept the billions of dollars and reconstruction that is always part of every war the US wins over its enemies.
RBG
Here’s the real question.
“Does Bush want to win the war?”
Ever since the beginning he’s made one decision after the other that seems designed to prolong the war so that that his buddies in firms that get DOD contracts can keep pissing away US tax dollars.
Then to turn the question around ask the questioner. “Did we not know we won?
Reader’s Digest [tm] version:
Q: Do you want the US to win the war in Iraq?
A: Didn’t we?
I like – “Can’t we learn anything from history?” retort, although the “Does Bush want to win the war” comment is good coupled with “If you believe in this war so much why aren’t you and/or your military age kids/relations ponying up” works even better. Where is Barb and Jenna anyway?
Didn’t Limbaugh duck the draft? I know he never served – Lord knows the country needs “talent on loan from God”. Or is it “Jackass on loan from Satan”.
#18
Doug are you fighting Iraq? I’m just curious.
Actually, I think my feelings are best expressed by:
Q: Do you want the US to win the war in Iraq?
A: Which one?
23 Or is it “Jackass on loan from Satan”.
Thanks, that was a good one. 🙂
Yes (since we’ve made the mess) — however I’d also like a billion dollars and sex with a hot supermodel every night. Alas the likelihood of all three is roughly the same.
The good thing about Iraq is that it opens up another front to draw away Muslim terrorists who would otherwise be fighting NATO/Canada in Afghanistan.
RBG
I am sorry… John nailed it at the end in a little paragraph.. and it was what i was yelling at the TV during letterman, and he didn’t say it.
Q: do you want to win the war in Iraq?
A: Would you please Define “win”!??!?!?!
Not a single leader, democrat or republican will define “win the war in iraq”. We went into Iraq because of WMD’s. Period. That has been shifted because there were no WMD’s.
But I would really like an answer from someone in gov’t or who backs gov’t as to when “we win the war” and will leave? If it’s such a simple question, they should have an answer to that question.
#24. Nope. I am safe at home, just barely too old for military service.