When you wrote "We need to contact the networks that "brand" the war with coverage graphics..." perhaps you meant to write: We need to contact the networks that "brand" the occupation with coverage graphics...

by don_alejandro (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 21, 2006 at 8:11:13 AM

  (0+)

I added quotations. Thanks.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jun 21, 2006 at 8:46:28 AM

  (0+)

1. Bush + the Republicans "Cut + Run" On Osama Bin laden 2. Bush Is Helping the TErrorists who attacked us on 9/11. (buddy-buddy with the Saudis) 3. Republicans funded Osama Bin laden in the 1980s+1990s. 4. Compare the GOPs views on abortion, gay rights, etc... to those of Bin Laden + the Taliban. 5. Bush + The GOP Hate our troops. a) Rush limbaugh calls them staff pukes b) Tony Snow calls them just a number. c) Rumsfield "the army we have not the one we want." d) No body armor 6. Republicans have ALWAYS been failures on national security. a) Dems won world wars 1 + 2 b) Richard Nixon ultimately lost Vietnam c) 241 dead troops in Beirut (mock reagan for grenada and his weak response to the Pan Am hijacking in which he killed a 3 yr old and a few janitors. Also, REagan never won the Cold war, USSR still existed when he left office.) d) Clinton's success in Kosovo e) Liberals won the Revolutionary war and civil war. 7. NEVER call a plan that cuts taxes for the rich a tax cut. It's ALWAYS "middle class tax increase." Then, whenever a Dem offers to raise taxes on the top 1% (which we MUST + BIG TIME) ALWAYS combine that with a middle class tax cut.

by bigdavefromqueens (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 21, 2006 at 9:05:36 AM

  (0+)

We need to have more conversations on this, more articles. We can do it out front, in public. The Republicans are not sophisticated. They use repetition, constant repetition, and the have the help of the MSM. I'd love to see you take this comment and turn it into an article. Rob Kall Publisher, OpEdNews

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jun 21, 2006 at 9:22:15 AM

  (0+)

Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Rice "OCCUPY" this country (the US) also. Having manipulated the Supreme Court into electing his 2000 team of liars and thieves to the White House with a little help from Jeb and FL GOP, they stole 2004 in Ohio. They WILL steal 2006 -- if allowed. I say end all American occupations in November! Vote anything but Republican.

by Amanda Lang (23 articles, 14528 quicklinks, 442 diaries, 731 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jun 21, 2006 at 10:59:29 AM

  (0+)

How about "Cut funding for the troops" and "Run from the truth" or Calling the Republicans "Stay & Pay".

by BriMan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Friday, Jun 23, 2006 at 12:33:59 AM

  (0+)

Be proud to pay tax. Say 'Read my lips... taxes pay for schools.. taxes pay for hospitals.' Excellent article Rob.

by Hamish (45 articles, 0 quicklinks, 68 diaries, 210 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 21, 2006 at 9:15:36 AM

  (0+)

That's right Rob. The real War is the War on Energy. The War in making renewable fuels, so we are not always fighting for it. There is only so much Oil in the world, the powers of the United States goal is to control it. Sure they will claim it is not about oil but about Democracy. I guarantee if Iraq had no oil we would not be there today. We certainly are not in N. Korea are we! We know if we were not in Saudi Arabia, certainly 911 could not have been a excuse by Bin Ladin in trying to get us out. The facts are...that it has been a long time since WWII. Think of all the oil we drank up to the Vietnam War. Then there was that big guzzling party that went on for years. Then Jimmy Carters gas rationing in the 70's....With our constant drinking up now into Iraq. The time is now..to get it through their big fat heads we need to be making fuel, not killing people to suck it out of the ground, because we happened to changed our minds about being friends with a certain dictator. We are occupiers, still in Japan, and S. Korea, Afghanistan, and now Iraq, along with our support of occupation in Palestine. When we face the reality that the real War is about Energy, and protecting the environment, we will be focused on the legitimate goal in preserving mankind from its wonton methods of self destruction. We need to start supporting the creation of energy. http://www.sugarcitycane.zoomshare.com

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 21, 2006 at 9:21:56 AM

  (0+)

The language above is a tactical one- how to win. I wonder what would be the language of the strategy-what will the Dems do for us when they come to power? This is a little idealistic but I would like to see for the first step: 1. Pursue opening a criminal investigation of 9/11 with the trial scheduled. 2. Pursue opening a criminal investigation on the Lousiana- Kathrina negligence. 3. Revise the US military doctrine and abandone the preemtive strike idea. 4.Dismantle the Homeland Security and also the Counterterrorism offices. Expand the FBI, shrink the CIA. 5. Expand the State Department. Improve the education of our Diplomats 6. Replace JOhn Bolton. 7. Introduce a scheduled withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Introduce an Office of Reconciliation to work with the UN to help those countries. 8. Introduce a 1 year moratorium on any lawmaking in Congress while revising the previous laws adopted under Bush administration. I understand the stuff above seems just a desire of one man- not much realism, right? I wonder what others would like to happen. I also wonder if we understand that with current Dems, the way those people are the first part that is the winning language might fly but the second part-that is what would they do for us- that is a very different story. Otherwise, I agree- the winning language has to be the one mentioned in the article. Mark Sashine

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jun 21, 2006 at 10:04:08 AM

  (0+)

Yes indeed. And prosecute those in the Bush administration who have violated our Constitution like they were pedophiles in an elementary playground.

by Amanda Lang (23 articles, 14528 quicklinks, 442 diaries, 731 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jun 21, 2006 at 11:12:17 AM

  (0+)

I wrote this as part of a letter to a prominent progressive I've been corresponding with, since the 2000 Election debacle. I wrote it several days ago -- it's good to see similar thoughts going around the Web in the ensuing days. ..... I have a question. Is there some taboo, something only insiders know, some reason that the extremely unpopular "war in Iraq" is not being labeled for what it is - BUSH'S WAR? Bush's war of choice, rather than America's war -- a war that the American people first opposed but was misled into supporting. Coin a new noun - the BushWar. Paint the Bush loyalists, such as most of the Republican House and Senate members, as war-mongers who want to support and prolong the BushWar. Polls show that the people don't want this war. It seems to me that the public would be more than glad to shift the blame away from the American people -- it's not our war, anyway (even though we, as a country, are still responsible for the damage done by it.) This goes along the line of coining the terms BushCo, Bushites, BFEE, BushLoyalists, or just Loyalists, preferably. I prefer Loyalist because it sets up the Loyalists versus Patriots scenario, putting us on the winning side of a battle that has been raging since the founding of our country. The goal is to separate BushCo from the Executive branch of the government of the United States of America. They are already doing this in their setting themselves up as an autonomous entity that can trump the Legislative and Judicial branches. By constitutional definition, such an entity does not fit the job profile of the Executive branch. We've known all along that Bush was illegitimate. The task has been to get it out there to the people, get broad agreement, and use whatever legal means to remove the Squatter-In-Chief from the Oval office.

by RicK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 21, 2006 at 2:22:47 PM

  (0+)

I would like to see a war law passed. Any president, vice-president, senator, representative that starts or votes for a preemptive war should automatically have to send his kids in as marines or army infantry. If he has no kids then he should send his wife or favorite girfriend. I wonder if they would be more willing to negotiate with this kind of law(let's make it an amendment) on the books.

by skyreader7 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 181 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 21, 2006 at 4:41:21 PM

  (0+)

Time to: "Cut (incompetence) and Run" (smart)! "Cut and Run? You Bet"- Lt. Gen. W.E. Odom

by Atkinsopht (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 21, 2006 at 6:30:06 PM

  (0+)

You took Thom Hartmann's fine article one step further, Rob. Can we give all of Congress electro-shock? It shows how desperate the times are when you don't think biofeedback would suffice.

by Russ Wellen (58 articles, 1029 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 335 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 21, 2006 at 6:45:40 PM

  (0+)

The Dems are starting to do really good things and look strong and united. Now, the question is can liberal bloggers stop bashing Democrats long enough to notice that they're on the path to gaining a majority in Congress unless liberals discourage voters from voting Democrat and try to launch a doomed independent campaign? Hint: the Repugs are doing a fine job bashing Democrats. Liberals should try to look for the positive and come together to get neocons out of power.

by terri Kionka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 83 comments) on Thursday, Jun 22, 2006 at 8:03:16 PM

  (0+)

Hi Rob, You are right: The Democratic leadership needs to finally get it that There is no war in Iraq. And the idea of a "war on terrorism" is a bad one that isn't working and never will. The correct word is "OCCUPATION" of IRAQ, not war in IRAQ. We are not at war in IRAQ - we are there for the oil and committing genocide to get it. The Democratic leadership must wake up and not cower in fear of the Republican bullies. That goes for the media also. There is no "war on terrorism" - the terrorists are in the bush administration. Peace, Let's get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. NOW. Aimee www.dataoptions.com

by Aimee (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments) on Friday, Jun 23, 2006 at 9:37:32 AM

  (0+)

Hello, Yes, the word "occupation" is the real word to use in regard to the "invasion" of IRAQ. I have been using the word Occupation whenever someone talks about the war in Iraq. They are usually surprised when I use the word OCCUPATION. It is like they cannot believe that our country would OCCUPY another country. They also cannot believe that we are committing GENOCIDE in IRAQ. We are not handing out gum like in WWII. So, let's get out of IRAQ. NOW. Oh, I also mention if they have seen "The Patriot" (Mel Gibson) - The Red Coats were the the enemy. We were just protecting our country from the enemy. "Oh" they say ... Let's laugh and vote the Republicans out of office. As Greg Palast said: "How many times am I asked, "Why vote if they're going to steal the election?" That's the point: Make them STEAL it. Make them know they can't win UNLESS they steal it." Greg Palast, author of "Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?" GregPalast.com Love, Aimee www.dataoptions.com

by Aimee (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 100 comments) on Saturday, Jun 24, 2006 at 6:39:04 AM

  (0+)