Dem Congress should get credit for any improvements in Iraq.

[gulliver]

Iraq didn't start to improve until it became clear to the Iraqis that their Bush/Republican blank check was no longer going to be handed to them.

Bush and the GOP still get blame for everything that went wrong, including the rush to a foolish war in itself. But the Dems and the people who voted them in rightfully deserve credit for any improvements.

Discuss.

[Stop Cornyn]

1. The "improvement in Iraq" is illusory. The purpose of the surge was to decrease violence temporarily

so the Iraqis could achieve a political accord and implement their government. The US military is "holding open a door" of opportunity so the Iraqi government could walk through the door and set up their government. It doesn't matter how long we hold the door open (at great expense in terms of lives and money) if the Iraqi government doesn't make any political progress any appearance of improvement is purely illusory.

[derby378]

2. Exactly. WHAT improvement?

Last I heard, the museum in Baghdad is still missing a lot of its collection, the electricity is still intermittent, the hospitals are still fucked, and too many Iraqis are saying that life was still better under Saddam Hussein than under the Americans.

[gulliver]

5. Yep. Bush is to blame for that.

[gulliver]

4. Yes, I agree.

That's not what I'm talking about. There have arguably been "security improvements". I know the whole "illusory improvement" line of thinking. It's kind of right in a Pyrrhic sense, but that is another thread. I'm talking about political framing and just desserts.

On edit: Added word "what" to first sentence.

[TwilightGardener]

9. No, that was the STATED purpose of the surge, a sort of "hail Mary pass"

to give the Iraqis one last try to get along under our security. The REAL purpose of the "surge" was to dig us deeper into the occupation, extend the life of it into next year and beyond. They waited as long as possible, you'll notice, to increase troop levels. In fact, they waited until Dems took Congress and the public opinion on the war nosedived, and people started demanding we leave--now, we have a temporary calm, not losing soldiers by the dozen, and the American people are once again placated and lulled back to sleep. I used to get angry when Dems focused on whether or not the Surge would work, or on the body count. Of COURSE it was going to work (in the short term), of COURSE it was going to be hailed as a success, of COURSE the occupation will continue. We should never have allowed Republican framing of the debate. Dem leadership should have said at the outset, "This may reduce violence, but it doesn't matter. It's time for the Iraqis to start taking the lead as we start leaving--they won't as long as we're there."

[sampsonblk]

3. SHEEEEIT!

[gulliver]

6. YEEEHAW!

[sampsonblk]

7. Gullible, please rethink your OP-nt

[gulliver]

8. I just wonder if you follow what I am saying.

For example, some people evidently think I am asserting that there has been Bushian/Rovian "improvement" or somesuch nonsense. That's an easy interpretation to make. A lot of people here--not all by any stretch--seem to respond to key words. (On edit: I.e., any mention of improvement means Bush was right and did good. Far from it.)

The gist of what I am trying to say is that we don't want the GOP blaming the Dems for Iraq (as Rove is starting to do) and taking credit for "improvement" which they are all starting to do. The proper framing is that Bush got us into an unmitigated disaster. He and the Republicans deserve full blame for that. Then the pathetic excuse for recognizing "improvement" is there, but my point is that it happened to coincide with the Dem Congress and the people's vote for same. So the framing of "any improvement" (if indeed you are one of those inclined to see any) properly supports Dems and "strokes" the voters who supported them.

And of course Swift probably gave his character the name Gulliver to suggest he is gullible--which is one reason I chose the name in the first place.

On edit: I guess I get how people could see I was saying there has been improvement. I should have put "improvement" in quotes. Also, I don't think we are going to get away with saying there are "no improvements". We shouldn't even try. That is probably what they want us to do. We should point out the improvements are there, but pathetic and inadequate. And any improvements that are there are because the people were wise enough to install Dems.

[sampsonblk]

10. Actually, I got you the first time

You are playing a game. I know, I know... its the latest rage. Its also very dishonest and manipulative.

Who wants to belong to a party that needs to use clever framing to win points? Who wants to belong to a party that can't (or won't) stand on truth when faced with framing tricks by the other side?

What you are saying, clever as it may seem, is not the truth.

[gulliver]

11. I'm not seeing it as a game, manipulative, dishonest, or false.

I see that you do now that you have joined the conversation. Thanks for clarifying.

Framing and truth are not separate. You can consider a framing a point of view that produces a truth.

Do I really believe that the Dems deserve credit for security improvements in Iraq? Yes I do, at least enough to consider it a very strong possibility. It is more than justifiable to note that the Shia in charge of the country were probably strongly motivated to reduce violence seeing that the Dems were elected and that a pullout was possible. When we say that the Iraqi's saw the abyss and decided to pull back from it, is it not a good, solid, strong, honest possibility that they saw the abyss because the Dems were elected?

Seems damned strong to me, but maybe I am wrong.

I'm not a moral relativist or game player by any stretch. Using the tools of rhetoric and logic--being "clever"-- is not wrong or immoral. In fact, it is immoral to accept a framing/ethos that makes defeat of evil framing/rhetoric through valid framing/rhetoric bad.

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water in other words. I sometimes think some Dems are waiting for the truth to somehow rescue us all from this messy, all-against-all chaos our politics have become. The Republicans who voted Bush in believe they know the "truth" too. Truth is a great thing, but it's not a super-hero waiting to fight for us and itself.

[sampsonblk]

12. No

"You can consider a framing a point of view that produces a truth." - No, that is called lying.

I beg you to reconsider. I know everyone is into framing nowadays. But bullshitting someone and lying to them are pretty much the same thing. And no amount of contortion on anyone's part will alter that.

How bout this: truth lasts a lot longer that BS. If we stand on the truth today, tomorrow and the next day, then it will all come out, and folks will know who to trust. It will take the GOP generations to get anyone to even consider listening to them again.

[gulliver]

13. Again, I think you don't follow me.

I guess it is probably me. Truth depends on your point of view, and a framing is like a point of view. I am not saying the framing produces the truth as in generates one. I am saying a combination of facts, together with a point of view produces a truth as a trusted/trustworthy interpretation of fact. It's not that the framing gins up the truth from nothing, although it is certainly used that way. There are both ethical and unethical framings. The framing I mention in my OP is ethical.

I think maybe you are talking about integrity. But you can frame an argument, frame a political issue and still have integrity.

You have a bias against "framing" as something that in and of itself is a lie or BS. And that is probably because you have made framing and lying synonyms. A lot of people seem to do that. I think they suspect anything that looks like forceful reasoning or inescapable logic as somehow unfair. So the conclusion is that the better truth can't be argued for with rhetoric or framing, supposedly. Only lies may use the tools of conveying truth! That's not exemplifying the truth or fighting for it. That is leaving its side in a fight.

If the word framing bothers you, use "marshaling the argument" or "strategy for persuasion".

I'm not, repeat not arguing for BS or lying or even cynical manipulation. I agree with you that we should "stand on the truth today, tomorrow, and the next day." And the truth we stand on has to be presented in its most effective, fair, and even forceful way. That is what Rove does for lies. We should do that for truth.

Peace.