Spinning an out-of-control war.
Submitted by Hogfan on August 15, 2006 - 4:37pm.
Jon Stewart | ken mehlman | orwell | The Daily Show | Iraq
Hey, kids! Just in time for the 2006 elections, the GOP has a new vacuous slogan for Iraq! No longer are we “staying the course.” Things are different! New! Fresh! Now we’re “adapting to win.” Say it together!
Bunk.
From a copywriter’s perspective, I can tell you exactly why Republicans have chosen this language for their new spin.
“Staying the course” is tired. It’s too open-ended for a war-weary public that has realized we have no real “Strategy for Victory.” (Yep, I said “Strategy for Victory.” Remember that one? Another hollow promise dreamed up in the White House’s dimly-lit inhouse marketing firm Orwell & Associates.)
To counter the public's fatigue of staying the course, Republicans are now totally reversing course. A flip-flop if I’ve ever seen one. According to this new line (of BS), victory isn’t some far-off, nebulous benchmark. It’s within our grasp. We just need to adapt. Adapt to win. It has finality. It has the ring of something new. It makes Kool-Aid drinkers feel warm and fuzzy and hopeful.
Problem is, there's nothing to back it up. At least not in regards to making real changes in Iraq.
This new strategy is political and political only. It’s no shift in policy. Nobody from the White House or the Pentagon has detailed a strategic shift on the ground. Just more verbal grab-ass. So how can you change from “staying the course” to “adapting to win” without any change of plans at all? You can’t. Staying versus adapting. Two diametrically opposed ideas.
The secret is the White House is not adapting to win in Iraq. The GOP is adapting to win in November. The new slogan might as well be “Republicans – Adapting to win.” The truth is right there on the face of it. Just under the surface of the words Ken Mehlman speaks. We can all see it. There’s no hope for real victory in Iraq, everyone knows that. He might as well say “To hell with our troops and the Iraqi people. But maybe…just maybe…if we Republicans can change the way we talk about Iraq, people will forget about reality and give us the 2006 elections.”
Sloganeering – that’s what they’re banking on. Because they’ve got nothing else. No plan to get out. No way to win. No chance at avoiding indisputable civil war. No decent explanation to soldiers living the nightmare. Or to the families who grieve those not lucky enough to make it home.
Republicans are, however, adapting to win. If Ken Mehlman has his way, you'll remember that, come November.
I can play the insanity game, too. To underscore the sheer lunacy of their spin, I offer you my suggested list of slogans. The difference is, I’m only joking. These jokers are supposed to be serious.
Top 10 List of Rejected Republican Slogans for the Iraq War
10. Death Squads. They do all the work so we don’t have to…
9. Strategy for Victory – It’s Squeezably Soft!
8. Civil war. Just do it.
7. The other “Other Iraq.”
6. I’m lovin’ it.
5. We bring good things to death.
4. It keeps going and going and going...
3. Mmmm-mmmmm good.
2. Crunch all you want. They’ll make more.And the number-one Rejected Republican Slogan for the Iraq War…
1. Shift_the blame.
Must be getting close to the fall - we've been hearing from Mr. Fitzpatrick weekly. The colorful mailings go right into the recycle bin...this article is from today's Philadelphia Inquirer. Mr. Fitzpatrick doesn't like Mr. Bush's plan for Iraq, but he can't make one up himself.
"" A Bucks County congressman who once firmly backed President Bush's handling of the Iraq war is now calling the president's stay-the-course approach "extreme."
U.S. Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.) told constituents in a mailing last weekend that he wanted an alternative to the "unacceptable extremes of 'Stay the course' on one side and the 'cut and run' approach on the other."
Fitzpatrick, who twice visited the troops in Iraq, hadn't said much about the war until last week, when he told reporters that President Bush has made mistakes. His campaign Web site makes no mention of the issue.
The freshman Republican's remarks come as polls show that more than 60 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of the war. Bush's approval rating is slightly below 40 percent.
Democrat Patrick Murphy, Fitzpatrick's opponent, is an Iraq war veteran who has been vocal in his opposition of the war and has called for the withdrawal of most troops by the end of next year.
The Fitzpatrick-Murphy race is one of three competitive congressional races in the Philadelphia suburbs. The Republicans control three seats in Bucks, Chester and Delaware Counties, which the Democrats have targeted in their attempt to take back the House.
In the mailing, Fitzpatrick was careful to note he is "deeply grateful" for the service of American troops. What has changed is his alliance with the president on the handling of the war.
"Mike Fitzpatrick to President Bush: 'America needs a better, smarter plan in Iraq.' " reads the mailing."
"...Yesterday, Fitzpatrick said the president should have committed more troops, the troops should have been better equipped, and economic development should have been quicker in Iraq.
But Fitzpatrick has not proposed a new plan or advocated an existing one. Strategies, he said, are better left to military experts.
That vague approach has provided campaign fodder for Murphy, who held a telephone news conference with Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) last week to criticize Fitzpatrick's position. Kerry called it a "short-term political ploy" with "no plan, no direction."
Fitzpatrick's hedging may endear him to voters even as it leaves him open to criticism, Borick said. The public, he said, may find it reasonable that Fitzpatrick is as unclear as they are on what to do next.
But as the election nears, Borick said he expects voters to become more demanding of Fitzpatrick. He said, "People will want to move on the debate to more specifics on Iraq."
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/bucks_county/15274517.htm