Democrats need to tackle false arguments for war

We've all heard them ad nauseam, but here are 10 Karl Rove talking points still resonating on Main Street USA and eroding Democratic efforts to end the occupation of Iraq. Many more talking points could be listed, of course, but the following seem to be the typical responses from the average Limbaugh ditto head:

1. De-funding the war means de-funding the troops.

2. Strategic redeployment means precipitous withdrawal.

3. Withdrawal means even more chaos and violence.

4. Withdrawal means defeat, sending a terrible message to the world.

5. Withdrawal by a date certain means playing into the hands of the terrorists.

6. Withdrawal means giving al-Qaeda a failed state from which to launch attacks.

7. Withdrawal means the terrorists will follow us home — if we don't fight them there, we'll fight them here.

8. The Democratic bill has too much pork (meaning domestic, non-war-machine spending).

9. The Democrats are playing politics with the troops' lives.

10. Keeping our troops on the front line in Iraq indefinitely means showing resolve in the face of terrorism, reducing the number of terrorists in the world, reducing the threat to America, reducing violence against the Iraqi people, stabilizing their government, and bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East.

The will of the people should win out eventually if we present a solid front and can break through the corporate media wall.

With the truth on our side, we true patriots — the ordinary families, students, soldiers, workers, and taxpayers of this great nation — command the moral high ground. So, why can't levelheaded thinkers everywhere simply refute each point directly, consistently, and forcefully without wandering off into long-winded, eye-glazing dissertations?

The Democrats in power, as the majority party and on behalf of all citizens, should tackle each of these false arguments and fear cards head-on in as simple language as possible.

RYAN LAWLOR

Kalispell