A Modest Proposal: Let's start referring to it as 'his war in Iraq';

[Richardo]

... not 'the war in Iraq'.

The polls are showing that 60%+ of poll respondents are in doubt about the war and/or are dissatisfied with Smirky's handling of the war.

Let's REALLY make it personal. "His war" could very well resonate with the 60%+; and we'll need them in 2006. :)

[nickgutierrez]

1. I like it.

:thumbsup:

Calling it "his war" attaches the many failures in Iraq that have not yet been attached directly to *, from the lack of diplomacy before war, to the missing WMDs, to the impending civil war. It also allows people to seperate the war from the country, which seems like it would make the war easier to oppose.

[DarkmoonIkonoklast]

8. missing WMDs? WHAT missing WMDs?

How about "illusory WMDs"?

or maybe "imaginary WMDs"?

or could it be "hallucinatory WMDs"?

hmmm...

Could the shrub be on LSD WMDs?

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

2. I'm in. Excellent point.

[Chichiri]

3. Good idea. Nominated.

To some extent, people are doing that already. But to universalize it would be a great thing.

[Richardo]

4. While I'm at it, here's another phrase that frosts me: "In a time of war".

Used of course as a blank check to give him whatever he wants.

"We must stand by the president in a time of war."

Bullshit. As if it were purely defensive, instead of his choice.

I'm reframing this too, using: 'during his war' instead.
See how much popular support it gets when framed: "We must stand by the president during his war."

[DarkmoonIkonoklast]

9. I'll drink to THAT!!!

:toast:

[Sanity Claws]

5. The Bush war

I've been using that term for a little while. I've also seen protesters use that term on signs.

[Chichiri]

6. kick

[DarkmoonIkonoklast]

7. seems like a no-brainer to me...

... but then, we've got a puppet in the White House and the Devil's Spawn playing Gepetto...

Hmmm... maybe we should call it the Rove War? :banghead:

[johnnie]

10. I automatically say that

I can't say "the war in Iraq". I either say "his war" or "georgie's war". Good Idea though, let's get it out there. :thumbsup:

[terrya]

11. It is his war. That's exactly right.

He wanted this damned war. He was the one in a rush to get us over there. He's the one who ultimately signed off on it. He's the Commander-in-Chief who bears full, ultimate responsibility for every single soldier killed or wounded.

I completely agree with you, Richardo. Let's make it personal.