What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
11 Comments
- shawnfassett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Isn't this going to cost an extra $7 billion?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10This is called "Framing the Debate". The Republicans are master propagandists, who use sloganeering and repetition to destroy language/debate and dissent.
Read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717/sr=1-1/qid=1168457999/ref=sr_1_1/104-7867721-0283118?ie=UTF8&s=books - DavidYeah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I was just about to make a comment about exactly that subject. I don't think I've ever read anything about 'bait and switch' frames that this thinkprogress article describes, however. I haven't really thought about it, but "surge" does sound like something short term... like you're going to escalate troops in to overwhelm the opposition, then remove another 20,000 troops, because the surge is now over. The frame is kind of like an energy drink.. it gives a you a kick, but you eventually return to normal..
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Gabriel:
They are complaining that the Bush administration emphatically resisted characterizing their buildup as an escalation from the media, making the distinction that a "surge" was more appropriate since "escalation" is used to describe a more permanent deployment. This was at the time when some Democrats and military leaders were saying that they could support a surge as long as it was tied to a specific mission. Meaning that you bring in troops, accomplish a specific mission (think Operation Al-Fajr in Falluja back in 2004), and then troops redeploy. The news media relented, and has used the term "surge" ever since.
Now, it's clear that Bush's plan is a long-term one. The "specific mission" that was implied when the White House first began formulating their Iraq plan has morphed into an 18-24 deployment complete with additional aircraft carriers. I'm not sure if you're familiar with military operations, but something of this length of time is not a "mission". It's a deployment, and by the rules that the White House set out, constitutes an "escalation" in US military activity in Iraq.
It's all a matter of semantics, but this is the battle that this Administration is determined to win above all others it seems. The battle of the information that Americans consume, as it relates to the world around them. - GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2TP didn't even cite Professor Lakoff. For good reason as well. They know it's a cop out.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why didn't they just hire 20000 more mercs? They already have 60000 on the ground in Iraq, and they're not burdened by the "restricting rules of engagement" Bush feels regular troops are hampered by. As an added bonus, the atrocities they commit never reach the press, and many of them are not US citizens so if they get killed it doesn't register on the official kill-count.
- knyght23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mmmm...Surge. You know if you mixed Surge with milk it would get all chunky. Just FYI.
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah but don't worry. All that money will be injected back into our economy ... into the Corporate Military War Machine's pockets. And then it will trickle down ... into the trust funds of the Children of the 'elite.' Remember, they are the important people ....... They know things.
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks freff.
"It's all a matter of semantics, but this is the battle that this Administration is determined to win above all others it seems."
Win what? The way the media describes the situation or the actual conflict in Iraq? - aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Research compiled by ThinkProgress"
Research+Think Progress=bwahahaha
Now that is funny.
I highly doubt anyone at Think progress has ever taken a research course. - GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This has to be the dumbest Think Progress example of a "braindead media".
TP's complaint is that the media used "surge" in different context in 11/2006 then they are using it in 01/2007? Why does that even matter? How is that even comparable? Who cares what how the media defined something 3 months ago?
Is TP under the impression that the media knew a "surge" was coming and sought to predefine it in 11/2006 to build support for it when it actually was made policy in 01/2007?
I'm open to clarification here. What exactly is TP complaining about?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is