Don't Let The Neo-cons Frame "The Message"

[unhappycamper]

Don't Let The Neo-cons Frame "The Message"
by Scott Shuster | Apr 6 2007 - 9:16am


I believe that one of the inherent problems for the Democratic party is that they all too often allow the Republicans/Conservatives/Neo-cons to frame "the message".

Case in point - Congress' bills between the House and the Senate to pass the 'emergency' funding legislation for the "wars" in Iraq & Afghanistan. Even the Democrats and the media continue to refer to the debacle in Iraq as "the war".

<snip>

We are NOT at war in, with, or against Iraq! That conflict happened in 2003 and Mr. Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and proclaimed that we won that war. We're not at war. IF we were at war, THEN we'd be able to truly have a dialogue about victory & defeat, success & failure, winning & losing. But we are NOT at war and those concepts do NOT apply.

What we have now is an occupation of a foreign country. The United States is occupying the country of Iraq as the Iraqi people are in the midst of a civil war between and within themselves. We should not even allow the White House and the Republican shills to frame the message in terms of winning or losing the war. Instead, the real message 'frame' is whether we continue to occupy this foreign country or do we work to give Iraq back to the Iraqis?

<snip>

So from now on, don't call this a war. It can't be won or lost. There is no victory or defeat. There can be no success or failure. This is an occupation, and it needs to end.

more

[AX10]

1. Control the media, control the message.

[ixion]

2. was never a war. it was an illegal invasion

that is the correct term.

[Parisle]

3. Thank you,..... This is an extremely important point

--- And the same semantic reasoning aplied to the term "war" may be applied to several other terms and phrases in common neocon usage. -- "With us or against us," ... the "enemy," ... "until the job is finished," ... "support the troops," ... "they hate us for our freedom," ... even the term "terrorism" are all used as semantic obfuscations to conceal administration lies or rhetorical misrepresentations. Seems like the democratic party could afford to hire some smart person to ride herd on this alarmingly significant, though subtle point of contention with the republicans.