When ‘some’ equals ‘none’

August 31, 2006

The WaPo had a good, front-page piece today on the White House’s latest “major public-relations offensive” on Iraq, and included a couple of tidbits that haven’t been reported elsewhere.

In particular, the Post noted the repeated use of straw-men arguments emanating from the administration, and did what reporters should do far more often: asked the Bush gang to back it up.

Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the [tag]war[/tag]. Vice President Cheney this week said critics “claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone.” And Defense Secretary Donald H. [tag]Rumsfeld[/tag], citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that “many have still not learned history’s lessons” and “believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased.”

Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major [tag]Democrat[/tag] who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. (emphasis added)

In other words, [tag]Bush[/tag] & Co. made it up. Asked to support their own public arguments with a single example, they couldn’t. When Bush, [tag]Cheney[/tag], and other administration officials say that “some” people prefer appeasement, or want to negotiate with terrorists, or believe terrorists aren’t a threat, they are — surprise, surprise — berating critics who exist solely in their imaginations. (I suppose it is easier than debating actual opponents…)

The Post also noted the White House’s complaints about Dems’ use of language.

While no Democrat has the powerful platform that the White House affords Bush and Cheney, the complaints about the mischaracterizing of positions on the war flow in both directions. Many Democrats accuse the president of advocating “stay the course” in [tag]Iraq[/tag], but the White House rejects the phrase and regularly emphasizes that it is adapting tactics to changing circumstances, such as moving more U.S. troops into Baghdad recently after a previous security strategy appeared to fail. (emphasis added)

Well, the Bush gang may reject “stay the course” now — probably because it doesn’t poll well anymore — but as Judd noted, the Dems are only using the same terminology the White House has been using for years.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, 8/17/06: “[Y]ou…cannot be a President in a wartime and not realize that you’ve got to stay the course.”

Snow, 8/16/06: “[T]hat’s why the President is determined to stay the course.”

President Bush, 7/11/06: “As a matter of fact, we will win in Iraq so long as we stay the course.”

Vice President Cheney, 6/6/06: “[W]e have to stay the course.”

How can Dems be “mischaracterizing” war supporters’ arguments when we use the same language they do?

It’s very much reminiscent of the flap over use of the phrase “nuclear option” during the most heated fights over judicial nominees. Republicans came up with the phrase, and Dems and reporters starting using it. The GOP then decided they didn’t like it anymore and demanded that everyone start using “constitutional option,” which they decided sounded better.

Look, Bush gang, you picked “[tag]stay the course[/tag].” Unless you’re actually ready to change course, you’re stuck with it.

Let’s not forget the whole Social Security on the term “Private Accounts” or “privatization”…

  • The Bushites are really aggressive in their use of language / frames.

    They’ll turn on a dime when a phrase they are using to market an idea starts to poll poorly.

    Example: Privatization to private accounts to personal accounts.

    This is an area where we need to improve our efforts to control the language and thus the debate.

  • It’s good to see the WP calling out Bush’s strawman arguments. And once again, Bush projects his own politicization of the terrorism issue…

    During a campaign stop in Arkansas yesterday, Bush denied that the efforts are connected to the election campaign.

    “They’re not political speeches,” he said. “They’re speeches about the future of this country, and they’re speeches to make it clear that if we retreat before the job is done, this nation would become even more in jeopardy. These are important times, and I seriously hope people wouldn’t politicize these issues that I’m going to talk about.”

    I’m sure this PR blitz has nothing to do with the elections coming up. Neither will the coming terror alerts. Or the visits to battleground states by Bush cronies with government goodie bags.

    Would it be “politicizing an issue” to ask where Osama is?

  • What was Mehlman’s phrase? Adapt for… staying the course? Or something like that…? That one seems to have gone by the by pretty quickly. Ha.

    These guys are so full of their own BS. It’s really about time someone called them on it – now if they could only do it when the camera is rolling.

  • I believe you’re misquoting Cheney on that “Stay the course” line. If you note the date, you’ll realize that this wasn’t in reference to Iraq, but rather to his master’s plans to dominate the earth and unleash one thousand years of hellfire and misery upon all mankind, which he had kicked-off symbolically on 6/6/06. He used the line to clarify that this newest campaign was merely an extension of Satan’s on-going policies, and did not represent any change in attitude towards his eternal struggles with God or God’s people, who he refers to as “Christofascists”.

    I know it’s difficult keeping track of all the evil leaders on the right, but this stuff is important.

  • The GOP and their BS, focus-grouped phrases. Now it’s “Islamic fascism” that all the fashion these days. Funny, it’s really Islamic evangelicals or Islamic conservatives we’re battling.

  • As long as Republicans (including Bush) insist on referring to it as the “Democrat” Party, I don’t think they have any right to complain about any terminology that Democrats use

  • “These are important times, and I seriously hope people wouldn’t politicize these issues that I’m going to talk about.” – George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United States and future King

    If you believe that, tell Rumsfeld and Cheney to shut the f**k up.

  • I got a “lefty” talking point for anyone with the courage to use.

    Here it is: There are some (kool-aid drinkers) in the Bush administration that believe that “Mid East apple cart” of existing regimes has to be overturned, in order to plant “the seeds of democracy.” That just a smokescreen. The true mission of the Bush foreign (war) policy for Iraq (and Iran) is to create so much instability in the oil-drenched region that the price for a barrel of oil will never sink below $60 again. And who benefits from higher and higher oil prices? All of Bush’s friends. Here’s a partial–but by no means complete–list of Bush friends: the multi-national oil companies, the “have-mores,” Texas wildcaters, Halliburton, the royal Saudi family …

  • In other words, Bush & Co. made it up. Asked to support their own public arguments with a single example, they couldn’t. — CB

    But guess what? The Bush&Co’s words were quoted all over TV and millions have heard them. How many people read Wash Post, and how many of those who read it read that article, and how many of those who’d read the article noticed the argument? So which is going to be remembered? The lie or the exposure of the lie?

  • Blurred vision? Flagging confidence? Demagogue exposure?

    Take Conyers Report (.pdf version recommended), the only paliative you will ever need for all cases of verbal haze, moral confusion, slogan vertigo and incipient insanity. One small page will do the trick again, and again, and ..

    Keep handy at all times! This powerful antidote will instantly dispell prop-agenda deception and restore that sparkling clarity you know you love.

    Just one page and see, again, clear as day

    they lied
    they know it

    they are criminals
    they know it

    And now

    you know it — again.

    Try it !

  • The GOP is effective in the war of words, thanks largely to the MSM, but also because they are focused and repetitive. They are focused and repetitive. The Democratic leadership would do well to pick up some of these tactis and, of course, back them up with a little more substance.

    And I’m not talking about a nude erec…, oh sorry, I mean new direction. We need serious, sustainable talking points that resonate, not laugable buzz words.

    And for the record, Mehlman tried pass off “adapt to win” as the new “stay the course,” or as I prefer “make shit up as you go along.”

  • Didn’t McCain characterize the policy of adapting to the situation, the “whack a mole” strategy?

    We can never have a real debate with these Republican rulers because they will never address directly the questions we put to them. They always shift the focus by addressing their misrepresentations of the questions.

  • Sometimes positive change occurs for the wrong reasons. The Republicans may get slam-dunked not because of specifics such as lies and corruption, but because people just get sick of them.

  • “Sometimes positive change occurs for the wrong reasons. The Republicans may get slam-dunked not because of specifics such as lies and corruption, but because people just get sick of them. ” – Alibubba

    Aren’t the American People sick of them because of the Bushite lies and the congressional Republican’t corruption (Ted “Hold my Secrets” Stevens)?

    In the end, I would love it if the American people turned out the Republican’ts because they ‘were sick of them’. Without an articulate reason for voting against the Republican’ts, come two years from now, the American People will confirm their feelings by voting in a Democratic President. Give them solid literal reasons in a laundry list to vote Democratic in 2006 and they can easily reverse themselves in two years.

  • Who was it who recently said something along the lines of ‘Staying the course isn’t a strategy, it’s a slogan.’? That is what the Dems should repeat ad nauseum. *And* demand that the admin. produce a strategy to get us out of this mess, esp. every time the rethugs repeat their ‘The Democrats don’t have any plans, they just criticize the president’ crapola.

    #11: this sounds about right.

    #14: LOL

  • The Republicans may get slam-dunked not because of specifics such as lies and corruption, but because people just get sick of them. — Alibubba (#16)

    Barf them out of Congress and White House? Sounds good to me đŸ™‚

  • RE: (#18) “Who was it who recently said something along the lines of ‘Staying the course isn’t a strategy, it’s a slogan.’?”

    That was Nancy Pelosi, I’m pretty sure. I liked it too.

  • “Adapt to win” was introduced less than three weeks ago. Thus, only Snow’s 8/17 reference to staying the course was wrongthink. The other instances from before Mehlman unveiled the phrase this month never happened.

    • Comments are closed.