Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Framing the debate" - bush* awol

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
trof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 09:30 AM
Original message
"Framing the debate" - bush* awol
It's a very slick and well practiced tactic of the repug mouthpieces.
Subtly (and sometimes not-so-subtly) re-frame the debate so we're no longer talking about "A" versus "B" ( which they can't win), but now we're talking about "B" versus"C".

Now they are trying to spin that this whole brouhaha is about Viet Nam and it's time to move on and forget about it. Notice how much they always want for all of us to "move on" and just quit talking about it?

Bush*s failure to fulfill his military obligation is NOT about Viet Nam. Viet Nam has very little, if anything, to do with this. He voluntarily undertook an obligation to his state and military. It doesn't matter if it happened in wartime, or peacetime; before, during, or after Viet Nam.

The point is that he reneged on a lawful, enforceable, voluntary obligation, and was able to evade the consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
displacedtexan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. The AWOL issue reflects the true character of the pResident.
Anyone who would smirkingly abuse and lie about the privilege handed to him during wartime would most likely smirkingly misrepresent intelligence data in order to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation.

Cracks in the armor make the body more and more vulnerable: if one or more lies are exposed, the public will begin to question every statement and action; this is what brought down Nixon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. Where Were You Hiding? Behind The Sofa? Under The Table?
Edited on Sat Feb-14-04 09:41 AM by arwalden
I ask this question only because you have quoted me almost word-for-word of something that I was talking about just YESTERDAY. So obvioulsy you MUST have been in the room with me and I just didn't see you because you were hiding.

"Notice how much they always want for all of us to "move on" and just quit talking about it?"

Or perhaps you're a mind-reader? It's frightening. Eerie. Oooo!

-- Allen

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. In the closet.
No...wait...THAT doesn't sound right.
;-)
Channeling?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. Would have been easy to move on if they had not done this....
Put the flag over the heads and a AK in their arms and yelled the battle cry that we were anti-Am. They got what they asked for. Never burn a bridge you may want to cross another time. I fear Bush did that. He thought it was off the table I am sure as it was so low keying 2000.Top of that Clinton won over 2 war heroes. But Clinton never ran around calling every one anti-Am.And either did the other two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Granite Donating Member (195 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
4. Another great example of this
is the insistence that attacks on Bush* on this issue are attacks on the National Guard. How many times have you heard a question asked about Bush's* service record, and then almost immediately the response is that the national guard is an honorable way to serve our country, lots of national guard troops are doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in Iraq, and no one should denigrate someone's patriotic service in the Guard.

No one is doing this! We want to know whether he served or not. While we also want to raise the question regarding how he got into the Guard in the first place (Poppy's influence), I've yet to hear anyone disparage the National Guard or the people who actually fulfilled their duties within the Guard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poiuyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. The only person who attacked the National Guard
was Colin Powel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poiuyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
6. bush is a "war president"
How he performed while in military service is very much an issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedSock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. does the story have legs?
we will find out in the next press conference with mcclellan.

here's an idea -- why doesn't bush come out and answer these questions?

(i know why) shouldn't he be upfront and open about all this? isn't he a straight-shooter??

he's proud of his service. so tell us all about it, coke boy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
8. The point is he pranced on the Lincoln deck and LIED about his service
That is how we need to frame the debate.

He lied about his service, he lied about WMD, he lied about the tax cuts, he is a damn liar, and this is a good, clearcut example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpaceCatMeetsMars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
10. I agree, but I also don't understand why he gets a pass
about the chickenhawk angle. Practically everybody acts like, 'well, it's normal for a parent to get his kid out of the Vietnam war." Sure, but this isn't just any family. They were firmly in support of the war.

I remember my parents worrying horribly about my oldest brother getting drafted, he was going to DC to protest it and I remember vividly how much they all hated the war and Nixon and feared the draft. They were so relieved when it ended and he didn't get drafted and they didn't have to worry about my other brothers who were coming of age.

How come nobody asks George why he let his dad pull strings since he was so gung-ho for the war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. 1972, *abused the military at the American taxpayer's expense.
2003,*abuses the military at the American taxpayer's expense.

Pattern of behaviour, anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
12. The current Repub talking points, as I understand, are:
"It is shameful that Democrats would dimish and trivialize honorable service in the National Guard as a way to dodge the war"

and

"The Democrats didn't want this discussed when Clinton was running, but now they are forcing the issue because they have their own war hero."


Let's see...

First, anyone who says that this issue is about attacking Bush for simply joining the Guard is either as big of a liar as Rush Limbaugh, or a Rush Limbaugh listener.

While it is true that it was pretty cowardly for Bush to use his connections to get into the TANG, that isn't even half of it. The worst part is that he couldn't even show up for that. We are trying to find out where he was, why he stopped showing up for duty, what he was doing instead, and why he felt it necessary to lie and paint himself as a "fighter pilot during Vietnam" and a war veteran.


Which brings me to the other talking point.

Sorry, the Democrats are not responsible for bringing this issue to light.
Last I remember, it was Bush who staged that "mission accomplished" Top Gun aircraft carrier landing.
It was Bush who paraded around among actual servicemen dressed in a flightsuit and trying to be a war hero.
It was Bush's media buddies who dubbed him a "Vietnam War verteran" and a "fighter pilot".
It is Bush who currently has an action figure on sale called "elite aviator".

Well, we are simply calling him on it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-04 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. One thing that disappoints -
In a sound byte by one of the candidates for the Democratic nomination (who must remain nameless here) said something to the effect that he bore no ill will against Viet Nam protesters, those who went to Canada, those in the reserves and national guard, etc.

It was quite a gaffe, IMHO, to lump guard and reserves in with protesters, etc. I'm sure we'll see that one over and over in a repub campaign commercial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 25th 2024, 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC