Following Politico clarification, will the media eschew "slow-bleed" when reporting Dem's Iraq policy?
As documented by Media Matters for America, a February 14 article by Politico congressional bureau chief John Bresnahan used the charged label "slow-bleed" to characterize the Democrats' strategy in dealing with the administration on Iraq -- a characterization that was immediately adopted by the Republican National Committee, which cited Bresnahan's article to falsely claim that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) call the Democrats' strategy "their 'slow-bleed' plan." Media Matters noted that Bresnahan's article did not attribute the characterization to anyone and did not put it in quotation marks, suggesting that the characterization was his own.
Conservative bloggers also latched onto The Politico's "slow-bleed" characterization. For instance, a February 14 entry on Michelle Malkin's Hot Air weblog stated: "If they do what they're apparently planning to do, 'slow bleed' will be a very apt description. Those doing the bleeding, slowly, will be US troops."
In a February 16 article, Bresnahan made clear that the term "slow-bleed" was indeed The Politico's "characteriz[ation]," and that it "was not a term used by any Democrats or the anti-war groups supporting their efforts." The February 16 article also noted that "[t]he RNC, however, attributed the phrase to Democrats, and it was used in their e-mail alert."
Now that The Politico has confirmed that the term "slow-bleed" was its own description of the Democratic plan, will the media refrain from using this controversial term when reporting on the Democratic strategy for Iraq?
Bush is doing the "slow bleed" to this country, it's amazing neo-cons would laughingly attempt to assign this to Democrats. Main sheep media will probably adapt this term to describe the Dems. Oh, and this is a valuable item in MMFA for today, sorry T.
THE BUSH PLAN:
FAST BLEED!
The Bush strategy is the one where more of our troops are continuing to die in Vain. Just like Vietnam.
We were winning the War On Terror until all of a sudden Bush could smell oil next door in Iraq. Now he's created on hell of a mess. Only solution is political, not sending more troops to die.
I agree Marker
The Politico clarified its article, but I highly doubt the Conservative Talking Heads will do the same. I also believe Bush is the one causing all the bleeding, the dems just want this nonsensical "War on Terror" to be put to rest, as it should be...
The genie is already out of the bottle... In a NY Times article today Trent Lott is quoted as saying the Democratic strategy is "slow bleed...a terminology that horrifies me. [link to www.nytimes.com]
As I said in a post yesterday, the Democrats need to counter this quickly and publicly.
Like "cut and run", "slow-bleed", etc., picture any of the Rovian/RNC/NEOCON-manufactured, tender dry strawmen as Frankenstein monsters.
Now, picture MMFA as a group of torch-wielding townsfolk.
Burn baby, burn!
I can see it all now...Karl Rove has a room deep in the bowels of the West Wing, a single light bulb dangling from the ceiling...a large table with 12 Evangelicals strapped to their chairs, feeding tubes inserted. The tops of their heads are sawed off with wires inserted, like those monkeys we see in all the PETA ads. At the end of the table stands Karl with a chalkboard, writing catch phrases. When a phrase stimulates the repitlian portion of the Evangelical's brains, Karl puts it on the "Keeper" list. This is how GOP talking points are born.
Nerzog hillarious!
But probably true nonetheless ;)
It's friday....let the troll bashing begin......
We need a troll to bash......
Who knows more about "controlling the language" than Newt Gingrich?
Come up with a phrase that is colorful and fraught with negative connotations, and simply ATTRIBUTE it to the Democrats.
The "slow bleed" applied to Iraq would, in the world of reality, apply to the Bush Administration's LACK of plan for the past four years. pointlessly costing the blood of our brave soldiers and bleeding out our Treasury, and for no good reason (and based on an initial web of LIES).
Sending 20,000 more bodies to Iraq to stand in the middle of a Civil War will bring only MORE "slow bleeding", filling Walter Reed's trauma wards and filling flag-draped coffins (although, perhaps, this escalation might speed the bleeding somewhat).
So, the Rightwing is now "horrified" at this term, when attributed to Democrats. WOW. Isn't it equally horrifying when applied to the ACTUAL coiner of the phrase, a rightwinger, to describe Bush's current "plan"?
Remember, Newt was the guy who said, "I want social security and medicare to wither on the vine." Very colorful. He spoke, of course, of the Rightwing "plan" of "defunding the left", cutting taxes for the upper income brackets and running up deficits until no government program could be afforded. The Republicans have a long history of "slow bleeds" which cause suffering and harm to American citizens and soldiers alike, focused instead on bolstering the military industrial complex's profits, coddling big industry like oil and pharmaceuticals, and further enriching the already wealthy .
As a previous poster pointed out, the Republican Party ... excuse me, the REPUBLIC party ... is all about bleeding Americans of their freedoms, of their jobs, of their purchasing power, of their privacy, of their free speech, of their ability to afford such necessities as heating oil and health care, of any safety nets for old age or disability. The "SLOW BLEED" should be registered trademarked and patented to the sole use of describing everyting the Republic Party stands for.
AND ONE OF THEIR OWN USED THE TERM IN THIS INSTANCE.
Yet watch the domino-effect of Rightwing media, fabricating a FRAME, then perpetuating the LIE across the spectrum of rightwing talking heads and printed pages.
The slow bleed has been going on for years, and GW and Cheney are up to their necks in the resulting blood.
will the media refrain from using this controversial term
This is a joke, right?
I think "slow bleed" is appropriate...
Look at what Murtha is proposing: restrictions on deployments, prohibiting "stop loss, etc. All great ideas that I support, but how is that going to end the war? Isn't it just prolonging the conflict because the Dems don't have the guts to cut off the funding and end it?
And what do they get for all their "clever" strategizing? Dems are afraid to stand up for a funding cutoff because they're afraid of being accused of "betraying the troops", so they take up Murtha's "strategy" and get atttacked for..."betraying the troops."
Here's something Dems just refuse to learn: the Republican attack points are always the same, so you might as well do something, since you're going to get attacked anyway.
Yeah... some of the most compelling cases I heard during the House debate were from anti-resolution Republcans saying, in effect: if you think the troops can't win this war, why not bring them home now?
It's a good point, in my opinion.
I hate it when the Republicans are right...
Amazing that the Democrats couldn't anticipate this line of argument. Now they've provided an opportunity for the Republicans to portray them as insincere wafflers, an attack that will be effective because IT'S TRUE.
SWBurns I completly agree.
I wish more of the democrats would show some back bone and propose cuting the funding for the surge(like what Feingold proposed) We voted these guys and gals into office and made them the majority so they would put an end to the insanity in Iraq, and yet many of them are doing the same thing as the republicans...
You have to factor in the Israel Lobby. They have a strong influence over the Dems and they want this war to continue. They are also eager to attack Iran. You always have to factor them into the behind-the-scenes decision-making process. They are the unseen hand that's been guiding a lot of this policy.
What are we in today?
Are we not slowly bleeding today? The Cheney/Rove/Bush war has cost us so much and killed innocent Iraqis.
Is Politico getting funding from the RNC?
This slow bleed is nothing else but bush evading defeat in Iraq. He will do anything he can as long as there are troops in Iraq when he leaves office. Democrats need to proceed carefully which is what their doing right now.
Democrats need to proceed carefully...
I'm sure you'll get what you're asking for. If there's one thing Congressional Democrats have no shortage of, it's caution. Expect them to be "proceeding carefully" for a long time to come, as the insurgency and civil war increase, as Bush invades Iran, as the Middle East goes up in flames...
SWBURNS
I hope the Dems DO NOT sit by and watch what you stated happen; they have congressional power and I can't understand why they don't USE IT. If they fold to Bush and his administration with regard to Iran, I am VOTING GREEN for the rest of my life...
I have been thinking the same thing recently, Barry. Not only will I VOTE GREEN if the Dems let us down, I will devote my every effort to recruit, campaign and build the GREEN PARTY.
I don't care if my efforts help to deliver power to Republicans for the rest of my natural life. At least they're not scared of political conflict.
As to the latest slogan brought to us by the same people who sell us new and improved Crest: DO NOT REPEAT THEIR DISGUSTING FRAMES, EVER.
How hard is that? Repeating their frames only serves to solidify them in the public's subconcious.
Bush's rhetoric on Iran is very similar to the lies he was spewing about Iraq in 2002 .
The 'slow bleed' has been happening ever since the first death occured in Iraq. I can't see how that has anything to do with the Democratic strategy.
Why do all the right wing 'smear merchants' (thanks Bill O.) insist on parroting each other's slogans? Can't they ever come up with something original all on their own?
No...they won't....the media WILL continue to use this term because ROVE said they will...I'm already counting the minutes until Tony Snowusall says it and flax news picks it up and Shamminty uses today on his *show*...
We need to get tougher...
It's probably the best the Republicans can come up with... I mean, what else can they say right now. Late last night I briefly watched a small portion of a replay of Sean Hannity's show as he and Ann Coulter were going after the token Democrat guest (can't recall her name) about just this topic. In typical Hannity fake outrage he accused John Murtha and the Democrats of lying about their true intentions... that Murtha's plan to require that new troops deployed to Iraq be properly armed and trained was only a thinly disguised attempt to thwart the surge... and that the Dems wanted us to lose the war in Iraq, blah, blah, blah... What I can't understand is why Democrats don't respond more forcefully in the right wing media and turn it around on the Republican mouthpieces like Hannity. Why, I'll never understand, when Hannity accuses a guest of being a liar the guest doesn't say "No, Sean...you are the liar!" Why don't the Dems respond to Hannity about Murtha's plan "So Sean... you're saying you want our troops sent to Iraq without proper training and equipment?"
Please stop making so much sense this early in the day...it evaporates the puffed-up confidence of neocons...
Why don't Democratic guests on shows like Hannity's stand up for themselves?
Simple - you can make a good living for yourself being a "Democratic" doormat (think Alan Colmes), or better still, a "Democrat" who criticizes other Democrats (think Susan Estrich or Terry McCauliffe).
Democrats who stand up for themselves are make effective arguments don't get invited back.
"Why, I'll never understand, when Hannity accuses a guest of being a liar the guest doesn't say "No, Sean...you are the liar!" Why don't the Dems respond to Hannity about Murtha's plan "So Sean... you're saying you want our troops sent to Iraq without proper training and equipment?"
Yes to your second riposte, irony, no to the first. "No, Sean...you're the liar!" Is schoolyard argument: I am not, you are!
The second response puts him in a logical hole, and makes him defend himself. That's effective debating.
"schoolyard argument"
I agree, Concho... and I've always thought it was, for many reasons, better to stay above that and not play along with the dumbing down of arguments as is FOX News' stock in trade. But it absolutely amazes me how Hannity (and I've seen O'Reilly do it, too) can get away with calling a guest a liar to his face. One day I would love to see someone return the insult and then rip Hannity apart with logic, reason intelligence and facts. But, ultimately, these FOX News shows are more about creating artificial drama than a serious and intelligent anaysis or reporting of important events. It stil p*sses me off, though... ;>)
If you ever get invited on Hannity's show, be sure to use that one...
But I'm betting you, or anyone who could make a similar argument, won't get anywhere near the studio.
Who decides who gets on Sean's show? Why Sean, of course. And will he invite on people who make him appear (even more) foolish? Of course not.
So expect to see lots more sputtering, ineffective "liberals" being walked over by Sean and his right-wing guests. Sometimes I think there's a farm somewhere where they grow these folks.
I won't take credit for this because I believe someone else made this comment in another piece... but I'll repeat it. The "liberal" guests on Hannity's show are like the Washington Generals, a pick-up basketball team whose sole function is to be a nominal opponent to the Harlem Globetrotters... and, of course, to lose every game to the Globetrotters. Just like FOX News, it's all about ENTERTAINMENT. The difference, though, is that while some Globetrotters players can actually make a half-court hook shot Sean Hannity would have trouble making a simple lay-up without standing on a ladder.
Hannity is one of the most relentless at hammering home these straw man talking points to his spittle-chinned fans.
I listen to his radio show if I'm on the road at that time , and he has his audience convinced that the Dems are actively pursuing defeat. Just this morning he used the terms "back-stabbing", "undermining", and "back-door", among others regarding the resolutions.
He also called this a "Sad day for America", and explained to his monkeys that the Liberals are planning to make Iraq a staging ground for Al Qaeda, who want to kill your children and grandchildren.
Which means that, indirectly, Liberals want to kill your children and grandchildren.
HBL... you can see where they are going with this.
I take no pleasure in saying that, in my belief, we are going to be suffering the effects of this Iraq war for a long, long time, and the world is likely to get even scarier. Who in his right mind would WANT that to happen? But the right wing media is already writng the history... it's all the fault of the treasonous liberals who sabotaged the war in Iraq that was going to bring baseball and democracy to Iraq and make the world safe from terrorism for everyone. The Iraq war was doomed for failure from the start and Bush is the one who put us into this no-win situation. But the Democrats are going to be blamed. There is a dual reality at work here that is impossible to reconcile. It's absolutely mind-boggling... !
explained to his monkeys that the Liberals are planning to make Iraq a staging ground for Al Qaeda
The fallacy in Hannity's argument is that if we leave, thus stop being referees in the civil war, the home grown Iraqi Shiites will take full control of the place. they are 80% of the Iraqi people. They will force out the minority Sunnis. So...can anybody tell me which sect Al Qaeda belongs to? Wait for it... SUNNI!
The end result is that if we leave, there are no impediments for the Shia to destroy or run out the Al Qaeda fighters (Sunnis). Therefore, it would be physically impossible for Iraq to become a breeding ground for Al Qaeda...unless Sunnis and Shia suddenly decide to become best buddies. And guess what? If Sunnis and Shias become best buddies, then...wait for it again...Iraq will be a peaceful country! Either way...we win!
Chrisgodawgs, all you got there is a bunch of facts. Try telling that to the "Great Americans" who don't realize what a shivering pansy Hannity is.
I debate Hannity when I drive my car, cut my grass, watch Hannity and Colmes...If he and I had a debate where he gave his side for an uninterrupted minute and I gave my side for an uninterrupted minute, back and forth for a period of time, I would kick his butt. But he will not allow a lefty an uninterrupted five seconds on his tv or radio show. It is very easy to be a debate winner when you get to talk all over your opponent. Man I hate Hannity.
Thought I would put in my 2 cents about a new piece of scum. DIANE SAWYER, yes, she is pathetic. She went to Iran and visited with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Not once did she ask a decent question. She softballed him saying it's confusing what the U.S does, isn't it. No, she didn't ask "Why do you DENY the HOLOCAUST? Why have you rallied your people every friday afternoon for the last 20 years by the hundreds of thousands to shout "death to America"? Of course she wouldn't ask a question like that!!! No she wouldn't, because she is a piece of trash liberal. But Diane would be more than happy to stand in front of our own President and Accuse him of Slaughtering innocent people and commiting war crimes. P.S. PLEASE FLAG ME, I'M SURE YOU WILL CALL ME A BIGGOT OR RACIST FOR TALKING FREELY ABOUT A SCUMBAG REPORTER WHO BACKSTABS OUR COUNTRY. THIS WEB SITE WILL PROBABLY KICK ME OFF BECAUSE I'M TALKING THIS WAY ABOUT ONE OF THEIR LOVED REPORTERS AND NOT AN EVIL REPUBLICAN. Liberal's are pathetic and so is this web site!!!
You may well be pounded in the debate of your alleged "points"; you may be criticized for your lack of style; but, generally, I doubt you will be "flagged" or "kicked off". This venue differs a tad from the Right-Wing sites that seem to be evidenced in your spelling, etc. We tend to tolerate disagreement, even poorly presented.
Simmer down, Mikey, caps lock off.
. "No, she didn't ask "Why do you DENY the HOLOCAUST?"
I think any decent reporter knows there isn't an answer to that question, and it's not going to help the rest of the interview.I heard Sean Hannity today, so I realize you're just repeating what he told you, but this is a good opportunity to learn somethinng.Sean Hannity never learns anything because he asks a lead-off question that destroys any credibility he might have with somebody who's unfamiliar with him, and so he never gets a good interview.That's why he's a Republican, and not a real journalist.
"Why have you rallied your people every friday afternoon for the last 20 years by the hundreds of thousands to shout "death to America"? Of course she wouldn't ask a question like that!!!"
Again, assuming somebody could actually get hundreds of thousands of people together to shout the same thing, on a weekly basis no less, what sort of answer would you expect to get by framing a question this way?
"No she wouldn't, because she is a piece of trash liberal. But Diane would be more than happy to stand in front of our own President and Accuse him of Slaughtering innocent people and commiting war crimes. "
She might be justified in accusing your hero, the chimp-in-chief, of these things, but I doubt she would be "happy". Most Americans are not too happy at all with our incompetent leadership, and would rather not have to point it out.
Don't blame the messenger, Mikey.The free press is one of the fundamental elements of our country. The same free speech rights that allow you to post the uninformed regurgitation of your media overlords whining here allow our real journalists to make sure those of us who are paying attention can keep you from hurting yourself and others.
But, then, I'm just a "piece of trash liberal", and hardly use capitals at all, so you're PROBABLY RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!!.
HBL: Very effectively said what I probably SHOULD have said, instead of poking indirectly at the "I post a lot on Right-Wing sites, and they LOVE caps-lock, grammar-school illogic, mis-spellings, and general appeals to ignorance!"
My excuse is just that I don't really know if Diane Sawyer might actually BE a liberal, so I didn't have the right to address that point.
Conley, I didn't even know Diane Sawyer was still alive, except I happened to hear Sean Hannity crying about her, and Mikey liked it.
Took the bullet for the rest of us, eh?
I get far too angry whenever I listen to (or watch) any of the newscasts that allow opinion to be overt, so I am thankful that someone did what I would not do (listen to Hanratty); the kind of angry that could lead to broken things, perhaps even bloodshed. Somehow, I can read with greater self-restraint, so I catch a lot of my news via Google, and a host of blogs that opine on things that I am then alerted to investigate.
Your excuse that you don't know if Diane Sawyer is a liberal!!! Show's just how ignorant you are. Whup's did i mispel something, oh well its better that I know the truth about the dirtbag liberals in the media than concentrate on my spelling in this website. By the way, can any of you iliberals name a conservative that works for CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, New york times, la times. Oh Isuppose their is only conservatives on Fox channel, how unfair. and at best half of them are iliberals to.
Actually, I don't watch Shawn, haven't watched him in over a year. President Bush is not my hero. He is way to liberal for me. He spend s like a leberal, fights like a leberal, and lies like a liberal. It's funny you guys complain about the unfair media coverage when 90% percent of all the media is spewing out your garbage daily!! I guess it would only be fair if 100% percent of the media was liberal.