timetable: let's watch the "framing" on this term

[welshTerrier2]

here's the top definition of "timetable" from dictionary.com:

A schedule listing the times at which certain events, such as arrivals and departures at a transportation station, are expected to take place.

while i don't like the "Iraq plans" of any of the Senate Democrats, the rebublicans and the media are making the plans seem even worse than they are ... it's important not to let them get away with it ...

no plan i'm aware of that's been proposed by any Democrat called for the withdrawal of troops based on a "timetable" ... why? because a "timetable" is dependent on "TIME" ...

all withdrawal plans i've read that were proposed by Senate Democrats were LINKED not to time but to the ACHIEVEMENT OF BENCHMARKS ... i've seen interviews with republicans and media mumblers referring to the Democrats' plans as "timetables" ... that allows them to say that it's wrong to fix a "date certain" because the insurgents would plan their strategies around those specific dates ... they are arguing that the Democrats' plans would be a military blunder ...

plans proposed by the Democrats, most notably the Levin plan, did NOT contain any specific dates for withdrawal whatsoever ... even Kerry's plan that suggested operations could be completed withing 12 - 15 months was TOTALLY CONDITIONED ON THE ACHIEVEMENT OF BENCHMARKS ... if the benchmarks were not achieved, no withdrawal would occur ...

my personal opinion (other than my first choice which is immediate withdrawal) is that Congress should give bush a budget of time and money to complete the mission ... i would have preferred a "date certain" to the vagueries of benchmark contingencies ... but if I am stuck with the Democrat's plan, at least we should ensure that it gets communicated to the American people correctly ...

let's put an end to calling the currently offered Democratic Senate plans a "timetable" ... what's a better name? you tell me ... perhaps some of you marketing wizards can come up with something ... surely we can do better than "Operation Iraqi Freedom" ...

anyway, let's lose the term "timetable" ... it puts Democrats on the defensive ...

[DemSenator2034]

1. Terminology is very important

I like your thinking it is what the Party needs to start succeeding on the nation political scene. More right terminology

[welshTerrier2]

3. check out this article ...

welcome to DU, DemSenator2034 !!

check out this article if you haven't read anything about framing: http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/simple_framing/view

[DemSenator2034]

4. Great article

How ever funny Jon Stewart tries to be on the Daily show on Comedy Central he also makes good points on how communication is important in politics. He points out the change in terminology when things go bad for the administration. I noticed this early on when the Iraq war started. In the media leading up to the war it was all about WMDs. When we stepped into the war and the months following and even now it turned into a humanitarian effort of "Freedom of Iraq" and all that democracy bs. I must say it was pretty brilliant because the American Public bought right into it. Bottom line words mean everything. The connotation of a word means just as much as the denotation. This i have found is a pretty big key in Politics.



Just an interesting fact to be pointed out..... WMD is not recognized by the website spell checker. I find this a bit akward as this term is surely used quite a bit. I think i really like this forum though

[acmejack]

2. We need to find Frank Luntz a friend.

The kind that will consume his thoughts & drive him to distraction.

[sandnsea]

5. Timetable is in people's minds though

The people have decided that this war needs to come to an end. They expect to start seeing clear movement in that direction, no more excuses and moving goalposts. So even though none of the resolutions have a date certain time, the people definitely have a timeframe in mind. Get behind the 20,000 home for the holidays. If we win that one, that will be the first clear message that this war has to end expediently.

[welshTerrier2]

7. will the Democratic plan evolve as time passes?

while i strongly favor immediate withdrawal, i have also supported two key elements of Kerry's plan ...

first, i support the 20,000 troop withdrawal after the elections ... i've also called for an Iraqi referendum, to be held simultaneously with the elections, to let the Iraqi people determine whether the US should stay or go ... it really is too bad that with all the talk about democracy in Iraq, the US is pushing to let the Iraqi people decide their own future ...

and second, if we're not going to withdraw now, i support Kerry's call to have the troops pulled back from forward offensive positions ...

as far as battling over the jargon, i think the phrase "timetable" has enabled the republicans to falsify the Democratic Senators positions ... none of them has LINKED withdrawal to the element of time (although i wish they would); all the plans i've seen are based on the achievement of benchmarks ...

the question i have is: by the time next year's elections roll around, what will be the Democratic position on the war? ... will those saying we should be able to wrap things up in another year be calling for withdrawal a year from now when nothing has changed?

what's not clear to me about where some of the Democrats are currently at is that bush, and Rice, seem to think we're going to be in Iraq for another 5 to 10 years ... will they call for immediate withdrawal anywhere along that timeline? if their plan is contingent on a phased withdrawal as "progress" is being made, will they call for a 20% reduction after 20% progress is made, then another 10% after a little more progress is made and so on for the next 5 or even 10 years?

i understand they think things could be completed in one year but what will they do if bush engineers a process in Iraq that will take 5 to 10 years???

by the time the midterms arrive next year, i'd like to see Democrats arguing that they gave bush his year but now it's time to get out ... my fear is that they won't do that even then ...

regardless of what the Democrats do, it's clear to me bush wants to remain in Iraq as long as he possibly can ... his goal is still to establish a puppet government ... i think he would like to create a lower profile for the US by withdrawing most of the troops but he can't do that because of the power of the insurgency ... i see no way we're getting out of there before 2008 and probably well beyond that ... that's why i support immediate withdrawal ... i see that as the only way to rally the American people behind the idea that we can't win, we have no right to be there, the war is killing our country and our troops, the struggle has always been political and not military, and bush is incompetent and his motives are to stay and not to leave ... and in the end, it really is all about the oil ...

[sandnsea]

9. Just keep pushing

All I know is you have to get behind the horse going the direction you want to go, and I mean blatant east vs. west direction. America vs. PNAC direction. We have to keep hold of the reins, and give it a kick, but it's alot better than standing along side the trail and throwing rocks at the horse thinking you're going to do anything but kill it.

My plan for this year was to be kicking John Kerry to make sure he did what he promised, which was to internationalize, stop the American occupation, and start withdrawing troops this last summer. Don't think I thought our work would be done with his election, I knew we had a long way to go to getting this country off the Clinton track as well.

[leesa]

6. This is bullshit. It's illegal and immoral. Get the hell out now.

WTF are you talking about 'missions'??? The mission was to loot and occupy. How will that ever be done?

[welshTerrier2]

8. the only sensible course is immediate withdrawal

i have no disagreement with you ...

i was not arguing that we should stay in Iraq to do anything whatsoever ... i see Iraq as totally about the oil ... bush is only interested in prolonging the occupation ...

the point i was making is that, if the Democratic Senators refuse to get out now, they shouldn't build THEIR "stay another year" plans around whether bush is "successful"; they should give him a budget and tell him to sink or swim within it ... staying in Iraq is NOT a position i'm advocating; it's a rejection of the way they've made THEIR argument ...

i would rather see a "date certain" than the vagueries of the achievement of benchmarks ... the "date certain" i would choose would be today ...