Learning To Play The Game: The Foiled LA Plot

[MostlyLurks]

This is a thought exercise in framing and issue management. I'm sure there are deep thinkers around here who can do better, but I think this is the type of thought-experiment we should all be doing consistently and consciously.

Contributions are encouraged. There is only one rule: You cannot rely on complex explanation of legal statutes, precedents, case law and other anti-soundbite elements. Note that Republicans appeal to emotion, feeling and instinct, not intellect, law or rights.

Readers are encouraged to add their thoughts on the potential weaknesses of various suggestions but they must play by the ground rules:
1. Don't be a dick. This is an experiment and there will be bad and good suggestions. Explaining why a suggestion is bad should not involve the terms "stupid", "asswipe" or "retarded".
2. See rule 1.

The game is: how to talk about the foiled terrorist plot on Los Angeles.

Never Acknowledge That Any Republican Has Done Anything Right. Ever.
Taken directly from Ann Coulter's "How to talk to a liberal", you never give the other side credit for anything. So at no point do we owe them a "thank you".

Attack, attack, attack. Never help them make the point that they protected us. When Chris Mathews asks "Senator, how do you respond to the Republicans who say this is proof that they're better at protecting the American people than the Democrats?", you simply do not answer the question, you deflect it and move to your own talking point and frame. You don't respond in any way that gives the Republicans credit for anything. Ever. See next heading for suggested responses.

Turn Their Strength Into A Weakness
The President says we learned of this plot only after the suspect was caught and debriefed ("Bush said only that 'subsequent debriefings and other intelligence operations' after the arrest of the unnamed operative led to information about the plot" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11254053/).

This demonstrates that intelligence services, as presided over by Bush and his administration, did not even know of a major plot that was planned right under their noses. This demonstrates that Bush’s illegal wiretaps are not useful or necessary in detaining terror suspects. This demonstrates that our image in the rest of the world is crucial because much of our strength lies in solidarity with our allies and their willingness to cooperate with us.

Either of these could be used as rhetorical ammo when using tactic 1 above. Don't admit the Republicans did anything right, and point out only what's wrong.

Establish Your Own Frame
The Bush Administration has given credence to Ahmad Chalabi, a convicted and supplier of intelligence to Iran, who told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He did not. The Bush Administration took the advice of an alcoholic informant named “Curveball”, who said he worked on bio-agents in mobile weapons labs. There were no labs and we can assume he did no actual work. This administration has a habit of believing everything it wants to hear. Unless and until the President can provide concrete proof of a plot, rather than a simple list providing only the barest details, the American public has a right to be skeptical of this claim.

As I say, this is just an experiment.

Mostly

[rzemanfl]

1. A bunch of Asians go to see Bin Laden in 2002 and * can't catch

them or Bin Laden? He is proud of that????

[MadMaddie]

3. Randi just said someone should tell *

That Afghanistan and Pakistan are on the Asian contininet!!:rofl:

[MostlyLurks]

9. Very nice.

"Why is it that these suspects seem to have the ability to come and go as they please to see Osama bin Laden, and yet President Bush hasn't "smoked him out" after four years? It's almost like Bush just doesn't care that much about America's number one terrorist enemy."

Upside: OBL is the boogeyman - always good to remind the people that Bush has failed to deal with him.

Downside: Could be re-framed as an excuse ti justify invasion of Iraq if it is claimed they met OBL in Irag (remember, this supposedly took place in early 2002 and before).

Good one, rzemanfl

Mostly

[MadMaddie]

2. I like the game..

I especially like "Establish your own Frame"

How about we give credence and praise to all of the true US government officals that have been Swiftboated, from Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson to whomever the latest outspoken official is...We should ask why these people are loosing their jobs for telling the truth....

I like it...

[Coexist]

4. actually, I began a thread about a reporter who squashed that bomb story

by asking Scotty how a person with a shoe bomb could fly a plane into a building. The bomb would blow the plane up, making it impossible to fly it into a specified target or building.

[MadMaddie]

5. You know we should collect some money pots

And dare the reporters that go the Press conferences to ask daring questions? Money seems to motivate some people!!

[annabanana]

6. lol I saw that

She said the hijacker would either blow his feet off or blow up the cockpit of the plane.."what's the part of the story that's missing here?" she asked Scottie

He answered with his usual blather "you received a briefing earlier"

[MostlyLurks]

10. There are two problems with this, I think.

While I admire her efforts to think critically and logically, I think there are two problems with her assertions:

1. Shoes can be taken off, ergo you can use a shoe bomb without obliterating one's feet. Trust me, I know. (NSA spies: please ignore preceding sentence. Nothing to see here. Move along.)

2. Explosives can be used in "controlled" amounts and ways, meaning it is possible and conceivable that they could bring a bomb on board that would blow open the doors without simultaneously damanging the plane catastrophically.

Alright, so that's a splitting of hairs. But the thing we have to learn how to do better is to create simple messages and construct what I call "simple doubts". That's why the Republicans are winning: they've mastered simplicity.

They don't go into detail about why they disagree with John Kerry's health plan, they just induce "simple doubts": how are we going to pay for it? Yeah, exactly, how are we going to pay for it! Oh those rascally liberals and their pipe dreams!

I don't how many of you watch "Lost" but last night there was a perfect summation of what we're missing in this game. One of the characters explained that being a good con man was about getting the mark to ask the question you wanted him to ask the whole time. That's where the "how do they pay for it?" thing comes in above. Notice it offers no information of any kind but it induces the audience to ask the question you wanted them to ask the whole time. Their question - how DO we pay for it? - plays to the Republican frame of "tax and spend" Democrats. By inducing the question, they prep the audience for the answer they want to provide. That's what we have to do: figure out WHAT it is that we want the American people to ask about the Republicans and then get them to ask it themselves.

But still, it's nice to hear that there's a reporter out there asking logical, fact-based questions.

Mostly

[thoughtanarchist]

7. Why can't he do something himself to take credit for?

<snip>
The plot itself had been known for some time, but Bush said that it “was derailed in early 2002 when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al-Qaida operative.”
<snip>

So now he takes credit when other nations arrest terrorists?

Perhaps he should take credit for inventing mathematics too.

:eyes:

[MostlyLurks]

8. Ah, that's a good one.

Reply to Tim Russert when he asks "What about this plot in LA that the President claims to have thwarted?"

"Let's not forget, Tim, that this plot was foiled when another country arrested a suspect. My question for the Republicans is if they're so good at protecting the American people, why weren't we in control of this situation? Have we gotten to a point where America has to rely on the expertise of unnamed Southeast Asian countries?"

Upside: Playing to American machismo is fantastic.

Downside: could be "reframed" and turned around as a way to argue for the use of illegal wiretaps, etc.

Excellent suggestion, thoughtanarchist.

Mostly