Jerome Using Administration Frame of One War?

I really really hope that I am wrong on this, and perhaps Jerome can correct me on this, but I don't know how else to interpret his "Update"

Jerome states that:

Obama, for his part, wants your help to "wage the war" he will lead as President, "The War we Need To Win". Huh? And I thought he was running to end the war. That's terrible framing.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/2/17272 5/3684#103

Thus Jerome criticizes Obama's "framing" of the War against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Western Pakistan as different and distinct from the War in Iraq. It is quite clear from the Obama page that Jerome links to that this is the distinction that Obama is arguing for.

Thus, one wonders, does Jerome agree with the administration that these two are part of the same war, and that if you are for one war (Al Qaeda), you must be for the other (Iraq)?

True, maybe Jerome disagrees with both wars. If so, fair enough. But then why does he criticize Obama for his "framing" rather than for being for the War against Al Qaeda? I really don't see how Jerome is not endorsing the Bush frame. Please, someone explain this to me.

Tags: obama (all tags)

Comments

8 Comments

Re: Jerome Using Administration Frame of One War?

Frankly, all the candidates should shut their mouths about anything else and do everything in their power to end the Iraq War.

by Dickweed 2007-08-02 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome Using Administration Frame of One War?

I've been surprised by the number of people on the blogs who are equating the Iraq War and operations against Al Qaeda.

It's bizarre. It's like they've somehow swallowed Bush's phony formula without even noticing it.

Thankfully, most of the Democratic candidates have kept track of the difference between Bush's Iraq War and the Real War against the people who attacked us on 9/11.

by Bush Bites 2007-08-02 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome Using Administration Frame of One War?
I don't understand why people pay any attention to this guy called Jerome. He does not have an iota of credibility on progressive view. Reason: when time come, we will expose his backdoor cash of $20,000 he received from you know who.
This campaign is not about bribing voters--it is about doing what is right for the country. Even if Jerome mounts megaphones across every cities of the country bashing Obama, people would always support this man. People across the country do have a strong, unexplanable love affinity for Mr. Obama, and that will not change.
by Slave 2007-08-03 03:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome Using Administration Frame of One War?

The big question:  Why does this troll "slave" get a podium?    It is not so much the somewhat creepy framing for the undying love he has for his candidate, but the unfounded accusation, which is beyond ridiculous, that Jerome Armstrong has been the recipient of $20,000 from Hillary Clinton.  

Many, many Obama posters are bizarrely convinced that everyone has it in for them and their candidate, that everbody is conspiring against them, a conspiracy lurks around every corner.   His supporters define Obama, which of course hurts his candidacy.   But, this junk should not be allowed to be aired.  It is slander of the highest degree, an accusation of bribery against the Democratic frontrunner, an accusation of taking said bribery, a shameful display of personal bashing that can't be tolerated on any blog.  

Unless this TROLL brings any proof to the table, other Obama supporters should disown this person.   One CAN'T slander like this without solid proof.    Or, at least, we should not let these trolls get away with it.  

by georgep 2007-08-03 05:07PM | 0 recs
I Don't Get Your Argument

(1) Jerome questions Obama's use of the "war" frame.

(2) And you ask if Jerome shares the Administration's "One War" frame.

This does not compute.

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-08-03 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: I Don't Get Your Argument

1. Obama implicitly referred to the war on terror as being seperate from the Iraq war.

2. Jerome implicitly bought into the administrations frame by saying he thought Obama was supposed to be ending the war. Obama is supposed to be ending the war in Iraq, but he clearly wasn't talking about Iraq in the quote. Jerome responded as if Iraq and the war on terror were one and the same.

by Mystylplx 2007-08-03 12:16PM | 0 recs
You're Assuming What You Want To Prove

You're attributing an implicit logic to Jerome that's derived from Bush.  But ad hoc attribution is not proof.

A much more less labored interpretation of what Jerome said is: (1) Obama's early claim to fame was as an outspoken anti-war candidate.  (2) He got a lot of mileage out of being "anti-war."  (3) Now he's turning out to be "anti-Iraq-war"/"anti-Bush's-war." (4) That's a significant shift.

by Paul Rosenberg 2007-08-03 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: You're Assuming What You Want To Prove

It's not a shift at all. The whole framing of him as the "anti-war" candidate came from the media and bloggers who want a simple way to define him. None of that ever came from Obama's own campaign. All they've ever said was he is the only top-tier candidate who understood what a dumb idea the iraq war was from the start.

"I don't oppose all wars--I only oppose dumb wars."

--Barack Obama

by Mystylplx 2007-08-04 08:56AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads