Framing the message - we've got to get better at it.

[Ms. Toad]

Although we are clearly the winner with the truth (Betrayus v. Petraius), it appears to me that we lost the framing the message battle. Unfortunately, in this sound-bite world, the message delivered may be all that counts.

Americans have been calling for withdrawal from Iraq, with a timetable.

Petraius carefully crafted a messages that the media can (and is) reporting provides a timetable for withdrawal.

Never mind the reality that the surge was intended to be a temporary increase in troops.
Never mind the reality that the timetable proposed only does what would naturally occur at the end of the surge.
Never mind the reality that all Petraius really recommended was that the troops be drawn down by next summer to the level before the surge.
Never mind the reality is that the recommendation is still the same old Bush plan.

Despite the fact that the recommendation does not change Bush's strategy one iota, Republicans who might otherwise have responded to their constitutents' demands to withdraw from Iraq can now point to their support for a timetable for withdrawal (of the added troops Bush sent to Iraq after the American public clearly voted for a draw down of the troops already there.)

On the other hand, our message (Betrayus) is truthful, but was delivered in a manner that makes it more difficult for the convinceable republicans to do anything other than defend someone they believe/hope has integrity.

Regardless of the truth of the message, Bush has learned (or his handlers have) that unpopular "truths" can be said in ways that make it easier to accept/defend, rather than harder. We seriously need to get better at it. I am not suggesting changing the message - just that to be effective we need to be smarter about how we frame it.