Look at this amazing example of how the Bushco Media Propaganda Machine is able to propagate language so very close to what they want. I am referring a TV news script that is being repeated VERBATIM on TV news stations all over America today.
Here is the script
http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=1628112(pulled from google). See
http://news.google.com/news?q=White+House+says+criticism+of+Bush+military+record+%22outrageous%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&edition=us&scoring=d&start=0&sa=N&filter=0 to see how many TV news stations are playing this script right now.
I myself know very well how this game works, having written TV news scripts myself. The script is almost certainly a newswire story "ripped" from the AP newswire. And because this particular one is so short and succinct, it will likely go out on the TV news just as it is.
Let's take a look at how the script writer uses language, in particular, how he/she assumes facts that are actually in dispute:
White House-AP -- The White House says Democratic criticism of President Bush's military service record is "outrageous and baseless."
The writer got his main points out there right away. And because of the brevity of that first sentence, "outrageous and baseless" stands out.
Some Democrats have suggested Bush shirked his Vietnam-era duty by finding a slot in the Texas Air National Guard. And Democratic party chairman Terry McAuliffe has charged Bush was even "AWOL" from that service. He points to incomplete records from the time.
Actually, as most of us here know, it is NOT the incomplete documents that are the most damning, it is that fact that he was suspended from duty, and was a document in the record said he was NOT observed on the post where he was supposed to be. So the script avoids the most damning charges. A strawman has thus been constructed.
But McClellan says Bush "fulfilled his duties" in the National Guard unit -- which is why he received an honorable discharge.
Now the above is the real killer for this script: the writer saves his/her strongest point for last, and even made it stand out more by seperating it from the rest of the sentence with a dash. And most of all, by NOT quoting McClellan, but instead placing "which is why he received an honorable discharge" at the end of the sentence WITHOUT quotes, the WRITER -- NOT MCClellan -- is making the argument that Bush did not not go AWOL. So in a sense the writer is subtextually ASSUMING a fact in dispute, namely, that Bush did not go AWOL, because he was honorably discharged.