2007 archive

famously said, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

He had nothing on the Current Federal Administration.

When is an escalation not an escalation.

When it’s a surge.

When is a surge not a surge. When it’s an augmentation (funny, I get emails about augmentation all the time).

At least in Decider circles, surge is out and augmentation is in. This battle over words may seem trivial, but it is not. Language is powerful. Whoever captures the language has the power to frame an issue. Which is why the Bush camp has now unveiled augmentation, a word that sounds more benign than escalation, which still carries the stench of a certain lost war in the jungle.

The Bush administration has long understood the importance of word play, which is why, among many examples, it has long sought to redefine the privatization of Social Security as a push for “personal accounts” (because the word personal has a more positive connotation). Similarly, the urge to push the friendlier word surge (a burst of electrical power) stemmed from a war council desire to cushion the blow of a new troop hike.

Orwell, the British journalist/commentator/novelist, understood this impulse more than six decades ago. In his famous essay “Politics and the English Language,” he argued that because our leaders often have little interest in candor, “political language has to consist largely of euphemism.” He also wrote: “Politics otself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred….When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.”

When out and out lies won’t work, obsfuscate.

Translated.

Here.

With a tip to TBogg.

As I drove to Paoli this morning, I was musing on how to address just this issue.

I come home to find that Andrew Sullivan beat me to it:

The premise of the speech, and of the strategy, is that there is a national democratic government in Baghdad, defending itself against Jihadist attacks. The task, in the president’s mind, is therefore to send more troops to defend such a government. But the reality facing us each day is a starkly different one from the scenario assumed by the president. The government of which Bush speaks, to put it bluntly, does not exist. The reality illumined by the lynching of Saddam is that the Maliki government is a front for Shiite factions and dependent for its future on Shiite death squads. U.S. support for the government is not, therefore, a defense of democracy in a unified country, whatever our intentions. It is putting the lives of American soldiers in defense of the Shiite side in an increasingly brutal civil war.

References to the Iraqi government in much of the discussion of what to do seems to assume that Iraq is an independent nation that petitioned the United States for assistance. Witness this discussion on Here and Now. (The portion involving Richard Perle is particulary interesting.)

Yet, the Iraqi government is the creation–an unruly creation, perhaps, and obviously an impotent one–of the Current Federal Administration.

And, frankly, the Current Federal Administration blew it.

Big time.

And keeps looking for some way to get out of the quicksand without admitting that it ever stepped in quicksand to begin with, let alone charged into it full tilt with guns a-blazin’ even as by-standers shouted out warnings.

Meanwhile, Professor Cole weighs in on the merits of the Bushite plan:

The answer to “al-Qaeda’s” occupation of neighborhoods in Baghdad and the cities of al-Anbar is then, Bush says, to send in more US troops to “clear and hold” these neighborhoods.

But is that really the big problem in Iraq? Bush is thinking in terms of a conventional war, where armies fight to hold territory. But if a nimble guerrilla group can come out at night and set off a bomb at the base of a large tenement building in a Shiite neighborhood, they can keep the sectarian civil war going. They work by provoking reprisals. They like to hold territory if they can. But as we saw with Fallujah and Tal Afar, if they cannot they just scatter and blow things up elsewhere.

And the main problem is not “al-Qaeda,” which is small and probably not that important, and anyway is not really Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda. They are just Salafi jihadis who appropriated the name. When their leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed, it didn’t cause the insurgency to miss a beat. Conclusion: “al-Qaeda” is not central to the struggle. Izzat Ibrahim Duri and the Baath Party are probably the center of gravity of the resistance.

How many more lives get sacrified to delusion?

Dick Polman thinks he has the answer

By announcing to his dwindling Republican base that he is sending 20,000 more troops to help shore up what he persists in calling the “young democracy” – indeed, the Republican base was his intended TV audience, since relatively few others support him on Iraq anymore – Bush signaled that the expenditure of American blood and money will continue until the day that he packs up and moves out.

In other words, lots more will die for a lie.

Where do you stand?

You can find me here:

Go here to find yourself.

With a tip to Andrew Sullivan.

Andrew Sullivan’s blog.

Dick Polman on being bushwhacked (again):

Operation Iraqi Freedom
Mission Accomplished
Stay the Course
Adapt to Win
Plan for Victory
New Way Forward

The first five slogans are inoperative. But tonight, in yet another allegedly pivotal speech on Iraq, President Bush will declare that the sixth slogan is now operative.

With scant seconds remaining on the game clock, and facing fourth down and 50 on his own five-yard line, Bush is determined to throw the ball deep and simply hope for the best. But at this point the odds are heavily stacked against an immaculate reception. (OK, that exhausts my ability to employ football metaphors. Everyone else seems to be using the poker analogy.)

It does take a fair amount of gumption to decree a new troop escalation, in the face of deep skepticism or outright opposition from, among others, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. John Abizaid, British ally Tony Blair, gung-ho conservatives like retired Lt. Col. Oliver North (“Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets”), the majority of the people in red-state Utah, the majority of ’06 midterm election voters (who mistakenly assumed that their votes would sway the Decider), at least 10 Republican senators, and a landslide majority of the American people (who are currently telling pollsters that Bush is wrong).

Therefore, one cannot reasonably imagine how the president expects to achieve victory in the art of public persuasion. His spokesman Tony Snow said yesterday that Bush needs to “bring the public back to this war and restore public confidence in support for the mission,” but it’s hard to see how he can pull that off, given the fact that at this point most Americans either disbelieve his arguments, or have simply tuned him out.

And don’t just take my word for it. Read this verdict: “He has little credibility left on Iraq.” That’s the word from David Keene, veteran conservative Washington activist and the longtime chairman of the American Conservative Union.

There is no game plan. The subs are exhausted. And the spectators are leaving the building.

Dan Froomkin asks whether the Current Federal Administrator will answer a few questions tonight. Here’s a couple or three of them:

* Will he say not just that he still believes the war in Iraq is winnable, but why he believes that, and why he discounts the evidence to the contrary?

* Will he be up front about who we’re fighting and why? Will he acknowledge that the chief mission of existing and supplemental troops will be fighting well-armed rival Muslim factions?

* Will he acknowledge how the mission in Iraq has changed, from ostensibly being about weapons of mass destruction all the way to tamping down a civil war?

* Will he address the hideously botched execution of Saddam Hussein, which provided such a gripping view of the vicious sectarianism plaguing the country?

* Will he acknowledge that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has repeatedly made promises and not delivered in the past, and explain why he trusts Maliki this time?

* Will he acknowledge that Iraqi forces have never taken their share of the responsibility in Iraq, and that training has thus far been problematic?

* If he says this is a turning point, will he explain why, in contrast to all the previous turning points, he believes this one is for real?

In short, will he try a little honesty.

Me, I’m not bothering to stay up. The suspense is not killing me.

But it’s killing a whole lot of other people in a land far far away.

During the interregnum between my old job and my new one, I’ve been trying to take care of some needed tasks. I’ve had two trees taken down and I’m trying to get a new sewer line put in. The old one has serious issues beyond the scope of counseling. I sent it to the SAP (Sewer Assistance Program), but it relapsed.

At this point the project has been scheduled three times.

And postponed three times.

Due to rain.

We’re trying again Wednesday.

Given this track record, the plumber and I agreed today that neither one of us should go buying any lottery tickets.

Addendum:

Plumbed

<¢er>¢

January 8, 2007 | Posted by: Frank | Posted in: Uncategorized | Bookmark this post

What’s your score?

With a tip to Andrew Sullivan.

Not only are the rats deserting the sinking ship, they are pretending they were never on it in the first place. Glenn Greenwald demonstrates in Pat Buchanan’s American Conservative. Follow the link the see him skewer them with their own words:

When political leaders make drastic mistakes, accountability is delivered in the form of elections. That occurred in November when voters removed the party principally responsible for the war in Iraq. But the invasion would not have occurred had Americans not been persuaded of its wisdom and necessity, and leading that charge was a stable of pundits and media analysts who glorified President Bush’s policies and disseminated all sorts of false information and baseless assurances.

Yet there seems to be no accountability for these pro-war pundits. On the contrary, they continue to pose as wise, responsible experts and have suffered no lost credibility, prominence, or influence. They have accomplished this feat largely by evading responsibility for their prior opinions, pretending that they were right all along or, in the most extreme cases, denying that they ever supported the war.

IN TRUE Philly form, two local fans are taking their love for the Eagles way beyond a little green and white face paint.

According to an ad on craigslist.org, a “very attractive younger couple, both in grad school” are willing to let a complete stranger watch them have sex in exchange for two tickets to tomorrow’s playoff showdown between the Birds and the New York Giants.

The couple, who say they couldn’t afford the steep ticket prices, are even willing to let the ticket-holding voyeur call the plays for their bedroom romp.

Looks like unsportsmanlike conduct to me.

Damned shame if your employers found out who you were talking to.

Talking Points Memo. Here.

Of course, if they had nothing to hide, they certainly wouldn’t mind if we read their mail.

You belong to George.

President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant, the Daily News has learned.

The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a “signing statement” that declared his right to open people’s mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

Warrant, shwarrent. He’s only the Preznit of the NooNited States. Why the heck should he have to obey the law?

All joking aside, does he not recognize the difference between Imperator and President? The underlying assumption of the Rule of Law is that persons should not be able to do whatever the heck they want to do, just because they want to do it.

Where there is no respect for the law, there is lawlessness.

Apparently, this concept was not taught at Yale. Or maybe it was only taught at the classes the Current Federal Administrator chose to cut.

The Current Federal Administrator has no respect for the law; indeed, he thinks he is the law, sort of like Louis “L’etat c’est moi” XIV. Since he thinks he is the law, we therefore suffer under the rule of lawlessness.

Each day of Bushness, I think that no more outrages can be committed.

Each day of Bushness, I am disabused of that thought.

My ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War.

They did not fight so that the government could arrogate to itself the right to read mail–or eavesdrop on conversations, or peek through windows–without having to show cause and obtain warrants.

Pah! I am sickened.

Sickened beyond imagining.

First Son. Here.

Are torturers the kind of folks you want running this country?

FBI agents documented more than two dozen incidents of possible mistreatment at the Guantanamo Bay military base, including one detainee whose head was wrapped in duct tape for chanting the Quran and another who pulled out his hair after hours in a sweltering room.

Documents released Tuesday by the FBI offered new details about the harsh interrogation practices used by military officials and contractors when questioning so-called enemy combatants.

The reports describe a female guard who detainees said handled their genitals and wiped menstrual blood on their face. Another interrogator reportedly bragged to an FBI agent about dressing as a Catholic priest and “baptizing” a prisoner.

Some military officials and contractors told FBI agents that the interrogation techniques had been approved by the Defense Department, including directly by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

The documents were released in response to a public records request by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is suing Rumsfeld and others on behalf of former military detainees who say they were abused. Many of the incidents in the FBI documents have already been reported and are summarized in the ACLU’s lawsuit.

Well worth a read. It seems to bubble still holds strong. Read about the “Bush” Op-Ed here.

Here.

Yeah. Right.

Cannon fodder is more like it.

In my younger days, Kabul meant the best hash.

In First Son’s day, it means his next assignment. He is mobilizing.

To hold on to the job that the Current Federal Administrator chose not to finish so that he could, instead, make up a war in Iraq.

And, in the meantime, Afghanistan slips back into the grip of the Taliban, because the Current Federal Administrator chose not to finish the job.

Andrew Sullivan (emphasis added):

The attempt to remake the Middle East on our terms and on our own schedule has been revealed in retrospect as pure folly. The core goals of the Iraq war – to disarm Saddam and remove him from power – have been accomplished. Iraq is no longer a potential source of WMDs – just of suicide bombers and terrorists. Saddam is dead. It seems clear to me that the deep trauma of the Saddam years – an unimaginable hell to those of us who have experienced nothing like it – needs time to resolve itself. It may even need a civil war to resolve itself.

(snip)

The moral cost of withdrawal is huge. We should do all we can to provide amnesty for any Iraqis who have been loyal to us. (It does not surprise me that we shamefully haven’t. This is the Bush administration.) But the moral cost of plowing on is also exponential. It may merely delay the day of reckoning. It risks sending young Americans to die in order for a president to save face, not in order to win. The truth is: we have lost this battle, if not the war. I am still inclined to believe such a loss was avoidable. The amazing restraint of the Shia for so long, and the enthusiasm for elections, revealed the potential in Iraq for a breakthrough. But this president threw it away. There is no getting around this, I’m afraid. It is reality. And if we do not get out by June, I fear an even worse one.

But the Conductor sings his song again . . .

Republicans play “Poor Me.”

Digby lays it out.

Of course, we will not notice that they are in the minority because they failed in their stewardship of the nation and earned the rejection they received at the polls.

Good heavens, no. Their performance can have nothing to do with their current minority status.

Gosh. Jeez. Perish the thought.