[Robert J. Clawson]

I lifted this from Henry Meyers' Casco Bay Observer. Bold emphases are mine, to note the strange usages in President Bush's language.

"We're Making Progress" Morphs Into "It Could be Worse"

At a hastily convened press conference <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html> on August 21, the president sought to counter an expanding public consensus that his grand plan to create and spread democracy in the Middle East was in shambles.

On Iraq, he tried to change his long standing bottom line spin. Whereas previously he had emphasized "progress" toward the goal of Iraqi self-sufficiency, not once on August 21 did the word "progress" appear. The result of 56 minutes of dodging White House press corps questions was a message that not "staying the course" would make things much worse. He said:

"If you think it's bad now, imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself and sustain itself. Chaos in Iraq would be very unsettling in the region. Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged, nor cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job was done would send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster, and that's what we're saying. ... We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.

"The United States of America must understand it's in our interests that we help this democracy succeed. As a matter of fact, it's in our interests that we help reformers across the Middle East achieve their objectives. This is the fundamental challenge of the 21st century. A failed Iraq would make America less secure. A failed Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will provide safe haven for terrorists and extremists. It will embolden those who are trying to thwart the ambitions of reformers. In this case, it would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales.

".... There's a lot of people -- good, decent people, saying, withdraw now. They're absolutely wrong. It would be a huge mistake for this country. If you think problems are tough now, imagine what it would be like if the United States leaves before this government has a chance to defend herself, govern herself, and listen ... and answer to the will of the people."

*****

Cox News Service reporter Ken Herman reporter said to Bush that many of the consequences of withdrawal that he mentioned "... never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?"

The president responded that he had "... heard this theory about (how) everything was just fine until we arrived and ... the stir-up-the-hornet's- nest theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started {b]the freedom agenda[/b] in the Middle East. "

The reporter followed up, asking what Iraq had to do with the killing of 3,000 citizens on September 11. Bush said "Nothing. .... nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a .... the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize ... I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him."

And so Bush, in a space of a few sentences, went from declaring the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11 to saying it had everything do with 9/11.

When asked whether increasing violence in Iraq meant that it was time for a new strategy, he didn't say "yes" or "no" but that, "The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy. The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, its important we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We're not leaving, so long as I'm the President."

{This man was in the military and has an MBA. How can he not know the meanings of "strategy" and "tactic"? Sorry, couldn't resist interrupting. RJ.}

Here the President of the United States confused "strategy" with "strategic objective", causing Fred Kaplan to write in Slate: "... helping Iraqis achieve a democratic society" may be a strategic objective, but it's not a strategy any more than 'ending poverty' or 'going to the moon' is a strategy. Strategy involves how to achieve one's objectives. Or, as the great British strategist B.H. Liddell Hart put it, 'the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy.' These are the issues that Bush refuses to address publicly: What means and resources are to be applied, in what way, at what risk, and to what end, in pursuing his policy? Instead, he reduces everything to two options: 'Cut and run' or, 'Stay the course.' It's as if there's nothing in between, no alternative way of applying military means. Could it be that he doesn't grasp the distinction between an 'objective' and a 'strategy', and so doesn't see that there might be alternatives? Might our situation be that grim?"

The president reiterated for the umpteenth time that "12 million Iraqis voted" as "an indication about the desire for people to live in a free society. That's what that means." With respect to this Kaplan writes: "What he misses is that those 12 million Iraqis had sharply divided views of what a free society meant. Shiites voted for a unified country led by Shiites, Sunnis voted for a unified country led by Sunnis, and Kurds voted for their own separate country. Almost nobody voted for a free society in any Western sense of the term. (The secular parties did very poorly.)"

While Bush on August 21 reiterated his contention that his strategy boosts Middle East freedom and democracy, experts find instead that it has shifted power to "axis-of-evil" Iran whose government he finds so repugnant that he advocates its overthrow. The Guardian reported on August 23: "The US-led 'war on terror' has bolstered Iran's power and influence in the Middle East, especially over its neighbour and former enemy Iraq, a think tank said today. A report published by Chatham House <http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1856362,00.html> said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had removed Iran's main rival regimes in the region. Israel's conflict with the Palestinians and its invasion of Lebanon had also put Iran in a position of considerable strength n the Middle East'."

The August 21 press conference prompted prominent Washington D.C. psychiatrist Justin Frank <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-frank/examining-bush-in-august_b_27822.html> to issue on August 23 in The Huffington Post a harsh assessment of the president's mental health. After noting that he had not examined the president and that "it is not proper for me to offer a diagnosis", Frank said, "However, my observations lead me to believe that he is psychotic."
{Sounds like Bill Frist "diagnosing" Terry Schiavo. RJ}

Whatever the state of the president's mind, last week's press conference, contrary to the intent, intensified public focus on Bush's having wrought disaster via a national security policy he says was born on September 11 and which provides for preventive war to neutralize threats prior to their emergence. This post 9/11 policy was enunciated in detail in his West Point <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html> graduation speech in 2002 where he said:

"For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence -- the promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.

"We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. (Applause.) "Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and they're essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. (Applause.) In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act."

The West Point policy was initially put into practice with the falsely justified and unnecessary March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

As is now evident (and this bears repeating ad nauseam in the face of repeated denials by the president and members of Congress in both parties who voted to give him a blank check to topple Saddam Hussein), the Iraq war was conducted against a nation that did not pose a threat to the United States (emerging or otherwise) of such magnitude to warrant a preventive war. As it became apparent that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) activities that were the basis for the "anticipated" threat did not exist, the war aim became that of establishing in Iraq a government that would be a "beacon" of democracy in the region.

But such an outcome is not to be. It is now clear, that whatever emerges in Iraq will not justify the losses incurred in bringing it into being. Notwithstanding great death, destruction and an economic cost to the American tax payer of 500 billion dollars (and perhaps substantially in excess of this amount), the war has made America less safe.

By most accounts, Bush's post 9/11 policies and actions have increased worldwide the number of those inclined to commit acts of terror. With respect to dissuading acquisition of dangerous weapons, he has achieved the opposite of his stated purpose; he has sent a message to other nations that their possession nuclear weapons guarantees that there will be no American invasion.

Now, some 40 months after his "Mission Accomplished" speech, not only did Bush on August 21 show no inclination to admit that his Iraq venture was misconceived, mismanaged and counterproductive, signs indicate he is preparing to go deeper into the swamp, doubling his losing Iraq bet by bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. Planning for an attack on Iran is said to proceed without due consideration of the likely Iranian response: direct or indirect attacks upon vulnerable American supply lines in Iraq, interference with the flow of Middle East oil, missile attacks upon Israel, and promotion of acts of terror in Europe and the United States. The Iranian response would of course trigger counter actions by the United States, leading to disaster unpredictable in kind and extent, but surely such as to leave the president wondering why he had chosen war rather than diplomacy, however tedious the latter might be.

With the Middle East in dire straights and on the edge of worsening, the president's garbled explanations at last week's press conference do not pass muster. They remind that citizens have been ill-served by the Congress and the media.

At bottom, the president, unchecked by an intimidated Congress and a docile press, has gone off track. The consequences will be felt for decades. And the future could be even more bleak if the president, citing great danger, the Constitution, his 2002 West Point <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html> speech and authority provided by post- 9/11 legislation, orders the use of military force to change the Iranian regime.

*******

I suppose that by highlighting the language I thought at best "odd," I've shown some bias. However, I'd like to stay out of the discussion (if there is any) about Bush's peculiar rhetoric.

This thread should be comparable to my previous one where I thought that as poets we could take a keen look at language and discern its intent. Please feel free to examine Henry Meyers' own rhetoric and that of the sources he cites.

Bob






[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited August 30, 2006).]

[Mark Granier]

The reporter followed up, asking what Iraq had to do with the killing of 3,000 citizens on September 11. Bush said "Nothing. .... nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a .... the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize ... I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him."

Thanks for this Bob. Illuminating and depressing in equal measure. Compare the above with this segment of Bush's Iraq victory speech on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, in which he made a direct connection between Al Q and Saddam, and suggested that Saddams fantasy WMD's might have been used by Al Q:

'The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al-Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist
funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because that regime is no more.'

Full text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2994345.stm

[Robert J. Clawson]

Here's another interesting treatment of spin from the administration. As the election approaches, we can expect to be awash in it from both sides. But, apparently, gas prices will continue to fall until election day.

Rumsfeld Assails Critics of War Policy

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 30, 2006; Page A06


Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned yesterday that "moral and intellectual confusion" over the Iraq war and the broader anti-terrorism effort could sap American willpower and divide the country, and he urged renewed resolve to confront extremists waging "a new type of fascism."

Drawing parallels to efforts by some nations to appease Adolf Hitler before World War II, Rumsfeld said it would be "folly" for the United States to ignore the rising dangers posed by a new enemy that he called "serious, lethal and relentless."

(Photo Caption
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gestures as speaks at the 107 annual Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Reno, Nev. Monday, Aug. 28, 2006. Rumsfeld said Monday he is deeply troubled by [b]the success of terrorist groups in "manipulating the media"]/b] to influence Westerners. )

In a pointed attack on the news media and critics of President Bush's war and national security policies, Rumsfeld declared: "Any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere."

Rumsfeld spoke at the American Legion's national convention in Salt Lake City as part of a coordinated defense of Bush leading up to the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Reviving images of the president's response to the strike on the World Trade Center in New York, Rumsfeld said, "He remains the same man who stood atop the rubble of Lower Manhattan, with a bullhorn, vowing to fight back."

With polls showing that a majority of Americans believe it was a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq and with many Democrats calling for a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops, Rumsfeld called the Iraq war the "epicenter" of the struggle against terrorism. Last week, Bush said that setting a timetable for a troop withdrawal would embolden the enemy and cause chaos in Iraq and throughout the region.

Congressional Democrats angrily responded to Rumsfeld's remarks. "There is no confusion among military experts, bipartisan members of Congress and the overwhelming majority of the American people about the need to change course in Iraq," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "The only person confused about how to best protect this country is Don Rumsfeld, which is why he must go."

Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he took exception to what he considered the implication that critics of the administration's military policies are unpatriotic. He noted that there are "scores of patriotic Americans of both parties who are highly critical" of Rumsfeld's handling of the Defense Department.

Rumsfeld obliquely acknowledged mistakes and setbacks in Iraq, quoting the French statesman Georges Clemenceau as calling all wars "a series of catastrophes that results in victory." Moreover, in a reference to recent charges of war crimes against U.S. troops in Iraq, Rumsfeld said that "in every army, there are occasionally bad actors -- the ones who dominate the headlines today -- who don't live up to the standards of their oath and of our country."

Rumsfeld stressed that it is misguided for Americans to fall into self-blame and to "return to the destructive view that America -- not the enemy -- is the real source of the world's trouble." He blamed the U.S. media for spreading "myths and distortions . . . about our troops and about our country."

He said a database search of U.S. newspapers produced 10 times as many mentions of a soldier punished for misconduct at Abu Ghraib prison than of Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, a Medal of Honor recipient.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, addressing the same audience later, sounded similar themes. "The dream of some, that we could avoid this conflict, that we did not have to take sides in this battle in the Middle East, that dream was demolished on September the 11th," Rice said.

Rice said in a radio interview that "we cannot fall prey to pessimism about how this will all come out," adding that "the really devastating problem for the world would be if America loses its will."


Provided by Bob for your discussion of how the language is being used to persuade our behavior.

[Robert J. Clawson]

A Clarification


"Bush's speech to the American Legion this morning will launch his third intensive campaign in the past year to address public anxiety over the war. Aides said he will tackle the perception that the world is in chaos and tie together the conflicts in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and elsewhere into the common ideological thread of fighting "Islamic fascism."

The effort will continue with other speeches in Washington and around the country, followed by a whirlwind tour of the Sept. 11 attack sites and a Sept. 19 address to the U.N. General Assembly. During a campaign stop in Arkansas yesterday, Bush denied that the efforts are connected to the election campaign.

"They're not political speeches," he said. "They're speeches about the future of this country, and they're speeches to make it clear that if we retreat before the job is done, this nation would become even more in jeopardy. These are important times, and I seriously hope people wouldn't politicize these issues that I'm going to talk about."

From Thursday's Washington Post

[Mark Granier]

Interesting Amis article. He begins with a mind-boggling statistic:

'Asked in a recent survey to explain their presence in Iraq, 85 per cent of American soldiers said that the “main mission” was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role” in the September 11 attacks.'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...337188,00.html

Maybe this deserves a thread of its own.

[Robert J. Clawson]

What with our Congress now joining the "Torture President" to become the "Torture Congress," I think it might be good to look at some of the language that's turned up in the "debate."

The president is trying to preserve "alternative methods of interrogation" by creating a re-interpretation of Convention 3 of the Geneva Accords. He found "outrages to human dignity" "too vague."

Regarding specific "alternative methods," these two terms have been popping about: "dietary modification" and "stress positions."

Regarding the latter, the "detainee" is required to produce (per day) a dozen brilliant sonnets containing fluent use of catalexis .

Shameless O'Clawson

[grasshopper]

Thank you for posting this speech.
What made it even worse for me is that as I read it I could hear, at respectful intervals, our own dear Prime Minister's voice shouting 'Hear, hear!'

Regards, Maz

[Janet Kenny]

Thank you Bob.

I watched with some envy as Hungarians rioted because they had been lied to by their politicians. Australian politicians have lied and lied and lied and are totally shameless and ruthless about it, from the "children "overboard" lie about asylum seekers hurling their children into the sea, to Australian troops' participation in the Iraq invasion etc. etc. It never ends. What used to be a vigorous democracy is now a flaccid sowhatcracy.

Janet

[Robert Meyer]

Bob, "This man was in the military"? I don't think so.

Robert Meyer

[Robert J. Clawson]

We were told that prisoners at Abu Grahib were "the worst of the worst."

We were told that the CIA had no secret prisons abroad.

Now we are told that we have brought "the worst of the worst" from the secret CIA prisons to Guantanamo, which, as we've been told, houses "the worst of the worst."

I've heard this phrase so often that it sounds like a chain of sausage links.

Shameless

[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 28, 2006).]