Remember back when BushCo was pushing us into Iraq, when the UN was still over there, and we were waiting on reports to find out what was really going on? My sister slapped a bumper sticker on her minivan that said "Bomb Iraq? NO!" I was with her in the sentiment, as anyone who has seen my car bumper through the years will attest to, but I was wary of the language, because I wasn't quite sure what the outcome of the UN inspectors was going to be and I was still in denial that America would do something as crazy as actually divert our troops from Afghanistan to Iraq and in fact "bomb" them ("back to the stone age," as the survivalist working at the local video store said, spittle flying.)
Back then, as the Rovian spin machine began to blend the terms of 9-11, Afghanistan, and Iraq into easily digestible sound bytes with a threatening undertone and the fear of being viewed as un-American somehow for questioning our leadership, I was overcome with defiance. From the Impeach lawn signs that grandpa used to crawl up the steep rocky slope to pull down (because it only takes one crazy with a moltov cocktail!...not that he disagreed, you understand,) to my "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" bumper sticker addressing the bold twisting of the power of belief, and using the framework of religion to sell their war. I read a study years ago that people who commute in cars or just drive alot actually learn quite a bit from bumper stickers. I forget the exact numbers, but I remember being impressed enough to consider my bumper as a teaching opportunity, regardless of if I felt frightened of how others might react. So far I get alot of thumbs up for my " My Child is an Honor Student, But My President is an Idiot!," and the like, though lately I had an Obama sticker taken off the car in Manhattan (I'm hoping because it was unusual and someone wanted to use it!) and Ive gotten a few fingers on the highway. Am I un-American for expressing my disgust with the state of things? Should I be frightened because my words might cause some people to act violently towards me?
9-11 sent us all into a spiral of what might have been national shock, fear, or depression, and the Bush White house, with Karl Rove in the wheelhouse, manipulated and played that up to great effect with the undercurrent message being a warning that we must support the executive without question or risk death at the hands of terrorists or worse: being labeled un-American.
In April of this year, BushCo began circulating memos that warned of the power of the use of certain language because of its ability to inflame religious tensions and, according to MSNBC
U.S. officials may be "unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims," says a Homeland Security report. It's entitled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims."
"Regarding 'jihad,' even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorizes terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world," the report says.
Further, just as of this year apparently, words like "jihad," which beyond the U.S.'s common use of it to imply the waging of a holy war, supposedly means to do good, and "mujahedeen," which are just those involved in a jihad, are supposed to be cut from any official discourse. Likewise, "violent extremist," "terrorist," and "Islamo-fascism" have been deemed inappropriate as highly inflammatory. The reports also note that use of these terms increases the star power of terrorists and inflames relations with regular Muslims, who have nothing to do with terrorism and don't much like their religion attached to what amounts to fringe groups.
Too little, too late, you say? The British published similar reports last year, and I don't think I would have to Google far to find these and many other inflammatory terms used by our very Commander in Chief...often...lately...on television from the rose garden...from the oval office...while dropping his Scotty on his head from Air Force One...When has the man NOT used these talking points again and again to inflame and frighten the American people, while apparently breeding more contempt and new baby terrorists all the time?
This is just another pathetic example of the use of language as a propaganda tool to start and continue unrest and to germinate fear and blind obedience in the people of a nation. Loose lips sink ships, but what if those loose lips are your President's? I know that he is gonna be viewed for all of history as a dummy, but look at how frequently the dummy repeated what the ventriloquist fed into his backflap...look at how insidious these few words have been...and wonder, as I am, how many innocent people died because of a couple of very smart guys who decided to use deep psychological manipulation on a lulled and frightened populace, in order to achieve a goal that will likely play out to be one of stone cold self enrichment.
A week or so ago DINO-republo-freak Joe Lieberman appeared on Faux News Sunday representing the republican point of view in a debate against real democrat Evan Bayh. In one of those unreal exchanges about the war old Joe threw around the talking points and buzzwords shamelessly, referring to victory and how the surge had worked, when it must be clear to all thinking Americans by now that victory is a relative term that can be used in any number of ways, and the effectiveness of the surge is questionable at best. Not one interviewer or pundit seems to be able to ask the question of what victory would look like exactly because the term seems to be attached to supporting the troops. In my estimation, this is some sort of leftover plug from the "cut and run" days and it really does a disservice to the troops because it implies that anything less than victory is not acceptable. If victory, as it has been historically viewed, is really not possible in this theater then the troops are damned to failure.
OK, I get it that Joe is caught up in the talking points and is working with a deep neocon belief in the cause of "spreading democracy," (aka. controlling the oil for mid-east domination, fun and profit,) or whatever flavor of kool-aid they were passing out that day, but as a Connecticut voter and someone who worked on the Lamonte campaign, I have to say that what he is saying does not represent me or anyone I know. Not even CT Republicans are onboard with this pap, so where does he get off heading into territory that betrays all that he ran on and even every other more conservative viewpoint in his state? This man so clearly lied to his constituency to get into office. He used the fear and lies of the vocabulary just as surely as he is following at the heels of John McCain and whispering the new jargon into his hearing aide. Joe Lieberman is delusional and so is John McCain, but they are using the new talking points to great effect.
McCain implies that we would be cowards to withdraw, and that there is some sort of shame in ending this war without achieving its objective. The thing is that the objective has been stated and restated a few times by the Bush administration without anything concrete that one might hang onto, and there remains, even in the face of the Iraqi government asking for us to set a timeline, no clear way to declare victory or mission accomplished, or even just get the hell out of there without the leadership of this country deciding that they are going to make it OK to end this thing. There will never be an easy withdrawal, and even in Obama's best case scenarios we are looking at a long drawn out process involving much loss of life, and probably tremendous heroics of the brave soldiers who are tasked with this nearly impossible task.
What does victory look like? The Iraqi people waving flowers and candy at us as we ride our tanks out of town and into the bellies of huge transports? Can we ever go home?
From the White House's Victory page itself comes this confusing bit:
* Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
* Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
* Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
None of these goals are even close to being accomplished, nor are programs in place that even seemingly function in the general direction of an orderly return to self governing. The next section gets really bizarre:
* Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow.
* The fate of the greater Middle East -- which will have a profound and lasting impact on American security -- hangs in the balance.
Impossible to accomplish, as far as I can see...and really scary if we don't! I suppose that if we replaced the "Iraq" with "our huge embassy serves as our base as a central front in the war on terror and controlling all oil production in the region..." oh wait, our presence creates more terrorists, so no matter how many stinking embassies we build over there, we cant stay if we are serious about stopping it's growth....hmmmm....
The concept of retreat, defeat and/or victory do not apply to what is going on in Iraq. The more that Bush apologists are allowed to throw these phrases around, the more America believes in the fairytale unattainable goals of fighting them over there so we don't have to here. Further, these words should offend us every bit as much as the anti Muslim words and the words that increase the star power of terrorists that are in the memos being sent around now by the white house....now, after Bush has used the terms a million times...and how many times will John McCain imply that our troops are somehow less than brave if they leave without the indescribable and unattainable victory that he...er, Rove... has in mind.
Our acceptance of these words from the likes of John McCain or George Bush, and their surrogates, is the first step down the path to submission and the very real unAmerican act of not demanding full disclosure and accountability from those that we elect to represent us not only in our own government but to the world.
RIPCoco
Brilliant at Breakfast
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire