[Peace-discuss] Bush's speech tonight...

[C. G. Estabrook]

[...contained the usual mix of fantasy, lies, and bad prose.
But the excellent <bilmon.org> points out -- correctly I think
-- a straw in the wind. --CGE]

...a subtle, and at times bizarre, shift in the propaganda
rhetoric -- one that ... appears to set the stage (or at least
leaves the door open) for further negotiations with some of
the bad guys. It starts with this line:

    "Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. *Many*
terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the
streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous
ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York,
Washington, and Pennsylvania." (emphasis added.)

Many of them?? So what murderous ideology do the rest of them
follow? Utilitarianism? This use of an adjective that's at
least several terrorists short of "all" or "every" is echoed
in this line:

    "*Some* of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried
out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight
the advance of peace and freedom. (emphasis added)

I suppose Bush could be pointing out that other factions --
the U.S. Army, for example -- are also contributing their fair
share to the mayhem in Mesopotamia. But that hardly seems
likely, given the audience and the message. No, I think the
partial pronoun is the tee up for the actual change in the
party line, which is slipped in here:

    "They are making common cause with criminal elements,
*Iraqi insurgents*, and remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime
who want to restore the old order." (emphasis added)

If you go back and look at the old party lines (versions 1.0
and 2.0) you can quickly see that something new has been
added. Heretofore, the "anti-Iraqi forces" have consisted of:

1.) Foreign Terrorists (aka "assassins")
2.) Regime Remnants (aka "dead enders")
3.) Criminal Elements (aka "thugs")

But now we have a fourth category, one with a nice neutral
name that doesn't allude to hacking people's heads off or
gassing your own people or hating our freedoms:

4.) Iraqi Insurgents (aka "negotiating partners.")

From there on out, the speech carefully and repeatedly
distinguished between the terrorists and the insurgents, who
are now -- in the fantasy world of the White House propaganda
shop at least -- two unique and different populations, where
before they were one and indivisible:

    "Iraqi forces have fought bravely – helping to capture
*terrorists and insurgents* in Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah, and
Mosul." (emphasis added)

    "To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down
the *terrorists and insurgents*." (emphasis added)

    "Today Iraqi Security Forces are at different levels of
readiness. Some are capable of taking on the *terrorists and
insurgents* by themselves." (emphasis added)

    "We are building up Iraqi Security Forces as quickly as
possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the
*terrorists and insurgents*." (emphasis added)

And so on. It would seem the error in the historical record
has been rectified (although the gang still hasn't gotten that
memory hole thing completely down yet.) But the policy -- "no
nation can negotiate with terrorists" -- hasn't changed one
bit. It remains as a monument to our leader's moral clarity
and unflagging resolution.

It really is amazing what you can do with -- and to -- the
English language.