War Language

The public selling by the Bush Administration for the reasons to go to War in Iraq was made by professional spin doctors with very nuanced language.

The American people were told it was necessary to invade and occupy Iraq because he might sell WMD to Al Qaeda, that Al Qaeda had a working relationship with Saddam Hussein, or that Saddam may even have been involved with 9-11.

There has been a slow, steady shift away from the language of these proven false assertions. The new language was evident in the speeches made on the floor of the US House of Representatives this past week as Republican members supporting the troop increase attempted to defend there case for standing behind the President.

The Bush administration and its minions now tell the American people that the reasons we are in Iraq now, and must stay for indeterminate amount of time, is so we don’t lose.

I understand the goal of all war is to not lose, rather to win. But gone are the high goals of a thriving Jeffersonian democracy in the heart of the middle east. Gone are the days of “making progress” and “stay the course.”

In are the days of the Republicans saying we must stay now to keep it from falling into an all out civil war, possibly bringing in surrounding nations to defend there Sunni or Shiite brothers. That means Saudi Arabia to defend the Sunni, while Iran would be obliged to come to the aid of Shiites.

Governments choose their words carefully, as they are the weapons they use before the real guns come out. It is incumbent upon Americans to listen to what any administration says, as it will determine your future.