Boobs for Bush?
Let me see if I’ve got this straight: The combined forces of Bush, Inc. and the greater neocon community put their brains (and egos) together and the best catch phrase they could come up with to describe Bush’s escalation plan for Iraq was “augmentation?”
Augmentation?
(NY Times) Bush War Plan Draws Fire on Capitol Hill
Rice engaged several tense exchanges with members, including with Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and longtime critic of Bush’s Iraq policy. She disputed his characterization of Bush’s buildup as an ”escalation.”
”Putting in 22,000 more troops is not an escalation?” Hagel asked. Responded Rice: ”I think, senator, escalation is not just a matter of how many numbers you put in.”
”Would you call it a decrease?” Hagel asked.
”I would call it, senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad,” she said.
I repeat: Augmentation? Could there be a less inspiring rallying call?
Besides, part of the secret of effective advocacy is understanding that words come prepackaged with a particular frame based upon how they’ve typically been used in the past; and forgive me for mentioning it, but hasn’t the word “augmentation” been used by far the most commonly in recent years in the context of breast augmentation surgery? Try googling it: When I did the first 15 hits dealt exclusively with — yep, breast augmentation (enlargement) procedures. Exactly what message are these folks trying to send here?
Man, these people really are boobs, aren’t they?
January 12th, 2007 at 1:29 am
“call it”….
With the blood of the innocent being spilt abundantly in many parts of Iraq, all this might sound like a scholastic exercise and an argument about semantics. Widely used terms, however, can inform and help us to understand, while misused or abused terms have the power to misinform and confuse. They can also mislead the public into supporting or acquiescing in policies on vital matters.
and “this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad”????
It appears that an old colonial frame of mind has taken root in relation to Iraq; for some, the natives are at it again. In this mindset, the occupation forces are made to appear as a benign, almost virtuous presence in the middle of raging sectarian violence…
Of course they talk less of democracy nowadays, for the natives are not ready for it.
apropos “serious problems”…
They do not tell us…
about the “Salvador option”…
secret militias trained and financed by the US…
why the occupying power should secretly smuggle 200,000 Kalashnikovs and tons of explosives into Iraq from Bosnia within one year (2004-05)…
about continuing work on building the biggest US embassy…
the backing of Iraqi state-sponsored violence against civilians…
about the silent killers of Iraqi people…
The country’s infrastructure has all but been destroyed;
yes, Ms. Rice, that’s how the NIPs, the NoImportantPersons, the whole wide world around you, sees it…
It appears to be alright to state, without any evidence, that Sunni this and Shi’a that caused the explosions but it would be highly speculative to broadcast the opinions of the victims of the violence. http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-iraq/worse_4161.jsp
(emphasis mine)
i’m so longing for justice, it hurts me
and when you and all those brave aristocratic leaders talk about heroism of and in war…
i just want to see how you would behave there - go and do what you talk about! Go to Iraq, get some weapons and fight!
And let the Casey Sheehans live….
January 12th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
“’I would call it, senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad,’’ she said.”
A couple pf points. Escalation is a word Democrats use, and has obvious Vietnam baggage, so of course Condi cannot bring herself to use it or admit that it accurately describes an increase of 21,500 troops. “Augmentation”, lame as that is, at least still connotes that our commitment is getting bigger. The images it brings to mind, btw, are phallic as well as mammarian, and the former seem more appropriate under the circumstances.
Second, this isn’t going to help the Iraqis deal with anything in Baghdad. It will simply reinforce the notion that we are there to stay and that “Iraqi sovereignty” is an oxymoron and a cruel hoax. It will weaken the al Maliki gevernment instead of strengthening it and might in the end result in decisively turning the Shia against us, especially if we do to Sadr City what we did to Fallujah, which seems to me what “surging” into Baghdad is really all about.