Is it just me, or do the very terms Bushco uses concerning its conduct of the Iraq war betray their true intentions without their knowledge?
Here’s what I mean; when the Coalition Provisional Authority was established after we originally took over in 2003, Jay Garner was tabbed as either the Viceroy (a term reminiscent of British colonialism) or the Pro Consul (conjuring up images of ancient Rome and Caesar), depending on who you were talking to at the moment in the administration (putting aside the fact that Garner sought as quick a handoff to the Iraqis as possible, while Paul Bremer, Garner’s replacement, was the one who ended up acting in a way implied by those dictatorial titles).
Now, we have “The Decider” deciding that he really doesn’t want to decide any more, I guess (sorry Dubya, but as Colin Powell famous told you, “you break it, you own it”), and he is in the process of looking for a “war Czar” (is it really a surprise that he’s not getting any interest?).
And the whole notion of “Homeland” security isn’t too far removed from Adolf and that goose-stepping gang anyway (the “fatherland” and all that).
Now I ask you, is someone truly interested in a “dialogue” or “triangulation” with an opposing party or point of view going to use these terms in their everyday language?
No comments:
Post a Comment