As a follow up to a previous post, NPR runs this story on the use of "surge" to describe the Administration's plan for more of the same in Iraq, featuring an interview with linguist Deborah Tannen.
Earlier this week, CNN's Jack Cafferty called the Administration's bluff, describing the use of "surge" as masking their intentions to escalate the war in Iraq. See the clip above.
Here's my question: If journalists are well aware of the strategic and misleading nature of the term, why do they continue to use it in all their reports? Sometimes you just have to scratch your head and wonder.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Turns out that GOP message guru Frank Luntz doesn't think much of the Bush administration's communication strategy across the past eight years. In an interview with NPR's On the Media (audio above, transcript), here's part of what he had to say about the Bush lexicon:
FRANK LUNTZ: I don't think…
It sounds as if Bush has decided to "escalate" the war in Iraq by sending a "surge" of 20,000 more troops. I'm no military expert, but this certainly seems like a terrible idea, especially considering that the previous attempts to pacify Baghdad earlier this summer were so ineffective.
So what is…
It is rare that I find myself at a loss for words. Anyone who knows me can tell you that. Right now, though, I'm having a very, very hard time coming up with family-friendly language that covers the way I feel about President Bush right now. Why? Because I just saw that half-witted, sneering little…
Much has been written about the incompetence with which the Bush administration has pursued the war and post-war occupation in Iraq. I'd like to add to our understanding of that situation by looking, in hindsight, at what was predicted with foresight before the war. Many of the people who were…
Not only is there no way forward, there is no 'forward'.
There is only retreat in defeat.
This is the second Iraq war we've lost, mind you. The first one left the victor, Saddam Hussein, firmly in power and safe from foreign aggression (read 'invasion by Iran').
I can fully and easily understand why someone would think that the Bush administration is making a blunder in Iraq, but where is this idea that the administration is misleading us about its intent coming from? How is "a surge" code for "a surge"?