September 21, 2006

Doublespeak and the War on Terror

“War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength”
-George Orwell, 1984

“Freedom has been attacked, but freedom will be defended”
-George W Bush, 2001 (Not, technically a Space Odyssey, but an odyssey none the less)


Writing for the Cato Institute, arguably a mostly Conservative-leaning think-tank, Timothy Lynch references Orwell’s seminal novel, 1984, citing the author’s creation of “doublespeak” and writing, “Doublespeak perverts the basic function of language, which is to facilitate a common understanding between human beings.” in his paper titled “Doublespeak and the War on Terrorism”

Essentially a litany of the abuses of power by the Bush II administration, Lynch cites where, time and again, the current administration has been able to sidestep laws, regulations and private rights previously thought unassailable, inalienable, by manipulating the very language used to create, grant and assure those laws, regulations and rights. In what can really only be seen as Orwellian, this administration has created such progressions as “material witness” to “enemy combatant” to “imperative security internee”, each time creating the new definition after the Supreme Court has stepped in declared the previous classification illegal. It’s kind of like opposite day, every day, these days.

Another interesting point brought up by Lynch, if I can be so bold as to use so euphemistic a descriptor as “interesting”, is this government’s manipulation of the meaning of “terrorist”. Dictionary.com defines the word as: A person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism; A person who terrorizes or frightens others; One that engages in acts or an act or terrorism. But, hey, that’s just a dictionary, and the only thing you get from reading books is learning. According to the Bush II administration, “terrorists” now include anti-war demonstrators, political activists, a Catholic nun, drug addicts/users, and, among others, just about anyone flying commercial airlines these days as federal air marshals, needing to meet quotas of “suspicious persons”, will, apparently, enter just about anyone into their databases as potential terrorists.

However, perhaps the most startling and frightening revelation in Lynch’s paper is when he writes about the president’s use of the word “freedom” to frame the national debate in terms of freedom v. terror. In this way, Lynch argues, Bush is able to equate freedom with power in that he, Bush, and parts of government need to expand their power, be granted new powers if they are to combat terror. In other words, freedom is good, terror is bad and the only way to defeat terror is by spreading freedom, and the only way to do that is through unchecked power. Amazing.

Clear and concise, well-researched, Lynch’s paper is clean and neat, not partisan and, if possible, not political as it sheds a moral light on the so-called values of our current administration. I believe that Lynch in particular, and the Cato Institute in general represent true Conservative ideals, a label that this administration has slapped on its lapel underneath its American flag pin.

Link here: www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp98.pdf



September 16, 2006

Osama bin Laden, Ultimate Puppet Master?

John Tierney’s Op-Ed in NYT, titled: “Osama’s Spin Lessons” 12 September, 2006



Ronald Wardaugh writes about what he refers to as an “interventionist” approach to sociolinguistics as being one that examines language used by people in power, and “how even those who suffer as a consequence fail to realize how many things that appear to be ‘natural’ and ‘normal’ are not at all so. They are not so because it is power relations in society that determine who gets to say what and who gets to write what.”

If Wardaugh is correct in his theory that those who are not in power, in other words those who do not get to say and write what they want, are unaware that their very language is being used against them, then according to Tierney’s article, George W Bush is the unwitting puppet of Osama bin Laden, and it that is the case, then according to critical discourse theory, that makes bin Laden the ultimate master of power and politics, at least when it comes to his relationship with the US.

Tierney argues that by engaging Al Queda in the first place, the Bush II administration paid them the ultimate compliment; it made AQ appear as not only a legitimate threat, but one that had worldwide implications, one with armies spread across the world, ready to strike at any moment. This was not the case, Tierney writes, but by using a seething hatred of America and anything Western amongst mostly poor Muslims, bin Laden cast himself and AQ in a jihadic struggle for world domination which only served to bolster his image and the ranks of AQ.

By sitting in a case, presumably, somewhere in the middle of apparently nobody knows where, and releasing even old video footage to the world, OBL is able to bait the Bush administration into taking the hook and running with it. Everytime someone within the administration cites OBL or, better yet, quotes him, and even, as Tierney points out, uses the same language, that person simply gives more credence and hence more power to OBL.


Tierney points out that bin Laden’s language and tactics prompted George W Bush to proclaim that we, presumably meaning the so-called “free world”, or the West, but in reality probably means just the US, are in a worldwide war with terrorists and that “We will accept nothing less than complete victory” To this Tierney writes, “When you define victory that way, when you treat one attack from a disorganized band of fanatics as a menace to civilization, you’ve doomed yourself to defeat and caused more damage than they could. You can’t completely stop terrorism, but you can scare people into giving up liberties, wasting huge sums of money and sacrificing more lives than would be lost in a terrorist attack.”

So, while some have argued that Bush is manipulating the meaning of the word freedom, it appears that he, in turn, is being manipulated by OBL. If the theories of Wardaugh and CDA are correct, and Tierney’s article is on the money, then where does that put us, those who are now apparently at least two steps removed from being able to say and write what we want?

April 07, 2006

Questions for Republicans

In researching Valerie Plame’s history with the CIA and the details surrounding Plamegate, I have read some very well-researched and thought-out articles arguing both sides.

Republican spin, from the White House on down has been one take after another: First was that the White House knew nothing about the leak, or the leaker, according to Bush in September, 2003, "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of..." Second was that Plame really was of no consequence, that she was not in fact under cover, but instead “a desk-jockey” ergo; what does it matter that her identity was leaked to the public? Third was that the entire incident was actually centered on Joseph Wilson and his obvious attempt to smear and discredit a president and administration he openly spoke out against.

The next line of spin came after the grand jury inquisition was begun and people were called in to testify (Bush was called in, and he did submit to questioning, however, not under oath and with his lawyer at his side). Then, the spin was to move focus off of Cheney and Bush and onto Rove and Libby; it was really them who were responsible. Then the subtle shift was off of Rove and entirely onto Libby. Finally, when Libby was indicted, the spin was, incredibly, So what? It’s just an indictment; Libby has not been convicted of anything. Further, it was added that Plame was still inconsequential because she really was a nobody within the CIA.

Now that it has come out that Bush and Cheney were responsible for the leak, the defense is that they had the authority to do so.

If Republican pundits discuss the current situation of Plamegate at all, it is along the last point that they focus their attention. However, there are a couple of things I would like to know from those same pundits:

1) Regardless of the legality of having leaked Plame’s name deliberately, why didn’t Bush et al admit at the outset that they had done this? If in fact, they do have the legal right to do so, and if in fact that they did so not to punish Wilson and Plame, but to help clarify their case, why not come out the moment this story broke, defuse it and cop to it?


President Clinton was and is still, derided for his handling of the Monica Lewinsky affair. One of his greatest atrocities was that he “allowed” the Ken Starr investigation to drag on, doing his best to stonewall and hold-up the investigation, which, in the end, resulted in his being convicted of perjury. Now on this, I find myself along side those pundits. Regardless of the fact that Clinton now claims that he understood the Starr investigation for what it was; a concerted, politically partisan-driven attack on him and his presidency, and that he was fighting them off, tooth and nail, I have believed that Clinton fell right into the trap laid out by the Republicans by allowing them to politicize the issue and then turn it around on him. He should have been a man about it, and not allowed the Republicans to make a circus show out of the investigation by announcing publicly that he did have that affair, that he was sorry, but that this was not a political issue but one that was, in reality, a personal one between he and his wife.

2) Why do it at all?

What exactly is the point of outing Plame to the American press? Precisely how does that help their purported ultimate goal; the safety of the United States through a war on terror? Research I have done overwhelmingly agrees on two things: Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA who was actively running a covert investigation into the creation and trafficking of nuclear materials, technology and weapons. In fact, according to one source, it was Plame who was focusing most of her efforts and that of her investigation into Iran’s search for nuclear capability. Since she has been outed Iran has not only stepped-up its quest for nuclear capability, but they have made significant steps towards building nuclear weapons.

I find the Republican outrage over the leaking of information involving covert CIA and US military operations involving suspected terrorists or enemy combatants, along with the same outrage over the leaking of the Bush administration’s massive spy program, arguing that these are major blows to America’s war on terror and that the people responsible need to be rooted out and exposed as the traitors they are, just slightly disingenuous when compared to their silence regarding the deliberate outing of an undercover CIA agent and the covert operation whose actions were part of the war on terror.

I find the Republican defense of Bush and Cheney of their decision to not come forward immediately and reveal all that they knew regarding the incident, nearly three years ago, before a grand jury was convened, before everyone gave their testimony, before Libby was indicted and before this information became public utterly at odds with everything pundits such as Hannity and Limbaugh rail about everyday regarding the Republican party and Republicans in general as being morally and ethically better and more honest than Democrats. Republicans are part of the responsible party, the party of values, of the American way of life. In their argument for this position, they hold up as Exhibit A, Clinton and the Lewinsky affair. And yet, while, I believe, that lying about having an extra-marital affair with a consenting adult pales in comparison to what Bush and Cheney did, these two incidents are similar on one point only; both presidents knew of the problem because they were the source of the problem and both presidents did their best to thwart an investigation into the incident, including lying about the incident.

Clinton was eventually charged with perjury and he did apologize for the incident. It can be argued that he received nothing more than a slap on the wrist and that his apology was not sincere anyway. However, that is in the past, and unless Republicans want to see a repeat of the circus show and expenditure of more American tax dollars on another grand jury, they should not waste their moment in the light, as Clinton did before, and admit to the thing. They may not admit to its being right or wrong, morally or politically, but the least they can do to save their reputation is to fess up.

I doubt seriously that they will. They will instead fight to the bitter end, never admitting defeat or guilt unless it is literally dragged out of them. This, believe the Republicans, is their strength. Their great unity in the face of adversity, witness Bush’s refusal to do anything others want him to do, and it is this that binds them to the American public through the essence of the American spirit.

However, I believe that it will be this strategy which may result in their downfall in the 2006 election, and if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, I think we may see a split amongst Republicans, with some re-forming into one which more closely aligns itself with what are known to be the true Conservative ideology.