A nice little aside -- Media Misleading Americans By Using ‘Surge’ To Describe Bush Policy Research compiled by ThinkProgress shows that when “surge” was first adopted by the mainstream media in November 2006, the term was specifically defined as a “temporary,” “short-term” increase in U.S. forces. In fact, we now know that the Bush administration and the most prominent advocates of escalation all reject a short-term increase in U.S. forces. Rather, they advocate a long-term increase of forces lasting at least 18 months. The media, in other words, has continued to use the term “surge” even though its definition has fundamentally changed. The choice of words is not an academic point. A CBS poll released Monday found that only 18 percent of Americans support an escalation of forces in Iraq. However, when asked whether they support a “short-term troop increase,” the number jumps to 45 percent approval (48 percent disapproval). Every time the media repeats the word “surge,” they are helping to mislead the American people about the long-term escalation being proposed. Reporters and news organizations have a responsibility to stop using the term to describe President Bush’s policy. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/10/media-surge-escalation/
We agree about something. Malkin is a pure, unadulterated b****, IMO, which may be a stronger opinion than yours. Seeing and/or hearing her in any form or fashion turns my stomach. Now, with that out of the way, I wanted to address something the press is doing... the press from all sides of the political spinning wheel. IT ISN'T A SURGE, IT'S DESPERATELY NEEDED REINFORCEMENTS. This whole "surge" business is a gross misrepresentation of what's going on, and an attempt to put a false light, in my opinion, on what we are seeing. And the press is repeating it like the automatons they so often are. It's not a surge, but a desperate reinforcing of American combat power in Iraq in a bid to try and take out al-Sadr's militia. The expectation that the Iraqi government and military, dominated as it is by the Shia, will take a very large role is a fantasy being pushed by Bush and company. The result, in my opinion, will be one hell of a lot of dead and maimed Iraqis, a whole lot added to the ruin already tumbled about Baghdad and the area, the creation of more insurgents fighting Americans and what passes for the Iraqi government, and far too many more dead and wounded American soldiers, with ultimate failure being the result. In my opinion, of course, and I get no pleasure from the observation. It's tragic to have to say it, but not as tragic as the reality of the train wreck we'll see unfold over the next several months. D&D. Here we are.
Sorry if hearing an opinion bums you out, man. I'm actually in a good humor. That doesn't keep me from writing about what I think is unfolding. Hey, you should feel good... if I'm right, then we aren't about to attack Iran. D&D. Humor is where You find it.
