Words Of War
Just like “private accounts” became “personal accounts” when Bush was out selling the privatization of Social Security, civil war has now been renamed “endangered future” when discussing the situation in Iraq. Isn’t that nice?
Raw Story has caught The New York Times changing their story again. Early this morning the NYT filed an article on their website with the headline “U.S. Envoy in Baghdad Says Iraq Is on Brink of Civil War” that was soon changed to “U.S. Envoy Says Sectarian Violence Threatens Iraq's Future.” Glad to see the paper of record is still an independent news source unabashedly reporting the truth as they see it without cowing to pressure from the White House. I’m sure that White House surrogates and brown nosed Republican Congressmen have all received the memo by now so expect to hear much about Iraq’s “endangered future” in the coming weeks. That Frank Luntz doesn’t miss a beat.
The great thing about referring to Iraq’s burgeoning civil war as their “endangered future” is that it sounds like something we have some control over. If our invasion of Iraq results in a civil war that we can’t control, we will be forced to retreat in defeat. But selling the 38% who still find the Bush administration credible on the idea that we have to stay and take American casualties in order to protect the endangered future of Iraq should be a piece of cake. Sure, it’s a cake with an IED buried in the center, but whatever, cake is cake right?