Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Take the Quiz on the Bush Administration's War of the Words

By Tom Engelhardt and Nicholas Turse, Tomdispatch.com. Posted June 18, 2007.


From "mission accomplished" through those endless "turning points" and "the precipice," American officials in Baghdad and Washington haven't been sparing with the use of images or analogies. Can you pass the War of the Words quiz?
Advertisement

From "mission accomplished" through those endless "turning points" and "tipping points" up to the "brink" of "the abyss" and "the precipice," and back again, American officials, military and civilian, in Baghdad and Washington, have never spared the images or the analogies. (Do you remember when our President and Secretary of Defense, for instance, were eagerly talking about taking those "training wheels" off the Iraqi "bicycle" and letting the Iraqi child pedal on his own into Democracy-land?) Reality be damned, they've had a remarkable way, over the last four years, of turning phrases and pretzeling language to suit their needs and the needs of a war that existed largely in their imaginations rather than on the ground. In recent months, backs against the verbal wall, these spinmeisters have begun spinning ever more wildly -- mixing metaphors, grasping at rhetorical straws, and stretching credulity at every turn, if not turning point.

In an effort to analyze this latest surge of sophistry -- a war of words always fought with the "home front" in mind -- we've come up with a short quiz that places genuine quotes from actual military commanders and Washington officials alongside quotes we've spun from our own questionable brains. We challenge you to pick the real ones. Did an American general in Iraq liken the situation there to a pogo stick, a teeter-totter, a slinky, or a jungle gym? It's your choice. Did George Tenet's "slam dunk" line inspire current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to use basketball analogies, when speaking of "security" in the Middle East, or did he flee to the football field of life?

Take this TomDispatch quiz and see if you can guess which quotes are too wild, or not wild enough, for the battling bureaucrats of the Bush administration. Let's start with a warm-up round:

1. At his January confirmation hearings, General David Petraeus, readying himself to command the President's "troop surge" in Baghdad and al-Anbar Province, promised to offer Congress periodic reports on how the plan was proceeding. No dates were offered. Within months, however, this vague promise had morphed into a specific September report to Congress and has now become a focus of endless, near-obsessional media attention and questions.

Is this September report regularly referred to as:

A. A Disaster Report

B. A Regress Report

C. A Baghdad Report

D. A Progress Report

The answer, of course, is D. And now that "victory" -- a word the President once used 15 times in a single speech -- has left the administration's fighting language, think of "progress" as the second team of words. No matter how badly things are going, "progress" (or its lack) remains the frame of reference for U.S. officials -- and for reporters asking questions. Typically, in a May 31st press briefing, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, Petraeus's second-in-command in Baghdad, and the reporters questioning him, managed to use the word no less than 23 times. ("We've made some very clear progress.... Anbar's economic and political progress.... But progress has been made.... Every day we are making progress…")

Now, let's make the questions just a tad harder.

2. Spokesman for the American military command in Iraq, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, was recently asked about "progress" in the "Baghdad security situation." He responded:

A. "Progress will not be like flipping a light switch -- it will be gradual, it will be nuanced, it will be subtle."

B. "Progress is going to seem like a balky jeep. It will stall, it will kick, but sooner or later it will lurch forward."

C. "Progress isn't like a faucet. You can't just turn it on and get hot water."

D. "Progress will not be like a cruise missile. You can't just fire and forget."

The answer is A -- and, by the way, General Bergner, the last one out of Baghdad, please turn off the lights. (Oh, sorry, we never got them on in the first place.)


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: language, quiz, iraq, bush administration

Tom Engelhardt, editor of Tomdispatch.com, is co-founder of the American Empire Project and author of The End of Victory Culture. Nick Turse is the associate editor and research director of Tomdispatch.com. He has written for the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Nation, the Village Voice, and regularly for TomDispatch.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Words! Words! Words! I'm so sick of Words!
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jun 18, 2007 1:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Indeed, my fair lady! My goodness! Where to begin?

It's a slam dunk!

We'll be greeted as liberators

We'll be in and out of there in six months

It will be a cake walk

Iraq is central to the war on terror

We can do it with 150,000 troops

Saddam Hussein had connections to Osama bin Laden

This war is about ridding Saddam of weapons of mass destruction

This war is about bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people

This war is about defating al Queda

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

BRING 'EM ON!!!!

This is a major turning point

That is a major turning point

The insurency is in it's final throes

We've turned a corner

When they stand up, we'll stand down

Absolutely we're winning

Freedom in Iraq is on the march


And let us not forget the First Fool's famous sixteen words:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa

I need a drink.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yikes!
Posted by: talkville on Jun 18, 2007 1:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When language is taken to be a-historical and eternal, standing (or floating) some-how 'above' all this messiness we call living, this is partly what we get - "magical thinking". As with everything 'cool', the US imported the 'post-modern' ideologies, mainly from France, whole-sale and cheap. Say it and it is. That's the motto. Already in the late 19th century, Krafft-Ebing among others was speaking of "the doctrine of association" in relation to psychology in that case. Today this doctrine is on steroids and nearly beyond the psychotic stage. The metaphors (mixed-, 'pure', extended or whatever), the analogies, the metonymies are in even the air we breathe. The very conception (or is this also a metaphor?) of reality is up for grabs by the loudest voice (guess who?). Mean-while, billions of those "constructions" we call "human beings" APPEAR to be starving, enslaved, de-valued, relativized and wholly dis-possessed of any equity, justice and even of humanity. After all, it's just words I guess. Who, I wonder, forms the back-ground for this ever present image referred to as GW Bush? He's crowding the picture, spilling off the frame and, whatever paint's being used, it's caustic and toxic and damaging beyond all imagination!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Aha, what? Posted by: imcnotu
The quiz is a waste of time.
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 18, 2007 3:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All you have to remember is -- when Bush's lips move, he's lying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» when lips move Posted by: kellysgarden
Resisting the Drums of War
Posted by: Roy Eidelson on Jun 18, 2007 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From a rhetorical perspective, the Bush administration promoted the misguided and destructive war in Iraq with messages targeting our core concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, they will likely try to sell us a continuing occupation of Iraq—or an attack on Iran—in much the same way. I examine these warmongering appeals and how to counter them in a new 10-minute video entitled "Resisting the Drums of War." It's available for viewing on YouTube HERE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Will we be better off?
Posted by: kbest on Jun 18, 2007 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
5-10 years from now will we be better off if Iraq is a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself? Think about that for a minute.........The answer is a resounding yes. We will be better off, the Iraqi's will be better off, and so will the entire region.

But only if the American people develope the backbone needed to see it thru to conclusion. Bush Bashing is not a strategy. If we were united in this endeavor we would be much farther ahead. But some in this country have emboldened the enemy, have given them strength to believe that the USA is a paper tiger. They do this at our peril.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Will we be better off? Posted by: CharAnn
» RE: Will we be better off? Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Will we be better off? Posted by: PopRox80
» Are you kidding yourself? Posted by: imcnotu
» RE: Will we be better off? Posted by: Maryanne
» RE: Will we be better off? Posted by: VZEQICVA
» More talking points crap! Posted by: johngary66
» I mean you kbest! Cut the crap. Posted by: johngary66
You misspelled....
Posted by: mizipi on Jun 18, 2007 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the word "p-r-o-g-r-e-$-$". But, it is better than any comedy on TV!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah yes, their news media?
Posted by: irifi on Jun 18, 2007 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Spears, Hilton, and fecal reporting from the so called big three . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The nature of the beast....
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Jun 18, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Distortions, selective truth, propaganda and outright lying - they've all gone hand in hand with politics for ages. American politicians are obviously no different....although Bush and his criminal gang are probably the worst we've ever seen in this country.

Their arrogance never ceases to amaze me. But, that's the type of thing that the founders warned us against, and recommended that we always have a distrust of powerful people in government.

I think the only way to turn this mess around is to strictly limit the powers that future presidents have - otherwise we'll end up with another Bush someday - who claims the power to do what this one has been doing.

Some follow up reading if you're interested:

"Politicians Lie? Say it Ain't So!" - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

COMPLIMENTST TO THE AUTHORS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 18, 2007 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought this was brilliant. It's also true. For six years now we just don't know what anyone is talking about. English teachers long gone are turning in their graves. Maybe the next election will return us to English as our primary language. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Oil? "Oil has absolutely nothing to do with this..."
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 18, 2007 1:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to Rumsfeld... and Petraeus simply wants to make sure that the revenues from the oil are fairly distributed to the Iraqi people - "revenues" being defined as the miserable pittance that the Iraqi people will receive after everyone else gets their cut.

First in line will come US-British oil corporations and the financial institutions that control them. This is why BearingPoint, of KPMG/ArthurAnderson/Enron fame, was deeply involved in writing the Iraqi hydrocarbon law.

Second in line will be the neighboring regimes that hold Iraqi's international debt - most of which was run up during Saddam's war with Iran. The major creditors (Kuwait, Russia, and Saudi Arabia) say that "The assistance, including debt relief, is conditional on progress,".... "Iraqis cannot assume that they will get that assistance if they don‘t make progress on their commitments."

Translation - we'll give up the debt if we can get our hands on the oil! This is how the any loansharking program works, regardless of who's behind it - IMF/World Bank, or Russian oiligarchs, or corrupt sub-prime home lenders.

Meanwhile, the US corporate media is entirely ignoring the fact that Iraqi oilworkers unions are entirely opposed to the oil law, with a few exceptions (Reuters: Iraqi union leader urges opposition to oil law)

If Petraeus and Bush really wanted to 'stabilize Iraq', the first things they would do to 'win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people' would be to:

a) Allow the oil to be nationalized and put under the direct control of the semi-elected Iraqi parliament, to do with as they wished, and

b) Put pressure on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Russia to entirely write-off Iraqi debt, which was mostly run up by Saddam Hussein with the overt approval of the US government during the Iraq-Iran war.

However, since this flies in the face of the entire rationale for the war, which was to seize and control Iraqi oil, you will never see either Petraeus or Bush or Gates or Odierno raise this topic. The faces have changed, and Rumsfeld is offstage, but the policy remains just as arrogant and stupid as it did before.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]