SEE UPDATES AT END
In George Orwell’s classic, “1984,” he coined the term “Newspeak” to describe the means by which language had been manipulated to cloak and advance the exact opposite of what was supposedly being said.
“War Is Peace,” "Ignorance Is Strength," "Freedom Is Slavery," etc. See more here.
Well, apparently the new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill has taken Orwell’s “newspeak” to heart, and the bill they’ve introduced today is a testament to how hardcore their adherence to such principles actually are. I call it the "New DemocratSpeak."
Senators Reid and Feingold, co-authors of the "Surrender Iraq to Jihad Bill of 2007"
Reid with a classic one-fingered salute to anyone who tries to tell him of the short- and long-term consequences for America if this bill passes
But when a military force is ordered to "withdraw," to reoccupy bases at home or anywhere the battle is not being fought, leaving the enemy on the battlefield, that is called "surrender."
This is true whether it is ordered by the duly-elected Commander In Chief --- or even, as is the case today, illegitimately, by legislators who wrongfully think they are legally empowered to supercede the CiC's command authority, because the CiC won't stand up to them.
The jihadists view this proposed action by the Democrats to be America's surrender.
Our soldiers, most of whom sincerely believe they can win this battle, also believe it to be surrender.
But apparently, there's a good chance that the "New DemocratSpeak" will prevail --- unless something is done to stop it.
The Democrats on the Hill, knowing their leftist allies have a stranglehold over America's educational system --- and that they have intellectually disarmed our population --- know that there is no limit to the linguistic games that they can play with Americans, and "withdrawl" (whether "strategic" or not) is merely one of these games.
If these Democratic leaders were honest, they'd admit that they want to pull our soldiers out of all battlefields against jihadists, right now, today. That's what their new, seething leftist base has been telling them to do, right?
There are principled arguments to be made on both sides, but only one side is currently making them (kind of).
And it isn't the Democrats.
The Republicans (and most nauseatingly, the RINOs) certainly have not done as good of a job as they could have, and should have done, to explain the nature of this battle, and the short- and long-term consequences if we withdraw, thereby declaring our surrender of Iraq to the jihadists.
But until this debate is focused on principles, which are clearly and openly expressed, the Democrats are going to continue to be able to get away with this kind of newspeak --- or as I prefer, the "New Democratspeak."
UPDATE 1, APRIL 4: THE NEW DEMOCRATSPEAK, PART II --- A "Global War on Terror" No More!!!
According to a MilitaryTimes.org article, the (esteemed) Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill decreed in a just-discovered March memo that the military engagements that U.S. forces are deployed in around the world shall no longer be referred to as the "Global War On Terror." The "New DemocratSpeak" masters on the Hill explained it:
Read the rest here.
The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget. This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase. A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”
The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.
Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan," “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.”
This really shouldn't come as a surprise. For decades, the Democrats have been using language to manipulate public perceptions, and avoid the nasty business of attributing objective characteristics to both ideas and people. There are innumerable examples of this phenomena, but most recently, a Florida state legislator announced her plan to ban the phrase "illegal aliens" from state documents (here), because she finds it "offensive."
In other, as-yet unannounced "New DemocratSpeak" news:
"Bank robbery" shall now be referred to as acts of "involuntary non-customer cash withdrawal"
"Rape" shall now be referred to as acts of "nonconsensual intimate relations"
"Murder" shall now be referred to as "premeditated, premature, non-peaceful discontinuance of life"
In a way, however, the Democrats are actually right. The war we're engaged in should be referred to as "America's Ongoing War Against Islamist Barbarism and Totalitarianism."
But that would be very, very, very politically incorrect. After all, we wouldn't want to "make things worse," right? (That's the excuse that Speaker Pelosi gave, through her spokesman, as to why she would not allow debate in the House re a resolution condemning Iran's recent seizure of 15 British soldiers, and demanding their safe and immediate release; see Item 3, here).
And we most certainly wouldn't want to be precise in our wording --- because that is the kryptonite to the "New DemocratSpeak."
UPDATE: See Part II of this thread, here.
Original content is © Copyright 2007 by Jon Quixote. Email to firstname.lastname@example.org