CNN's Quijano: "Democrats are seeking to cast a surge as an escalation"
During a January 8 segment on the Bush administration's possible plan to increase the number of U.S. forces in Iraq, CNN correspondent Elaine Quijano reported that "Democrats are seeking to cast a surge as an escalation of the unpopular Iraq war." But it is not only Democrats who are suggesting that the White House is contemplating more than just a "surge" -- which CNN's own Bill Schneider characterized as short-term in a January 5 report on CNN's The Situation Room. Some of the strongest advocates of sending more troops to Iraq -- including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) resident scholar Frederick W. Kagan -- are urging a sustained increase, perhaps one as long as 18 months, as Media Matters for America noted.
Moreover, while Quijano suggested that it was Democrats who were trying to politicize the debate by "cast[ing]" Bush's upcoming proposal as one for "escalation," as Schneider noted, the term "surge" has its own political overtones, which the White House might prefer: "Why 'surge'? Why not 'escalate'? Because 'surge' sounds temporary. Waves surge and decline. 'Escalation' sounds long-term." Nevertheless, Quijano, like numerous other CNN reporters, called the Bush plan "a potential surge" in her very next sentence: "But a senior Bush administration official says the White House views a potential surge as part of a broader political and economic strategy."
From the January 8 edition of CNN Newsroom:
QUIJANO: President Bush hasn't announced his retooled Iraq plan yet, but Democratic leaders are already warning they could use the power of the purse to hold the president accountable if he decides to increase the number of U.S. forces in Baghdad.
PELOSI [video clip]: If the president wants to expand the mission, that's a conversation he has to have with the Congress of the United States. But there's not a carte blanche -- a blank check to him to do whatever he wishes there.
QUIJANO: Democrats are seeking to cast a surge as an escalation of the unpopular Iraq war. But a senior Bush administration official says the White House views a potential surge as part of a broader political and economic strategy, a sentiment meant to answer concerns expressed by some skeptical fellow Republicans.
of MM because at its core, bias of any form starts with the vocabulary and inflection of voice...I'm constantly reminded of this when I hear commentators state 'this may SPARK a controversy...' when talking about some issue related to race or religion where the word spark conotates flame, or inflaming, or rapid energy expenditure that requires immediate reaction to quell the suppossed threat.
There is nothing biased about the statement below. The reporter gives both the Democrats and the administration's view - even stating there are skeptical Republicans.
********************************
QUIJANO: Democrats are seeking to cast a surge as an escalation of the unpopular Iraq war. But a senior Bush administration official says the White House views a potential surge as part of a broader political and economic strategy, a sentiment meant to answer concerns expressed by some skeptical fellow Republicans.
"There is nothing biased about the statement below. The reporter gives both the Democrats and the administration's view - even stating there are skeptical Republicans. "--Tommy
Not really. She gives the administration's view, but before that, she offers a CHARACTERIZATION of the Democratic position that implies that they're just playing politics, rather than operating from a sincere worry that a "surge" will almost certainly become an "escalation"--and she does so without reference to any Democratic sources. (She quotes Pelosi, but not with respect to the terms here at issue.)
I agree it could have been stated slightly different but I believe her assessment of both positions is basically fair.
The Democrats as saying this "surge" is an escalation, that is what they are seeking to show - so in that respect she is accurate.
But I hear your point and it is a valid one to consider.
...the problem with "he-said-she-said" reporting. The matter is presented as a semantic argument between two insterested parties, which is the least substantive part of the issue.
Obviously we have to wait until the official announcement, but it should be analyzed specifically rather than semantically. How many troops? For how long, and with what purpose in mind?
I don't care whether it is called a "surge," an escalation," or a tea party;" as a citizen, I have every right to know how long we are talking about keeping people over there and why. And I shouldn't have to do a lot of research and reading-between-the-lines to find out such basic information. That is, supposedly, why we have news media...
Can you explain how a "surge" in our forces in Iraq could NOT be an escalation of the Iraq War?
The "surge" means more forces. That means we're committing more troops to this war, hence, an escalation.
I don't see how the Dems are "characterizing" the surge at all. They seem to be using terms that explain exactly what it is (an escalation of the war by increasing our forces).
That's my problem with the reporters statements.
I didn't use the term characteriziation, the other poster did. I said what the reporter is saying is the Democrat's position on this - they see it as an escalation. And the administration disagrees.
A "surge" is a meaningful description of a temporary increase in troops to deal with a specific issue. An "escalation" is a long-term increase in troops. These, at least, are conventional definitions of these terms.
Playing word games is a waste of time at this late date. So long as we call a spade a spade, who cares what the specific words are. I just don't want to pay for a spade and get a trowel.
More specifically, if Bush is asking for a "surge" to get political support for a long-term increase of troops, it's dishonest and should be countered.
... a "surge" of troops is not an escalation?
Sure and putting gasoline on a fire is not going to make it bigger either.
Unbelievable.
both a "surge" (as defined above) and an "escalation" (as defined above) as de facto escalations of the war. However, there is a shade of difference between the two words, and that was what I was trying to highlight.
I don't care if it's called a "ham sandwich," so long as it's a substantive debate. How many troops? To do what? For how long?
It is easier to visualize the difference on a graph (especially in measuring things like voltage or current). A surge is more like a spike. A sudden increase and then decrease in measurable units. An escalation would be at least a sustained increase in measurement or a general noticeable rise over the baseline measurement.
What I am concerned may happen is an "escalation" that is falsely sold in the form of a "surge" by the administration.
will only be there 3 months, why should we believe him?
His credibility at this point is about nil.
In 3 months, maybe conditions on the ground will have changed?
...which is why the whole word-war about what to call it makes one verrry suspicious.
I don't care what you or anyone else calls it. What, apparently, is going to happen is they are going to put more U.S. soldiers into the middle of what is, essentially, a civil war.
There is going to be more death, destruction and chaos. Now in hindsight IF they had put more troops in from the start and got better control of the country this would not have happened.
My point is that, in my opinion and in the opinion of most of the country, including many military minds, is that this is the absolute wrong thing to do.
Of course, I was against this war from the start so I thought it was wrong and going to be a disaster before it began.
...the Bush administration has never been "stay the course"?
The corporate propaganda and the administration would tell us the sky is bright orange and get mad if we didn't believe them. It's amazing they can sink that low to suggest a surge is NOT an escalation. 1984 started with them dumbing down the populace with a butchery of the language into meaningless soundbites.
They are planning a huge assault on Baghdad for the very near future. Divisions are right now being stripped off units to create an ad hoc 20,000 force. They'll be tossed at the most heavily armed city outside Texas. The city will shoot back. It's not gonna be pretty.
My particular problem with this CNN piece is not the "surge" and "escalation" distinction, whatever that may be, but rather with Quijano's phrase "seeking to cast". This implies that the Democrats are the ones playing cynical wordgames, forcing "escalation" into the discourse to make Bush look bad--when, in fact, it's "surge" that's the misleading and politicized euphemism. Earlier, she says the Democrats are "politicizing" the issue with wordplay, while the Administration's statements are taken at face value.
That was my small quibble with Tommy's first comment: Quijano's not really offering the Democratic position versus the Administration position, but the Admin position versus a characterization of the Democratic position that makes them seem small and spiteful. To put it more elegantly: The buildup will be an "escalation"--and probably a catastrophic one--irrespective of Democrats "seeking to cast" it as such.
"seeking to cast"
That's the key phrase and the point. The structure of the sentence says that it is A which others are trying to "cast" as B.
In this case, it's saying it is a "surge" - adopting the White House's language and by implication its position about what is an accurate description.
What if we said, by way of comparison, "Certain people here are seeking to cast this biased report as a balanced one?"
That is structurally identical to the original, but I doubt anyone would accept that it contains no judgment about either the report or those people.
(once again) has been very compliant to help frame this debate on terms favorable to the administration--the "troop surge," rather than "escalation."
I suspect that if the Democrats were in Bush's position, the media would have been much quicker to use the word "escalation."
is that it is the Bush regime that is trying to frame an escalation as a "surge." Surge is just Orwellian word smithing designed to frame the escalation of troops in Iraq in a more palatable form.
It's an escalation, not a "surge".
The cowardly media obediently toes the adminstration's euphemistic language, as has been documented on this site time and again (see "Terrorist Surveillance Program" in place of what it really is, domestic eavesdropping and spying).
From the administration that brought you "contractors" (a euphemism for mercs or hired killers), do you expect a truthful approach to broadcasting their plans to increase troop levels for what will amount to the remainder of Bush's presidency? Why change now? The use of the word "surge" when they mean "permanent increase" is par for Bush's tenure as Commander and Chump. This is his and Cheney's last ditch chance to redistribute vast sums of money to the military industrial complex and its various support industries such as the coffin manufacturers and funeral parlors.
Maybe Bush says to himself, "It's over for me, but if I begin to pull out now, and the thing turns into chaos, then the next Republican will have a more difficult time getting elected. Let's keep this thing going as is, and then the next president can try to clean it up."
I say this is the same people who told us that the entire reconstruction would cost American taxpayers $1.6 billion.
I know the neocon ideology says that the public is profoundly stupid, but exactly how stupid would we have to be to keep believing them?
appparently, to let it go this far... Stupidity is a big factor, unfortunately, in politics. Maybe as the world progresses this will become less and less of a problem. Right now, however, THIS has happened, partly because Americans never thought "it could happen to them" mainly since "it" had never happened to them. Watergate was bad, but...
"Democrats are seeking to cast a surge as an escalation"
Holly:
"Forthright people are seeking to cast a surge as an escalation"
You took the words right out of my mouth, Holly. Surge implies a temporary event. There won't be anything temporary about sending in 20,000 more troops. They'll be there for the duration.
To call it anything other than an escalation would be a lie, plain and simple.
'member what they said about the Civil War, when one could pay to skip the fight?: "Rich man's war, poor man's fight."
Vietnam had its version of "Rich man's war, poor man's fight," with the 'Do not fight' ticket being tuition.
Vonnegut said that Vietnam made millionaires of some men who stayed home.
Kurt also said that this war is making billionaires of some millionaires who are staying home.
For example, Cheney might become a billionaire, due to the no-bid gigs that Halliburton has procured in Iraq and his big oil connections.
I'm not suggesting that Cheney is as cold as a serial killer and that the only reason he wages war is become wealthier, but war is serial killing, in that person after person dies in a pattern. I am suggesting that following the money will take one to a cold chunk of the truth and that increasing troop numbers also increases profits for those war-profiteers.
Again, rich children MUST be put in peril.
The rich parents must sit at the table with a daughter and one day say, "Honey, please pass the butter," and then blanche, for they forgot, for a second, the horror of their daughter without arms and eyes.
Until the rich sons and daughters are sent home in boxes and missing pieces, this will remain a rich man's war and a poor man's fight that goes on and on, surge after surge after surge.
As one of the guys who was surged into Vietnam, I'm it total agreement with you and Mr. K. My wife and Kurt Vonnegut's work is what enabled me to rejoin the living when I returned home. Whenever the times get too crazy, I revisit Bill Pilgrim, Kilgore Trout and Elliot Rosewater. I don't think I'd have made it this far without their help.
I can't begin to imagine how soldiers revert to old lives and of course, some don't, since the streets and booze too often become the battlefield back home. So it goes, eh?
But I'm glad that Vonnegut, a fellow soldier, was waiting for you, as well as your wife.
would have treated Elliot with far more compassion. And kindness. And gentleness. Having learned at the feet of a President, and all.
Having been fortunate enough to be sent to Bragg in '71 and Korea in '72 after being one of the ones who forestalled fate with the price of a tuition and the assistance of ROTC, I have only seen the pain in the eyes of my father, brother, college room mate and lastly my best friend/first cousin who were there with you ... the last of those three on a Swiftboat during his second tour. They were different when they returned. You must feel at times that you are revisiting hell, and you must understand all too well the impact of the concrete and sand jungle today's young men are wading through.
when they returned.
"...you must understand all too well the impact of the concrete and sand jungle today's young men are wading through."
This is why Bush, who wasn't brave enough to serve as you and King did, should leech what comprehension he can by announcing the surge at a military cemetary or even better, at a V.A. hospital. His audience shouldn't be his supporters, but the soldiers damaged and ruined by war. He said that this is WWIII. If he truly believes that, then he can bear the burden of announcing the surge to broken soldiers. It's still a far lesser burden than that borne by soldiers, as your story affirms, olivelawyers.
not I. I was fortunate and my assignments took me to easy locations while King was shoulder to shoulder with my family and friends. And not brave. I assumed I'd go when I took the Commission, but I was more than happy to remain in school as long as I was able.
Why on earth should we believe anything George W. Bush says?
QUIJANO: "Democrats are seeking to cast a surge as an escalation of the unpopular Iraq war."
This statement clearly carries the speaker's isinuation that the two are separate events. I would argue that a surge is two events, first an escalation followed by a withdrawal.
(although a sudden increase (noun) or to increase suddenly (verb) both qualify as definitions of surge)
I believe that her contention is that it is political maneuvering to suggest that the subsequent withdrawal will not happen. Clearly she's been drinking the kool-aid.
However,
The TRUTH will set you free.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.....
I think the mission at this point is to sustain the war and nothing perpetuates war like surging. This way, Bush won't withdraw and be seen by some as a flip-flopper. I think that Bush believes it's better for him to be seen as "steady" and "unwavering" than to end the mass murder that is war.
...the Surging Generals' report...
guy!
and his village, the media. Wouldn't you love to know how much time went into coming up with the term?
Hopefully, Iraq can survive the surge better than New Orleans withstood the one that hit it, and better than the huge populations in 2004 tsunami. I don't see how. Apparently we haven't wrought sufficient shock and awe in Baghdad yet.
"A surge is a surge is a surge."
And The Bard:
"That which we call a surge by any other other name would not smell as sweet . . . {unless spoken by Democrats, then its an escalation}"
surge... escalation... what's the difference? they both add up to the same thing: more deaths...
What does that matter? The Twins are clothes shopping and Mary Cheney is shopping for baby clothes.
...in response to the surge:
[link to www.rawstory.com]
Bottom line: this is purely a political maneuver.
Bush KNOWS the Iraq war is destined for failure, so ANY change in troop levels (up or down) makes no difference in the outcome. To repeat, Bush KNOWS this for a fact. But since he has based his entire presidential legacy on a quagmire war, the whole rationale behind putting this option on the table NOW (vs. a year ago or 18 months ago) is to attempt a total shift in blame for the pending Iraq meltdown to the Democrats, which gives the Republicans a much needed political boost in 2008.
Whatever the Democrats do, accept or reject the surge, the Republicans can blame the Democrats for either:
1) Doing precisely what the Republicans were accused of, rubberstamping Bush policies,
or
2) For preventing what would have been a winning strategy, ergo, the Democrats are responsible for Iraq’s final plunge into total chaos.
It’s a smart tactic. I hope the Democrats don’t fall into the trap. The first evasive maneuver is to investigate how the Bush administration (mis)used intelligence. Make it a matter of public record that Bush’s “slam dunk” case consisted of cherry picked intel and was not an honest reflection of the intel community’s conclusions. Second, press for an immediate draw down. Follow through on what got them elected: take control of the Iraq debacle and rein in Bush’s inner cowboy. Third, emphasis Bush’s failure to capture bin Laden and follow through on the legitimate Afghani war.
Bush and the Republicans are desperate to pin the Iraq tail on the Donkeys. A little moxie and some stone is all it takes to prevent Bush from accomplishing this mission, and hanging another banner in mock triumph.
The Democrat party should support the use of "surge".
This softer tone will benefit the Dems when they fail to have any influence over the administration's Iraq policy whatsoever. The strong tone of "escalation" will only serve to magnify the Dems impotence.