November 04, 2003
The enemy of my enemy is my friend ...
Josh Marshall writes
...Watching Paul Bremer today on CNN I was struck by his use of language like ‘enemies of freedom’ and terrorists to describe the people we’re fighting in the country (these are from my recollection, the precise phrases may be different.) People who kill soldiers are not, at least not by definition, ‘terrorists’. They’re guerillas or insurgents. This isn’t a matter of cutting them slack, but one of precision. And precision is required to know what we’re doing, what we’re trying to do, and how we can get from clarifying what our goals are to finding effective means to pursue their implementation.What utter Bolshoi. If they were trying to attack only soldiers, this might be true. But they are also deliberately targeting civilians, and civilian infrastructure. And the attacks are gauged to cause terror and paralysis, rather than to advance any identifiable military operation. That's terrorism.This is part of what Orwell was getting at in “Politics and the English Language” when he lamented that “political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.”...
It is extremely mendacious for Marshall to bring in Orwell at the very moment he is trying to muddy these issues! There is nothing "euphemistic" or "cloudy" or "vague" in what Bremer said. The terrorists are "enemies of freedom." That's exactly what they are. Even a scoundrel like Marshall can't possibly argue that they are anything else. [Sure he can. They're for "People's Islamic Socialist Freedom." That makes them "Freedom Fighters." They will soon adopt some identifying badge or scarf, which will become popular in Berkeley -- I.C.]
Even if the attackers are not "enemies of freedom," there's nothing vague or euphemistic about that description. Bremer's statements are always clear and forthright. Orwell would have approved. Their very clarity makes it possible to dispute them with logic, but Marshall isn't interested in that.
Scoundrel? Such name-calling doesn't seem like the Random Jottings we know and love --I.C. You're probably right. But this guy Marshall really irritates me. I never read him without seeing something that looks like lies dished-up with consummate subtlety and skill. He is a person of great gifts, and uses them wrongly.
While the term "What utter Bolshoi." might be a nice way to say what you mean, I think that the Russian word for "large" really does not do this. I do not think that we should "pardon your French"
Positive Dennis
Posted by: Dennis De Jarnette at November 5, 2003 10:26 AMOh Fuji, I made a mistake!
Posted by: John Weidner at November 5, 2003 04:50 PMMarshal is also a synonym for mendacity.
Describing him as having "great gifts" seems strange but I'll put it next to Bob Kerrey's quote concerning Clinton's veracity. They fit together.
Posted by: RDB at November 5, 2003 08:10 PMI said 'great gifts' because I envy him his writing skills. Here's an example of him using delicious wit to tell lies:
http://jottings.blogspot.com/2003_03_23_jottings_archive.html
Also it's an example of my lack of wit—I used the same euphemism back then! Ugh.
Posted by: John Weidner at November 6, 2003 07:54 AMmarshall is tres popular because he appears to @ least TRY not to be partisan. sometimes he pulls it off; sometimes he doesn't. for the most part, he totally doesn't--e.g. this particularly egregious instance of orwellian abracadabration; see if you can follow the reasoning here: "it doesn't matter nobody said 'imminent threat,' what matters is that we THOUGHT somebody IMPLIED 'imminent threat.'"
http://nequidnimis.blogspot.com/2003_10_19_nequidnimis_archive.html#1066986618659071
Posted by: harm d. at November 6, 2003 01:34 PM
