interesting... Tuscaloosa uses "escalation" words for "surge"

[salin]

Thought I would do a news.google search to see if any papers took up the Editor and Publisher call to resist simply using Bushco.'s term "surge". This was the first hit I found - enjoy...

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070101/NEWS/701010307/1007/dateline&cachetime=3&template=dateline



Bush still searching for well-defined mission in Iraq

The escalation of the war in Iraq seems all but certain despite what even the troops in the field say.

snip

numbers for increasing the forces there were tossed around.

The White House has said that Bush will give a speech sometime before his Jan. 23 State of the Union address in which he is expected to outline a “surge" (Bush-speak for escalation) of our military presence in Iraq of what is expected to be at least 20,000 troops.

Other places in the article it refers to an escalation.

Any Tuscaloosans around? Is this a mainstream paper or an alternative paper?

Excuse me while I look for other examples - please feel free to do the same. Wouldn't it be a great New Years gift from the press - if suddenly there was a rejection of orwellian bushco speak for 2007?

[chelsea0011]

1. Thank you, thank you, thank you. It is the correct term.

[Javaman]

2. The surge term will fall flat. nt

[salin]

3. Here is one from USNews & World Reports:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061231/8iraq.htm

Under Fire
As President Bush draws up a new Iraq battle plan, it's clear he will have a fight on his hands if he wants more troops
By Anna Mulrine

Posted Sunday, December 31, 2006


December drew to a close as the deadliest month in two years for American soldiers in Iraq. At his ranch in Crawford, Texas, President Bush gathered his national security team–including new Defense Secretary Bob Gates–to draw up what may well be a last-chance strategy to turn back the tide of chaos. It couldn't have lightened the mood any that morning to glance at the Washington Post's front page: "Ford Disagreed With Bush About Invading Iraq." Former President Gerald Ford, who died last week at age 93, criticized Bush's rationale for the war in a posthumously published July 2004 interview with the Post's Bob Woodward. Said Ford, "I don't think I would have gone to war."

snip

Wordplay. In Washington, the word surge is increasingly accompanied by something akin to virtual quotation marks. It's more politically palatable than "escalation," with its echoes of Vietnam, and carries the implication of limited duration, or an ebb. But new troops will be on the ground for a while. In a widely circulated PowerPoint presentation, Frederick Kagan, a neoconservative military historian at the American Enterprise Institute, touts the benefits of a surge in a "plan for success," adding that a minimum of 30,000 troops should be sent to the country for "18 months or so." "That's not a surge," says one military official. "It's a troop increase, plain and simple."

... more at link


US News - tends to be a slightly right (old time conservative, not quite neocon) msm source. Interesting that they come straight out and describe the choice of words with a small heading of "wordplay".

[hippiechick]

4. Now if they stop calling it a war and use the correct term: invasion

... we'll be getting somewhere close to reality.

[aquart]

6. First WE have to stop calling it a war. Invasion is the correct term.

Time we told the truth.

[salin]

11. while "invasion" is not often used... more and more the word "occupation"

creeps into reports. I think that is starting to get us somewhere.

[rodeodance]

5. it is really not bush-speach as the term Surge was used by ISG>

(Bush-speak for escalation)

[aquart]

8. Goody. The report was worthless and can be disregarded.

Along with its terminology.

[salin]

10. cherry picking by bushco

reject everything but the term... glomb onto a poor policy fronted by two AEI neocons that in essence justify the righteousness of the current policy... downplay that it is really an escalation - morphs into bush-speak imo.

In the first couple of days after bushco's "alternative" to the ISG was announced - ALL of the media seemed to repeat "Surge" w/out the critique per - isn't this just an escalation? It is very interesting that by the end of Dec and beg of January - more and more media outlets include the word escalation.

If this keeps up - the public will view it as escalation - and by the time Bush announces it formally before the SOTU speech - it will (as if it isn't already) be discredited.

[salin]

7. Houston Chronicle Editorial uses the title "ESCALATION"

Escalation
An attempt to secure Baghdad would require a large, undesirable increase in troops and still might fail/b]

... {editorial closes with this paragraph:}



In order to secure Baghdad and other hot spots, the United States would have to dispatch tens of thousands of combat-ready troops it doesn't have, and keep them in Iraq for at least a year or 18 months to allow the civil conflict to subside. That kind of buildup, lasting to the end of hostilities, could not rightly be called a "surge." The administration's critics are within their rights in describing a significant increase in troop strength as an "escalation."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4433776.html

[jody]

9. Tuscaloosa News objectively publishes both sides of issues but often includes left wing editorials.

The paper is influenced by the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.

P.S. The University of Alabama also plays football.

:hi:

[salin]

12. Glad to read it - I would guess that more than just U folks

read it.

Was even more interested to see the term - and its used - called out in US News and World reports as well as an editorial for the Houston Chronicle.

As much as red staters can be denied - we do get some media air time in our states (even if it often starts out in the college communities). :D

[Webster Green]

13. I saw the word "boost" used in as headline today..

That sounds like an attempt at positive spin.

Everybody needs a little boost!

[salin]

14. or a "booster shot" as in "innoculation"... ugh!

innoculation against what? More of the subtle "fight 'em there so we don't fight 'em here? Ugh!

I saw a report on CNN two nights ago where first they reported upon the poll of active military no longer having majority support for the war - and then they go to a reporter "on the ground" who is supposted to be talking about how servicemen/women on the ground feel about lost friends/casualties. Instead he talks about how many {who? doesn't say who he has talk to and doesn't interview a soul} are supportive of the mission, and how many {again who?} think it is winnable {again - who? certainly not the same folks polled} that all that is needed to win was "more troops on the ground". Sat there watching going wtf? That wasn't what he was touted to be talking about - and he just denied the polls per the active military and (lack of) support for the war... when they returned to the anchor in the US - she didn't say much but - er thanks - on to other news...

Thus I was glad to look around for the surge vs escalation language in the papers - and was rather pleased to see that it isn't all hook line and sinker bushspeak.

[drm604]

15. Here are some more.

Just a few. I'm sure there are others.

Bennington Banner

N.E. Dems fear war escalation

Daily News Tribune

Editorial: Escalation in Iraq?

Star Tribune

Letter of the day: McCain is just wrong on Iraq escalation

Notice that these are all article titles. They are not buried deep in the article.

[salin]

16. And the times... they are a-changin'

It's about time!

[Stuckinthebush]

17. There are quite a few liberals in T-town

The Univ. of Alabama is there, and like most Universities, there are many progressive professors.

It is nice to see, though, from a paper in the middle of the Heart of Dixie!