It would appear that certain GOP Senators have taken umbrage with plain language used to describe accurately what this Administration plans to do.
"Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine told CNN Thursday that she is working with colleagues on 'both sides of the aisle' to come up with a resolution opposing President Bush's plan to increase troops numbers in Iraq -- after she and other Republicans objected to certain language in a resolution proposed by three other senators."
One would be remiss to not expect this from Susan Collins. She is of the Joe Lieberman school of centrism where the terms of the debate are nitpicked and disparaged as a means of controlling the debate. In the mind of Susan Collins and her Republican peers the question of whether or not escalation is more accurate than surge is a useless question. Truth is not something toward which one should aspire, according to Republicans; it is a thing to be managed and downplayed.
What does surprise me somewhat (though generally very cynical I like to sometimes be optimstic about certain events; this allows me to be both pleasantly surprised or intellectually affirmed depending on how the events develop) is that Gordon Smith of Oregon had to say about the matter:
"Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Oregon, said the term 'escalating' has become a partisan term used by Democrats,"
Mr. Smith is, of course, the fellow who stood in the Senate of the United States of America and said that he was disgusted with Iraq and that it may even be criminal. Let me restate that:
A Senator, who stood on the floor of one of the two houses of Congresses and accused this Administration (through his own facilitation) of operating a war that is perhaps criminal has now mustered the audacity to describe as partisan a Democratic measure that accurately describes Bush's increase of troops in Iraq as an escalation.
Sorry- I thought that the irony would need a bit of offsetting. It's just perfect enough to want to frame and put on the wall; I thought a blockquote would be the digital equivalent of such.
I feel that at this point it is important to state some incontravertible facts. The sooner the left, in all its various forms, itnernalizes these facts and promulgates them the sooner Sens. Collins and Smith will discover that reality is a thing to be described as accurately as possible and not a thing to be managed through pearl clutching and hypocrisy.
Fact the First
America has never surged in any previous war. We have escalated many wars, but never once surged. Why is that? Or rather- why is it that when we undergo the behavior we have exhibited in previous wars (namely escalation by means of...um...escalating the number of troops available for the fight) it is to be called a surge in this war?
Please, Collins and Smith, try to deny that your claims that accurate language is partisan have nothing to do with the disastrous consequences that derive from the populace being faced with proof that this war is evermore like Vietnam. The only thing cuter than Republican hypocrisy is the way you squirm when confronted with unassailable truth.
Fact the Second
Surge is partisan language. The fact that you have partisanized "escalation" means that, inherently, you have partisanized "surge". If the majority of people using the word "surge" are of a red bent and the majority of people using the word "escalation" are of a blue bent, then charges that "escalation" is partisan necessarily requires that one view "surge" as partisan as well. Binary opposition is a bitch that way; I'll leave you a moment to ponder it.
((Incidentally- this is the thing that the GOP hopes we will not notice. Everyone look at how partisan and evil those DEMOCRATS are! Pay not attention to the partisan wizard behind the curtain... none at all...))
In that moment let me say:
ElectricGrendel, D-SaneLand, said the term 'surge' has become a partisan term used by Republicans
Fact the Third
Daniel Patrick Moynihan very astutely once said: "You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts."
Senator Collins and Senator Smith would do well to remember Mr. Moynihan's advice. The two Senators are, of course, welcome to have their opinions that "escalation" is a dangerous word for Republicans. They are more than within their purview to hate the word "esclation" and prefer the hollow and contextless word "surge".
They are abject hypocrite and fools to believe that their opinion constitutes a fact, where a fact is understood to be an accurate description of reality. Sending more troops is an escalation; a surge does not and will never exist.
And in closing I'll throw in another fact for free (the pundits who were wrong about the war can enjoy this one, too): just because your adversary is correct does not make them partisan.