What the Euphemisms Tell Us
We read:
"In the latest installment of politically correct, not to say Orwellian, language emanating from the Obama administration, the term "rogue states" has been sidelined in favor of "outliers." The switch was unveiled as part of the just released Nuclear Posture Review. States like North Korea and Iran, labeled "rogue" by the Bush administration, will no longer labor under that punitive adjective.
This is telling. While the administration insists that the full spectrum of new initiatives -- from the New Start treaty to the Nuclear Posture Review to the Nuclear Security Summit -- are aimed at containing the world's two most provocative nations, Iran and North Korea, the stream of euphemisms they've insisted upon sends the opposite message.
Rogue isn't even a particularly harsh word. When applied to individuals, it is frequently paired with "lovable." Regarding elephants, it suggests an animal that is out of control, but not necessarily vicious. Still, it was too severe for the Obama administration.
Outlier has no negative connotations at all. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "One whose domicile is distant from his or her place of business." The Macintosh computer dictionary adds a secondary connotation of exclusion from a group. So to employ the label "outliers" for nations that are, by any civilized measure, criminal is pusillanimous.
No doubt the leadership in Iran has also noticed that an administration that softens its words has also modified its proposed sanctions. Whereas once Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of "crippling" sanctions, she has now climbed down to "sanctions that bite." Can annoying sanctions be far behind?
Source
6 comments:
Any day now, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. (N. Korea already has it) And anyone with even the slightest amount of common sense realizes that on the very next day, so will Al-Oaeda.
Last year, the American people closed their eyes, their minds, and their ears, and elected an outright Marxist as their president. They also saw fit to elect a congress that is so far to the Left that they are beyond rational explanation.
Now, at a time when America's most dangerous enemies are readying their nukes, the "totally inexperienced, naive, Marxist dupe in the White House decides it's the perfect time to disarm America of the "only" deterrent that has kept nuclear weapons off the worlds battlefields for over 50 years. The American people will pay a horrific price for their stupidity, and rightfully so.
BFD
In statistical analysis, it is also points that do not group with the rest of data. Leave it to the professor in chief to lead with such a cold unassuming definition.
I am not overly worried about a Nuclear Iran. I don’t live in Israel, nor any target the Iranians or terrorists would choose in the United States. In fact, I am cynically jaded to the point that I realize that if a bomb does go off in a major US city it is likely to harm a majority of administration supporters. If they don’t care for their lives, should I loose any sleep caring in place of them?
So long as any country has nuclear weapons that just encourages other countries to have them, especially if those other countries are neighbors or global competitors. Fact of Life!
The US as usual opened another Pandora's Box with atomic bombs!
And meanwhile the Obama regime continues to do everything it can to guarantee the outbreak of nuclear war. I wonder if that's what those who voted for Obama realized they would get for voting for him.
Post a Comment