I've never seen such parsing of the English language by our government in our lifetime. It's getting to the point where the definition of cognitive dissonance is going to be accompanied in the dictionary by a picture of the POTUS. Admittedly, he's not alone in this, since various members of his administration have contributed to this phenomenon, but since they work for him, he should be the face of this collective effort.
When he was president, George W. Bush was roundly criticized for not being the smartest person around. He would mangle the English language, routinely inventing words and hardly sounding articulate. He would, however, come off as sincere, irrespective of his syntax. President Obama, on the other hand, is described often as articulate and thoughtful (no matter how bad his math and knowledge of foreign languages may be), although there are some who view these appraisals as racist. Although they both have degrees from the Ivy League, it is widely thought that President Obama is the smarter of the two men, and that may well be. I don't believe, however, that President Obama is viewed as being as sincere as President Bush was.
Part of the reason for that may be how the President and his minions parse the English language to avoid saying things that are readily apparent to the rest of the country. Take the speech Mr. Obama gave about ISIS this past Tuesday. First, the President insists on referring to ISIS as ISIL, something that the Brits do, despite the fact that virtually every news organ in this country calls is ISIS. Some see some malevolent purpose behind the difference, claiming that it's a slight toward Israel. I don't know yet why he does it; it may or may not be an insult. But why not use the common acronym that everyone else in the country uses? Will he be trotting out the redundant U next, referring to flats and lifts and telling us his child is in hospital?
In his speech, the President said that ISIL is not Islamic. Really? I read the transcript, and I know what he was trying to do: Separate the ISIL thugs from moderate Muslims without insulting Islam. But a far wiser alternative would have been to say that ISIL terrorists have corrupted Islam. Instead, the smartest person in the room basically caused a nationwide case of whiplash by declaring something so absurd -- ISIL or ISIS starts out with Islamic State, for heaven's sake -- that it just sounds stupid.
Then there's the issue of the President and his right hand man, Uncle Joe, not being on the same page. The POTUS said his strategy -- more on that anon -- was to make the problem manageable. Uncle Joe, on the other hand, famously declared we would chase the terrorists to the gates of hell. Which is it? Listening to Josh Earnest try to resolve this conflict was amusing.
Of course, not to be outdone, Secretary of State John Kerry and designated presidential piñata Susan Rice both demurred when asked if we were becoming involved in another war. Meanwhile, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff admitted we were, unlike Tin Man Kerry, who suggested instead that we were in an ongoing counterterrorism operation. Piñata Rice moved her lips in agreement as instructed by her Gepetto.
Remember the promises made about health care plans before Obamacare became effective? Well, that worked well, didn't it? Even funnier were the explanations after the website malfunctioned and the stories came out that the promises weren't exactly true.
Benghazi? Doubletalk never had it so good.
The IRS scandal? Emails that apparently disappeared have suddenly reemerged. But there wasn't a smidgeon of corruption there.
The murders of fellow servicemen by Major Hassan Nadal at Fort Hood weren't caused in battle or in an act of terrorism, despite the fact that Nadal shouted Allah Akbar before he opened fire. No, it was workplace violence.
The President can't even admit he called ISIS the JV squad. Even when shown videotape of his statement, the President equivocates.
His acolytes follow suit. Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee declared that Democrats never sought to impeach President George W. Bush, but had to backtrack when shown the resolution she cosponsored seeking impeachment of President George W. Bush. She later claimed she misspoke. That's usually the dodge of the uneducated by highly visible professional athlete, not a seasoned politician who's spent nearly twenty years in Congress.
If for no other reason than it makes discourse impossible the above is lamentable. But it's more than that: When people are willing to say anything without regard for the consequences, where does that leave the electorate? Whom can it trust? This administration believes that it can say anything and not be held accountable largely because the MSM has given him a free pass for six years of his presidency. Others have taken note and imitate his lead. It puts the country in quite a pickle.
Hope and Change was the campaign slogan the President used during his first presidential campaign. It's come to mean that he and his followers hope that people will believe anything they utter and then change the meaning of what they said after they're challenged.
It's a helluva way to run a country.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment