Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:15:39 -0800
> They other option would be to think they did this knowingly=20
> so that they could latter "redefine" what they ment in case=20
> things went amiss.
The problem is that the word is context sensitive and ambiguous. Since =
was otherwise undefined by the military (and intentionally so), it is =
reasonable to interpret it as "swift" in the context of a military =
even if we are using the pedestrian definition of "swift". I read =
to be "less than a month". Expecting anything smaller for a campaign of
this size is ludicrous, whether you are a "pedestrian" or not. =20
This has nothing to do with "redefinition" but the fact that the media
interpreted it how they wanted to interpret it and then spun it as the
gospel truth. Color me shocked that the media doesn't have a clue. The
military never claimed "days" or even "weeks", and anyone with a modicum =
competence in all things military would have realized that accomplishing
what they are attempting to do in less than a month would amount to
unparalleled swiftness by any relevant measure.
Bottom line: The military left the campaign length expressly ambiguous, =
the term "swift" very obviously is in the context of the military =
If someone does not have a clue what appropriate values of "swift" are =
this context, then their opinions on such matters is worthless anyway.
Just another example that the people reporting/analyzing the news don't =
what the hell they are talking about more often than not. What is scary =
how many people haven't figured this out.