how much is too much? RE: The Intelligence War

Geege geege at
Tue Nov 4 04:54:50 PST 2003

your value-neutral is my euphemistic.

-----Original Message-----
From: fork-bounces at [mailto:fork-bounces at]On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 1:09 AM
To: fork at
Subject: Re: how much is too much? RE: The Intelligence War

Geege wrote >
> how about a rumsfeldian response:
> 1) be obtusely cavalier
> "rumsfeld reminds: more soldiers lose lives in automobile accidents here
> home ..."
> 2) be flippantly cavalier
> "rumsfeld adds: daily!"

Heh.  Although the point in (1) is valid.  The casualty rate is in
the noise;  Iraqi casualties because they're not "signal", US
casualties because they're actually low.

> (yer right: "carnage" waxes hyperbolic.  how does "waste" sound?  "bush
> resigned to increasing waste."  works for me.  wasted effort, wasted
> resources, wasted lives.

Well, "wasted" implies a value judgment about the Crusade for
Permanent Justice or whatever it's called nowadays.  A value-neutral
term is "casualties".

A pro-Bush one: "Bush mourns tragic losses, condemns cowardly
attacks, vows Total Vengeance." (The "Total Vengeance" meme is not
one that recruits for Bush, but one that the Bushites are largely
bent on achieving.  It consolidates them and justifies them.)  Bush
can also be said to "stiffen his resolve" (ithyphallic overtones
intentional, but not as strong as the magickal "stiffen the nation's
resolve") and "persevere".

FoRK mailing list

More information about the FoRK mailing list