Friday, January 12, 2007


Rice engaged several tense exchanges with members, including with Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and longtime critic of Bush’s Iraq policy. She disputed his characterization of Bush’s buildup as an “escalation."

“Putting in 22,000 more troops is not an escalation?" Hagel asked. Responded Rice: “I think, senator, escalation is not just a matter of how many numbers you put in."

“Would you call it a decrease?" Hagel asked.

“I would call it, senator, an augmentation," she said.

Hmmm... Sounds pretty synonymous to me. Let's go to the Merriam-Webster:

Augmentation: 1 : to make greater, more numerous, larger, or more intense

Escalate: to increase in extent, volume, number, amount, [or] intensity...

Yep. Pretty much synonymous.

This is fun, let's do another one.

Committee members pressed Gates, who replaced Donald H. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, on an exit strategy for the U.S.

“At the outset of the strategy, it’s a mistake to talk about an exit strategy," he said.

Let's go to The Powell Doctrine:

The Powell Doctrine, also known as the Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force, was elaborated by General Colin Powell in the run up to the 1990-1991 Gulf War. It is based in large part on the Weinberger Doctrine, devised by Caspar Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense and Powell's former boss.
The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

See if you can pick out the relevant one . . . Oh, wait: they're all relevant.


Post a Comment

<< Home