Translating Nospeak

Let's, I say let's mosey on down to the Tumbleweed Farm, there in the middle o' Petticoat Junction, and examine closely just one (1) paragraph of Mister Man's important pronuncimatin' on matters of some seriousness, to wit, Pakistan.

First, the question, just to put things in context.

Are you at all concerned that General Musharraf may not live up to the promises that you said he's made to you? And are you concerned, as Secretary Gates suggested yesterday, that the distraction, the internal turmoil in Pakistan is actually -- or could have an effect on the effort in Afghanistan? Thank you.

Not too complicated, right? Right? Well, let's see if we can parse the non-answer:

I take a person for his word until otherwise. I think that's what you have to do. When somebody says this is what they're going to do, then you give them a chance to do it.

This is the usual aphasic boilerplate he probably mumbles in his sleep; you can tell because it's practically in iambic pentameter. He genuinely seems to think that, for example, his good buddy Pooty-Poot hasn't worked him over like Rosie O'Donnell on a box of Devil Dogs. Nor is this dispositive factoid applicable to much else in the way of volatile areas of foreign policy. You don't take anyone's word for it.

But even in this case, with Musharraf, it is becoming apparent, even to someone of Bush's intellect, that Musharraf cannot be trusted anymore. He's played both sides for too long, and this is not a situation where hydrostatic tension can be held indefinitely. And Musharraf himself has propelled the crisis forward with a series of autocratic maneuvers which may cement his position with the military which really runs that country, but also secures his popular perception as Our Man in Islamabad. This "give them a chance" bit, hilarious. Musharraf has had six years and $11 bn to do something. There are extenutaing circumstances, there always are, but the results are not there, bottom line, and Pakistan is now on the verge of a political meltdown.

I can tell you this, that President Musharraf, right after the attacks on September the 11th, made a decision, and the decision was to stand with the United States against the extremists inside Pakistan.

And this year has been the deadliest for troops in Afghanistan. How do those two things square and again, how many years are these decisions and policies supposed to be exempt from review just because you invoke 9/11 over and over again?

In other words,....

I get that he has to regurgitate this shit in the same way it was explained to him, but this is the most shopworn rhetorical crutch he employs, by far. It's too bad they can't fit him with a shock collar that goes off every time he spins his wheels with this utterly stupid time-waster of a phrase.

It's the absolute worst sort of intellectual abuse, to constantly recycle this simplistic crap, under the pretense of elaborating on obvious points, while actually obfuscating them further. Everyone talks a good game about Orwell, but this was exactly the thorn in Orwell's side, language being used to conceal rather than reveal. This is Bush's stock in trade.

....he was given an option: Are you with us, or are you not with us? And he made a clear decision to be with us, and he's acted on that advice.

But he hasn't done those things, certainly not to the degree one might expect from the blank checks we've written him the past half-decade. He's helped track and kill several #3's, good. But he's also consolidated his power, signed treaties with Taliban leaders, used our money to buy weapons that appear to be more well-suited for a conventional war with India than for flushing out terrorists, and trampled the institutions of his country, which redounds to us as far as the seething populace is concerned. Meanwhile, no viable successor or opposition has been cultivated, which means the next best plan is to bring back a populist kleptocrat, whose father was deposed and hung. And you thought American politics was a sideshow.

Bush keeps talking about the "goals" he shares with the Pakistani people, but that can't possibly be true. They want Musharraf out -- now. They may decide they want to keep using Afghanistan as a proxy buffer in their ongoing bullshit with India. That too is at cross purposes. Once Musharraf eventually leaves, it is entirely possible that the jihadis and madrassa thugs gain political potency.

Thus that entire paragraph, much like most things Bush has said over the years, literally has almost no meaning.