 |
Behind the rhetoric What They Say, What They MeanBy Rick Horowitz "Let me make very clear the position of my government and our country. We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture." President Bush, trying to explain Words are such wonderful things, don't you think? They can make you happy, or sad. They can make you worried, or mad. Lined up just so, they can move information -- facts and figures, dreams, schemes -- from here to there in the blink of an eye. They can make your position "very clear," or even, as Richard Nixon used to say, "perfectly clear" -- and we all know how clear that was. Before Bill Clinton ever pointed a finger at an audience and told a whopper, Richard Nixon was working night and day to set new standards for presidential sincerity. And now there's George Bush. "I have never ordered torture," Mr. Bush insists. Is that straightforward little sentence destined to take its place -- speaking of Nixon, speaking of Clinton -- with those gentlemen's most famous presidential declarations? "I am not a crook." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Too soon to tell -- but it's certainly worth a closer look. That's the other wonderful thing about words: They're so good to chew on. So let's chew. "I have never ordered torture." Five little words -- simple and direct. Not a chance of misunderstanding. Misinterpretation. Misdirection. Or is there? "I have never ordered torture." Let's explore the possibilities. And to help us do that, let's call on one of my all-time favorite language-analysis tools, the Italicizer. Italicizer Possibility No. 1: "I have never ordered torture." The key word here is "ordered." Did the president ever declare, either orally or in writing, that any of the prisoners we're holding in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or down at Guantanamo Bay, or wherever, must be tortured? The president says no, and I believe him. He never ordered it -- but does that mean he prohibited it? He never ordered it -- but was he willing to permit it? Under the appropriate circumstances, was he prepared to wink at it? Or was it to everyone's advantage (everyone but the prisoners, of course) if the question never even reached his desk? Just think of it as the Bush edition of "Don't ask, don't tell." That's Italicizer Possibility No. 1. Which leads very nicely to... Italicizer Possibility No. 2: "I have never ordered torture." The key word this time is "I." Do the words "plausible deniability" ring a bell? What if the president himself never gave such an order, but someone a step or two down the chain of command did? Wouldn't that keep the heat off the commander in chief if things ever turned sour? Implausible, you say? Nobody below the president would ever give an order as important as that? Hey, plenty of people still aren't convinced that the order on 9/11 to shoot down incoming planes came directly and specifically from Mr. Bush, and not from his quick-thinking vice president. Now personally, I think it's a good thing that somebody gave the order, even if it turned out not to change anything. But if the veep could order shooting innocent Americans out of the sky to prevent even greater catastrophes, he could certainly order someone to rough up a few uncooperative Iraqis, yes? (Hang on!, you're thinking. The president also said that "We" -- the government, that is -- "do not condone torture." And if you asked them, I'd sure they'd say they don't condone it -- perhaps while they waved a copy of Webster's Collegiate for the cameras: "...to treat as if trivial, harmless, or of no importance." "Golly!" they'd cry. "We'd never consider our treatment of prisoners 'trivial,' or 'harmless,' or 'of no importance.' After all, we're fighting -- ta-dah -- the war on terrorism!") Which brings us right to... Italicizer Possibility No. 3: "I have never ordered torture." This is the easy one: If what happened to the prisoners was not technically "torture" -- and those hundreds of pages of just-released government documents show you how intent they were on defining "torture" oh-so-narrowly -- well, then the president was still speaking the truth. We didn't "torture" anyone, so the president couldn't have ordered "torturing" anyone. Technically speaking. Torturing the language is something else again. Posted 6/24/04. Get
straight talk from Rick twice every week -- spread the word!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
