Brand X wrote:I disagree, blatham.
I calls 'em as I sees em....and I sees this one differently than you do.
The symbolism being directed toward the Iraqi's yes.
You see it as negative and that only animosity could grow from it, I see it as saying this the the beginning of us leaving, they'll like that.
Try to be more positive and not so much pistoff.
brand
I know you do, and that's as it should be. Me too.
But I'm comfortable with my anger, and I really am not prepared to express a postive sentiment on this misuse of language because I despise such covert manipulation. If the intent is to communicate to Iraqis that the occupation is on its way out, then say that. Be upfront about the steps along the way, and put them on a timetable and publish that for them. Tell them how they can help. Give them means to help. But don't lie to them and tell them they will be fully free and sovereign on July 1 because that is false and they know it. I've taught elementary school and kids of 8 can tell when you are scamming them with paternalist dictates disguised as their own ideas and preferences. You tell a kid that you desire to have a democratic classroom and it is only the very slow and authority-trusting few who won't understand (even if they can't enunciate it) that what you have just said is actually bullshit.
So either it is that this administration is once again painfully stupid regarding how what they say and do will be received in the minds of Iraqis (and that seems likely) or this "full sovereignty" line is for home consumption. Or it is both, the most likely explanation.
