The very useful use of "are being" in Bush*'s speech

[BelgianMadCow]

It is most interesting to note that a lot of the semi-progress cited by Bush* is always stated using "this or that IS BEING done". Never in the past tense. Never something DONE, always ongoing.
That leaves room to say well it WAS ongoing but something just came up...

In general, I thought his speech was extremely well crafted to try and disarm potential attacks on it, both using this technique and by adding qualifiers and context to a lot of parts.

Don't like to say it, but this was one of "his" better speeches imho.

[CoffeeCat]

1. Bush's speech attempted to...

unite the country and to quell all of the bipartisanship. When has Bush
ever taken on the role of "uniter"? He talked about how we're all Americans
and we all have goals of safety and security in common--no matter what party
label each of us maintains.

I'm sorry, but the man is never rational and gracious. He practically tells Dems
and his detractors to get bent--if he even mentions them at all in his speeches.

Why do I feel as if he just set himself up as the great uniter---right before
the motherload hits the fan?

[BelgianMadCow]

2. You're right about the "uniter" theme

I also felt that throughout, this speech wasn't "Bush" for a split second, it was waaay to reconciliatory for that.

It felt even more than usual like watching a sock puppet. In the case of the OPEC summit in Austria, you know you're seeing some of the real Bush. This on the other hand, with his plastered expression, the total absence of smirks, sentences that would convey careful consideration...

Wasn't him. He read it well though.

I am not sure of what I have to read into the tone and style of the speech to be honest.

[EFerrari]

3. I didn't see it but read the transcript. The use of that present

progressive tense gives the impression of a lot of activity, doesn't it, when in reality Commander AWOL is AWOL again. The surge didn't work just as we all knew it wouldn't work and he has to withdraw those troops or they would have to be extended beyond 15 months or sent back in less than a year. He has no choice but to withdraw them.

[BelgianMadCow]

4. Present progressive tense

thanks fot that, I knew that I didn't know :-)
And yes, it sounds like a lot of activity...unless you realize that this speech comes after years and years of war, and a "mission accomplished", and a "last throes". If you do, it becomes laughable of course. Whaaat, these things are only NOW beginning to happen? (o wait, no, sorry, that Ally In the War on Al Quaeda Iraq was blown to smithereens, I'm being (heehee) informed now)

Why is an extension past 15 months not possible? I have to confess I don't know how long the average tour in Iraq is.

[EFerrari]

5. I just heard Korb talking about this with Keith.

The tour was 12 months, then got extended to 15 months. And, the troops are supposed to have a year at home between deployments. That's the agreement the army makes with them. In order to maintain the escalation, the army would have to break both agreements because we don't have the man power and, something no one is talking about, because people are deserting.

[BelgianMadCow]

6. But would a "stop-loss" not solve this problem?

I figured a stop-loss (which also is breaking an agreement in a way of course) means your tour is extended without you having a say in it?

I had heard enlistment is way down, but desertion, indeed I had NOT heard about. Has this been on DU?

As an afterthought, the fact that people with very few options open to them because of their economic situation are the first to be enlisted and "used" in the case of Iraq, is THE most saddening thing of all to me. They promise you a way out, and what you get is a way IN to PTSD at the very least after you've been to Iraq and have to experience all of it first hand. I can only imagine.

[EFerrari]

7. Stop loss keeps you in the service, rotating in and out of tours

of combat but doesn't in itself extend the length of each deployment, or that's my understanding.

As for desertions, I just read a petition to the Canadian government around here somewhere, to protect thousands of Americans who've crossed the border. Here's an article from April:

With rise in desertions, Army cracks down
Prosecutions up sharply since '02

By Paul von Zielbauer, New York Times News Service | April 9, 2007

NEW YORK -- Army prosecutions of desertion and other unauthorized absences have risen sharply in the last four years, resulting in thousands more negative discharges and prison time for both junior soldiers and combat-tested veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Army records show.

The increase in prosecutions is meant to serve as a deterrent to a growing number of soldiers who are ambivalent about heading -- or heading back -- to Iraq and might be looking for a way out, several Army lawyers said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/09/with_rise_in_desertions_army_cracks_down/

[BelgianMadCow]

8. Just wondering sfexpat, how did you find that link so soon?

I think I saw some threads by you in the research forum as well, do you keep a list of relevant links on several topics or what?
Impressed here, and thanks for the link.

[EFerrari]

9. Oh, no -- I just did a quick search at Yahoo!

I've always wondered myself how some DUers keep such organized links on so many topics.

I'm still at the stage where I bookmark threads or posts on topics that interest me -- which is sort of a clunky way to do things. :)