Suddenly,Â it turns out that the liberals are complaining that using the word “surge” to describe the increase in troop levels in Iraq is a Rovian deceit, or trap, to imply a temporary increase and thus fend off war critics.
What’s going on?Â
I don’t know, but when I hear “surge,” I don’t think temporary.Â I think massive influx or increase, which makes it an anti-Bush word despite what liberals say of Bush advisor Karl Rove and his alleged selection of the word.
Someone with a blog named Crooks and Liars bemoaned that “I’ve noticed a complete acceptance on the part of most of the MSM [mainstream media] (and Congress) to accept the White House nomenclature.” (Nice redunancy there in “acceptance” and “accept.”)
I don’t know about you, dear readers, but “surge” hardly sounds favorable to Bush, but then I’ve always been a crook and liar myself, I guess,Â though I’d never use “acceptance” and “accept” in the same sentence when one or the otherÂ would carry the entire meaning.