This is not the only time I have seen this happen, though it is certainly more noticeable to the public at large when utilized in so many published articles. While serving with a unit in Baghdad, I saw a few of these manipulations of language occur, sometimes at the direction of the Public Affairs section. In particular was an attempt to downplay Muqtudah Al-Sadr's militia by labeling them "Muqtudah's Militia" vs. the "Al-Sadr Army" or "Jaysh Al-Mehdi" or any other term utilizing a respected name. It was estimated that the people following Al-Sadr, the father, would follow the son due to familial loyalty. There was an effort to downplay that connection as much as possible. The effort was a good one, but not neccessarily successful.

Another affectation was the use of the term "Green Zone". Speaking as someone who was in Baghdad at the beginning and saw the barriers go up, and the checkpoints installed, it was laughable that anyone would consider themselves blissfully secure in any area of Baghdad. Here we were, convoying in from sectors of the city which were constantly mortared and you would see people walking and jogging as if there wasn't a war going on right on their doorsteps. To this day, I resent the term and I am amazed and disgusted every time a report of "attack on the Green Zone" is given. The only thing "green" about the area is the thousands of square feet of lawns and gardens of Palaces and former Ba'ath Party members' homes, now occupied by Americans and new government personnel. I am sure the locals who resented Saddam Hussein for such excess are so much happier with Americans living in these places; Americans who are seen as occupiers and replacements of the "haves", while the people continue to be the "have-nots".

I read your article and you did a nice job of tracking articles and documenting President Bush's words. I hate the President and I have always questioned the coverage of the war by the media. But your article does nothing to delve deeper into WHY this change in rhetoric has happened. It merely makes the very copious point that it has happened. Why? What does it mean? Does it only confirm what we thought all along? Or does it signal a departure from the USA being involved in a civil war?

If you're saying that all the people we are fighting, regardless of who they are are now Al Qaeda that's fine. But why is that happening? To refer to everyone we're fighting as Al Qaeda seems only to be an extension of the Republican agenda to simplify everything. No nuance. No thought. Just broad brush strokes.

Disturbingly, the virus appears to be spreading to international media. The Times of India recently ran a headline "90 Qaida Militants Killed by US Forces."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/90_Qaida_militants_killed_by_US_forces/articleshow/2145819.cms

The last few days have had a plethora of Emily Litella type comments as opposed to the usual plethora of pinatas.

I found this short list at Wikipedia:

Saving Soviet Jewelry, Endangered Feces, Flea Erections in China, Making Puerto Rico a Steak ("..next thing you know, they'll also want Idaho a baked potato with sour cream!"), Pouring Money into Canker Research, the Eagle Rights Amendment, Busting School Children (bussing school children), Conserving our Natural Racehorses, Youth in Asia (Euthanasia), and Sax and Violins on Television.

OK Ta! Everything's OK ta! Everything's OK ta what?

Me? American citizen, not naturalized. Multiple citizenship. Not Israeli, never even been there. Lived most of life outside of the US, mostly in South and Equitorial West Africa. Not a Boer.

this morning: Slate's Today's Papers (links in original)

at http://www.slate.com/id/2169010/nav/fix/

USA Today leads with word that the U.S. military is "exploring creative ways" to reward tribes in Iraq who decide to join the fight against insurgents. Besides the always-reliable cash payments, the U.S. military is also offering medical assistance and making it easier for those who help out to get security contracts. Meanwhile, the U.S. military wants the Iraqi government to work around requirements so that these tribe members can join Iraq's security forces as quickly as possible.

and -- snip --

Although formal talks on an Iraq compromise have yet to begin, the LAT says that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad have been "quietly" consulting with members of Congresss, where the issue of a "sharply decentralized Iraq" has frequently come up as more lawmakers seem to be warming up to the idea. Although the White House has dismissed proposals that would divide or decentralize Iraq, there are hints that the administration might be willing to consider the option.

also this morning: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4917338.html

June 25, 2007, 8:04AM

Iraq bomber strikes U.S.-allied sheiks

By BUSHRA JUHI Associated Press Writer

© 2007 The Associated Press

BAGHDAD — A suicide bomber apparently targeting a meeting of U.S.-allied Sunni sheiks penetrated layers of security and blew himself up in a hotel lobby on Monday, killing four tribal leaders and at least eight others, police reported.

... now, what was plan B again????

("decentralized iraq" appears to be the new code name for Happy Kurds in the oil-rich North, Happy Shiia in the oil-rich South, and Al-Sadr and Sunnis rotting in the non-oild producing Baghdad-containing middle)

If you are one of the few remaining souls looking for a sign of media complicity in this administration's fiasco, look no more. The MSM has been in relative lockstep regarding this branding of the insurgency as Al-Qaida. In fact it has been so sudden, so obvious, that only an idiot could miss the phenomenon.

Other signs? Where are Michael Weir (sp?), Arwa Damon, and other reporters who have in the past been unafraid to tell it how it is in Iraq? Bodycounts have come to imply "progress". Remember the nightly bodycounts during Viet Nam? It is left as an exercise for the student to find the rest.