War over Auxiliary Verbs
October 8, 2002

by Joe Sobran

     I'm fussy about language. We can't all be 
Shakespeares, but we can at least try to be succinct and 
accurate. George Orwell even taught us that needless 
words can mask political dangers.

     Last night I tried to read an article about the 
parlous condition America is in. Maybe it made some good 
points. I don't know. I couldn't finish it. In fact I 
couldn't get past a sentence that began: "Further 
exacerbating the problem is the fact that ..." Why not 
just say, "To make matters worse, ..."? Because the 
writer wanted to use "exacerbating," which he thought 
would sound more impressive. So he spoiled a whole 
sentence for the chance to use one big word.

     People do this all the time. They say "due to the 
fact that" rather than "because," "prior to" rather than 
"before." It not only annoys me, it makes me distrust 
them. When I read bad English, I suspect bad faith.

     I'm not an English teacher anymore. I reformed long 
ago. By bad English I don't mean improper grammar or 
incorrect usage; I mean the kind of English an honest man 
wouldn't use to a friend -- English whose purpose is to 
manipulate, not to convince.

     President Bush's speech in Cincinnati Monday 
illustrates what I mean. He wanted to justify war on 
Iraq. What has Iraq done to us? Well, nothing, really. So 
Bush repeated the long litany of "dangers" and "threats" 
Saddam Hussein allegedly poses.

     Seldom have I read so many auxiliary verbs in one 
speech. Bush didn't say what Iraq has done to this 
country, since it hasn't done anything except shoot back 
at American aircraft. But he spoke at length about what 
Iraq "could" or "would" or "may" do, or is "capable" of 
doing.

     "Weapons of mass destruction," of course, made 
several appearances. Has Saddam Hussein actually used 
them against us? Well, he "could." The "danger" is 
"significant" and "will grow worse with time." He "cannot 
be trusted." "We have every reason to assume the worst." 
"We cannot wait for the final proof." "The smoking gun 
... could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." (This 
last snappy line has become a cliche of the Bush 
administration.)

     By this kind of reasoning, and with this kind of 
language, you can make a case for war against just about 
any country you like (or dislike). Lots of countries 
have, or are working on, or "could" develop nuclear 
weapons, and they "could" use them on us. Why is Iraq, as 
Bush says, "unique"?

     Saddam Hussein is a "homicidal dictator," a 
"ruthless and aggressive dictator," a "murderous tyrant," 
who persecutes his own "civilian population" and has 
tortured and beheaded opponents. We must "protect our 
freedom" against the likes of him.

     I know lots of people who agree that Hussein is a 
detestable guy, but I've never met one American who 
worries about being attacked by him, let alone being 
enslaved by him. Just how would that work? Many Americans 
are worried about losing their freedoms these days, but 
the only danger to freedom they see is the Bush 
administration, not Iraq. Saddam Hussein couldn't 
conceivably arrest Americans without warrants, imprison 
us without trials, and suspend the Constitution. Our own 
government might.

     Bush has made a case that Hussein poses a threat to 
Iraqis. But he has made no case at all that he poses a 
threat to you and me. At least nobody can accuse Bush of 
being a dangerous demagogue; his attempts to whip up fear 
and war fever have fallen flat. A Roosevelt or a 
Churchill, who had some command of English, might be able 
to do it, though even they had little success until their 
countries were attacked.

     The more Bush talks, the clearer it becomes that any 
"threat" Iraq poses to ordinary Americans is strictly 
hypothetical. Any "links" between Iraq and al-Qaeda 
terrorists are matters of surmise, even wishful thinking; 
Bush would love to be able to prove them, not because he 
wants to fight terrorism, but because he wants to attack 
Iraq.

     And most people find his preoccupation with 
attacking Iraq rather puzzling. He still hasn't given us 
any real reasons; only feeble excuses. "Could," "would," 
and "may" just aren't good enough.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this column on-line at 
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/021008.shtml".

Copyright (c) 2002 by the Griffin Internet 
Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. This column may not 
be published in print or Internet publications 
without express permission of Griffin Internet 
Syndicate. You may forward it to interested 
individuals if you use this entire page, 
including the following disclaimer:

"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available 
by subscription. For details and samples, see 
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write 
fran@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."