Social linguistics has always interested me, but never more so than when I saw it used for nefarious purpose and the creation of a totalitarian regime! The Bush regime started manipulating words to do bad things. (healthy forrests=cut trees, liberate Iraqis=invade a country, defend marriage=deny happines to gay couples, etc.) This article gives an excellent number of examples, places the use "euphemisms" in a historical context and is very well cited. Apart from my finding this a fascinating and compelling read, I also thought it was well written. (Ok, maybe the classics quote at the beginnig was a bit much... but still, it was well written).

This is wonderful, important read about the manipulation of language to control the reality and history of our (collective) actions - in this case post-9/11 America, the War on Terror and the War in Iraq.

The article is erudite and perceptive. When state extrajudicial murders are called "upticks in violence," we are all in trouble. The medium length article should be read in its entirety.

This opinion piece has little journalistic merit. The author leaves out the single most important fact: that Saddam Hussein, according to the 2005 French study, killed more than 1 million of his own people, 3,000+ a month right up to the liberation of Iraq. Fewer Iraqis have died in the last five years than if Saddam has stayed in power, and far fewer have been subject to torture than did under him and his sons. The author's unwillingness to bring in this fact undermines almost every point in his article.

This is terrific journalism. The use of euphemisms -- doublespeak -- has become so commonplace in our political discourse that it's difficult to believe anything that comes from the mouths of our leaders.

Too one-sided . . . accepts the implicit motivations attributed to the opposing views. An apologia for the critics of the war.