"War is Peace"
-George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

"The war in Iraq is really about peace"
-George Bush, April 2003.

Many such Orwellian parallels are to be found in the political language of the Bushites. For example, consider the now-famous phrase, "Axis of Evil," which was first used by the little Bush in his January 29, 2002, State of the Union address. Bush characterized Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger..."

Coined by David Frum, the phrase "axis of evil" is actually very clever, and arguably Orwellian. The word "axis" naturally evokes memories of the "Axis Powers" of World War II (Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) and serves to prepare the public for the acceptance of war against nations said to belong to the axis. However, there is a very important difference between the two that makes the use of the term misleading. It suggests an confederation of states that pose a significant danger because of their alliance. Iran and Iraq have been bittter adversaries for decades, and there is no collaboration at all between North Korea and the other two countries.

Obviously, Iran, Iraq and North Korea have all commited violations of human rights which may allow them to be qualified as "evil." But the singling out of three states as evil surely begs the question of why the Bush administration failed to include nations that violate human rights o a similar scale. I shall attempt to clarify what I mean by the use of a satire borrowed from SatireWire.com:

Bitter after being snubbed for membership of the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as evil." Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had teamed up to form the "Axis of Somewhat Evil" and Bulgaria, Indonesia, and Russia had established the "Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable."

Jokes notwithstanding, the term has played an important role in stigmatizing countries so as to justify military action against them. The media, however, uncritically repeats the term until it becomes part of popular parlance. An odd and lamentable principle of human psychology, well known and exploited by everyone from advertisers to evil demagogues like Goebbels, holds that the strangest of lies can win credibility simply by repetition.

There is a number of similar Orwellian phrases promulgated by the Bushites. 'Pre-emptive defence' (what, as opposed to attack?), 'unlawful combatants' (as in "their not Prisoner's of War....), and a war on an abstract noun spring to mind. As to whether the American media is Orwellian, I don't know. I suspect not. They can probably be excused of dishonesty on the grounds that before deceiving others, they have gone to great lengths to deceive themselves.

Kieren