Sarah Childress, Senior Reporter for pbs.org, states, “The administration has broken its strikes in two categories: targeted strikes, when officials identify a specific person to kill, and signature strikes, when they don’t.” To be clear, signature strikes “involve hits on what the U.S. considers suspected militant targets or suspicious activity in areas controlled by militants.” (Childress) The administration clearly uses the word “signature” as a way to name and hide what the strikes really are—a “calculated” guess. The technique, “glittering generalities,” is described by Donna Woolfolk Cross as “name-calling that tries to get us to accept and agree without examining the evidence.” To most average Americans, the name “signature strike” seems to carry justification, or a worthy name, to carry …show more content…
In fact, some may assume that a “signature strike” is nothing less than a precise, target confirmed air strike. The administration relies on the public to not notice or look further into their glittering generalities. Such practices have only one goal, and that is to hide or mislead the public from the truth. In this case, the U.S. military and C.I.A. were carrying out drone strikes based on a reason for suspicion, not confirmed identity. While glittering generalities disguise what is being said or done by labeling actions, charged words influence and create strong opinions in the public by using carefully selected words. Charged words, best described by Newman P. Birk and Genevieve B. Birk, are words that “significantly influence feelings toward, or judgements about, a subject.” For example, Kristina Wong, journalist for The Hill, reports that Pentagon spokesman, Navy Captain Jeff Davis said, “AQAP (al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) remains a significant threat to the region and the United States. Al Qaeda's presence has a destabilizing effect on Yemen.” Jeff Davis was speaking on recent