Reading Bush's lips
By Thomas Oliphant, 2/3/2002
WASHINGTON WHAT FOR THE Bush administration and most
of this country and the world has become a just war against
terrorism often degenerates into a roar against terrorism in the
undisciplined Bush White House.
See, I just did what people in the president's immediate official
family, including Bush himself, too often do - play with a
couple of words for effect, rhetorical or political or both.
Fortunately, I do not make foreign policy, and nothing I say
could possibly mess things up internationally in the middle of
a war. Not so the people in the White House, who have a bad
habit of confusing one-liners and phraseology with substance.
No harm, no foul on domestic topics; but in the deadly serious
business of war, loose lips can do a lot more harm than sink
ships.
The problem surfaced immediately after the terrorist attacks on
Sept. 11, and it reached its apogee in last week's ill-advised
creation of ''an axis of evil'' out of thin air. Moreover, it has
involved the most ridiculous of questions for a White House to
be discussing in public. Even before we are close to finishing
the immediate task ahead, too many words have been wasted
talking about what or who is next.
On the night of the attacks, as well as in his State of the
Union, the president used speechwriter language that he
instinctively liked without any serious thought - by Bush or
those closest to him - about what it meant or how it might be
interpreted or misinterpreted.
When he said on Sept. 11 that the American response would
be aimed not only at the people responsible for the attacks but
at international terrorism itself and nations who ''harbor''
terrorists, he read a sentence crafted by his chief writer, Mike
Gerson, that got more attention for how it sounded than what
it meant.
That is why, nine days later, when Bush appeared before
Congress to help rally the nation, the phrase had been
substantially altered to focus more narrowly on terrorist
organizations that threaten the United States and which have
''global reach.'' That only compounded the error, since no
assault on terror should permit any terrorist to think that we
distinguish between OK and not-OK terrorism, and our actual
policy in fact doesn't. The wise course has always been to
denounce terror and let every cell in the world wonder.
He also disregarded cooler heads beyond the White House and
indulged his own impulses and anger to single out Osama bin
Laden (dead or alive) and even the leading Taliban big shot,
Mullah Omar, for attention neither deserved. This put
unnecessary pressure on the military to find needles in
haystacks instead of to stop threats.
The word games, however, not only diverted attention and
official energy, they also set off another pointless diversion -
discussing a possible war with Iraq that has yet to make it
beyond war game computers.
Then, simply because it sounded neat, Bush took another
Gerson phrase - ''axis of evil'' - and read it to the world adorned
with rhetoric that painted North Korea, Iran, and Iraq with the
same alarmist, pessimistic brush and made conflict appear
inevitable, if not imminent. Bush also grouped four, distinct
operations (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and
Jaish-i-Mohammed) into a ''terrorist underworld'' that
immediately raised questions about countries he didn't
mention - Syria, Libya, and Lebanon.
The effect of all this has been to confuse the country, the
Congress, and our allies, not our enemies. He has undercut
the government of South Korea, endangered internal
opponents of the powers-that-be in Iran, and put premature
pressure on allies we will need down the road if war with Iraq
actually becomes necessary - above all Turkey.
Naturally, the president isn't officially sorry for all this loose
talk, but officials behind the scenes around here and around
the world have been uttering the telltale phrase (''what the
president meant'') that acknowledges a goof.
What Bush did last week was step clumsily on his most
important message - that finding and shutting down Al Qaeda
cells that are active and dangerous is a task still ahead of us
and our coalition partners.
Like his dad during the Gulf War, he needs to let actions
speak.
Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com.
This story ran on page C7 of the Boston Globe on 2/3/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.
[ Send this story to a friend |E |
