It's important from a "why we fight" propaganda basis.
Ok, now I see where you're coming from. But I'm not sure I agree. Why not? Because propaganda--sorry, public diplomacy--is a tricky thing. It's certainly good to have a relatively simple, emotionally satisfying story line to rally and motivate one's own team and win over bystanders. But if that line diverges too much from what is obviously true, then pushing it can backfire because people will become cynical and not take what you say seriously.
One question Byford is raising, in effect, is whether the "war on terrorism" rhetoric that the Bush administration is using is so far removed from what they are actually doing that it will soon, if it hasn't already, create a major credibility gap. That happened to Johnson and Nixon, and it happened to Clinton. It may well happen to Bush too, I think.
Take the egregious garbage that Ari Fleischer serves up daily. From what I understand, practically nobody in the press corps takes his words at face value; they assume, now, that he is either lying outright, or distorting things, or deliberately avoiding giving any honest answers at all. It would be bad for all of us, I think--regardless of partisan affiliation--if people began to treat the President himself and his top advisers that way.
tb@ministryoftruth.com |
