Bush's Honest Mistake (I don't think you can win the war)

[papau]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57837-2004Sep2.html


Bush's Honest Mistake

By David Ignatius

Friday, September 3, 2004; Page A19


The Republicans had a "good convention," in the sense that they were relentlessly on message. But let's replay the events of the past week and imagine what might have happened if both parties had deviated from their scripts and actually debated the issues.

The week opened with an utterly unscripted comment from President Bush. Appearing on NBC's "Today" show, Bush tried to explain why the war on terrorism isn't like other wars. "I don't think you can win it," Bush said. "But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

In my fantasy campaign, John F. Kerry would have responded: "Bravo, George. That's the most sensible thing you've said yet about terrorism. Now let's debate how we create those conditions so that terrorism becomes an unacceptable weapon." Bush, in turn, would have responded with a thoughtful speech, and perhaps George F. Kennan, now 100, would have smiled in the retirement home for Wise Men.

But no, it didn't exactly happen that way. Bush's handlers quickly concluded that his Monday comment had been a gaffe, famously defined by columnist Michael Kinsley as "what you call it when a politician tells the truth." So they immediately sent him out to "revise and extend his remarks," as members of Congress like to say when they're fixing boo-boos. On Tuesday Bush told an American Legion convention: "Make no mistake about it: We are winning, and we will win. We will win by staying on the offensive."<snip>


What a crazy country this is, when George Bush tells the truth about something and the Democrats denounce him. Gotcha politics is becoming dangerous in the age of terrorism. Now that the conventions are over and the real campaign begins, America needs a probing debate about strategy -- gaffes and all.

[e-mail]

[cosmicaug]

1. Very reasohnable article.

[pinkpops]

2. Big mistake, continuing to play this little game

calling it a "war". Check out this link - I think I found it on Buzzflash - about letting conservatives frame the issues:


http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/08/25_lakoff.shtml

excerpt:

You've said that progressives should never use the phrase "war on terror" — why?

There are two reasons for that. Let's start with "terror." Terror is a general state, and it's internal to a person. Terror is not the person we're fighting, the "terrorist." The word terror activates your fear, and fear activates the strict father model, which is what conservatives want. The "war on terror" is not about stopping you from being afraid, it's about making you afraid.

Next, "war." How many terrorists are there — hundreds? Sure. Thousands? Maybe. Tens of thousands? Probably not. The point is, terrorists are actual people, and relatively small numbers of individuals, considering the size of our country and other countries. It's not a nation-state problem. War is a nation-state problem.

[Jade Fox]

3. Lakoff is great. We really need people like him. n/t