Words to spin by

Snow Job

By Rick Horowitz

"I think now what's going to happen is, you know and I know, is that there's going to be a turn in the debate to, if you support the troops, are you, in fact, going to provide the reinforcements they need and our commanders think that they need in order to get the job done in Iraq?"

And for that matter:

"The president believes that what you need to do if you support the troops, is to provide the reinforcement for the people who are already on the ground to get the job done and finish the job."

And don't forget:

"What the world needs to understand is that this was a non-binding vote and there is going to be a binding vote, not merely on the Congress and president, but on the people who are in the field right now, those who are expecting reinforcements to come to help them..."

Do you see a pattern here?

What if I told you that all three of those quotes came from just one person, and that they came just minutes apart? What if I told you that the person wasn't some ordinary Joe spouting off about this and that over a beer somewhere, but was, in fact, White House spokesman Tony Snow, and that he was putting out the word to a national TV audience on last Sunday's "Meet the Press"? Now do you see a pattern?

And the word is...?

The word is "reinforcements."

On your toes, fellow word watchers: We've got a new one worth tracking. "Reinforcements." Not quite as colorful as "slow bleed," that other recent arrival on the rhetorical scene, but a hard-working noun nonetheless. And if Tony Snow is any indication -- and he's almost always an indication -- you'll be hearing it plenty in the weeks ahead. It's all part of the administration's effort to move the Iraq debate to more favorable turf.

Which is to say, to this question, and this question alone: "Do you support our troops?"

"But everyone supports our troops!" you say. "Even the congressmen who oppose the president on the war aren't suggesting cutting off funding for our troops already in the field."

True enough -- once a soldier or marine is actually deployed, is actually in Iraq. Once our troops are there, everyone wants to do everything for them. (This whole thing has bizarre echoes of the rules for boat people trying to reach our shores; if they manage to set foot on dry ground, they're handled one way, if they're caught while both feet are still in the water, they're handled another way.)

So a big "yes" to the already deployed. But what about the soldiers and marines who aren't there yet? That's where the recent argument has been focused: on future deployments. Will Congress try to cap the number of troops the president can send? Will Congress impose conditions that would amount to a cap -- sufficient training, sufficient equipment, sufficient downtime -- on any new troops being considered for deployment? They're still wrestling with those kinds of questions.

But up to now, there's been a rough consensus: The troops already there should get everything they need.

And now the administration trots out a new word to drive a wedge into that consensus.

What the troops already there need most, Tony Snow says, is: more troops!

They need -- all together now -- "reinforcements."

You can't claim to support the troops, Tony Snow is suggesting, unless you also support the president's right to send even more of them whenever he wants.

Will it work? Too early to tell. But will you keep hearing it? Count on it.

It's a nice try.

And it's nice talk from the gang that never sent enough troops in the first place.

Posted 2/20/07. Rick knows words! Get award-winning commentary right here twice every week!

Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist, TV commentator, writing coach and public speaker.

Search the Web Search Rick's!

©2007 Rick Horowitz. All rights reserved.