At war over war

A Jab Too Far

By Rick Horowitz

There are ways to do these things.

The raised eyebrow, the pregnant pause, the code word -- when an election's just around the corner and you want to stick it to the other side, there are time-tested methods to get the job done.

You can control the agenda, but without looking heavy-handed about it. You can throw your opponents on the defensive, absolutely, but without coming across as a thug. And if something straightforward (read: outrageously insulting) has to be said, let some plausibly deniable underling say it.

There's value in indirection, in the subtle exercise of strategy and tactic. It's the hint over the holler. The shiv over the mallet.

So what was the president thinking?

There he was, touring the country, promoting the war against terrorism and sounding the alarm about Saddam Hussein. There were perfectly good reasons to keep talking about these topics everywhere he went: There are enemies out there committed to our destruction; we have to stop them.

And there were other reasons, too, to keep talking about these topics everywhere he went: The economy is going down the toilet. The markets keep staggering. The stench of corporate corruption is everywhere. If voters stop focusing on war and start focusing on the economy, they're going to be angry. If voters start getting angry, they're going to want to take it out on somebody -- the president's party, for instance.

So there he was, touring the country, dominating the debate, demanding that the Democratic-controlled Senate send him the version of a homeland security bill that he prefers. That's when he said it, as he'd said similar things several times in recent days.

"I asked Congress to give me the flexibility necessary to be able to deal with the true threats of the 21st century by being able to move the right people to the right place at the right time, so we can better assure America we're doing everything possible. The House responded. But the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington, and not interested in the security of the American people."

Not interested in the security of the American people. United States senators.

Tom Daschle is a senator. He went to the Senate floor. Then he went ballistic.

"You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they're not interested in the security of the American people! That is outrageous! Outrageous!"

Daschle called on the president to apologize -- to Democratic veterans now serving in the Senate, and to all Americans. What he got instead was counterattack. Damage control. Context.

"Who is the enemy here?" cried Trent Lott. "The president of the United States or Saddam Hussein? I think it's time we get a grip on things."

And from the White House, a wriggle: The president had said what he said, not about opposition to his Iraq policy, but about opposition to his homeland security bill. As if that somehow made it all OK. As if narrowing it down to those who oppose him on that specific piece of legislation somehow made it fair comment.

Daschle, reasonably enough, didn't see it that way. He knew, he said, what the context had been. So what?

"What context is there that legitimizes an accusation like that?" he asked. "This is politicization pure and simple."

Pure and simple, yes. Subtle, no. The president went over the line.

There are ways to do these things.

Posted 9/26/02. For award-winning commentary, try a twice-weekly dose of Rick!

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

Search the Web Search Rick's!

©2002 Rick Horowitz. All rights reserved.