Return-Path: <sentto-279987-2653-1002139336-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 03 Oct 2001 13:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 15445 invoked by uid 510); 3 Oct 2001 20:02:22 -0000 Received: from n25.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.75) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 20:02:22 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-2653-1002139336-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.54] by n25.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Oct 2001 20:02:17 -0000 X-Sender: fc@big.all.net X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 3 Oct 2001 20:02:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 72899 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 20:02:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2001 20:02:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO big.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 20:02:14 -0000 Received: (from fc@localhost) by big.all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id NAA18209 for iwar@onelist.com; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:02:14 -0700 Message-Id: <200110032002.NAA18209@big.all.net> To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List) Organization: I'm not allowed to say X-Mailer: don't even ask X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:02:13 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: [iwar] [fc:Rhetorical.Contradictions.Flourish.In.War.On.Terrorism] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Washington Post October 3, 2001 Rhetorical Contradictions Flourish In War On Terrorism By Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writer Last week, President Bush flew to Chicago and urged Americans to "get on board" airplanes and enjoy life "the way we want it to be enjoyed." Three days later, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft warned of "a very serious threat" of additional terrorist activity, particularly if the United States launches a military retaliation. Those contradictory messages underscore the challenge the president and his top advisers face as they balance the competing demands of managing the war on terrorism. Bush has described this as a war unlike any other the United States has fought, and that extends to the demands on the administration's public communications. Public opinion remains strongly behind Bush, and polls suggest that Americans have absorbed the sometimes conflicting rhetoric without losing confidence in the direction he has set. But it is clear that, with so many senior officials speaking publicly on an almost daily basis, there is a constant and not always successful struggle inside the administration to remain consistent in its message. Administration officials have been tugged in different directions as they speak to many audiences at once, notably on whether the goal of the promised military response is to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. During a period when officials have equivocated on the fate of the Taliban, British Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday provided the clearest statement of the coalition's policy when he used a speech to a Labor Party conference to tell the Taliban, "Surrender the terrorists or surrender power." That goes further than Bush's speech to Congress on Sept. 20 and is far more explicit than language used by senior administration officials. Administration officials have sent multiple messages to the country, preaching patience while conveying a sense of urgency about the attacks, and calling for a return to normalcy while putting the country on high alert. At times, the administration's credibility has been challenged, on subjects ranging from whether the government still believes there was a credible threat against Air Force One on the day terrorists hit New York and Washington -- administration officials won't say -- to whether Reagan National Airport would be reopened, as Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta said last week, only to be contradicted hours later by White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. White House communications director Dan Bartlett said the contrast between Bush's upbeat exhortation in Chicago last week and Ashcroft's gloomy warning on Sunday television news shows reflected the unconventional nature of the war on terrorism, not a contradiction in the government's message. "It is a different and new environment we're working in," he said. "We feel it's important that we communicate both." Justice Department spokeswoman Mindy Tucker said Ashcroft's remarks Sunday were "the same thing he's been saying" since Sept. 11 and were not intended to convey an escalated level of threat. "He's been saying from day one there is potential for additional terrorist activity and everybody should be on heightened alert," she added. But coming on a day when White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist network has "probably found the means to use chemical or biological weapons," Ashcroft's warnings were interpreted as a heightened effort to warn Americans of possible attacks once military action begins. While Bush and Blair have provided the clearest ultimatums to the Afghan regime, in between their respective speeches there were enough confusing statements from other U.S. officials that at least one European government sought and received assurances that the policy of dislodging the Taliban remained fixed. In some cases over the past three weeks, conflicting statements by administration officials have reflected policy differences, particularly with regard to whether the war on terrorism should extend to Iraq. The apparent equivocation on the Taliban by some senior officials in the days after Bush's speech may reflect less a policy disagreement over the ultimate goal than other factors, according to some independent analysts. One factor may be the desire not to make allies in the region uncomfortable, particularly Pakistan. Pakistan's sensitivities remain foremost in the administration's diplomatic calculations, but on Monday, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf called the Taliban's days numbered. The reluctance to talk specifically about eliminating the Taliban could reflect unsettled questions about what comes next in Afghanistan. Bush has insisted the United States is not in the business of "nation-building," a position he took aggressively during the presidential debates last year. Inevitably the United States will be drawn into shaping the future of Afghanistan's government if a combination of military action and internal opposition forces the Taliban from power, but the administration may want to forestall those discussions until later. Although there have been few major missteps, White House officials have been frustrated at times keeping everyone in the administration on the same page, and their credibility has suffered. On Friday, Mineta appeared on the morning news shows and was asked repeatedly about the future of Reagan National Airport. He said a decision was likely by early this week, and on ABC's "Good Morning America" he said, "It will definitely reopen." At the White House briefing later that day, Fleischer was asked about those comments. He brushed aside questions about the timing of a decision, saying "I don't want to guess" when the president would decide. But he undercut Mineta's prediction that the airport would reopen when he suggested to reporters that the secretary's comments on ABC were mistaken. The administration's credibility also has been challenged on a key assertion made the day after the terrorist attacks. On Sept. 12, Fleischer volunteered that one reason the president had not returned to Washington immediately was because of "specific and credible information" that Air Force One was a target of the terrorists. Last week, CBS News and the Associated Press reported that administration officials had done a reassessment and concluded that there was not a specific threat against the president's plane. Administration officials have declined to address those reports and said they will not try to clarify the record in light of those reports. Bartlett said yesterday that, on Sept. 11, "we believed there was a credible threat to Air Force One," which influenced the decision not to have the president return to the capital. "That hasn't changed. That is exactly the assessment of that day," he said. He refused to say whether that is still the assessment, saying that, on the advice of the Secret Service and the National Security Council, "we will not comment on any changes in that assessment at this point." Asked if that meant he was neither confirming that the threat had been downgraded nor claiming that news reports that it had been were inaccurate, he said, "That's correct." ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:53 PST