As I note below, I was pleased to see the President particularly challenge those who would have us believe that the War on Terror is no war. Over the months since September 11th one of the leading sources, in ways large and small, overt and subtle, of that perspective, has been the New York Times. In this morning's coverage of the speech comes a perfect example (and, just as an FYI, headlines often differ between the dead tree and web versions. The web version is headlined, "In Speech, President Casts Himself as Steady Commander in Chief." The dead tree version, under the major headline over several articles, "Bush, Somber and Determined, Stresses War Against Terror," titles this particular article, "Speech to Nation: Strongest Denunciation of Gay Marriage is Among Themes." Whatever.)
But here's what's inside the article on the topic: "Mr. Bush cast himself as the steady commander in chief of what he portrayed as a nation at war, seeming to suggest that changing the leader midbattle was risky." Note the subtle suggestion that the portrayal is a rhetorical device, and by definition if you are creating a perception of a situation in that manner then it is not pointing to something that exists in the world as a matter of fact.
But this statement is just amazing:
On Tuesday night, Mr. Bush offered no specific evidence to back up his more general and much less disputed statement that "terrorists continue to plot against America and the civilized world."
Hey, it's less disputed, because no one serious disputes it. The various questions and challenges over the intelligence on Iraqi WMD, it has been noted, will create difficulties in making claims down the line on other issues. But that should not mean that this kind of subtle creation of doubt should be allowed to be slipped in regarding something that is clearly true. How do we know it's true?
Bali. Jakarta. Morroco. Riyadh. Istanbul. Plots in Singapore, Paris, London.
Does this mean we can look forward to no more questions regarding the failure to find Osama?
