[cross posted fromFrameshop - JF]
In recent speeches, the Vice President and the President have begun to repeat the word 'irresponsible' in to frame the debate on Iraq.
How is this new magic word 'irresponsible' being used by the President and Vice President, how does it frame the debate, and what should Americans say in response?
This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black--or in this case, the White House calling the Congress 'irresponsible'...
The word 'irresponsible' is being used by the President and Vice President in their reactions to criticisms that their policies on Iraq have failed. It was obvious to anyone watching
President Bush's press conference in Korea, for example, that the President had been prepped by his PR damage control team to brand his critics as 'irresponsible' if the question of Iraq came up. Here is an exchange where a journalist (Q) asks the President a question about Iraq:
Q Mr. President, Vice President Cheney called it reprehensible for critics to question how you took the country to war, but Senator Hagel says it's patriotic to ask those kinds of questions. Who do you think is right?
PRESIDENT BUSH: The Vice President.
Q Why?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, look, ours is a country where people ought to be able to disagree, and I expect there to be criticism. But when Democrats say that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's irresponsible. They looked at the same intelligence I did, and they voted -- many of them voted to support the decision I made. It's irresponsible to use politics. This is serious business making -- winning this war. But it's irresponsible to do what they've done. So I agree with the Vice President.
Q -- (inaudible) --
PRESIDENT BUSH: I think people ought to be allowed to ask questions. It is irresponsible to say that I deliberately misled the American people when it came to the very same intelligence they looked at, and came to the -- many of them came to the same conclusion I did. Listen, I -- patriotic as heck to disagree with the President. It doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics. That's exactly what is taking place in America.
And so we can clearly see that President Bush is hitting this drum, repeating the word 'irresponsible' four times in a short answer.
The day before, the Vice President used this same tactic in an speech he delivered at a gala event sponsored by the Republican group "Frontiers of Freedom"::
...the suggestion that's been made by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.
Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions.
Use of this word 'irresponsible' seems to have begun at the President's controversial Veteran's Day speech when he said the following:
While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.
The accusations from the Vice President and the President attempt to take the concerns the American people have with the White House--that their dishonesty has made American less safe--and brand the Democrats with them.
This is classic Karl Rove strategy and it runs like this: On trial for theft? Spread rumors that your accuser cheated on their income taxes. Caught drunk driving? Spread rumors that the arresting officer is an alcoholic. Caught stuffing ballots? Spread rumors that your opponent registered dead people. Caught lying to the American people about Iraq? Give speeches saying that your critics are themselves lying to the American people. Caught being irresponsible with American lives, resources and values? Give speeches saying that your critics are themselves irresponsible.
Calling the kettle 'black' has always worked very well for Karl Rove. It works because it uses the media's tendency to repeat whatever the President or Vice President say to confuse the story. Now, when people turn on their computers and do a Google search on 'Iraq' and 'criticism,' they will find the same number of stories accusing the President of bad things as they will find accusing the President's critics of bad things. Even in the worst of times--even with Americans growing increasingly frustrated about the endless uncertainty and rising death toll of our men and women in uniform, calling the kettle 'black' can be an effective strategy.
How to respond?
The solution is to avoid defending oneself from these baseless accusations, because that just results in the word 'irresponsible' being repeated.
Focus instead on two ideas: (1) Good that Hussein is gone and (2) the war in Iraq was a mistake.
Listen to the how Former President Clinton does this in a recent Q & A session with students in Dubai:
Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done, " Clinton told students at the American University of Dubai.
It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."
This is a remarkably effective way to frame the discussion because it really frames the debate in terms of what is happening on the ground in Iraq, rather than what happened two years ago in the Congress.
This statement represents a shift in the Democrats use of the word 'mistake' that Americans need to hear more and more in the days ahead. Initially, Dems said that they made the 'mistake' of supporting the Iraqi War Resolution now that they know the intelligence was hyped by the White House. Now, they continue this line by saying that, on the ground in Iraq, it is good that Saddam is not in power, but the war is a mistake.
Good that he's gone, but the war was a mistake.
Senator Russ Feingold used this same frame in his interview, yesterday, with Chris Matthew's on Hardball (transcript not available as of the writing of this article).
This frame is so effective because it defines the debate in terms of what is concerning the American people. It takes the initiative and sets the stage for discussions of policy change that are needed to complete the current mission, wind down our military presence in Iraq.
So, when the pot calls the kettle 'irresponsible'--and it will this week, over and over again--Democrats should respond as President Clinton and Senator Feingold have: Saddam is gone, but the war is a mistake.
© 2005 Jeffrey Feldman