At least that’s what seems to be the case according to a story in the Los Angeles Times for 21 January.
I would link the story except I couldn’t find it in the on-line Times and besides, I discovered that I’m not supposed to link to “third parties.” OOPS!
Anyway, under the headline*“Axis of Evil” Rhetoric Said to Heighten Dangers* (on Page A17 for those who read the paper) is the following statement, “The man who half-coined the phrase was speechwriter David Frum, who left the White House a few months after Bush used it. In a recent book, Frum said his assignment for the State of the Union last year was to extrapolate from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to make a case for ‘going after Iraq’.”
This says to me that someone high up in the administration (Richard Perle if not GW?) was looking for an excuse to go after Iraq and found one in the 11 Sept. World Trade Center attacks.
My Merrian-Webster Collegiate defines extrapolate as “to project, or extend or expand (known data [which I take in this case to be the WTC attack]) into an area not know or experienced so as to arrive at a usu. conjectural knowledge of the unknown area …”
Since when? I thought the whole point of providing links was to avoid copyright issues. How can you do that if we are prohibited from linking to other sources?
As for the Axis of Evil I don’t think it comes as any surprise that it is rhetoric designed to make going after the bad guys more palatable. Heck, when the senior Bush was going after Iraq the first go around they tried numerous ways to feed it to the public so they’d get buy in. It was for oil…no…cuz Saddam is bad…no…cuz Saudi Arabia is threatened…no…cuz the Kuwaitis are being oppressed (and so on). [NOTE: A recent Frontline episode detailing the Gulf War showed an eye opening bit on the Bush administration floating various reasons for going to war till something took).
Such rhetoric doesn’t mean the US will do a thing but it lays the groundwork to make it easier should the President decide that’s the road he wants to follow.
Here’s the link The story seems to me to be essentially an anti-Bush smear. First of all, it’s not news. The phrase “Axis of Evil” was introduced a year ago,.
The article claims that “many experts say it’s clear it also has caused real damage.” But, it doesn’t quote “many experts.” it quotes just one.
It claims, “Some believe it played a role in undermining Iran’s moderate leaders and squelching the country’s nascent democracy movement.” This is unsupported and just goofy. After Bush named Iran in the A of E, there were pro-American, anti-Mullah demonstrations there.
It claims, “Many believe it helped provoke North Korea into nuclear confrontation.” If so, I think it’s just as well that NK’s nuclear development is out in the open. We now have a chance to negotiate an agreement that might actually stop their nuclear development.
In short, this article probably represents Maura Reynolds’s POV, but it’s presented as if it were an news analysis.
How did the North Koreans know when they started violating the no-nukes treaty that Bush was going to make this speech?
For that matter, how did the speech writer know that the NKs were already violating it?
And it sure was nice of the Iraqis to behave as they have been doing for the last half-dozen years so that this speech labelling them as evil had resonance with the US public. Wonder how Bush got them to do that?
I doubt it was solely to take down Iraq. It was probably to identify some of the current hot spots that could cause problems. Iraq is trying to acquire nukes and is run by an insane sociopath, NK was likely trying to get nukes (whoops, they already have them) and is run by an insane sociopath, and Iran doesn’t seem to care about nukes, but… whoops, there’s that insane sociopath thing again. Further, these are three regions that we can plausibly do something about. Iraq can be invaded, NK can be pressured (or at least negotiated with), and we can egg on the supporters of democracy in Iran.
I’d say the “A of E” bit was pretty smart, inasmuch as it highlighted our foreign policy priorities, and in such a way as to say, “These people here are the bad guys.”
Jeff
Presidential Speechwriter Writes Speech Aimed at Communicating President’s Viewpoint
Text:
*Today it has been revealed that former Bush Speechwriter David Drum once wrote a speech which attempted to communicate that administrations viewpoint in a number of manners.
If that we’re not disturbing enough, Frum also admitted to using an argumentative and literary technique known as “rhetoric,” in order to convey this message in an attractive manner.
Rhetoric is a highly subtle and dangerous technique developed within the Bush administration to gain control over the thoughts of the populace in order to propogate it’s savage agenda.
Many experts discaim the use of the controversial technique, and at least one has come out and said “The detection of rhetoric in a speech such as this points to a highly disturbing trend we’ve noticed regarding the politicalization of political speeches. Clearly there is some kind of attempt to persuade occuring.”
When confronted with evidence that Bush had attempted to perpetrate persuasive techniques during his speech Whitehouse spokesman Ari Fleischmann, blanched and then vomitted into his microphone in visible distress.
How this scandal will play out is not yet clear, but is clear that the Bush White House has experienced a devestating blow to its credibility witht this revelation.
Well, all I know is that the site has a notice that says that it is [For personal and private use only. Material is copywrited and is not to be disseminated to third parties].
And how come I’m not at all surprised that the reaction the the article splits along ideological lines?
Rhetoric ain’t just a literary device, amigo. In the realm of diplomacy, words are the tools of the trade - reality itself. The audiences reached by a public speech are worldwide, and include the subject nations’ leaders themselves. Someone who claims to have an extraordinary facility with language should understand that.
If you don’t want it to be understood the way you say it, then don’t say it, George.
It was at the very least disingenious for Bush to speechify about a three-nation “Axis of Evil” if he already had picked out one of them as his target, and wasn’t particularly serious about the other two.
There are a lot of countries in this world that really shouldn’t have nukes, and I fully agree that Iraq is near the top of that list, as long as Saddam’s running the joint. (I’d place North Korea higher still, given that Kim Jong Il is apparently quite a few fries short of a Happy Meal. Pakistan’s way up there too, since they nearly dropped the big one last summer, and our India-Pakistan war simulations usually end with Pakistan going nuclear. But they’re our ally, so we don’t talk about them.) But it’s clear in retrospect to the rest of us that Bush was just tossing Iran and North Korea in for show, just as it apparently was to Frum before he even created the phrase.
After all, there’s credible evidence that Iran is much closer to developing nuclear weapons than Iraq is, and of course we now believe North Korea may be already there - which is apparently our excuse to give up in their case. Yet Iraq’s the target of choice.
So the “Axis of Evil” was apparently just a fiction, an attempt by the President to put one over on the American people. (Apparently North Korea and Pakistan were an evil axis of sorts, with Pakistan sharing its nuclear technology in exchange for North Korea’s missile technology. But as I said, we don’t talk about Pakistan.) I realize that presidents try that from time to time, but that still doesn’t make it a good thing.
Well, for one thing, Bush was inaugurated on 20 January. WTC was attacked on 11 Sept. Immediately the word went out to drum up something by extrapolating from that event in order to make “going after Iraq” a part of the 2002 State of the Union speech.
The sequence makes me think that maybe GW wanted to get Iraq even before he was inaugurated. That makes me ask: What would have been the effect on the election if GW had told voters about “going after Iraq” in his campaign?
**Quote from Scylla
When confronted with evidence that Bush had attempted to perpetrate persuasive techniques during his speech Whitehouse [sic] spokesman Ari Fleischmann [sic], blanched and then vomitted into his microphone in visible distress.
How this scandal will play out is not yet clear, but is clear that the Bush White House has experienced a devestating** [sic]** blow to its credibility witht** [sic]** this revelation.**
I know you don’t like advice about your rapier wit. However, if I were you I wouldn’t give up my day job.
There’s lot’s of other confirmation out there. IIRC, Rumsfeld and friends grew increasingly frustrated with their inability to sell an Iraq attack to the public in the days immediately prior to 9/11.
Maybe this isn’t appropriate in GD but I can’t resist given the angle of this thread as it seems eminently appropriate. If you want a laugh follow the link:
Ehh, didn’t they already do something on this topic (something like “Bush on the Economy: We must Take Down Saddam Hussein”)? If so, I’m very disappointed at such an obvious rerun so soon.
