White House Notebook Naming Names, or Not
Osama's been languishing seven months without a mention in a presidential speech.
When al Qaeda's leader eluded capture in Afghanistan, President Bush gradually reduced his prominence in speeches to de-emphasize his individual importance. Now, with Saddam Hussein the villain of the hour and the Sept. 11 mastermind's coordinates still unknown, Osama bin Laden has fallen entirely from Bush's lexicon.
A search of the White House Web site indicates Bush has not made an unprompted mention of bin Laden's name since March 8. That day, at a GOP gathering in Florida, the president spoke of "this bin Laden fellow," and vowed: "We're going to find him." The last time Bush spoke the hated name in any public forum was a July 8 press conference, in which he was specifically asked if he would find bin Laden.
Lately, Bush has avoided mentioning the Evil One's name even when asked about him directly. At a Cabinet meeting last week, when a reporter asked Bush about Al Gore's charge that Iraq was deflecting attention from the failure to get bin Laden, Bush replied that "Saddam is a true threat to America."
This is quite a shift from the months after the terrorist attacks, when bin Laden was treated to daily mentions by Bush and colorful phrases such as "wanted: dead or alive." But now, with bin Laden's status unknown, invoking his name only reminds Americans of the failure to apprehend him.
The president's silence on bin Laden has served a strategic purpose. Last year, nearly two-thirds of Americans said the war on terrorism could not be called a success without bin Laden's death or capture. That number fell to 44 percent in the March Washington Post/ABC News poll, and the question has since been dropped.
GOP pollster and wordsmith Frank Luntz said mentioning the chief Evil Doer "conjures up questions that nobody can answer," because the government doesn't know if he's still alive. "We're trying to declare a certain moral certainty," Luntz said. "The effort is to remove all gray areas, and this adds a gray area."
The removal of gray areas from Bush's rhetoric, oft-observed since Sept. 11, has been quantified, dissected and broken down into statistical equations with Greek variables. A new study by the State University of New York at Buffalo's School of Management analyzed 74 of Bush's major speeches and radio addresses -- from before and after the terrorist strikes -- to determine differences in his language.
The researchers, led by professor James R. Meindl, found that Bush's speeches over the past year have contained more active words signaling "aggression" (such as "overcome," "dismantle" and "prevent") or "accomplishment" (words such as "leadership" and "strengthen") and fewer words conveying passivity ("allow," "refrain" and "submit") or ambivalence ("perhaps," "might" and "almost"). Bush also made fewer references to himself, such as "I," "me" and "mine," and replaced those with collective words ("humanity," "country" and "world") or "human interest" words ("ourselves," "friend").
Bush, the academics determined, used more "leveling" words (such as "everybody," always" and "completely") since 9/11, a way of overcoming individual differences and building assurance. He made more references to hardship and adversity ("enemies," "killers" and "betrayal"). Not surprisingly, Bush has also stepped up his use of words reflecting "values and moral justifications," employing spiritual words such as "God-fearing" and "hope" and patriotic words such as "homeland," "justice" and "liberty." At the same time, Bush's speech in the past year "became markedly less concrete and tangible" as specific, near-term goals gave way to distant and vague aims.
The researchers found that all of these patterns indicated Bush's rhetoric had become "more charismatic" since the terrorist attacks. "One possibility is that Bush is really more charismatic," they wrote. Alternatively, it's possible "his charismatic personality [lay] dormant and unrealized until it was finally unleashed by the tragic events of 9/11." Still another possibility is Bush is merely "responding to the needs of the American people who in a time of crisis seek out more 'charismatic' talk."
Is it a newly charismatic Bush or just some clever word usage? Speechwriting director Michael Gerson declined to discuss it.
Those who recall that Bush came to office promising to "change the tone" of politics to bipartisan brotherhood might have been surprised to hear the White House standard for bipartisanship. Turns out the support of only one Democrat -- maverick Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia -- can make legislation "bipartisan," as it did when Miller joined with Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) a couple of weeks ago in offering a compromise to break the impasse on homeland security legislation.
Bush, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said in a morning briefing, "is now supporting a bipartisan compromise on homeland security."
Keith Koffler, White House reporter for Congress Daily, was puzzled. "How many Democrats support this bipartisan bill?" he asked. "I'm not aware of any more than one Democrat."
"Well," Fleischer replied, "that certainly does make it bipartisan."
"So that's the new definition of bipartisan?" Koffler inquired.
"I think, frankly, that's the old definition of bipartisan," Fleischer rejoined. "I'd be shocked if all of a sudden the definition of bipartisan changed."