| |
Bush's Angry Rhetoric Keeps America on Edge
|
|
|
Bush's Angry Rhetoric Keeps America on Edge
Comments have done nothing to calm an already jittery public
|
|
by William Walker
|
| |
|
WASHINGTON — Widespread panic and terror over anthrax may represent President George W. Bush's first misstep as commander-in-chief of the war on terrorism.
While FBI officials and leaders such as New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani try to calm the American public, Bush keeps speaking out angrily about the "evil doers," about Americans having awakened to "new dangers" and about linking the anthrax attacks to terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.
"I wouldn't put it past him," Bush said of bin Laden, off-the-cuff, outside the White House Monday, while admitting he has no proof. The comments did nothing to calm an already jittery public.
Bush seemed to set the tone for public worry in a prime-time TV press conference last Thursday night when he warned Americans darkly of a new "general threat" of terrorism against the United States.
That prompted prominent Democratic Senator Joe Biden to shatter the veneer of non-partisanship by criticizing the president for the warning, saying "Americans hardly need to be told to be more alert."
Biden said warnings without specifics are counterproductive.
Giuliani exudes confidence and normalcy to the public, even attending the New York Yankees game Monday night after downplaying an anthrax-related incident at ABC News.
Bush exudes apprehension, speaking constantly of "evil" and "danger," and keeping his vice-president, Dick Cheney, ferreted away in an undisclosed secure location.
Bush may be maintaining a fearful tone out of sheer anger and frustration as a rookie president, or he may be trying to maintain a high level of public support for his new war.
Either way, some believe it's time he turned down the temperature.
"The president has a tough challenge because on one hand he's trying to build support for a long and difficult war so he's trying to channel public anger toward that," said Brookings Institution government studies scholar Thomas Mann.
On the other hand, Bush's concern about the U.S. economy is such that he needs to implore Americans to return to life as normal and start spending again, Mann said, adding that each message undermines the other.
"I think a more reassuring message is probably called for," Mann said. "There's no need to panic ... the perceptions of risk from anthrax are way out of line now with the reality of the risk.''
Attorney-General John Ashcroft admitted yesterday for the first time that the FBI is "overburdened" by anthrax emergency calls, many of them false. The New York City and Washington police both complain of not being able to cope with the volume of 911 calls.
The calls swamping those police agencies would seem to undermine their ability to cope with a genuine terrorist attack should one be planned in response to the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan.
Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Bush has spoken forcefully, and at times eloquently, as he did in a major speech to a joint session of Congress.
But as Biden pointed out, Bush's continued angry words now appear to be undermining the public's confidence about its safety.
Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar and former White House speechwriter, doesn't criticize Bush directly but said his administration may need to change the tone.
"We're all learning from this. We may soon discover a lot of this is not related to terrorism at all," Hess said.
"But this is a real threat and Americans are truly worried. I think the government's position should be as reassuring as possible and they should be very careful, if they have to at all, about pointing to events in Afghanistan."
As the anthrax scares — real or imagined — continue to drive more unnerved Americans to doctors and clinics looking for antibiotics, Hess said a better job of informing the public needs to be done.
"The best thing would be to say as much as possible about prevention and caution and as little as possible about pointing a finger," he said. "You need a little more restraint in that regard, particularly if you just don't know the answer."
Copyright 1996-2001. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
###
|
 Printer Friendly Version
E-Mail This Article
|
|
|
