Countdown

Elevating the Discourse

By AAI Countdown
Volume 9, No. 13
Posted on Wednesday May 7, 2008

No Good Answer
During last week’s peacemaking visit, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked whether President George W. Bush’s upcoming trip in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, known as "al Nakba"—the catastrophe—in Arabic, was "disrespectful to the [Palestinians] because as a result [the Palestinians] have been suffering for so many years." But our supposedly-savvy senior diplomat was not terribly well-prepared for this timely (and, hopefully, expected) inquiry, trading smooth secretary-speak for the nuance of a near-novice: "I hope that it may or may not be—it certainly won’t be on our watch, but I hope someday that somebody will be—I mean it will be well beyond our watch—somebody will be coming to celebrate the 60th anniversary—you [in the press corps] won’t be here either by the way—of the Palestinian democratic state one day." Poor performance, Madame Secretary, on a question you should have been prepped for, regardless of how rehearsed or politically-canned the answer.  

Pottery Barn Rules
Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East, called it like he saw it in his opening statement at a hearing addressing Iraqi refugees last week. Answering his own rhetorical questions about the administration’s lack of progress on refugee resettlement, Ackerman determined that "President Bush simply doesn’t care about the refugees…He cares so little that he leaves the problem to others within his Administration to solve and because he refuses to lead, the bureaucracy does what it does best: it argues about turf; it debates regulations; it disputes who will pay for what…" Congressman Ackerman acknowledged that he was "sure the refugees are in the President’s prayers," but stated to George W. Bush directly: "there is an enormous humanitarian crisis in the Middle East and it is chiefly of your making because you decided to go to war in Iraq…In short, Mr. President, you broke it and it is time for you to own this problem. "

By Popular Consensus
A February poll, conducted by WordPublicOpinon.org and Search For Common Ground surveying attitudes on U.S.-Iranian relations found that majorities in both countries favored improving relations, with 57% of Iranians "favoring direct talks on issues of mutual concern," and a whopping 82% of Americans supporting the same. Those in charge of American policy towards Iran should also note the same poll showed only 22% of Americans thought using "implied threats that the United States may use military force" was the most effective way of dealing with the government in Tehran, while 75% of Americans supported "trying to build better relations" between the United States and Iran. Given these numbers, isn’t it safe to assume there is no electoral demand for humor-cloaked war-mongering, as expressed by Senator John McCain to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" or bellicose statements, like that more recently put forward by Senator Hillary Clinton,  promising to "obliterate" the Persian nation in retaliation for an attack on Israel or friendly Arab nations? Seems like voters won’t be fooled again. 

Elevating the Discourse
Expressions such as "jihadism," "Islamo-fascism" and "mujahedeen,"—terms that trickled into the American vernacular likely because of politically expedient fear-mongering or intellectual laziness—are, thankfully, being recognized as highly offensive and counterproductive. According to the Associated Press, which recently obtained a copy of a Department of Homeland Security report citing recommendations from American Muslims on appropriate terminology, the expressions "terrorist" and "violent extremism" are far more appropriate and will be officially employed by the Department of State and other government agencies. If only the Powers-That-Be would realize the damaging effect of other embedded nomenclature, such as the "Global War On Terror."