PressEthic

Time Online ran this article, stating that the language used in Bush’s flu epidemic plan is similar to the language he used in discussing the War on Terror. The article quotes the president as saying, “our country has been given fair warning of this danger to our homeland—and time to prepare," and though it doesn’t point out what the specific language is similar, I’m thinking it’s words like “danger,” “homeland,” and “prepare.” I wonder what the point of this analysis is, if there is one. It might be subtle, but does it seem biased to make the leap to compare the language of the two?

The article is titled “Bush v. Bird Flu: The President announces a pandemic plan that draws its vocabulary from the War on Terror,” though it does to little to actually prove that the language is similar, and the only time that it even discusses the administration’s War on Terror in comparison is to say that the bird flu plan echoes the War on Terror in its tactic by trying to go the source overseas. It doesn’t make sense to me to make this comparison. Since the only flu cases that are known right now are in fact overseas, then wouldn’t it be silly for Bush to ignore what is happening now and will perhaps escalate, biding his time until it actually makes it to the our own country’s soil? In any case, that is a little different than our president’s decision to wage war in Iraq, which is a far more complex situation, and it can’t be simplified by saying that we have “gone to the source overseas.”

What is the implication if the language of the president’s bird flu plan is similar to that of the War on Terror? I’m not sure, and this article does nothing to make it more clear for me. It perhaps implies that Bush is only capable of thinking of things in one way, and the strategy is always fighting, viloence, and an “us versus them” mentality. The title, “Bush vs. Bird Flu” certainly emphasizes this, making it seem as if Bush has literally literally gone to fisticuffs, fighting an outbreak.

The article also ends with this gem, “It allows him to take executive action and show himself as preemptive, compassionate and decisive—qualities that have enthralled his supporters but had faded from view with his summer tan.” This is in reference to what the the bird flu strategy has done to improve Bush’s image, implying that the threat of an epidemic is being used like a PR stunt by the Bushies. But it is important for our administration to strategize now (and they should have a lot earlier), so shouldn't the fact that this move was necessary and not cosmetic make that an unfair judgment? And of course, mentioning Bush’s fading tan is a nice touch. Our president just loves to vacation, even when doomsday is on its way!