Posted 7:05 PM by Robert

"RATS" Then And "X's" Now

CNN claims that a large "X" the network flashed (for what it says was 1/7th of a second) over Vice President Dick Cheney's face during his recent speech was a mere "technical glitch" - not a subliminal message. CNN claims that the "X" image is a place-holding to cue up graphics that is not supposed to be visible to viewers but was "inadvertently projected" onto the screen by a malfunction in a "switcher" device. "CNN Live Today" anchor Daryn Kagan and the network's technical manager, Steve Alperin, argued: "So, for all the conspiracy theories out there ... that's not what this is about. It's a computer bug that people deal with everyday. It's just that ours was in front of millions of people."

Maybe so. But the 2000 presidential campaign buzzed over a Republican television ad that had the word ‘rats' spelled out for a mere 1/30th second. The ad criticized Al Gore's health plans. The ad maker explained that an "editing error" allowed the last half of the word "bureaucrats" to stay on screen as ‘rats'. At that time CNN treated the Republican "technical glitch" explanation with a good deal of skepticism, as exhibited in this CNN transcript of an interview by very-insistent CNN anchor Judy Woodruff of Alex Castellanos, the Republican consultant who created the 2000 ad:

WOODRUFF: Well, we are joined now by the man who produced that controversial RNC ad, he is GOP Media Consultant Alex Castellanos.

All right, Alex Castellanos, how did the word "RATS" end up in this commercial?

CASTELLANOS: Well, it's obviously part of our clever rodent strategy to get the anti-rodent vote.

It's an accident, it's unintended, and this is really just a cheesy effort by the Gore people to divert from the real issue here, which is...

WOODRUFF: But wait a minute... CASTELLANOS: ... which I emphasize one phrase in that ad, "bureaucrats decide," because under the Gore plan, bureaucrats decide whether you get your medicines or not.

That's real political manipulation, when you promise seniors a prescription drug plan, but then you don't tell them how it's going to work.

WOODRUFF: But when you put an ad together, you look at every frame of that ad. You had to know -- did you know that that word was in there?

CASTELLANOS: I didn't know it. I didn't know it until it was pointed out to me, and since I didn't intend to do that it didn't mean anything to me.

When you put an ad together you put the music together.

WOODRUFF: But why would you put part of a word, and the "R-A-T- S" part of it?

CASTELLANOS: It's a four-step, little thing just to draw emphasis to one phrase -- bureaucrats decide. Under Gore's plan, bureaucrats decide whether you get your medicines or not.

WOODRUFF: But "bureau" isn't there. It's just "RATS."

CASTELLANOS: It happens to be right in the middle. And, it was pointed out to me, you know, that's the way it turned out.

I think that it's -- the real important thing here is that they don't want to talk about the issue, they want to attack the messenger instead of the message.

The message is -- the real bad word he's scared about here is bureaucrats not "RATS."

WOODRUFF: Let me quote two -- or cite, what two Republican media -- two consultants said today; Greg Stevens, he's a veteran Republican advertising consultant, Scott Reed, Bob Dole's '96 campaign manager, both of them said they don't think this was done by accident.

CASTELLANOS: Well, you know, I'm sure that they're probably closer to infallibility than yours truly. But look, all we're -- there's no reason to do anything like this, for a Republican or a Democrat to try to get the anti-rat vote here, this is not really a clever political strategy.

The important thing people care about is who's going to decide whether you get your medicines, bureaucrats, or you and doctor.

WOODRUFF: I talked today with Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dr. Jamieson, who's head of -- dean, as you know, dean of the Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania; respected scholar on political communication. I want to be careful about this. She wrote a book in 1992 about negative campaigning in which she singled out an ad you did in 1990 for Jesse Helms running for the Senate in the state of North Carolina.

She pointed out what she called a priming technique, and I'm going to show just a portion of that Helms ad here, in which we show a white job applicant saying that he was being notified in a letter that he was shut out of a job because of a minority applicant. Let's just show just a small portion of that ad, Alex.

CNN also gave a good deal of sympathetic play to Democratic Party whines about the 2000 Republican ad, as in this CNN article from 2000:

Two Democratic senators have asked the Federal Communications Commission for an "immediate and impartial" review of the Republican National Committee's controversial "RATS" ad, according to sources in Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign.

In a letter provided to CNN, Sens. John Breaux, D-Louisiana, and Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, wrote to FCC Chairman William Kennard that they were "deeply troubled" by the ad and believed that a review would be in "the best interests of both political parties, and all Americans."

A political stir erupted Tuesday when it was discovered that if the ad was slowed down, the word "RATS" appeared clearly while an announcer criticized Gore's prescription drug plan as one in which "Bureaucrats Decide."

Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican presidential nominee, told reporters on Tuesday that he believed the appearance of "RATS" in the RNC ad was accidental.

But Gore, the Democratic nominee, said he was "disappointed" by the ad. .... Gore's campaign contacted news organizations about the ad, apparently trying to exploit the gaffe for political gain. A spokesman for the Texas governor on Tuesday brushed aside suggestions of subliminal advertising as "bizarre and weird," while the RNC had no immediate comment.

CNN slowed down a copy of the ad, and the word "RATS" clearly appeared on the screen in large, white letters superimposed over the words "The Gore Prescription Plan." In a fraction of a second, the word disappeared, and the words "BUREAUCRATS DECIDE" showed up in smaller letters. To viewers aware of the presence of the word, it is noticeable when the ad is played at normal speed.

Campaigning in Middletown, Ohio, on Tuesday, Gore told reporters he considered the ad a "disappointing development" in the presidential race. .... Gore told reporters Tuesday, "I've never seen anything like it. I think it speaks for itself." When asked whom he felt was responsible for the "RATS" message, he replied, "That's obvious," but did not elaborate on whether he was referring to the Bush campaign or the RNC.

Earlier in the day, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman characterized the ad as "very disappointing and strange."

Posted 9:58 PM by Robert

A Little Something To Remember Gerhard By?

Speaking up for what is said to be the first time, five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, just said in interviews with the Los Angeles Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so ... and lots of other unflattering things.

So why now? Why would the German government authorize its intelligence officers to speak up now - in a manner that can scarcely be expected to help relations between Berlin and Washington?

Could it have something to do with the fact that the person these "five senior officers" currently work for, departing Social Democratic Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, despises George Bush and is just about to leave office and the German government entirely? Could it have something to do with the fact that incoming Chancellor Angela Merkel, the leader of the conservative Christian Democratic Party, is known to be quite a bit more sympathetic to Mr. Bush than is Herr Schröder?

Could anyone have imagined that even Herr Schröder was so small and personally vain as to exploit his country's intelligence service in such a petty and improper fashion?

Posted 7:32 PM by Robert

Inconsistent Refrains

The long established Democratic refrain that there are not enough Allied "boots on the ground" in Iraq continues unabated, as reflected in this TIME magazine article, for example:

There are about 160,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq, a number U.S. commanders in the region plan to maintain at least through the Iraqi national assembly elections on Dec. 15. But the battalion commanders, according to sources close to last week's meeting, said that because there are not enough troops, they have to "leapfrog" around Iraq to keep insurgents from returning to towns that have been cleared out. The officers also stressed that the lack of manpower--rather than of protective armor or signal jammers--posed one of the biggest obstacles in dealing with roadside bombs, which have caused the majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq.

Yet, more recently, there has been a new refrain, as represented for example by the confused and ambiguous statements of Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, who last week called for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq either "within the next six months" or perhaps immediately. Whatever Mr. Murtha's intentions might have been, Senator Biden says he disagrees with "respected voices on military matters" like Rep. John Murtha in saying that the Senator "does not support bringing the troops home now. Rather, he said, 50,000 U.S. troops should leave Iraq by the end of 2006 and "a significant number" of the remaining 100,000 should leave in 2007."

This all raises the puzzling issue for such Democrats: If it is the absence of sufficient "boots on the ground" that creates the worst of the security problems (and results in most of the fatalities) for American troops in Iraq (as the TIME refrain insists), then doesn't an extended 2006-2007-and-beyond withdrawal of the type Senator Biden contemplates all but guarantee at least two years of greatly increasing this exact security risk and therefore the resulting American fatalities? What does Senator Biden think will happen during the more than two-year withdrawal period he is proposing, a period during which American troop levels will be much lower than they are now? He seems to think that at least as things stand now, what he is proposing would sharply increase casualties, but that somehow that increase can also be avoided:

"I still believe we can preserve our fundamental security interests in Iraq as we begin to redeploy our forces," Sen. Joseph Biden .... "Right now, our troops are the only guarantor against chaos," he said, but the military presence "is also, increasingly, part of the problem."

Do "our fundamental security interests" (as Senator Biden uses this term) include minimizing the loss of the lives of our servicemen? And if the Senator (or any Democrat) knows of some way of doing that better than is now the case while reducing the number of Americans in Iraq, why won't he share his secret?

Of course, if one thinks that the overall political and security situation in Iraq is improving and will continue to improve, then a phased withdrawal of the type contemplated by the Senator makes perfect sense, and is fully consistent with reducing American casualties. Indeed, that is what the Bush administration is hoping for. But Democrats advocating a phased withdrawal seem to be in the position of arguing that (1) the overall situation in Iraq is improving and that a phased withdrawal therefore will not increase American casualities during the years of withdrawal or (2) a multi-year period of increased casualities is acceptable or (3) the whole "not enough boots on the ground" refrain is simply wrong.

None of these alternatives seem to be politically viable. Perhaps that is why Senator Clinton, who also construes Rep. Murtha as calling for an "immediate withdrawal," has distanced herself from whatever it is he proposed as well as from timelines such as that proposed by Senator Biden:

Clinton, who is running for re-election to the Senate and is seen as a likely presidential candidate in 2008, suggested that the United States wait for Iraq's Dec. 15 elections for an indication about how soon the Iraqis can take over. "Until they vote for a government, I don't know that we will have adequate information about how prepared they are," she said.