Political Mis-Discussion

With the race for the presidency just about the only game in town, Bush is planning a long trip to the Middle East.

We are sure his formidable diplomatic skills will yield worthy results in bringing about peace.

Right...

This exchange occurred between Helen Thomas and Tony Fratto at the January 4th White House press briefing.

Q Does the President think it's a good prelude for the Israelis to kill nine Palestinians, five in one family -- as a prelude to his trip on the West Bank?

MR. FRATTO: I think what the President is concerned about is bringing peace to that region and allowing the forces of freedom and democracy to have the opportunity to thrive. And that's one of the features of his trip. I think we're concerned, whenever we see extremists, that are --

Q Have you explained to the Israelis about those killings?

MR. FRATTO: We talk regularly to the Israelis, and of course the President is headed there next week. But I think any time we see extremists who are looking to defeat the forces of freedom and democracy, we oppose that. And we understand Israel's right to protect itself when --

Q It's not extremist to kill nine people on the West Bank under occupation?

MR. FRATTO: I think what our focus on is having the Palestinians and the Israelis sitting down at the table and making the hard choices so that they can -- so they can move to two states living side by side in peace.

Interesting.

The subtext of the discussion revolves around killing and the sponsorship of killing.

Regardless of your perspective, Mr. Fratto takes the side that state sponsored killing is fine. He doesn't even acknowledge that killing occurs. His pat answer is to describe those killed as extremists. In fact it is an act of protection.

Helen Thomas takes the side of those killed. She asks isn't killing a crime, a moral outrage regardless of who is doing the killing - "It's not extremist to kill nine people..."

Mr. Fratto is also able to deflect any specific question by presuming a larger broader context - "...the President is concerned about bringing peace to that region and allowing the forces of freedom and democracy...to thrive..."

In this way he never has to answer the question.

Clearly the tone of Bush's upcoming diplomatic mission is being set. Clearly fairness is being left behind.

It would be interesting to study the evolution of political discourse. Over time you would be able to see when the notion of over-shooting, side stepping, or ignoring the question became the standard method.

What turns into news is not the answer, but what is missing from the answer and why that may be so.