BUSH ERRS IN PLAYING BY MEDIA RULES

It is almost axiomatic that politicians will respond to criticism --
excessively. So it seems to be even with President Bush, whose historical
unwillingness to play by the rules was one of his cap's brightest feathers.

The Rules, in this case, refers to the assumption -- by other politicians
and especially the media -- that an aspiring or elected official will dance
when the chorus says, ``Dance!'' From the beginning, Bush, whatever else
his strengths and flaws, refused to be jerked by the puppeteers.

When the media insisted, for instance, that he spill the beans about his
youthful indiscretions regarding drug and alcohol use, he declined, saying,
``When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.''

Bush explained his refusal in terms other baby boomer parents understood.
He had kids; he didn't want to ``share,'' bless his heart. As a fellow
boomer parent, I supported his position. As I've told my own son: ``When
we're both adults, we'll trade war stories. For now, I'm the boss, do as I
say, and barring perfection, at least be wise.''

Anticipating the hypocrite cop assault, I hastily amend: I also said
President Clinton owed no one an explanation of his personal sex life. Only
after the Starr interrogations took root did I insist he tell the truth. It
was clear, as Clinton should have seen, that certain parties weren't going
to give up until they could quantify the presidential sperm count.

But recent events -- specifically criticism that the Bush administration
failed to properly calculate and inform the American public about terrorist
risks -- apparently have made Bush change his tune. Suddenly terrorist
warnings are as ubiquitous as e-mail Viagra ads. (Does anyone else's e-mail
suggest that all of America owns his/her own Web cam and that absolutely
every living male is under-endowed, or is it just me?)

During a week or so immediately following the ``Bush Knew'' onslaught,
administration officials took turns warning Americans about, oh, just
everything.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Senate committee that terrorists
``inevitably'' will obtain weapons of mass destruction. Vice President Dick
Cheney told television audiences that another terrorist strike was ``almost
certain.'' FBI Director Robert Mueller said that suicide bombings in the
United States are ``inevitable.''

Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said that more terrorist attacks are
``not a question of if, but a question of when.''

They are?! Couldn't we just skip the when/inevitable/certainty part, and
prevent these ``folks'' from hurting us again? Or, are we being just a
little too cautious in the name of covering our backsides?

None of these predictions qualifies as mind-bogglingly insightful. It's
pretty safe to say that someday every nation will have weapons of mass
destruction. Who doesn't know?

Nevertheless, when the first dirty bomb goes off in Atlanta, no one can
accuse Bush of failing to warn us. It was right there on C-Span. When the
first suicide bomber wanders into Rockefeller Center, they told us so.

You get the uneasy feeling that Bush's daily briefing now goes like this:
``OK, fellows, what warnings have you got for me today? Scare the livin'
daylights out of 'em, that'll shut 'em up. Let's roll!''

Americans aren't clueless, and some have noted that there sure are a lot of
warnings out there these days. The obvious question is: What are we
supposed to do about it? Shop? Travel more? Book those fall Broadway
tickets early?

No, we're supposed to feel gypped by politics as usual. Warnings that don't
mean anything aren't useful. Politicians who pretend to the higher moral
ground in demanding More Information in the name of America's right to know
aren't helpful.

Bush should stick to his own ground and decline to play puppet. He should
tell us when there's a true terrorist threat, and otherwise devote his
energies to making sure our enemies fail.