FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2002 — On Thursday, CNN aired a previously unseen videotaped interview with Osama bin Laden. The interview, conducted by a reporter for the Arab news network Al-Jazeera, turned up little new information — except, perhaps, that bin Laden has (or maybe had) a sense of humor. "[The US] made hilarious claims," crowed the Al Qaeda leader. "They said that Osama’s messages have codes in them to the terrorists. It’s as if we were living in the time of mail by carrier pigeon, when there are no phones, no travelers, no Internet, no regular mail, no express mail, and no electronic mail. I mean, these are very humorous things."

Now, Osama bin Laden might be a wicked man, but we have to assume that he’s not stupid. As he well knows, every time a public figure makes a statement to the media, that statement carries with it a whole slew of coded messages. They used to call this sort of thing subtext, but the current expression, I believe, is meta-message. In Osama’s case, the meta-message behind his talk of "carrier pigeons" and "electronic mail" is: "What do you take us for, a buncha hillbillies?" (Well, yes, but that’s another matter entirely.)

The point is, in the arena of international relations, genuine communications are conveyed through clandestine means, or at least mano a mano. When dialogue is conducted by way of the mass media, it ceases to be dialogue at all — it becomes PR. When Bush chief of staff Andrew Card announced this week that the Saudis are "wonderful allies in this war against terrorists," it was clearly understood by all parties that Card’s words were directed less at the Saudi regime than they were at the American public. Card was not offering the Saudis a vote of confidence so much as he was trying to quell anti-Saudi sentiment here at home. In this case, the medium — the national press — was most certainly the message.

With this in mind, we have to ask what the hell Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon was up to this week when he said of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, "I am sorry that we did not kill him." The Israelis have, of course, been stepping up their anti-Arafat rhetoric for weeks now. But to talk about killing him? It’s one thing to harbor such a sentiment in one’s heart, or even to say it in private, but it’s another thing entirely to say it in a newspaper interview. Was this the Israeli PM’s way of indicating that he wants Arafat dead now? Indeed, these words could easily be read as a call to action for would-be assassins. Little wonder, then, that Sharon’s aides scrambled to make a public statement of their own: "[We] have a decision by the government not to harm [Arafat].... This policy will not be violated."

Tricky things, these meta-messages. On Thursday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech at Washington’s National Defense University, in which he told the audience (and the nation) that the events of September 11 were a walk in the park compared to what might be coming next. Citing evidence picked from the rubble of Al Qaeda’s infrastructure in Afghanistan, Rumsfeld warned that "attacks will grow vastly more deadly than those we suffered several months ago."

Was Rumsfeld merely reminding us to remain strong and vigilant in the face of an ongoing threat, or was he giving a stump speech for the administration’s recently announced proposal to beef up next year’s defense budget by $48 billion? Given the timing of the speech, the venue, and the fact that there were no specific threats named, you don’t have to be a die-hard cynic to conclude the latter is the case. Recent American characterizations of the Abu Sayef rebels in the Philippines as "parasites" were even more transparent in their intent (you do not capture parasites — you kill them).

Far more perplexing was President Bush’s decision to use the most public of public forums — Tuesday’s State of the Union address — to label North Korea, Iran, and Iraq "the Axis of Evil." For one thing, Bush’s use of the word "Axis" was clearly meant to evoke the World War II alliance of Japan, Germany, and Italy. This was an unfortunate choice of imagery — and not only because the idea of any alliance between North Korea, Iran, and Iraq is patently absurd. The fact is that while the administration might indeed have legitimate concerns about these regimes posing a threat to US security, using such bellicose language in public conveys a message that goes far beyond such concerns.

Spokesmen for the tripartite Axis responded to Bush’s speech with a mixture of outrage and defiance — the Iraqis called it "stupid," the Iranians called it "arrogant," and the North Koreans called it "reckless" — how could they do otherwise? The North Koreans went on to say that Bush’s comments amounted to "declaring a war" against the Pyongyang regime. While North Korean officials are known for their use of shrill, over-the-top rhetoric, this time they had a point.

Bush’s "Axis of Evil" line — like Bush senior’s "line in the sand" during the Gulf War and Winston Churchill’s withering characterization of Hitler’s regime as a "grisly gang who work your wicked will" — amounted to far, far more than an expression of official displeasure. A nation can issue the most strongly worded warnings in diplomatic pouches — that is, in private — and still maintain the potential for negotiated settlements. Say this stuff in public, though, and you reduce everyone’s wiggle room dramatically. In any case, it’s a fair bet we won’t be hearing the words, "Okay, Mr. President, we’re sorry, it won’t happen again" any time soon.

Despite subsequent — and hastily delivered — assurances from the administration that the president’s words do not point to any imminent military action, Bush’s speech clearly amounted to a rallying cry, even a call to arms. The problem with such a move, however, is that we cannot afford to go to war with North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld knows this. Colin Powell knows it. Hell, even George W. Bush knows it. Moreover, at a time when the world is growing less sympathetic to the US’s War on Terror, Bush’s chest-thumping rhetoric on Tuesday made America sound like a bullying, imperious aggressor.

And yet, in the days following his speech, Bush did nothing to distance himself from it. In fact, on Thursday the president ratcheted things up even more, saying, "They’ve been warned. They’re on notice. And I expect them to make the right decisions about being a peaceful nation." Or what — he’ll send them to their rooms without any supper? This is a dangerous approach to take with nations who are armed to the teeth with, as Bush pointed out in his speech, weapons of mass destruction.

No one ever called Osama bin Laden subtle. After all, there’s nothing diplomatic about slamming airliners into buildings. And yet, in his interview with Al-Jazeera, the Al Qaeda leader chose his words carefully. Responding to questions about his terrorist credentials, for instance, bin Laden said, "If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists." This response may seem Clintonian in its slipperiness, but at least it reveals an appreciation for the importance of nuanced and guarded public speech.

George W. Bush needs to learn that his increasingly belligerent war of words is not making the nation’s War on Terror any easier.