Debating tips for W (seriously!)

If you want to win the war of words, don't deliberately enhance your opponent's reputation among his would-be followers.

Every time W cites al Qaeda as the meanest, baddest boy on the block, bin Laden gets publicity he couldn't ever hope to buy:
"See - I'm the meanest, baddest boy on the block - even the President of the U.S. says so! Y'all oughta join my gang!"

The same observation applies to Iran's Ahmadinejad.
Every time W cites Iran as the next meanest, baddest boy on the block, Ahmadinejad's credibility and prestige are enhanced.

In a rational world, these guys are flies - maybe tsetse flies, but flies, nonetheless.

Citing 'em in speech after speech as the most dangerous threat to Western Civilization that has ever existed does nothing except enhance their reputations among their constituents. They are now not flies, but important men on the world stage. They terrify America!

I don't mean to imply that bin Laden & Ahmadinejad ought be ignored, only that the attention W gives in speech after speech is really not helpful.

I'd prefer that W devote his time to reducing these guys' influence. So far I've seen no evidence that this notion holds W's interest - it's a lot cooler to talk tough and strut!

Stop the madness!