After months of absorbing the hammer blows of his political enemies regarding pre-war Iraq intel, the Bush Administration abandoned its “rope-a-dope” strategy and came out swinging:
“It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began,” Bush said as he used a Veterans Day address here to lash out at critics. “These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.” Democrats retaliated with a barrage of statements accusing the president of skewing the facts, just as they maintain he did in the run-up to the invasion of March 2003.Although the two sides have long skirmished over the war, the sharp tenor Friday resembled an election-year campaign more than a policy disagreement. In a rare move, Bush in his speech took a direct swipe at last year’s opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), while the White House issued an unusual campaign-style memo attacking Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman followed with a speech blistering 10 Democrats for “political doublespeak.”
The problem with the “rope-a-dope” strategy – where the boxer hangs on the ropes allowing his opponent to exhaust himself by throwing too many punches – is that it doesn’t work in politics in the media age. The sad fact for the President and, by extension, the United States of America, is that the Big Lie about pre-war Iraq intel has had a huge head start to get established in the public mind. This makes Democratic counterattacks seem reasonable in that by continuing to repeat the lies, they appear to be still on the offensive . As usual, Goldstein opens the wrapper and reveals the nougat center of the candy bar:
Let’s hope this augurs the beginning of a strong and concerted administration pushback against the scurrilous charges being leveled by many of his political opponents. Pointedly, Bush used the term “some Democrats†to label those opponents—a designation that I believe is important, because it signals that the partisan gloves are about to come off, and that Democratic leaders who have been making strong public accusations questioning the honesty and good faith of the administration (I’m looking at you Harry and Howard and Nancy) are about to be forcefully challenged on those claims.
This also gets to the question of credibility. Because the Administration has allowed itself to be used as a punching bag on so many issues – Iraq, Katrina response, Plamegate to name a couple – Bush’s approval ratings have dropped like a stone along with the question of whether or not people both trust and believe him. Right now, it appears that outside of his base Republican support of around 40-45% of the electorate, Bush has overwhelmingly lost the confidence of the 20-25% of centrists. And unless the Administration puts on a full court press over the next 12 months, they may find themselves in real danger of losing control of the Senate in 2006, although the House of Representatives is probably secure.
Losing the Senate would be a disaster for the Republicans. With Harry Reid as Majority Leader, very little of the people’s business would get done. Instead, Democratic committee chairmen would be hauling Administration witnesses before their committees as fake “investigations” would proliferate like moonbats at a Cindy Sheehan campout. Before you could say “No blood for oil,” Haliburton execs would be in the Senatorial dock listening as Democrats asked questions like “How many times a day do you beat your wife?”
It was more than past time that the President called the critics out on their lies – sick and cruel lies; lies which merely encourage the enemy to kill more people, including more American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. There is not the slightest truth in the anti-war criticism – each and every assertion they have made about pre-war intelligence and the course of the war in Iraq has been false from the start. I am sick and tired of it – and I’m glad that the President is sick and tired of it.
While Mark is correct in his assertion that there is not truth in the left’s criticism of how pre-war Iraq intel was handled, I must part company with Mr. Noonan when he talks about criticism of “the course of the war” in the same breath. Clearly, there is much to criticize and critique regarding the Administration’s plans and actions following the fall of Saddam. If there was a modicum of good faith from the left, their criticisms in this regard may have even been seen as helpful. As it stands, railing against the President for not having enough troops on the ground or for our detention policies, or for how we underestimated the strength of the insurgency rings hollow when coming from people whose intent is not to the improve the situation but to bring down the President.
Along those lines, Tigerhawk has a fascinating post about the proper role of criticism in a time of what he terms a “limited” war:
Assuming, arguendo, that anti-war dissent does give aid and comfort to the enemy (I discuss why this must be so later in the post), are there types of dissent that more efficiently balance the benefit (robust public debate about a topic as momentous as the war) with the costs (the sending of signals that embolden the enemy and demoralize our own soldiers) than other types? If so, are these more efficient methods or arguments of dissent more moral or legitimate than methods or arguments that do little to advance the debate but do relatively more damage to the American war effort? These are the questions that interest me.
I’m not sure the concept of “limited” war is applicable in this case. The war is engaging most of the men and material in our military. It is perhaps “limited” as opposed to “total” war, but nevertheless it is defined this way because the President and the Administration have chosen to define it thusly.
I have on more than one occasion take the President to task for his abject failure in not only defending his policies but also repeating the rationale for going to war in the first place. To get bogged down at this point in defending how the decision to take the United States to war was made is indicative of the problems the Administration has with credibility. Of course, this would have been unnecessary if the Bush team had beaten down these scurrilous charges when they first started to gain traction in the aftermath of the election.
In effect, Bush has tried to fight this war by trying to keep it off the front pages and in the back of the American people’s minds. By not constantly defending his policies and shooting down conspiracy theories, he has allowed the Democrats to maintain the single most important advantage in any political campaign; they have been able to set the agenda for discussion based on their talking points. The question in most people’s minds isn’t did Bush lie but rather how much he lied.
I’m afraid this will make it virtually impossible for the President to make much of a dent in people’s attitude toward how we came to be involved in Iraq. This problem will fester until the last American combat troops leave.
11:21 am
Bush Forcefully Attacks Iraq Critics
President Bush, in the most forceful defense yet of his Iraq war policy, accused critics Friday of t
11:36 am
While the Democrats and the MSM have been busy with the “Bush lied to get us into war” meme, the Iraq war has continued apace and is on track, it seems to me, to be pretty well wrapped up by summer next year. How will the Democratic-MSM fiction play once the war in Iraq is reduced to mop-up and our troops are coming home? Bush seems to me to be letting time take care of the Democratic-MSM charade. There is nothing to be gained for him by getting into the gutter with them. The only way to disprove their lies is for events to overwhelm them.
11:41 am
I am surprised that you do not recognize the similarilty of Bush’s attacks to those of the last failed Republican, Nixon, who spent far too long attacking his critics as treasonous and too little time trying to solve the problems he faced. We know where this ‘bunker mentality’ led Nixon. The signs are equally strong for Bush. His staff is mutinous. Key members are under criminal investigation. His public reasoning for war is questioned, correctly. And he has taken to attacks on individuals’ motivation instead of facts.
He was wrong to take the US into war in Iraq. The threat he wanted to see was not there. And the benefit was ephemeral: Iraq was not part of any funding stream to al-Quaida. At all the key point Bush ignored good judgment and pressed ahead, selecting intelligence, trimming arguments, and believing ideologues. Now that he is in a corner his only strategy is a broad brush swing at his critics trying to Rove them away with nasty threats and scurrilous charges.
It might matter if anyone believed that Bush really cared much at all about any of this, but his demonstrated beliefs are mostly about his own status and very little about the country, none about the world. This is a fundamentally selfish and small minded man.
11:54 am
BB:
To be so blinded by hate and outright ignorance, I pity you. Every single point you made has been refuted several times, including bipartisan committees in Congress, the 9/11 Commission, the Duelfur Report, and the Butler Commission in Great Britain.
To persist in believing in these fantasies takes an extra special dose of delusional thinking…something historians will wonder about 100 years from now when studying the irrational fantasists who oppose Bush now.
1:48 pm
Apollyon, that’s right! Dazzle ‘em with your sticks and stones if your quick wit doesn’t get em first. No wait; that’s the other way around I think.
3:51 pm
Didn’t Bush learn anything from the Clinton administration? Clinton had a permanent war room set up to provide immediate response to any criticism. Look at Kerry and the Swift Boat Vets; Kerry dithered and allowed himself to be defined by them. In politics you have to put out a counter-definition immediately.
4:15 pm
1) No “
!” either. What was I thinking? I apologize for the misrepresentation.
2) Did he? I can neither confirm nor deny.
3) Sure. Along with conservative cowards Dick Cheney (five times), Donald Rumsfeld (during Korea, though he found time to serve between wars), Dick Armey, Trent Lott, Bill Bennett, George Will (methinks not sorely missed), John Ashcroft, and thousands more—unless only liberals went to college between ‘65-’73.
4:45 pm
Yesterday, the man they call the videoconferencing el Presidente delivered his long-awaited Veterans Day speech on the fight against terrorism at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania- see link to official Federal News Service transcript below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/international/11bush-transcript.html
This turned out to be a fascinating speech full of true-blue Trotskyite/Noecon clichés about the eventual collapse of the Islamic Al-Qaeda “system†from the burden of “its internal contradictions†and the firm presidential belief that its leaders will soon be “joining the dustbins of historyâ€â€¦beyond the irony of listening to a right-wing Republican leader using 19th century vintage Marxist metaphors, Dubya’s delivery was clearly below (his own already sub-par) personal average, and the rehearsed hurrahs sounded less enthusiastic than usual- maybe because Karl and Scooter were busy elsewhere and didn’t have enough time to prepare properly for this staged show of martial masculinity.
Anyway, the following 2 points in Bush’s speech caught my attention as they perfectly capture the essence of “Neo-conservative†Pharisaic propaganda:
1) “…the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governmentsâ€
This type of talk is particularly racist and offensive: 1.4 billion Muslims around the world will be glad to learn that the US government has officially segmented them into two broad categories: “Radical/Al-Qaeda types†and “Non-radical Muslims†[sic]
2) “…our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of lifeâ€
That’s an outright lie, which has been propagandized on a massive scale since September 11th 2001 by Wolfowitz, Perl, Libby, Sharon, Cheney & Co.
As veteran Middle-East experts such as former senior CIA officer Michael Scheuer have said repeatedly, this canard about “Bin Laden’s alleged desire to shatter the American way of life†was (and still is) the ultimate justification of the invasion of Iraq…simply because it was “market-tested†extensively by the White House and proved to fly well with focus groups and folks in the heartland.
See link below for more on Mike Scheuer’s sharp criticism of the Bush administration
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/12/60minutes/main655407.shtml
Dubya’s mass repetition of the same failed arguments ad nauseam now threatens to unmask the dirty secrets of Neocon statecraft: in the future, he should keep his advanced Pharisaic talking points algorithm under wraps lest he reveal his intellectual edge to the enemies of freedom/democracy/Zion/McDonalds burgers/Philadelphia cheese/Alabama banana pudding/you name your favorite American dish and call the PR & Public Information Management department at the Israeli embassy in Houston so they can add it to the list of heartland gastronomic liberties that constitute the bedrock of culinary freedom on which this great nation was built!
We won’t let Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein destroy our way of life with their poisonous Gallic Gaullist soufflés and other radioactive “yellow cakes†cum hummus sauce cooked in the dirty Baathist/terrorist/evil/satanic/Islamo-fascist kitchens of Damascus and Tickrit.
Vive le Liberty!
Vive el Presidente!
4:47 pm
I think “Too Little, Too Late” is decidedly premature. Clearly, if Bush does not continue with frequent counterattacks, he and his party will suffer dearly. On the other hand, now that the Democrat mantra is reduced a few words repeated by dolts like Kennedy, Kerry and Sheehan, there is plenty of time to shoot back at a well-defined target and at least cripple it. Time will tell.
BTW: dmrsunz is good comic relief.
So much hubris, so little talent. My favorite in this thread: he criticizes another poster’s debating skills by posting a laughably flawed argument in reply with poor diction and simple words mispelled (not typos).
5:14 pm
Mryhaf: great point.
Finally a weary Bush has decided to respond. A little like Gary Cooper in High Noon.
He’ll need to keep at it, and to be persistent – it won’t be easy.
5:23 pm
Dmrsunz,
I guess you missed my point altogether. Granted, I should have made my “campus†question clearer for you. It was liberals who put this policy [deferment] in place so that the option was available to defer service. And this option was taken advantage by all Americans who attended college. However, it was a Republican administration that abolished this policy forcing the silver spooned brat from Vermont having too fight along side the white boy driving 18 wheelers from Texas. Don’t forget it was a Republican that ended the war in Vietnam which was started by a Democrat; albeit a Democrat who would clearly be considered a Republican in today’s political atmosphere.
Dr. Victorino,
Go get yourself fitted for a burka. Or you can do what they do in many Crapistans throughout the Middle East. Find a 7th century couscous bag and cut out some eye holes. You’ll look like your average muslim woman. Oh how those enlightened Mohammedan cultists treat their women. If only those neanderthal conservatives were as kind. I hear it’s calming down in France. The molotov throwing paristinians are only burning 400 cars a night now. What did you think of that display of muslim courage a week ago in France when some bottom feeding Algerian jihadis set an elderly woman on fire? Are we to tolerate this under the banner of multiculturalism?
5:25 pm
*in today’s political [climate].
8:42 pm
Rick: I’ve always assumed the White House was engaged in more of a ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘love thy enemy’ acceptance of the anti-war criticism. As you rightfully note, ‘rope-a-dope’ is at least a strategy, which implies there will come a time to cease dancing away from conflict.
I won’t be convinced that one speech demonstrates understanding of the strategic need to counter domestic disinformation until the Administration shows me a continuing willingness to engage his domestic critics. Turning the other cheek is a legitimate way to demonstrate submission to earthly authority, but it is inappropriate when you are the earthly authority. Especially when engaged in battle with the idea that divine authority permits the killing of innocent humans.
1:00 am
I just loved Dubya’s bald face lie that critics had the same access to intel he did. He pulled 92 Senator’s security clearances in Oct. of 2001 out of concern over “leaks”.
He can spout all he wants, everyone with a brain knows what is up.
http://www.thinkprogress.org/2005/07/26/bush-pulls-security/
8:53 am
Had he started doing this last May when the MSM/DNC started again giving us Wilson’s lies as facts; and recountered each time the MSM/DNC put the lies out as facts, his pol #’s would be better than they have been the last 4 months. Not he 50-52% approval he had before the Roberts move but a lot better than 34-36% he has in Nov.
9:14 am
Brunch: 11/13/2005
Try one of these specials with your brunch:
Sigmund, Carl and Alfred look at the City Alight Of Light
Outside the Beltway looks at trouble in France
Blogs for Bush looks at the truth about White Phosphorous
Confederate Yankee has more on White P…
10:16 am
We dont need talkers. Why is enlistment down with 60 million bush voters out there? This is a call for you chickenhawks to get off your butts and fight.
6:04 pm
To all you wimpy whiny leftists liberals I present this classic Patton speech
http://www.rightwingnews.com/speeches/patton.php
You’ll know where in the speech Patton is refering to you. Enjoy!!
7:42 pm
[...] EM
GOING DOWN FIGHTINGHOW NASA WILL GET BACK TO THE MOONCARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS #21TOO LITTLE, TOO LAT [...]
3:10 pm
Interpreting Poll Numbers
With the President’s approval rating dipping as low as 34% in some polls, many Conservatives are worried about how the Republican Party will fare in the 2006 elections. These polls – even on the off-chance they’re accurate – don’t tell the whole st…
5:37 pm
Interpreting Poll Numbers
With the President’s approval rating dipping as low as 34% in some polls, many Conservatives are worried about how the Republican Party will fare in the 2006 elections. These polls – even on the off-chance they’re accurate – don’t tell the whole …