This is new: The President dared to defend his presentation of pre-war intelligence and call out those who would, for political advantage, twist the facts and history of events leading up to the war in Iraq. I say for political advantage, because no serious politician on either side of the aisle is currently agitating for a “cut and run” style of withdrawal and even though the President himself is not up for re-election next year. Put another way, even conceding arguendo that pre-war intelligence was in some way improperly cherry-picked so as to hoodwink credulous politicians in the legislature, no one in a position of authority would now agitate for immediate withdrawal – the attitude remains one of, “We broke it, now we have to fix it.”
So, if the debate about pre-war intelligence is not going to change policy on the ground, and the President is not up for re-election, what’s the point of raking through all of this over and over again? Oh, they have their reasons. And for the record, please note: I’m not against raking the leaves to find ground truth. I just don’t like it much when people try to use the rakes to cover their tracks.
Politics cuts both ways though, and having had enough of people lying on the record to call him a liar, the President no doubt hoped to put some of his critics on the other side of the aisle on the defensive by his speech in Pennsylvania. In response, many of those selfsame critics were restricted to sputtering, indignant, incomprehensible burblings, having been well-hoisted on the petard of their own statements for the record. But, politics being a game with at least two teams, it was only a matter of time before the shuttlecock of political badminton was batted back again across the net by the Democratic Party.
Which now appears to take corporeal manifestation in the form of WaPo columnist E.J. Dionne, and the Boston Globe‘s Thomas Oliphant. Oliphant, who bestirs himself from the fetid miasmas of the pub corner reserved for lunatic uncles, chiefly fashions his responses out of such cloth as “Oh, yeah?” and “No one thinks that’s true anymore!” and as such is quickly dispensed with.
But Dionne elevates the debate on politicizing the war with the time-honored tactic of “And you’re another!”
The bad faith of Bush’s current argument is staggering. He wants to say that the “more than a hundred Democrats in the House and Senate” who “voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power” thereby gave up their right to question his use of intelligence forever after. But he does not want to acknowledge that he forced the war vote to take place under circumstances that guaranteed the minimum amount of reflection and debate, and that opened anyone who dared question his policies to charges, right before an election, that they were soft on Hussein.
We are left to understand from Dionne that the President’s deciding to defend his decision to go to war from political attack is somehow impermissibly political. Having digested that, we are asked to swallow the idea that he somehow slipped those deliberations on the war itself into the national political cycle, thereby making them political. It all makes my head hurt – if only 9/11 had occurred on an off year!
For examples to demonstrate the President’s pre-war, election year arm-twisting, we are offered something said by Congressman Steve Pearce in his critical 2nd district, New Mexico 2002 election race, as well as musings by then-RNC chair Marc Racicot on the late, great ?ɬ
Cap’n
Read TigerHawk’s site:
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/11/ted-kennedy-sandbags-cold-feet.html
Can’t believe this solon gets reelected every 6 years. Can’t believe the interviewer didn’t administer the coup de gras.
If you haven’t yet, check out Froggy’s rather pointed and unvarnished thoughts on the subject: http://froggyruminations.blogspot.com/2005/11/liberals-are-unpatriotic.html
Froggy’s probably got a point there, it has become hard for Democrats to seperate their visceral loathing for the President from objective discussion of the real issues at stake in Iraq.
John Dean is the worst of the offenders in my opinion and it will continue to hinder the Democrats from making any type of a real comeback until they get rid of these guys and get some quality people in their leadership.
For examples to demonstrate the President?ɬ
For examples to demonstrate the President’s pre-war, election year arm-twisting, we are offered something said by Congressman Steve Pearce in his critical 2nd district
Weird. It’s my understanding that NM-2 is a Republican lock, just as NM-1 is a gimme for the Democrats. It’s Heather Wilson(R) in 3 that’s the tossup.
Lex,
Would you explain to me again why you are working on some kind of technical nerd Master’s degree instead of going for a PhD in writing so you are qualified to pass your wonderful gift on to others…
Well, Skip – it looks like the Senate Republicans are getting a little wobbly too.
Tom – I reckon I should have placed an irony tag somewhere about that “critical NM 2nd district” thing. Although every race is important, I didn’t really think of that one as critical…
Babs – thanks for the sentiments. And as for the other, well – they’s more money in it!
I agree with fbl that Froggy’s post (Lex linked to it too)is bedrock. Especially the last para.
I ain’t a rabid partisan but all the obsfuscator’s “lies” are documented here:
http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx?s=video
This ain’t rocket science to figure out…
Lex, the wobblies have me concerned now..they are the ones who will sink the ship….simply no guts.
B2
Couldn’t the wobblers be having genuine doubts? Especially as they are working through the budget right now and seeing how many of the war costs are being stashed in other parts of the budget, ( and thus being hidden from the total cost). Some of these guys are not wackos but folks with records solidly within the party…..
John McCain is doing a good thing and he has yet to not defend the president on the war, but he is acting….well, like a legislator.
I wanted to add something on the “polling figures showing that the decision to go to war is now disapproved by 57% of the populace”. I think the media likes to tout these numbers because it gives them a feeling of success. It’s not the war that’s failing, it’s a symbol of the media’s ability to persuade. After all, you’d hardly hear them saying, “Almost half the nation thinks we and our newspapers are full of crap.”
That’s just my two cents – polling equals people’s changed beliefs as the numbers rise or lower. Those changes are often based on the information they are receiving, and how credible they find it.
Maybe, Skip – I think the tactic was designed to forestall a vote on a worse bill put forth by the other side. The downside is that this becomes the new de facto line of resistance, and meanwhile the voices of defeat play race-you-to-the-bottom. Can’t win that way.
Think you’re on to something, Holly – it’s a kind of validation for their efforts over the last two years. Can’t blame them entirely though, the media plays what sells, and as a nation we’ve come to prefer our stories full of drama and disaster rather than the “patient accumulation of successes.”
[...] Update: I’m just too tired of E.J. Dionne’s uninformed, ridiculous opinions to take Dusty’s challenge up in the manner of the good Captain Lex. Let me be terse and say that a search on this site for “information warfare” or a look at Cori Dauber’s or Jason Van Steenwyk’s will get the point across. [...]