A political battle Bush is winning

The San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | 7/9/06 | Robert J. Caldwell

[LdSentinal]

Whether The New York Times damaged national security by disclosing a highly classified intelligence program monitoring terrorist financing is, of course, the overriding question in the debate over that newspaper's controversial revelation. But, inevitably, the issue raises another question that so far has gone largely unexamined: Who is winning the resulting political battle over the press and national security?

If it's President Bush, the administration and Republicans are being handed a potentially potent wedge issue. That could strengthen Bush's hand, not only in domestic political terms but in the far more important global struggle against a lethal terrorist enemy.

If, conversely, most Americans are siding with The New York Times, the anti-Bush press will be emboldened and an already beleaguered president further weakened.

This is more than merely a question of partisan political advantage. With the United States at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting a ruthless terrorist foe around the world, the political strength and standing of an American president and his administration are urgent matters. Strong leadership wins wars. Weakness at the top invites defeat.

So, what's the political score to date in what might be called the Bush vs. New York Times aftermath?

So far, Bush is winning, handily.

An Opinion Dynamics Corp. poll conducted for FOX News after the Times revealed the administration's secret tracking of terrorist financing resoundingly affirmed the Bush position.

First, 70 percent of those polled in this nationwide survey conducted over two days at the end of June supported tracking terrorist financing. That 70 percent included 83 percent of Republicans, 67 percent of independents and 58 percent of Democrats.

Not much room there for doubting that the public endorses Bush's follow-the-money strategy. The until-now secret operation that tracks terrorist financing is a joint operation by the Treasury Department and the Central Intelligence Agency that began soon after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

The same polling found that 60 percent of Americans believe that the Times' decision to reveal this secret intelligence program “did more to help terrorist groups like al-Qaeda” than to “help the American public.” This damning, for The New York Times, conclusion was held by 84 percent of Republicans, 53 percent of independents and 42 percent of Democrats.

For the Times and its editors, the most stinging poll result of all was what respondents thought should be done about media organizations that “report and publish information about national security secrets that may make it easier for terrorists to operate.” Two of every three respondents – 84 percent of Republicans, 58 percent of independents and 55 percent of Democrats – believe that those news organizations should “face criminal charges.”

Bush and the administration won't go that far, obviously. But the poll results on this question stand as a stunning rebuke to a smug media elite that self-righteously cloaks itself in the First Amendment and, many believe, disdains its civic responsibility in time of war.

Bush also won a political endorsement from the House of Representatives, which voted 227 to 183 for a resolution condemning disclosure of the terrorist financing surveillance. While this was a largely party-line vote, Democrats offered an alternative that backed monitoring terrorist financing and expressed concern about the leaking of classified information.

No comfort there either for The New York Times.

Now step back from the immediate firestorm over revelation of the administration's surveillance of international terrorist financing.

Is Bush holding his own or better in the parallel controversy over The New York Times' disclosure last December of the National Security Agency's secret surveillance of communications between overseas terrorists and their contacts inside the United States? The NSA's practice of instantly tracking these foreign-source communications without waiting for court-ordered warrants, or obtaining them retroactively, made the program hotly controversial.

No one defended the legality or necessity of the NSA's surveillance more ardently than Gen. Michael Hayden, the former NSA director who conducted the program and later became a principal intelligence adviser to Bush.

When Bush subsequently nominated Hayden to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Times, citing Hayden's role in the NSA surveillance, vigorously opposed his nomination on its editorial page. Thus, the Senate's confirmation vote on Hayden's nomination became yet another political test of strength between Bush and his media critics.

Bush won, easily. The Senate voted 78-15 to confirm Hayden as CIA director.

Meanwhile, senators of both political parties are exploring ways to modernize the warrant process and affirm the legality of the NSA's foreign/domestic surveillance of terrorist communications.

What does the public think? Poll results vary but a Washington Post/ABC News poll last May found 63 percent favoring the NSA surveillance operation. Congressional critics have fallen silent and Hayden has long since moved into his CIA office. The NSA surveillance program continues and almost no one is calling for it to be stopped.

The Bush administration isn't having much luck in persuading the Times and other press critics not to publish highly classified information central to preventing future terrorist attacks. But Bush is clearly winning the political debates that then ensue, and for good reason. Most Americans recognize that stopping the next 9/11 before it happens requires aggressive intelligence gathering, and keeping those operations secret.

Bush is making that case persuasively to the public even if some in the press imagine that they know better.

[Cicero]

So, 70 percent support tracking terrorist activities. That means, presumably, that 30 percent believe we should lay back and let terrorists do whatever they like.

Interesting. Once again, we get that figure of roughly one third of Americans who are so far lost to common sense and decency that they would vote left NO MATTER WHAT. These are the same third of the country who, it used to be said, would have sat and watched clinton rape a child on prime time TV and then would have gone to the polls and voted for him again.

[EQAndyBuzz]

All people have to do now is see who the NY Times endorses and vote the other way.

[reefdiver]

The line of the day from the press is that the wheels have come off the Bush policy. This similar theme is the front cover of Time, Buffalo News article, and Daily News. So while He has public backing the press doesn't get it.

[1035rep]

Bush is making that case persuasively to the public even if some in the press imagine that they know better.

Bttt

[Pox]

Oh, the press gets it alright, but they are more determined than ever to use whatever influence they have at their disposal to sway public opinion against President Bush and his policies, and all else be damned, even if it means the fall of America as a nation.

The media is the enemy. Terrorists and dictators/despots understand that their primary weapon against America is the MSM. It's so plainly obvious yet for some reason not openly discussed by the majority of Americans.

[Hartmann]

So far, Bush is winning, handily.

But wait - the NY Times has just begun to fight. In the NY Times Magazine for Sunday, 7/9/2006 there is an article - "A Check Against Fear" by Jonathan Mahler - in which the author puts forth the notion that a national debate must now take place on what the Bush administration is doing to conduct the war. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09wwln_lede.html?pagewanted=print

Quote: [After Hamdan] "we are at least assured of an admittedly overdue debate about the conduct of the war. Before Hamdan, that debate, such as it was, consisted of the executive branch telling us — or not telling us — how it was prosecuting the war and of the denunciations issued by the executive branch's critics. We were told that after 9/11, everything had changed — or that nothing had changed. Now that our fear will be tempered by hope [i.e., as promoted by a Supreme Court in defense of terrorists' rights], the real conversation can begin."

[upchuck]

Two of every three respondents – 84 percent of Republicans, 58 percent of independents and 55 percent of Democrats – believe that those news organizations should "face criminal charges."

Bush and the administration won't go that far, obviously.

I want to know why the He11 not?

Jane Fonda and John Kerry clearly committed treason during the Viet Nam war. And neither was prosecuted or even given a slap on the hand. This just emboldened those within that hate our country.

So we now have the NY Slimes running interference for Al-Qaeda. Disgusting that our government won't do anything about this. This lack of cojones will only encourage them to commit even more outrageous acts against our precious country.*

More from the article:

But the poll results on this question stand as a stunning rebuke to a smug media elite that self-righteously cloaks itself in the First Amendment and, many believe, disdains its civic responsibility in time of war.

That assertion is completely ridiculous! If you think Pinch and Bill give a rats ass about what we think about them, think again. They've been emboldened, remember? They "know" nothing will happen to them.

* Off topic but along the same thought, if we had deported criminal aliens when they first started coming into our country and if we had been locking up employers who hire this illegal debris, we would not have an "illegal alien" problem today.

Same principle applies to letting people and organizations get away with traitorous acts. Nip it in the bud. ACT, don't react.

And thank you for posting the entire article. Waaay to much unnecessary excerpting on FR these days.

[Defiant]

Time has declared "Mission Accomplished". Their editors should don flight suits today and strut around their patios. That is what they have been after ever since Bush won the Iraq war in a few weeks with only a few hundred killed.

We did win the war, we won all of Iraq. An insurgency ensued, one that was encouraged by the media and which would not be ongoing were it not for the continued hope by the terrorists that if they can just keep killing a few Americans a week, they can get us to eventually leave. There is no military benefit to killing one soldier and then skulking away, but there is a reason to if you have a propaganda arm in the US.

In spite of having to fight the US media, and in spite of their self-proclaimed victory over Bush, the insurgency will be won too. By the end of this year, we will have below 100,000 troops in Iraq. By the end of 2007, it will be fewer. Iraqis will get a handle on the insurgency by being a little more brutal than we are. You will start seeing stories about the "puppet government" we installed doing bad things, and the MSM will use that as a reason to try to get us out of there. But we will maintain a large presence through the remainder of Bush's term, and then 2008 will decide whether we will finish this war the right way, or bugger out like in Vietnam. I think the people will not want to let Iraq fall to the terrorists, and I think that the GOP candidate will win. Watch for that 3rd party gambit, though. It's Hillary's best chance.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

There is a book,:

Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left (Hardcover)

*******************************

And a review:

****************************************

Communism is dead. Long live Islam!, September 30, 2004

Reviewer:

Kevin Beckman (Sacramento, CA) - See all my reviews

It sounds absurd: why would Leftists make common cause with a religion that is diametrically opposed to everything the Left stands for? David Horowitz explains that it is really quite logical given the Left's first principle: America is evil and anything or anyone opposed to America is good.

Part I of the book is a brief history of 9/11 through the end of major combat operations in Iraq, and the Left's behavior during this time. Horowitz includes the reaction of Katha Pollitt of The Nation magazine: "The flag stands for vengeance, and jingoism, and war." Anthropology Professor Nicholas De Genova of Columbia University said he hoped for "a million Mogadishus." His colleagues objected, not to the despicable sentiment, but because of the bad publicity it brought their "teach-in." Our tax dollars at work!

Part II is the heart of the book: a history of the American and international Left. Horowitz calls them Neo-Communists or Neocoms. The Neocoms of old believed in the Soviet Union the way religious people believe in God. Those who spied for the USSR didn't see themselves as traitors to their country, but rather loyalists to humanity and an ideal of America that's never existed. When the Soviet Union fell, a few of them stopped for some introspection but most pressed on as if nothing happened. Communist historian Eric Hobsbawm put it nicely: "Without the Revolution, my life and my work are meaningless."

Now that they no longer have to defend an indefensible regime, modern Neocoms are simply nihilists. They know what they oppose but they have no plans for the aftermath of the revolution which they still believe will happen. They don't know what they want, but they know what they hate: the United States, capitalism personified.

So why are they allying with radical Islam? Horowitz says that the Neocoms still believe in Marx's dictum that "religion is the opiate of the masses." Once private property is abolished, the need for religion will vanish, and Islamic radicals will stop being Islamic and radical. The only thing standing in the way is the United States.

Sound insane? It is. They are. I highly recommend this book. Horowitz makes the insanity understandable.

[edsheppa]

The Administration does not take these leaks seriously and is using them only for psyops or political purposes (or, more probably, both). I therefore don't take them seriously either.

[pollyannaish]

Oh yeah, that is going to score them a LOT of points.

Sheesh. What dolts. We debated it...and we voted the man back into office. Or did you miss the little thing called the Presidential election we had almost two years ago.

They aren't even reporting news any more. They are trying to spin HISTORY.

[imskylark]

I think the press may help us win but the Dems are starting to self destruct. Not many Americans take kindly to them accusing our servicemembers of crimes before any investigation and trial has taken place.

[Defiant]

I am familiar with this book. I'll have to add it to my list on Amazon. I enjoy Horowitz' work very much. He's my favorite ex-communist, more astute although not as funny as Hitchens.

[Hartmann]

did you miss the little thing called the Presidential election we had almost two years ago.

Gee, if you hadn't told me about that I would never have known it.

The article was presenting the writer's view of the effects of the Hamdan decision, which just occurred recently (after the Presidential election).

[GretchenM]

marker

[pollyannaish]

are at least assured of an admittedly overdue debate about the conduct of the war.

I was actually clumsily responding to this little snippet you quoted. The last election was a debate on the conduct of the war. That debate culminated in President Bush and his team being reelected.

What irritates me, is not that we have to revisit our decision to see how it is going, or adjust strategy based on new situations (the Hamdan decision) but that news outlets such as the NYT continually act as if the discussion on the conduct of the war has never taken place.

IT HAS. Pretending as if it has not because the outcome of that discussion was different than they like is strange and disingenuous and oddly disconnected from reality. It's like Cindy Sheehan saying no one ever pays any attention to her.

Another "discussion" will take place this fall. And I actually agree with the original article that the President is winning on this. After the November elections, when we actually pick up seats, the press (Especially the NYT) is going to continue the drumbeat about the long overdue need for a debate about the conduct of the war. Frankly, it's ridiculous.

I hope that clarifies my position. Sometimes the NYT drives me to inarticulate distraction. No, wait, make that ALL the time. : D.

[pollyannaish]

BTW, the snarky comment was aimed at the NYT. Sorry for the confusion.

[Hartmann]

Thanks for the clarification.

I have exactly the same reaction to the NY Times as you do. What bugs me the most is their assumption that their readers have an attention deficit disorder and won't remember what the NY Times reported even a few days ago (even in a column of the same reporter who is doing the reporting now).

[Wheee The People]

So far, Bush is winning, handily.

The American people are winning, not Bush. But it's gonna be very hard to unring the bell. The damage has been done.

[pollyannaish]

I agree. They are a prime example of what happens when a drowning person starts thrashing around in the water.

But hey! Most of their "readers" probably don't notice. Only us " non-readers." LOL.

[Southack]

Good article. Thanks for posting.

[Hartmann]

Most of their "readers" probably don't notice.

No, they don't. I think we're dealing with a pseudo-religious cult to whom facts, logic, and history are irrelevant. I know some readers who get all their "news" from NY Times editorials and only object when they think the editorials are too "tame." The NY Times knows its audience and gives them what they want.

[pollyannaish]

Yes. Ironically however, that audience seems to be dwindling. Or perhaps diversifying.

Interesting days in the newspaper business to be sure.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Who is winning the resulting political battle over the press and national security?...If it's President Bush, the administration and Republicans are being handed a potentially potent wedge issue."

The problem is that to exploit it, the President has to show that he is doing something about it. Otherwise, the Rats are going to ask the same question already asked here on FR: If treason by the Times is so infuriating, why aren't they being prosecuted? How's the GOP position the 'wedge' without that? "Vote for Republicans so the AG will do his job?" We did, he won't.