THe Full Frontal Assault (Dems in Full Attack Mode - Wash Post, NY Times, CBS Coordinate Attacks)

RealClearPolitics.com ^ | 3/22/04 | Tom Bevan

[NYC Republican]

I don't recall seeing a more well-orchestrated, well-timed, full frontal assault on a political figure than what we're seeing the Democrats do to President Bush right now. Forget references to Richard Clarke as "a Reagan appointee," that's nothing but window dressing.

Democrats are well aware that President Bush's most favorable political attribute is his determined pursuit of the War on Terror. Approval for his leadership in the War on Terror remains well above sixty percent and he holds a substantial lead lead over John Kerry on the issue.

For Kerry to have any chance at all of winning in November, Democrats know they have to destroy Bush's standing as a War President and they have to do it fast - before the Bush team can plant the image in the public's mind that John Kerry is soft on national security.

To accomplish this daunting task, Democrats have resorted not just to an argument of process (i.e. Bush has made progress battling terrorism but would be doing a better job if not for mistakes X, Y & Z) but have coalesced around what I would call "The Big Lie:" that Bush is and has always been soft on terror.

Here is the anatomy of the assault. Paul Krugman launched the attack last week (duly noted on this very blog) accusing Bush of being "weak on terror." Matt Yglesias followed up shortly thereafter repeating the Big Lie in The American Prospect online - saying on his blog, ironically enough, that the only problem with Krugman's effort was that "he's just not shrill enough about it."

The attacked moved into high speed over the weekend. Leading up to his testimony before the 9/11 commission, Richard Clarke appeared on 60 Minutes and laid into Bush. There was no discussion of the terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration, no critical analysis of how the previous administration's response (or lack thereof) to those events may played a role in changing Clarke's mind about the urgent nature of the threat posed by al-Qaeda. Nothing but blame for Bush.

Meanwhile, on the other side of town former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta got his hands on internal FBI and DoJ budgetary memos showing the Bush administration not fully acceeding to the FBI's request for an additional $1.5 billion funding for counter terrorism. Podesta leaked the documents to Dana Milbank at the Washington Post, who wrote the story up today on page A6 in a tone not much different from the partisan hit job that appeared on the Center for American Progress' own web site.

We've got The New York Times, CBS News and The Washington Post flooding the zone with interviews featuring and talking points distributed by former Clinton officials. And liberals complain that Fox News is a pipeline for the RNC? At least Condi Rice got a chance to respond on the WaPo op-ed page.

The question is whether Richard Clarke's dog can hunt. I don't think it's necessarily fair to paint him as just a "disgruntled employee" but it is fair to note that he's out to try and sell books. I will say this: I can understand that someone who's job is to walk around and bang the drums about terrorism all day might get good and upset when people don't give him the attention he thinks he deserves.

The truth of the matter is that Clarke wanted to push the same plan (actually it wasn't even a cohesive plan but a set of ideas) already rejected by his former bosses in the Clinton administration, that I believe included trying to assissinate Osama bin Laden and forcibly remove the Taliban.

Given the way we've seen liberals react to George Bush's aggressive handling of the War on Terror, I think it's fair to say we would have had a national vein-popping epidemic on our hands if Bush had said to Clarke in early 2001, "you're absolutely right Dick, OBL is an imminent threat to our national security and we need to preemptively bomb the piss out of Afghanistan, invade the country and take him out."

That's what is so ridiculous (and audacious) about this entire ploy. For the better part of three years we've been listening to liberals whine that Bush is an overly aggressive cowboy, a unilateralist Nazi trampling on our civil rights at home and the feelings of our European friends abroad in pursuit of a "war" that many on the left have repeatedly said did and does not exist.

Now eight months before the election and we're getting a full 180 degree pivot from the same people accusing Bush of being soft on terror. It's as fake and phony as the wrinkle-free skin on John Kerry's forehead.

[TexasCajun]

Alright! The 'Rats want to play the blame game!

Bring It On!! ...didn't their mommies tell them that if you play with fire you will burn yourself!

[Huck]

Democrats are well aware that President Bush's most favorable political attribute is his determined pursuit of the War on Terror. Approval for his leadership in the War on Terror remains well above sixty percent and he holds a substantial lead lead over John Kerry on the issue.

And it's the difference between me throwing my vote away like I did last time (Harry Browne) or voting for GWB, as I intend to do this time.

[billhilly]

The media are doing what the media do. The conservative public just happens to recognize it now, thanks to the internet and forums like FreeRepublic, Drudge, Fox, Rush Limbaugh, and a double handfull of publications such as the Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Times.

The wool cannot be pulled over our eyes any more, and that annoys the living hell out of the left.

We will prevail.

[Tempest]

No matter how obvious it is that the liberals in the media are schilling in full throttle right now. I'm afraid that their lies are getting a whole lot of air time and it will pollute the minds of many weak minded left leaning individuals.

But then again most left leaning individuals tend to be weak minded anyways by default.

[King Black Robe]

It is amazing. It hasn't been this well orchestrated since they were defending Clinton from impeachment.

[Porterville]

The dems are ineffective.

[Huck]

This is a very well written and well formulated piece--refreshingly so. I am going to check his website. Who is this person? Just a blogger?

[bayourod]

Is this attack coordinated? Is there a war room? Where is Carville?

Is it just me or do all these Dems look really distressed to have to be on the TV shows saying the things they are saying?

[doug from upland]

Perhaps it should be called the Full Monty.

[MEG33]

His access didn't seem to make a difference in the Clinton White House.

[NYC Republican]

He's a blogge, but he's one of the most famous and well-respected bloggers around, having appeared on many of the news shows re: political commentary. Check out their news stories- they capture the best stories daily into one page. They also have FANTASTIC polling summaries. Check out realclearpolitics.com you'll be hooked.

[FlyVet]

Weak on terror. Yeah. Imagine Kerry as president, with an all-star cast of Clinton and Carter recycled appointees. That'd put the fear into the hearts of the Jihadis. LOL.

[Howlin]

I have not heard of him. But RealClearPolitics is a great politics!

[NYC Republican]

FYI - RCP is 2 guys - Tom Bevan and John McIntyre. They complement each other excellently. Fantastic news source, best on the net after FR, IMHO.

[PogySailor]

I made a similar comment to a co-worker today. 18 months is a "rush to war" in Iraq. But now the DNC/Partisan media is trying to sell the snake oil that since Bush didn't attack OBL on January 22nd 2001, he's weak on terrorism. Did I wake up in a parallel universe?

[NYC Republican]

Pathetic, no? Their disgusting rhetoric and lies are despicable...

[Howlin]

I think you are exactly right. If you look back at 2000 and their Electoral College projection, you could click the damn states off all night long.

About midnight, I called friends and said, "Don't you dare go to bed; he's going to win!"

[vaudine]

"..replace him..." I believe that is the idea--replace him with Shillary.

vaudine

[NYC Republican]

Check out the 2002 predictions. Incredible http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Congressional/Senate_02_Polls.html

[cyncooper]

I refused to watch Sixty Minutes, but I've seen clips of this Clarke from that program and this morning's shows.

Appalling.

The Big Lie is spot on, enabled and abetted by certain media types, as pointed out here.

I see the Bush administration is as fed up with this crap as the rest of us and have decided the direct refutation is the best answer. They are correct.