Posted on 03/22/2004 4:53:53 PM PST by 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.
All that was designed to plant in the minds of the public that Bush cannot be fully trusted in national security matters. They never cared about the "18 words." Nor did they care if Saddam had actually bought six suitcase nukes and had them lined up on 5th Avenue!
Next, we had the Dem primaries. Do you think it was any accident that they ALL just attacked Bush, and never challenged each other?
Three weeks ago, I was in a book store and noticed the shelves were COVERED with anti-Bush books---Franken, Conasen, etc.---and ALL had in the title either "deception" or "lies."
Folks, this is an all-out concerted attack, and it isn't over. I do think Kerry is hopeless as a candidate---not as bad as Dean, because he's so boring no one even listens to him. But this is all the Dems have. They CANNOT offer anything.
Now, what the grand strategery is behind this, I don't know. I DON'T think Hillary is going to be "substituted" for Kerry at the convention. It ain't gonna happen. And I think all this will backfire, as the polls already seem to suggest. But no one can doubt that SOMEONE has organized all this, and started doing so years ago!
"Audacity is 90 percent of the battle." ~Karl Marx
Just read this on another thread and thought it was interesting;
Did anybody see Mansoor Ijaz (SP) this morning around 7:30 EST, on FOX, he was hot, he issued a challenge to this Dick Clark saying he would go toe to toe with him on any TV show refuting all of his claims and remarks. He also said that when he (Mansoor) had helped with the deals in the Sudan to hand over Bin Laden that Clark was one of the ones that nixed the deal. I want to see that one. 27 posted on 03/22/2004 8:11:09 PM CST by Ethyl
On the same subject...............O'Reilly tonight devoted a whole segment to a meeting that took place at Al Franken's apartment involving a a cabal of Lib reporters to coordinate their attacks during the primaries.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103384/posts
It all depends on what Queen Hellary wants to happen
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
Bruce Shapiro, National Correspondent, Salon.com
THE HYPING OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM---June 12, 2000
. . . Chartered two years ago by Congress, the [National Commission on Terrorism] released a report last week that unleashed a dire drumbeat about a coming wave of violence on American soil.
"The threat from terrorists is so high," began ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz's news account, "the potential for massive casualties is so real, that an independent panel is pushing the government to take immediate, drastic action." Warned commission chairman L. Paul Bremer III at a press conference: "The threat of international terrorism is becoming more deadly." In the Los Angeles Times, commission advisor Brian Michael Wilson of the Rand Corp. called the report "a wake up call to a more violent future." ~snip~
By attempting to set off a panic over external enemies, the National Commission on Terrorism is serving those inside-the-Beltway policy goals. But if it resonates with the press and public, it is because exaggerated fear of terrorism serves as a useful distraction from sweeping national anxiety over globalization and the growing power of transnational corporations. ~snip~
But the fear of external enemies resonates deeply in the American psyche, a fact demonstrated, as well, by the xenophobic terms of congressional debate over China's entry into the WTO. Look for Republicans to go on the offensive about terrorism -- and for Democrats, fearful of being labeled soft on terror, to go along, perpetuating the con job unleashed this week in Washington.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
