Are Interns Running the Place? Posted by Michael Signer

More on the President's incredibly ineffective Veteran's Day campaign speech against Democrats.  From today's TNR, Ryan Lizza does some easy Lexis reporting and unearths some just plain laughable elisions in the President's follow-on remarks to a crowd in Alaska on Monday:

The problem is that some of the quotes Bush now uses are highly misleading. "Another senior Democrat leader said, 'The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power,'" Bush told his Alaskan crowd. The quote is from Senator Carl Levin during a CNN appearance on December 16, 2001. Here's the full context:

The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as he is in power. But that does not mean he is the next target.

And the commitment to do that, it seems to me, could be disruptive of our alliance that still has work to do in Afghanistan. And a lot will depend on what the facts are in various places as to what terrorist groups are doing, and as to whether or not we have facts as to whether or not the Iraqis have been involved in the terrorist attack of September 11, or whether or not Saddam is getting a weapon of mass destruction and is close to it. So facts will determine what our next targets are.

What's going on in the White House?  I mean, really?  The Bush White House was supposed to be the most professional in modern history.  A fawning Industry Week reporter "observed" in 2001:

There is the impression, indeed it's more than an impression, that Bush & Co. wants to run the U.S. government like a business. Its cabinet secretaries, for example, appear to be the empowered presidents of major results-oriented divisions. And there's a business-like emphasis on measurable results.

But the President's current communications offensive is offensively poor -- intern-level, at best.  Yes, Bill Clinton fooled around with his interns; but at least they weren't writing his talking points.

Beyond the basic, deathless message of competence versus incompetence, there's a deeper point at work here -- how can the President keep on getting the basic mass psychology of the Iraq issue so desperately wrong?  It's almost pathological.  PR 101 says two wrongs don't make a right.  So how in heaven's name does the President hope to resolve Iraq in his favor by reinforcing the Democrats' point (he, and we, are in trouble) with a strategy of attacking the Democrats (which just says, if anything, we're all in trouble)? 

Where's Karl Rove when you need him? 

Oh, that's right, I forgot...

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

This strikes me as a fairly weak criticism of Bush's use of Levin's words. The fact is, Levin did connect Iraq with the War on Terrorism, and clearly implied that our problems with Hussein's regime were one part of a broader collection of problems that fall under the rubric of the Terrorist Threat.

Apparently, Levin didn't want to place Iraq quite so high on the target list. Yet he certainly implies Iraq is an eventual "target", and that this all has something to do with the "War on Terrorism". So insofar as Bush's point is that Democrats no less than Republicans saw Saddam in 2001 and 2002 as an enemy in the War on Terrorism, he has a point.

As far as the mass psychology of Iraq goes, Bush and his hacks seem to be doing much the same thing as Democratic Senators and their hacks - worrying a lot more right now about the bearing of Iraq on 2006 and domestic politics than about Iraq itself. Nobody in the US government cares about Iraq; they care only about how Iraq will "play". Bush's claim seems to be only that, if we are indeed in a mess, then most of official Washington is complicit in putting us there. Obviously that's not a very high-minded or uplifting message, but again he has a point.

I would prefer that more Democrats who voted for the war simply bite the bullet and say "I screwed up" than try to evade responsibility by splitting hairs over how their own 2002 position was subtly different from the President's. I'm so tired of the weasel words.

Levin, by the way, recently issued a proposal. He suggested that we give the Iraqi governement a sort of six-month ultimatum. If, at the end of six months, Iraq is making solid progress along the path to democracy, security and self-sufficiency, then we will stay to help them. If, however, things are still bad and the government has not managed to control the insurgency, then we will leave.

Of course, issuing such a statement is a message to the insurgents, and indeed all the forces arrayed against the current government and opposed to the US occupation, that the way to get rid of us is to sow chaos and weaken the government for a mere six months. Perhaps that is actually Levin's intent. And for all those aspiring Iraqi politicians who have been trying desperately to convince their supporters that the best way to get the Americans out of Iraq is to participate in embryonic political process, Levin now suggests that we communicate exactly the opposite message and tell them this is will only result in our staying.

I suppose Levin hopes that much of the US public will interpret this topsy-turvy Washington-speak as a responsible "tough love" proposal. But it's a complete sham, cooked up in Washington for purely domestic consumption by the most gullible of our fellow-citizens. The terms of the Levin proposal seem to imply that Iraq's problems now are do to the fact that the pathetic coalition of short-term convenience and opportunity called the "Iraqi government", a deformed and terminal bastard child which we ourselves sired, is not doing enough to get it's own house in order. Maybe he hopes that by thus shifting the onus away from the US government that bltzed Iraq, destroyed its state, and unleashed anarchy, and onto the miserable victims where it belongs, he can puff up a "peace with honor" smokescreen that will generate the political cover he needs to vote for a pull-out. Then he can say: "Hey, we tried. It's Iraq's fault that it is a mess."

Imagine a man who throws a fire-bomb into a crowded prison dining hall, and then while looking on from a safe distance at the frenzied scene of terror, chaos and confusion that ensues says: "Well my work is just about done here. After I tossed the bomb, I also sent in some security guards along with some instructions for using the fire extinguishers. If the prisoners manage to put out the fire, I will telll the guards to stay and help them mop up the puddles. But if those idiot prisoners can't fix their own mess, I'm leaving."

[Mike Signer]

Dan: well, I kind of agree with some of this, and find your concluding paragraph very eloquent, but I think you're being too subtle for your own good in your interpretation of Levin's statement. The bottom line is that what Levin was doing was suggesting, at the very least, caution when targeting Saddam. The President was suggesting an absence of caution -- that the Democrats were equally as gung-ho as he was. Gung-ho versus caution is about as absolute a contrast as I can imagine...

Mike

[praktike]

On top of that, Levin's been one of the most vocal and persistent critics of the war and he's one of the most prominent Democrats on foreign policy in the Senate. Even if he is getting talking points from the Young Republicans, he should be aware of Levin's views.

[Mike Signer]

Hey, praktike! Nice to see you back on the comments page! I've been AWOL from the Arsenal too long -- trying to get back in the groove now.

And exactly right on your point about Levin (though maybe it's the high school Federalists who are eating pizza crusts in the West Wing...)

[J Thomas]

"I would prefer that more Democrats who voted for the war simply bite the bullet and say "I screwed up" than try to evade responsibility by splitting hairs over how their own 2002 position was subtly different from the President's."

Bush was 100% responsible for this war. He argued for it, he lied for it, he threatened for it, and he got it.

I don't recall any Republican legislator who expressed any doubts. The ones who didn't are also 100% responsible.

Incumbent Democrats also have some responsibility. Some of them were 100% behind Bush's handling of the war. Some of them were 60% responsible or 20% or whatever.

So if you are living in a place where you are represented by a Democrat who was incumbent at the start of the war, you might want to look at his stand. And then maybe you'll support a primary challenge.

Similarly if you are a Republican and you are represented by a Republican incumbent, you *definitely* should support a primary challenge and then support some nonrepublican candidate if the primary challenge fails.

My own view is that the Republican Party has failed too badly. I will vote for whatever opposing candidate has the best chance to win for the indefinite future. For Democrats when no better party can win, until the Democrats give us a President who's as bad as Bush. For Libertarians whenever they have a decent chance or whenever I'm confident Democrats will win without my vote.

I will view the GOP as a threat until they're significantly behind both the Libertarian Party and the Greens.

[David Shorr]

Speaking of PR101 (or at least George Lakoff), repeating a charge against you when you're rebutting that charge is telling people not to think of an elephant. So every time Bush or Cheney says they didn't mislead the country, it's like "I am not a crook" Nixon, right?

[Discount Prada Handbags]

Speaking of PR101 (or at least George Lakoff), repeating a charge against you when you're rebutting that charge is telling people not to think of an elephant. So every time Bush or Cheney says they didn't mislead the country, it's like "I am not a crook" Nixon, right

[muhtar]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!