I saw Greg's post on this and figured I'd weigh in real fast. While I disagree with a great deal of his paradigm on how the White House operates, one point I think he does make that's really good is this:
But I link Mike to also make the point that this much bally-hooed offensive (ie, publicizing all the statements the Democrats made back in '02/'03 that sounded so jingo-off-to-war-we-go)--is amateur, is tone deaf, is simply half-assed. What the American people want to hear from the President is why we are in Iraq, and (more important) how we're going to win in Iraq, and yeah, what he's going to do about high oil prices and such. They don't give a flying eff about who said what when in 2002 about the merits of going to war in Iraq ... And that the Democrats are full of it now with their transparent and so convenient and, yes, quite cowardly distancing themselves from the difficulties in Iraq ... Put differently, the American people don't want to see Cheney and Bush running around quoting Nancy Pelosi's CNN appearances for God's sake. They want to feel we have a success strategy in Iraq and that our boys aren't dying, several a day, for no reason. That there is a real path to success, and that we're making real progress to get there. And no, Bush's breezy stump speeches have worn thin, and people are tired of Cheney and his bunker-like 'win at all costs' M.O., and a major overhaul is manifestly needed. No, I'm sorry, but playing gotcha with Carl Levin (with false facts, to add insult to injury) isn't the way forward. I don't think Ronald Reagan would have stooped to these sad recriminations and partisan gotcha fests, but then again Ronald Reagan had a plan to salvage his Presidency after Iran-Contra. I don't see one yet from this White House--reeling post-Katrina, post-Brownie, post-Harriet, post-Libby, post-detainee policy debacles. It feels like amateur hour right now. A vindictive, petty, un-statesmanlike one.
While I'm not willing to go nearly as far as Greg on this one, I do think his overall point that this offensive is seriously lacking in both style and form is pretty much head-on. As it now stands, the administration currently has an uphill battle to fight against a sizeable and rather fanatical anti-war activist base (as opposed to simply those who oppose or are skeptical about the war) who, in an amusing twist of fate, are pretty much guilty of the exact same fallacies with respect to factual analysis that they accuse the administration - as far as the majority of them were concerned, the administration was already tried and convicted of all manner of serious charges by at least 2003 if not beforehand and all that remains is for the sentencing phase to be carried out. I honestly think that McCain and Lieberman have a lot better argumentation style if you look at how they've argued in favor of the war in recent weeks and that it is exactly that kind of argumentation that is going to win over more people than the current methodology.
To put it another way, if this were 2003 or even 2004, when Bush and Cheney should have been making speeches like this to defend the administration with respect to these charges, they could have gotten away with their current line of defense. Unfortunately, they didn't and as a direct result of that decision a majority of the American people feel the way they do. I still think that a majority of Americans can be won back onto the effort of supporting the campaign in Iraq, but it's going to require more than playing "gotcha" with the Senate Democrats. They aren't Bush's audience, the American people are, and what gets Harry Reid's staff scurrying trying to perform intellectual gymnastics in support of their boss's position isn't going to raise public support for the war effort one bit.
I understand full well that accusations, particularly the more egregious ones, have to be answered and have repeatedly supported doing just that, which is why I think that stuff like this and this are far more useful when it comes to winning the policy debate in the long run. I tried to do just that with respect to a number of recent memes, including this bizarre notion that what happened with al-Libbi should be read as some kind of a morality tale when it comes to issues of detainee abuse. If the White House is seriously interested in setting the record straight, it might well want to go back through the records and compare far too many anonymous sources told any number of US publications concerning pre-war intel versus what Phase 1 of the SSIC report actually said on the topic to demonstrate just how wrong the press has been on this one.
One final point I want to make is that I noticed that some people are confusing yours truly with Donald Sensing. Lest one be confused, we are not the same person and I would very much like commenters to keep that in mind when replying to my posts, just as some apparently did not when it came to replying his.
And with that I'll go back to my hiatus till Sunday.
As it now stands, the administration currently has an uphill battle to fight against a sizeable and rather fanatical anti-war activist base...
Now come on. The party of Bush holds it all; Executive judicial and congressional branches. Gerrymandering is making most house seats safe.
An uphill battle?
Simple honesty from the beginning would keep Bush in a good spot right now. He has only himself to blame, for taking Rove's advice to make everything political, deny everything, and make counteraccusations.
I think you guys are missing the boat here. This is Phase 1. This will go till the SOTU where Bush will kick off Phase 2. That will lead into Phase 3, which will lead into Rep. sweep in Nov. '06. It's a campaign, you draw the enemy out, bomb them, move your armor into place, when they adjust to meet your armor you shell them, then the tanks move in and following them are the infantry which clear and hold ground for good. It's organized, directed, and modified as time and circumstance demand. He doesn't want to peak early, like the anti-war crowd has. Bush and Rove are playing for keeps, they always have and the pundit-class have consistently underestimated them.
The question is how much of the MSM's relentless manufacturing of dissent will end up blowing up in their faces (as in November 2004); or whether in November 2006, will they still have been able to sufficiently insulate their admittedly admirable disinformation campaign from real public scrutiny.
In other words, by November 2006, how many voters will have been infected with the view that the sky is falling (or has fallen).
Though what might matter more is the extent that Republican pols themselves fear that such a wrongheaded view is indeed the reality?
As Dan Darling pointed out the combination of events cited and reactions by the Bush Adminstration are the problem. They have existed from the beginning. The public understands the Democrats are barking up the wrong tree. The electorate understands that the response to domestic events by Bush and his managers underscores what the real argument of the Democrats and domestic critics of the invasion of Iraq should be. That regardless of what the information was pre-invasion, despite the fact the nuclear weapons were not found, the execution and management of the aftermath has been essentially a disaster.
It is not a disaster because of the changes on the ground, because they are real and a testament to our military's ability as an institution to respond to change, but because it is a failure. It is a failure because the dictum: War is an extension of politics by other means. To the electorate, when war is over the fighting should stop and security is in place to maintain the conditions for "normal" political means. When the electorate looks up and sees that our troops are still dying, in a manner comparable to the civil war, where military units were drawn from a small geographic area such that any loss is magnified , they are asking does this President have the competence to have lead us into this venture? Did he manage it well? Why is there such a difference between what EVERYONE thought and what was found?
When the electorate sees that the President and his party in control of all the elected braches of government will not perform critical analysis of its actions, trash critics regardless of their veracity by attacking them personally not what they said and committ treason to do so(Ask Bush 41) and stonewall any inquiries into what has happened(SSCI 2) is it any surprise is credibility is in the tank?
Bush can only come back by totally coming clean. He needs to fire people(use Lincoln as a metaphor), bring in new blood the electorate finds credible and speak honestly about past mistakes. Otherwise he will never rally support for Iraq. In short, realize he has met the enemy and the enemy is "US"
I think the post has some merit. I believe that the apologist has good points as well, if that is truly the administrations plans. I saw another post recently (here?) about not being sucked into a Vietnam like situation where the generals are giving assessments (they believe to be true and likely are) that don't match with the general publics perception (as tainted as it is by "bleed and lead" media).
what would be appropriate is some reminders and an occassional (read quarterly) presentation that continued to express the general goals of the "insurgents" and the "Islamists" (different goals, they do cooperate, etc) and over view of strategy to win. Stay away from the details except as an example once in awhile. Body counts aren't necessary, but point out areas that are "pacified", that have been pacified for at least a quarter. Act like some place is pacified and then turn around and have reports of a car bombing is not good. But, possibly an overview that indicates where large I/I offensives are vs. criminal or limited sectarian fighting. The news reports just don't explain well what's going on. From the reporting everyone gets, its all anti-Coalition insurgency.
However, small doses of this as "examples". General overview would be great. I mean, we understand why the insurgency in Al Anbar is more dug in, but you don't get a two minute soundbite about it without some graphics that explains it.
General overview, why the insurgents/Islamists (I/I) want the area. Not just because of the Sunni tribal connections, but need for a base of operations. Explain why we must deny them the base in the big picture of war on terror.
Doesn't have to be the white house. a general or other analyst would do nicely.
all in all, second phase should be a reminder of who and what we fight.
I would also insure that a few dignitaries made their own personal appearances. They are going to have to sell their country to Americans (why they should be helped; talk about improvements, where we need to go). They need more than a letter writing campaign and frankly, I wonder where the Iraqi Ambassador is and why he/she hasn't made very many appearances on the news doing interviews? It might seem like propaganda, but that is what it is, for Iraq to sell themselves. The only thing I would insure is that the administration makes few, if any appearances with this person. They need to be seen as the representative of Iraq, not an arm of the American government (because that is what they are and they are asking help as an ally).
Which is the whole point. Americans want to know what they are fighting for. They want to know that it's appreciated. They want to know that the cost is worth it. They want to believe there will be a sunny day at the end of the storm.
The administration cannot make that message by themselves and editorials, as nice as they are, do not give a face and often get limited viewership when your talking about average America. I know for a fact that my local paper does not carry WSJ op eds or articles and few nationally syndicated writers (they recently picked up Maureen Dowd's column with no countering nationally syndicated "conservative" column - I think they only have one op-ed person that even comes close to supporting the administration and he doesn't write often) and, when I went to a local popular diner for breakfast, there were no WSJ papers to read. Just the locals.
So, the message does not get to mainstream America.
It's like everyone is trying to protect the castle and they've left the port door open.
"the electorate looks up and sees that our troops are still dying, in a manner comparable to the civil war"
HUH? Comparable how? At this rate, we would have to remain in Iraq 698 more years to reach the casualties taken in the ACW. In 2+ years we still have yet to absorb as many fatalities as we lost on a single day at Antietam. Mind you the country has more than 10x the population we had then.
Our problem is a total lack of historical perspective. Before this invasion we were talking about 10,000 casualties to take Baghdad alone. Had we taken the total casualties to date in the first days of the war the country would have taken it as a matter of course. Spread that out across 2.5 years of occupation, nation building, democracy founding, and Al Qaeda/Baathist fighting and suddenly we in a quagmire.
- Informing the public about the progress and rationale for the war is easier said than done when the media megaphone is not available to you, and generally set on autopilot for the other side.
- This offensive is political in nature. It is not a defense of the war; it is to counter political attacks and political foundation-building by the democrats.
- These posts are full of unsupported conjecture - "people want", "America is tired of" etc. Clearly, it is opinion, but even an opinion needs some factual basis to rest upon.
"Informing the public about the progress and rationale for the war is easier said than done when the media megaphone is not available to you, and generally set on autopilot for the other side."
but the media megaphone IS available. Bushes speeches all get coverage. Its just that he tends to fill them with platitudes about staying the course, evil, and stuff like that. Look at McCain's latest blasting the Senate resolutions. Take Bushes bully pulpit, and imagine him saying what McCain says. For whatever reason, he cant seem to do that. And Cheney just turns people off for a hundred reasons.
If only the admin could get over their dislike of McCain, and really bring him in, our odds of succeeding in Iraq would improve tremendously.
Bush's speeches do not get full coverage. They get slanted MSM coverage. They are used to denigrate him and the war.
I agree that there has to be a full campaign in this country to wage an information war on the MSM and the Democrats. We are at war and the country needs to know the stakes of failure.
Mind you - the moment it starts Bush will be accused of using government money for political purposes.
Something happened to Greg. He is still intelligent, but he has become a shrill, hysterical, castrated version of what he once was. You know, if we wanted shrill, hysterical, and castrated, we can always go to Kos or DU.