Yesterday’s White House press briefing included an odd exchange over the war in Iraq. The discussion wasn’t about the president’s decisions and plans, but rather what Bush critics should say about the president’s decisions and plans.
McClellan: …There’s a difference between loyal opposition that has a different view, and those who are advocating a defeatist approach that sends the wrong message to our troops and the enemy.
Q: Well, that’s your point of view.
McClellan: That’s right.
It’s an interesting White House take on political dissent. Critics of the president and the war, McClellan suggests, should feel free to oppose Bush policies. (How generous of him.) These same critics should not, however, feel free to oppose Bush in a way that “sends the wrong message.” Who decides when criticism of the White House shifts into the danger zone? The White House does.
I’m trying to figure out what, exactly, might constitute legitimate criticism in the Bush gang’s eyes. Discussion of redeploying or withdrawing troops “sends the wrong message,” so that’s clearly off limits. Talking about pre-war misstatements of facts also “sends the wrong message,” so that’s out too. We’re also not supposed to acknowledge failures relating to casualties, torture, financial cost, oil, Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqi constitution. But don’t worry, the White House has no quarrel with a “loyal opposition” that wishes to express a “different view.”
I have an idea. The White House excels in writing up talking points for its allies, so maybe the Bush gang could also write up a similar guide for its political rivals. That way, we’ll know how to avoid “a defeatist approach that sends the wrong message to our troops and the enemy.” Wouldn’t that be helpful?