Over the weekend, the AP’s Jennifer Loven published a terrific item about Bush’s use of straw men in his rhetoric. As Loven explained, when the president “starts a sentence with ‘some say’ or offers up what ‘some in Washington’ believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.”
In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.
If you watched this morning’s White House press conference, you may have concluded that Bush read Loven’s piece and decided to go out of his way to prove how accurate it was. Consider this gem:
“[T]he United States of America must take this threat seriously and must not — must never forget the natural rights that formed our country. And for people to say, well, the natural rights only exist for one group of people, I would call them — I would say that they’re denying the basic rights to others.”
Yes, Bush gave those rights-denying enemies of freedom a lashing of a lifetime. If this reflected reality in even a tangential way, it’d really be impressive. Here’s another:
“Our foreign policy up to now was to kind of tolerate what appeared to be calm. And underneath the surface was this swelling sense of anxiety and resentment, out of which came this totalitarian movement that is willing to spread its propaganda through death and destruction, to spread its philosophy. Now, some in this country don’t — I can understand — don’t view the enemy that way. I guess they kind of view it as an isolated group of people that occasionally kill. I just don’t see it that way.”
Yes, to hear Bush tell it, there’s an unnamed contingent in this country who believe international terrorist networks are isolated and strike indiscriminately. Who are they? Bush didn’t say, probably because no one actually thinks that.
Unfortunately, the president was just getting started.
“The enemy has said that it’s just a matter of time before the United States loses its nerve and withdraws from Iraq. That’s what they have said. And their objective for driving us out of Iraq is to have a place from which to launch their campaign to overthrow modern governments — moderate governments — in the Middle East, as well as to continue attacking places like the United States. Now, maybe some discount those words as kind of meaningless propaganda. I don’t, Jim. I take them really seriously.”
Once again, Bush points to a rascally political opposition that appears to exist only in his mind.
This one was a little closer, but still a classic straw-man argument.
“I think during these difficult times — and they are difficult when we’re at war — the American people expect there to be a honest and open debate without needless partisanship. And that’s how I view it. I did notice that nobody from the Democrat Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program. You know, if that’s what they believe, if people in the party believe that, then they ought to stand up and say it. They ought to stand up and say the tools we’re using to protect the American people shouldn’t be used.”
Now, as any informed person must understand by now, the Democratic Party wants surveillance done, but in a lawful fashion with oversight. Both the GOP and the Dems want to spy on the bad guys, but only one side believes there should be lawful checks and balances on government power. Either Bush is confused (again) about the basic facts of government, or he was intentionally trying to deceive.
That said, I really have to hand it to the president. It’s taken him over five years, but he’s finally found an opponent he can beat in a policy debate. The fact that it’s an imaginary opponent that doesn’t exist is an inconvenient side note, but far be it for me to spoil Bush’s fun.