Dissent is allowed, sort of

September 13, 2006

Yesterday’s White House press briefing included one of those classic [tag]Tony Snow[/tag] moments that just leaves me shaking my head.

NBC’s [tag]David Gregory[/tag] asked the press secretary if he could “describe how it’s possible to oppose the President on the war on Iraq without emboldening the terrorists.” In other words, the White House can and does say that Americans are allowed to disagree, but then turn around and accuse dissenters of appeasement. Gregory asked the right question: if the Bush gang believe dissent is legitimate in public discourse, maybe Snow could explain what kinds of dissent the White House will tolerate.

“There are ways to do it. But also, if you say we need to leave right now, without preconditions — and I’m not sure anybody says that, but I’ll give you a hypothetical — that would embolden the terrorists. If the end result was that we left Iraq and we did not have an Iraq that was able to sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself, that would embolden the terrorists….

“[T]here are ways of — you can disagree over a lot of things. If you share the objective of having an Iraq — and this is what’s kind of interesting about the debate last night, because if you look at the President’s speech, he talks about an Iraq that’s going to be able to be democratic — I don’t know that that’s controversial with anybody — an Iraq where Iraqi forces are going to be able to defend Iraqi ground. I don’t know that that’s controversial. I think those are the things — to answer your question, and I’ll let you get back to this, to answer your question, it is possible to disagree. But on the other hand, if you are proposing a position that says to bin Laden, in effect, ‘Iraq is yours,’ then that is not the kind of thing that I think is going to lead to victory.”

Perfect. Just so long as well-intentioned Americans agree with the president’s mission and his goals for Iraq, then we’re more than welcome to criticize the White House.

Maybe I should try that in the comments section. You’re welcome to agree to disagree with what I write, as long as you acknowledge from the outset that I’m clever and insightful. If not, it’s only fair that I compare you to Neville Chamberlain. Sound fair?

Leaving will emboden the Terrorists.

Staying will recruit new Terrorists.

Either can be called treason as far as I can tell.

It’s a stupid argument. Why do we care if al Qaeda is happy or sad? We need to destroy them, not depress them.

Boy George II doesn’t want to lose another round of “I win, You lose”, which he will if he leaves Iraq. Of course al Qaeda will claim victory. They claim victory at the drop of a hat. But Osama is living in a cave and Boy George II is living in the White House. Isn’t that enough?

  • Very clever and insightful, I must say, but did you catch the bit about “a position that says to bin Laden, in effect, ‘Iraq is yours,’ ”

    This to a government that has effectively said to Pakistan, in effect, ‘bin Laden is yours.’

  • The most democratic thing about Iraq right now is that the Iraqis are voting with their bodies that they want this occupation to end. Why, news reports this morning show that another 69 Iraqis were found bound, tortured and shot on Baghdad’s outskirts alone. That’s another 69 votes that say, “Make this end. Now.”

  • “That’s another 69 votes that say, ‘Make this end. Now.'” – petorado

    Since they died in sectarian violence that is actually surpressed to a degree by the prescence of the Americans, I’m not sure they would really feel that way.

    Not that our being there helped them.

  • Well the difference is that we’re stuck with this President for two more years. You, we can kick to the curb whenever we want. Not that we would. 🙂

    Is it time to rehabilitate Neville Chamberlain? The Repubs have been pounding so hard on him, there must be some good things about him they’re not telling us.

  • Snowjob sez:
    “If the end result was that we left Iraq and we did not have an Iraq that was able to sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself, that would embolden the terrorists….”

    That’s going to be the end result anyway regardless of what the WH says. Iraq is going to be Yugoslavia, Somalia and Afghanistan rolled up in one. But what makes this worse is that it didn’t have to be.

    As to embolden the terrorists? Everything this admin has done has only given the next generation of crazies fuel.

  • David Gregory has been rock solid the past year with his questions. I’d love to watch an hour of President Bush with David Gregory. Well, on second thought, maybe I wouldn’t. That would be like watching a train wreck, or watching Brett Favre play this season.

  • Is it just me or is that the most garbled syntax and overall gobbledegook that you have ever heard. I thought Snow Job was supposed to be a straight talker. I think he’s worse than Scotty.
    At least he knocked down some of his sides own strawmen too.

  • The president means that Americans are allowed to disagree with him as long as they keep their thoughts to themselves. 9/11 changed everything because previous to this, this practice was encouraged. The fact that Bill Clinton was president for most of this period had nothing to do with it. Or so we are told.

  • off-topic w.r.t the media’s questioning of snowjob, but I have a pet peeve about the media’s interviewing of Democrats.

    I hear a lot of questions like “What is the Democrats’ position on Iraq? Do they have a unified position?”

    We should counter that line of questioning by pointing out the absurdity of the question.

    (1) First of all, ‘Unity’ is overrated. What we need is a honest debate. The Bush admin and its apologists in Congress do not care to see the reality in Iraq. So there’s no scope for honest debate unless Democrats take control of Congress.

    (2) Democrats are unified and are in lockstep as far as CURRENT reality is concerned. There is a variety of ideas for the FUTURE as to how to pull ourselves out of the mess Bush created.

  • Just curious because I think I missed something – when did the insurgency in Iraq, which I had always thought to be primarily home-grown oppoistion to American occupation or inter-ethnic jockeying for power, suddenly become conflated with Al Quaeda? Al-Anbar province is primarily Sunni – they hate us, they hate the Shiites, they hate the Kurds. It’s where Ramadi and Fullujah are – but suddenly it’s all about Al Quaeda? When did that happen?

  • “if you are proposing a position that says to bin Laden, in effect, ‘Iraq is yours,'”

    Do they honestly believe that bin Laden wants to take over the ever-deepening shithole formally known as Iraq?

    Now that we have empowered the Shia and Kurdish population there, I really doubt they’ll let any other outsiders, especially a Sunni, come in and declare ” Iraq is mine”.

    And the next time Snowjob uses the “embolden the terrorists” defense for any talk of withdrawl, I’d wish someone would ask him, “so does that mean our current operations at defeating the terrorists in Iraq are having zero impact?”

    To me at least, comments like that give the impression that our forces in Iraq aren’t really succeeding at defeating the insurgency, and are just marking time until the US can turn over security to the Iraqi forces, whenever that happens.

    as for trainwreck, Pearl,
    NU at USC this Saturday
    Go Big Red, may God help you

  • The Administration and its apologist operatives in the Rovean Party are scroundrels. They are desperate to control the grand narrative. They will stop at nothing to retain power.. . . This just in: Republican party to spend $60 million to produce bumperstickers that read – A vote for Democrats is a vote for Terrorism. Sound far-fetched? Just watch! -Kevo

  • Look kiddies, Porky Pig is the new Press Secretary. Do you think he knows he sounds like he’s just been hit with a sock full of pennies?

    That was an excellent question. Too bad he had to waste it on an idiot who couldn’t frame a coherent answer if you held a gun to his head. Of course there isn’t a lot Snowball could say that wouldn’t be a blunt admission of the Admin’s “Shut up and do what we tell you” tactics.

  • The only thing that has emboldened the terrorists is how the Bu$h regime has mis-calculated, mis-managed, and bungled the execution of the invasion of Iraq. They have shown to the whole world that America can be manipulated and duped into a war that is costing terrorists nothing, while draining the resouces and might of the US military. What terrorist would want someone in power here in the US who understands how to manage a war? Or who can garner support from other nations to help fight a realistic war on terror? What terrorist would want someone who has a SMART policy, someone who is equally clever and manipulative? As far as I can see, Bu$h and his incompetent neocon handlers are the best thing that has ever happened to Osama and the rest.

  • “Perfect. Just so long as well-intentioned Americans agree with the president’s mission and his goals for Iraq, then we’re more than welcome to criticize the White House.”

    Geeez! Lookit! Can’t you just try to get it right? What Snow is saying, is, the administration is on course with a great vision, and there is no need to disagree, period. If he screws up, and he hasn’t/won’t, he’ll “adapt”, and if you call him on it, you’re emboldening the terrorists. Not to mention, when you’re rehashing unproductive issues that take away from the “road ahead”, you’re emboldening the terrorists. Better you try and get an invitation to one of his “conversations”, maybe get a photo op, and go away feeling all gushy.

    Me, I’ll try and focus on how someone in power took away my right to vote by getting HAVA passed with the requirement that all electronic voting systems be proprietary, ensuring that our vote count will always be held in secret, paper trail notwithstanding.

    P.S. Wonder if Clinton, the “smart as hell” former prez, had anything to offer on that issue?!

  • “Is it just me or is that the most garbled syntax and overall gobbledegook that you have ever heard.” — Matt

    It’s not you — but it does sound a lot like Bush-speak, doesn’t it? Fragmentary fits and starts seems to be the way people talk when trying to defend the indefensible. It’s impossible to construct a straight-line, logic sentence because once you start talking, all logical roads lead to you disproving your own argument. So, you start over again, or interupt yourself, or change time frames or switch from first person to second, etc. It’s almost like a poker tell, but more obvious.

  • Please, somebody point out to Tony Snowjob that ALMOST NOBODY believes what he says, or what Bush says, or what Cheney says, especially since they’ll be put on trial if the Democrats take power.

    Seriously, quit playing patticake.

    Just call his bullshit what it is, and move on to the next question they’ll answer with lies. Preface the question with the expectation of more lies.

    Hey Tony… All but a small fraction of Americans think the Bush administration is full of crap, but maybe you should explain why Bush emboldened the terrorists by destroying a regime that didn’t support them and handing it over to Iranian-backed militants?

  • ‘bagger-you are clever and insightful. Handsome. Ruggedly sensitive. Other nice stuff.

    But, as my first radio station GM used to say, “I know that you think you understand what I just said, but I’m not sure that what you heard is what I really meant.”

    Can I be your press secretary?

    • Comments are closed.