Bush lashes out at Dems

With the midterm election just 40 days away, the president is getting a little antsy. And when Bush gets antsy, he starts lashing out wildly, without regard for pesky details like facts.

In his sharpest partisan attack of this election campaign, President Bush denounced Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Thursday and said “the party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run.”

Seeking to rebut Democrats who say a new intelligence report indicates that Iraq is fueling terrorism rather than helping to counter it, Bush said voters face a choice “between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror.”

Republicans “understand the nature of the enemy,” he said. “We know the enemy wants to attack us again,” whereas Democrats “offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing.”

Now, the timing is not only obvious, it’s ironic. Of all the times for Bush to hold himself out as the only person to really understand the war on terror, picking the week in which we learn that the president’s decisions are making the terrorist threat worse is probably not a great idea.

Nevertheless, while Bush is routinely bitter and partisan, he was unusually so yesterday. In a 40-minute speech in Alabama, the president lashed out specifically at Democrats, by name, 13 times. He condemned Osama bin Laden, by name, three times.

In other words, given yesterday’s remarks, the president is four times as focused on the minority party, which controls no branch of government and hasn’t blocked any of his key pieces of legislation, than he is on the terrorist behind 9/11.

Someone probably ought to remind the president that lashing out at Democrats doesn’t catch any terrorists, prevent any attacks, or protect any families. Indeed, if Bush directed the same passion into effective counter-terrorism as he does attacking Democrats, we’d all be better off.

Which is not to say that Bush’s sweeping condemnations were of no value at all.

On the contrary, I think they were a helpful reminder to congressional Dems, some of whom went along with the Bush-McCain Torture Bill, that it doesn’t matter how they vote, or whether they try to prevent too much “daylight” between themselves and the GOP on national security matters — the White House is going to smear them anyway.

Perhaps the Democrats who voted in favor of the bill really do believe that it’s critically important to let interrogators rough up their subjects and to deny detainees the writ of habeas corpus — so important that it’s worth undercutting America’s moral high ground in the war on terror and inviting other countries to treat our citizens just as badly as we’d apparently like to treat theirs. If that’s what they believe — all history and law and experience and good sense notwithstanding — then they were right to say “yea” when the clerk called their names.

But if the Torture Twelve think that today’s vote is going to buy them some kind of free pass from the GOP’s soft-on-terror claims, they’d better be prepared to be disappointed — again. Even as the Senate moved toward its vote today, the president was attacking the Democrats — all Democrats — at a political fundraiser in Alabama.

Dems can vote the way Bush wants them to or not, but the end result will be the same. They might as well vote their conscience.

This coming from a guy who walked away from fulfilling his service in the National Guard.

  • Obviously the key to the war on ‘terra’ is the Alabama governer’s office. If the less moderate Republican were elected to lead Alabama forward into the 1900’s it would embolden the terrorists. On the last left wing moonbat “bash America and unleash the gay army to defeat jesus” conference call Mullah Omar personally told me that the next terrorist target was going to be in Alabama. They just could not decide if they wanted to blow up Bool Weevil Monument http://www.800alabama.com/things-to-do/alabama-attractions/details.cfm?ID=1398 or the MOOseum http://www.800alabama.com/things-to-do/alabama-attractions/details.cfm?ID=370.

    Buck Fush. I am tired of hearing his opinion.

  • Yessire, we unnerstan the enemy just fine. Maybe not dem Sunnis and Shiites, they look da same. But we got dem Islams pegged. Same wid dem Muslims.

  • When I saw this story on the evening news last night, I thought the Bush was having a bad week–between the leaked NIE report, Bill Clinton’s push-back interview, and Woodward’s new book, “State of Denial.” I also thought that Bill Clinton ought to step up to the microphone (again) and rip Bush a new one. Then, on second thought, I wondered if Rove was having Georgie Boy set a trap for the Clinton or the Democrats in general.

    Nevertheless, before 2008 rolls around, i’d love to see the Big Dog put the wood to the Boy King.

  • why would you assume that any dem who voted for this bill didn’t vote their “conscience?” as far as i’m concerned, this bill revealed some members for who they are. i personally have lost interest in a dem majority (which, for other reasons, i hadn’t favored anyhow) as long as there are as many asswipes as were revealed in the dem senate yesterday.

    simply disgusting.

  • Howard:

    Every Republican except Chaffee voted for it; what does that make them? If we had a Dem majority, this wouldn’t have even come to a vote.

  • This post and the last post assume that the vote was done to gratify an American public that wants a tough response to terrorism.

    Okay then, let’s examine the assumption…

    I ask it again:

    What percent of the American public supports torture?

    How friendly is this culture to using brute force to get admissions of guilt?

    Can anybody point to a poll?

  • Howard:

    I feel your pain. The apparent “strategy” of the Democrats yesterday was appalling. But let’s not lose interest in a Democratic majority just yet; the result yesterday would quite likely have been different if these weakling Democratic Senators had some chance of passing amendments that would have resulted in a less offensive bill. As it was, a filibuster (which I would definitely have preferred) would have left them open to a charge of blocking all action on detainees, because they had no chance of passing any alternative.

    Besides, I have two words for you: “Ralph Nader.” Let’s not go there again; it DOES matter who’s in control, even if the Democrats aren’t perfect (or even very good).

  • From the WaPo article:

    Later, Bush traveled to New Albany, Ohio, where he headlined a fundraiser for embattled Rep. Deborah Pryce (R). The event was at the sprawling estate of Leslie H. Wexner, chairman and chief executive officer of Limited Brands, the retailing conglomerate that includes the Limited,
    Victoria’s Secret and Bath & Body Works.
    The event, which was closed to the press, was expected to raise $500,000 for Pryce.

    Now we know where not to shop.

  • I’m in agreement with Peter. I had a good long time where I thought about this, and realized that this is what Bush wants. Not to paint us as soft on terror, but to make Democrats feel disillusioned about our own party and stay away from the polls in droves. I say screw that sh*t. Whatever the sins of the Dems are — and not every single one of them voted for this, a majority did not — the GOP to a man voted to this (with the exception of a few). So the hell with all of them.

  • A very good point. Voting for the war and Patriot Act hasn’t made us anything but ACLU, cut and run traitors, who care more about terrorists that security. By voting lockstep, we get the added benefit of seeming weak and unwilling to stand up for the principles we’re getting smeared for standing up for it.

    You’re appeasers for not supporting the war! You only support the war because you have no conviction!

    I have long thought the true enemy in the GOP mind is not terrorists, but liberals. Terrorists are just a tool they use to fight the real enemy — us. If you’ll notice, there aren’t too many books by conservatives about terrorists, but LOTS of ink devoted to discussing liberal cooperation with terrorists. Terrorism has always been wholly about domestic politics.

  • I love the juxtaposition of your articles, CB.

    “Republicans ‘understand the nature of the enemy,’. . .”

    Except for Trent Lott, who can’t figure them out because they all look alike.

  • The sad thing is I really do think he believes this. He really does believe if you are a Democrat – even one who marches in lock step – you are the them he is railing against. He (and his drones) really do believe that any and all disagreement is wrong. It is pathalogical not just partisan games. No matter what someone says and no matter how they say it, any and all disagreement make you a them. They really are living in the reality they created and to the rest of us that reality is just insane. Trying to reason with crazy people just makes us crazier because “we” don’t think that way and don’t understand how they do. Frankly I don’t want to try and reason with them because it just brings me farther into their crazy world – a place that is just not good for my mind or body or soul.

  • I tend to cut the Dems some slack. Minority status makes cowards of us all.

    Why is it that candidates generated by our base have more trouble than the crazy candidates brought forward by their base?

  • No matter how crappy the Democrats are, they can’t hold a candle to what the Republicans are and always have been.

    Attack, attack, attack.

    Bush is an ignorant, incompetent, insane, blood thirsty, war criminal. Republicans think that is great. They are war criminals too.

    The only thing Republicans have ever been good at, is looting the Treasury. Screw them to hell.

  • CB: Someone probably ought to remind the president that lashing out at Democrats doesn’t catch any terrorists, prevent any attacks, or protect any families.

    i eagerly await. *snore*

    Helen Thomas, are you still w/US? anyone?

  • “But if the Torture Twelve think that today’s vote is going to buy them some kind of free pass from the GOP’s soft-on-terror claims, they’d better be prepared to be disappointed — again.”

    Exactly. You can’t appease a bully by giving him what he wants. A smack in the face is far more effective.

    And satisfying.

    It’s way past time for everyone to realize they aren’t dealing with a rational person or a person who might come to see reason if they use small enough words. He’s an addict who has found the best drug of all: Power. Any one who tries to take his drug away, or even suggest he should cut back a bit, is the enemy. I guarantee you Shrubya’s nursing a big old grudge against everyone who has ever questioned his right to do what he pleases when he pleases. And now that the nasty people who tried to take his drug away have once again been cowed, he’s only going to get worse.

    Hurrry up 2008. I want to see McMonkeyshag dragged from the White House kicking and screaming.

  • As always, Bush sees his “duty” to the Republican Party first and to the country… well, “not at all” is my instinctive response, but clearly way, way down the list.

    I’m not old enough to remember Nixon, but I can’t imagine that even he was as partisan to the core as Bush is. He’s Rove’s perfect Frankenstein monster.

  • Nixon was a realist. He knew how to make sausage and didn’t flinch at cooperating with Democrats if that would make the difference for him and his party. The Regal Moron, by contrast, doesn’t give a damn even about his party. I have a hard time imagining G. Felix Allen, Jr. or Videotape Bill Frist filling the Shrub’s phony cowboy boots. As far as the Bush Crime Family is concerned, the Republicans could all go to hell. While they toe the party line, kiss the royal ass, cave after merely appearing to disagree for the photo-op… all’s well with His world. I always wondered what it would feel like to live under a dictatorship (one which pretends to be theocratic); now I’m beginning to learn.

  • This Republican Party reminds me of that psychology expiriment where study subjects were encouraged to provide what they though was increasingly painful stimuli to an unseen stranger becasue an authority figure told them to do so. The Repubs should be able to hear the screaming from Iraq, Guantanamo and other places but are too busy looking for approval from their bosses. The fact that 12 Dems also are looking for that approval is shameful.

    While Congress plays it games of Risk in their conference rooms, they have lost moral awareness that people are actually dying and a once-great nation is whithering as they try to see which side wins their little games. So much of this nation’s moral, political, social and diplomatc capital is being squandered to protect one foolish man’s fragile ego in the White House.

  • Bush said voters face a choice “between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror.”

    Yes, we’d like to win it before we die. You’d like it to go on forever, wouldn’t you Boy George II?

    How exactly is the attitude that the more jihadists there are is better because there are more to kill better?

    Worst – President – Ever

  • The bumper sticker administration should know you can’t keep
    “banging your head against a wall”.

  • And yet, from what I read now in a Washington Post chat (TalkingPointsMemo has a link), the Dems are still going to be a bit wary of really attacking the GOP. They should be out there with ads on torture and on Iraq like crazy — are they? Does anyone know? CB, any way you can post on this?

  • the vote was done to gratify an American public that wants a tough response to terrorism.

    No, the vote was done to potentially provide fodder to attack Dem candidates as soft on Terrorists. I don’t like the way several Dems voted on this bill, but I acknowledge the electoral reality of it. Max Cleland was a very illustrative lesson. Specifically, I wish Sherrod Brown had voted against that travesty of a bill, but if he had he would likely lose to DeWine. And frankly, at this point, I prefer the chance of Brown winning his Senate election to his voting against a bill that was going to pass regardless of his vote.

    I don’t like the bill. I’m not happy that Brown and other Dems voted for it, but I’m more focused on taking back the House or the Senate. Having said that, I do think the Senate Dems should have filibustered. The only vulnerable Dem in the Senate, Menenedez, could have abstained and the Dems still would have had their 40+ votes to sustain the filibuster. That they didn’t is truly sad.

  • Combine the USA PATRIOT Act’s under reported definition of domestic terrorists (yes folks, it’s not just about foreigners) and the Republican’s torture bill and you’ve got some REAL scary stuff happening. For all activists — left AND right. Congress is insane to abdicate so much power to the White House.

    I’m all for a Democratic majority. But don’t assume the cowardly lions would suddenly become courageous. Remember who controlled the Senate when the PATRIOT Act passed 98-1? The Dems.

    So why didn’t the Democratic majority resist this draconian intrusion on our civil liberties? (Senator Leahy did get a sunset clause — of course it’s been reauthorized anyway.)

    Was it 9/11 hysteria? (THE justification for every disgusting act this Administration has done these past 5 years.)

    Or, was it the Anthrax letters sent to Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Majority Leader Daschle? (A still unsolved crime that shut Congress down — coincidentally of course — while the PATRIOT Act was hastily enacted.)

    Maybe if the Dems want another shot at being the majority they need to go on the offensive. Attack the Republican’s strength. What if the Dems and Indies began challenging THE UNDERLYING PREMISE for passing all this garbage. 9/11!

    What if they began calling for a new investigation NOW. (I know, they must control Congress to control the agenda — BUT NOT THE PROPAGANDA WAR.) Do you REALLY think Dems will get control as long as the fear of terrorism terrorizes Americans?

    What if the party line became “give us Congress and we’ll stop this President’s agenda by investigating what really happened on 9/11?” They would have support from victim’s family members, firefighters, FBI agents, physicists, scholars, and just plain working folk like me. I mean come on. Even FEMA and NIST haven’t explained how Building 7 could collapse into its own footprint! And there are hundreds of other credible scientific questions! Enough to raise reasonable doubts in the minds of voters.

    What if Democratic and Independent candidates showed the Building 7 demolition video (www.WTC7.net) with a voice-over demanding answers before surrendering one more civil liberty.

    What if candidates began connecting the dots? Outlined ALL of the lies this Administration has been caught in during the past 5 years. (Why do we trust them about 9/11?) Explained how a Republican controlled Congress has created an incredibly powerful Orwellian Executive Branch…What if?

    Besides, what have they got to loose? The majority? Cowardice?

  • “the party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run.”

    More assery, ho hum. Neither FDR or Truman would wipe their feet on that sorry bastard. Shrubmonkey’s worst nightmare is a bunch of FDR/Truman Democrats because that means opposition with balls bigger and harder than his head. Too bad the current lot is giving him nothing but sweet dreams of domination.

  • Tomorrow Tammy Duckworth, candidate for the retiring Henry Hyde’s seat (IL-06) gives the Democratic response to Bush’s weekly radio address. On Nov. 4 2004, 1 day after Kerry conceded to Bush Duckworth’s legs were blown off by an rpg as she piloted her Blackhawk helicopter in Iraq. Peter Roskam, her asshole opponent has already gotten torn a new one for talking “cut and run” in her presence. Tomorrow is Bush’s turn. After the broadcast the webcast should be up on her website:

    http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/

    Check it out and pass it on.

  • Comments are closed.