I’ve already complained about Bush’s shameless photo op in the Pacific on Thursday, when he landed on an aircraft carrier in a fighter jet and announced that the fighting in Iraq was wrapping up. I wanted to add a few more details I’ve learned since my earlier rant.
First, the use of the fighter jet. Customarily, a president would deliver a speech on the end to fighting in the White House or perhaps the Rose Garden, but this administration chose a backdrop that would look better in campaign commercials. Fine. But when the White House announced the president’s choice of transport — jet instead of the more traditional helicopter — they denied political imagery was the motivation, insisting that the ships’ proximity to the shore made the jet the practical option.
Like so many of the Bush administration’s claims, this was intentionally untrue. The ship was 30 miles from California’s coast; there was no reason to use the jet other than political over-dramatization. They were playing to the cameras, knowing the media would eat it up (which they did). It was also a not-so-subtle reminder that Bush used to be a pilot. Of course, it also reminded some of us that he also used family connections to dodge the Vietnam draft and even skipped out on his National Guard duty.
The American Prospect’s blog raised a good point. “This may seem like small beer,” Tapped said. “But you know that if Bill Clinton had done this, there would have been a tidal wave of negative press about how the sleazy Democrat tied up the resources of a carrier battle group for an entire day just to indulge his need for a photo op. You’d never hear the end of it. And the White House’s willingness to lie so baldly — the Lincoln was apparently actually within sight of land — is a testament to the pure contempt in which it holds the press. Sadly, it seems justified. ”
Anne Kornblut at the Boston Globe also noted Bush’s use of these sailors as political props.
“[T]he carrier was just 30 miles from shore by the time he arrived, and officials said it had slowed down so that Bush could spend the night on board before the USS Abraham Lincoln docks today, extending by one day the sailors’ almost 10-month deployment at sea, the longest by a carrier in 30 years,” Kornblut noted.
As Tapped added, “Let’s get this straight. These men and women haven’t seen their families for ten months. They’re 30 miles from home. And Bush had them slow down the carrier so he could spend the night on board and generate some footage for his campaign ads?”
But enough about the photo-op controversy…for now. I also wanted to take a moment to rant about what Bush actually had to say once he got around to giving his speech.
Bush’s speech on Thursday was billed as an announcement about the end of fighting in Iraq, but it turned out to be more than that. The president ended up closely equating war in Iraq with the so-called “war on terrorism.”
“The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on,” Bush said. “That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the ‘beginning of the end of America.’ By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.” He added that America’s victory over Iraq is “crucial” because “we’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda.”
The president had to know what he was saying wasn’t true, but he said it anyway. We’ve had this debate before, and it’s an argument that the White House lost. Iraq isn’t Afghanistan, Hussein isn’t bin Laden. The Taliban helped kill thousands of Americans on 9/11 while Iraq had nothing to do with it. War in Afghanistan was a retaliatory strike; regime change in Iraq was a “war of choice” against an enemy that hadn’t provoked our wrath. The Bush administration tried desperately find a connection — any connection — between Hussein’s government and al Queda but couldn’t find one. That obviously didn’t stop Bush from calling them “allies.”
Bush is still deceptively trying to erase the difference between two very different wars, apparently hoping that a) we won’t notice, b) we won’t care, or c) both.
As Slate’s William Saletan noted on Friday, “In Bush’s telling of the story, it all fits together. The war on terror gives meaning to the battle of Iraq. And the battle of Iraq demonstrates tangible success in the war on terror. Except it doesn’t. The two stories — Iraq and al-Qaida, the battle and the war — have never really meshed. Bush keeps saying they’re the same thing. But saying doesn’t make it so.”
In his speech, Bush also noted that the “19 months” since the attacks of 9/11 “changed the world.”
Salentan wasn’t buying it. “[D]on’t tell us this was a triumph in the war on terror, Mr. President. Don’t tell us the defeat of a secular dictator has turned the tide against a gang of religious fanatics. You wanted a quick, clear victory, and you got it. But don’t flatter yourself. You haven’t changed the world in 19 months. You’ve only changed the subject.”