If you missed Donald Rumsfeld’s remarks today at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention, you missed the Defense Secretary at his least sensible. This guy was on a roll, lashing out at “quitters,” who “cannot stomach a tough fight” and are inclined to “blame America first.” Throw in a few straw-man attacks and some sycophantic praise for the president and you get the idea. It was quite a string of bumper-sticker slogans.
And, as Matt Yglesias noted, it was also a hint of what’s to come.
For his latest trick, in a speech to the American Legion, Don [tag]Rumsfeld[/tag] gives the full wingnut monte. America faces an undifferentiated fascist menace. Bush’s critics are appeasers who don’t understand the lessons of history who blame America first and hate freedom. The media is treasonous and a free press is a luxury we can ill-afford in this time of crisis. Etc.
This, I think we can assume, is the fall campaign. The idea is to psyche the [tag]Democrats[/tag] out. To make them think they can’t win an argument about foreign policy. To make them act like they can’t win an argument about foreign policy. And to thereby demonstrate to the American people that even the Democrats themselves lack confidence in their own ability to handle these issues.
It’s essential that the debate be joined, and joined with confidence. Rumsfeld is a buffoon. A punchline. A well-known liar. He and his bosses — Bush and Cheney — are running around the country trying to cite the failures of their own policies as a reason to entrust them with additional authority in order to continue and intensify those same failings.
Quite right. Rumsfeld’s almost-ugly tirade today wasn’t delivered from a position of strength; it was offered in fear. With neither facts nor narratives on his side, Rumsfeld was left to simply pound the table, and hope that no one snickered at the sad rants of the poor man who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Rumsfeld ultimately insisted that critics of the administration’s handling of the war are suffering from a “moral or intellectual confusion.” On the substance, that’s just bizarre. But on the politics, I wonder if Rumsfeld appreciates just how many people he’s criticizing — especially in his own party.
E. J. Dionne Jr. noted today that a growing number of Republicans — especially those who, unlike Bush, have to face voters again — want nothing to do with the administration’s [tag]Iraq[/tag] policy.
By Election Day, how many Republican candidates will have come out against the Iraq war or distanced themselves from the administration’s policies?
August 2006 will be remembered as a watershed in the politics of Iraq. It is the month in which a majority of Americans told pollsters that the struggle for Iraq was not connected to the larger war on terrorism. They thus renounced a proposition the administration has pushed relentlessly since it began making the case four years ago to invade Iraq.
That poll finding, from a New York Times-CBS News survey, came to life on the campaign trail when Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), one of the most articulate supporters of the war, announced last Thursday that he favored a time frame for withdrawing troops.
Shays is in a tough race for reelection against Democrat Diane Farrell, who has made opposition to the war a central issue. After his 14th trip to Iraq, Shays announced that “the only way we are able to encourage some political will on the part of Iraqis is to have a timeline for troop withdrawal.”
Shays may often be out of step with many of his far-right House colleagues on several issues, but on this, his position is increasingly common. In July, Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) returned from Iraq and came to a similar conclusion. Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), hardly a moderate, has called the president’s policy “extreme.” The list goes on and on.
The Dems’ long-time positions, consistently labeled “out of the mainstream,” have not only been embraced by most of the public, they’re winning over the GOP as well.
As it turns out, Rumsfeld’s “blame America first” crowd includes most of America.