The incoherence of the new White House offensive

Slate’s Fred Kaplan wrote a good piece earlier this week about Bush’s latest defense for the war. It seemed right at the time, but as the week has progressed, I’ve grown less sure.

President George W. Bush has suddenly shifted rhetoric on the war in Iraq. Until recently, the administration’s line was basically, “Everything we are saying and doing is right.” It was a line that held him in good stead, especially with his base, which admired his constancy above all else. Now, though, as his policies are failing and even his base has begun to abandon him, a new line is being trotted out: “Yes, we were wrong about some things, but everybody else was wrong, too, so get over it.”

This “I was wrong, but so were you” tack is, to be sure, underpinning most of the new White House talking points. When the Bush gang insists (incorrectly) that Dems saw the same intelligence as the president, the obvious point is that everyone saw the same faulty information together. Ergo, there was one big mutual mistake.

Similarly, the Bush gang has become practically obsessed with collecting Dem quotes from 2002 and 2003, when many party leaders agreed with the president that Iraq was a threat that demanded attention. When these quotes aren’t being wrenched from context, the White House is again implicitly saying that Dems have to be considered as culpable for this debacle as Bush. Bush said Saddam had to go; Dems said Saddam had to go; which bring us back to the one big mutual mistake.

But this entire line of argument is only half-way coherent. If the White House was really arguing that everyone was wrong at the same time about the same things for same reason, then the “I was wrong, but so were you” approach would make sense. But that’s not quite what the argument is. Instead we’re hearing from the Bush gang is, “I was wrong, but so were you … and by the way, I was right all along.”

Consider Dick Cheney’s remarks from Wednesday.

“There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat, that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and that, in a post-9/11 world, we could not afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of weapons of mass destruction programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, whose nation had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder.”

These aren’t the arguments of someone who realizes he was wrong but desperately wants to share responsibility with Congress; this is Cheney making the case that the invasion and occupation of Iraq really was absolutely necessary. It’s the quintessential “We were right all along” approach.

And if that’s the White House line — and I sincerely hope that it is — then the rest of their argument against Dems falls apart pretty quickly. (It’s an argument based on lies and deception anyway, but I mean it falls apart as a matter of logic and consistency, too.)

In the broader narrative of this debate, the Dems basically have a line: we saw limited intelligence, reluctantly trusted Bush, and empowered the president to pursue a military option. Since then, we’ve learned about manipulated intelligence and seen Bush’s ineptitude. Now, we’re unhappy.

In response, the White House has a variety of choices, but “Bush was wrong while also being right” isn’t one of them.

What we have here is a Bush gang that wants to have its yellowcake and eat it too. They’ll grudgingly concede Iraq had no WMD, or nuclear program, or ties to 9/11, while simultaneously arguing that the war was essential from the beginning.

With this in mind, it seems Dems should force the argument in this direction. Americans realize that this war was a mistake, and they may be willing to accept an “I was wrong, but so were you” argument from the Bush gang. So let’s remind them that this isn’t the argument at all — that despite all we’ve witnessed, the Bush White House is proud to have invaded Iraq and, for reasons that defy comprehension, believe they made the right call every step of the way. Let’s see how many Americans agree.

“reluctantly trusted” the president. Big mistake. He can no longer be trusted. Look what trusting him has brought about. This, in my view is a huge talking point which should be repeated often and loud.

  • “…we could not afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of weapons of mass destruction programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, whose nation had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder.”

    With the exception, I think, of being an official state sponsor of terror, that description can easily apply to Bush/Cheney.

  • I think they are addressing the credibility issue. I think they are denying that they cherrypicked the intelligence used to justify the war. In their view they can’t be accused of having lied the country into an unecessary war if everyone saw the same info. They are insisting that they still have credibility for a just cause.

  • The latest push is dripping with desparation. When you’re down to, “Trust us – we’re every bit as dumb as everybody else”, you’re already sunk.
    Actually the latest PR blitz strikes me as a grown up version of, “But Mom! All the other kids are doing it!”

    Then, there’s Cheney, the lone, brave advocate of torture. His comments the other day were so far removed from reality that it’s perfectly reasonable to question his sanity.

    I’m not calling him crazy for effect or partisan gamesmanship. If his grasp of reality has really eroded that far, he should be removed from office due to mental incapicty.

  • The Bush Administration is relying on Pluto’s argument in Animal House: “you screwed up. Your trusted us.”

  • The argument that “Saddam is gone, and that’s a good thing” is starting to grate.

    Look, while the above statement is probably true, it doesn’t mean that what has taken his place is any better. Let’s take their argument in context with what was really happening.

    The Twin Towers had been destroyed by terrorists who happend to be mostly of Saudi Arabian citizenship. Osama Bin Laden takes ‘credit’.

    The admin did the right thing seeking out and destroying Osama’s terrorist bases in Afghanistan and routing the Taliban. (this “war” still going on in Afghanistan, and being woefully under-reported)

    At this point, rather than pursuing Osama and focusing on subverting terrorists, the admin starts to make claims about an Al Qaeda/Iraq link.

    Admin starts asserting that Saddam has WMD’s and won’t let UN inspectors in to investigate.

    Saddam given ultimatum. “Comply or face the consequences” (die)

    Admin pushes for Congress to authorize force to back up ultimatum.

    Congress approves use of force, most Congressmen at the time say that it should be used as a “last resort”.

    Invasion of Iraq begins.

    Now, I’m sure there are other events in the timeline that I could have included. But the gist of the timeline is this: BushCo took their eye off the ball. This was a “War on Terror”. And while Saddam may have had WMD programs and was looking to restart them at some point, so did Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, etc.
    The questioning the Admin should be hit with over and over again is two-fold.
    Why did we go to war in Iraq??? Then depending on the answer, the follow-up should serve as a deadly one-two combo.

    “Because Saddam had WMD” – So did Iran…and they have a fundamental Islamic government that was probably more sympathetic to Al Qaeda than Saddam. Why did we go after Iraq and not Iran?

    “Saddam was a dictator that had killed his own people” – So is North Korea and they HAVE nukes and have been involved in the black market where terrorists most likely would acquire WMD. Why did we go after Iraq and not North Korea?

    “We wanted to establish a Democratic government in the mideast” – OK, but wouldn’t it have been easier to start with our ally, Saudi Arabia? They are friendly to us and we wouldn’t have had to risk our armed forces to try this grand experiment.

    “We are fighting them there so we won’t have to fight them here” – yes, but aren’t we still “fighting them there” in Afghanistan. Why did we need another front to fight terrorists?

    I’d like to see the press ask some of these questions…though I doubt we’d get satisfactory answers.

  • Apart from their culpability, Democrats need to be laying out a coherent, uniform plan to get the U.S. out of Iraq sooner rather than later.

    The majority of the American people are behind them on this issue. The Republicans are offering us what …. more of the same? Another 10 years? A whole generation of U.S. troops to be sniped at?

    I’m convinced that Democrats need to make the case that Bush mislead the nation into going into war. But they also need to make a clear case for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, and the entire Democratic Caucus should get behind it.

  • typo:

    believe they might the right call every step of the way

    should be…

    believe they made the right call every step of the way

  • I just got this (mass emailing) from Harry Reid.

    On Sunday the Republican National Committee is going to start running ads against me in my home state of Nevada – well I must be doing something right if they are already that scared.

    The ads claim that I am politicizing the war in Iraq. Quiet frankly this attack is so ludicrous it would be funny, if the topic were not so serious. Our soldiers are fighting everyday in Iraq, but instead of engaging in a legitimate debate on the merits of our current course in Iraq, George Bush and Dick Cheney do what they always do and attempt to smear their opponents.

    This week alone, we’ve seen Stephen Hadley. . . Donald Rumsfeld. . . President Bush. . . and Vice President Cheney lash out at their critics. . . yet they all remain silent when it comes to giving our troops and the American people a plan. Tired rhetoric and political attacks do nothing to solve our problems in Iraq.

    As a former boxer I know, your opponent always starts to swing wildly when you’ve got them on the ropes. The way to beat them isn’t to hesitate, but to continue landing punches until he goes down. The Iraq war is too important an issue to allow cheap political attacks to prevent us from doing what is best for our troops and best for our country.

    Back when I was Nevada Gaming Commissioner the mob planted a bomb inside my car. That didn’t scare me from doing what was right then, and I certainly am not scared of George Bush and his gang now. Democrats are going to keep pressing forward demanding accountability for intelligence failures and demanding a strategy for success that will bring the troops home.

    Call the White House and let them know you are tired of political attacks and want real solutions for Iraq. You can reach the White House by dialing:

    202-456-1111

    Thank you,

    Harry Reid

  • Good point. The Repugs bullied every just about every elected Democrat into supporting this war, or at least its premises. Panicking with night-sweat visions of “Willie Horton” ads facing them weeks before an election, Democrats voted for the war out of pure fear– only a few were courageous or in safe enough districts to vote no.

    But now there’s sufficient political cover to finally speak out against the war: a Free Media movement to do fact-checking and call the Cheney Administration on its lies, a grassroots/netroots alternative fundraising source, and the resulting 60% of Americans now agreeing the war was a mistake.

    The more we agitate, the more we shitstorm and boycott, the more we fundraise, the more we walk precincts, the more spine that the Democrats in Congress seem to find. Good for them. Yes they wimped out in the months before November 2002– they had guns pointed at their heads (and were still shaking from Anthrax letters being sent to their offices they year before, too!).

    Elected Democrats need to know that they can get elected and re-elected by being accountable to the people, not to corporations and Repug leg-breakers. That’s the only way they can be accountable to us.

  • Steve, you’re exactly right on this. Best commentary I’ve seen all week. And, it’s also why the democrats should line up behind Murtha and say enough’s enough, or at least start pushing for withdrawal on a timeline after the elections next month.

    As you point out, the administration’s argument is fundamentally non-sensical in the logical sense. In the context of the public debate, their position is: we’re still pro-war and we need to keep all our guys over there. Which, of course, is politically unpopular, and getting moreso everyday. Which is why we’re hearing so much bleating from the right about “playing politics.”
    (Yeah, no shit, politicians play politics.)

    The GOP is getting frantic as the democrats abandon their wobbly semi-pro-war stance. When one party is clearly pro-war and the other party is clearly antiwar, the political distinctions will come into extremely clear contrast. And the GOP knows that they’ve already lost the public. The only cover they had left was the wobbly democrats. The GOP is desperate to not get left holding that bag all alone.

  • I never got the impression that Bush was admitting
    any mistake whatsoever. He said the
    obstreperous Dems had it right in the
    beginning, and now they’re playing politics.

    But what good does that do? We’re still
    left with the Saddam is gone and we did
    the right thing argument. Most of the Democrats
    buy that. Most of the American people buy
    it. The American people would forgive Bush
    all his lies and treachery if the insurgency
    were vanquished tomorrow. And they still
    will, if Bush and company can turn this
    around. They have at least until 2006, and
    maybe 2008 to figure out how to declare
    victory and pull the troops out. Americans
    will be throwing flowers at Bush if he can
    defeat this insurgency. They’ll say he was
    right all along, if he can do it.

  • Since they’ve effectively ruled out sending in sufficient troops to do the job of destroying the enemy, and since our presence in Iraq is generating more recruits to the enemy’s side than we are killing, how exactly can “stay the course” result in a success? I dont think this is something we should worry about them accidently succeeding at. At the rate the Iraqis are being trained to take over militarily, it will be years before they can cover for a US troop withdrawal, so it’s quite improbably that route to success can overcome growing public discontent.

    The next set of ugly news is the reconstruction effort disaster. Practically no progress, and tons of graft. That is surely going nowhere good any time soon. Then bring on the Abramoff/Scanlon/Delay show, phase 2 of CIA leak, a broader knowledge of WHIGs activities if we ever get phase 2 of Roberts’ “investigation” , a slowing housing market and economy veering toward recession next year (in case you people dont follow the economy, take a look see at what the source of recent job growth has been, and weep). We all knew we were in trouble when Bush and co. stole the election. We just didnt know how much trouble, and Im quite sure there is much more trouble to come.

    So the next year is unlikely to produce any real positive change, despite any progress on the democratic front in Iraq. Things will deteriorate heading toward Nov 06, Repubs will get increasingly nervous and less supportive of the buffoonery in the Exec office. Support for the war will fall further.

    Once the war has succeeded in generating massive Islamic extremist support, fueled insurgency, groomed terrorists around the globe, and done what Osama and Zarqawi want it to do, you know what comes next. You dont really think that we’ve not been struck with a terrorist strike on US soil since 9/11 because we are so safe. If you missed it, we just basically got an F on our report card in this area.

    As soon as we are hit back here again, the support for Iraq is gone, we pull out, Iraq falls apart and becomes a terrorist state.

    Are there really so many idiots in this country that they could have re-elected the Shrub in 04? It’s hard to fathom.

  • Whatever happened to presidential leadership, responsibility and accountability?

    Comment by DS

    DS, we can definitely say all three went down the toliet on Inauguration Day, 2001.

  • “…the Bush White House is proud to have invaded Iraq and, for reasons that defy comprehension, believe they made the right call every step of the way.”

    With 20/20 deranged hindsight, the Chenista’s biggest gaffe in this whole thing was not declaring martial law the day of Sept. 11. The hassle of starting and maintaining a ludicrous war while simultaneously attempting to dismantle and give away the worlds largest economy is just a whole lot to accomplish with a limping but still functioning democracy.

    Having the U.S. military committed to an open-ended presence in Iraq was the goal. The Green Zone would continue to be a permanent laundromat for pallets of cash. Iraq would be an ongoing ember just waiting to leap into a flame of freedom that could be used for all manner of coercion and pleading. And OilCo/Halliburton could settle it’s fat greedy ass in the sand like Jaba the Hut on Ecstasy.

    It’s still the dream. They still want it so bad they will lie and throw tantrums on the world stage to stretch out the possibility for more time. The boots are on the ground. Chalabi is right there, waiting to step in. So close. So much bullshit put out. So much bullshit swallowed. Fucking democracy. What a pain in the ass.

  • Whatever happened to the war president? Where is the almighty Commander in Chief with whom the buck stops?

    Bush never cared what anyone thought when he lied us into an illegal war, it seems ridiculously sanctimonious to act like it matters now what people thought two years ago. Plus, anytime anyone disagreed with them then, they acted like they were traitors.

    So now they say that even though we said opposing the war was tantamount to condoning 9-11, we want to hold your lack of opposition to the war against you now so you can’t criticize how bad we fucked it all up.

    Nice. Bush is a big pansy.

  • “What happened to Osama bin Laden?”

    A simple question that the answer to which, I believe, most Americans would be very interested in hearing.

    In my mind, this is where the Dems should turn their attention.

    “Mr. President (or substitute “Mr. Vice President”)…since the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, your administration has focused its greatest attention on preparing for and accepting the challenge of a “Global War on Terror”. Yet, the most devastating terrorist attack against our country was committed by Al Queda, and led by Mr. Osama bin Laden. You said you would not rest until he was brought to justice for his atrocities against your people. It has been four years, sir…why have the people of the United States not seen Mr. bin Laden brought before them for judgement?”

  • Comments are closed.