Today’s must-read comes by way of the incomparable Dana Milbank, who noted that Republican arguments that Kerry and the Dems “are giving comfort to terrorists and undermining the war in Iraq” are pushing the boundaries of what has generally been considered acceptable political rhetoric.
Appearing in the Rose Garden yesterday with Iraq’s interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, Bush said Kerry’s statements about Iraq “can embolden an enemy.” After Kerry criticized Allawi’s speech to Congress, Vice President Cheney tore into the Democratic nominee, calling him “destructive” to the effort in Iraq and the struggle against terrorism.
It was the latest instance in which prominent Republicans have said that Democrats are helping the enemy or that al Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents and other enemies of the United States are backing Kerry and the Democrats. Such accusations are not new to American politics, but the GOP’s line of attack this year has been pervasive and high-level.
Milbank noted a stunning number of examples, not from blowhards on talk radio or right-wing blogs, but from the White House, the House Speaker, Bush’s State Department, and high-profile U.S. senators. Each have argued the same message: to criticize Bush is to side with the terrorists, who desperately want Kerry to win. I appreciate the fact that the GOP has tried to bully their way through rational thought for a long while, but these attacks turn reasonable discourse on their head.
Such accusations have been a component of American politics since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and surfaced in the modern era during the McCarthy communist hunt and the Vietnam War protests.
It’s a subtle, but accurate, point from Milbank — the Republicans’ current attacks are not just over-the-top, they are on par with some of the most demagogic political smears of U.S. political history.
The slurs, however, inevitably lead to questions about the substance upon which the attacks are based. As luck would have it, the GOP has this backwards, too.
The last time I talked about this, a few emailers said I was wrong and a bit hypocritical in my analysis. I was condemning the right’s attacks accusing Dems, but I turned around and effectively levied the same accusation against the right. If it’s offensive when they do it, the argument goes, it’s offensive when I do it.
While the argument is not without merit, and I generally avoid relying on the rules of the playground, I’m left with the “they started it” defense.
In other words, the GOP, at the highest levels of government, is raising a critically important issue. They want the public to believe that Kerry, Edwards, and the Dems are on the terrorists’ side and even that the terrorists want Bush to lose because he’s such a great warrior. I not only want to highlight how disturbing these attacks are, I feel compelled to address the merits of the charges and note why the opposite is probably true. After all, they opened the door; I’m just walking through it.
So, who do you suppose Osama bin Laden is rooting for on Election Day? British Ambassador to Italy Ivor Roberts noted this week, “George W. Bush is the best recruiting sergeant for al Qaeda. If there is anyone ready to celebrate his eventual reelection, it is al Qaeda.”
Is this true? Well, it’s not unreasonable, given the GOP’s recent attacks, to note that Bush does a lot of things that make bin Laden and al Queda very happy.
* Bush has overstretched our armed forces in a bloody, and increasingly deadly, war. This is what bin Laden and al Queda want.
* The entire Middle East is angry and frustrated with the U.S. and our policies. This is what bin Laden and al Queda want.
* We’ve created an incubator for a new generation of terrorists and al Queda keeps getting bigger with new recruits. This is what bin Laden and al Queda want.
* America’s moral authority has been lost throughout the world. This is what bin Laden and al Queda want.
* After we drove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, we turned our attention away from the country and towards Iraq, allowing bin Laden’s friends in the Taliban to regroup and start seizing control of much of the country again. This is what bin Laden and al Queda want.
* The war in Iraq has frayed our long-standing alliances with (former) allies around the world. This is what bin Laden and al Queda want.
* When Bush started focusing on Iraq, he effectively stopped looking for bin Laden. Indeed, Bush admitted as much when he said, “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” This is exactly what bin Laden and al Queda want.
* At home, Bush has shortchanged domestic security initiatives, including protection at ports and chemical plants. This is what bin Laden and al Queda want.
But we’re supposed to vote against Kerry because the terrorists want him to win? There’s a good reason Republicans keep throwing this charge around — but never back it up with any substance.