President Fails (yet again) to challenge Media Misrepresentations on Iraq
For a few months now, I’ve been sketching out some ideas for a series of posts on how President Bush squandered the political capital he earned in his 2004 election victory and lost the support he enjoyed with a majority of the American people. As I’ve been thinking about this issue, some general themes have emerged, largely related to the problems I have identified in past posts, the president’s excessive loyalty to his aides and his failure to respond more readily to critics.
Yesterday, I read a Weekly Standard piece by Bill Kristol who, in reporting on the Administration’s failure to respond to a Defense Department report on Saddam Husssein’s ties to Al Qaeda, gets at the essence of one of the latter problem, the Administration’s failure to set the record straight when the MSM spins the news to fit their narratives.
Perhaps, the Bush team wished to avoid being perceived as was that of president’s predecessor for spinning the news and believed that the truth would out. Well, if that were the case, why does Joe Wilson remain so prominent after he has long been discredited?
Indeed, it was the Administration’s failure to address directly that Democrat’s distortions which caused people to start becoming increasingly skeptical of the decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny.
Once again, as Kristol notes, the Administration is “silent” when MSM spins a report to suit their narrative. ABC News reports the study finds “no evidence Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.” But, in fact, that very report, as Kristol’s colleague Stephen Hayes shows, found extensive ties between Hussein and “groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda . . . or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.”
The media has shown little interest in presenting the Republican side of the debate over Iraq. (Note the footnote to my previous post where I note a “senior writer” for the Philadelphia Inquirer describes Joe Wilson without referencing that the op-ed the writer cited had been discredited.) If the president wants to get his side out, he needs to us the bully pulpit of the presidency to make his case. Or at least dispatch his aides out to set the record straight.
He can’t expect the media to do it for him. Even when he’s right.
Had he done this more readly over the past five years, he might enjoy higher approval ratings than he does today. And might still enjoy the credibility he had on Iraq at the time he pushed to liberate that nation from a tyrant who, this recent report shows, supported groups allied with Al Qaeda and which worked to advance its agenda.
20 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I’ve been saying it for the last three years, and I’ll say it one more time - The Bush Administration is the absolute WORSE public relations administration in my lifetime. I think they’re worse than Carter’s.
Comment by sonicfrog — March 18, 2008 @ 9:20 pm - March 18, 2008
Sonic: Agreed.
I can’t wait for 2009 and for him to leave. It’s like having a void in the White House.
Comment by Vince P — March 18, 2008 @ 10:28 pm - March 18, 2008
This article , titled: The Politics of a Failed Presidency http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/857bstgi.asp
The article outlines a common pattern to three major policy areas: Social Conservatism, Fiscal Conservativism, Foreign Policy Conservativism.
In all three areas, the same pattern exists. And notice the pivot point is just as the 2nd term starts:
[These are just excerpts, the article is very long]
“What does seem clear is that defective policy judgments and bad political decisions, particularly in the immediate aftermath of his reelection, show every sign of undoing one of the president’s more impressive policy achievements. Once again, the pattern is excellent initial judgment, strong will, fair to decent early execution, culminating in distraction and in an ultimate failure to finish.”
We’ve seen how this worked to undo or render negligible some of his bravest and most innovative domestic moves, such as the first-term tax cuts and the faith-based initiative. The same failure to follow through demoralized Bush’s supporters and threatened his achievements in foreign policy as well.
…
[This agrees with what I’ve been saying all year… Rice is a disaster]
What caused this kind of progress to peter out, to be de-emphasized or put aside? One factor, surprisingly, was that Bush’s second-term secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, was more deferential to outside and internal opponents of Bush’s policies than was her openly skeptical predecessor, Colin Powell
…
[I’ve been saying this all year too… we may doing good in Iraq, but everywhere else is a disaster and our work in Iraq is going to be squandered becasue Iraq will never be stable as long as Iran is ruled by the Mullahs]
In terms of the political debate, all this leaves the president with just about the worst of all worlds. If you share the president’s premise that Iraq is only one front, albeit an important one, of a much larger global conflict, an improved Bush grade on Iraq is dwarfed by failures and humiliating retreats virtually everywhere else, most visibly Iran and North Korea. If you share the mainstream Democratic storyline that Iraq was a blunder and diversion from capturing Osama bin Laden and annihilating al Qaeda, the survival and consolidation of al Qaeda’s high command in western Pakistan and the continued strength of Taliban forces in Afghanistan are further confirmation of the blunder, modified not at all by the recent success of General Petraeus. If you agree with those a bit further left, that the global war on terror is nothing but a bumper sticker, seemingly contrary evidence in such widely disparate places as Gaza, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan simply proves that most of the anti-American unrest in the Arab and Islamic world stems from our Iraq invasion, our partiality to Israel, or some combination of the two, in which case a quick retreat from Iraq is just as necessary as it was before the arrival of General Petraeus.
Comment by Vince P — March 18, 2008 @ 10:40 pm - March 18, 2008
Bush is his own worst enemy. When he launched the Iraq initiative, I wondered why he chose it over Syria. I always felt that controlling the outlet to the Bekkar Valley and sealing Iraq’s most open frontier would have been the better squeeze play on Saddam.
But once the war was under way, with Senate and UN approval, it was up to Bush to sell it. He continually regurgitated talking points. In hindsight, his more cautious route of going through Iraq was the right choice. My preference for taking out Syria might have been the easier course, but it was never an easy to sell tactic.
Bush has too often played the chucklehead that the liberal elite claim him to be. But Reagan was also considered to be a dunce and portrayed by the MSM as something akin to Ronald McDonald or less. Perhaps Bush has known from the beginning that he would be savaged by the liberals and the MSM no matter what he did.
When all is said and done, I prefer feisty to milquetoast.
Comment by heliotrope — March 18, 2008 @ 11:13 pm - March 18, 2008
“When all is said and done, I prefer feisty to milquetoast”
McCain appears no better. It’s depressing
Comment by Vince P — March 18, 2008 @ 11:19 pm - March 18, 2008
One had much more justification.
a) Syria didn’t have 12 years of U.N. resolutions essentially suspending its sovereignty and demanding that the world take action against it.
b) Syria hadn’t attacked four of its neighbors, used WMD on its own people, and threatened terrorism against foreign powers other than Israel.
c) Though brutal and repressive, Syria had killed a smaller percentage of its people than Saddam in Iraq.
Also, possibly geography: Closer to both Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Agree. Partial excuse: Bush inherently lacks charisma. He is what he is. He simply can’t inspire people to fantasize about him and say ridiculously adoring things. Good news: you know what you’re getting, with him. Bad news: you can be 110% sure you aren’t getting a bit more.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 18, 2008 @ 11:47 pm - March 18, 2008
As for Joe Wilson, he stood up and slammed Bush (or attempted to) and that’s what matters to liberals. The fact that he lied doesn’t. The ends justify the means. It’s patently clear that liberals don’t give a damn about lying since that’s all they’ve done for the past, at least, 8 years.
Oh and the fact that Cheney "leaked" the ID of a super-duper, covert secret agent singularly responsible for our national security. Don’t doubt that there’s pity at play in putting him on here campaign.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 19, 2008 @ 2:04 am - March 19, 2008
#6 ILC, I take your points and fully agree. I had a Walter Mitty approach to my thinking. I was imagining Reagan and Libya and a true preemptive strike. Syria is an open bazaar for Hamas and the troubles with Lebanon, the Palestinians, the Egyptian Brotherhood, the radicals in Turkey and Jordan, etc. It’s Baathist regime fed Saddam’s needs. I was hoping that we would have the Moxie to literally occupy Syria and stare Saddam down from his safest haven. But I know that Congress would never have permitted it. Anyway, I can dream, can’t I? It is what MacArthur would have done.
Comment by heliotrope — March 19, 2008 @ 10:12 am - March 19, 2008
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - <a href="http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2008/03/web-reconnaissance-for-03192008.html"> Web Reconnaissance for 03/19/2008 </a> A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Comment by David M — March 19, 2008 @ 10:41 am - March 19, 2008
I know. Israel, too, should have done something about Syria in 2006 when they had sort of a chance.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2008 @ 10:48 am - March 19, 2008
Maybe we could send Pelosi back with a C-4 Kaffayah or whatever the hell that was.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 19, 2008 @ 11:00 am - March 19, 2008
heh
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2008 @ 11:06 am - March 19, 2008
I wonder if Hermes has a Pelosi in Muslimland scarf that will also double as a surrender flag? She is always so "smartly" turned out. I can imagine her in a simple Chanel black jersey burkha chatting up genital mutilation and the sisterhood of wives.
Comment by heliotrope — March 19, 2008 @ 12:33 pm - March 19, 2008
[...] President Fails (yet again) to challenge Media Misrepresentations on Iraq [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » John Bolton & the Republican Problem — March 19, 2008 @ 5:50 pm - March 19, 2008
Let me get this straight….this guy has an approval rating of 31%. He again today re-iterated his "fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here" doctrine. And you all think this is a simple PR problem? LOL
Besides Bush, I’m really curious to know exactly how many people in this nation (or the civilized war for that matter) honestly believe that some kind of battle/war is going to be fought on American soil. I’m really quaking in my boots waiting for those shiploads of foriegn soldiers to hit our shores.
Comment by Kevin — March 19, 2008 @ 10:15 pm - March 19, 2008
Kevin: You’re the weapon our enemies will use to attack us here.
you’re doing a great predictable job.
Comment by Vince P — March 19, 2008 @ 10:20 pm - March 19, 2008
I have to laugh with pity on Kevin. I bet Kevin actually believes that America is at risk of becoming an Evangelical Theocracy.. that he is actually pretty scared about this..and he thinks it’s very possible and imminent.
And he’s not alone over there on the Left… there’s been plenty of mainstream books written on this topic over the past few years.
Anyone with a brain knows that there is no legitimate movement for a Christian theocracy in this country. Anyone with a brain knows what the goals of Islamists are.
And Kevin laughs at people who take the Islamists seriously.
Kevin: Your mentality is pathetic.
Comment by Vince P — March 19, 2008 @ 10:51 pm - March 19, 2008
Besides Bush, I’m really curious to know exactly how many people in this nation (or the civilized war for that matter) honestly believe that some kind of battle/war is going to be fought on American soil.
Evidently you fell asleep on September 10, 2001, and have yet to wake up.
Your statements demonstrate quite nicely, Kevin, why Democrats like yourself are thoroughly incompetent to protect this country; you don’t even understand the basic nature of the threat.
It doesn’t take an army to attack the United States. All it takes are a few determined people and some form of action amplifier. On 9/11 it was airliners being used as cruise missiles; in the plans that we’ve already found out about, it was dropping vials of biological agents in the New York subways or setting off a crude explosive device laden with leftover radiological waste in the middle of a major city. Or it could be as simple as the war waged on Israeli soil for years, with children, women, and others with bombs strapped to their bodies blowing up stores, schools, churches, and any other target that will spread maximum devastation.
And you and your party don’t consider any of that a threat. You don’t even consider it an attack, or that fighting it off is a battle. Indeed, you and your party have consistently and completely opposed taking measures against terrorists, and have done everything in your power to stop the United States from keeping them from crossing the border, identifying and tracking their actions, arresting them when they are here, and imprisoning them for their crimes.
Osama bin Laden today stated that Europe would be attacked and people would die because newspapers published a cartoon that offended him.
You deny that that is a threat, that such an action would be an attack, or that repelling it is a battle.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 19, 2008 @ 11:22 pm - March 19, 2008
Kevin has done piss-all to learn about the enemies this country has. He aparently has done no independent research into it.
Just like a good Leftist he’s waitign to be spoonfed the information as well as what to think about it.
Comment by Vince P — March 20, 2008 @ 12:11 am - March 20, 2008
You guys are too funny…..you can’t think for yourselves and you believe, without question, all the BS claptrap from Bush and his cronies while all this time they’ve been robbing the future of this country blind.
Comment by Kevin — March 20, 2008 @ 10:47 pm - March 20, 2008