How Bush has allowed his critics to Frame Iraq Debate
Earlier this month, I read a piece on Powerline by John Hinderaker which pretty much corresponded to my own views of why the president’s approval remains so low. Like me, he “traces it back” at least as far as the summer of 2003 when the Administration failed to respond to he dishonest statements Joe Wilson made in his New York Times Op-ed and later media appearances, claiming the president lied us into war. John wrote:
One can trace it back at least as far as the 16-words controversy. President Bush may be correct in believing that history will recognize his achievements, but history will also record that his administration’s inept efforts at self-defense resulted in a Democratic Congress that is poised to do severe damage to America’s economy and national security.
While the president’s problems transcend his Administration’s public relations errors, his team did, as John put it, make some incredibly “inept efforts at self-defense,” never effectively challenging Wilson’s mendacity nor regularly defending its own decision-making process. As a result, the views of an extreme fringe (that Bush lied us into war) gained greater currency, particularly among members of the media elite.
Polls show Americans increasingly questioned the president’s honesty and trustworthiness. The left-wing narrative that “Bush lied, People Died” seems to have taken hold
Yet, as Michael Barone observes in his essay on Douglas Feith’s recently published War and Decision, this narrative is at odds with the facts. In this book, “the the No. 3 civilian at the Pentagon from 2001 to 2003. . . quotes extensively from unpublished documents and contemporary memorandums and paints is at considerable variance from the narratives with which we’ve become familiar.” (Via Hugh Hewitt.)
Like Hinderaker and myself, Barone believes these narratives have become familiar because “the administration allowed its critics to frame the issue around the fact that stockpiles of weapons weren’t found.” This wouldn’t be the last time the Administration allowed its critics to frame the debate.
The president might not have lost the strong numbers he once enjoyed on trust had he done a better of framing the debate–or at least done a better job of challenging inaccurate media narratives. It’s nice to believe, as he well must have have, that the truth will win out and maybe it will in the end. But, if the truth is going to win out, its advocates can’t afford remain silent and must make their case with the same determination as its adversaries.
At least on the decision to go to war in Iraq, the president does have a better story to tell than his critics, but nobody’s going to believe a story never told. Or listen to a story told poorly. Sometimes you have to keep telling a story lest people start believing another version of events.
And the president simply failed to entertain the possibility that people would believe the dishonest narative of his duplicity. And that’s why so many did.
13 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I think if he had been quicker to respond to what seemed like Reconstruction mismanagement at the end of the War, he would have done better.
Iraq is not a big issue for me, I can see the merits of it but I think it was poorly handled after the fighting was over. If Bush had seemed more willing to change and reorganize, not that he has to leave or give up on Iraq, but just did what was needed to get new momentum going in the right direction. He might have gotten better reactions from the public.
But its 20/20 hindsight now
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — May 12, 2008 @ 9:38 pm - May 12, 2008
I agree completely and have said so repeatedly for years, once saying:
“GHW Bush gave up after 3 years and lost the election because he was too Presidential to brag.
GW Bush gave up after 4 years when we need him the most and it has frustrated the hell out of me as I am sure the drive-by media frustrates the President.”
The media was so willing to believe the spin that they were even willing to admit they, “screwed up,” in the run up to the war. The administration seemed like it became so frustrated it didn’t even want to try anymore.
Tony Snow for all of his effort couldn’t fix what had been broken years before he got there.
What they needed was an old Marine friend of mine, the guy who met you and work and told you he didn’t want to know your name till you were there 2 years cause he was sick of wasting time since you would be gone in 6 months anyway. A guy who would tell you to your face you were “stuck on stupid”.
There would have been no diplomatic attempts at being a uniter — the Dems took so much advantage of the President’s unwillingness to call them on their lies that it is sad! You would have known what we were doing with no questions asked.
Oh, let me add that some of the stuff that hurt Bush, Katrina for example, were nothing but spin. A couple months before Katrina Harry Reid made fun of the administration for recommending duct tape — remember? Sadly, that warning was toward the bottom of the list in a release from DHS that recommended storing water and food so you could be prepared for at least 3 days on your own. Had the Dems not tried to make political hay out of that and rather reinforced the warning who knows what would have happened a few short months later.
Sorry about the rant — this has bothered me for years and you hit a nerve!
David
Comment by LifeTrek — May 13, 2008 @ 12:27 am - May 13, 2008
Rant away Life Trek! I think most conservatives feel the same way. I know I do. Your point about Katrina and Harry Reid is brilliant: I had forgotten that.
I completely agree with Hinderaker that the biggest failure of the Bush presidency has been the failure to defend himself and his administration against Democrats ceaseless barrage of lies, phony scandals and false accusations. (I wrote about it as well, here)
I disagree, however, that it is due to ineptitude. It may have played a part, but I think a bigger part was played by President Bush’s pledge to “bring a new tone” to Washington, his respect for the office, his Christian beliefs, and an unwillingness to sink to Democrats’ level.
And I agree with Life Trek that they just seemed to give up. What point is there in trying to get your side of the story out when the press isn’t going to report your side honestly (if at all) anyway? Is it ineptitude when the press refuses to report your side?
All of which is extremely frustrating, since, when Bush actually gets through to the American people, they mostly support his explanations and policy — evidenced not only by his re-election, but his State of the Union and other TV addresses.
Bush and Hillary are exact opposites in this respect. The more she speaks, the more the public sees her, the less they like her, trust her or believe her. Every time she opens her mouth, her ratings tank: every time she disappears her ratings climb.
With Bush its the exact opposite. The more they see and hear him, the more they like, trust, and approve of him, the less they see and hear, the more they believe his dishonest detractors and the lower his approval ratings sink.
Comment by American Elephant — May 13, 2008 @ 8:07 am - May 13, 2008
The Clinton campaign war room was never dismantled and it still exists. When the 9/11 Commission was set up, the Clinton people made sure their team did not get any of the “blame.”
Whether either Bush or the Republicans in general have any stomach for perpetual spin and attack is doubtful. The Democrats successfully demonized Lee Atwater who took George Bush’s campaign to them on their playing field using their techniques. To this day, the MSM characterize the late Lee Atwater as being the worst example of dirty campaigner they ever met. (Almost down to the level of Paul Begala and James Carville.)
Papa Bush readied FEMA and the military for hurricane Andrew. Lawton Chiles, the Governor of Florida did not and would not ask for federal assistance until he had such a mess in the aftermath that he was caught flat-footed stupid. The democrats went into full Blame Bush mode and it took root.
The dumb part is that they used exactly the same play on “W” with Katrina. Haley Barbour in Mississippi acted like a governor and to this day, Mississippi has been a showplace in recovering from a disaster. You never see that in the Press and team Bush has never made the point.
My gripe with Bush is that he has been an ineffective party leader. He should have been very concerned about his negative coattails and had a strong national committee in place to keep the GOP vital and in the fight.
I have no idea who the Republican national chairman is. I could google it, but who cares? Whoever it is, he/she is a trivial pursuit answer.
The Republican Party is in free fall. And the Democrats are not much better off. Even if McCain wins, the next Republican leadership is still in the formative stages.
When blue blood Republicans act like blue bloods, they are no match for street fighters. I look back at the the Nixon team as the last Republican administration that knew the rules of last man standing politics.
Reagan overwhelmed the opposition by dint of sheer personality and bedrock principles. The two Bushes distanced themselves from the Nixon years at full speed. Ford was a mere apostrophe with a long career as the man who wasn’t there.
I anxiously await the catalyst for the new Republican unity.
Comment by heliotrope — May 13, 2008 @ 10:53 am - May 13, 2008
#2-3: LifeTrek & helio, those were awesome posts. I have to agree - we need more Atwaters and fewer guys who are “stuck on stupid.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 13, 2008 @ 11:03 am - May 13, 2008
I think this has more to do with Bush, it is a problem the ‘good guys’ have the world over. Look at Israel, best little nation in the middle East, and they only get bad press.
My sense is that, those of us on the Right are willing to admit when we make mistakes, (look at all the misdeeds of Republicans - those people step down or are pushed out of the party, except Larry Craig). Whereas the left is never wrong, never admits a misdeed.
So of course MSM is all over how bad and wrong we are. As we try and point out our successes, MSM and the left is always happy to point out how imperfect we are. They don’t have that problem, since they have no standard to live up to - they are never wrong - so can appear as perfection personified.
Yes, we have to learn to toot our own horn more, it might make a difference, but it probably won’t. Simply being a minority and spouting ‘hope’ is much more effective than behaving like an adult and being willing to accepts one’s own failures along with one’s successes.
Comment by Leah — May 13, 2008 @ 12:08 pm - May 13, 2008
These are good points all, above, however I have to believe that the nation at large IS a teachable beast and the woodshed, lately, has been the Dem primary. Yes, the Atwaters and Roves of this world will always suffer compared to the Begalas, Carvilles and Lannys but these doofs have of late been turning their guns upon each other. I cannot count the acquaintances of mine expressing a late distaste for either Clinton or Obama, almost always recognizing in rueful tones that This is what they do…. Oh, it is to laugh! How long have we labored under the system where “politics” has been what Republicans practice and what Democrats must be protected from. That thumb is no longer on the scale. Or at least cannot be hidden. The shiny is simultaneously being knocked off of the Clintons, grievance politics, the MSM, punditry, polls, Barry, Pelosi/Reid and most deliciously of all, Doctor Govuerner His Most Royal Hieny: Howard Dean! Not really being a conservative myself, and less a Republican, I am yet a Bushie. Yes, I do believe the judgements of history will be kind to W, as brutal as they justly will be to the Clintons. THAT is already in train as is the Bush PR counteroffensive. Didja see Jenna’s wedding? Okay, not a cynical act in itself but a mighty tasty photo op regardless. W on Deal or No Deal? Laura hosting the Today show? For good or ill, these things impact the popular mind profoundly. I will make the bold assertion that, in the fullness of time, even those friendly critics who declaim as above will find they have misunderestimated Our Boy and that his priorities will prove probity, if not full wisdom. This cat is a long trend, strategic player. He has scalps aplenty on his belt. And, unlike his opponents, he knows his history. Who could have imagined that in 2004 Kerry would invoke Reagan as a moral compass? Kerry?!?!? REAGAN!!! But he did. One day Joe Biden, Kerry and the rest of the DNC types willl do the same with Bush. Oh yes. But we shall see.
Comment by megapotamus — May 13, 2008 @ 12:27 pm - May 13, 2008
As a Certified Fraud Examiner, it is common knowledge that when a person is not guilty of a crime, they will emphatically state they did not do it. A guilty person would try to explain his/her way out of it.
When the mantra of “Bush Lied, People Died” came out, he, the President should have stood up and said straight out that he did not lie. Not his proxies, not some administration official, but he himself. This mantra was addressed to him and him alone. This is just part and parcel of the way the Administration handled spin from the other side.
I know there is always the debate of do we ligitimize the charge by answering to it or do we not answer it and pretend that it does not matter. The Administration chose the latter to often.
This resulted not only in the 35%-40% on the left becoming more strident in their rants and opinions, but also gave the 20%+ the reason to have a disaproval of the actions of the President and dissapointment of 10% on the right of how the Administration handles its public relations, and that leaves 30% that have approval of the President because they agree with most of his policies and see that the there is a left of center bias in the media in general.
Comment by HCN — May 13, 2008 @ 12:46 pm - May 13, 2008
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 05/13/2008 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 — May 13, 2008 @ 1:11 pm - May 13, 2008
The Administration lost control of its own PR product - and/or never had one worthy of the name.
In terms of the whole focus on “No WMD were found” - Few people now remember that it was ****Democrats****, such as Jay Rockefeller, who said WMD were going to be found in the first place. Administration officials mostly tried not to make such an irresponsible claim.
Is that ironic? Or was it a clever, far-sighted sandbagging ploy on the part of the Democrats? What’s most ironic is that, if the Bush Administration were even a tenth as mendacious or corrupt as some claim, then, we would absolutely have “found WMD” in Iraq. (Think about it. It may take a minute to sink in.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 13, 2008 @ 7:20 pm - May 13, 2008
Republicans have to fight not only Democrats, but the mainstream media as well — all 3 networks, most of cable, the vast majority of newspapers and magazines.
We forget that before Republicans took control of congress in 94, they were wandering the wilderness as the minority party for 40 years!
The 12 years of Republican rule were the exception, not the rule. And Republicans will remain the underdog, and take the blame for everything that goes wrong as long as the media remains overwhelmingly in liberal hands.
Has “new media” made up for those overwhelming odds in Democrats favor? I think the public’s mis-perceptions about Bush and the Republican congress answer that question decidedly. Despite talk radio and the internet, the vast majority of Americans are still informed by liberal sources.
I believe Republicans will remain underdogs and probably the minority party until conservative and Republican sources make up a much more equitable share of where the public gets their information.
The system, as it stands, is structured to keep Republicans out of power.
Comment by American Elephant — May 14, 2008 @ 1:04 am - May 14, 2008
Well, said, American Elephant, very well said.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 14, 2008 @ 3:12 am - May 14, 2008
But all the complaints, valid though they may be, against the MSM’s bias have to be set against their declining market share. Sadly for them, they are still businesses and do not (NPR excepted) have the power of taxation to fund them. At bottom they must provide a salable product. Of course this has a downside in the gratuitous sensationalization of the news but the public at large always retains veto power and they are exercising that mightily. The NYT is no longer the national monopolist it so recently was. Ditto the combined nets. Even without the growth of alternative outlets the MSMers are on a deflating liferaft. They are throwing their colleagues over the side daily. Beauty.
Comment by megapotamus — May 14, 2008 @ 12:52 pm - May 14, 2008