Red Meat Revisited

I've been looking a little more into Karl Rove's remarks at the Conservative Party of New York fundraiser. Dan Froomkin explains what this is all about in his "White House Briefing" Washington Post column...

There are at least two reasons why no one should expect any apologies from Karl Rove or the White House for Rove's controversial comments Tuesday night, in which he described the liberal approach to national security as being weak and possibly even treasonous.

1) This White House doesn't apologize.

2) Why apologize when you said exactly what you meant to say?

Karl Rove didn't get George W. Bush this far just by luck. Rove has a brilliant and so far unbeatable strategy when it comes to political warfare: He doesn't defend his candidate's weaknesses, he attacks his opponent's strengths. Unapologetically.

Consider the 2004 campaign, when Rove was faced with a Vietnam problem. A war hero was running against his boss, who had opted to stay well out of harm's way. Rather than defend, Rove attacked -- and put John Kerry on the defensive.

Today, Democrats are uniting against the war and the public is increasingly worried and critical about Bush's leadership. So what's Rove doing? Rather than defend against their criticisms, Rove has decided to go for the jugular.

The most compelling anti-war arguments are that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror and that American troops are dying daily for no good reason. So Rove's response is to liken war critics to al Qaeda sympathizers intent on subverting the American military.

AMERICAblog pointed out some circumstantial events that go a long way toward proving that I was right, that this was a well coordinated campaign on the part of Rove and the Republican National Committee. First, the White House released the text of Rove's speech the next day. They almost never do this for these fundraising speeches. Second, the RNC just happened to have a very detailed list of talking points ready to go the next day. Third, the RNC just happened to have a new web attack ad ready to go the next day. Serendipity. A remarkable confluence of events.

Let's look at an expanded version of the quote that's getting all the attention because this answers the question I had about the "moderation and restraint" Rove mentioned. Where did this bizarre claim come from?

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to...submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the...terrorist attacks against the United States."

Yes, after the attacks, conservatives (if you can apply that label to the Bush administration) prepared for war...against Iraq. Well, truth be told, they were already preparing for war against Iraq. The attacks just gave them the provocation they needed. And this is the crux of the matter. This is what they are trying to sell you...still. That Bush's Iraqi Adventure has something to do with the war on terrorism. Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. Iraq posed no threat to the security of the United States.

As for that MoveOn petition, what it actually said was (emphasis mine)...

We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America and of countries around the world, appeal to the President of The United States, George W. Bush; to the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson; to the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi; and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction.

Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter's crimes. It follows that the government of a particular nation should not be condemned for the recent attack without compelling evidence of its cooperation and complicity with those individuals who actually committed the crimes in question.

Innocent civilians living within any nation that may be found responsible, in part or in full, for the crimes recently perpetrated against the United States, must not bear any responsibility for the actions of their government, and must therefore be guaranteed safety and immunity from any military or judicial action taken against the state in which they reside.

This was one of the most successful online petitions ever, garnering over 700,000 signatures, but was thoroughly ignored by everyone in a position of power. BushCo decided to go with Option B and Congress, with one lone exception in the House, agreed. I'll ask again. How's that working out for you, Karl? In Friday's Progress Report, the Center for American Progress answers that question...

1,382 DAYS AFTER 9/11 - TERRORIST ATTACKS AT AN ALL TIME HIGH: By objective measures, the Bush administration's approach to combating terrorism is an abject failure. Last year "[t]he number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled." According to State Department data, "attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003." How did the administration respond? By halting the publication of the State Department report. The year before, "the State Department retracted its annual terrorism report and admitted that its initial version vastly understated the number of incidents."

1,382 DAYS AFTER 9/11 - OSAMA BIN LADEN STILL AT LARGE: More than three and a half years ago Bush vowed to capture terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden "dead or alive." He's failed. The administration wants you to think we are hot on his tracks. CIA Director Porter Goss said he had "an excellent idea" where bin Laden is hiding. Vice President Cheney said he had "a pretty good idea of a general area that he's in." Note to the Bush administration: close doesn't count in terrorist manhunts.

1,382 DAYS AFTER 9/11 - IRAQ WAR MAKING THINGS WORSE: According to the CIA, "[t]he war in Iraq is creating a training and recruitment ground for a new generation of "professionalized" Islamic terrorists." An in-house CIA think tank concluded that, since the U.S.-led invasion, Iraq has served as "a training ground, a recruitment ground." In the poorly planned aftermath of the invasion "hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders." There is a serious risk Iraq is now "creating newly radicalized and experienced jihadis who return home to cause trouble in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere."

1382 DAYS AFTER 9/11 - LOOSE NUKES: The Bush administration has repeatedly asserted that nuclear weapons in the hands of our enemies is the greatest threat to America. Yet administration efforts to stop nuclear proliferation have been lackluster. In May, "a monthlong conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty ended in complete failure." U.S. diplomacy was so anemic the parties "never engaged in a detailed discussion of how to fix the gaping loopholes that many experts say have allowed a resurgence in the spread of the most dangerous nuclear technologies." And the pace at which we secured fissile materials -- the "gunpowder" used to spark nuclear explosions -- in the former Soviet Union did not accelerate after 9/11, according to a May 2005 study by scholars at Harvard University.

1382 days, by the way, is a longer period of time than the period between Pearl Harbor and V-J Day, the end of World War II.

Anyway, here's what to look for in coming days, weeks, months. Apology? Don't hold your breath. (And I still don't see any of those so-called moderate Republicans stepping forward to criticize Rove for his remarks.) On Tuesday, President Bush will speak at Fort Bragg to try to convince Americans that we need to stay the course in Iraq. He will offer no new plan for victory and no timetable for withdrawal. The Republicans will drive this wedge deeper and deeper in the days leading up to the '06 elections. What else are they going to run on? Their record?

| +Save/Share | |