Washingtonmonthly.com guest blogger Steve Benen notes that President Bush again proclaimed his support for "open debate" today, contradicting the long history of post-9/11 attacks on dissent by his administration and his party.
During a brief press conference, Bush first said that "Those elected leaders in Washington who do not support our policies in Iraq have every right to voice their dissent. They also have a responsibility to provide a credible alternative. The stakes are too high, and the national interest too important, for anything otherwise."
He later returned to the subject and made the following statement:
...[T]his is a worthy debate, and I'm going to repeat something I've said before. People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq. I heard somebody say, well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position. I totally reject that thought. This is not an issue of who's patriot and who's not patriotic. It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq.
Someone doth protest too much.
Brendan, this seems like a good opportunity for a political scientist to analyze the implications of a presidential statement. I’m curious to know what you think this statement says about overall GOP unity, the relative ability of the WH versus Congress to set the tone of political discourse currently, what the WH hopes to achieve by coming out with this statement now, how the Democrats are likely to respond and/or exploit this position. Putting aside the potential motives behind the content and timing of the President’s remarks, do you see this statement as having a positive or negative impact on future debate about Iraq?
Posted by: Anodyne | November 21, 2005 at 11:00 AM