Bush returns to attacks on dissent

With more and more polls showing President Bush below 40 percent approval, the administration has launched its campaign-style offensive against critics of the war in Iraq, which started yesterday with a Bush speech that returned to the misleading claims and ugly attacks on dissent that were so prevalent from 2001-2004.

Let's consider the key passage of the speech line by line. Bush began with this:

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

This is true, but highly misleading, as TNR's Jason Zengerle notes: "[T]he Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has yet to investigate what, exactly, the Bush administration did with the intelligence it received; how administration policymakers (and the administration-loyal intelligence chief, then-CIA Director George Tenet) responded to analysts who presented competing or contradictory intelligence; and whether the administration manipulated that intelligence to make its case for war."

Bush continued:

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

As Atrios notes (here, here), Bush's claims about the degree of consensus behind his "assessment" of Iraq and lawmakers having access to the "same intelligence" are overstated. Knight Ridder points out that "the administration's assertions about Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda were not supported by U.S. intelligence agencies," while the Washington Post states that "Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers," "the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country," and "there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE." (For much more on the use of intelligence in promoting the war in Iraq, see chapter 8 of All the President's Spin.)

Atrios also correctly notes that, after saying that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," Bush did exactly that, claiming that lawmakers "voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," when in fact it authorized him to use the military to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Bush himself said at the time of the resolution that he had not made up his mind about invading Iraq.

Back to Bush:

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

This is the core demagogic attack -- claiming that legitimate dissent "send[s] the wrong signal" to US troops and the enemy. By that logic, the only way to send the right signal is to not question Bush's advocacy of the war or conduct of it. Bush and his allies have used this type of rhetoric again and again since 9/11 to try to silence their critics (see my Spinsanity column on the subject and chapter 6 of All the President's Spin for more details).

In case the thrust of the strategy wasn't clear, here's a passage from earlier in the speech:

I've joined with the veterans groups to call on Congress to protect the flag of the United States in the Constitution of the United States. In June, the House of Representatives voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. I urge the United States Senate to pass this important amendment.

But the Washington Post explains (via TNR's Michael Crowley) that while Bush has supported the proposed flag-burning amendment "for years," he "almost never mentions in speeches." Hey, it worked for his father when Dukakis was ahead in the polls, right?

Lest anyone miss the implication of Bush's speech, White House press secretary Scott McClellan laid the demagoguery on even thicker in an attack on Ted Kennedy

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry's fellow Massachusetts Democrat, also reacted angrily. "It's deeply regrettable that the president is using Veterans Day as a campaign-like attempt to rebuild his own credibility by tearing down those who seek the truth about the clear manipulation of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war," Mr. Kennedy said.

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, in turn accused Mr. Kennedy of exploiting the day in his remarks.

"It is regrettable that Senator Kennedy has chosen Veterans Day to continue leveling baseless and false attacks that send the wrong signal to our troops and our enemy during a time of war," Mr. McClellan said. "It is also regrettable that Senator Kennedy has found more time to say negative things about President Bush then he ever did about Saddam Hussein."

The implication, of course, is that Kennedy hates Bush more than Saddam.

And pundits, picking up on Bush's cue, are jumping into the fray, with Glenn Reynolds stating (via Kevin Drum) that "Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicans pandering to the antiwar base, that it's deeply dishonest, and that it hurts our troops abroad. And yes, he should question their patriotism. Because they're acting unpatriotically."

This signals a nasty turn in the debate over Iraq. The Bush administration is wounded and willing to try anything to get back on the offensive. What they're going to discover, however, is that a president with a 35 percent approval rating is not very intimidating, particularly when he's attacking critics of a war that more than 50 percent of Americans think was not worth the cost.

Comments

[Zac Crockett]

In the case of Glenn Reynolds, his response may be a bit more complex than what Kevin Drum states.

Reynold's stated in an earlier post in a response to a reader's question about the definition of "patriotism":

"I think it starts with not uttering falsehoods that damage the country in time of war, simply because your donor base wants to hear them.

Patriotic people could -- and did -- oppose the war. But so did a lot of scoundrels. And some who supported the war were not patriotic, if they did it out of opportunism or political calculation rather than honest belief. Those who are now trying to recast their prior positions through dishonest rewriting of history are not patriotic now, nor were they when they supported the war, if they did so then out of opportunism --which today's revisionist history suggests.

Judging from the lefty hatemail this post has created, I have to observe that it's odd -- people who have spent the past year saying that Bush took us to war to enrich Halliburton somehow now think it's beyond the bounds of civilized discussion to question people's motives on the war. That's part of the big lie, too."

Reynolds notes that those who support the war for personal gain are also not patriotic. Whether he stated that before or after Drum's criticism, I'm not certain. But, as far as I can tell, Drum makes no mention of this nuance.

[Anodyne]

Zac,

While Brendan and I disagree on the “attacks against dissent” frame of this post, a defense “by reason of nuance” doesn’t address the specific criticism that he or Drum made of Reynolds' statements.

Reynolds goes through the motions of assigning people to two by two matrix based on their support for/opposition to the war and the good/bad motives for their position. Maybe this tells me something about what Reynolds believes and to an extent the beliefs of people who agree with him. But how does this particular demonstration of purported nuance in his thinking justify, or for that matter align with, these comments:

"Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicians pandering to the antiwar base, that it's deeply dishonest, and that it hurts our troops abroad.”

"… this is all about Democratic politicians pandering to the antiwar base."

It seems to me if you actually care about the issues involved here, you would want Reynolds to either back up those statements or back off of them, rather than trying to reinforce a shoddy argument by trying to reassure us that he is a reasonable guy.

[Zac Crockett]

Anodyne,
First, while I respect your opinion, I disagree with you when you state that Reynolds does not explain why he thinks the Democrats reactions are "unpatriotic" (if I'm reading you correctly). Reynold's criticism is only for those Democrat's who are revisionist about the war, who act like Bush never used the invasion for humanitarian reasons and it was all about the WMD and that Bush lied about the WMD, as seen here:

http://instapundit.com/archives/026792.php

He is NOT saying all Democrats who question the war are unpatriotic, only those who use it for political gain.

Kevin Drum initially took a snippet of Reynold's original post and made it seem Reynolds held all Democratic critics who claimed Bush misled the war were unpatriotic, a claim Reynold's never made. In an update to his post, Drum took another quote from the Instapundit, saying Reynold's DID question the patriotism of Bush critics. But the second quote does nothing to note that Reynold's holds his scorn for those Democrats who are revisionists and profit politically from opposing the war, not for all Democrats, when he states:

"Patriotic people could -- and did -- oppose the war. But so did a lot of scoundrels. And some who supported the war were not patriotic, if they did it out of opportunism or political calculation rather than honest belief. Those who are now trying to recast their prior positions through dishonest rewriting of history are not patriotic now, nor were they when they supported the war, if they did so then out of opportunism --which today's revisionist history suggests."

Second, I don't see what makes you think I don't really care about the issues here, or why agreeing with you means I really do.

[Anodyne]

Zac,

It’s my sense that you are not reading me correctly. I’ll try again. Brendan and Kevin Drum objected to this statement:

"Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicians pandering to the antiwar base, that it's deeply dishonest, and that it hurts our troops abroad.”

Recall that I repeated one part of this statement for emphasis:

“… this is all about Democratic politicians pandering to the antiwar base.”

This particular snippet assigns a single motive (pandering to the antiwar base) to any democratic politicians who criticizes… well, you fill in the blank, because at this point I’m not sure what Reynolds would say is legitimate criticism and what is unpatriotic. He also uses the pejorative “pandering” to describe 1) the attention paid 2) by any elected Democrat who is (as defined by Reynolds) in some way critical of some aspect of something to do with the Bush administration and the war in Iraq 3) to a homogeneous group of people who are described as the antiwar base (since Reynolds says opposition of to war if founded on some motive Reynolds deems appropriate is valid, I gather he has a particular but at this point unspecified method of identifying people belonging to this purported antiwar base).

I could have just as easily questioned the remaining part of the quote, which after making an unsupported blanket statement about Democratic politicians’ motives, goes on to label their supposed behavior as dishonest and then goes the extra mile to make the unsupported claim that they are hurting our troops abroad. Mr. Reynolds appears to be in the running to set the Guinness Book record for the number inflammatory logical fallacies committed in fewer than 30 words.

Too finely parsed for you? If so, why? Have I unfairly characterized the meaning of Reynolds words? I don’t know the man and I’m not in a position or of a mind to infer his motives or meanings beyond what he writes and how he responds to a challenge.

Finally, you’re right, I offered up a false choice. It’s clearly possible for you to care about the issues involved here and want Reynolds to do something other than either back up his statements or back off of them. I stand corrected.

[sbw]

Brendan, what are you smoking?

You write: "Atrios also correctly notes that, after saying that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," Bush did exactly that, claiming that lawmakers "voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," when in fact it authorized him to use the military to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

But lawmakers DID vote to remove Saddam Hussein from power:

As CNN reported, House passes resolution in support of U.S. troops: "The resolution also calls for the support of efforts to 'remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.'"

[liberal]

Zac Crockett wrote, Reynold's criticism is only for those Democrat's who are revisionist about the war, who act like Bush never used the invasion for humanitarian reasons and it was all about the WMD and that Bush lied about the WMD...

But that in itself is revisionism. Bush mentioned humanitarian reasons for deposing Saddam, but they were not prominent in the public case made for war, which rather revolved around the putative threat Saddam posed to the security United States.

[liberal]

sbw wrote, But lawmakers DID vote to remove Saddam Hussein from power:

That vote was 1998---a different resolution. This is a well-known red herring.

[Zac Crockett]

Anodyne,
I see what you're saying and I think I wasn't reading you clearly in your original post(then again, I'm not the brightest star in the firmanent).

On looking at the various posts again, Reynold's doesn't really specify which Democrat's are patriotic, nor how he knows which Democrats are criticizing the president for political gain and which are doing it for love of country. In addition, he does seem to use blanket statements about the Democrats criticizing the president being patriotic in the first part of his post, and only later does he seem to elaborate and narrow it down the lack of patriotism to those who criticize the war for personal gain. Thus, you are right in saying there are holes and overgeneralizatins in Reynold's statements.

I hope I haven't confused you, but I admit I was partially wrong in my two posts above and you were right.

However, he does later elaborate and say those who criticize the war for personal gain (as well as those who support it for personal gain) are the unpatriotic ones. This nuance never gets mentioned by Kevin Drum. Am I wrong on this (I'm interested in your opinion)?

Also, you mentioned you disagreed with Brendan Nyhan on the "attack on dissent" frame of the post. I'm curious in what you mean that.

liberal:
"But that in itself is revisionism."

I did err on my analysis of Reynold's statements.

"Bush mentioned humanitarian reasons for deposing Saddam, but they were not prominent in the public case made for war, which rather revolved around the putative threat Saddam posed to the security United States."

I'm not sure what this has to do with earlier posts on this thread. What you say above is correct. But it is also true that some Democrats and liberals are saying that Bush never claimed to invade Iraq for huminatarian reasons, and claimed the invasion was only to get rid of WMD.

[sbw]

liberal: "well-known red herring."

Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that a vote is not a vote. Of course it depends on what the meaning of is is. Silly me.

[Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest]

Why in the Hell are you debating this - Reynolds cannot let a few days go by without an attack on Democrats and their motives?

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
- well known leftist President Theodore Roosevelt

Instahack has been handsomely rewarded for supporting Bush and pandering to that base.

[sbw]

Nyhan: This signals a nasty turn in the debate over Iraq.

Which was the nasty turn in the debate? Certainly not Bush suggesting that while criticism was okay, criticism based on lies was not. Perhaps the nasty turn in the debate was the select part of Democrat's criticism based on lies.

Perhaps Brendan Nyhan needs someone to Brendan Nyhan his essays.

[Anodyne]

Zac,

FWIW, I don’t doubt that Reynolds has a more nuanced view of things than his comments sometimes indicate. I would prefer that he would be more careful about reflecting that nuance in his initial posts and more willing to back up or retract statements that seem to belie it when he’s challenged. I don’t think that it’s incumbent upon or necessarily wise for someone who objects to (or in my case this time is puzzled by) his comments to try to divine his motives or intents before evaluating their content. I also don’t think Reynolds should expect people to agree on a workable definition of what constitutes patriotism or personal gain given that these are fairly loaded terms that are used both disingenuously and unwittingly in political discussions to caricature opponents, create straw men, and claim the moral high ground. If he was truly bothered by the criticism he received and he wanted set the record straight, he might have been better served to address the shortcomings in what he actually said rather than argue that what he said was being misinterpreted.

Brendan and I have a longstanding but cordial disagreement about the “attacks on dissent” frame that has come up in previous comments to his posts. He has a book and an active blog, so I won’t presume to summarize his thinking. For me, a possible attack on dissent involves: actions that do direct harm or incite others to do direct harm to political opponents, the curtailment of individual speech, assembly, and media, the incarceration or legal harassment of opponents, attempts to monopolize access to information, etc. That list is not exhaustive, but hopefully you get my drift. While I personally might find rhetoric that intentionally or unintentionally blurs lines or distorts facts, the mechanical use of PR tactics, and emotional appeals to be distasteful, irritating or offensive, it’s difficult for me to see such things as attacks on dissent.

I’ll put the rest in a newsletter to which I’m sure everybody can’t wait to subscribe. Thanks for the discussion.