« Michael Yon: Hitting'em Where It Counts | Main | Who's Killing Saddam's Lawyers? »
November 09, 2005
The Bush White House: Pulling Its Punches
AcademicElephant points to an email sent out by the White House in response to Brent Scowcroft's New Yorker piece that criticized GWB's foreign policy. Thanks to the RCP blog, who was on the recipient's list, we get to see the talking points that Joe Klein of Time magazine says are an example of the kind of tactic contained in the "sordid tool kit" of the Bush administration. Here are a couple of points from the WH email:
3. [Scowcroft's] assertion that we have had "fifty years of peace" in the Middle East is an odd one, if you consider (a) America's 1991 war against Iraq (which General Scowcroft favored); (b) the Iraq-Iran war (in which there were a million casualties; (c) the conflict in the early 1970s between Jordan and the Palestinians; (d) the civil war in Lebanon; (e) the four wars between Israel and Arab nations; and (f) the attacks of September 11, 2001 (which was carried out by Islamic radicals who emerged from the broader Middle East).
Scowcroft belongs to the old Kissinger realist school of diplomats who would rather deal with "the devil you know" (along with the little sideshows like rape rooms and poison gas) than fiddle around with messy concepts like democracy. In this context I guess it's no surprise that Scowcroft's concept of "peace" is a little...practical.
5. Mr. Scowcroft insists we will not "democratize" Iraq and that "in any reasonable time frame the objective of democratizing the Middle East can be successful." Except that in the last two-and-a-half years Iraq has moved from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, to the passage of a constitution. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress. Iraq still faces challenges, including a ruthless insurgency -- but there is no question that the people of Iraq long for democracy and for victory over the insurgency.
Scowcroft's ignoring of the existing evidence in front of his nose indicates to me that he's not arguing from good faith. If Iraq actually is the quagmire that the MSM continues to portray it as, Scowcroft would have a point. But it's not, and he doesn't.
The entire memo is hard-hitting, concise and is solidly reasoned; the RNC should just copy the text into a TV commercial and run it every day for the next year.
But no, it was sent out by email to a limited group of people, and that's what galls me the most. Yesterday on Brit Hume's panel discussion, I heard Mort Kondrake express his frustration over the White House's continuing inability to summon up a vigorous defense, in this case to Harry Reid's latest delusional pronouncements. As AcademicElephant says, this well-written email ought to be published as an op-ed in a major newspaper, at the very least.
We've got the ideas on our side as well as the evidence that they're correct. Why are we conservatives barely staying afloat?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/412
Comments
I don't know that it's Bush's inarticulate-ness that's the problem--he's given some terrific speeches over the last few weeks on the GWOT and Iraq and so few actually listen. I wonder if it's that so many reporting don't want to hear the message and this confounds me, especially when I read something like this email. I mean, how could a thinking person not agree? How could you throw in your lot with the Scowcrofts, the Wilkersons, not to mention the Cindy Sheehans of the world?
It's a mystery.
But on the other hand, it does give us a job to do.
Posted by: AcademicElephant at November 9, 2005 01:51 PM
You said, "...he's given some terrific speeches over the last few weeks on the GWOT and Iraq and so few actually listen."
I agreee wholeheartedly--and that's my point. As far as Iraq goes, I support GWB completely: his intentions and resolve are spot on, and his speeches have been well-written and forceful. Yet standing in the kitchen preparing dinner with a six year old peppering me with questions, as I scan through the channels and catch a snippet of GWB, his oratory fails to impress--he misplaces emphases, he has no rhythm, his pacing is predictable and mechanical.
You and I both know what the score is and we hear the words in spite of the delivery; I thank God he won the election. But I think his lack of speaking skill is having a negative effect on the average Joe; I wish it weren't so (and I'd bet big money that a video of Lincoln reading the Gettysburg address wouldn't make it onto the Today show).
It won't be the determining factor in the success of his presidency, but it would sure help if he were better.
Posted by: Jeff at November 10, 2005 12:10 AM
