Ads are not an endorsement by the blog author.

Old Hickory's Weblog

Public Journal
 Back to Journal Archives | Subscribe to Alerts Alerts Subscribe to Alerts | Feeds
< Bob McElvaine on
Saturday, July 1, 2006
Bush and the Plam >
Tuesday, July 4, 2006
July 2006
Iraq War: After Operation Lightning
The bombing halt
Iraq War: Al Gore on the war
A Southern Baptist cricitizes Condi-Condi
Iran and Hizbullah
Another strange George Bush press conference
Trying to follow the Israel-Lebanon War
James Bamford on the Iran hawks
Various articles on the Middle East situation
How Lebanon's Siniora sought Britain's help in May 2006 to disarm Hizbullah
And you thought the Cheney administration was reckless in *Iraq* ...
Joschka Fischer on the Israel-Lebanon War, and SPIEGEL mimics some bad habit of the US "press corps"
Israeli attacks on the UN
Questions about the Israeli Defense Force
Israel-Lebanon War: A legend failing?
Gary Hart on Bush-league diplomacy in the Middle East
More articles on the Israel-Lebanon War
Various articles on the Israel-Lebanon War
Skepticism - in both the hard and soft sciences
Israel-Lebanon War: Five Questions
Iraq War: Grim prospects
Israel's dilemma: the air war can't destroy Hizbollah, a land war has major risks
Iraq War: An evaluation by a "stay the course" supporter
An emerging "elite" consensus on Iran and Hizbollah's recent actions?
Air power
William Lind on the Israeli-Lebanese war
A short self-promotion item
Sometimes a sweater is just a sweater
Israeli preparedness
Goals of the Israeli-Lebanese war
Idolatry
Old Right isolationism and the Israeli-Lebanese war
India, Pakistan and the 07/11 attack in Mumbai
Some background on the Israeli-Lebanese war
Middle East: Death machines are rumbling...
Stabs in the back, from Yalta to Baghdad
The problems of tolerance (6): The need for tolerance, its limits and its "repressive" form
The problems of tolerance (5): Herbert Marcuse on repressive tolerance
Israel, the US and the current crisis
Syria's strategy
Against the "toy soldier model" of the Civil War
The problems of tolerance (4): Tolerance, social analysis and radical democracy
Natalie Maines (of the Dixie Chicks)
American authoritarianism
This ain't good, either
Torture in the Bush Gulag:  Is it really ending?
Iraq War: This ain't good
The problems of tolerance (3): Barrington Moore, Jr., on science and tolerance
A prophetess among us
The problems of tolerance (2): Robert Paul Wolff on going "Beyond Tolerance"
Global warming according to Tom Brokaw - and, believe it or not, it's good!
The problems of tolerance (1): Are there problems with tolerance?
What Second World War analogies would the neocons use to justify this?
Iraq War: War crimes
Frenzy on the Right
Maverick McCain gets some flack from the right
Chuckie Watch 119: Chuckie gits worked up
Andrew Jackson blasphemed (in an otherwise good post)
John Tierney and the Confederacy
Iraq War: Victory after victory after victory...
Iran War:  Is Israel shifting its position on war with Iran?
Bush and the Plame leak
The 2006 Republican campaign:  terror, terror, terror
Bob McElvaine on why Mad Annie Coulter hates Jesus and opposes Christianity
« July 2006 Archive
Sunday, July 2, 2006
10:53:00 AM EDT

The 2006 Republican campaign:  terror, terror, terror


Doyle McManus and Peter Wallsten report GOP Aims to Use a War to Win an Election Battle: Republicans are once again making the fight against terrorism a campaign cornerstone. So far, Democrats have not been as engaging Los Angeles Times 07/02/06

The headline writer could also have written "Mainstream media lets Republicans claim just about anything without seriously challenging them".  But, then, that wouldn't really be news, would it?

They report:

President Bush says Democrats want to "wave the white flag of surrender" in Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney accuses the opposition party's leaders of "defeatism" in the global war on terrorism. And House Republican leader John A. Boehner of Ohio charges Democrats who applauded last week's Supreme Court ruling on detainees with advocating "special privileges for terrorists."

And, in the standard conduct for the Establishment press, they go along with the imaginative Republican spin on even Bush's defeat before the Supreme Court last week on military tribunals:


"The Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo was a real blessing in disguise," said Whit Ayres, another GOP pollster. It "allows us to have a debate on whether terrorists should receive the same legal protections as American military personnel…. It's hard to see Republicans losing when that's the debate."

Democratic leaders say, at least in public, that they are confident they can win that debate.

But the Democrats' response so far has been less unified, less pointed and less memorable than the Republicans' attacks.

As in Churchill's famous saying, if it's a blessing for the Reps, it must be well-disguised.  But that doesn't stop our "press corps" from typing up the Republican talking points.

But as the Republican rhetoric gets nastier, the press faithfully reports the this-side-says/the-other-side-says story.  So sleaze like this becomes part of "mainstream" political conversation - at least for the "press corps", for whom whatever the Republican Party says becomes "mainstream":

At a fundraising event last week for Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.), Bush said: "There's a group in the opposition party who are willing to retreat before the mission is done. They're willing to wave the white flag of surrender. And if they succeed, the United States will be worse off, and the world will be worse off."

And after Thursday's Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo, House Majority Leader Boehner went a step further, accusing his Democratic counterparts of giving Al Qaeda "a show of support" by praising the court ruling.

A statement released by Boehner's office was headlined, "Capitol Hill Democrats Advocate Special Privileges for Terrorists." It noted that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) had applauded the court's ruling that alleged terrorists were entitled to "the basic guarantees of our justice system." The statement also said that Al Qaeda was "surely pleased at the show of support from Capitol Hill Democrats."

I wonder if the Establishment press will both to report things like this:  The Terrorism Index by Foreign Policy magazine & The Center For American Progress, Foreign Policy July/Aug 2006.  The report says:

Despite today’s highly politicized national security environment, the index results show striking consensus across political party lines. A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the index’s experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six percent of the index’s experts see a world today that is growing more dangerous for Americans. Overall, they agree that the U.S. government is falling short in its homeland security efforts. More than 8 in 10 expect an attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade. These dark conclusions appear to stem from the experts’ belief that the U.S. national security apparatus is in serious disrepair. “Foreign-policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration’s performance abroad,” says Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and an index participant. “The reason is that it’s clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force.”



Written by bmiller224 Blog about this entry
This entry has 0 comments: (Add your own)