August 22, 2006
This is so funny...
I blogged abut this back in January, about Karl Rove saying openly what the Republican plan was. And still the boobies are "caught flat-footed"...
WASHINGTON — Democrats caught flat-footed by the Bush administration tactic of linking the war in Iraq with the larger war against terrorism, and campaigning hard on both, have only themselves to blame. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove gave the playbook away seven months ago.
Right on schedule, the White House stepped up its rhetoric last week, portraying President Bush and the Republican Party as the better choice for defending America against terrorism....
....Their apparent surprise, and the lack of their cogent response so far, is, at the least, perplexing. In January, Rove gave a speech in Washington to the Republican National Committee that explicitly previewed how the GOP planned to portray Democrats as a threat to national security — a strategy that helped win the 2004 presidential election for Bush.
"Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview, and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview," Rove said. "That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong — deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."....
They "have no cogent response." Well of course. Republicans are just telling the simple truth. Hard to fight that. And actually, Dems usually are unpatriotic, but it was sensible of Karl to be tactful on that point. (Me, I don't have to be tactful.)
And yet the lastest polls find americans separating the Iraq invasion from the War on Terrorism. If this is the Republican gambit it isn't working. Why isn't it working? Probably because the decision to invade Iraq had little or nothing to do with the global war on terrorism at all. It seems that the American people are coming to the conclusion that Iraq was a monumental error that drains resources on the real war.
Posted by: Rigelian at August 24, 2006 02:31 PM"Probably because the decision to invade Iraq had little or nothing to do with the global war on terrorism at all."
You just keep telling yourself that. Saying something over and over doesn't make it true. What's really sad is that the reasons for going into Iraq were clearly stated by the president and are easily understandable by anyone with an average IQ. (And no, they were not merely "we know Saddam has nukes and we've got to go take them away from him!") You can possibly argue that going into Iraq at this time was a strategic error in the WOT, but stating that the invasion had nothing to do with the WOT is simply stupid.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 24, 2006 03:53 PMToo right, Andrea.
Well, be of good cheer, Rige, the American people have short memories. They've surely forgotten that it was Congress, including most of its Democrats, who voted for the Iraq Campaign. So they won't punish you for "monumental error," not to mention for stabbing in the back those brave troops you sent into battle...
Posted by: John Weidner at August 24, 2006 04:03 PM
