President Bush is stepping up his attacks on Democrats in the U.S. Congress who have challenged his handling of crucial evidence prior to the war in Iraq. Mr. Bush took on his critics once again during a speech to military personnel in Alaska.This is framing. Critics are Democrats. The conflict is between the Democrats and the Republicans. The game is preserved as a game, a contest between two teams.
President Bush stopped at an air force base near Anchorage (Alaska) while traveling to Asia for a week of summitry, speeches, meetings and public appearances in four countries.
He used his last few minutes of the trip on American soil to fire a parting shot at his critics.
"Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people," Mr. Bush says.
But it's possible to care about these things and not be one or the other.
What's worrisome is the possibility that whatever put Bush in office and fed him the lies that he told us is ready to switch if it has to, to put a Democrat where he is, to continue the work.
By making it seem that this is a much simpler reality, where uniforms and team logos are what they appear to be, the manufacturers of the con can proceed unmolested.
A lot of noise was generated by the "incompetence" of the occupying power, the lack of a "game plan" for the occupation. The breakdown of infrastructure in Iraq, the very real fact that most Iraqis are far less secure now than they were before the invasion, with even basic utilities less available, that's all a result of lack of foresight. Or is it?
The unspoken, and unspeakable, idea - that this was the plan, that the goal all along was a crippled dependent state, hamstrung by factionalism and easily slapped down if it begins to get too coherent - has no place in the public dialog.
So the push is to create a debate where the only participants are already suited up and out on the field with its carefully drawn lines and rules, the stands filled with passive spectators who can only back one side or the other.
Lots of us who believe Bush and his cohort cynically misdirected the public and outright lied to them - his cohort especially including the media, who are collectively more responsible for the public's belief in outright nonsense like Saddam's responsibility for 9/11 than Bush himself is - are not Democrats at all. It's strategically important that we have no voice in this.
-
Howard Dean was on TV talking about withdrawal, Kerry's talking about withdrawal, the man on the street probably is as well.
I'd like to ask everybody what they propose for an attitude, nationally, specifically, officially, for that withdrawal.
"It was a mistake, we're going home now"?
Honor would call for something with more gravity than just withdrawal wouldn't it?
A general or two, maybe Bremer or even Rumsfeld, on their knees in the desert with a sword and a retainer.
