THe Full Frontal Assault (Dems in Full Attack Mode - Wash Post, NY Times, CBS Coordinate Attacks)

RealClearPolitics.com ^ | 3/22/04 | Tom Bevan

[NYC Republican]

I don't recall seeing a more well-orchestrated, well-timed, full frontal assault on a political figure than what we're seeing the Democrats do to President Bush right now. Forget references to Richard Clarke as "a Reagan appointee," that's nothing but window dressing.

Democrats are well aware that President Bush's most favorable political attribute is his determined pursuit of the War on Terror. Approval for his leadership in the War on Terror remains well above sixty percent and he holds a substantial lead lead over John Kerry on the issue.

For Kerry to have any chance at all of winning in November, Democrats know they have to destroy Bush's standing as a War President and they have to do it fast - before the Bush team can plant the image in the public's mind that John Kerry is soft on national security.

To accomplish this daunting task, Democrats have resorted not just to an argument of process (i.e. Bush has made progress battling terrorism but would be doing a better job if not for mistakes X, Y & Z) but have coalesced around what I would call "The Big Lie:" that Bush is and has always been soft on terror.

Here is the anatomy of the assault. Paul Krugman launched the attack last week (duly noted on this very blog) accusing Bush of being "weak on terror." Matt Yglesias followed up shortly thereafter repeating the Big Lie in The American Prospect online - saying on his blog, ironically enough, that the only problem with Krugman's effort was that "he's just not shrill enough about it."

The attacked moved into high speed over the weekend. Leading up to his testimony before the 9/11 commission, Richard Clarke appeared on 60 Minutes and laid into Bush. There was no discussion of the terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration, no critical analysis of how the previous administration's response (or lack thereof) to those events may played a role in changing Clarke's mind about the urgent nature of the threat posed by al-Qaeda. Nothing but blame for Bush.

Meanwhile, on the other side of town former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta got his hands on internal FBI and DoJ budgetary memos showing the Bush administration not fully acceeding to the FBI's request for an additional $1.5 billion funding for counter terrorism. Podesta leaked the documents to Dana Milbank at the Washington Post, who wrote the story up today on page A6 in a tone not much different from the partisan hit job that appeared on the Center for American Progress' own web site.

We've got The New York Times, CBS News and The Washington Post flooding the zone with interviews featuring and talking points distributed by former Clinton officials. And liberals complain that Fox News is a pipeline for the RNC? At least Condi Rice got a chance to respond on the WaPo op-ed page.

The question is whether Richard Clarke's dog can hunt. I don't think it's necessarily fair to paint him as just a "disgruntled employee" but it is fair to note that he's out to try and sell books. I will say this: I can understand that someone who's job is to walk around and bang the drums about terrorism all day might get good and upset when people don't give him the attention he thinks he deserves.

The truth of the matter is that Clarke wanted to push the same plan (actually it wasn't even a cohesive plan but a set of ideas) already rejected by his former bosses in the Clinton administration, that I believe included trying to assissinate Osama bin Laden and forcibly remove the Taliban.

Given the way we've seen liberals react to George Bush's aggressive handling of the War on Terror, I think it's fair to say we would have had a national vein-popping epidemic on our hands if Bush had said to Clarke in early 2001, "you're absolutely right Dick, OBL is an imminent threat to our national security and we need to preemptively bomb the piss out of Afghanistan, invade the country and take him out."

That's what is so ridiculous (and audacious) about this entire ploy. For the better part of three years we've been listening to liberals whine that Bush is an overly aggressive cowboy, a unilateralist Nazi trampling on our civil rights at home and the feelings of our European friends abroad in pursuit of a "war" that many on the left have repeatedly said did and does not exist.

Now eight months before the election and we're getting a full 180 degree pivot from the same people accusing Bush of being soft on terror. It's as fake and phony as the wrinkle-free skin on John Kerry's forehead.

[NYC Republican]

EXCELLENT analysis!!!

[Howlin]

ABSOLUTELY!!!!

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

It's as fake and phony as the wrinkle-free skin on John Kerry's forehead.

............and that is bad.......really bad.

[Aeronaut]

BTTT

[Thebaddog]

Bush soft on terror? Is there a parallel universe or what! I know these dopes are trying to pick off the soft middle, but this is over the top and would seem to be unbelievable.

[nopardons]

No kidding. :-)

[NYC Republican]

That's exactly my thought - "parallel universe"... What else could explain it? Either that, or we're collectively in the midst of a nightmare...

[Southack]

Actually, the Dems' at the NY Times/WAPost/CBS are hurting their own cause.

Kerry is already falling too far, too fast. These coordinated media attacks may help him remain as the Dems' candidate, however. Otherwise, if he continues to fall, the Dems will backstab him and replace him at their Boston convention this Summer.

[Capt. Tom]

I don't recall seeing a more well-orchestrated, well-timed, full frontal assault on a political figure than what we're seeing the Democrats do to President Bush right now.

I guess the author missed the Newt Gingrich episode. - Tom

[eddie willers]

Now eight months before the election...

If this is their big gun, why shoot it now?

[b9]

Does anyone take 60 Minutes seriously anymore?

[My2Cents]

What can be done about it? The media has always been biased, but I don't recall ever seeing the news media in such a foam against a Republican candidate before as we're seeing this year.

[Fiddlstix]

Now eight months before the election and we're getting a full 180 degree pivot from the same people accusing Bush of being soft on terror. It's as fake and phony as the wrinkle-free skin on John Kerry's forehead.

WEll Said!

Good Article!

[nopardons]

How about what they did to Nixon and I don't mean at the end.

[My2Cents]

Ex-Clinton people are all over these slime attacks. I guess that's the price the Administration pays for not arresting and prosecuting the whole lot for their various high crimes and misdemeanors.

[Diogenesis]

---

---

Mr. Clarke, Mr. Clarke, we can take out Osama? Please!!! .

Clarke: Nope. Forgetaboutit.

---

PARTIAL LIST OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IGNORED BY CLARKE

1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993
1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, Billions
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995
1996 Khobar Towers attack
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted)
2000 USS Cole attacked, many U.S. Navy sailors murdered

[MEG33]

The 9/11 commission is giving Clarke 2 and a half hours.How fair and balanced this commission is will be revealed eventually and it's not looking good.

[Carolinamom]

They're desperate to defeat President Bush instead of terrorists. There IS an "angel in the whirlwind" of this barrage.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Why does the Media ignore this news :

Report Details Saddam's Support for Terrorists Who Killed Americans

The above link is the FreeRepublic discussion thread.

The actual article is :

"Saddam Hussein’s Philanthropy of Terror"

It is a pdf document with substantial footnotes and put together by Dewey Murdock of the Hudson Institute.

[Howlin]

Retired General Wayne Downing is on MSNBC; he is saying that Clarked HIRED him........and he is surprised at what Clarke is saying; he said EGO is involved -- and that Clarke might have been upset because he didn't have the access that he had in the Clinton administration.

[TexasCajun]

Alright! The 'Rats want to play the blame game!

Bring It On!! ...didn't their mommies tell them that if you play with fire you will burn yourself!

[Huck]

Democrats are well aware that President Bush's most favorable political attribute is his determined pursuit of the War on Terror. Approval for his leadership in the War on Terror remains well above sixty percent and he holds a substantial lead lead over John Kerry on the issue.

And it's the difference between me throwing my vote away like I did last time (Harry Browne) or voting for GWB, as I intend to do this time.

[billhilly]

The media are doing what the media do. The conservative public just happens to recognize it now, thanks to the internet and forums like FreeRepublic, Drudge, Fox, Rush Limbaugh, and a double handfull of publications such as the Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Times.

The wool cannot be pulled over our eyes any more, and that annoys the living hell out of the left.

We will prevail.

[Tempest]

No matter how obvious it is that the liberals in the media are schilling in full throttle right now. I'm afraid that their lies are getting a whole lot of air time and it will pollute the minds of many weak minded left leaning individuals.

But then again most left leaning individuals tend to be weak minded anyways by default.

[King Black Robe]

It is amazing. It hasn't been this well orchestrated since they were defending Clinton from impeachment.

[Porterville]

The dems are ineffective.

[Huck]

This is a very well written and well formulated piece--refreshingly so. I am going to check his website. Who is this person? Just a blogger?

[bayourod]

Is this attack coordinated? Is there a war room? Where is Carville?

Is it just me or do all these Dems look really distressed to have to be on the TV shows saying the things they are saying?

[doug from upland]

Perhaps it should be called the Full Monty.

[MEG33]

His access didn't seem to make a difference in the Clinton White House.

[NYC Republican]

He's a blogge, but he's one of the most famous and well-respected bloggers around, having appeared on many of the news shows re: political commentary. Check out their news stories- they capture the best stories daily into one page. They also have FANTASTIC polling summaries. Check out realclearpolitics.com you'll be hooked.

[FlyVet]

Weak on terror. Yeah. Imagine Kerry as president, with an all-star cast of Clinton and Carter recycled appointees. That'd put the fear into the hearts of the Jihadis. LOL.

[Howlin]

I have not heard of him. But RealClearPolitics is a great politics!

[NYC Republican]

FYI - RCP is 2 guys - Tom Bevan and John McIntyre. They complement each other excellently. Fantastic news source, best on the net after FR, IMHO.

[PogySailor]

I made a similar comment to a co-worker today. 18 months is a "rush to war" in Iraq. But now the DNC/Partisan media is trying to sell the snake oil that since Bush didn't attack OBL on January 22nd 2001, he's weak on terrorism. Did I wake up in a parallel universe?

[NYC Republican]

Pathetic, no? Their disgusting rhetoric and lies are despicable...

[Howlin]

I think you are exactly right. If you look back at 2000 and their Electoral College projection, you could click the damn states off all night long.

About midnight, I called friends and said, "Don't you dare go to bed; he's going to win!"

[vaudine]

"..replace him..." I believe that is the idea--replace him with Shillary.

vaudine

[NYC Republican]

Check out the 2002 predictions. Incredible http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Congressional/Senate_02_Polls.html

[cyncooper]

I refused to watch Sixty Minutes, but I've seen clips of this Clarke from that program and this morning's shows.

Appalling.

The Big Lie is spot on, enabled and abetted by certain media types, as pointed out here.

I see the Bush administration is as fed up with this crap as the rest of us and have decided the direct refutation is the best answer. They are correct.

[bootless]

Glad to hear it, Huck. I read your account of 9-11 a few mnths ago - it gave me chills.

[NYC Republican]

We can go into a littany of examples of BLATANT liberal bias, but besides this event, the 2 most recent ones that come to mind are Rush's 10 questions (that were never asked of Richard Clarke), and the total ommission of Bush's 8 point lead over Kerry in CBS' OWN poll! Imagine Kerry was up by 8! It would be all over the newscast...

[Right_in_Virginia]

BTTT (Big time!)

[roses of sharon]

Remember this?

Clinton gets caught with a 21 year old intern in the oval office, and asks her and her friend Linda Tripp to lie under oath in a sexual harrassment case.

After CBS,ABC,NBC,CNN,NPR get thru:

Ken Starr is the Christian pervert.

Linda Tripp is the disloyal, vast right wing friend.

I would love to find out what 60 min., did to her in their reports.

[eeriegeno]

Let's remember that CBS also has not only a political stake but also a financial stake in the success of Clarke's book according to Drudge --- NEWS FOR SALE: CBS PUSHED BOOK IT OWNS; '60 MINUTES' DID NOT REVEAL PARENT COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STAKE IN CLARKE PROJECT

[LS]

Actually, the "get Bush" campaign has been VERY well orchestrated for more than two years. It began with Hillary's "Bush Knew" rant, and included a constant sniping with the uranium/18 words crap.

All that was designed to plant in the minds of the public that Bush cannot be fully trusted in national security matters. They never cared about the "18 words." Nor did they care if Saddam had actually bought six suitcase nukes and had them lined up on 5th Avenue!

Next, we had the Dem primaries. Do you think it was any accident that they ALL just attacked Bush, and never challenged each other?

Three weeks ago, I was in a book store and noticed the shelves were COVERED with anti-Bush books---Franken, Conasen, etc.---and ALL had in the title either "deception" or "lies."

Folks, this is an all-out concerted attack, and it isn't over. I do think Kerry is hopeless as a candidate---not as bad as Dean, because he's so boring no one even listens to him. But this is all the Dems have. They CANNOT offer anything.

Now, what the grand strategery is behind this, I don't know. I DON'T think Hillary is going to be "substituted" for Kerry at the convention. It ain't gonna happen. And I think all this will backfire, as the polls already seem to suggest. But no one can doubt that SOMEONE has organized all this, and started doing so years ago!

[King Black Robe]

Yes, you're right.

[luvbach1]

Superb post. Overly aggressive, unilateralist cowboy is a "do nothing" on terrorism. That sums it up for me.

[RJayneJ]

It seems to me that our form of government is always going to be basically reactive rather than preventive. It's just the nature of the beast. Can you imagine making the changes at American airports if 9/11 had never happened? So, Dubya being unable to smell what the terrorists are thinking is something the Dems are going to try to use against him. The media are giving that kind of criticism much more credibility than they should. You can't blame them of critical thinking.

[MeekOneGOP]