Rove's Risky Embrace (Libs Relying on Fake Polls, Question Rove's 2006 Strategy)

The Washington Post ^ | June 22, 2006 | Dan Froomkin

[new yorker 77]

Karl Rove is a master of high-stakes brinksmanship, as he has proven time and time again.

But his latest venture may be his riskiest yet.

Rove is betting that he can reframe the war in Iraq as a battle between courageous Republicans and pusillanimous Democrats.

The stakes: Congress. (And subpoena power.)

Rove believes that this strength vs. weakness rhetorical construct, combined with continued attacks on the media, will be enough to counterbalance whatever negative news about the actual war continues to emerge between now and the mid-term elections.

The actual war remains one in which people die every day, sometimes in the most gruesome ways, for reasons that aren't entirely clear. It's a war that according to the polls the public now thinks was a mistake, feels it was misled into supporting, and would like to see ending on some sort of timetable. It's a war that has raised questions about American devotion to human rights. It's a war we may not be able to win.

But Rove thinks he can win the war over the war.

And although his plan appears highly susceptible to events on the ground in Iraq and/or assertive media coverage, betting against Rove -- thus far, at least -- has been a sucker's move.

The latest evidence of Rove's plan comes in a New York Times story this morning by Jim Rutenberg and Adam Nagourney , in which they write about what's behind the congressional Republicans' vigorous embrace of Bush's war strategy.

"That emerging Republican approach reflects, at least for now, the success of a White House effort to bring a skittish party behind Mr. Bush on the war after months of political ambivalence in some vocal quarters," Rutenberg and Nagourney write.

[WVNan]

Bob Bekel was just on FOX maintaining that the idea that if we don't fight the terrorists in Iraq we will have to fight them here, is a nutty idea. I wish I had a recording of that statement so I could play it back to him the next time the terrorists hit us (and they will).

[airborne]

More journalists have died in Iraq than did in Vietnam.

When will the media be pulling out of Iraq?

[Wolfstar]

I wish I had a recording of that statement so I could play it back to him the next time the terrorists hit us (and they will).

Beckel is a typical Leftist dolt. Throughout the 1990's, when Beckel's boy Clinton was in office, the jihadists hit us often. The first WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole, the Egyptian airliner crash, and multiple other smaller hits. Isn't it interesting how, since GWB took us to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have not been hit anywhere else other than in the war zones?

You're right. The odds are we'll be hit again at some point, but that "dumb Cowboy" from Texas must be doing something right.

[italianquaker]

that is ancient history now, thanks to buffoons like kerry,feingold, abdul murtha need i go on

[cj2a]

Not to mention all the crazed jihadis in the thousands we're offing that would otherwise be free to wreak havoc HERE. I think of all the available talent we've put in the ground in Iraq alone, and if for no other reason than decreasing the jihad pool this has been a resounding success, IMO.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" pusillanimous Democrats. "

When it comes to Democrats- I believe that it's spelled pussyillanimous.

[roses of sharon]

More fictional scriptwriting from the juvenile media.

If the Dems were smart they would have been supporting this war wholeheartedly, slamming the Islamic cults and Saddam's goons at every turn, supporting US efforts at interrogations and intell efforts, using very supportive language for our soldiers who have been accused of wrongdoing, and taking any complaints to the Pres in private.

They could actually win elections that way.

But they cannot help themselves, their anti-American ideology shines thru very clearly.

[Wolfstar]

I think of all the available talent we've put in the ground in Iraq alone, and if for no other reason than decreasing the jihad pool this has been a resounding success, IMO.

I totally agree with you about this. The Islamofreaks may have lots of young followers, but no "army" can take the kinds of casualties the jihad pool (great phrase, BTW) has been taking and still remain effective over the long haul.

In Iraq it's mostly Sunni vs. Shia hatred driving the violence. Far as I'm concerned, as long as they're killing each other, I'm not gonna complain.

[Dutch Boy]

Given the recent votes in the Senate the polls must be unreliable. There is no way that many dems voted with republicans if the people opposed the war.

[the Real fifi]

I'm sure that's true..that is their private polls not the "hamburger helper" polls the media engages so they can pawn off opinion as "news".

[Raycpa]

Translation: Oh me, oh my, Bush isn't governing by polls.

[colorado tanker]

The Dims have lost two straight elections on national security issues. And they can't wait to do it again.

[new yorker 77]

[colorado tanker]

LOL! I liked the Dems as cut-and-runners cartoon that was posted yesterday, too.