Unintended Consequences 5 Days Later: The Political Gambit Liberals LOST!

Nearly Every News Source and Liberal Leader in the Nation

[Recovering_Democrat]

Five days ago, the so-called "concerned" members of the liberal arm of Congress (assisted, of course, by the press) began what they thought was a "win-win" strategy. Win #1: Get the public to look to THEM as those who care about national security. Win #2: Get the public to LOOK AWAY from the Commander-In-Chief by implying he was asleep at the wheel in the summer of 2001. "What did the President know and when did he know it..." is how DICK Gephardt put it, I believe.

Everywhere you looked at news: online, broadcast, cable, print, radio, all one ingested was the leftist line that terror warnings were ignored. Congressmen and women of the Democrat Party were especially loud; trumpeting their innuendo at every microphone and on the Senate floor. They thought they had a winner. They were going to knock some chinks in the armor of a popular war-time President. They were wrong.

What happened? Their polls (remember, this is the Party of Clinton, not Truman--polls are the altar upon which they worship) showed this line of public rhetoric wasn't hurting the President. The Wall Street Journal poll, in fact, showed Bush's popularity negligibly HIGHER than before the "scandal". By Sunday morning, DICK Gephardt was blaming Katie Couric for his Watergate analogy. Even Jerrold Nadler, leftist extraordinaire, was hemming and hawing on Fox News Channel's Primetime show "Hannity and Colmes".

But what unintended consequences has this primally STUPID wrought? Most noticeable to me is the Administration's new emphasis on "Terror Alerts". "Increased chatter" is a new buzz phrase, and every day gives a new warning from a new high-level official. Anxiety is on the rise, if only temporarily, because the Executive Branch is feeling the need to pass along even "general" information.

Don't get me wrong, I trust the President immensely. I believe, though, the current flurry of "terrorism is inevitable" warnings are more a reaction to the politicizing of the war by liberals than a real new threat. Consider: the Congressional LEADERSHIP has been kept informed about progress from Day One. If they had something to say, they could have said it in private. Did they? NO. Consider, too, the Intelligence Committee Chairmen and Ranking members. For the most part, even the Democrats have sung the same chorus as team Bush. No hint of real scandal exists: the public knows that, and the "Win The Political Game At All Costs" Liberals know that, but they tried it anyway. And now we're reaping the rewards: nervously waiting for the next shoe to drop.

The President has said it many times, but perhaps the left has to hear it every day:

WE
ARE
AT
WAR!

We're going to win this war, but the kind of enemy we're facing particularly targets CIVILIANS. They're TERRORISTS. It is a WAR ON TERROR. Get that phrase through your THICK skulls: WAR ON TERROR. When we're at war, we expect to take casualties. As few as possible, but it'll happen. And in this war, given the nature of the enemy, we'll likely suffer more casualties at home than abroad. The Vice-President said so just a few weeks after the attacks. I heard him say it--where were you?

So enjoy, liberals, your negative effect upon the mindset of the citizenry. We'll hopefully take care of your waning influence in the November elections.

[Billthedrill]

FWIW, I noticed a truly remarkable thing this last Sunday - over a dozen outraged letters to ONE of the town's newspapers (the Times) that were similarly worded and raised precisely the same points, and NO letters at the other (and, in fact, more liberal, the Post-Intelligencer) newspaper. It may, of course, be that the PI didn't print any of the multitude it received...or it may be that somebody only targeted one of the two papers.

This thing was organized and manipulated on a familiar, Clintonian scale. This was shrill, simultaneous, orchestrated. Multiple releases to multiple sources, seminar callers to talk radio and to CSPN, form letters mailed by Dem functionaries. And it failed. And that's a problem, because it inures the public to the next attempt. This is a massive screwup on the part of the Dems and they will be discussing it until November.

[Shermy]

I'm accumulating a post-9/11 timeline of media panic attacks. Additions and suggestions welcome.

1. The Arab Street!

2. Vietnam again!

3. The Afghan Winter!

4. Millions of civilian casualities!

5. Massacre at Mazr-i-Sharif!

6. Britney at the MTV Awards!

7. Johnny Taliban!

8. Evil at Guantanamo!

9. Israel!

10. Massacre at Jenin!

11. Bush knew!

12. Bush should have known!

[RoseofTexas]

BRAVO!! Well said!! GOOD AND FAITHFUL FRIEND OF FREEDOM!!

[dvan]

BRAVO!!!! Well Stated!!

[My2Cents]

They'll be discussing it well past November, as they gather in the Minority Leaders' offices.

[JMJ333]

bttt

[Republic]

Dittos on the BRAVO above! Good read! And yeah....the democrats really made a huge mistake-they attempted to break our trust with our President in a vile way even joe sixpack is repulsed by...the liberal lizards exposed themselves for what they are-anti-American, pro-power creeps. When you do something as evil as they did and turn OFF members of your own party...well...lol...perhaps the organizers of this screw-up need to be dumped, rather quickly. Their hatred was showing.

[JmyBryan]

Something that I was considering I finally heard Chris Matthews voice last night. Bush did not get confirmation on his FBI director until AUGUST!

This new administration was unable to hit the ground running vis a vis terrorism because of the Florida fiasco.

These facts imply to me that the Demonrats might consider ratifying some judges or find this issue of responsiblity for 9/11 alive in the next election.

[My2Cents]

13. Why didn't Bush know?!

[TomGuy]

The bruhaha reminded me of Daschle wanting to know where the Shadow Government bunker was. He forgot he that he was in it.

I am unsettled at the Admin talking heads this weekend repeating over and over--"inevitable", "not if, when". Makes me ask not "Who knew what, when?" but WHY?

Why inevitable? If they cannot defend America, if they cannot provide for the common defense, they need to resign, move over, and let someone who can do the job. "Inevitable", "not if, when" are not acceptible. But, I fear, they already have their reports and statistical analyses on what are "acceptible loses."

[My2Cents]

And how long did the Dems stonewall against the Ashcroft nomination for AG?

[editor-surveyor]

Agree 100%

They were so transparent that the public could see that it was BarbaraStreisand.

[Tony in Hawaii]

6. Britney at the MTV Awards!

Thanks for the hearty chuckle. :)

[Shermy]

That's a good one - why didn't anyone. Doesn't hit the 24-hour news cycle hysteria level though - it's a question that demands to much reason and study.

[JmyBryan]

Exactly! - methinks the Republicans should begin beating this drum. Maybe their friends across the aisle will wake up and realize we've got a world war on our hands.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Why inevitable? If they cannot defend America, if they cannot provide for the common defense, they need to resign, move over, and let someone who can do the job. "Inevitable", "not if, when" are not acceptible. But, I fear, they already have their reports and statistical analyses on what are "acceptible loses." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I respectfully disagree. This enemy, as we've seen, is among us and in foreign countries. They're like a virus: in the bloodstream. They have to be killed one by one. Since we're at war, it is truly inevitable they'll attack again.

[A. Morgan]

Shameful... absolutely shameful!

[gartrell bibberts]

The DNC fax blitz screwed this up when they forgot that all roads led to the previous administration. They then had to stop the chorus rather abruptly, I think.

[backhoe]

Cross-linking:

Bush and Clinton and 911- some facts...