Suitably Flip

The Tobyhanna Catharsis

Many Democratic lawmakers have grown increasingly aggressive in their attacks on the White House for supposed mishandling or misrepresentation of pre-war intelligence, even as they've grown more casual in their regard for documented history.  It seems the raft of positions, statements, policies, and opinions espoused by Bush's predecessor, by his 2004 electoral opponent, and even by the fomenters in question - positions which were so often in line with if not identical too the opinions and stated policies of the President himself - have little bearing on the feverish intent of his most vocal critics to lambaste him for "misleading" us into war and "manipulating" intelligence.

I have to believe this trend away from historical accuracy and toward empty, incendiary political rhetoric owes in part to the administration's unfortunate restraint/discretion/failure in recent months to respond adequately to such attacks.  That's not to suggest that every angsty tirade warrants an official Presidential response, but when the truth of the record is on your side and so easily documented, you have reasonable footing to fire back once in a while without getting unduly backspattered.

Fail to do so and eventually any uncontested argument - no matter how groundless - will start to resonate.  Clearly the White House has been busy lately (prosecuting a war in multiple theaters, making and supporting Supreme Court and Federal Reserve nominations, grappling with a soft approval rating and grand jury proceeedings, moving an ambitious second term agenda, etc.), so perhaps it's inevitable that the rhetorical defenses would suffer temporarily.  Still, it's been disheartening to see such a solid counterargument go unargued, as ever more jackals from the left side of the aisle ceaselessly peck (do jackals peck?) at the preoccupied President, their illogic offset by the administration's reticence.

Painful (and curious) as it's been, this frustration is precisely what made the President's words today such a welcome deliverance.  In a Veterans' Day speech at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Tobyhanna, PA, the President finally and unsparingly took his history-re-writing critics to task (emphasis and excerpting mine):

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)

Well done, Mr. President.  We have to knock you down a full letter grade for turning this performance in late, but it's a well-earned B+.  I hope George H.W. and Barbara print out a copy for their refrigerator.

With this welcome change in tone, I foresee a nice pop in the approval ratings (which this week makes me think of barn doors and cows for some reason...).  Irrespective of ideology, I think the American people by and large enjoy being reminded they have a President who doesn't suffer fools gladly (at least not for long).

Elsewhere:

Read the official transcript, courtesy of the White House.
The Political Teen has the video.
Decision '08 welcomes the change of tone.
Don Surber is calling the speech Bush's Gettysburg.
Donkey Stomp shares my frustration lustration.
Atrios points out what I assume are supposed inconsistencies with prior statements.  How ironic that would be, if only it were true.
Michelle Malkin notes the overdue speech seems to be paying dividends.

Comments

The Tobyhanna Catharsis

Many Democratic lawmakers have grown increasingly aggressive in their attacks on the White House for supposed mishandling or misrepresentation of pre-war intelligence, even as they've grown more casual in their regard for documented history.  It seems the raft of positions, statements, policies, and opinions espoused by Bush's predecessor, by his 2004 electoral opponent, and even by the fomenters in question - positions which were so often in line with if not identical too the opinions and stated policies of the President himself - have little bearing on the feverish intent of his most vocal critics to lambaste him for "misleading" us into war and "manipulating" intelligence.

I have to believe this trend away from historical accuracy and toward empty, incendiary political rhetoric owes in part to the administration's unfortunate restraint/discretion/failure in recent months to respond adequately to such attacks.  That's not to suggest that every angsty tirade warrants an official Presidential response, but when the truth of the record is on your side and so easily documented, you have reasonable footing to fire back once in a while without getting unduly backspattered.

Fail to do so and eventually any uncontested argument - no matter how groundless - will start to resonate.  Clearly the White House has been busy lately (prosecuting a war in multiple theaters, making and supporting Supreme Court and Federal Reserve nominations, grappling with a soft approval rating and grand jury proceeedings, moving an ambitious second term agenda, etc.), so perhaps it's inevitable that the rhetorical defenses would suffer temporarily.  Still, it's been disheartening to see such a solid counterargument go unargued, as ever more jackals from the left side of the aisle ceaselessly peck (do jackals peck?) at the preoccupied President, their illogic offset by the administration's reticence.

Painful (and curious) as it's been, this frustration is precisely what made the President's words today such a welcome deliverance.  In a Veterans' Day speech at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Tobyhanna, PA, the President finally and unsparingly took his history-re-writing critics to task (emphasis and excerpting mine):

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)

Well done, Mr. President.  We have to knock you down a full letter grade for turning this performance in late, but it's a well-earned B+.  I hope George H.W. and Barbara print out a copy for their refrigerator.

With this welcome change in tone, I foresee a nice pop in the approval ratings (which this week makes me think of barn doors and cows for some reason...).  Irrespective of ideology, I think the American people by and large enjoy being reminded they have a President who doesn't suffer fools gladly (at least not for long).

Elsewhere:

Read the official transcript, courtesy of the White House.
The Political Teen has the video.
Decision '08 welcomes the change of tone.
Don Surber is calling the speech Bush's Gettysburg.
Donkey Stomp shares my frustration lustration.
Atrios points out what I assume are supposed inconsistencies with prior statements.  How ironic that would be, if only it were true.
Michelle Malkin notes the overdue speech seems to be paying dividends.