Bill Kristol is not at all impressed with the administration pushback against the relentless negativism of its ideological opponents. From the Weekly Standard:
The Bush administration has argued that Iraq was and is a central front in the war on terror. Here is evidence that they were right. And yet no one from the administration has noted these findings–to say nothing of commenting on other documents from Saddam’s regime that are being made public. Apparently, the administration believes there is little to be gained from “re-litigating” the case for war. But unless Bush’s critics stand down, it is foolish to try to stand aloof from this debate. We are engaged in a difficult war. It matters a great deal to the country how the Iraq war relates to the broader war on terror–just as it matters whether President Bush was honest in making the case for the war. The administration’s timidity in taking on its critics, openly and publicly, is self-defeating. It’s awfully hard to win a political struggle without fighting.
On some issues, the pushback has been effective—but on nearly every issue, it has been delayed.
The reason I gave the administration a C in its prosecution of the GWOT (I did so on Tammy Bruce’s radio show; not sure if I ever put it in writing here) was because of its failure to effectively combat the manufactured narratives of the DNC, the mainstream press, and anti-war activists both at home and abroad.
And this includes, among other things, showing how the credibility of those “allied” nations who opposed the war—France and Russia, for instance—has been seriously undercut by their complicity in the under-reported Oil for Food scandal. Further, the moral highground assumed by France and the UN was nothing more than a posture meant to rally the anti-war crowd (always easy to do, as no one is ever really for war) in the hopes of keeping covered their history of financial complicity with Saddam.
Domestically, the Bushies’ every attempt to fight back must, by necessity, circumvent the majority of the mainstream press, who has already built its narrative on the template of Vietnam, and serves now only to fit convenient facts into that template while all the time on the lookout for the next Nixonian abuse of power that could bring down an administration.
Which is to say, our press has become a moralistic, ideologically-driven group of storytellers—modern day left-liberal Aesops, whose “reporting” more often than not reads like barely concealed parables meant to discredit the current administration.
Some of this is a function of sensationalism—but the continuous attempts by the hundreds of wannabe Woodward and Bernstein’s to find the smoking gun that will allow them to hang a President’s head on the wall is a testament to the change in journalism from “fact-based” reporting to message-based reporting.
The tale is paramount. And to make sure even the rubes get the correct message, many in the press tailor their stories—whether through key ommissions of fact, intentional or sloppy misuse of terminology (“domestic spying,” “chemical weapons use,” “lied”), or editorial decision that involve burrying the lede or shifting the focus of the report—so that their readers are predisposed to reach certain conclusions.
This is the essence of persuasive writing. Which is not a problem provided the writing is not claiming the mantle of “neutrality” or objectivity.
Fortunately, many Americans are no longer buying it from the print press. Unfortunately, local news—from which most Americans get their national and international news—rely on the same kind of techniques, though in soundbite fashion and in a way that so simplifies complex issues that it is a wonder that Americans have any idea at all what is actually going on in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.
Aside from coalition and civilian deaths, that is.
War is hell, we’re told. But never are we given to understand the reasons why sometimes it is necessary to endure war to bring about sustainable peace.
(h/t Terry Hastings)
The left depends on ignorance to spread their lies and distortions. How scary is it that so many people rely on Jon Stewart for their news?
I know intelligent people who still swear that Bush said Saddam BOUGHT Uranium, while in the meantime having absolutely no clue that Joe Wilson is a liar.
I still cringe when I think that Bush only beat Kerry by 3 million votes.
That’s odd, because I would think searches for smoking guns, and things one can use to hang a pres, is a search for facts, rather than just the latest message given from the PR people
I think it’s hard for the Bush people to get their message out because they have to deal with the fact that every “straight news” story will follow their arguments with “but [insert something that argues against their statement here]” which tends to either blunt their message or paralyze them into saying almost nothing. Dems generally don’t have that problem, since the press generally agrees with them.
This is why the 2004 RNC convention was such a huge boost to the GOP while the DNC did little: it was the only time the public heard the GOP message unfiltered.
Reagan’s genius was that he simply bypassed the press and talked directly to the people, all the time. Bush hasn’t the oratory ability to carry that strategy.
One might think that—if one has been blind to what’s been going on in the last five and a half years.
I am trying to help. In the minisule way that I can.
Sure, I can see how you might think that. Others might see it as swinging a hammer in the hope of striking a nail.
Much of the press does not search for facts, they presume a narrative and then search for whatever fits. Incovenient facts and/or concepts that run counter to the desired narrative (e.g. leak v.s. authorized release) are glossed over or omitted.
really? I saw it on the front page of the washington post that the president authorized libby to tell.
Authorized Libby to tell what?
The stuff that helped bush.
God forbid anything help Bush. It’s not like he’s the President of our country or anything.
The Hypocritic oath: First, do harm.
WHAT!?!?
Stuff.
That.
Helped.
Bush.
tw: Here I stand, an AFLAC duck to actus’ Yogi.
Jeff-
Right to the core of what is happening in our media.
Your point about the dismal reporting by local news outlets is absolutely true.
I watch the blow-dried mannequins on local TV, and want to weep at the droning leftism that passes for national “reporting”. These “hard-hitting”, “eyes on your world”, “news for your life” droids, reading whatever the 25 yr. old script writer who digests whatever crap the networks and AP throw out there are no more credible than Big Artie’s bellowing ads for used cars or appliances. It’s all about getting as much blood and puppies (or bloody puppies) on the air each night as possible.
The ONLY thing to do is write, call, or email, demanding that standards be raised.
I’m not hopeful, but we should at least tell the bastards that someone knows the game they’re playing.
And Acthole, you’re a fucking joke.
You’re just too intoxicated by the attention/abuse you get here to know it.
You couldn’t “find” the truth, or your ass, with both hands and a map.
I am tired, so tired, of the abuse constantly heaped upon the Administration….worst ecnomy of all time…worst military readiness of all time…worst intel of all time…yada, yada, yada.
However, one indite I would have to agree with is:
This has been the worst Admin for PR/Publicity/Propaganda/Message Control/etc. in history! Ever. Of All TIme. Without question, without a choice for second place.
…I mean somewhere around the 50,000th mosquito bite, one’s gotta think about who forgot the Deep Woods Off.
They cannot buy bug spray in the Worst Economy Since Herbert Hoover. Or they sent all the money to Halliburton. Or Ted Kennedy salted and buttered all the money and ate it on a lightly toasted copy of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Whatevah.
I thought the claim was worst recovery, not worst economy. Its certainly been an odd recovery. I think unprecedented. At least in terms of who its going to more to capital than to labor.
Not to mention Australia, the other “allied” nation that was complicit in the Oil for Food scandal.
Actually though the War my be lost. Not militarily but politically. One continues to hope but its been almost 4 months now since the elections. I listened to a podcast from Reuters headquarters which included several Iraqis…they painted a grim picture. Iraq the Model waxes and wanes…now he is mostly waning.
So back to the Admin and why they do not fight back? Maybe they are waiting to see clear unmistakeable signs of progress before counterattacking…otherwise it is probably futile.
Recoveries always go more to capital than labor. This is a simple consequence of the fact that profits are more volatile than wages and salaries.
I think part of it is that they don’t see much of a point in talking to thosein the media who are so utterly and openly hostile. Something along the lines of “teaching a pig to sing”. But it’s wrongheaded, and there are effective ways of getting their message out.
The point is this one was unprecedent in how it diverged from the past.
The phenomenom “going more to capital than labor” is more accurately described as “going more to the baby-boomers’ post-retirement spending than their current spending.” Which, if you are a baby boomer who’d rather not have to eat cat food in retirement, is not a bad thing.
And the thing about the baby boom generation (born between 1945 and 1965) is that its size as a fraction of the overall population is unprecedented.
cathy
Why is that?
The phenomenon “going more to capital than labor” is more accurately described as “not a phenomenon at all”. If you look at labor comensation as a share of national income, its behavior during this recovery is entirely consistent with past recoveries.
“going more to capital than laborâ€Â
Ask GM how that’s working out for them.
Most Americans have a very good idea of what’s going on in Iraq.
2,300 US KIAs. Over 15,000 wounded. For what?
Some goddam Neocon pipe-dream about imposing democracy on the Middle East at the point of a bayonet, for the benefit of people who don’t really want it.
Bad as things are in Iraq, there’s some good news. Francis Fukuyama’s jumped ship. He no longer supports the Iraq war/occupation.
Imagine that! A Neocon facing reality.
Unfortunatly the same can’t be said for Mr Bush and his advisors. We’ll be in Iraq until 2008, he promises us.
Which means another couple of thousand KIAs and and maybe another 5000 wounded, if the past is any guide.
But it bothers Kristol and his friends not a whit. Never has, in fact.
Ever see any references to casualties in Kristol’s crap. Or RObert Kagen’s? Or David Brooks’?
No way.
They’ll just go on trivializing American casualties and pushing their illusions while the body-bags continue to pile up.
Your point is bullshit Ahole. As usual.
The story coming from the socialists and MSM is “worst economy ever”. I’m sure you’ve heard it once or twice. You just plain made up “worst recovery”. You pulled it out of your fat dimpled ass. You people have yet to concede that there even was a recovery, at least in public. So now here you are in another slimey attempt to hijack a thread, creating this idea that there is a recovery, but it’s the worst one ever. What a silly little girl you are.
You’re the “sort” of person who will say any damn thing in order to win an argument, aka childish.
Do you have a link to ‘worst economy’? I’ve heard ‘worst recovery.’ And I don’t knonw how they mean, but I guess its got to do with job gains post trough. There is the fact that it is, compared to other post-war recoveries, heavily slanted towards owners vs. workers. Which is consistent with poor post-trough job gains.