January 14, 2006

Vice President Cheney - Bin Laden's Best Ally in 2001?

And as long as I'm linking to posts that have deeply depressing final paragraphs, it seems appropriate to link to this one too. It's not exactly a new thought, but it is one worth remembering.

These guys did a miserable job protecting the country, and then they got reelected because they are supposedly so strong, noble and brave. Ugh. The triumph of PR and character assassination over substance.

And yet it continues. Just look at this weekend's Republican Party, uh, I mean Bob Novak, column - if you can stomach it. It's yet another attack on Rep. John Murtha, long a stalwart support of the US armed forces, a decorated Marine, and, I think, the first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress (that was in 1974). And true to Bush/Rove form it's not a substantive disagreement with Murtha's position that would actually help educate, inform or seriously persuade the American people. That's something you'd think they might to do if they were really serious about readying the American public to support a long involvement in Iraq - and that appears to be their strategy. If such a strategy is to succeed, convincing people of the merits of that involvement is essential (as scores of articles and books on the links between US public opinion and the support for the use of force abroad make abundantly clear). But instead the column merely notes that Murtha took part in a meeting with some people who Novak thinks shouldn't be taken seriously and maybe Murtha got cooties from them. This is their defense of their failures? That's how these morons are going to maintain public support for a huge foreign policy endeavor that's costing vast sums of dollars and a lot of American lives? And that's what they think the debate on this issue should be like? These guys are both odious and pathetic beyond words.

Posted by armand at January 14, 2006 10:56 AM | TrackBack | Posted to International Affairs


Comments

It's been odious for a while, and the fact that (with all the real failures that have happened in the last five year) there isn't more anti-Bush feeling/action continues to baffle me. Is the Republican PR machine that powerful?

The Novak column was incredible. I've never read a column by him before (why bother?), but this one was just recycled rumor or PR-news-release news. There wasn't anything in there of any real relevance. Do people really read him?

Posted by: baltar at January 14, 2006 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Novak's weekday columns tend to be reporting (of a sort) and his weekend columns are his version of "Washington Whispers" (though they might be older than that column). I tend to read the weekend columns because when he's writing about Republicans it gives you a sense of who's up, who's down, and who's gunning for whom. For example, what are the real priorities of the House leadership, who's kidding themselves by running for a Republican leadership job, who is Ted Stevens going to take out his anger on next, stuff like that. But why anyone would take anything he writes about Democrats seriously is beyond me (well, unless they just get their rocks off by reading character assassination and poorly-sourced innuendo). As best as I can tell he has no current knowledgeable sources on the Democratic side of the aisle (or none under 60, none who aren't under the impression that things in DC are as they were in the time of Hale Boggs and Richard Russell) so his take on Democrats tends to be ... well, frankly, silly often a bit (or more than a bit) offensive.

Posted by: Armand at January 14, 2006 11:48 AM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?