A House divided: Iraq, Murtha, and the passions of war
At Newsweek, Howard Fineman reports on the past week's drama in the House, with passions on both sides raising the political temperature to dangerously high levels. But here's what really happened, what it was all about:
Murtha's call for withdrawal only served to concentrate the debate and hence to make the options so much more concrete. Bush may have flip-flopped again today and "toned down his attack on war critics" just over a week after his reprehensibly partisan 11/11 speech, but there's no turning back now and there's little that he can do to change the terms of the debate, war room or no war room.
There'll be more spin, of course, but Bush has lost control of the domestic front. Two months ago I wasn't so sure, but now it may very well be that the Bush Era is finally over.
(For more, see The Moderate Voice.)
The drama on the floor was a shabby—at times, farcical—finale to a season that nevertheless had produced something serious: a transformation of the politics of the war in Washington. Some of the change had little to do with the war per se. From the bungling of Katrina disaster relief to the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, the White House had faced a run of bad news that would buckle support for any of the president's policies. But as they watched the continued deadly attacks by Sunni insurgents—and the continued erosion of Bush's numbers as a war leader and honest man—Democrats were encouraged to up the ante in Congress. "The fact is, Bush's war policy has failed," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, a former Clinton spin doctor who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "It's failed! Who better to say so than Jack Murtha?"
Murtha's call for withdrawal only served to concentrate the debate and hence to make the options so much more concrete. Bush may have flip-flopped again today and "toned down his attack on war critics" just over a week after his reprehensibly partisan 11/11 speech, but there's no turning back now and there's little that he can do to change the terms of the debate, war room or no war room.
There'll be more spin, of course, but Bush has lost control of the domestic front. Two months ago I wasn't so sure, but now it may very well be that the Bush Era is finally over.
(For more, see The Moderate Voice.)
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
5:04 PM
2 Comments:
But what he's saying isn't new. This is what he said Thursday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601853.html
Pressed to elaborate, Bush said: "I expect there to be criticism. But when Democrats say that I deliberately misled the Congress and the people, that's irresponsible." Bush seemed personally irritated. He said it is "patriotic as heck to disagree with the president. It doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics. That's exactly what is taking place in America."
You can argue that he's saying that just to cover his ass. But to say that he's toning down his criticism because of public response to the Murtha attacks ignores that he was saying similiar comments before Friday
And Bush never directly said that those who criticize his conduct of the war are unpatriotic. He specifically targeted those who he said made misleading comments about the war. Now maybe he tried to indirectly imply it. But I'm sorry but the evidence for that is inconclusive bat best.
By
Anonymous, at 8:34 PM
Bush's proxies are using the word "unpatriotic." In fact, Instapundit Glenn Reynolds states outright that Bush should call war critics unpatriotic. But unless the word slips out in a moment of anger, Bush is not going to use the actual word unpatriotic. It will be everywhere implied but nowhere said.
By
Grace Nearing, at 3:12 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home