Big day on the blog tomorrow: President Bush is giving a major Iraq speech at 8:30 PM ET, and ThinkProgress will be pushing back with real-time research-intensive rapid response. (For a preview, check out our coverage of January’s State of the Union.)
Plus, we’ll be launching our newly-redesigned ThinkProgress 2.0. Be sure to stop by.
With the American people losing faith in the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq, the White House has fallen back on some Luntz style propaganda: exploiting the September 11th attacks. From today’s presser…
QUESTION: Isn’t the message really more patience? Isn’t that really what the president’s going to be requesting?
MCCLELLAN: Well, I think if you go back to September 11th — remember, on September 11th the threats of the 21st century were brought to our shores. We saw in a very clear way the threats that we face on that day.
And the president said shortly after the attacks of September 11th that this is a long struggle that we’re going to be in, that this is a different kind of war, one which we have never seen before, and we do face a determined and ruthless enemy, an enemy that has no regard for innocent human life.
That’s the nature of the enemy that we’re up against. That’s the nature of the enemy that the president will be talking about in his remarks tomorrow night.
And the president made it clear after September 11th that some will want us to grow complacent and forget about or put the attacks off as a distant memory. But it does require patience and resolve to see this struggle through to the end. We have no option but to defeat the terrorists and the terrorists will be defeated.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page today lashed out at critics calling on the administration to fire Donald Rumsfeld and shift strategies in Iraq, saying they were suffering from “Iraq Panic.” Since the WSJ’s editors often forecast the message of the wider conservative movement, it’s telling that their latest administration apologetics are so transparent.
WSJ: “As for security, the daily violence is terrible and dispiriting, but it is not a sign of an expanding insurgency.”
FACT: Average Number of Insurgent Attacks per Day — May 2003: 10, June 2004: 52, May 2005: 70 [Brookings Institution, 6/3/05]
WSJ: “[The insurgent strategy of attacking 'soft' targets] drives up the casualty figures, especially against Iraqi civilians, but it does not win more political converts. Insurgencies that have prevailed in history — Algeria, China, Cuba — have all had a large base of popular support.”
FACT: “A recent internal poll conducted for the US-led coalition found that nearly 45 percent of the population supported the insurgent attacks, making accurate intelligence difficult to obtain. Only 15 percent of those polled said they strongly supported the US-led coalition.” [Boston Globe, 6/10/05]
WSJ: “That more of the bombers seem to be coming from outside Iraq is cause for worry, since it means there will be a continuing supply of suicide bombers. But it also means that the insurgency is becoming an invasion force against Iraq itself, which means it lacks the native roots to sustain it.”
FACT: “U.S. military estimates cited by security analysts put the number of active jihadists at about 1,000, or less than 10 percent of the number of fighters in a mostly Iraqi-dominated insurgency.” [Washington Post, 5/14/05]
Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld predicted that the U.S. troops would experience an increase in insurgent attacks due to the upcoming December elections. DECEMBER. That’s approximately six months away, and Rumsfeld is already using it as a convenient explanation for the raging insurgency:
Rumsfeld: “The progress on the political side is so threatening to the insurgents that my guess is it could become more violent between now and the constitution referendum and the election in December.” [AP, 6/27/05]
This rationale is not new. Pending political events in Iraq have repeatedly been used by the Bush administration to explain the insurgency dating back prior to the transfer of sovereignty in June 2004.
Prior To Transfer of Sovereignty
Bush: “There’s likely to be more violence before the transfer of sovereignty and after the transfer of sovereignty.” [Bush, 5/24/04]
Condi Rice: “Obviously there is a difficult security situation. They’re making an appeal to Iraqi citizens not to let the foreign terrorists and the rejectionists, who have no future in a free Iraq, not to let those people derail the political transition that is taking place, and I think they’re being quite successful with the Iraqi people.” [ABC, "This Week," 6/27/04]
McClellan: “Well, we’ve said that as Iraq moves forward on holding elections, that you can expect the terrorists and the Saddam loyalists to continue to seek to derail that transition, because they know it will be a significant blow to their vision.” [WH Press Gaggle, 7/16/04]
Prior to January 2005 Elections
Bush: “As election day approaches, we can expect further violence from the terrorists. ” [Bush, 12/7/04]
Rumsfeld: “We expect the level of violence and difficulty to increase between now and the Iraqi elections in January, so I don’t see any likelihood that we’d have a reduction in U.S. or coalition forces here in this country between now and January, which means that the current rotation schedule very likely will stay roughly what it is.” [Rumsfeld, 10/10/04]
Andy Card: “They’re attacking, but they’re not attacking all of the people all of the time. They’re kind of running timid campaigns to try to intimidate people from participating in democracy.” [ABC This Week, 12/19/04]
The Bush administration always seems to have a convenient excuse for why the number of attacks will go up. The American public wants a plan to bring the attacks down.
In the Bush administration, top officials regularly cash in on their connections by taking jobs in the industries they used to regulate. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft did it. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge did it. And former Commerce Secretary Don Evans did it.
Chris Cox, who was recently nominated to chair the Securities and Exchange Commission, is making no secret about his intentions. Here is what his “longtime friend,” Joseph Finley, said made the job so attractive to Cox:
It’s a good way for him, if he decides over time to leave the public sector, a good place to exit from.
There was a time when people took these jobs to serve the public, not to skip a few rungs on the corporate ladder.
The mainstream press continues to repeat the canard that the White House is honing a new message on Iraq — see here, here, here, and here. (As Dana Bash pointed out on CNN, “this is a communications strategy — even telling reporters that they are going to [shift their Iraq message] is part of that strategy.”)
Well, Secretary Rumsfeld “road-tested” the purportedly new message this weekend, and it was the rhetorical equivalent of a 1980 Austin Princess: old, tired, and unreliable.
Knight-Ridder laid out the three major planks of the “new” message:
1. “Progress is being made politically and economically” in Iraq
2. “Insurgency could go on for any number of years”
3. We have never miscalculated, erred, or misled you
Sound familiar? That’s because the White House has been repeating all of these points for months:
Progress in Iraq
“We’re making progress in Iraq.” — President Bush, 2/4/05
“We’re making progress in Iraq.” — President Bush, 10/16/04
“Today the Prime Minister and I discussed our coalition’s progress in Iraq.” — President Bush, 6/4/04
“President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld Discuss Progress in Iraq.” — White House website, 8/3/03
It wasn’t all that long ago when a young conservative congressman from Illinois named Donald Rumsfeld spoke eloquently on the floor of the House of Representatives during the Vietnam War about the need for the Johnson administration to speak more truthfully about that conflict.
A 1966 article in the Chicago Tribune quoted Rumsfeld as saying the following: “The administration should clarify its intent in Viet Nam,’ he said. ‘People lack confidence in the credibility of our government.’ Even our allies are beginning to suspect what we say, he charged. ‘It’s a difficult thing today to be informed about our government even without all the secrecy,’ he said. ‘With the secrecy, it’s impossible. The American people will do what’s right when they have the information they need.” [Chicago Tribune, 4/13/66]
Rusmfeld entered into the Congressional Record an article from the Chicago Sun-Times entitled “Why U.S. Viet Policy Lacks Friends–Our Credibility Destroyed” Rumsfeld stated: “I do, however, believe it is important to the future of our Nation to recognize that there is a problem of credibility today.” [Congressional Record, 89th Cong. Pg. A1454, 3/15/66; Chicago Sun-Times, 12/5/65]
In entering a New York Times editorial into the Congressional Record, Rumsfeld said, “I believe the following significant and timely editorial which appeared in today’s issue of the New York Times and which discusses our involvement in Vietnam merits wide attention. I concur in the conclusion expressed therein that the people of the United States must know not only how their country became involved but where we are heading.” [Congressional Record, 89th Cong. Pg. 21081, 8/19/65; New York Times, 8/19/65]
Rumsfeld said the following in a speech on the House floor: “Accurate judgment is predicated on accurate information. Government has an obligation to present information to the public promptly and accurately so that the public’s evaluation of Government activities is not distorted. Political pundits speak of the ‘credibility gap’ in the present administration. Indeed, this appellation is so widespread that it has become a household word.” [Congressional Record, 90th Cong. pg A792, 2/21/67]
Don’t look now Rumsfeld, but “credibility gap” is becoming a household word again, and it’s directly related to your actions.
Gen. Barry McCaffrey (Ret.), U.S. Army: “People are skeptical of what they’re hearing out of the Pentagon. I think Secretary Rumsfeld’s credibility has been damaged by serious misjudgments.” [MSNBC, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, 6/23/05]
“Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said it was obvious why public opinion polls were down. ‘We have a credibility gap here with the American people,’ he said.” [AP, 6/24/05]
Headline: “Bush’s Credibility Takes a Direct Hit From Friendly Fire” [LAT, 6/26/05]
Headline: “Bush’s Credibility on Iraq Undercut by Violence, Slow Progress” [Bloomberg, 6/27/05]
It’s time for Rumsfeld to follow his own advice.
Powered by NewsWhip
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
About ThinkProgress | Contact Us | Donate
