Republicans have made a great show of treating the report as a critical factor in their decision regarding the surge's fate. Since it seems that people don't trust this report, where does that leave these politicians?
If they hide behind the September report, the public will see them as relying on yet more "fixed" intelligence to falsely justify the continuing occupation.
If they reject the September report, the public will wonder why Republicans put so much faith in it during the months leading up to its release.
It's become increasingly clear that the report will not even be authored by Petraeus. The Bush Administration has repeatedly referred to "Petraeus' report" and "Petraeus' plan" for at least six months now. Now, however, the word has come down that the report will be written by the Administration. The Bush Administration has credibility only with its base these days, and those people would believe Bush if he claimed the Moon was made of green cheese, so that is hardly a vote of confidence. The only reason the September report was given any more importance than one of Bush's weekly radio addresses was because it would ostensibly come from an allegedly "independent" source: Petraeus. As usual, the White House innocently claims they have no idea how people could ever have even conceived the notion that the report would be made by Petraeus. This statement, like most from the Bush Administration these days, has some serious credibility issues. The more often the White House makes statements that nobody but their base believe to be true, the more irrelevant the Administration appears. The neocons can sputter in rage about Bush being the Decider and the Commander in Chief, but the public is increasingly looking at November 2008 as relief for that situation.
Despite resetting the "clock" for the surge from February to July (no fair - one tenth of the total surge force wasn't in place until July), despite a manic frenzy of assertion of the surge's success, despite non-stop characterisation of dissent against the occupation of Iraq as treason, despite shill reports by those who falsely claimed to be "critics" of the surge, despite intense pressure on military commanders to come up with good news in large quantities and on a regular basis, despite heavy punishment and censorship of "boots on the ground" who express contrary views of the surge, and despite allying ourselves with forces who openly express disloyalty to the elected government of Iraq, the surge still has failed to gain popular acceptance or credibility beyond those who initially backed it in January.
The surge was not really even Petraeus' plan. It was handed to him by the White House and Congress confirmed him to carry it out, whether or not it was sound. Republicans have used the "in for a penny, in for a pound" approach to portray this confirmation as an endorsement of the surge by the Democrats. Nobody has bought into that besides those same few people who believe everything Bush says already.
Already we are seeing snarling epithets by the right-wing denouncing anyone who doesn't completely accept the September assessment as the gospel truth to be "traitors", "defeatists", and "terrorist supporters". Do Republicans really think that accusing the majority of Americans of treason is an effective strategy to gain their support? Or is it merely a pretense to justify Republicans ignoring the public?
How many Republicans up for election in November '08 really truly think that denouncing their own constituents as traitors is a winning tack?
I said back in May that this would be the strategy Republicans would use:
Treason. It's the last card they can play, and the one most likely to make them look crazy.
The Republicans have staked everything on the surge. They cannot possibly admit it is a failure; they can only sinuously re-define the word "success" and hope most people don't laugh in their faces. They can only lie and say that the objective of the surge all along has been to shuffle Al-Qaeda from one area to another while watching the impotent al-Maliki government go through its death throes and the tiny, useless Iraqi military stumbling around doing nothing.
story from Xinhua
Poll shows most Americans [do] not trust Sept. Iraq report
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 (Xinhua) -- A majority of Americans do not trust the upcoming report by top U.S. commander in Iraq on the progress of the war, according to a new poll released on Friday.
U.S. President George W. Bush has frequently asked Congress and the American people to withhold judgment on his so-called "troop surge" in Iraq until David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, issue their progress report in September.
But according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released on Friday, 53 percent of people polled said they suspect that the military assessment of the situation will try to make it sound better than it actually is.
The poll also indicates that most of America's mind is made up about the war -- 72 percent said the report will have no effect on their view of the war.
The survey was based on interviews of 1,029 Americans by telephone between Aug. 6 and 8.
Commenting on the poll, White House spokesman Tony Snow said on Friday that he hoped that "people do not try to engage in personal attacks on Gen. Petraeus or Ambassador Crocker."
From the CNN report:
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said he doesn't think the mistrust is directed at Petreaus as much as it is what he represents.
Holland said, "I suspect most people are hearing the words 'general' and 'Iraq' and that's what they're basing their opinion on."
He added, "It does seem to indicate that anyone associated with the Bush administration may be a less than credible messenger for the message that there is progress being made in Iraq."
Could that be why the Bush Administration has implied for so long that the report would be Petraeus'? The White House makes "positive reports" about Iraq virtually every single day. Why would one in September be seen as particularly illuminating if it wasn't coming from Petraeus?
Just as Bush has repeatedly implied that Iraq was behind 9/11 without saying that directly, so the White House has repeatedly implied that the report would be authored by Petraeus without saying it directly. While this may be seen by right-wing bloggers as some kind of "cover", it appears completely weasel-like to those who haven't drank the Republican Kool-Aid. At some point, the Republicans will have to stop essentially waging a primary election campaign and deal with the American public at large.
2 comments:
Why should I trust CNN's polls when they are incapable seemingly of asking the Dem candidates why they wont debate on Fox....obviously they are afraid of the fringe left that is their base.
As one of the last few men to be called up for the draft in 1973 I suggest we restart the draft and finish the war in the mideast.
Yes, you have hit on the burning question everyone is hotly debating these days: why won't the Democratic Presidential candidates debate on Fox News? CNN has obviously cleverly fabricated a poll to dodge this issue, but you saw right through all that and got right to the bottom of it. Thanks.
Just maybe, and I'm just throwing this out there, people see Fox News as a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party. I know I do.
Who really cares what network the debate is on, as long as there is a debate? Not me. The Republican "debates" have all turned out to be utter farces. It seems that it is the Republicans who are afraid of the fringe that is their base. They continue to push the idea that "the terrorists" will certainly establish a Sharia state in America, that Hindu prayers will destroy our nation, that a Muslim cannot serve in Congress, as well as believing that most of the citizens of the U.S. are nothing more than dirty traitors who should be hung.
Having made that clear, it's not surprising that you believe American youth, who oppose the occupation of Iraq by over 70%, should be forced to fight for the agenda of a mere 27% of the country that most people consider to be deluded and living in fantasy world packaged and delivered to them by Fox News.
And by "finishing the war in the mideast", I think you mean starting a new invasion of Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, and probably endless occupations of all of those countries. Maybe even Saudi Arabia. Just because they are our ally doesn't mean we can't invade them. They'd probably consider it a favour and welcome us with flowers and chocolates.
But first we need CNN to investigate why Democrats won't debate on Fox News, of course. All of those polls that show Bush with low approval ratings are most likely falsified, since none of those organisations is delving into the truly vital issue of where the Democratic Presidential candidates will debate. And once the lid is blown off THAT one, The American Public will realise that they really DO believe in Bush. The rest is flowers and chocolates and a big landslide for the Republicans in '08. And my face will sure be red, won't it?
Post a Comment