« Savaging Scott McClellan | The RCP Blog Home Page | Bad Options at Duke »

Re-Fighting the Decision to go to War

Three emails on my post that much of the Rumsfeld furor is re-fighting the election and the decision to go to war.

I totally agree with your article. It is so tedious to listen to the same shop worn arguments year after year. But I've noticed that political partisans really believe that if you repeat the same lies often enough people will begin to believe that they are the truth. The MSM is certainly determined to repeat Tet and Watergate, and from the current poll numbers I can see that they are making progress. Maybe they will break the will of the American people and hand the victory to the terrorists. Bush needs to succeed before he leaves office since his successor is unlikely to campaign on a promise of more-of-the-same.


As a 'critic' of nearly everything Bush has done, I find it necessary to point out a few important errors in your article. You state "the public through their elected representatives in Congress overwhelmingly supported President Bush's decision to go to war." Did we really? That is total BS. Bush lied (and continues to lie) through his teeth to get the war his neocons have had wet dreams about for the last 20 years. So it's is neither fair, nor accurate to say America "overwhelmingly" supported Bush. Let me say it again: HE LIED. Do you get it now? That means the 'approval' you refer to was nothing of the sort.

Second, whatever you might think or say, Bush is not now, nor has he ever been "President". He stole the election in 2000 and 2004 and he and his blood thirsty cabal are as illegitimate as it is possible to be. I hope to live to see the day when this information works its way to the surface, as such fecal material almost always eventually does.

Wake up. This isn't about Republicans and Democrats. Open your eyes before it's too late, unless it already is.


Your contention that the 2004 Presidential election is an everlasting referendum on the Iraq War decision is faulty. As any political consultant will attest, elected leaders cannot rule autocratically once voted into office. To garner influence, they must part of a "permanent campaign" to win public approval for their ideas and their leadership qualities. Although electoral outcomes decide which people win public office, they do not ascertain power.

Consider President Bush's legislative fortunes as of late. Whether the issue be Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports or immigration reform, the chief executive has shown little clout as his pleas fall on Congress' def ears. Certainly with a higher approval rating, the President would be powerful enough to shape the agenda of Washington as he had during his first term with tax matters and education reform. In his current weakened state, however, the President's latest pitch for private accounts in government health care made hardly a whisper.

The same principle applies with Iraq. Assuming the small margin of victory in the 2004 election was decided by voter preference for regime change in Iraq (and not by personal "leadership" characteristics or public attitudes toward terrorism in general as many experts contend); the electoral outcome still does insulate the commander-in-chief today from criticism toward his policy. Public opinion is not static. In 2004, half of America supported the decision to go to war with Iraq.

Today, the number still in support is a minority. In 2004, exit polls showed the voting public entrusted the GOP to handle matters of terrorism and security by a wide margin, yet this is the case no longer. As the President's job approval has declined, so to has his political immunity toward criticism of his Iraq policy.