Karl Rove's Biggest Mistake While in the White House
Want to find out what Karl Rove considers to be his biggest mistake while working in the White House? Find out here.
2 comments:
Anonymous J
said...
It's interesting to think how things might have gone differently if the Bush administration was to return fire in the whole "Bush lied" affair rather than staying so silent. I like to think that average Americans would recognize the distinction between maliciously lying and making what seemed like the best decision based on faulty information (that Republicans and Democrats were both saying was accurate). Maybe if they would have been more vocal things would have been different from a public opinion point of view.
I suppose maybe they were thinking that they didn't want to undermine the credibility of the military or intelligence services, or maybe they thought that responding to unreasonable accusations only gives them credence.
What do you think, Nate and others? Do you think Karl Rove is right that it was a mistake, or were Bush's opponents so set against him that nothing could have stopped them from turning to ad hominem attacks?
Interesting question, Anonyomous J. Thanks for commenting.
I was actually thinking about posting the following link as a follow-up to this post anyway, and now I definitely will because it relates to your question. Check out this reaction by Andrew McCarthy of National Review to Rove's confession: http://article.nationalreview.com/438204/karl-roves-mea-culpa/andrew-c-mccarthy. McCarthy is an expert on Islamic terrorism and is always well worth reading. (If you want to dive even deeper into this issue, click on the link in the article that will take you back to what McCarthy wrote on this topic back in 2004.)
Basically McCarthy points out, in a way that shows respect for both Bush and Rove, that the failure to defend the President against the baseless claims that Bush "lied our country into war with Iraq" was only half of the mistake. The other half was the Bush Administration's failure to make and sustain a convincing positive case to the American public that our military involvement in Iraq was not a "diversion" but rather an essential part of our war against radical Islam. It was, but the Bush Administration didn't communicate that to the American people clearly or consistently enough, and that failure seriously damaged the effectiveness of his second term.
So, back to your question, Anonymous J. I think Rove is right. The Bush Administration failed to vigorously and passionately defend Bush's good faith decision to go into Iraq, as well as the importance of winning the ongoing war in Iraq to our overall success in defeating radical Islam. True, the anti-war left and Bush's opportunistic political opponents were never going to be stopped from their hateful and dishonest attacks, but Bush's defense of the war shouldn't have been aimed at convincing them anyway. It should have been aimed at convincing his own supporters and the people in the middle (independents & moderate Democrats) -- the very people who supported Bush and the war in the beginning but were swayed over time by the anti-war argument since no real defense of the war was being offered by the Administration.
Hopefully that answers your question a little bit....
2 comments:
It's interesting to think how things might have gone differently if the Bush administration was to return fire in the whole "Bush lied" affair rather than staying so silent. I like to think that average Americans would recognize the distinction between maliciously lying and making what seemed like the best decision based on faulty information (that Republicans and Democrats were both saying was accurate). Maybe if they would have been more vocal things would have been different from a public opinion point of view.
I suppose maybe they were thinking that they didn't want to undermine the credibility of the military or intelligence services, or maybe they thought that responding to unreasonable accusations only gives them credence.
What do you think, Nate and others? Do you think Karl Rove is right that it was a mistake, or were Bush's opponents so set against him that nothing could have stopped them from turning to ad hominem attacks?
Interesting question, Anonyomous J. Thanks for commenting.
I was actually thinking about posting the following link as a follow-up to this post anyway, and now I definitely will because it relates to your question. Check out this reaction by Andrew McCarthy of National Review to Rove's confession: http://article.nationalreview.com/438204/karl-roves-mea-culpa/andrew-c-mccarthy. McCarthy is an expert on Islamic terrorism and is always well worth reading. (If you want to dive even deeper into this issue, click on the link in the article that will take you back to what McCarthy wrote on this topic back in 2004.)
Basically McCarthy points out, in a way that shows respect for both Bush and Rove, that the failure to defend the President against the baseless claims that Bush "lied our country into war with Iraq" was only half of the mistake. The other half was the Bush Administration's failure to make and sustain a convincing positive case to the American public that our military involvement in Iraq was not a "diversion" but rather an essential part of our war against radical Islam. It was, but the Bush Administration didn't communicate that to the American people clearly or consistently enough, and that failure seriously damaged the effectiveness of his second term.
So, back to your question, Anonymous J. I think Rove is right. The Bush Administration failed to vigorously and passionately defend Bush's good faith decision to go into Iraq, as well as the importance of winning the ongoing war in Iraq to our overall success in defeating radical Islam. True, the anti-war left and Bush's opportunistic political opponents were never going to be stopped from their hateful and dishonest attacks, but Bush's defense of the war shouldn't have been aimed at convincing them anyway. It should have been aimed at convincing his own supporters and the people in the middle (independents & moderate Democrats) -- the very people who supported Bush and the war in the beginning but were swayed over time by the anti-war argument since no real defense of the war was being offered by the Administration.
Hopefully that answers your question a little bit....
Post a Comment