A Matter of Leadership
Note: This post was originally written as a diary entry at RedState and was promoted to the front page, where it stayed for about 5-days. Since it has dropped of the front page, I've decided to re-post it here. To see the original entry, complete with comments, feel free to go here.
I find myself over-and-over again – in person, in email, over the phone, on the web (though not as much here in the last couple of months) – having to defend my support for George Bush and the War in Iraq, specifically how Bush has handled and managed the war and it’s aftermath. I’ve taken this task a bit reluctantly at times and at others with gusto - but have always felt a bit awkward, regardless of my personal enthusiasm, at the prospect of having to defend the President of the United States time-and-again on the war over the last two years. I’ve done so mostly because I believe in the cause, in part because I’m a Bush loyalist, but also in no small part because I understand the costs of failure in this venture. Yet, that apprehension has always been there.
Over the last couple of days, amidst the backdrop of the pathetic spectacle of a grieving mother (and lunatic moonbat, who just happens to be surrounded by dozens of the Usual Suspects who must think it’s still 1969) requesting – nay, demanding – an second audience with the President of the United States over the death of her 24-year old “child”, I have found that my desire to continue to defend Mr. Bush has declined notably. It has not been a conscious decision on my part to “stand-down” some of my support – and, in fact, my support for the war has only grown since I wrote a rather pessimistic-sounding diary entry some time ago. So why the loss of “fire” to defend the CinC?
Finally, it dawned on me this morning – why am I defending the President when he does not seem interested in doing it himself?
And in this I have found the source of my apprehension – I’m spending more time defending George Bush than he (and is Administration) is spending defending himself. This is unfair to me, a supporter of the President and his policies, and demonstrates gross negligence of his responsibilities as the leader of our Nation and (indeed) the Free World. It is, I believe, the source of many of his troubles with sagging poll numbers, the loss of support for the war, and his failure to be credited with the rather superb state of the economy (as shown by all objective measures).
In short, if the President of the United State does not care to defend himself, why in Heaven’s Name should I do it for him?
First, let me briefly elaborate. I do not mean to suggest that Bush needs necessarily to go out every day and justify to the great unwashed why we 1) went into Iraq in the first place, 2) are still there today, and 3) need to stay until the nation is stabilized. In fact, re-arguing why we went into Iraq in the first place is rather unhelpful at this point – we’re there, deal with it. Rather, what I mean to suggest is that, while the Press-Democrat is busy playing-up all the negatives (the death-toll, the car bombings), the Administration seems to be relying almost entirely on talk-radio and bloggers to do the job of getting-out the good news and spreading the word on the progress being made in developing a civil society where only two years ago there was a hostile dictatorship.
The Administration has made little attempt, other than the President’s continued insistence that we “Stay the Coarse” (and on that subject, could someone please suggest to his speech-writers that he never, ever, use that phrase again?), to make the case why it’s important for us to be there, and no one - and I mean no one – in the Administration is making even a half-hearted attempt to get ahead of the lazy, partisan press and their never-ending stream of doom and woe.
That is the fault of the Man at the Top – George W. Bush.
As I say in the subject line of this piece, it’s a matter of Leadership.
Now, I’ve been accused from time to time of spending too much time listening to the MSM and (by extension) allowing that to cloud my thinking (just read the responsed to some of my comments - easy enough to do on your own). Well guess what boys and girls, that’s where most of America gets their news and the data upon which most of our fellow voters form their opinions. We can all wait around for the MSM to complete it’s process of self-immolation, but that’s not going to happen in time to pull us out of the Iraq nosedive. The MSM are the only reason 1) the World knows the name of the Moonbat Mourner and 2) why she is getting airtime and column-space everywhere from Cambridge, MA to Tehran. Bluntly, the Press-Democrat are not going to let this story die when it’s such an effective weapon against the biggest terrorist in the world, are they.
Still, Sheehan is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. She is a story because the Administration has done a God-awful horrible job of getting in front of the stories coming out of Iraq. “Quagmire: Iraq” is all we get from the MSM, 24/7/365, consistently for the last 2-years. And here’s a newsflash: that’s all were going to get until someone in the Administration - and it has to start with the Man at the Top - gets it through his head that they are losing control of the situation – perhaps on the ground (certainly many Americans, even those who support the war, believe we’ve lost control of Iraq), but certainly back on the home front.
There is no point at continued Monday-morning quarterbacking, and I’m certain there are thousands of us who could come up with a million intelligent and well thought-out things that we could have, should have, done differently over the last 2-years. What I believe we need to do is look for a way to move forward from here, a way that starts to re-focus the country on what we’re doing there, why we should stay there, and why we’re going to stay there – and is has to start with the President.
Clearly, there are those among us who cannot be persuaded – this strategy is not for them and I do not believe the President needs to waste his time on partisans and peacnics. Many of those protesting today are protesting simply because there is a war going on and there is a Republican in the White House – it’s not more complicated than that. Peel away the lovely-sounding “No blood for Oil!” and “Bring them home, NOW!” rhetoric and what you have (more often than not) is an America-loathing, Israel-loathing, leftist pacifist who opposes not just the War in Iraq, but the War in Afghanistan, the War on Terror, or any armed conflict involving the U.S. – so long as there is a Republican in the White House, of course. These people see a Zionist in every corner of the Government – they are not serious people and should not be treated as such.
Frankly, it would not hurt if someone in the Administration would point this out – and I’m sure there is someone (Hello? Karl Rove?) smart enough to figure out a way to do this tactfully.
Still, no war is unanimously supported – never has been, never will be. The focus should be on the broad middle of the country that supported the war in the beginning but have lost sight of the fact that progress is made in small bunches while setbacks seem to come in big chunks. Still, if the sum of the small bunches outweighs the occasional (even if daily) big chunk, that message will start to break through. (As an aside, if they are not, then it probably means that we need to re-think what we’re doing, eh?)
But if we think that the lazy, partisan Press-Democrat is going to dig that message out and willingly present it to the people so long as there is a Republican calling the shots, we’re deluding ourselves. Further, if we think that blogs and talk-radio is going to be enough to counter the daily grind from the MSM and the left-blogosphere, then we’re beyond delusional. Certainly, that strategy ain't working to well at the moment, is it?
No, the President of the United States needs to get back in control of this situation and personally demonstrate the leadership that is required to bring the American people back. This is leadership we have seen before from George Bush, we all know it’s there. We need straight talk. Highlight the progress without sugarcoating the costs. Give the lazy media a daily spoon-feeding of the news, good and bad, and dare them to continue to cover it as lopsidedly as they have.
Our opponents have no problem asking on a daily basis why we’re there – it’s time for the Administration to answer them, on a daily basis if necessary, to the point that it demonstrates to all fair-minded people that the other side has nothing to offer but complaint. Constant complaint, when left continually unanswered, becomes Known Fact™ – and we’ve all seen far too many of them in the last two years. Finally, people need to understand, is stark terms, what the costs of failure in this war are – and make no mistake, capitulating to the wishes of Dr. Dean, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and the rest of the “Get out NOW!” crowd is nothing if not an admission of abject failure. Yet, that is the path we’re running down presently and will continue to sprint down until the Man and the Top gets in front and turns us away.
It is not about “spin” - “spin” is precisely what we’ve been getting from the Press-Democrat and the DNC. The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of good news out there that is not being reported for a variety of reasons (be it Iraq, the economy, whatever) and therefore no need for “spin” on our side. What has been lacking is perspective and balance. It’s long past time for the Administration to get in-front of the public relations battle – assuming they’re fully in charge of the military aspects, as well.
Mr. President, your legacy will be Iraq - not Social Security reform, not the Supreme Court – Iraq. Those (and many other) issues are certainly important, but you will be forever defined, rightly or wrongly, by the War in Iraq. It is your legacy to win our lose. Win, and these other initiatives will instantly become a whole-bunch easier to get done. Lose, and there is a very real possibility, perhaps even a likelihood, that the Republic will be in grave danger as a result. The outcome is very much in the balance – and will remain so until you assert your leadership, spare us the canned speeches, lay-out the progress, assure us of the justness of our cause, and do it every, single, stinking day, if necessary.
Lead, Mr. President. A nation is waiting for you.
Update [0915 - 24082005]: It appears that I'm not the only person who has pondered this very point - see for example, here and here.
I find myself over-and-over again – in person, in email, over the phone, on the web (though not as much here in the last couple of months) – having to defend my support for George Bush and the War in Iraq, specifically how Bush has handled and managed the war and it’s aftermath. I’ve taken this task a bit reluctantly at times and at others with gusto - but have always felt a bit awkward, regardless of my personal enthusiasm, at the prospect of having to defend the President of the United States time-and-again on the war over the last two years. I’ve done so mostly because I believe in the cause, in part because I’m a Bush loyalist, but also in no small part because I understand the costs of failure in this venture. Yet, that apprehension has always been there.
Over the last couple of days, amidst the backdrop of the pathetic spectacle of a grieving mother (and lunatic moonbat, who just happens to be surrounded by dozens of the Usual Suspects who must think it’s still 1969) requesting – nay, demanding – an second audience with the President of the United States over the death of her 24-year old “child”, I have found that my desire to continue to defend Mr. Bush has declined notably. It has not been a conscious decision on my part to “stand-down” some of my support – and, in fact, my support for the war has only grown since I wrote a rather pessimistic-sounding diary entry some time ago. So why the loss of “fire” to defend the CinC?
Finally, it dawned on me this morning – why am I defending the President when he does not seem interested in doing it himself?
And in this I have found the source of my apprehension – I’m spending more time defending George Bush than he (and is Administration) is spending defending himself. This is unfair to me, a supporter of the President and his policies, and demonstrates gross negligence of his responsibilities as the leader of our Nation and (indeed) the Free World. It is, I believe, the source of many of his troubles with sagging poll numbers, the loss of support for the war, and his failure to be credited with the rather superb state of the economy (as shown by all objective measures).
In short, if the President of the United State does not care to defend himself, why in Heaven’s Name should I do it for him?
First, let me briefly elaborate. I do not mean to suggest that Bush needs necessarily to go out every day and justify to the great unwashed why we 1) went into Iraq in the first place, 2) are still there today, and 3) need to stay until the nation is stabilized. In fact, re-arguing why we went into Iraq in the first place is rather unhelpful at this point – we’re there, deal with it. Rather, what I mean to suggest is that, while the Press-Democrat is busy playing-up all the negatives (the death-toll, the car bombings), the Administration seems to be relying almost entirely on talk-radio and bloggers to do the job of getting-out the good news and spreading the word on the progress being made in developing a civil society where only two years ago there was a hostile dictatorship.
The Administration has made little attempt, other than the President’s continued insistence that we “Stay the Coarse” (and on that subject, could someone please suggest to his speech-writers that he never, ever, use that phrase again?), to make the case why it’s important for us to be there, and no one - and I mean no one – in the Administration is making even a half-hearted attempt to get ahead of the lazy, partisan press and their never-ending stream of doom and woe.
That is the fault of the Man at the Top – George W. Bush.
As I say in the subject line of this piece, it’s a matter of Leadership.
Now, I’ve been accused from time to time of spending too much time listening to the MSM and (by extension) allowing that to cloud my thinking (just read the responsed to some of my comments - easy enough to do on your own). Well guess what boys and girls, that’s where most of America gets their news and the data upon which most of our fellow voters form their opinions. We can all wait around for the MSM to complete it’s process of self-immolation, but that’s not going to happen in time to pull us out of the Iraq nosedive. The MSM are the only reason 1) the World knows the name of the Moonbat Mourner and 2) why she is getting airtime and column-space everywhere from Cambridge, MA to Tehran. Bluntly, the Press-Democrat are not going to let this story die when it’s such an effective weapon against the biggest terrorist in the world, are they.
Still, Sheehan is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. She is a story because the Administration has done a God-awful horrible job of getting in front of the stories coming out of Iraq. “Quagmire: Iraq” is all we get from the MSM, 24/7/365, consistently for the last 2-years. And here’s a newsflash: that’s all were going to get until someone in the Administration - and it has to start with the Man at the Top - gets it through his head that they are losing control of the situation – perhaps on the ground (certainly many Americans, even those who support the war, believe we’ve lost control of Iraq), but certainly back on the home front.
There is no point at continued Monday-morning quarterbacking, and I’m certain there are thousands of us who could come up with a million intelligent and well thought-out things that we could have, should have, done differently over the last 2-years. What I believe we need to do is look for a way to move forward from here, a way that starts to re-focus the country on what we’re doing there, why we should stay there, and why we’re going to stay there – and is has to start with the President.
Clearly, there are those among us who cannot be persuaded – this strategy is not for them and I do not believe the President needs to waste his time on partisans and peacnics. Many of those protesting today are protesting simply because there is a war going on and there is a Republican in the White House – it’s not more complicated than that. Peel away the lovely-sounding “No blood for Oil!” and “Bring them home, NOW!” rhetoric and what you have (more often than not) is an America-loathing, Israel-loathing, leftist pacifist who opposes not just the War in Iraq, but the War in Afghanistan, the War on Terror, or any armed conflict involving the U.S. – so long as there is a Republican in the White House, of course. These people see a Zionist in every corner of the Government – they are not serious people and should not be treated as such.
Frankly, it would not hurt if someone in the Administration would point this out – and I’m sure there is someone (Hello? Karl Rove?) smart enough to figure out a way to do this tactfully.
Still, no war is unanimously supported – never has been, never will be. The focus should be on the broad middle of the country that supported the war in the beginning but have lost sight of the fact that progress is made in small bunches while setbacks seem to come in big chunks. Still, if the sum of the small bunches outweighs the occasional (even if daily) big chunk, that message will start to break through. (As an aside, if they are not, then it probably means that we need to re-think what we’re doing, eh?)
But if we think that the lazy, partisan Press-Democrat is going to dig that message out and willingly present it to the people so long as there is a Republican calling the shots, we’re deluding ourselves. Further, if we think that blogs and talk-radio is going to be enough to counter the daily grind from the MSM and the left-blogosphere, then we’re beyond delusional. Certainly, that strategy ain't working to well at the moment, is it?
No, the President of the United States needs to get back in control of this situation and personally demonstrate the leadership that is required to bring the American people back. This is leadership we have seen before from George Bush, we all know it’s there. We need straight talk. Highlight the progress without sugarcoating the costs. Give the lazy media a daily spoon-feeding of the news, good and bad, and dare them to continue to cover it as lopsidedly as they have.
Our opponents have no problem asking on a daily basis why we’re there – it’s time for the Administration to answer them, on a daily basis if necessary, to the point that it demonstrates to all fair-minded people that the other side has nothing to offer but complaint. Constant complaint, when left continually unanswered, becomes Known Fact™ – and we’ve all seen far too many of them in the last two years. Finally, people need to understand, is stark terms, what the costs of failure in this war are – and make no mistake, capitulating to the wishes of Dr. Dean, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and the rest of the “Get out NOW!” crowd is nothing if not an admission of abject failure. Yet, that is the path we’re running down presently and will continue to sprint down until the Man and the Top gets in front and turns us away.
It is not about “spin” - “spin” is precisely what we’ve been getting from the Press-Democrat and the DNC. The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of good news out there that is not being reported for a variety of reasons (be it Iraq, the economy, whatever) and therefore no need for “spin” on our side. What has been lacking is perspective and balance. It’s long past time for the Administration to get in-front of the public relations battle – assuming they’re fully in charge of the military aspects, as well.
Mr. President, your legacy will be Iraq - not Social Security reform, not the Supreme Court – Iraq. Those (and many other) issues are certainly important, but you will be forever defined, rightly or wrongly, by the War in Iraq. It is your legacy to win our lose. Win, and these other initiatives will instantly become a whole-bunch easier to get done. Lose, and there is a very real possibility, perhaps even a likelihood, that the Republic will be in grave danger as a result. The outcome is very much in the balance – and will remain so until you assert your leadership, spare us the canned speeches, lay-out the progress, assure us of the justness of our cause, and do it every, single, stinking day, if necessary.
Lead, Mr. President. A nation is waiting for you.
Update [0915 - 24082005]: It appears that I'm not the only person who has pondered this very point - see for example, here and here.
posted by Doc J | 6:06 AM
|
1 comments
