The Bush administration tries to move past Iraq
The last two weeks have seen a classic Bush administration media strategy.
After the House resolution condemning the surge and the Senate vote that focused attention back on the actualities of Iraq, the Bush administration felt the pressure to "close" that media conversation and move on.
The process by which they did this was to introduce the secondary but not directly related story of Iran and the EFP's. Admittedly, the argument wasn't as kind to them as they would have liked, but they did utilize it to drown out the conversation about the surge. Then, once everyone was talking about Iran, they allowed that conversation to "close."
It's actually fairly deft media management. Transfer the Iraq surge discussion to an Iran EFP discussion, take the small hit on the EFP's to avoid the big hit on the unresolved Iraq discussion.
Then, quickly, try to move the conversation on.
Wednesday - Healthcare. Thursday and Friday - Alternative fuels. Saturday - Healthcare.
The one hitch is that with the Dems now in charge of the House and Senate agenda, they can bring the conversation back.
After the House resolution condemning the surge and the Senate vote that focused attention back on the actualities of Iraq, the Bush administration felt the pressure to "close" that media conversation and move on.
The process by which they did this was to introduce the secondary but not directly related story of Iran and the EFP's. Admittedly, the argument wasn't as kind to them as they would have liked, but they did utilize it to drown out the conversation about the surge. Then, once everyone was talking about Iran, they allowed that conversation to "close."
It's actually fairly deft media management. Transfer the Iraq surge discussion to an Iran EFP discussion, take the small hit on the EFP's to avoid the big hit on the unresolved Iraq discussion.
Then, quickly, try to move the conversation on.
Wednesday - Healthcare. Thursday and Friday - Alternative fuels. Saturday - Healthcare.
The one hitch is that with the Dems now in charge of the House and Senate agenda, they can bring the conversation back.
posted by mikevotes at
1:34 PM
5 Comments:
Personally and emotionally, I feel the troop escalation is a fait accompli. I wonder if America feels the same. I still feel the resolutions accomplished what they should have. It was all about the national debate, not the actual details of non-binding resolutions. The public learned that a majority of the House and Senate both oppose Bush's plan, and that Republicans obstructed a full debate in the Senate in a partisan block because they were pissy the Dems were in charge.
I'm hoping to see some traction on this withdrawal or re-write of the '02 AUMF. There is good meat in this debate, comparing what we were told and why the authorization was passed, to the reality of our world today. That debate would make a contained Saddam look like the good old days...
By
-epm, at 6:14 PM
Yeah. They couldn't have really passed a binding resolution. Support would have crumbled in the details.
Politically it was very important for the Dems to establish that consensus as you point out.
And, I think the AUMF thing will die in the details. I haven't seen the draft, but I see so many ways that votes could be lost going both too strong and too soft.
But again, politically, a debate will bring up the question of exactly why we're in Iraq as well as highlighting the hollowness of the original motivations.
I don't see the Dems taking chops at the president on Iraq as "pure partisan politics." I see it as a necessary demolishing of his credibility so that he will be forced to change his position.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 6:26 PM
But again, politically, a debate will bring up the question of exactly why we're in Iraq as well as highlighting the hollowness of the original motivations.
Politically, the congressional Dems are legistativly impotent, given Bush's veto pen and the POC (Party Over Country) Republicans. The work they do, and the debates they bring into the national consciousness will, hopefully, pave the way for Democratic success in '08.
There may be some actual successes here and there by attaching requirements to "must-pass" legislation, but I don't see a real change in foreign or domestic policy coming from the White House.
Again, it's in the debate -- and I mean that in the broader sense of national debate. The WH, for example, walked away with some egg on its face with the whole EFP, anonymous briefing, overreaching accusations thing. I think the same could happen if the WH has to answer why it opposes sending trained and properly protected and properly equipped troops into harms way. Between this and the Walter Reed thing, the time is ripe for the Dems to own American hearts and mind on "support the troops."
By
-epm, at 6:43 PM
I wrote a longer answer, then deleted it. So, I'll give you the short version.
I think you are absolutely right.
(Not really conversation spawning, but affirmative nonetheless.)
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:21 PM
Yeah. I've been trying to be more thoughtful and less -- how should I say, "bloggy"? -- in my comments.
By
-epm, at 6:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home