He Does it for a Reason

Spencer Ackerman notes that George W. Bush is once again lying about the basic nature of the situation in Iraq. He'd like us to believe that what's primarily happening in Iraq is that the U.S. is fighting an "enemy," that the enemy is predominantly composed of al-Qaeda members, and that it's likely that a U.S. withdrawal would lead to some kind of al-Qaeda takeover in Iraq that leads to a terrorist attack on the American homeland. There are various people I respect who, wrongly, believe that staying in Iraq is a good idea. But nobody with a shred of honesty or intelligence believes in this line of reasoning that the president likes to endorse.

One thing I've been saying as I talk about Heads in the Sand is that liberals should take the fact of Bush's constant lying a bit more seriously. The administration wouldn't have gone out of its way to make such a dishonest presentation of the case for invading Iraq if they had really believed that they thought opposition to a doctrine of preventive war was politically untenable. Similarly, if the Bush administration thought withdrawal from Iraq was a political loser, they'd be happy to make an honest case for staying.

But they think, correctly, that an honest case for staying would be a huge political loser. Now just because the honest case would be a losing one, doesn't mean the GOP will lose with their dishonest one. But it does mean that the key to winning the debate is to expose the dishonest argument for what it is, which means putting forth a clear alternative and expressing in no uncertain terms how outrageous it is that Bush and McCain want more and more Americans to fight and die on a lie.

DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Miguel A. Contreras, U.S. Navy

Comments

They create their own reality, Matt.

Posted by Joel | May 23, 2008 3:37 PM

Honestly Matt, there are good reasons for staying. They are mostly moral reasons. Powell's Pottery Barn doctrine: you break it you buy it. We broke it. So we are obligated to stay in Iraq and continue to try and build roads, schools, power plants, etc. and continue to be blown up until Iraq is the nice place it was before we invaded.

I disagree with that argument, but isn't it interesting that conservatives aren't making that argument? They are either saying that Iraq is just like WW2 or that it is just like Vietnam, except that this Vietnam is some bizarro world where us leaving was a bad thing.

Posted by freddiemac | May 23, 2008 3:40 PM

Matt - Did you notice that Bush began his his speech with that girlish passive aggressive phrase "some people say" instead of
actively saying who is lying about?

OBama should mock this and then duct tape it to McCain.

Posted by Comment | May 23, 2008 3:44 PM

except that this Vietnam is some bizarro world where us leaving was a bad thing.

In the brains of conservatives [sic] leaving WAS a bad thing. America's lack of toughness and willingness to destroy the civilian population there has haunted us ever since. We've gone soft, don'tcha know. John Wayne wouldn't have given up, pardner.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 23, 2008 3:44 PM

Btw - don't people think it odd and inappropriate for Bush to give partisan speeches at military bases where the audience is required to cheer?

It was odd to be partisan in the Knesset too - But guess people are just used to this BS.

Posted by Comment | May 23, 2008 3:50 PM

Btw - don't people think it odd and inappropriate for Bush to give partisan speeches at military bases where the audience is required to cheer?

It was odd to be partisan in the Knesset too - But guess people are just used to this BS.

Posted by Comment | May 23, 2008 3:57 PM

W!? T!? F!?

By Geoff Earle
New York Post
May 23, 2008 --

Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out.

Posted by steve duncan | May 23, 2008 4:05 PM

MY, how would you feel if you were an Iraqi citizen and had to read us discussing the continuation of the occupation of their homeland in terms of a political DEBATE? Its like listening to an alcoholic debating sobriety with a lush, in between shots of whiskey. We need to get the hell out. Iraq/USA = Afghanistan/Russia. Our breadlines will be forming soon.

Posted by So | May 23, 2008 4:06 PM

In this case, our implementation of the Pottery Barn doctrine is like Borat at the antique shop.

Posted by Julian Elson | May 23, 2008 4:09 PM

we are obligated to stay in Iraq and continue to try and build roads, schools, power plants, etc. and continue to be blown up until Iraq is the nice place it was before we invaded.

I disagree with that argument, but isn't it interesting that conservatives aren't making that argument? They are either saying that Iraq is just like WW2 or that it is just like Vietnam, except that this Vietnam is some bizarro world where us leaving was a bad thing.

The difference is that in Vietnam, there was a strong government ready to take over, whereas if we left Iraq you'd potentially have a civil war, genocide, etc.

Posted by Asher | May 23, 2008 4:16 PM

The second paragraph of my post was supposed to be italicized too.

Posted by Asher | May 23, 2008 4:25 PM

steve duncan, all hillary seems to be saying is that RFK was in it until his assassination even though HHH had as big a lead as Obama does now. I don't think she was trying to evoke anything about the assassination.

To be sure, it's a lousy analogy: surely Clinton reminds most people more of Humphrey than Kennedy, and vice versa with Obama. Moreover, Dems lost in most of those years. Whatever Carter's flaws were, it's hard to see how progressivism or America was better off because Teddy Kennedy challenged him all the way to the convention.

Posted by kth | May 23, 2008 4:29 PM

Re:He'd like us to believe that what's primarily happening in Iraq is that the U.S. is fighting an "enemy," that the enemy is predominantly composed of al-Qaeda members

and

it's hard to see how progressivism or America was better off because Teddy Kennedy challenged him all the way to the convention.

Because a large fraction of American voters prefer their narratives to be simple ones: struggles of "good" v. "evil" that can be "won" by "willpower" and "tenaciousness." Hopefully not a majority, though.

Posted by James Gary | May 23, 2008 4:42 PM

it's hard to see how progressivism or America was better off because Teddy Kennedy challenged him all the way to the convention.

Well, one could argue that a destructive, irrational fight might leave everyone worse off in the short term, but in the long term it serves as a warning: future Democratic presidents would be warned that not shoring up their left flank would leave them at risk of a futile but ultimately destructive challenge. Teddy probably didn't see it that way, but irrational, destructive acts serve a purpose in that the risk of facing the wrath of someone irrational makes people more careful.

Posted by Tyro | May 23, 2008 4:51 PM

But even that only makes sense if you are mounting an insurgent campaign from the left. But Sen. Clinton's situation is more like if Dems had opted for the visionary insurgent, and someone like Hubert Humphrey was trying to catch RFK by arguing that his eloquence and idealism are reasons not to trust him.

Posted by kth | May 23, 2008 5:06 PM

"The difference is that in Vietnam, there was a strong government ready to take over"

Uh, no. There wasn't. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and collapsed in short order after the US quit propping it up. Please learn some history before you post.

" whereas if we left Iraq you'd potentially have a civil war, genocide, etc."

We already have a civil war. There is not an atom of evidence that things will be worse if we leave.

Conservatives predicted falling dominos in SE Asia when the US pulled out. Didn't happen. Conservatives predicted WMDs in Iraq when we invaded. Weren't there. Why should we trust conservative predictions now?

Posted by Joel | May 23, 2008 5:25 PM

Joel,

Maybe he is referring to the North Vietnamese?

Posted by freddiemac | May 23, 2008 5:32 PM

Is Matt ready to discuss how much Bush, Cheney, Gates, Mullen, Rice and Petraeus are lying about Iran as we run up to THAT war?

Thought not.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 6:35 PM

"Al Qaeda in Iraq" is not part of the Al Qaeda that was behind the 9/11 attacks. It wouldn't exist in the first place if President Bush hadn't avoided killing Zarqawi before the invasion. (Zarqawi was in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, in the no-fly zone and out of Saddam's reach, but he was the only evidence for the claim that Iraq was harboring terrorists.)

Posted by croatoan | May 23, 2008 6:39 PM

Matt: Bush would like us to believe that what's primarily happening in Iraq is that the U.S. is fighting an "enemy," that the enemy is predominantly composed of al-Qaeda members, and that it's likely that a U.S. withdrawal would lead to some kind of al-Qaeda takeover in Iraq that leads to a terrorist attack on the American homeland.

i could have sworn that the enemy we were fighting the last few months was militias backed by iran. and if we left iraq would be under influence from iran. [which , of course, if it actually happened would preclude an al-Qaeda takeover.

can't the bush administration pick a script they like and stick with it??

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 24, 2008 2:08 PM

"The second paragraph of my post was supposed to be italicized too."

(Girlish passive aggressive phrase...)

So why didn't it italicize?

And third paragraph should have been omitted entirely. How the heck do you know civil war and genocide will ensue? That's just another dumb American's excuse.

Just leave.

Posted by Idrees | May 24, 2008 4:51 PM

"The administration wouldn't have gone out of its way to make such a dishonest presentation of the case for invading Iraq if they had really believed that they thought opposition to a doctrine of preventive war was politically untenable."

Sorry, Matt. Read it three times (my limit) and could not grok what you are saying. Triple negative (wouldn't, dis, un) did me in.

Posted by Jay Rosen | May 24, 2008 11:03 PM