NATIONAL SECURITY

Defining Failure As Success

The first responsibility of our government is to protect the American people. President Bush and his administration has not passed this most basic test and Americans know it. Now, panicked by the strong turnout in Connecticut and the clear evidence that most Americans want to change course, these failed policy makers have turned to their strong suit: political mudslinging. White House officials and surrogates fanned out yesterday in a coordinated Rovian campaign to smear their opponents as "weak on security." Press Secretary Tony Snow said that Connecticut voters who backed Ned Lamont believe America should "ignore the difficulties and walk away" from the war on terrorism, a philosophy that "led to September 11th." Vice President Cheney said the defeat of a major Iraq war supporter was "disturbing" since "al Qaeda types...are clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people." This administration excels at sloganeering about the war -- their latest attacks have already seeped into mainstream media analysis. But sloganeering about war is much easier than conducting it. The White House should stop analyzing primary results and start figuring out how to stop the civil war in Baghdad. The Progress Report busts the White House myths:

DEBUNKING THE 'EXTREMIST TAKEOVER' MYTH: The most common attack yesterday was that Lieberman's loss demonstrates a political takeover by the radical left wing. "[I]f you disagree with the extreme left," Tony Snow said, "they're going to come after you." But rejection of the Bush administration's dangerous "stay the course" approach isn't a view held just by "left-wing" liberals. Fifty percent of Americans disapprove of President Bush's efforts against terrorism (vs. 47 percent approval) and 62 percent disapprove of his handling of Iraq (vs. 36 percent approval). As the New York Times noted, "Mr. Lieberman's supporters have tried to depict Mr. Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals who want to punish the senator for working with Republicans and to force the Democratic Party into a disastrous turn toward extremism. ... The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates."

DEBUNKING THE 'CUT AND RUN' MYTH: Former Rove deputy Ken Mehlman said yesterday, "Do we adapt policy to win, or alternatively, do we cut and run, which would give the terrorists a major victory and weaken America?" The media have picked this line up. Remarking on politicians who didn't support Lamont in the primary, New York Times reporter Anne Kornblut suggested they had "made the calculation that it would be more dangerous to take the cut and run position." The truth is that no prominent critic of the president's Iraq strategy favors an immediate withdrawal. Lamont does not. Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI), who proposed the United States Policy for Iraq Act, do not. Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), who proposed a another Iraq plan, do not. Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) does not. Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) does not. This suggestion is a fabrication, a blatant falsehood. Moreover, as Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has said, the Iraq war "should be taken more seriously than to simply retreat into focus-group tested buzz words and phrases like 'cut and run,' catchy political slogans that debase the seriousness of war."

DEBUNKING THE 'SOFT ON TERROR' MYTH: Tony Snow lamented yesterday that "one of the problems that often besets democracies, which is impatience in hard times, in fact serves as a motivation for terror groups." Instead of accusing people who don't support their policies of motivating terrorists, the Bush administration should look at its own record. “Today, al-Qaida has not only regrouped, but it is on the march,” Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at the RAND Corp, testified last month. “Al Qaeda is now functioning exactly as its founder and leader, Osama bin Laden, envisioned it." Terrorist attacks worldwide have nearly quadrupled since President Bush took office, and the war in Iraq has become a safe haven for terrorists and attracted a "foreign fighter pipeline" linked to terrorist plots, cells and attacks throughout the world, according to a State Department report last April. Meanwhile, the administration's efforts to adapt to the "post-9/11 world" are a bust. Its homeland security apparatus was exposed most tragically by Hurricane Katrina, where "the same mistakes made on 9/11 were made over again, in some cases worse," according to former 9/11 Commission chairman Thomas Kean. The most recent "report card" by the former 9/11 Commission members said both Congress and the President had failed to implement the reforms necessary to prevent and prepare for a future terrorist attack. The grades were dismal: five F's, 12 D's, nine C's, and only one A-minus. “Despite more than four years of legislation, executive orders and presidential directives,” a Government Accountability Office report concluded, the Bush administration has “yet to comprehensively improve sharing of counterterrorism information.” And the federal anti-terrorism database today lists Indiana as the most target-rich state in the U.S., with "50 percent more listed sites than New York," and includes potential "targets" like Old MacDonald’s Petting Zoo, the Amish Country Popcorn factory, and an unspecified “Beach at End of a Street."

DEBUNKING THE 'IRAQ DISUNITY' MYTH: Some pundits and political analysts continue to charge that there is no consensus on an alternative to "stay the course." The New York Times reported yesterday that "the accepted wisdom in political circles" was that progressives were "still struggling to arrive at a unified position about the war." But just a few days prior, the Times observed that prominent opponents of Bush's Iraq strategy "had unified around a position [on Iraq] -- and presented it so forcefully" that it suggested "the politics surrounding the war are changing." Indeed, Iraq war critics of various political stripes -- from Rep. Murtha to Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) -- signed a "unified statement" to President Bush on July 31 stating that "a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006." (American Progress has laid out a detailed plan for Strategic Redeployment.)