Watching the Fungus spread
Via Kevin, came this article from the NYT which details a pending ad for Bush. The ad is not done by Bush’s campaign team, by the way.
The sum total of the description of the ad in the NYT are these:
. . . portraying Mr. Bush as fighting terrorism while his potential challengers try to undermine him with their sniping.
Ok, fair statement and politics as usual. And another description of the ad:
Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists.
Ok, fair statement and politics as usual. And another description of the ad:
“Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others”, then urges viewers to tell Congress “to support the president’s policy of pre-emptive self defense.”
Ok, fair statement and politics as usual. Some do call for these things but I don’t know of any Dem presidential candidates that have called for retreat, but some non candidates have. I could be wrong though.
Kevin writes:
This is an obvious smear of the worse kind. Anyone with an I.Q. over five knows that questions regarding tactics are not desires to see terrorists go unchallenged. Claiming otherwise is simply an attempt to poison the public discourse by making criticism of the president equivalent to disloyalty. It is one of the most dangerous things a party in power can do – and the Republicans have been doing it constantly. Now, it is their official strategy.
My IQ is about 4.9, so I see no description of the ad that calls them disloyal. Nor does any portion of the ad say Democrats love terrorists (the title of Kevin’s entry).
Kevin’s link was trackbacked pretty quickly here:
Kevin at Lean Left points out that the Republicans are preparing to equate Democrats with terrorists in the upcoming election
Oh my! Kevin said no such thing. Nor does the NYT article.
It gets better: I do a little technorati on the NYT story and get these beauties:
The RNC has started running an ad trying to defend this Administration’s policies. Check out the NYT article about it and see how many lies and misleading statements in the ad you can find, just in what’s reported in the article! (Hint, here’s one: “Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists.”) They obviously can’t run on the truth, but it’s quite appalling how much they’ll lie to the American public.
How many lies and misleading statements can you find in Medley’s entry? (Hint, here’s three: there are only two quotes from the ad in the article; what lies is this person referring to; and what is the truth this person is referring to?).
Then there’s this, which is much more accurate despite the scaremongering start:
Waaaay back on November 13, I wrote a post about the Republican strategy of pushing the President’s “Doctrine of Preemption” and painting the Democrats as weak-willed, indecisive and perhaps unpatriotic.
Well, it looks like we won’t have to wait too long to see the first examples of this campaign.
Well, this ad (based on the NYT article) doesn’t portray Dem’s as weak-willed, indecisive and perhaps unpatriotic. It says they snipe at Bush, attack Bush, and don’t support preemptive self defense.
The caveat is that none of us have actually seen the ad and the images and audio could, I suppose, leave that impression.
The authors are intimating that the GOP is questioning patriotism of Dems (which wasn’t done); that the GOP is accusing the Dems of supporting terrorism (not done), and the GOP is intimating that opposition to the war is disloyalty (not done). Somehow, they see this in that sparsely quoted NYT article.
Does the ad imply these things? Without seeing it, I can’t say for sure. But from the NYT article, those conclusions can’t be reached but the bandwagon is already getting jumped on.
We go from sniping, attacking the president, and telling congress to support preemptive self defense to calling Democrats disloyal, unpatriotic, stating that Dems love terrorists, and Dems will do nothing about it.
Oh my! Why do the Republicans even need to campaign? It seems the Democrat party faithful are doing it for the Republicans. Maybe they’re so afraid of being called soft on terror and unpatriotic that they deny the accusations before the accusations even come to fruition. Why is that?
November 21st, 2003 at 2:04 pm
I heard the ad on Rush today. Sounded like a normal politico ad. The Dems have their panties in a wad. I love how they act holier than thou…cant wait to see some of their commercials/ads.
November 21st, 2003 at 2:17 pm
Ok, fair statement and politics as usual.
No, not a fair statement. I’m not aware of anyone attacking Bush for taking action against terrorists. I am aware of people attacking Bush for:
November 21st, 2003 at 2:25 pm
The ad is not done by Bush’s campaign team, by the way
It’s done by the RNC..is there really a huge difference? One of the changes that McCain-Feingold imposed was that ads done by campaigns have to show at the end of the commercial, the candidate saying who he/she is and saying that they approved this message. This was included to reduce the amount of attack ads. By having the RNC run these ads, Bush doesn’t have to personally take responsibility for them.
November 21st, 2003 at 2:27 pm
Quagmire! Miserable failure! Illegal war! Another vietnam!
Any of those ring a bell?
And the terrorists are in Iraq, stuff keeps blowing up. At first, I was for the war just to oust saddam. But since evidence keeps coming to light of a terror link, it likely is a phase 2 of the war on terror.
November 21st, 2003 at 2:41 pm
Saying that Bush policies have failed is not the same thing as saying we should do nothing, and that’s what the RNC is alleging. How blind do you have to be not to see that?
The terrorists are now in Iraq, precisely because we are there. You could rightly say that it’s our fault that there are terrorists in Iraq.
So instead you keep ducking the issue. You (purposely, I think), ignore the difference between attacking Bush’s method and saying Bush shouldn’t be doing anything. It’s a huge difference, one that I can only assume you’re willfully ignoring.
November 21st, 2003 at 2:51 pm
How blind do you have to be not to see that?
Well, you can only see that with your innuendo glasses on, like the imminent threat rhetoric.
The RNC said:
No one said that someone said (ooh, brain hurts after that phrase) Bush shouldn’t be doing anything. Just that people have attacked the president over the issue (which they have).
The words undermine and sniping clearly spell out attacking the president (or his policies, if you like) not that the democrats aren’t doing anything.
So, riddle me this: What would the Democrats do in Iraq right now if they could do anything they wanted?
November 21st, 2003 at 2:57 pm
How the hell does this:
“Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists.”
NOT mean that the Dems are attacking the President for fighting terrorism? What exactly is the meaning of is, SayUncle?
November 21st, 2003 at 3:04 pm
NOT mean that the Dems are attacking the President for fighting terrorism? What exactly is the meaning of is, SayUncle?
Ya lost me on that one. I’ve said the whole time they’ve attacked him for fighting terrorism.
November 21st, 2003 at 3:12 pm
I think it’s the between the lines “wink wink, nudge nudge” that lefties object to. We all know what they’re saying. Ojbectively pro-Saddam, etc. And this is just their opening shot. We will all be liars and traitors before it’s over.
November 21st, 2003 at 3:13 pm
AUUUUUUUGHGHGHGHGHGHGH!!!! (Insert gigantic profanity-laced tirade here.)
You simply don’t get it, do you? How many *BLEEP*ing times do we have to say it? They are NOT attacking him for fighting terrorism. And despite repeated challenges to show me where they are, you never have done this. What they have attacked is his METHODS, and that’s a perfectly legitmate target.
As soon as you show me a DNC ad or prominent democrat saying that we should NOT fight terror, I’ll drink from a nice warm cup of STFU. Until then, this cup’s for you.
Small words, for the simple minded:
“Bush is going about the terror war the wrong way” is NOT the same thing as saying “Bush shouldn’t be fighting the terror war.”
November 21st, 2003 at 3:28 pm
They are NOT attacking him for fighting terrorism.
http://www.amiserablefailure.com/plugin/template/gephardt/220/*
Ok, we’ll assume for a moment that I buy that they are not attacking him for fighting terrorism and are attacking his methods. And criticizing his methods i have no problem with at all.
Then answer the main point of my post, how do you go from the text of the NYT article to making claims that the GOP is saying:
Dems are disloyal.
Dems love terrorists.
Dems are equated with terrorists.
Dems are unpatriotic.
Dems want to do nothing about terrorism.
It seems that that is the same type of rhetorical nonsense that you’re accusing the GOP of when it says: Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists.
November 21st, 2003 at 3:29 pm
Oh, and skb is likely right. A wink and a nudge with some innuendo that we may get if we saw the commercial portraying Dems as such.
November 21st, 2003 at 3:37 pm
SU
Frankly, I don’t know what to say. If you really cannot see that the plain menaing of the phrase “Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists.” is that the Dems are tacking Bush for fighting terrorism, and thus don’t approve of fighting terrorism, then you have a very odd view of the plain meaning of the English language. It is not a sublte point at all. Its the same crap that Clinton pulled when he started in on his nonsesne about “what is means.” Technically, it may have been correct, but anyone with a brain could see what the intent of the stamtent was. this is the same thing. If you say someone is attacking you for doing A, the clear menaing is that they do not want to do A. It does not get simplier than that.
November 21st, 2003 at 3:45 pm
I repeat:
Then answer the main point of my post, how do you go from the text of the NYT article to making claims that the GOP is saying:
Dems are disloyal.
Dems love terrorists.
Dems are equated with terrorists.
Dems are unpatriotic.
Dems want to do nothing about terrorism.
November 21st, 2003 at 4:09 pm
By having the RNC run these ads, Bush doesn’t have to personally take responsibility for them.
Do you honestly think that anyone listening to the ad would not associate the president with the RNC?
November 21st, 2003 at 4:13 pm
I guess I just fail to see any practical difference between:
“Some [Democrats] are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists.”
and
“Dems want to do nothing about terrorism.”
If they were indeed attacking the president for attacking the terrorists (which they aren’t), then wouldn’t imply that imply that they want to do the opposite (i.e., not attack the terrorists)?
Take that line out of the ad, and I have NO quarrel with the ad — I disagree with it, but I don’t consider it “slimy.” But any time you equate opposing you with opposing the fight against terror — and make no mistake, this is precisely what they’ve done in this ad — that’s absolutely slimy.
A lot of our quarrel here goes back to the statistics thread. A lot of people seem to think that it’s okay to make bullshit arguments and use bullshit reasoning as long as the conclusion drawn is one they personally agree with. It’s not okay, and you’re intellectually dishonest if you endorse such tactics.
November 21st, 2003 at 4:18 pm
But any time you equate opposing you with opposing the fight against terror … that’s absolutely slimy
I would agree. But you have to reach to draw the conclusion that anyone is saying that. The dems attacking bush (or his views) tends to come across that way sometimes though. Perhaps it is because no real plan for Iraq by the Dems has been discussed (or at least paid attention to) publicly. Hard to do that since they spend all their time sniping at Bush 🙂
But it’s equally slimy to make misleading statements like:
The gop says dems are unpatriotic.
The gop says dems love terrorists.
etc.
November 21st, 2003 at 5:14 pm
The way in which he’s attacking the terrorists (i.e., his methods
So.. what is the right way to attack terrorists? Is there such a thing as the wrong way to attack terrorists? As long as they are killed so they can no longer kill, the job is being done right.
November 21st, 2003 at 5:24 pm
But you have to reach to draw the conclusion that anyone is saying that.
No, you really don’t. You have to reach to conclude that they aren’t saying that. If that isn’t the implication, then why put that line into the ad?
Or are you arguing that it’s a-ok and completely unslimy for them to imply whatever the hell they want, as long as they’re careful not to come right out and say it?
But it’s equally slimy to make misleading statements like:
The gop says dems are unpatriotic.
The gop says dems love terrorists.
It’s only slimy if it’s untrue. I’d admit the “GOP: Democrats love terrorists” allegation probably goes a bit too far, but only a little bit. Should have read “GOP: Democrats aid terrorists,” if you want to pick nits. I’m know there have been administration officials who publicly equated criticizing Bush’s policies with aiding and abetting terrorists. Ashcroft has certainly done so in the past, remember? Exact words:
[emphasis added]
As for “the gop says dems are unpatriotic,” that is a completely valid statement. Nobody who has ever listened to Sean Hannity for more than 5 minutes would dispute this. And even in the ad we’re talking about, that’s a clear implication. Shit, man, it’s going to be the the official GOP line for 2004:
[emphasis added]
That pretty much spells it out for you. This is exactly the kind of example we’ve asked you to provide, and that you’ve consistently failed to provide.
November 21st, 2003 at 5:36 pm
Aaron:
So.. what is the right way to attack terrorists?
Gee, let’s start with a truly international force. And let’s attack places that actually pose a legitimate terrorist threat. And let’s give opportunities to the people of the countries we’ve bombed to the stone-age, by hiring them to rebuild, instead of Halliburton. Those seem like reasonable starting points, unless your name is George W.
Is there such a thing as the wrong way to attack terrorists?
Actually, yes, there is a wrong way. One is to attack people who are not terrorists, and say you’re doing it as part of the war on terror. Another wrong way is to draw “you’re with us or against us” lines in the sand that force people to take sides. Another wrong way is to actually give the al Qaeda recruiters by slaughtering innocents. It just adds credence to their “great white American Satan” rhetoric.
As long as they are killed so they can no longer kill, the job is being done right.
Umm, last I checked, they’re killing themselves. Obviously, the thought of dying doesn’t really scare them very much.
Terrorism is born of misery and disenfranchisement. Any action you take that increases misery and increases disenfranchisement, by extension increases terrorism. People who are happy in life, and have genuine opportunities to look forward to, are a lot less likely to decide to blow themselves up for “the cause.”
November 21st, 2003 at 5:44 pm
George Bush himself said, late in 2001, “you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” If the ‘pubs now claim that Democrats are “attacking the president for attacking the terrorists,” isn’t that the same as saying that the Democrats are “with the terrorists?”
Never mind that, as has already been pointed out, no Democrat has attacked the president for attacking the terrorists. In fact, he is most frequently criticized by the left precisely for _not_ attacking the terrorists, but instead wasting time, money, and lives by attacking Iraq instead. Meanwhile, the terrorists are left to build their strength while the Americans are thus distracted, so that they can continue to wreak havoc on their own time in places like Istanbul.
The problem is not that the president attacked the terrorists. The problem is that he instead had a temper tantrum and attacked the guy who tried to kill his father, putting us all at greater risk.
November 21st, 2003 at 5:50 pm
My second answer should read:
…give al Qaeda recruiters quasi-justification by slaughtering…
November 21st, 2003 at 11:26 pm
All of this blogger outrage is likely coming from one source: MoveOn.org. They sent an e-mail today crying about this ad and asking people to fight back by giving money to them. They also give some talking points that seem to be repeated in the blogs you link to.
November 22nd, 2003 at 1:55 am
CJ:
Sorry, but wrong answer. I’m on the MoveOn list, and haven’t yet gotten an e-mail from them regarding this. I did get one from Howard Dean’s campaign, but I didn’t even see that until long after this debate was in full force.
So at least in terms of Lean Left, no it was not precipitated by MoveOn to my knowledge.
And anyway, so what if it was?
April 7th, 2004 at 3:03 pm
I ;d like ask how the fungusn transmitted? or it can spread? i need your answer
November 24th, 2003 at 10:44 am
Check the facts first…
You just have to love the right. One right-wing blogger tracked back to one of Jason’s posts about the RNC. This guy must be a real prize; he even has a timer on his site counting down the seconds until…