Parallel universe? Dick Cheney, meet Spiro Agnew
Back in the year 1970, the Vietnam War was raging, and the anti-war movement was beginning to get traction. The Nixon Administration was challenged in those days with the (ultimately futile) task of maintaining public support for the war effort. In those dark days, Nixon turned to his Vice President, a former Governor of Maryland by the name of Spiro Agnew, to serve in the role of attack dog. Agnew delivered a number of colorful speeches that were written by speechwriters William Safire and Patrick Buchanan.
Those speeches, notably, did not address the substance of what the war protestors were saying. Rather, Agnew engaged in ad hominem attacks against war protesters in general and the “liberal press” in particular. In colorful alliterative language, Agnew accused these critics of being “nattering nabobs of negativism.” He appealed to the anti-intellectual bias of some of his political base. “A spirit of national masochism prevails,” he stated, “encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”
Fast forward to November, 2005. The Iraq War is still raging. As of today, some 2,077 Americans have died in conflict, over 93% of them after Bush’s Mission Accomplished speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Over 15,000 Americans have been injured according to official figures, many suffering loss of limbs. Over 60% of the American public disapproves of Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq. Republicans in the Senate have begun to question publicly their President’s conduct of the war. The United States has lost its reputation as a champion of human rights because of the kinds of abuses uncovered or suspected at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and “secret” CIA prisons in Eastern Europe. And as if this is not enough, it is clear that the grounds on which this war was “sold” to the American public—Saddam’s so-called weapons of mass destruction—were based on an intelligence analysis that, at best, was dead wrong and that, at worst, represented intentional distortion. And wrapping all of this up, this was a government so intent on intimidating those who would question its intelligence analysis that senior members of this Administration “outed” the name of Valerie Plame.
With its support dissolving, with its war efforts going badly, with the prospects discouraging, and with the next electoral cycle coming up, the Bush Administration has decided to attack. And the attack dog du jour? Vice President Dick Cheney. “Now Cheney Fights Back,” says the current headline of the Drudge Report.
But as in the year 1970, fighting back does not consist of refuting the facts posed or the arguments made by those in the growing majority opposed to the Iraq War. Fighting back, as in the days of Spiro Agnew, consists of ad hominem attacks.
Cheney refers to “the suggestion … that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence,” characterizing it as “one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.” A close reading of Cheney’s statement leads to this conclusion: it is the reference to purposeful misleading that the Vice President finds “dishonest and reprehensible.” I am willing to grant that the President sincerely believed what he was telling the American public. But the claim that the intelligence was wrong and misleading is a strong one. Notice that Cheney neither acknowledges nor addresses the intelligence failures to which he was a party. Cheney does not refute the substance of the criticism. Instead, he attacks his opponents as being dishonest and reprehensible.
Cheney alludes to the Republican “talking point” that many of the war’s critics are “politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein.” This is a half truth. Those politicians—Democrats and Republicans alike—voted to give Bush authority to use force against Saddam as a last resort. They trusted Bush’s assurance that he would give the weapons inspectors and diplomats every chance to successfully disarm Saddam. As we now know all too well, because of the work of weapons inspectors and diplomats, because of economic sanctions and a no-fly zone, our policy goal had already been accomplished. There were no WMDs to be found in Iraq. Notice again that Cheney does not refute the substance of the charge … because the charge is, in fact, correct. Instead, he attacks his opponents as political opportunists.
Cheney charges that “our people in uniform have been subjected to … cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out.” What are those falsehoods? They are, according to the Vice President, the suggestion that our soldiers “were sent into battle for a lie.” I recognize a non sequitur when I see one. The only “cynical and pernicious falsehoods” of which I am aware were the claims that Saddam possessed WMDs. Some might call this a “lie;” to this Cheney objects. Others might term it a tragic misjudgment. Any way you see it, the results have been tragic. Thousands have died. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted. The war has further alienated the Islamic world to America. But whether it’s a lie or a misjudgment, Cheney avoids the substance of the charge; all he can do is attack his opponents as cynical and pernicious.
Oh, and by the way, war critics are not directing their arguments at our soldiers. The criticism, dear Mr. Cheney, is directed at yourself and your boss.
One final point. Cheney accuses war critics of trying to rewrite history. As the New York Times itself noted in a recent editorial, the only party trying to rewrite history is the Bush Administration. How many different rationales for this war are we up to now?
Vice President Cheney is repeating the rhetorical strategy that Vice President Agnew undertook thirty-five years ago. This was an unsuccessful strategy then, and it will be unsuccessful now. The Bush Administration seems blind to the fact that the American public has serious and substantial concerns about this war, that the American public wants its questions taken seriously and addressed honestly.
Why have Bush and company chosen to attack the integrity of those who would criticize the disastrous choices that have left us in our Iraqi quagmire? Why has Dick Cheney chosen to call us dishonest, reprehensible, opportunistic, cynical, and pernicious? Does this attack speech simply reveal the desperation of an Administration that has sunk completely into the quagmire of Iraq?
Those speeches, notably, did not address the substance of what the war protestors were saying. Rather, Agnew engaged in ad hominem attacks against war protesters in general and the “liberal press” in particular. In colorful alliterative language, Agnew accused these critics of being “nattering nabobs of negativism.” He appealed to the anti-intellectual bias of some of his political base. “A spirit of national masochism prevails,” he stated, “encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.”
Fast forward to November, 2005. The Iraq War is still raging. As of today, some 2,077 Americans have died in conflict, over 93% of them after Bush’s Mission Accomplished speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Over 15,000 Americans have been injured according to official figures, many suffering loss of limbs. Over 60% of the American public disapproves of Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq. Republicans in the Senate have begun to question publicly their President’s conduct of the war. The United States has lost its reputation as a champion of human rights because of the kinds of abuses uncovered or suspected at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and “secret” CIA prisons in Eastern Europe. And as if this is not enough, it is clear that the grounds on which this war was “sold” to the American public—Saddam’s so-called weapons of mass destruction—were based on an intelligence analysis that, at best, was dead wrong and that, at worst, represented intentional distortion. And wrapping all of this up, this was a government so intent on intimidating those who would question its intelligence analysis that senior members of this Administration “outed” the name of Valerie Plame.
With its support dissolving, with its war efforts going badly, with the prospects discouraging, and with the next electoral cycle coming up, the Bush Administration has decided to attack. And the attack dog du jour? Vice President Dick Cheney. “Now Cheney Fights Back,” says the current headline of the Drudge Report.
But as in the year 1970, fighting back does not consist of refuting the facts posed or the arguments made by those in the growing majority opposed to the Iraq War. Fighting back, as in the days of Spiro Agnew, consists of ad hominem attacks.
Cheney refers to “the suggestion … that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence,” characterizing it as “one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.” A close reading of Cheney’s statement leads to this conclusion: it is the reference to purposeful misleading that the Vice President finds “dishonest and reprehensible.” I am willing to grant that the President sincerely believed what he was telling the American public. But the claim that the intelligence was wrong and misleading is a strong one. Notice that Cheney neither acknowledges nor addresses the intelligence failures to which he was a party. Cheney does not refute the substance of the criticism. Instead, he attacks his opponents as being dishonest and reprehensible.
Cheney alludes to the Republican “talking point” that many of the war’s critics are “politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein.” This is a half truth. Those politicians—Democrats and Republicans alike—voted to give Bush authority to use force against Saddam as a last resort. They trusted Bush’s assurance that he would give the weapons inspectors and diplomats every chance to successfully disarm Saddam. As we now know all too well, because of the work of weapons inspectors and diplomats, because of economic sanctions and a no-fly zone, our policy goal had already been accomplished. There were no WMDs to be found in Iraq. Notice again that Cheney does not refute the substance of the charge … because the charge is, in fact, correct. Instead, he attacks his opponents as political opportunists.
Cheney charges that “our people in uniform have been subjected to … cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out.” What are those falsehoods? They are, according to the Vice President, the suggestion that our soldiers “were sent into battle for a lie.” I recognize a non sequitur when I see one. The only “cynical and pernicious falsehoods” of which I am aware were the claims that Saddam possessed WMDs. Some might call this a “lie;” to this Cheney objects. Others might term it a tragic misjudgment. Any way you see it, the results have been tragic. Thousands have died. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted. The war has further alienated the Islamic world to America. But whether it’s a lie or a misjudgment, Cheney avoids the substance of the charge; all he can do is attack his opponents as cynical and pernicious.
Oh, and by the way, war critics are not directing their arguments at our soldiers. The criticism, dear Mr. Cheney, is directed at yourself and your boss.
One final point. Cheney accuses war critics of trying to rewrite history. As the New York Times itself noted in a recent editorial, the only party trying to rewrite history is the Bush Administration. How many different rationales for this war are we up to now?
Vice President Cheney is repeating the rhetorical strategy that Vice President Agnew undertook thirty-five years ago. This was an unsuccessful strategy then, and it will be unsuccessful now. The Bush Administration seems blind to the fact that the American public has serious and substantial concerns about this war, that the American public wants its questions taken seriously and addressed honestly.
Why have Bush and company chosen to attack the integrity of those who would criticize the disastrous choices that have left us in our Iraqi quagmire? Why has Dick Cheney chosen to call us dishonest, reprehensible, opportunistic, cynical, and pernicious? Does this attack speech simply reveal the desperation of an Administration that has sunk completely into the quagmire of Iraq?
posted by David Ourisman at 9:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home