December 05, 2006
Posted 9:00 am | Printer Friendly | Spotlight
Digg this • Add to del.icio.us • Email this
For far too many on the right, Iraq can’t be Bush’s fault because, well, it just can’t. To hold him responsible for the calamity would be to label his presidency a tragedy. This is not to say the “blame game” should be avoided, only that fingers should be pointed away from the commander in chief.
Last week, the right picked up on
blaming Americans. From Roll Call’s Mort Kondracke:
All over the world, scoundrels are ascendant, rising on a tide of American weakness. It makes for a perilous future.
President Bush bet his presidency — and America’s world leadership — on the war in Iraq. Tragically, it looks as though he bit off more than the American people were willing to chew.
Au contraire, said other conservatives, who preferred to
blame Iraqis.
Snip…
Wrong again, said still other conservatives. The
real culprit is, of course,
the media. Consider the Weekly Standard’s Michael Novak.
Snip…
As for Novak’s specific assessment, I think Josh Marshall has the
appropriate response.
It’s a fascinating narrative they’re developing. President Bush can handle and generally kick the ass of the Taliban, al Qaida, Saddam, the Iranians mullahs and everybody else around the globe single-handedly without any help from anyone.
Just as long as someone can protect him from the base of the Democratic Party and MSM news editors.
Honestly, I can’t quite figure out what the right would have the media do differently. Reporters failed to ask the tough questions before the war, were cheerleaders after the war had begun, and slowly started reporting the nightmare, after the facts on the ground became undeniable. Indeed, at this point, by some estimations, Iraq is actually
worse than the media is telling us.
And yet, we should blame the press for the fiasco? The mind reels.