Last year at turkey time, I shared a few tasty morsels of thankfulness in an attempt to capture the spirit of the holiday. That was before we had young American men playing nation-builder by the tens of thousands – and dying, a few at a time.
Even against a backdrop of Iraqi upheaval, I was prepared to repeat last year’s light-hearted look at all things deserving of thanks. Unfortunately, I read my morning news before I could be thankful for a damn thing, and instead was reminded only of how thankful I used to be that my country wasn’t going nuts. Those were the days.
Kicking off the competition in earnest, The Republican National Committee moved beyond fund-raising efforts and ran its first ad of the 2004 Presidential race in Iowa this weekend. Showing mid-season form right from the get-go, the first ad of the holiday season was no softball, hitting the President’s opponents on pre-emptive strikes, the war on terror and national security in general. Its most-repeated phrase will surely be “Some are now attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.”
The Democrats wasted no time with their fiery condemnations, which were to be expected given the nature of this race. Tom Daschle called the ad, “wrong and erroneous … repulsive and outrageous,” while Wesley Clark chimed in with a comment that it was a violation of Bush’s pledge not to exploit Sept. 11 for political purposes. The loveable conscience of the Senate lushes, Ted Kennedy, felt it was just another “attempt to stifle dissent.” Joe Lieberman, who was too busy worrying about real problems to offer a thorough review, only called it “misleading.”
Alright, so why the hullabaloo? Is this ad especially egregious, or have the big boys of the Democratic Party just been foaming at the mouth lately, itching for a chance to scathe the first tangible symbol of Bush’s campaign?
While the ad was Bush enough to open itself up to legitimate criticisms, it was nothing over-the-top or especially shocking, and certainly nothing new in terms of rhetoric or policy position. It was the same “good vs. evil,” “with us or against us,” “patriotic God Bless America or you’re a terrorist” spiel we’ve been getting all along.
But with a constantly growing number of reminders of the tragic and sometimes disastrous results of Bush’s policies, even these divisions of with-us-or-against-us are beginning to deserve the kind of rancor thrust upon them by the likes of Daschle, Clark and company. The ad’s timing also underscored how little our domestic portrayal of Bush’s international policy is actually connected to reality.
The same weekend as this gem touting Bush’s “War on Terror,” was running, Iraq was seeing some of its bloodiest days to date. Injuries from bombings of civilian areas, Iraqi police deaths, sabatoge, and surface-to-air fire from guerrilla groups were all part of Iraqi life this past weekend – and that was all before one of the darkest moments our misguided adventure.
Sunday also saw the shooting of two U.S. servicemen who were driving through the city of Mosul. After their car crashed into a wall, a crowd of Iraqi civilians pulled them from it, beating their bodies with concrete blocks, and leaving their corpses in the street. This was especially telling of the swinging tide in Iraqi perception of our presence, as Mosul had thus far been one of our success stories in Iraq, and was not even penned as potential hotspot for future insurgency.
All of this without mentioning that the War in Iraq, which threatens Bush’s political life, was not even an original part of the War on Terror, since none of the terrorists involved with Sept. 11 were born in, trained in or conspiring with Iraq. If Bush continues to muddy the distinction between fighting Iraq and fighting terrorism, all while both wars suffer and bad press mounts, he could be vulnerable next year.
Unless he arrives with a TV campaign that improves on his first offering, Bush could face a long and hostile 2004.