The national verbal boxing match over the war in Iraq seems only to have just begun.
Now we see in one corner, Vice President Dick Cheney (often the more bluntly-spoken voicebox for President George Bush). And in the other corner — now in a corner in Los Angeles, CA far away from the vacationing GWB due to her mother suffering a stroke — the Iraq war’s growing anti-war and increasingly idolized and criticized anti-war activist mother Cindy Sheehan.
The battle for public opinion — which is probably, more accurately, for independents and non-activist Democrats and Republicans — comes against the backdrop of reported rumblings of discontent in the heartland over Iraq policy and soaring oil prices. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that “bad news out of Iraq, echoed at home by polls that show growing impatience with the war and rising disapproval of President Bush’s Iraq policies, is stirring political concern in Republican circles.”
So Sheehan has expressed outrage as news agencies and bloggers run stories of her impending divorce and statements that have been labeled antisemitic (see here) and stands by her comments that the White House is a “terrorist outfit.”
But why the outrage? Even a cabbage knows that he (or she) who enters the Big Time Political Arena enters in a world not only marked by meticulous vetting but by no-holds-barred attacks. In 21st century America — with the internet, talk radio, cable shows, and broadcast networks afraid of not being aggressive enough to hold onto their audiences — anyone who enters that arena (Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative) is a potential punching bag. If they bounce back, they’re durable. If they deflate, they’re history — or a historical footnote.
What will be Sheehan’s status when the smokes clears? The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank had an online chat and his answer was fascinating:
Reading, Mass.: Is Cindy Sheehan just a passing August media enriched phenomenon or the catalyst of a crisis for the Bush Presidency?
Dana Milbank: That’s why I posed the question: Rosa Parks or Lyndon LaRouche?
Certainly Sheehan has caught a wave, and the ranch stakeout was very clever. But she has been seeking publicity for more than a year (she even held a protest outside the Post a few weeks ago because she didn’t like something I’d written) and for the most part, the media ignored her.
My sense is something of a perfect storm has developed: low polling numbers for Iraq, and Bush on Iraq, a surge in the violence, struggles over the constitution, and the Bush vacation providing a vacuum.
Sheehan’s story will fade after the Roberts hearings start. But it’s possible she has ignited a movement that will continue. Until now, there’s been virtually no mass antiwar movement that puts people in the streets. There’s a big antiwar protest here in DC I think on Sept. 24. That may be a gauge of where the antiwar movement is.
So how is the White House responding? With detailed arguments to counter the anti-war movement? With statistics and hard-nosed info to answer each charge of critics?
Vice President Cheney, offered an intriguing argument to maintain support of the war: the war must be fought to honor the troops who died:
“Every man and woman who fights and sacrifices in this war is serving a just and noble cause. This nation will always be grateful to them and we will honor their sacrifice by completing our mission,” Cheney said during a speech in Springfield, Mo., to the 73rd national convention of the Military Order of the Purple Heart.
Our view (and TMV has supported the war): if this is the new argument that’ll be used to sell the war, it’s doomed to failure. Officials didn’t argue in the World War I, World War II, Korea or even Vietnam that the wars needed to be fought to victory to honor sacrifices soldiers already made in those wars. Leaders relentlessly hammered away at the larger missions. Sometimes these arguments failed (as in the case of Vietnam). But arguing that because young Americans have died in Iraq already the U.S. needs to stay there and face increased casualties will not — to be blunt — sell. It could actually backfire. (There are much stronger and more convincing arguments proponents of completing the Iraq mission can make).
Cheney also has pointedly crossed swords with Nebraska Republican Chuck Hegel, a war critic And you can SEE how Cheney’s not-one-inch-of-acknowledging errors stance and the way he presents it has begun to backfire when you watch here this video of Hagel on CNN via Crooks and Liars. Cheney and the White House were probably not pleased by Hegel’s stance on Sheehan, either:
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said yesterday that Bush would have been smarter to see Sheehan. “I do know that he met with her and other families prior, but I think the wise course of action, the compassionate course of action, the better course of action would have been to immediately invite her into the ranch,” Hagel said on CNN.
Indeed, as we have noted before: the Bush team could have handled this a lot more skillfully from the outset. But this is an administration that truly seems inclined to accentuate partisan and domestic conflict, rather than defuse them. Bush is right: seeing a parent of a killed soldier when she DEMANDS IT may be politically untenable for a President since it’s one person. But, then, this was the President who rushed back from vacation to sign a bill on Terri Schiavo when he could have signed it in Texas. So exceptions HAVE been made to intervene in just one case.
So, does this mean the White House and the most ardent supporters of the war are on the defensive? Does this mean the Democrats should be smiling? Not really.
The centrist Democratic blogger Bull Moose has a must-read post warning Democrats of some of the pitfalls. Part of it reads:
Cindy Sheehan has become the face of the anti-war movement. She has more moral authority than most to express her views on the war. That does not mean, however, that she necessarily occupies the moral high ground.
To withdraw immediately as she suggests would reward al-Zarqawi and his killers with a victory for creating rivers of blood. Whatever the legion of mistakes of the Bush Administration, that is not a moral position. After all, Mrs. Sheehan believes that the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban is also wrong.
While President Bush might not talk to Cindy Sheehan again, he certainly owes the American people an explanation of our current predicament in Iraq. More than that, he should provide us with a new victory strategy there. That might be even more important than mountain biking at this critical juncture.
There are no easy solutions in Iraq. This Administration has arrogantly ignored the voices of reason ranging from General Shinseki to Senators Biden and McCain. Republicans should certainly pay a political price for their failure of oversight for this potential foreign policy disaster.
Yes, Democrats should relentlessly criticize the Administration for the mishandling of the war. But don’t play into the hands of either Zarqawi or the donkey’s political foes.
Meanwhile, emotions and passions are high on both sides — and some weird things DO seem to be happening. For instance, Bradblog charges that two internet providers are censoring emails destined for Sheehan’s website.
Sheehan has already made herself a big, fat political target for the right by writing on Michael Moore’s website and being linked so closely now with Moveon.Org. Bush has made himself a big, fat political target by his and his staff’s bungling of handling Sheehan from the beginning (a more adept staff would have found a way to defuse it early so it didn’t turn into a big national movement). And Cheney is doing what he usually does — talking as a blunt surrogate for his boss (which is what Vice Presidents usually do).
Who wins? Both sides can’t in this. But depending on how it pans out — and which side sticks its foot deepest into its own mouth, or allows its most extreme supporters to do or say something truly outrageous — the White House or the anti-war movement could emerge weaker then when Cindy Sheehan first camped out in Crawford, in those seemingly long ago days when she was there alone.
But one thing is clear: if you look at the war and polls, news reports, and which side is suffering erosion in terms of leaders in Congress, the trend is now going against the White House. Is Sheehan destined to be a historical symbol or a fading political fad? Eugene McCarthy was belittled and blasted when he emerged to become catalyst for Vietnam’s anti-war movement in 1968. The White House is counting on Sheehan-mania to subside. But the jury is still out on Sheehan — and the jury also seems to be raising its eyebrows in regards to the war.
Other Sites Commenting On This Post
The Waterglass
Uncorrelated
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.