The Washington Post has a piece that raises a point that has become all-too familiar these days: it contends President George W. Bush’s speech contained a fundamental inaccuracy that some are sure to dismiss as a slight oversight and others will insist represents falsification.
You can read about the President’s speech basically saying war critics are undercutting the war effort here (we are reposting yesterday’s post on today’s blog). The Post writes:
President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.
Neither assertion is wholly accurate.
The administration’s overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.
But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
To repeat what we’ve said in many posts here: this administration’s BIGGEST problem is its credibility. Stories such as this mean his speech will (once again) be welcomed by always-loyal partisan supporters, immediately seized upon by partisan foes — and will be yet ANOTHER nail in the coffin for GWB & Co. in terms of independent voters or even some of the more conservative Democrats that voted for him and the GOP.
The loyal base usually gives unconditional support (but not in the case of Harriet Miers); the loyal opposition (which Bush is suggesting is not loyal) can be expected to oppose. But the swing and independent voters are a bit more fickle…and he’s already losing them in droves.
If the White House intent is to indeed go on the offensive against war critics (read that: Democrats, in particular), turning once again to the power-enhancement via division playbook, it may not work this time. Convincing arguments are not arguments that can be shot down in a mere newspaper story — and this Post story will not be welcome news for the White House.
Read it yourself. It’s crammed with specifics — and none of it makes Bush’s speech yesterday look like the essence of accuracy. The base will be delighted but it will raise eyebrows among many others who now are turning thumbs down to Bush in opinion polls and will continue swing-voters’ estrangement from a White House that believes the best defense is a good offense.
Add to that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s war with the White House press corps and it looks more than ever Bush like is going to try to get through the next three years by rallying his base.
And expanding his number of political enemies.
UPDATE: James Joyner offers a detailed case in this post and gives a list of a host of his other posts backing up Bush’s contention on the intelligence. A MUST-READ.
UPDATE II: Crooks And Liar’s John Amato blasts what he calls “Delusional Bush Thinkers” for their reaction to the speech.