Rove takes Iraq issue head on and Dems complain

Eleanor Clift:

...

Rove is following a time-honored tactic: hang a lantern on your problem. Iraq is George Bush’s biggest problem, ergo Rove’s strategy: showcase the war, frame the choice between victory and defeatism, put the Democrats on the defensive. Moments after learning he had escaped indictment in the CIA leak investigation case, Rove told New Hampshire Republicans that Democratic critics of the war like John Kerry and John Murtha “give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough, they fall back on that party’s old platform of cutting and running. They may be with you for the first few bullets, but they won’t be there for the last tough battles.”

It’s appalling that an administration led by chicken hawks dares to build an election strategy based on lecturing combat veterans, but it is devilishly clever, and it might work. The Swift Boat veterans destroyed Kerry in 2004; and in 2002, losing three limbs in Vietnam didn’t save Georgia Sen. Max Cleland from attacks on his patriotism. Rove told the GOP faithful that if the Democrats were in charge, Iraq would fall to the terrorists and Zarqawi would not be dead. As offensive as those words are, Rove is doing his job, which is sliming the Democrats so Republicans can cling to power on Capitol Hill. He is politicizing the war for partisan political gain, a strategy that could backfire if events on the ground in Iraq deteriorate.

“They’re risk-takers,” says Matt Bennett of Third Way, a Democratic centrist group. “Did they risk politicizing 9/11 by holding their convention in New York? Yes, and the risk paid off. It’s very Rovean; they’re trying to turn a weakness into a strength.” Another Democratic strategist noted the irony that after four years of no accountability on the mistakes made in prosecuting the Iraq war, the administration was hanging Democrats out to dry. This strategist called it “reverse accountability—shift the blame to those not in charge.”

...

This is really pretty funny. Clift makes Ann Coulter's point about Democrats and their belief that if they put the right prop out in front of an argument, that it is insulting to fight back. In this case the prop is the Democrat's attempt to cover a policy of weakness by putting forward veterans to wave the bloody shirt. The ridiculousness of this argument is that I am postive Clift would not accept my arguments for winning the war simply because I am a wounded combat veteran. So why should I accept the arguments of those who want to sound retreat just because they have been in the military. If the Democrats cannot make their case in a head on argument, it must be a pretty weak case. Why do they need veteran props to make a case. It is because their position is based on emotion instead of logic. It is not reverse accountability to say that the choice suggested by the Democrats is wrong and will lead to defeat. If the Democrats want to win on this issue they need to say how they will win the war, not how they will stop it.