Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

And there we find ourselves falling into the same trap we dove into back in 2004. Little surprise that this has once again become the strategy of the GOP for the 2006 November elections -- I can hear Republicans reflecting, "If only we could turn back the clock and recreate the 'good ol' days before everyone realized what a total, unmitigated disaster we are for America and the World."

As the Clock Turns

Over the coming weeks, President Bush will deliver a series of speeches on Iraq and the fight against terrorism. The first one will come today, at an American Legion Convention in Salt Lake City. The President arrived there last night.

After exiting Airforce One at Utah Air National Guard Airport, Bush "launched into a preview of why he came to talk to the American Legion. 'These are challenging times, and I wish I could report to you that all is well. But there are still enemies who still want to hurt America.'"

This approach signals a shift in the Administration's rhetoric on Iraq. Instead of citing 'progress' in Iraq -- a difficult task indeed -- the Administration is attempting to cast Iraq as central to the greater 'war of survival against a worldwide threat'.

In essence, the White House has returned to their original theme, blurring the lines between Iraq and 9/11.

"Advisers said Mr. Bush would continue his speeches on Iraq and the broader struggle against terrorism for several weeks, keying off the five-year anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." The White House "has made national security and Iraq the centerpieces of its strategy to help Republicans retain control of Congress."

And according to Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC's Hardball:

... the Administration's message on Iraq is "clearly...a new strategy that's being directed from the White House."

On September 11, Bush or his minions will appear at the three sites attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001 -- New York, Washington DC, and rural Pennsylvania.

According to US News Bulletin, Washington insiders are saying that several themes will prevail:

For the Republicans:

• "Democrats oppose giving the Administration all the tools needed to fight terrorism, such as authority to conduct warrantless surveillance and hold dangerous detainees in custody without traditional legal protections."

For the Democrats:

• "Democratic leaders [will] give the Administration the proper tools but those tools must be used within the law."
• "The Bush Administration has not done enough to fight terrorism, such as making sure airline cargo is inspected for explosives, protecting US ports, and capturing Osama bin Laden."
• "Bush used 9//11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks."
• "Bush's policies, including the war in Iraq, have intensified anti-Americanism in the Arab and Muslim world, resulting in the recruitment of more terrorists."

And as a final pillar to the GOP strategy, they plan to -- gasp! --  call their opponents 'unpatriotic'!!

A front-page story, headlined on the Washington Post, as "Bush Team Casts Foes As Defeatist", says:

"Bush and his surrogates are launching a new campaign intended to rebuild support for the war in Iraq by accusing the opposition of aiming to appease terrorists and cut off funding for troops on the battlefield..."

The fact that this is a bald-faced lie didn't stop Bush from "[suggesting] last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war."

Cheney continued this week saying critics "claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone."

And Rumsfeld, furthering their pack of lies, brought up the predictable comparison to Nazi Germany, claiming that administration critics "have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."

Hogwash! I believe the Bush Administration is a bunch of 'vicious extremists' and not once have I ever suspected that they could be 'appeased'.

Anyway, as usual, when "pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone."

So what! Do you really think lack of proof is going to stop them? The administration holds fast to that story -- just one more lie to be added to the voluminous archive of the Bush administration's Iraq lies.

Anyway, Evan Thomas of Newsweek sort of gets it, but not quite...

"It's kind of a last refuge, actually, to insult your opponents as being unpatriotic. It's not a new tactic in American political life, but it has a slight whiff -- not desperation, necessarily but of urgency."

So close, yet so far away! It has always been desperation -- desperation resulting from a lack of meaningful ideas, competence, or solutions outside lethal force.

Strategy Review

* Iraq is responsible for 9/11

* Those who disagree are 'appeasing, cheese-eating surrender-monkeys'

Here we go again. When in doubt or suffering from desperation, return to that which has worked in the past. It worked in 2004. Will it work in 2006?

Remember, we didn't think it would hold any water in 2004 either.

Nevertheless, what should be a non-political five-year commemoration of the September 11th attacks, will instead serve as a trigger for a do-or-die battle between the Bush cabal and the patriotic American revolutionary forces that seek to halt his domestic and global devastation. Where past meets present, but where the end-result must not repeat.

Republicans want Armageddon? Let's give it to them -- one that's partisan and unapologetic.