How A Political Hit Works
By now I think we all know what the Republican stance is with regard to the war on terror and the war on Iraq for the upcoming elections. The war in Iraq has made us safer because it took down a terror-sponsoring regime that bred terrorism through its oppression and replaced it with a democracy. This, so far, has been a powerful message especially in light of the fact that the left has no rebuttal for it. They have no plans for the war on terror themselves so they can only seek to deride the President’s plans. They say that Iraq’s a quagmire and that the war there has made us less safe. Unfortunately those arguments ring hollow with the American people who have observed steady, if achingly slow, progress in Iraq since our invasion.
So what can the left do to overwhelm the right’s steadfast support of Iraq and the war on terror? Why, run a political hit that makes it seem as though the war in Iraq has actually made us less safe and that the Democrat talking points were right all along.
It all starts with the New York Times. They talk to a bunch of “government officials” and “outside experts” who won’t put their names to anything they say but will none-the-less allege that a National Intelligence Estimate memo concludes that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists and generally made us all less safe from terrorism. Of course, Times readers won’t get to actually see the memo in question we’ll just have to rely on these unnamed sources and the Times’ own professional objectivity.
If that last statement isn’t enough to give a person pause about buying into this, I don’t know what is.
Regardless, the next step is endless media hype. The claims made in the Times article will be repeated ad nauseum, despite the fact that if this leaked intelligence info had stated that Iraq was having a positive impact in the war on terror it would largely be ignored by these same media types.
The third step is for Democrats to get on board and attack the President over media reporting from journalists who have apparently never seen the memo themselves but are instead relying on statements from unnamed people who aren’t willing to put their names to their words because in talking to the press they are breaking the law.
The fourth step is the media to conclude, after all these other steps, that the leaked information is already having a detrimental impact on Republican political aspirations. Again, despite the fact that the only information we have about this memo comes from unnamed sources interviewed by a publication that clearly has a liberal agenda.
All within about 24 hours. Isn’t that amazing? It is almost like it’s coordinated or something.
I remember another major political story like this breaking in September right before an election. That one had something to do with some forged memos and the President’s military service. Which isn’t, of course, to suggest that I have evidence of fraud in this story we’re hearing about today, I just find it interesting that the media always seems to come up with some major story that meshes perfectly with Democrat talking points right before national elections.
