Informed Speculation

Many on the right, myself included, saw in the fizzle of Fitzmas and the nomination of Samuel Alito a White House about to go back on the attack to shake off the woes of this mostly horrible year (politically, that is). Bill Kristol was one of us, and now he’s concerned that perhaps we were a bit hasty:

Last week, I suggested that the Bush administration’s second-term bear market had bottomed out. Since then, we’ve been pummeled by polls showing Bush in continued decline. Perhaps my bullish call on Bush was a bit early. Or perhaps it was wrong. Which is it?

That’s up to the Bush administration. Over the next few months, the Bush team will put this bad year behind them, and regain their footing. Or it will be a long 39 months–a very long 39 months–for Bush and his supporters.

Well, Rome wasn’t built in a day…or even a week, but I do agree with how Kristol frames the problem facing the Administration regarding the new Democratic War on our Iraq policy:

…[T]he administration seems to understand not just that they have to do everything they can to win in Iraq–but also that they must make, and remake, the case for the war. Do they also realize that they have to aggressively–not to say indignantly–confront the “Bush lied” charge now emanating from leaders in the Democratic party?

Last Tuesday, Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate and asserted that the Bush administration had “manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.” This is a serious charge; if it were true, it might well be an indictable offense. But it is, in reality, a slander. Shouldn’t the president defend his honor?

After all, the bipartisan Silberman-Robb commission found no evidence of political manufacture and manipulation of intelligence. The administration’s weak and disorganized attempts to respond to Joe Wilson’s misrepresentations put the lie to the existence of any campaign to “destroy” opponents of the war. In fact, the administration has done amazingly little to confront, and discredit, attacks from antiwar Democrats. It was a shock last week when White House spokesman Scott McClellan emerged for a few moments from his defensive crouch to point out that Clinton administration officials and Senate Democrats also believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Will he, and others in the administration, return to this theme? Will they call the now antiwar Democrats on their disreputable rewriting of history? Incidentally, are the Democrats ready to defend the proposition that we should have left Saddam in power? Is it okay with them if Zarqawi drives us out of Iraq? Will the administration challenge them as to what their alternative is? Will the administration take the time to put spokesmen forward, and recruit surrogates, to make the case for victory? Or do they enjoy being punching bags at the White House?

My gut says the administration will weather this storm. The road to war is littered with skeletons that both parties, in the end, would probably just as soon keep buried.

It may be time for a national address on Iraq to coincide with the upcoming December elections. In that address, the President could admit to the American people that both sides acknowledge problems with the pre-war intelligence, and that, as the Commander-in-Chief, Bush takes ultimate responsibility for over-reliance on some intelligence (not all, by any means) that turned out to be false. However, the President could point out, we are in Iraq, and fighting for a better future. The larger picture remains a valid one – Saddam was an evil despot who was a permanent threat, and a Democratic Iraq is part of the global strategy to win the War on Terror. My fellow Americans, we must get to the bottom of the mistakes of the past, the President should say – but more importantly, we must secure a better tomorrow. We have an obligation to ourselves and to the Iraqi people to see this through…