Paul Krugman on Bush's 1st Ad Offensive

Krugman strikes again for the NYT, this time laying into the new RNC ad which equates being critical of Bush with being "soft on terror". As Mr Krugman so eloquently points out, and as we've said here till we're blue in the face, nobody has an issue with the general idea of combating terrorism - but we have a real issue with the way that Bush is going about it - ergo diverting attention away from the real centers of terror (i.e. Afghanistan) and destabilizing areas that were previously well-contained (i.e. Iraq):

What the critics say is that this loss of focus seriously damaged the campaign against terrorism. Strategic assets in limited supply, like Special Forces soldiers and Predator drone aircraft, were shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, while intelligence resources, including translators, were shifted from the pursuit of Al Qaeda to the coming invasion. This probably allowed Qaeda members, including Osama bin Laden, to get away, and definitely helped the Taliban stage its ominous comeback. And the Iraq war has, by all accounts, done wonders for Qaeda recruiting. Is saying all this attacking the president for attacking the terrorists?

The challenge for the Democrats now will be to counter this sort of ad effectively in a way which reaches your everyday voter without shooting themselves in the foot.

Comments

[Del]

Greetings,

When it comes to the political arena I think everyone can agree - 'All's fair in love and war'.

It's a great ad campaign and I'm sure the Democrats will start with their hate ads very quickly.

What makes you think it was going to be any different than it always has been.

Why act so shocked?

Why not get prepared and start slinging mud like it can be traced all the way back to the campaign of John Adams - our second President. Ever read those inflammatory ads?

Nothing has changed boys & girls – get over it and let’s get on with it!

I do love election years…

[Luke]

Who's shocked? I just said it needs to be countered.

[Del]

You're right...

I was alluding to the fact that leading Democrats are going bananas. Just yesterday Tom Dashle was beside himself ranting and raving how the ad was inappropriate. Other Democrats were also pretty flustered.

My remark was directed more to them than you Mark - I stand corrected.

I did not make myself clear...

You've got to agree it is fun though... you know the bantering that has already commenced and will continue until the election.

[Luke]

Who's Mark? Is this a biblical in-joke?

[Del]

Luke,

It most certainly is... good assumption - unless of course you picked that up from my other post.

Those damn memory techniques that involve word associations... for some reason in my mind that association has been made.

I do apologize especially if you're not a Christian - I wouldn't want to offend you.

I have to let the librarian know to continually remind me...

he-he-he...

[Del]

Luke,

You sly boy - you did pick-up the biblical remark from the other post I left...

Here I thought you were clever enough...

Well it's not the first time I've been let down.

[Luke]

My theory about the brown bag is becoming stronger by the minute.

My biblical observation on this thread (at 4:37PM) was clearly made before you said the same thing in the other thread (4:44PM). Where do you come up with this stuff?

[Del]

You're right my good man!

Unless you purposely changed the clock in which of course due to your expertise would be the simplest of things to do...

Nah Luke wouldn't do that would he?

Or on the other hand maybe it was a cleverer adversary that was curious to see if the bait set would be taken...

Because of course it is just a childish issue...

Now how about that offer of the beer or whatever?

You game? Don't worry - it's a public place and I can assure you it will be a cordial meeting.

[bobo]

street justice vs. genuine gesture of goodwill

Not sure I would venture to test either theory....Del's a moody one!

[curious]

Del,

please read the following 2 articles (they present opposing views of the same subject) and tell me which one you find more convincing:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-oe-hayes26nov26,1,3400184.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-oe-scheer26nov26,1,6596506.story

[Jim]

Wow. Curious found two opposing articles and feels one is more convincing. It just happens to be the one s/he agrees with. I'm going to go write two articles now and see which one I agree with more.

re: the Iraq war; Yes I am sure it has helped recruit some terrorists. But do you also think it might make some states (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.) a little less likely to help fund these groups, financially? And after there is a democracy in Iraq, and we have not colonized it (oh wait we colonized Germany, Japan and Korea) do you think the Dems and the middle east might figure out that we are not so evil afterall? Do you think other countries might be less likely to ignore 18 UN resolutions like Iraq did? Just thinking...
I believe Bush was right. I believe Iraq and the world will be a much better place - but it doesn't happen overnight. What country has been rebuilt overnight? Call me crazy but I don't think the majority of Iraqi's really wanted a murding/rapist as their dictator.
Ok, slam me with your hatemail and call me stupid, everyone.

[Del]

Hi Curious...

Quickly perused both articles - considering both were commentaries and they did contain a lot of supposed facts until I can follow-up with a bit more investigating on my part - at this point I can't really say.

I will tell you - if I were Bush I would continue to play the dumb fox. You know I love the way the Dems and liberals always shout how dumb Bush is but he is actually a brilliant politician and leader.

He is doing exactly what he needs to do to make the needed changes in the Middle East situation while ensuring his win in the next election.

Playing coy - not bringing this up publicly and allowing the media to play with itself - well honestly I admire his adroitness at manipulation to ensure success in both arena's - the Middle East and his election.

Things in Iraq are moving along yet certainly still dangerous and he got the funds and continued support from the allies involved. Example – the hit the Italians took which was the largest for them since WWII and immediately got up dusted themselves off and said we’re not going anywhere (how I love pasta).

Other proof that more and more Muslim countries are coming quickly to our side was the arrest either yesterday or the day before of the main coward involved with the bombing of the Cole. This is extremely significant. I’m glad he will be taken care of in Yemen – if they shipped him to us the ACLU would defend him! Yemen will skin him alive (definitely an eye for an eye mentality) – thankfully. As horrific as the bombing in Turkey – if anything will derive from that is that they are pissed. Trust me – you don’t want to piss off a Turk. They get even and I mean ‘real even’.

The economy – well I won’t gloat (he-he-he). So if I were Bush – I would hope that people continue to openly state how dumb I am while I play the dumb fox.

Brilliance – absolute brilliance. Kind of why I have a fondness for the man – he gets it!

[curious]

Jim,

I revisited my previous post, and for the life of me, I cannot find any place where I said that I agreed with one or the other. Can you please tell me where I said that?

curious