The Real and the Unreal

In his most recent column, Frank Rich notes that

A George Will column critical of the war so rattled the White House that it had a flunky release a public 2,400-word response notable for its incoherence.

Donald Rumsfeld’s Dance With the Nazis, NY Times, Sept. 3, 2006.

I took the time to read both columns.

George F. Will is brilliant when I agree with him, and in this case I do. Will wrote that the administration's policy of fighting terrorism with shock and awe has been a complete failure. The Triumph of Unrealism, Washington Post, Aug. 15, 2006. Will wrote approvingly of John Kerry's campaign trail statements on terrorism:

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Id. Will continues:

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. [Democrats] do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."

Id. ("This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional." - Will must have enjoyed publishing that line).

Let's go back to Rich for a second. Rich wrote "A George Will column critical of the war so rattled the White House that it had a flunky release a public 2,400-word response notable for its incoherence."

Responding to George Will's Realism, was written by Peter Wehner a deputy assistant to the President and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives. It appeared in RealClearPolitics.com on August 16, 2006.

I tend to agree with Frank Rich here. Mr. Wehner's response is nearly incoherent. For example, concerning law enforcement, Mr. Wehner provides several lengthy quotes taken from Mr. Will's own writings. Only it is obvious from the dates of the quotes, that they were written with reference to the war in Afghanistan. But we dropped the ball in Afghanistan and moved on to Iraq which had nothing to do with terrorism. The logical transition from Mr. Will's support for the altogether just war in Afghanistan, and a war against a country that had no known connection to terrorism is a mystery Mr. Wehner does not explain.

Bottom line, when the conservative pundits begin to write that John Kerry was right, you know the White House is in serious trouble.