No one likes to feel like they are "wrong." When we hear something negative about a Democrat or liberal leader that we otherwise respect and support, we want to believe that there is a reasonable explanation for their misdeeds. If an excuse is only semi-reasonable sometimes we rely on relatively weak defenses in order to avoid recognizing the flaws in our leaders -- "At least Clinton did this." "So and so is not as bad as Bush, etc."
Of course we are all familiar with our right-wing friends' version of this across a host of issues. Sometimes these are trivial. Sometimes they are important. Sometimes they are dangerously powerful.
Case in point, the question of Bush failure in the case of 9/11 and the Right's strenuous and tortuous efforts to convince themselves that Bush is competent and that Clinton failed America.
It's only natural. They are trying to avoid "cognitive dissonance," if you will. When our rationalization is flat wrong, however, we deserve to lose "the argument" in the public sphere. In the case of Lewinsky for example we "won" because the rationalizations were quite credible.
The joint claim that Clinton failed against terrorism and Bush did not is neither trivial nor credible.
It is as Bush would say "unacceptable to think" that Bush was in any way negligent on the issue. Immediately post-9/11, America collectively decided not to play the blame game at least in the mainstream. Moreover, in a spirit of goodwill, we all allowed Bush to take on a terrorism "halo." His swift action in "eradicating" the Taliban gave him instant credibility on national security and anti-terror policy ("Finally, a president that has the balls to get serious!" a chorus of Americans said. Flag pins and Eagle T-shirt sales went through the roof.)
Forget about the fact that his priorities were missile defense and Iraq. Or that he didn't believe in interventionism. That was in the past. What mattered was that we were doing our best in the "war on terror" and Bush was at the helm.
The key word above is "mainstream." Right wing talk radio and blogs of course constantly made the argument that Clinton was solely responsible for allowing bin Laden and Al Qaeda to grow unchecked into an organization capable of 9/11.
Back in the mainstream, as a result of the desire to live in the present, we never publicly pointed out that the war on terror was already underway before Bush took office.
And that brings me to the point mentioned in the title of this diary. Go to any right wing arena of commentary and you will constantly hear this gem of wisdom--especially since the Fox interview and ABC program:
"Bill Clinton had eight years..." or more simply
"8 years > 8 months"
This simple inequality is perhaps the single most important rationalization the right wing has. That is, if terrorism is the most important issue of our day, this "mathematical proof" helps a Bush supporter to sleep at night more than any other daily affirmation.
Its brilliance is in its simplicity. There are so many reasons why the average non-ideological American longs for the days of the Clinton administration. Yet, the Republican party maintains an advantage on one crucial issue: many of these same voters largely buy into the notion that Bush will "keep us safe."
And that is why 8y>8mo is so important.
This cornerstone of the Republican security advantage is a lie. The premise is that Clinton and Bush worked at equal intensity and Bush simply had insufficient time. Perhaps some Republicans go even further -- Bush worked HARDER than Clinton, but it was just too little time to undo the destruction our national security that Clinton had wrought.
The truth, which I think is essentially nonexistent in mainstream conventional thought, is that Bush was not even PLANNING to make terrorism a priority were it not for 9/11 itself. Had 9/11 not occurred when it did, Bush may well have finished his entire term without getting around to a serious high-level meeting on Afghanistan, the Taliban, bin Laden or Al Qaeda that actually produced results.
What every American should know -- and indeed many more MUST understand for Democrats to win nationally -- is that the War on Terror began with Clinton and was tossed aside by Bush in favor of the neocon Iraq and Star Wars fantasies.
We didn't even need 8 months to prove this. It was proven the day Richard Clarke's position was demoted.
Put another way, the level of ACTIVITY and CONCERN regarding ant-terror policy was greater in any month of the second Clinton administration than in Bush's 8 months combined.
The fact that even the "revived" War on Terror was AGAIN tossed aside and indeed worsened by Iraq has already gained traction. But, as I state above, the failure goes much deeper than is currently conventional wisdom. Sadly, Bush retains his terrorism halo, as does his party.
If this single point were understood the remaining pillar of strength in the national reputation of the Republican party and of Bush would crumble -- or at least be severely damaged
Olbermann recently provided a succinct summary of the case against the notion that Bush is naturally "tough on terror" or that he is "PROactive" in terms of terrorism policy (i.e. that 9/11 itself was the first day that his administration took it seriously relative to the outgoing administration).
There are plenty of other sources for this info, and this is not necessarily the best. I realize you have already seen it and that it has been posted here, but it provides a "visual aid" for the above.
http://www.youtube.com/...
Thanks for your time