New GOP Ad Compares Threat Of Closing Guantanamo To Nuclear War
The Republican National Committee has a new Web ad that appears to suggest that the stakes of the Guantanamo issue are as high as those of the Cold War nuke standoff:
The ad references the famous 1964 “Daisy” ad that Lyndon Johnson ran against challenger Barry Goldwater, which featured a little girl plucking daisy petals while a voiceover counted down to a nuclear detonation. The Johnson ad suggested that Goldwater’s reckless temperament could lead us into nuclear war.
The new RNC ad shows Obama saying that it will be “easy” to close down Guantanamo, then airs the “Daisy” voiceover saying: “These are the stakes.” The suggestion appears to be that closing down Guantanamo potentially poses as big a threat as did the possibility of war with a nuclear-armed superpower — and that Obama’s move to close Guantanamo is as reckless and dangerous as Goldwater’s comments about possibly using nukes in Vietnam.
The ad, which also quotes Congressional Dems defecting from Obama on the issue, shows how neatly those Dems have fallen into the GOP’s trap by letting them drive the Gitmo debate. It has now enabled the Republicans to use the issue as a wedge and to use the words of Democrats to try to cast doubts on Obama’s ability to keep us safe.
If nothing else, the comparison of the stakes of Guantanamo to those of the Cold War signals how enormous the GOP’s ambitions are for the Guantanamo issue.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
It’s the Democrats own fault. Now they are going to have to repair the damage.
But I do think people know it’s not Obama – it’s Congress. And personally I’d love to see a bunch of them defeated over this betrayal of their president. They aren’t supposed to block their own party’s president like this.
Tena-AMEN!
I agree that the Dems dug this hole for themselves. They let the GOP drive the issue and now their defections are being used against Obama…
Clearly, the GOP has concluded that their best strategy now is to really push on the ‘national security’ button, which has always worked for them previously. Equally clearly, there’s a co-ordinated effort with the ex Bush administration figures in this, particularly Cheney obviously.
As I’ve argued before, this has a complimentary fit with the Bush Legacy Project in two aspects; it defends the Bush policies and, second, it forwards the notion that Obama (now that he is actually in office) implicitly acknowledges that Bush/Cheney got it right as evidenced by his adoption (it’s claimed) of Bush policies (side benefit – thus making Obama look as if he is playing second fiddle and is breaking immature promises). And as many others have suggested, it sets Obama up in the event of future attacks (or future turn-arounds in Iraq/Afghanistan).
.
This is entirely a propaganda exercise. It is deeply cynical and profoundly divisive. It’s also a text-book example of that administration’s manipulation of citizens’ emotions to the detriment of citizens’ rationalism and understanding of real states of affairs. “We create our own reality” as Rove (surely) put it to Suskind.
.
As with the early days of the Clinton administration, we ought to be reminded now of what we knew was a near certainty when Obama won the election – that the right, with all of the corporate and status-quo interests behind it, would launch what is really a species of war against this administration. Perhaps we continue to be surprised by the amorality and destructiveness of such a strategy or goal because it is so amoral and so destructive.
Re the Dems and their complicity… it is not dissimilar from the behavior of the press and media. We can say, as Josh does, that Washington remains wired for Republican dominance. But perhaps the better understanding of ‘wired’ is not electronically, but cognitively.
If we consider the goal of “Shock and Awe”, in great part (as we know from Woodward and Suskind and others) this was to implant or increase a response of deep fearfulness not only in Iraqis but in the minds of any other nation which might try to contest America’s superiority. This methodology, whether developed in the military or in the social sciences or in marketing or cognitive science, is the methodology these people use broadly.
Its definitely the democrats fault but this ad actually helps with the absurdity of the argument. I guess the RNC forgot that we were never attacked with a nuclear weapon in all the time since that “daisy” ad ran and that most people deride it as the first kind of fear mongering that wasn’t even plausible back when it ran in the first place. Talk about stepping on your own message with dumb @ss imagery. The DNC can smack that down easily just by focusing on how preposterous the first daisy ad was and by pointing out that President Obama predicted there would be fear mongering going on over this issue.
sgw – Time will tell how much mileage the RNC will get with a strong resumption of the BE FEARFUL tact. As Drew Westen and others in the cognitive science/political strategies universe understand, such rhetoric “activates people’s fear of mortality, which inherently shifts people to the right.” (And see Krauthammer’s column this morning as a paradigm example of Obama = Bush). Whether these tools have sufficiently lost their effectiveness over the last eight years to move the electorate isn’t yet clear, it seems to me. McCain was not an effective projector for this package of manipulative tricks but Cheney is something else. Cheney could not have won the election but he may be able to (arguably is) effective in this present role.
Sheesh…just read Ponnuru and he’s at it along with Krauthammer. These boys are predictable, if nothing else.
I continue to think that as long as the economy is the main focus people are going to be more worried about that than anything else. The problem, sa always, is that the Village loves them some Cheney and will give him a platform to continue flogging this on and on. I think that some Dems (in the hill and the blogs) really fear Cheney as some sort of mythical evil player that cannot be defeated. But think about this—if Cheney was not the coward that he is why was he not out there defending the Bush administration when his defense would be put to the voters to decide? he is doing it now *only* because there is no accountability moment and he knows the media wont hold his feet to the fire or challenge him. This man is through and through a coward and the sooner the Dems begin to act like it, and mock him, the sooner this will be over. Obama is the one Dem who is never afraid of these people and not afraid to take the fight to them on national security, but congress continues to act like little ‘fraidy cats as they did for the 8 years of the Bush admin. Maybe those dems need to spend their 40 years roaming the desert so that the new unafraid generation can take care of the Obama agenda instead…
This ad is really bothering me… and not because I’m afraid their fear tactics will work… but because this gets to the core issuse of why the Dems in congress piss me off!
We won the election. DEMOCRATS WON! OBAMA WON!
And he won 11 BUSH STATES!
But these Dems are so spineless that they allow the GOP to scare them into blocking funds to close Guantanamo.
They don’t stand up for themselves and get shouted down on these cable shows with false talking points. I have yet to hear one of them reject the notion that waterboarding KSM stopped an attack in CA… that talking point has been out there for weeks now and why? Because Dems have not brought up the fact that the attack was stopped in ‘02, and KSM was waterboarded in ‘03… It’s FALSE! They are LYING!
Now they are being used in ads attacking OBama.
The GOP may be in the woods right now, but the Dems in congress are leaving behind crumb trails to help them find their way out.
I really hope those Dems feel stupid right now. And I hope that Obama takes a really good look at these senators that have caused him so much UNNECCESSARY trouble this week.
Tomasky weighs in… http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/may/21/obama-cheney-guantanamo-torture
Bernie–thanks for that link. Tomasky makes the point you have been making about preemptively tainting the ‘jury’ pool if another attack happens. And I think that is right. But it dovetails with my point as well–the only reason he has been able to do that is because so many people still fear him when they should be laughing at his paranoid narcissistic a**.
And as Benen notes, “it’s a web ad that the RNC expects news networks to air, over and over again, for free. I suspect that part of the strategy will work pretty well.”
.
Because after all, if the corporate media can’t give free advertising to their buddy Republicans, how do they expect to pay back for all of those special exemptions the Republicans have given them over the years?
.
Direct cash payouts leave fingerprints you know!
Straight up fearmongering is what Right Wingers do best.
.
Jon Stewart said it the best, “We can’t handle these piddly punks from Guantanamo? I’ll put a good, old fashioned, USA born and raised, brain-eater against any of those motherf***ers. Any of them. USA! USA!”
.
The Republican Party needs to be outed as the Coward Party.
Straight up fearmongering is what Right Wingers do best.
Marketing, especially marketing of fear, is the only power Republicans have.
ifo – Agreed
News Reference – Greenwald’s point (made by others here too including Greg of course) that the Dems play directly into the hands of this fear-mongering is obviously correct. But I’d argue that it not merely makes them look weak, it also adds inertia or strength to the whole premise that we should be fearful. In this sense, it is sort of a double whammy. When a bully says “I’m bigger and meaner than anyone here”, that’s one thing. When you witness people cowering to him, that really adds to the dynamic.
“”But these Dems are so spineless that they allow the GOP to scare them into blocking funds to close Guantanamo.
They don’t stand up for themselves and get shouted down on these cable shows with false talking points.”"
Do you really believe that THAT is the issue for Democrats? It was a 90-6 vote—aren’t they the voices of the people in our government?
So let’s see—Democrats overwhelmningly vote for stimulus and bailouts and it’s the “will of the people”. Democrats overwhelmingly deny Obama funds to shut down Gitmo, and it’s them crazy Republicans shouting louder….and oh yeah, the media.
Maybe if you hold your ears AND THEN scream at the top of your lungs, maybe that will work….
WOW…the left-wing echo chamber gets smaller and smaller I see.
Life is inherently unsafe. It’s full of illnesses, accidents. In the great scale of things, scary and painful as it was, what happened on 9-11 was merely a blip. People constantly deal with all sorts of horrendous losses and chaos. In spite of this, few of us spend our time hiding behind the bed. We go about our business every day with an expectation that things will be largely fine and that the world will be full of people we can trust and respect and enjoy. We find the world a welcoming place. We did this in spite of eight years of terrible government and fear-mongering from Bush/Cheney. Now, after so much time listening to all their insistence that we be afraid of our shadows and ready to jeopardize the best things we are as a people, isn’t it time we say enough? Party of cowardice is right. Let them go hide in their caves and take along the media idiots who buy into their tactics. The rest of us have better things to do and, if we do them, maybe the Dems in Congress won’t be so skittish.
john – this is something of a leftwing echo chamber here, you’re right. But if you were to contribute something rather more thoughtful (or more accurate) than your “it’s the will of the people” thing above (find some instance where this claim was actually made in the context you claim) then perhaps we’d be compelled to take you seriously.
“9-11 was merely a blip”
Now THAT’s the kind of stuff that plays right into the crazy rightwing scheme.
Greg and the aids are correct – this was Obama’s fault. He should never have asked for funds without a plan – I would think that everyone could agree on that; imagine trying that plan in the real world of business. “Give me $80 million to do such and such – details to follow.”
Even Lindsay Graham has acknowledged that, of course terrorists can be held in American prisons (military?) safely. It does not help that Obama’s own admin (Mueller) spreads this meme about terrorist influence even while incarcerated. Count that as another admin gaffe that you can’t blame on the Democratic Congress and Senate. Had Obama waited to ask for funds until he had a plan then this opening for Repubs never would have occurred. Perhaps when Obama signed the original order “closing” Gitmo he should have had a plan for what to do with the bad guys held there? (”Is that coming later or what?”) And it’s not as if Obama didn’t have ample warning that this would happen – as McConnell made about a gazillion floor speeches warning about just such a “threat.”
You can’t blame Congress for reading polls and making political decisions. The President, OTOH, I think, has a greater responsibility. Obama has been duly chastened and has learned his lesson – almost: he still needed to provide details yesterday and unfortunately did not.
I am confident that once he provides a legitimate plan with details that Congress will provide the funding. In the meantime, Obama needs to get his lawyers busy to resolve some of these difficult situations. Dealing with Gitmo never was as easy as portrayed by the left or Obama; on that score the right is correct.
I wanted to point folks to a really wonderful letter sent in to the Daily Dish… http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/the-rebalancing-1.html
ps… Andrew’s post on Cheney’s speech is really a must-read too
sbj – “Dealing with Gitmo never was as easy as portrayed by the left or Obama; on that score the right is correct”.
I’m not sure it’s accurate to suggest Obama had claimed it would be easy (I can’t recall an instance of that).
But in what sense is this issue “difficult”? Surely, given the history of zero escapes from super-max prisons, any real difficulties are political but not actual?
The Cheney propaganda machine:
What’s more, as part of a full-throated defense of her dad’s torture policies, Liz Cheney has been all over the television news. I asked my friends at Media Matters to check on just how many interviews Cheney has done lately. They came up with this list that spans the last 10 days (and today isn’t over yet):
* On the May 22 edition of ABC’s “Good Morning America”
* On the May 22 edition of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”
* On the May 22 edition of CNN’s “American Morning”
* On the May 21 edition of CNN’s “AC360″
* On the May 21 edition of Fox News’ “Hannity”
* On the May 21 edition of “MSNBC News Live”
* On the May 20 edition of Fox News’ “Your World”
* On the May 17 edition of ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”
* On the May 16 edition of Fox News’ “Fox & Friends Saturday”
* On the May 15 edition of Fox News’ “On the Record”
* On the May 12 edition of Fox News’ “Live Desk”
* On the May 12 edition of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”
That’s 12 appearances, in nine and a half days, spanning four networks. (On today’s “Morning Joe,” Liz Cheney was on for an entire hour — effectively becoming a co-host of the program.) And this is just television, and doesn’t include Liz Cheney’s interviews on radio or with print media.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
Real difficulties: Well, you can’t hold someone in prison unless they’ve been convicted, can you? Or you can’t hold someone indefinitely without charges unless we come up with a new legal framework, can you? I’m thinking with regards to those we cannot prosecute in either military tribunals or federal courts but are necessary to hold indefinitely. (BTW, that Colorado SuperMax prison has only one bed available – that’s NOT the easy solution it easy being portrayed as.)
I think to claim that Obama always protrayed Gitmo issues as “difficult” matters is disingenuous – my recollection is that he portrayed these issues in stark black and white terms (so to speak) and as matters that were so patently obvious as to be almost not worthy of discussion (almost like some commenters here). It is only recently – say since getting into office – that Obama has emphasized the difficult nature of resolving some of the issues. I am sure one could find this or that example of Obama hedging his bets – but his overall tone regards these issues is difficult to characterize in any other way than what I have done here. I’m sure you’ll disagree . . .
Interesting that Liz Cheney would seem to base her political future on a defense of her father and EITs.
folks know Congress is a sewer, Obama shouldn’t sweat those Judases. and the GOP is fractured like Humpty Dumpty. no amount of Cheney fear-mongering can pull conservative independents and libertarians back into his fold.
sbj – let’s divide ‘difficulties’ into differing legal and security categories. On legal, I can’t speak with any authority and I’ll leave that to others.
Second, I didn’t claim Obama had said in his campaign that Gitmo would be difficult, merely that I couldn’t recall him saying it would be easy. “Black and white”? Perhaps we might more accurately say that he claimed/promised that it ought to be closed and that he would close it. I’m certain he will.
But it would surely to accurate to say that the complexity of issues he now faces were somewhat simplified in the campaign rhetoric. On the other hand, do we know of any example of a political campaign where this did not happen?
Gergen and Mark Danner (whose done some of the very best reporting on torture and its policy evolution – see NYRB) on CNN last night…it’s very good… http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905220005
Bernie: I certainly cannot match your skills as a writer! I surely meant to write, the “issues [Obama] now faces were somewhat simplified in the campaign rhetoric” but did not possess the talent. I think your take is more accurate than what I let on.
I agree that the security matters here in regards to the terrorists at Gitmo are a simple matter to resolve. (Although it is going to cost money and that is a future argument that will again resonate with the public.) And it is a pity that the American public is so easily manipulated when it comes to matters of this sort – the “Daisy” ad continues to resonate and it’s tactics have been employed by both parties. It’s a further pity that Congress lacks the juevos to tell the public they are wrong.
I, too, am certain that Obama will close Gitmo. But now, more than ever, I am not sure that it is a wise decision to promise to do so within an arbitrary timeframe, and I am not swayed by Obama’s arguments. I think that is part of the danger now for him – perhaps thoughtful others are moving beyond the NIMBY argument and are now contemplating the “why close it in the first place?/Why within one year? Why not when these issues are fully resolved?” argument. Obama cannot afford to lose that argument or perhaps the public loses faith in his security creds (not that he is in danger now of losing the public’s faith, but I see a slope of sorts . . .)
It seems more and more apparent to me that Nancy’s feud with the CIA has been a turning point of sorts for the Repubs, giving them an opening which they are now frantically trying to exploit and are having some marginal success.
sbj – Your writing is fine and, more importantly, you’re taking your time to be careful which is appreciated (and more fun). I’ve some things to do today so I’ll make this my last comment here.
Are we agreed that the most likely reason Gitmo was utilized (built for this purpose, actually) was to maintain a facility which sat outside the legal strictures of the US?
I’m not certain what you might be referring to as regards some new or increased costs. Other than transport of persons I can’t see an additional outlay (x number of guards in one place, x number in a new place).
“Why close it” is, to me, a very compelling aspect. It is a symbol both internationally and nationally of things done wrong and of serious maltreatment of prisoners. Closing it is a tacit acknowledgment that we done bad and that we regret having done bad. That won’t fly with anyone who believes admission (by the US) of wrongdoing represents weakness of anti-americanism but I consider both attitudes deeply flawed and destructive.
As to “why not wait until questions resolved?” Mostly because for reasons both political and ideological, such a resolution will never happen. The GOP has clearly set themselves on a path to create maximal obstruction of Obama (for hope of future electoral gains) and this obviously is being facilitated by the weak-kneed posturing of some Dems. But the policy is a good one and to the extent Obama has to steamroll members of his own party, he ought to.
Re Pelosi, we’ll see how this plays out but I see it as a substance-free issue, entirely political.
As I recall, after the election but before the inauguration, and after Gates had accepted the offer to stay on as SecDef, Obama charged him with coming up with a plan to close Gitmo within a years time. Now it’s a signature of a good manager to set a timeline along with a challenging goal. As far as I can tell, Gates hasn’t been dragging his feet on that. And as far as I can tell, Obama didn’t have access to the full scope of the “mess” that is GTMO. It isn’t unusual, even for an outstanding manager, to encounter situations and barriers such that a time goal needs to be extended. That may well be the case here. If you have any doubt about that, just read this: The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan.
.
It is up to the liberals to try to hold Obama to his charge, but it shouldn’t be at all surprising that barriers may force an extension. Another mark of an exellent executive is having the ability, and the fortitude, to adapt his time lines and goals in the case of unforeseen barriers. I think that’s where we are at.
The republican party keeps self destructing more and more each day. Between the radical loudmouth Limblah, the mentally challenged Michael Steele, and the gaffe of the day by republicans I see their party falling completely apart within a couple of years.
Their claim that closing Gitmo is going to lead to a nuclear explosion is just another attempt to control people with fear. The republican party is morally and ethically bankrupt. They lied to go to war in Iraq claiming Iraq could “attack the US within 45 minutes” in the form of a “mushroom cloud”. They lied and lied. And the gullible and frightened in this country believed their traitorous lies.
Their lies led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and 4,700 American soldiers. Their regime tortured prisoners to get them to give false confessions to try to get a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It is beyond shameful what the republican party is doing.
They have mutated into a right wing fanatical group, totally void of decency, honesty, sanity and patriotism. Their message is hate. Their message is fear.
It is time for people to wake up to their message of evil and to stop their party from destroying our country. I am a veteran and I know that the people I fought in Vietnam are not near the enemies to our country that the leaders of the republican party are. The right wing is spewing out hatred never seen before in American history. Right wing radio is rabid trying to incite one of their illiterate, ignorant and gullible listeners into assassinating President Obama. They spew out hatred 24/7 on right wing radio filling the airwaves with their verbal puss.
It is time for saner people to rise up and say no to these dangers to our great country. They are not seeking to make our country a more perfect union. They are trying to destroy it.
Cheney and the right wing are praying for another terrorist attack. They want thousands of Americans killed. They only care about regaining power, and I am certain that if Cheney and the right wing had the power they would deliberately sabotage the safety of the American people by giving terrorists the opportunity to attack.
Cheney and the right wing is part of a mutant and evil force far worse than 10,000 Bin Ladens. They must be stopped. They are absolute EVIL.
Right wingers are faking indignation that President Obama is wanting to close Gitmo. But they said nothing when Bush & Cheney let 500 prisoners go. After they caught almost 800 suspects, Dick Cheney said “they were all the worst of the worst”. Cheney said everyone at Gitmo was a hardened terrorist. But then they let 500 of them go. Cheney was of course LYING.
During last year’s campaign, McCain said he was going to close Gitmo to, but not one right winger protested. Bush & Cheney also said they had plans to close Gitmo two years ago, and not one right winger protested.
Can’t anyone see through the obvious lies by Dick Cheney? He first said he and Bush were planning on closing Gitmo and now he is attacking President Obama for wanting to close it.
Cheney is a frightened man. He knows he is a war criminal and he is trying to make one last attempt to distort reality, a place where right wing radio listeners thrive. They live in world of fantasy, hate and delusion, a perfect climate for the evil messages from Cheney and other right wing neocons.
Wake up people and take back your country. We had an election last fall, but to the right wing that means nothing. They collectively destroyed our country during the past eight years, and now even though they are out of power, they want to further destroy our country.
Cheney is a war criminal. Cheney is a liar. Cheney is a dangerous sociopath who sent 4,700 of our soldiers to death because he lied. Cheney’s lies led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. And the right wing mutants sit idly by clinging to their right wing radios and not allowing a rational thought enter their small minds.
God help save us from the mutant right wing.
If “will” alone could cause the terrorists to attack then Cheney and right wing radio could have already caused an attack. They desperately want terrorists to attack the United States and kill thousands of Americans. They WANT that to happen.
Any intelligent and aware person can easily see the lust for carnage, because they believe such an attack would then justify their mutant beliefs. Cheney is a dangerous man. If he could he would direct terrorists to attack the United States. If he had connections (and tragically he does) to terrorists he would order an attack.
Cheney did nothing in his first 8 months to stop the 9/11 attacks. Neither did Bush. They were warned of Al Qaeda by the outgoing President Clinton. But they did nothing.
Even when Bush was presented with a ‘presidential daily briefing’ describing in detail how terrorists were planning on attacking he did nothing. They wanted war. And they did everything they could to lie their way into war. They are absolute evil.
I believe, indeed, that overemphasis on the purely intellectual attitude, often directed solely to the practical and factual, in our education, has led directly to the impairment of ethical values.