At NewsBusters, Lachlan Markay points out how differently our news media reacted to criticism of President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld by military officers, compared to the media's reaction to the McChrystal episode. To be sure, no two incidents are precisely parallel. On the whole, though, Glenn Reynolds' summary appears fair:
If there is anything worse for a leader than rhetorical impotence, I don’t know what it is. Even a sex scandal implies some sort of virility. But empty words? [Text here.]
The question arises in the war on terror: we know who the main enemy is, al-Qaeda, the men and movement responsible for 9/11, but what are they fighting for? What is their war all about? A year ago, in Salt Lake City, President Bush, addressing the American Legion, sought to define the war from his Publication: The American Conservative
Scott and John have already eviscerated the dreadful performance of Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan on FOX News Sunday. Before his appearance, the Washington Post had reported that "the normally reclusive Brennan is scheduled to appear on several Sunday TV talk shows." We now have a pretty good idea of why Brennan is "normally reclusive."
Hillary Clinton confirmed a day or two ago that the Obama administration will no longer refer to the "war on terror." That isn't necessarily a bad thing; most conservatives were never very happy with that formula (although I, for one, wasn't able to come up with a better one). The problem is that this looks like one more instance of the Obama administration putting too much emphasis on words rather than deeds, and being prone to wishful thinking--i.e., if we stop talking about the terrorist threat, maybe it will go away.
