They aren't old enough for Alzheimer's, yet they speak publicly with no apparent memory of the recent past--making themselves sitting ducks for ridicule. According to the Boston Globe, Republican presidential candidates are falling back on President Bush's war-rhetoric, including simplistic sound bytes that have been repeatedly doused with doubt.
My favorite doubt-dousing came from James Jay Carafano, counter-terrorism expert from the conservative Heritage Foundation. Assessing Bush's sound byte about fighting terrorists in Iraq or they'll follow us home, Carafano said:
“The president is using a primitive, inarticulate argument that leaves him open to criticism and caricature." [Primitive is probably not a reference to what some perceive as the President's simian tendencies.]
Carafano publicly pooped on Bush's soundbyte in early April. Still, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney parroted it during the May 15th debates....
The three candidates haven't trumpeted the debunked myth of an Iraq-9/11 link, possibly because Bush, himself, debunked it (see e.g., Cox News Service, Think Progress, BBC). Unfortunately, . . .
Bush didn't start debunking until after the U.S invaded Iraq.
Instead, the candidates are infatuated with "Bush's much-debated contention that Al Qaeda is the main cause of instability in Iraq." According to the Globe:
"'Michael Scheuer, the CIA's former chief of operations against bin Laden in the late 1990s, said the comments of some GOP candidates seem to suggest that bin Laden is controlling the insurgency in Iraq, which he is not. There are at least 41 groups [worldwide] that have announced their allegiance to Osama bin Laden - and I will bet that none of them are directed by Osama bin Laden,' Scheuer said, pointing out that Al Qaeda in Iraq is not overseen by bin Laden."
Sometimes, the commentary is strong enough that one should refrain from commenting on it.
Comments