Iraq and the Election

The BBQ Pit
1

We are given to believe, by those who would benefit by that belief, that the recent upsurge in “attack Iraq” fever is utterly coincidental to the election. Always been on the agenda, you know. The proximity of the election had/has nothing to do with it. The Republican Party wouldn’t dream of exploiting this crisis for political advantage. That would be dishonorable. Wouldn’t think of it.

Is there anybody on the SDMB so brain-dead they actually believe this crapola? Anybody?

Let’s review a few facts, shall we? But lets start with a question.

Why, exactly, was Our Leader’s speech to the UN scheduled for Sept. 12? It simply isn’t possible to believe that BushCo was unaware of the implications, that they were unaware of the emotional groundswell attending the anniversary. Unable to provide proof of Iraqi connections to Al Queda, they imply it by timing.

When did Geo. decide to make his speech? Are we to believe that he called up in January? Kofi Annan says “Gee, only date we got open is Sept. 12” Anybody believe that?

Anybody remember that gem of a soundbite, about marketing? About how you don’t start merchandising a new product until after Labor Day?

Of course, the Pubbies are aware that security issues are their strong suit, but they are gentlemen of honor, quite above exploiting war fever for political gain. Yes. Of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62783-2002Sep24.html

“Four times in the past two days, Bush has suggested that Democrats do not care about national security, saying on Monday that the Democratic-controlled Senate is “not interested in the security of the American people……” Well, that’s as non-partisan as you can get.

Further…

“…At a fundraiser for GOP House candidate Adam Taff in Kansas Monday, Vice President Cheney said security would be bolstered if Taff were to defeat Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.). “

Probably taken out of context, huh? He most likely just got done praising the Dem’s bipartisan spirit.

“…in the summer, Bush spoke daily about the economy’s health to demonstrate his concern. In recent days, however, the proportion of Bush’s stump speech devoted to domestic concerns has slipped from about 50 percent to about 20 percent….”

Brings to mind Ann Richards talking on Larry King. To paraphrase, she said all you’re going to hear out of BushCo is “war, war, war”

“…When Bush kicked off his effort this month to build support for an Iraq campaign, his aides angrily dismissed accusations that they had a political motive, saying that the timing, two months before the Nov. 5 election, was coincidental. But as Bush continues his record-setting fundraising effort, he has shown an eagerness to discuss the topic in political venues as polls show the effort is aiding Republican candidates…”

And its working…

“…There are indications that Bush and the GOP have succeeded in directing voters’ concerns to Iraq rather than the economy. A new poll by the Gallup organization found that by a 49 percent to 41 percent margin, voters are now more concerned about Iraq than the state of the economy when deciding whom to vote for this fall. This marks a 16-point shift in voters’ attitudes from three weeks ago….”

“…Fleischer said Bush’s speeches are “very balanced” between domestic and foreign. "He’s always done half on the war on terror and half on domestic policy. Now he’s put Iraq into the war on terror part….” Saddam bin Laden. Of course, he hasn’t the slightest shred of proof linking Goddam Hussein to 9/11. But who needs proof when you got innuendo?

It’s hard to decide which is worse: that they believe we’re this stupid, or that they’re probably right.

(all emphasis, bolding, etc. added)

2

Yup…yup…wait !..Hold the front page…

Oil price soars on war fears !

“The price of oil has surged above $30 a barrel again, hitting a 19-month high as traders fret about the likelihood of war in the Middle East”

3

No dissent here – from the OP.

Don’t forget “Patriotic Democrats must vote on war before the elections.” from our dear leader, or Rove’s slipped disk with the “Run on War” strategy.

Time to start listing the top senate races, eh?

-Ace.

4

Who was it who said “There are no Republicans in foxholes” ?
They sure aren’t averse to the profits from digging them.

5

It’s all aimed at diverting our attention from the economy, malfeasance by Bush’s corporate buddies (is anyone surprised that we haven’t heard anything about “Kenny Boy” Lay in quite a while), the administration’s assaults on the environment, etc., etc.

Shades of the Wizard of Oz: “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

6

The war in the Gulf is now better than a decade old and has never ended. There is clear evidence of Iraqi noncompliance with UN resolutions.

We had eight years of a Clinton administration, during which there was plenty of time to discuss and debate action. This wasn’t a priority for Clinton, though, which helped put us into this mess.

National security is the most serious issue facing us right now, and the Democrats are divided over it. Their leaders would like to put off discussion until after the election because they’re afraid of how the party will look to the voters.

Tough shit. If you look weak to the voters, it’s because you are weak. If you look wrong to the voters, YOU ARE WRONG! By definition. This is a democratic republic, after all.

I’d respect Daschle and company a lot more if they said “Screw timing,” and had a knock-down dragout debate over the aims and conduct of the upcoming war. But they don’t want to debate, they want to put off discussion until it’s convenient.

If September 11th taught us anything, is is that you often can’t pick the time and place of your battle. You then should be prepared to fight anytime, anywhere. The Democrat’s ideas won’t let them do this.

7

Funny, but that’s precisely what the Bushies are trying to do. They’re timing their focus on Iraq to try to swing the midterm elections, to divert attention from the messes that might actually get the voters to give both Houses of Congress back to the Dems.

There’s nothing new going on in Iraq that explains the timing of the Republicans’ sudden deep concern. Yes, Iraq’s flouting UN resolutions. Yes, Hussein is a miserable son-of-a-bitch. But those facts have been sitting there for years. Why, then, has the Administration chosen this moment to decide to get tough about the situation? Only one rational explanation…

8

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=584&e=6&cid=584&u=/nm/20020906/pl_nm/iraq_usa_oil_dc

Mr. Moto’sstatement “you often can’t pick the time and place of your battle. You then should be prepared to fight anytime, anywhere. The Democrat’s ideas won’t let them do this.” seems to be about democratic attitudes towards Mr. Bush rather than bin Laden or Saddam. He might be right. Bush may actually constitute the larger threat to American lives and freedoms than his “indistinguishable” duo-of-evil.

9

Bush talked at length about the threat posed by Iraq in his State of the Union speech last January. And he pretty quickly shifted focus to Iraq after the Afghanistan campaign was largely over.

Whether it’s a right or wrong policy, to say that it is a recent one (as in since summer and timed to align with the elections) is inaccurate.

And I haven’t seen analysis by ANYBODY - left, right or middle; dove or hawk - that indicates military action in Iraq will occur before November’s election.

But, anyway, continue your cabal session. :slight_smile:

10

So the “Bushies” are trying to swing the upcoming elections by playing up a military invasion that enjoys little support among the American people? What a foolish tactic that would be. These guys have proven they’re not the brightest folks around, but this would seem even below their low-watermark. I think perhaps you’re allowing your partisianship to override your reasoning skills.

http://www.slate.msn.com/?id=2067896

11

Well, Unc because they thought it would work. Always has before.

And this gives me enormous, if cautious, optimism. For the first time, waving Old Gory and wrapping one’s self-interest in redwhitenblue bunting isn’t working! For the first time, the thundering of war drums hasn’t drowned intelligent doubt.

Hallelujah! and again, Hallelujah!

And as to partisanship overwhelming our reasoning skills: but, of course! As that distinguished academic, Mr. Armey, pointed out, we on the left tend to “soft” subject, literature, art, philosophy, ethics, that sort of thing. Doesn’t require the intellectual depth and probity of the “hard” sciences like, oh, say, ballistics.

12

So whats next?

The Pubbies can’t walk away from this. They stare down a dark road lined by scowling trees, wolves and gila monsters scurry about in the bushes. It don’t look good.

Thier one bright hope is The War. If they can’t get away with representing the Dumbocrats as weak sissies, they will have to redouble thier efforts to paint themselves as Rambos in suits.

The Administration will work to keep Iraq front and center in the news: every other day a new leak, another nugget of old rumor presented as freshly discovered evidence, anything to keep the focus long enough to run out the clock.

They are severly disadvantaged vs. the Dumbs, who are willing to deploy Issues of Mass Destruction. They’re stuck between Iraq and a hard place.

If none of this works, they have only one option: the incident.

An American destroyer is cruising in international sands of Godforsaken desert, when it might very well have been attacked by what could very well be an Iraqi PT boat. President vows to protect Naval heroes…

You know the drill.

13

Yeah, the war talk is really scary. And there is nothing worse than a politician who tries to use war for political gain.

I mean, listen to what Bush said just the other day:

“If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”

How can he know? The Democrats want proof, reasonably enough. But the Republicans are lock-step in behind Bush. Republican Tom Delay has co-sponsored a bill that says, “We urge the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

I mean, how can Daschle go along with that? That would be giving the president virtually a blank check to do whatever he wants. Agreeing to something like that would be irresponsible, don’t you think? So why would Delay sponsor that? It must be for political reasons!

Oops. I made a slight typo. The president in question was Bill Clinton. The co-sponsor of the bill in question was Tom Daschle. The year was 1998.

When Mr. Daschle was asked why he was beating the war drums against Iraq so heavily, this is what he said: “Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?”

The year was 1998. There have been no weapons inspectors in Iraq since. All evidence since then is that Iraq has actually accelerated its attempt to build an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Sure is a good thing that Mr. Daschle is completely blind to the politics of this situation, huh?

Freakin’ Hypocrite.

While we’re playing the hypocrite game, let’s listed to what some other Democrats had to say then and now:

“The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later,” - Sen. Robert C. Byrd, 1998

“We stand today in the swirl of unanswered questions about this administration’s intent with regard to an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq,” Sen. Robert C. Byrd, Sept. 2002

“I agree with using military force,” - Chris Dodd, 1998

“[war against Iraq] raises some red flags. The military option should never be taken off the table, but it should not necessarily always be the first or only option we have,” - Chris Dodd, 2002

“Iraq is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential activities on a global basis.” - John Kerry, 1998

“regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war.” - John Kerry, 2002

Yup, it sure is a good thing that those patriotic Democrats would NEVER stoop to injecting politics into such a serious debate.

Cite: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020916-73474262.htm

14

Oh, and in case I wasn’t clear enough, 1998 was the year when the Clinton administration official adopted REGIME CHANGE as the official U.S. policy towards Iraq. Every single one of these freaking Democratic hypocrites agreed with it, and Tom Daschle himself co-sponsored the bill.

Ask yourself what’s different between 1998 and 2002. Is Iraq less dangerous? No. Is Hussein less likely to use weapons of mass destruction? No. Does it appear now that our fears in 1998 were unfounded? No.

There’s only one thing different: A Republican is in the White House. When a Democrat was in the White House, it was Democrats who would have benefited from action in Iraq. Now it’s Republicans. Oh, and 1998 was also an election year, in case we’ve forgotten. Good thing those Democrats would never beat the war drums in an election year, huh?

Yep, sure is a good thing the Democrats aren’t trying to politicise this debate…

15

Sam, you seem to have forgotten that back in 98 the democrats had a man in the white house that they could trust. These days they’re forced to deal with a unilateralist self-abuser with delusions of Churchilldom. It’s not necessarily a matter of politics, the character of the president counts too.

16

Holy shit, Sam.

I take back any reasonable thing I’ve said about Democrats today.

Do you know how ridiculous you just sounded, Squink?

17

Not in the slightest. Lets be clear. Clinton was and is a damn sight smarter than Bush. I got a nickle says he watches every speech or political move Bush makes, got CNN running 24/7/365 and having more good solid bellylaughs than he’s ever had. Just imagine the ROFLMAO when he heard about naming Vlad “The Implaler” Putin “Pooty-poot”

For one thing, just one, mind you…Slick Willy would never, ever have gone sailing into the UN demanding a solid coalition unless he already had a solid coalition! He could have schmoozed his way through Europe in an Afternoon of the Phone.

No way does Clinton lead with a threat, i.e., “get on board or the train leaves without you”. Now, maybe in the back of his mind, he’s thinking “They wont, gotta go without them, worse case”.

But he damn sure doesn’t lead with that! He leads with solemn and respectful oration about the wisdom and statesmanship of the honorables here assembled…you know the drill.

Then, with humility and dignity, he petitions the Assembly to aid and succor America in her time of need, he humbly requests their approval and support…

And he gets it. Because, like I said, he knew it before he wrote the speech.

But George, expecting only God knows what, barrells on in and starts out with implying he’s talking to a room of spineless wussies, whose support is worth crossing the street to get but thats about all.

So, yeah, I trusted him better then. Trust him better now, for that matter. He’s smarter.

18

Sorry to disappoint Milo, it’s just that Mr. Bush has proven himself not to be a team player. His track record of trying to weasel around the edge of issues is sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious attitude by those forced to deal with him.
As far as Sam’s three “damning” quotes from 1998, I find it interesting that Google shows no evidence of the existence of any of them prior to their publication in the Washington Times on 9/16/2002.
Presumably the Washington Times does not make quotes up out of whole cloth, so there must be some source where we can examine the democrat’s remarks in their full and proper context. Too bad the article doesn’t say how. I guess we’ll all just have to look at whether or not the opinion piece shows bias in other ways. Well, the article gives an embarassed and backhanded cite to the Weekly Standard as a source for quotes. Isn’t that a News Corporation rag. Who could imagine the “Fair and balanced” boys quoting out of context for their own political ends ? That’s about as likely as a bunch of crazy Arabs ramming a couple planes into the world trade center. Unthinkable Madness will surely consume us all !

19

elucidator, if Clinton’s methods were so much more effective, and if (as Sam Stone demonstrated) Clinton’s administration was already committed to REGIME CHANGE in 1998, then why, pray tell, is Saddam Hussein still in Iraq? Or still inhabiting this mortal coil, for that matter?

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ll pick average, honorable, and effective over smart, spineless, and self-interested any day of the week.

20

I just gotta editorialize here . . . in the wake of September 11, a quote like this sure does make my skin crawl. Even more so the thought that Clinton would probably have done just that.