Posted on 09/21/2002 12:54:39 PM PDT by Jean S
Way back when the summer was young, the Democrats had the wind at their backs. The CEO crooks had handed them a nifty new story line, which led to loud singing of an old refrain about Republicans favoring the rich, which in turn led to talk about healthcare reform and prescription drug benefits. With the stock market tanking, Democrats also happily reminded voters that Republicans still wanted to privatize Social Security, and they would never, ever let that happen. Life was sweet.
Then the president started in on Iraq. Once again, the Democrats spied an opening: Ask for a conversation. Ask the president to make his case. Which they did, and Bush refused. Undeterred, the civic-minded Democrats held sufficiently ponderous yet completely inconclusive summer hearings about Iraq. By the time the final gavel pounded, one thing was clear: The Democrats stood foursquare in favor of a really good discussion.
Then President Bush spoke before the United Nations, and all hell broke loose.
He called for a multilateral U.N. resolution; he asked for congressional support. What's more, the administration started to leak evidence of Saddam Hussein's presumed nuclear and biological transgressions. All this was more than some Democrats could take. No one, it seems, had predicted that the president would behave in a rational way. "There's a lot of confusion in the party," moans one top Democratic congressional strategist. "Call it a generalized anxiety."
And why not? Democrats are deeply divided over whether to attack Iraq, with 52 percent favoring military action, according to a new Pew survey. No wonder party leaders are sweating: They have to find a way to support a war if they hope to win any of the closely contested races in the midterm elections–and do it without alienating their base. "A prolonged debate that ended with Democrats voting against the use of force would not bode well in swing races," says GOP pollster Bill McInturff. Translation: Democrats would lose.
Endless equivocating. So Democrats have scrambled. First came those useless inquiries about the timing of the Bush assault on Iraq, as in: Isn't he doing this to change the subject from the economy? Did Bush plan this, or is it sheer dumb luck? We may never know, but one top White House aide suggests that "if we didn't have this debate now, we'd be charged with having it before the 2004 elections." Besides, didn't we all want a debate?
Then there's the endless equivocating over process. When to vote? One vote or two? Before or after the United Nations? What to say? How to say it? To the public, this is all jesuitical nonsense, but to a party unwilling to engage in a real debate, it's a godsend. Why not postpone the vote until after the election to take it out of the political arena, suggested Sen. Ted Kennedy. Great idea! Only we pay politicians to vote, even when it's a tad inconvenient. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle smartly nixed the plan. After all, wouldn't a vote after the election ensure that the balloting would be about little else? Daschle's solution: Vote ASAP. Why? "We need to get it off the table," says one top congressional Democratic aide. "You're inoculated if you vote yes." And then the Democrats can return to their comfy "issues matrix"–topics like healthcare and Social Security.
And what about those repellent Republicans salivating at the political gains to be made from war talk? In the tight South Dakota Senate race, for instance, Republican Rep. John Thune has taken to campaigning with veterans, bashing Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson for opposing the Gulf War in 1991. "It shows Johnson's mind-set," claims a top White House political operative. Really? What about the fact that Johnson has made it clear, in a letter to the president, that he supports "regime change" in Iraq? What about the fact that he has a son currently on active duty in the Army? Details.
For the most part, the presidential wannabes have tried to rise above the clutter. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Edwards have been unambiguous in their support for military action. Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has been clear on the other side. War should be the last resort, says Sen. John Kerry, but he just might go for it. Stay tuned.
As for the voters, they "don't want the war on terror to be litigated in this campaign," says Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. Republicans hope he's wrong; Democrats are just fine with it. Here's one prediction: In the end, most members of Congress will vote for much of what President Bush wants. Of course, that doesn't mean they all agree with him. It's just that serious debates get really dangerous this close to an election.
Gloria Borger is also a CBS News special correspondent.
I say, "Turn about is fair play".
I fully blame the weak-kneed Democrats for the current problems in the middle east, Iraq and terrorists.
If Bush 41 had had overwhelming Congressional support, he most certainly would have driven on to Baghdad and the coalition be damned!!!
With a complete victory in hand, the so-called coalition would have stuck together.
That is why the Congress must back the President this time in the language of restoring peace and security to the region or we will have another war in another decade.
Let's get the forces needed in the region now and take care of all the bad guys!!
For eight years, we had a President who lied about whatever he felt like lying about, with a smiling elan that much of the public seemed to accept without qualm or compunction. And if so popular a President could accept laundered money from the Communist Chinese, launch military strikes for personal advantage, and completely neglect sworn duties; why not plunder the company you were entrusted to serve?
The Republicans ought to take up the corrupt CEO issue with a vengeance. It could be used to make a very telling point, indeed. And it makes a good introduction to the next subject, the abuse of power and violation of the Constitution. The Democrats have been about that since FDR.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Regarding the 1991 Gulf War, the first President Bush did not have significant support from the Congress (read: RATS). He also did not have a mandate from the international community to "get Saddam". NEITHER DID W! Our President is winning because he has shown tough leadership. He is willing to go it alone and has said so. The rest of the world has to decide if they want to be left out in the cold when it's over. Period. This entire Presidency has been built on leadership and he is reaping the rewards. The "half-wit" from Texas is running circles around everyone.
Oh how I wish Ronald Reagan could understand what is happening now!!
My vote in a new version would be Rumsfield being the one to hit Daschle in the neck with rubberband-fired paperclips - demonstrating the mysterious, always returning "pain in the neck" the rich patient has.
(The actual quote was, "Out of these troubled times, a New World Order can emerge under a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." GHWB Sep 11,1990 State of the Union Address.)
So you think Reagan would've tripled the funding of the ATF?
We can translate the article. The Democrats largely didn't-- and don't-- care about Iraq, or other international threats. They decided to ignore Iraq and other foreign policy matters, thinking they could talk to people only about their domestic, socialist agenda. So they ignored the president's plain warnings, starting in January, that he was going to act in foreign policy. They ignored the debate Republicans were having, all over the nation's newspapers, all summer long.
Suddenly, they awoke in September to the facts that the president was serious about acting against Iraq in the near future, and that the public supported him. They had little to say. If they told the truth about their opposition to the war, they would get drummed out of the Senate in November. If they lied and supported Bush, Bush would co-opt Democrats' "issues" and hand the Senate to the Republicans anyway.
So, they dithered, deciding between caving in to the voters immediately and an absurd strategy of stalling. They finally settled on the former, casting votes for a war they don't believe in to preserve their jobs. The idea was to get it over with quickly and support the president.
It is their best strategy, granted. But they have to be the thickest people ever to hold office not to see this problem coming for a year.
And this trouble only reveals something worse. In a time when the U.S. faces its most serious foreign policy challenge since the Cold War, the Democrats do not have any clear party position on national security. That's worth saying again. One of the two major political parties, one that aspires to run the nation's government, cannot figure out what it thinks about the most fundamental issues of the nation's defense.
That is the Democrats' problem, not some insipid worry about the "timing" of all this. Until Democrats solve this problem, they will be vulnerable to their political opponents. But even this way of putting it bothers me. As if a view on the protection of the country, the most basic obligation of the government, was a matter only for collecting votes.
What an excellent reason to send our young men and women to be slaughtered.
The cynicism of our imperial capital shouldn't continue to astound me, but it does.
Beg to differ on that one my friend, 41 did not have a mandate to oust Saddam out of his own country, the international mandate was to kick his ass out of Kwait, period. That's why he has/had support and cooperations from a host of nations around the world.
Mind you ,it was "Stormin'Norman who sez' let's go to Bagdad all the way, and he was as serious as a hart attack. If my memory serves me right, he actually was quiet mad when 41 and Colin nixed the request.
To blaim 41 for the current situation, would be at least childish. OTOH 43 has a strong case against Iraq, based of a total noncompliance on Saddam's part on all the signed/underlined surrender in 1991. Go W/43!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.