Posted on 01/27/2005 2:34:44 PM PST by ken5050
I'm tossing this out for discussion, because I really can't decide, and I wonder what you all think? Over a year ago, when the CPA, in conjunction with the Iraqis, laid out the timetable for the handover, and then the schedule for elections, even though this was all done way before our November election, no doubt more than a few folks in the WH realized that the State of the Union address would occur a few days after the Iraqi election? Was this deliberate?
I believe it's going to work. Turnout will be huge, violence will be minimal, and it will be a tremendous acomplishment, which I hope the president will stress in his speech, possibly pointing out how BOTH senators from Massachusetts are completely wrong about Iraq.
If indeed this was done deliberately by the WH, then I feel we are going to see amazing things from this President in the next four years.
I presume it was. And I have no problem with it.
Perhaps the Iraqi vote is intended to improve Congressional GOP chances in 2006. Only that election is over 21 months away.
Karl Rove?
actually I think the deciding factors were Presidents Day and MLK day ROFLMAO
Like everything else in life, it's all based on cheese.
May well be true, but such questions tend to serve the cynics more than curious political junkies.
The emergence of democracy in Iraq is so historically profound that the question of its timing seems pointless, and maybe counterproductive. It's almost like asking if the birth of Christ was intentionally timed to happen right around Christmas. :)
The question wasn't posed in a conspiratorialsense, because much could go wrong that could detract from the president's message. The proximity to the two events is such that I feel it indicates a great deal of courage and optimism..
Yes it was. And, in the immortal words of Robert "KKK" Byrd, it is "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!"
Perhaps a better question is... was the Iraqi election scheduled the week before the Super Bowl??
LOL..
No, I doubt it.
I am still under the theory that it was scheduled after the playoffs but before the Superbowl.
Is there an over/under line on the election?
Safe to say. Even the dim-witted editors at the NY Times have started moving over to the subject of what President Bush is going to do (or not, their wish) about Iran.
With successful elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, even the NY Times has to move on.
Or to coincide with the NHL All-Star game...I mean, who knew the season wouyld be cancelled?
From: ken5050
Re: NY Times editorial on Iran
Please read enclosed editorial. Do the exact opposite.
Why not! He's already won the election - and I believe he has enough on the ground intel to make him confident in the results.
However .. I believe the PM of Iraq chose the date - and I have no idea if he was prodded to do so - or if he personally had some reason for choosing that date.
I hate to be a killjoy, but remember Ronaldo Maxus scheduled his 1987 State of the Union the evening of the launch of the Challenger. The speech was canceled.
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.