Posted on 09/10/2003 7:35:27 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Iran has proved to be the undoer of presidents, having cost Jimmy Carter his job in 1980 and nearly depriving Ronald Reagan of his legacy in 1987.
The road to the White House in 2004 may again run through Tehran, this time for George W. Bush.
There is no way Bush can transform Iraq into a winning situation. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the growing national question of whether we were lied to and the ongoing open season on American troops have combined to deprive Bush of credit for his amazing success on the battlefield in much the same way that Saddam Hussein’s continuing presence denied the issue to his father in 1992.
Even if we bring Saddam to justice on a silver platter, the problem is unlikely to go away. Only the discovery of massive stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons can redeem the war and make the casualties seem worthwhile to most Americans.
But the larger reason for Bush’s incredible descent in the polls is, of course, his success in eliminating terrorism as a top-of-mind issue. His speech Sunday and the ongoing focus on the Sept. 11 anniversary will temporarily heighten the public’s focus on the issue, but then it is likely to recede again.
Ironically, the incredible success of the Bush administration in stopping further acts of terrorism in the United States is working against it by increasing the sense of confidence over terrorism and decreasing the need for a Bush presidency.
The answer is to move on to the next fronts in the war on terror: Iran and North Korea. Nobody would argue that until these regimes change or are toppled that terrorism has not been defeated.
North Korea is likely too sensitive a situation for much speechmaking. Unless the negotiating process requires strident posturing, it is obviously a bad idea to fool around with a nuclear power. The best we can hope for is a quiet resolution without drama.
But Iran is a different story. The real leverage against the Iranian theocracy is the discontent of the average young men and women who live under its fist. The massive street demonstrations earlier this year were kindled by the successful U.S. invasion of Iraq and the televised programming beamed into that nation by expatriates.
Bush needs to raise the ante in his dealings with Iran. It is not necessary to wag the dog, but he should wag his tongue with more vigor on the subject. The president should move to impose sanctions against companies that are helping Iran develop its oil resources, as authorized by the D’Amato Amendment of 1996. He should take public steps to warn off Japan from investing in Iranian oil and move against French companies that have already defied the U.S. ban. He should also take action against Germany and Russia for aiding Iran in developing nuclear power.
Bush is failing because his success has convinced people that terror is no longer a key issue. His victories are the silent killers that are driving down his job approval ratings. Without terrorism as a mission, Bush has never been more than a 50 percent president and, baring a major change in his domestic agenda, he never will be.
It was only by moving on to Iraq that Bush escaped blame for the failure to catch Osama bin Laden and it is only by moving on to Iran that he will avoid sinking into a quagmire in Iraq. Obviously, military action against a nation the size of Iran is undesirable. But ongoing presidential pressure on Tehran will appeal not only to the crowds in Iranian streets but to American voters as well.
By increasing the level of public understanding of the dangers we still face of Iranian terrorism and efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, Bush will open a much-needed Act III in the war on terror.
Hey, don't get me wrong---they are LOTS of good reasons for taking out Iran and Syria. But I think the reality of American politics right now is that the public wants us to clean up Afghanistand and Iraq first. There would be zero support for starting a new war, short of another direct attack on the U.S. that was obviously and directly tied to Iran. I don't think that will happen.
But is Morris right? No. Poll after poll shows that the public in fact is quite aware of the "War on Terror," and even though terrorism itself isn't ranking as high in poll questions, I submit that is more due to the way the questions are worded. Americans, I think, SEE the war on terrorism as inherent in the economy and other issues.
Sure Dick, and the RATs were gonna sweep the 2002 elections. Bwaaahaahaaahaaahaaa.
So do I.
One of the great things about Dickie Morris is he never lets facts get in the way of his opinions.
First the latest poll says over 60 percent of the population thinks we did the right thing by going into Iraq. A strong majority thinks Saddam and Iraq had close ties to Al Qa-eda. Not only that but a poll this week shows a full majority of Americans think that the UN is doing a terrible job.
Add to that that now more of the population thinks its the economy rather than terrorism that is our biggest problem? Why would the economy out rank Terrorism? Because we have not been attacked on our own soil in almost 2 years. Get a Clue Dick the American people credit Dubya with protecting us. Add to that that seventy some percent think the Patriot act is a good thing and you have a good indication that Dick Morris that can't read polls and suck a hookers toes at the same time.
And if Dickie boy hasn't observed the economy is starting to boom, he has spent way too much time playing little bo peep with the 9 Democratic Dwarfs.
The fact is, Dickie Boy, wars .... even losing wars, don't bring down Presidents. Corruption does... but not wars. In 1972 Tricky Dick Nixon defeated a peace candidate by 62 to 37 percent. That is a record landslide that bested Reagan's 58 to 41 win in 1984. That win by Trickie Dick was after we had suffered 50,000 dead Americans and hundreds of thousands wounded in a war that had been going on for 8 long years. A war based on a faked Gulf of Tonken attack that killed no Americans. This war was based on an ATTACK on NEW YORK and frightened the heck out of most Americans.
Morris needs to quit playing "the way to lots of attention is to make up outrageous bull" and understand that we were attacked and the American people have seen a powerful response. Guess what Dickie.. The people like it. We have not lost 3,000 soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq. Not even close. But we did lose 3000 civilians in a couple of hours two years ago.
The only question Bush must to ask is to win hands down is do you want our soldiers to fight them in the middle east, or do you want to fight them here in the US.
Dickie Morris is a good pollster. He does that as well as anyone. But when it comes to predicting what will happen Dickie is bust. Even with people he has known well, he gets it wrong. Remember when Dickie said Hillary would not run for the Senate in 2000?
So do I.
RIGHT!!! What you are hearing is not even close to the griping about Reaganomics at this time in 1983. Reagan was down to the very low 40's in job approval ratings. But by election day in 1984 Reagan was back up to where Dubya is today. Someone asked Reagan when he knew he was out of the woods on the Economy. He said, "When the media stopped calling it Reaganomics."
The largest jop growths always follow major productivity gains. That was apparent in the fall of 1983 but few figured it out. The initial effect always observed with big productivity gains are production increases with job decreases. But that in reality is very good news.
When it takes fewer people to make more stuff companies always lay people off. Then the lower prices create far more sales and the workers are called back and more hired.
When Henry Ford started teh Ford Motor company in 1903 it took 400 hours to assemble a Ford. Twelve years later it took just 4 hours labor. By static analysis one could prove that would result in 99 percent of the autoworkers losing their jobs. But in fact Ford went from 70 employees to over 60 thousand and doubled their wages along the way.
Government can not create jobs. Jobs are created by improved productivity. Fords Mass production did it 100 years ago. Computerized production is about to do it again.
I agree. The war on terrorism is still a factor in most people's rating of the President. And that will only increase after this week's memorial services. And then the release of the WMD report, which I don't expect will show actual weapons, but will demonstrate to the open-minded that the development and concealment programs, equipment and manuals existed.
Plus, there will be at least one HUGE unexpected factor appear---it's politics, there always is. No one predicted the Bush DUI story; then when Bush was down in the polls in August 01, we were attacked; then when Bush started to sink again, he made his speeches to the UN/U.S. public on Iraq. So we can expect the unexpected, and no one knows which way that will cut.
While I understand the worries and frustrations of you and your friends, you will be playing an extremely dangerous game of Roulette if you try to blame the incumbent President for your woes. Place the blame at the feet of the terrorists, where it belongs.
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.