Posted on 08/30/2002 9:48:10 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 08/30/2002 9:56:09 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A possible U.S. attack on Iraq and legislation to bolster America's homeland security top the agenda for lawmakers when they return from an August recess next week and start the home stretch of the 107th Congress. Continues.
===================================================================
Be careful what you wish for...
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
That's the lesson for Democrats with new reports that the White House intends to seek Congressional support for military action to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power.
A chorus of leading Democrats in recent weeks have clamored for full debate and a vote before any U.S. military action against the Baghdad regime.
House Democrat leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri has loudly insisted on it, arguing that, without explicit Congressional backing, any use of force would lack 'legitimacy'.
Speaking Monday at a campaign event in Waterbury, Conn., Gephardt said "the President has to get Congressional approval, he must have a debate on this issue and a vote in Congress."
He added that "this issue is much more than just a legal debate. The President will need the decisive support of the public and their elected representatives in order to initiate and sustain the effort that will be required to eliminate the threat posed by this regime."
Congress must get involved, echoed Democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Through a spokesman he urged that "for the good of the country and for the long-term success of whatever approach we take, President Bush should follow his father's lead and support a vigorous and constructive debate on Iraq."
Sen. Robert C. Byrd went even farther, marshaling the views of academicians whom he says affirm the need for fresh Congressional authority.
"There is an emerging consensus among leading scholars", said the West Virginia Democrat and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, "that the 1991 use of force resolution cased to be effective once Iraq capitulated to U.S. and allied forces in April 1991." (Actually, the resolution said nothing of the kind, but let's leave it that.)
The presstitutes, convinced Democrats had gained the upper-hand politically, were licking their chops, clicking their heels.
The White House had somehow lost control of the debate, losing the public relations battle, they chortled. The administration appears defensive, even indecisive, almost adrift, they crowed.
Indeed, for Democrats, it looked to be the best of all worlds: Calling for debate and a vote allowed them to play both sides of the fence, and avoid taking a stance, one way or the other, on the use of force. With polls showing strong support for military action, Democrats feared getting on the wrong side of the issue politically, especially as November approaches and with terrorism still a top voter concern.
Over the weekend, a report that White House lawyers believe Congressional authority already exists for military action touched off a firestorm among Democrats, prompting them to come out even more forcefully on the "need" for debate and a mandate from Congress.
For the White House, the whole thing worked like a charm.
Eh?
Yep, you heard right -- it worked like a charm.
Bush cunningly laid the bait, Democrats went for it, foolishly.
Think about it: Why on earth give Democrats a pass -- avoid going on the record, up-or-down, for-or-against, war on Saddam Hussein? Where's the downside in forcing their hand? Democrats pay obligatory lip-service on Saddam, conceding he's not exactly your local choir boy, that 'regime change' is a neat idea ... but ... but ... there's always a 'but' there, somewhere.
Bush wasn't about to let these snakes wriggle off the hook, however. Put your money where your mouth is, O boys and girls.
White House strategy hence was to goad Democrats into calling for Congressional debate and a vote, then turning the tables -- on them, the media, the doves, the 'do-nothings'.
That's what the White House legal opinion was all about: Prodding the Democrats to demand involvement.
The new twist likely leaves Democrat strategists scratching their heads, wondering, 'what the heck were we thinking? How could we fall for this trap? This turns our campaign strategy for the fall on its head! Prescription drugs, Social Security, corporate fraud, a limping economy -- those were the things we needed to run on! Now the whole fall campaign will be dominated by Iraq and Saddam -- DRATS!!!'
No, this wasn't 'wag-the-dog' on Bush's part, either. Not a chance.
You see, unlike X42, this President reveres and respects the men and women who serve in uniform. He honors them, treasures them, cherishes them. And they love him back. (Have you notice their glowing smiles whenever he's around?) Under his orders, when missiles are lobbed, one thing you can be absolutely sure of: It's not a dog-and-pony show to distract from scandal.
That's why character counts.
The upshot: Bush gets what he wanted -- everyone on the record as we enter Phase II of the War on Terror.
Democrats have yet to learn a simple lesson: Never come with a knife to a gun fight.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
And even though the Dims are still trying to call GW stupid, we will get find out who really is in support, not of the war on terror, but in support of this nation?
Excellent chess game. Very well played, indeed.
Contrary to what everyone else is saying, I truly think this is on a fast-track.
Someone else already used this analogy earlier this week, but it fits:
In "Return of the Jedi," when questioned on having the new Death Star finished in time to battle the incoming force, the Emperor proclaimed, "Now, witness the power of this fully-operational battle station!"
In any event, I think we are still looking at a September time-frame.
Thanks =^)
And I really like the fact that for ALL the moaning, groaning, and gnashing of false teeth...he springs traps so brilliantly.
Bump!
He's been foolish enough and stupid enough to try that approach all along, like not funding the militry during wartime and not funding the Office of Homeland Defense....I don't see him having an attack of common sense and changing that any time soon.
Couldn't agree with you more -- absolutely.
Thanks, amigo =^)I still think you were off base with your prior essay raising the question of 'latent anti-semitism' by Matthews and the gang, but today's effort was superb.
Conservatives, for years, have been unfairly accused by liberals of harboring the ugliest of motives for what amounts to honest policy differences with the left.
And I agree with you, if your point is that it's not a tactic conservatives would be wise to emulate. I couldn't agree with you, in fact.
Which is why I didn't, per se, accuse CM of being an anti-Semite, but his virulence, on this issue generally, and against 'neo-cons' in particular, is deeply troubling. Moreover, his 'dovish' stance vis-a-vis Iraq is hard to reconcile with his gung-go hawkish, 'bombs-away' attitude towards the Serbia/Kosovo campaign back in April-June '99.
Then again, perhaps we'll never see eye-to-eye re: CM, but know this: I value your opinions and know you arrive at them honestly.
Excellent analysis! Thank you!!!
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.