Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DEMS' HUGE GIFT TO W.
New York Post ^ | 9/12/02 | DICK MORRIS

Posted on 09/12/2002 12:56:17 AM PDT by kattracks

Edited on 05/26/2004 5:08:27 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

ASKING President Bush to explain his Iraq policy was the Democrats' first real political mistake since 9/11 - and it was a huge one.

Since the terror attacks, the Democrats had played their political hand brilliantly. Instead of routinely challenging every administration action, they embraced his anti-terror initiatives, his attack on Afghanistan and his domestic rearrangement of the U.S. government.


(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

1 posted on 09/12/2002 12:56:17 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
What is interesting to me is that the Prime Minister must be aware of this on some level. The idea of the Labour Party helping the Republicans is truly bizarre to me, but it's a notion that fills me with mirth. ;)

Regards, Ivan

2 posted on 09/12/2002 12:59:20 AM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I absolutely LOVE the UN stage. Yea, it's a lame organization but all the moderates I know just think taking the arguement to the world is leadership. Hold your nose while Bush takes the GOP on a media adventure to the middle. AWESOME BABY!!
3 posted on 09/12/2002 1:09:16 AM PDT by byteback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Say what you will about Morris, but I have always found him to be pretty sharp at electoral analysis.

He implies that Republicans should do well in November, and I hope he is right. Bush and his inner circle are pretty savvy, imo.

4 posted on 09/12/2002 1:10:35 AM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
"Eventually, Democrats will come around and back Bush - but not before paying a huge political price. They've handed Bush just the issue he wants at just the time that he needs it the most."

...Especially since the Democrats who are withholding their approval to attack Iraq went on record approving the removal of Saddam when Bubba was in the White House. All Bush has to do is use his bully pulpit to call the Dems flip-flopping to the attention of the American people and they'll be goners.
5 posted on 09/12/2002 1:10:42 AM PDT by demkicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
As the evidence of Saddam's interest in acquiring nuclear weapons mounts and the public becomes more conscious of the biological and chemical weapons this maniac has at his control already...

This is a telling phrase. Underneath it all, Morris "gets it." He understands that if we don't take Saddam out, and sooner rather than later, we are going to have an incident that makes 9/11 look like an auto accident.

In their guts, people know this. At the rate that heroin, cocaine, and illegal immigrants get into this country, we know that if a half-dozen well organized people want to smuggle a nuclear weapon in here, they can. If Saddam gets his hands on one, we're going to have the damned thing go off in a major American city, and we know it.

And yet, Morris the political mechanic cannot stop himself from yakking about the election as if this were just another issue. Gee, if only the Democrats hadn't made this tactical mistake, the country could be talking about prescription drug benefits instead of worrying about a nuke going off in Atlanta.

Morris is too close to the game to see it from the stands. This was never going to be the Democrats' year. Ask people in a poll whether they care about "prescription drug benefits," and people will say, "Yeah." But when it comes right down to voting between that and getting blown up, the drug benefits are going to wait.

I have a hunch they are going to be waiting in 2004, too.


6 posted on 09/12/2002 1:25:38 AM PDT by Nick Danger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
And who says that there is no justice?

the infowarrior

7 posted on 09/12/2002 1:32:46 AM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
Basically the speech by Bush goes...

"Democrats, why is it you think Saddam is less dangerous now than he was in 1998 when you voted to remove him?"

"What evidence do you have that he won't use the WMD you know he already has?"

"What do you think he'll do with nuclear weapons when he gets them?"
8 posted on 09/12/2002 2:28:03 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DB
Any new results from the "Battleground" Poll? This seems to be an accurate reflection of the upcoming '02 elections.
9 posted on 09/12/2002 3:14:03 AM PDT by newfreep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
There is no better issue for Bush than Iraq …

Think about that for a moment … We are going to war and shed blood so that the president can have a “better issue” on which to campaign?

10 posted on 09/12/2002 4:13:25 AM PDT by bimbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB
This would require that GWB give up his committment to "bipartisanship". I would like to see that happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

Bush gives the appearance of having reached the conclusion that he can get along fine with a Democrat Senate - he has signed every bill they've passed, after all.

11 posted on 09/12/2002 4:20:55 AM PDT by Charlotte Corday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
No, the dems have screwed up at every opportunity in the war on Terror. Everytime the dems tried to criticize the progress of the war something big would happen in Afhganistan to make them look like complete asses. Remember Daschle taking a big stand against the conduct of the war only to be embarrassed into silence by the casualties at Tora Bora?
12 posted on 09/12/2002 4:25:43 AM PDT by flying Elvis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The Ol' Toe Sucker gets it right, again! Funny, though, how there is no moral logic to his backing of the President, only poll-generated decision making.
13 posted on 09/12/2002 4:32:56 AM PDT by ArtDodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bimbo
Is that what you think? That we're going to war for an election issue?
14 posted on 09/12/2002 4:37:55 AM PDT by airborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan; All
What is interesting to me is that the Prime Minister must be aware of this on some level. The idea of the Labour Party helping the Republicans is truly bizarre to me, but it's a notion that fills me with mirth. ;)

Prime Minister Blair, unlike his Backbench or his allies in the TUC, understands that America will judge its "friends" by how they back us up in this mortal struggle with a remorseless foe.

You will notice that we are virtually stripping Saudi Arabia of its American presence. The Saudis didn't stand up for what is right in the wake of the attacks of last year; rather, they tried to play a double game: sending us soothing words while buying off the PA and Al Qaeda. Bush will use Saudi Arabia as an example to other Arabs: within a year, the United States will sever any security guarantees with the Kingdom (which will be an academic exercise anyway, as we won't need it or them).

Blair has figured out what Bundeskanzler Schroeder has failed to understand: this war is a watershed in how Americans will view the rest of the world. It is more likely that Americans will withdraw into an armed neutrality (something that comes natural to us) than engage in overseas empire building. Blair wants us to know now that a relationship with the United Kingdom has value to us.

The United Kingdom and the United States together form an alliance of unmatched power, reach, and diplomatic acumen. Add Russia and Japan to the mix, and you have a recipe for an entente which can forestall Chinese adventurism or an Islamic fascist enterprise for the foreseeable future.

The European Union cannot offer Blair anything more than membership in a Frankfurt banker's racket. Blair understands that to help this strange Republican is to help Britain in the long run. Otherwise, he risks placing Britain in the second rank of European states, behind the two main conspirators: Germany and France.

If Blair maintains his policy, then the Eurotrash powers have to come to him. The drawback is that he still appears intent on giving up the Pound, but perhaps there is still time to abandon that enterprise as well.

If his Backbench could understand that, they might cut him more slack. But people like Glenda Jackson are prisoners of their own ideology.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

15 posted on 09/12/2002 4:45:04 AM PDT by section9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bimbo
No, that's what Morris would have advised his old boss to do. And slick, interested in nothing but his own political career, would have done it.

This President will do it because he understands Saddam is a threat to us.

Notice how clinton has done a flip on this? THAT'S "politics" as usual for him.

16 posted on 09/12/2002 4:50:42 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bimbo
We are going to war and shed blood so that the president can have a “better issue” on which to campaign?

Did somebody say that, bimbo? Morris said the Dems have invited to Bush to talk about it, in length. Which is in the Republicans interest since the Dems are merely obstructionist...Get it?

17 posted on 09/12/2002 4:51:57 AM PDT by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
Ivan, I heard a "commercial" on the Savage show last night featuring Blair speaking about 9/11. I must admit, his delivery and words were done bvery well. In fact, he blew W. away in speech-making, I thought.

Blair asked us to think of the people falling to their death and of the children on the planes who were told they were to die.

He closed by saying that such cruelty is not comprehensible to the average person. And that we cannot reason with it, cannot negotiate with it, and that since it means to destroy us, we must destroy it.

By the end of the speech my blood was boiling.

My respect for Blair in this light has grown significantly since 9/11.

18 posted on 09/12/2002 4:53:56 AM PDT by copycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: copycat
Blair asked us to think of the people falling to their death and of the children on the planes who were told they were to die.

He said that to the Labour Party Conference. They immediately shut up about the war after it - there was no way they were going to oppose him after the speech.

Blair sometimes has moments of brilliance, and this is one of them. I'll never vote Labour, but he has my respect for doing the right thing in this case.

Regards, Ivan

19 posted on 09/12/2002 4:56:23 AM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: section9
Nice new graphic.
20 posted on 09/12/2002 4:57:10 AM PDT by 31R1O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson