Bush is boxing the Democrats on Iraq

boston globe ^ | today | E.J. Dionne, Jr

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

IT IS ABSURD to say that the Bush administration's Iraq policy is driven largely by this November's elections. It is equally absurd to deny that President Bush and his party are playing this issue for political gain and that the buildup to war has come at an extremely convenient time for Republicans.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

It is equally absurd to deny that President Bush and his party are playing this issue for political gain and that the buildup to war has come at an extremely convenient time for Republicans.

only because your guy ej didnt get the job done like he should have

[Dog Gone]

Ah, poor E.J. realizes that the Democrats dug themselves a hole. I feel his pain.

[Nick Danger]

Many Democrats have been arguing for a resolution... and urging the very sort of tough UN action

Tough UN action? I wish he hadn't said that, he made the damned thing go off.

[okie01]

"He is effectively asking Congress to cut itself out of the essential debates: What is the best way to wage this war?"

Only E.J. Dionne could formulate this argument. And he would dare formulate it under only the current circumstances: a Republican president and a Democrat senate.

Li'l Tommy Daschle, Bobby Byrd and Hillary! debating and helping decide "the best way to wage this war." Saddam is on your side in this one, E.J....

[Lessismore]

I don't see the downside for the Democrats on this. They can just pass the "blank check" and then move on to domestic issues. If we go to war and it end well, they can take credit for it. If it ends badly, they can say it's all Bush's strategy and they had no input.

[billhilly]

Look, it is tough being a partisan when your ass is getting kicked. Think of all those Clinton years. E. J. buddy, we feel your pain.

[Johnny Shear]

Bush may win by playing hardball on the war resolution and perhaps in the elections. But playing hardball has its costs.

For E.J. to say this, the DemocRATs are in BIG trouble!!

I can't help it, but I have visions of mass cyber-suicides on DUhhh!

[Dog Gone]

I forget where in the Constitution it gives Tom Daschle and his cronies co-Commander-in-Chief responsibilities.

[prov1813man]

This has so many disconnects between the premise and the point that it is hard to know where to begin in dismantling this piece of _______.

Underneath it all you can hear the war cry of liberals everywhere "NOT FAIR!!!".

They are indeed boxed, they know it, and they are squealing. It would be so much easier for the other side if only they would ever take a position in opposition to our enemies as fervently as they oppose America's interests.

[harpo11]

"He is effectively asking Congress to cut itself out of the essential debates:
What is the best way to wage this war?
How long will the United States need to occupy Iraq?
How serious are we about building a democratic - or, at least, more
democratic - post-Saddam regime?

Ah, pardon me, but just four years ago, 1998, democrats were nearly popping their shirt buttons off with all of the huff and puff cheering of Bill Clinton on as he waggled his finger at Saddam. I don't recall hearing any call for debates or any such concerns.

And, furthermore, I remember waking up one morning shortly after the Senate failed to conduct a trial on the impeachment of Bill Clinton and voted to let him off the hook, to find that der Slickmeister is bombing Slobo. Now I ask where were the debates, the concerns? Perhaps, I just don't recall any or missed hearing the news reports and analysis preceding it.

So why are these leftists having a sudden challenging consciousness when these critical national security matters are discussed by a President who has exemplary character, who means what he says, and will do as he said.

There is definite fear in many leftist circles and I don't understand why they appear to fear more President Bush achieving his goal than there is for the dangerous maniacal threat Saddam presents to the world. Nor did they appear at all to have any fear of Bill Clinton speaking of the horrific threat that Saddam presents and what he thought we should do about the threat.

[Zon]

A large majority of Americans share the president's goal of disarming Saddam. Bush will nurture that majority far more effectively if he dispels partisan suspicions

I thought that's what he was doing by "forcing" the democrats to take a stand rather than playing politics. Or did I miss something?

[hinckley buzzard]

The downside to a quick OK is the resulting and accurate perception of GW as a tough effective and determined leader. Leadership means coat-tails.

This will be especially true as the democraps' halfbaked "domestic" issues continue to dissolve in their hands, and their only shot at momentum is this sanctimonious huffing and puffing.

The problem is, deliciously, that they shot their wad on the "Bush-is-a-dunce" tactic, which has been a real exploding cigar, so now their credibility is shot.

[okie01]

"There is definite fear in many leftist circles and I don't understand why they appear to fear more President Bush achieving his goal than there is for the dangerous maniacal threat Saddam presents to the world."

Indeed. The Democrats seem more concerned about what President Bush might do to them, than what Saddam Hussein might do to the U.S.A.

To hear the media squawk, you would think the biggest losers in any War on Iraq will be the Democrats.

Better to let Saddam Hussein walk than embarrass Li'l Tommy Daschle...

[JulieRNR21]

E.J. Dionne Jr. is a syndicated columnist.

And EJ was a Clinton favorite....invited to many State Dinners.....He writes like a biased partisan for the Dim party.....which, of course, it what he is!

[Wild Irish Rogue]

The Democrats have only themselves to blame. All summer, the liberal media, not Bush, was pushing the Iraq story- hoping to portray Bush as a war monger and zealot. MSNBC kept referring to Bush's " War Cabinet" convening at the Crawford ranch-when it was just a routine Pentagon briefing. Talking about invading Iraq is so much more interesting than prescription drugs for seniors and Enron-excuse me, I'm nodding off- ZZZZZZZZZZ !!!Thank you, Terry McAuliffe and billclinton-the 2 architects of the DNC strategy to make Iraq front and center!! You cannot suddenly start talking about free pills for old people, when the world is on the verge of Kingdom Come !! A potential mushroom cloud vs Zocor-hmmm..,what will everyone be talking about, around that infamous DNC "kitchen table"??!!

[Wissa]

One downside for the dems in tight races is that there ARE some number of people that are vehemently anti-war. If somebody, Wellstone for example, votes in support of the President, he WILL lose the support of some of those fringe antiwar types. If he votes against action, he WILL lose some support of the people in the middle.

[hchutch]

Either way, he LOSES votes in a neck-and-neck Senate race.

We will knock off: Cleland, Torricelli, Johnson (SD), Carnahan, and Wellstone. All GOP seats are held.

We end up with a 53-45-2 split in the Senate after Chafee bolts.

[NerdDad]

The President said: ''It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States, you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States. If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people - say, `Vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.'''

EJ the Shill said: "A president seeking a unified nation does himself no good by distorting the arguments of others - or by obliquely accusing them of failing to act in the interests of the United States.

A blatant attempt at parsing what the President said and turn the argument against him. Complaining about someone distorting an argument by himself distorting the argument is a poor tactic demonstrating the circular logic of the democrats and their desparation on this issue.

There is a big difference between "national interest" and "national security". Many of the "interests" of the nation would be served by not going to war. Unfortunately, many Americans outside of Boston and the Washington beltway have already been sent to war. Right now, and for the forseeable future, a large portion of the national interest is focused on national security. And we intend to hold our elected officials (and those seeking to become elected officials) responsible for their actions as it pertains to national security.

Whether Mr. Dionne or the dimocraps like it or not, this issue really does come down to "with us or against us."

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

We end up with a 53-45-2 split in the Senate after Chafee bolts.

Wouldn't that be wonderful!

I love reading the comments on this piece!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[patriciaruth]

Ah, pardon me, but just four years ago, 1998, democrats were nearly popping their shirt buttons off with all of the huff and puff cheering of Bill Clinton on as he waggled his finger at Saddam. I don't recall hearing any call for debates or any such concerns.

And, furthermore, I remember waking up one morning shortly after the Senate failed to conduct a trial on the impeachment of Bill Clinton and voted to let him off the hook, to find that der Slickmeister is bombing Slobo. Now I ask where were the debates, the concerns? Perhaps, I just don't recall any or missed hearing the news reports and analysis preceding it.

So why are these leftists having a sudden challenging consciousness when these critical national security matters are discussed by a President who has exemplary character, who means what he says, and will do as he said.

There is definite fear in many leftist circles and I don't understand why they appear to fear more President Bush achieving his goal than there is for the dangerous maniacal threat Saddam presents to the world. Nor did they appear at all to have any fear of Bill Clinton speaking of the horrific threat that Saddam presents and what he thought we should do about the threat.

A thing of beauty is a joy forever. KUDOS!