The above cartoon by liberal ‘toonist, Clay Bennett, can be viewed glass half-empty/glass half-full. The assumption on his part, of course, is that George Bush’s presidency has been 8 years of failed policies and disaster for our country.
Iraq should be a political winner for Republicans. Not a losing talking point.
The popular, mainstream mantra hawked around media circles to the public, still seems to be that “Bush lied, people died“. It’s really past time to put that lie to rest. It affects this election cycle, as Democrats still want to tie John “McSame” to a “Bush 3rd term”, with the perceived notion that President Bush was wrong, not just on the economy, but on the war decision to invade Iraq, no matter the current end result of victory, thanks to the stimulus package of a 20,000 troop surge. It doesn’t matter to anti-Bush Democrats that al-Qaeda (along with the anti-war movement) has lost in Iraq and that the so-called “civil war” fomented by al-Qaeda in Iraq fizzled into the civil war that never was. No matter what the victory may have achieved the world in the long term, the price in blood and treasure wasn’t worth it…because it all happened under Bush’s watch.
The justification for war was more than about wmd finds; and began long before Bush’s watch. Read Douglas Feith’s War and Decision. Read Scott Malensek’s series of posts covering the Iraqi Perspectives Project and Select Senate Committee on pre-war intell reports. Visit Mark Eichenlaub’s Regime of Terror.
More currently, read Randall Hoven’s American Thinker piece. Then spread the news around. Why? Because truth matters before the November Election.
So who lied and misled the public? It wasn’t VP Dick Cheney. It wasn’t President Bush. He only made a few mistakes and some bad decisions. But removing Saddam was the right thing to do; it was selfish self-interest- not moral high ground- which had France, Germany, and Russia stand opposed to the invasion.
Democrats think removing Saddam and his murderous sons from power was the wrong thing to do (since it all happened under Bush’s leadership, and not Clinton’s). And yet they (rightfully) gave the president their approval, authorizing the use of force, when public opinion polls were on the side of the President. Randall Hoven:
the “legal case” was solid and Iraq was given chance after chance after chance.
- The authorization noted at least 10 UN resolutions, spread out over a decade, to justify the use of US military force.
- The Authorization noted that “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in … Public Law 107-40.” [Emphasis added.]
- The Authorization noted Public Law 105-235 (passed under President Clinton) that urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.”
Senator Obama was against the Iraq invasion when he wasn’t in a position to make the informed decision. Now, he still stands against it, because, politically, the war remains unpopular and based upon lies in the minds of many American voters. The actual justifications put forth by the Administration have been largely distorted and misrepresented by anti-war activists and a complicit media that leans left of center and anti-Bush.
Senator Obama and his Party think being against the invasion of Iraq is a political winner. What needs to happen, is to prove to the American public that the decision to forcefully remove Saddam was the right decision; and one based solidly on what we knew then (12 year history of defiance and violence; understanding that mistakes- i.e., flawed intelligence- are not the same as lies) and what we know today.
The initial 3 week invasion was a success. The succeeding 5 years were a challenge. Proving America not to be a paper tiger and surging on to victory the past year should be a feather in the cap. America has nothing to be ashamed of and everything to be proud of; and the political party that stood firm and responsible to the decision despite the fickle nature of public opinion polls, deserves accolades.
Bush was right. So, too, were Democrats before they were stricken with political amnesia.
Given that…and given the foreign policy challenges of Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, etc., I’ll take more of the McSame. I mean…who do you suppose America’s enemies dread more? An Obama presidency, or a McCain presidency?
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
I think you are failing to acknowledge Bush’s approval ratings and how low they are:
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
and the adjacent particular ratings about the handling of the war and whether it was worth it; they certainly are ‘mixed’ up in that low approval rating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
In the end, your thesis:
…is an idea filled with land-mines.
Further, since you’ve defended Bush throughout most of your piece, your thesis might probably have been clearer if it stated: Bush and Iraq should be a political winner for Republicans.”
In any case, the reasons above explain why you are forced to use the the modal verb ‘should’, instead of ‘will’.
Doug, you’re pretty close to the mark.
I’d say that if one wants to look good, the focus should be on unity. Senator Obama has almost never done it, and has never had the political courage to go against the party line where as few sentors in American history have been referred to as Mavericks.
The biggest problem I’m having w this election is keeping track of Senator Obama’s omniscience re Iraq and his policy of the day. As Doug’s pointed out elsewhere, Sen McCain has been LONG against the idea that victory should be set on a calender and then declared (ie the idea of unconditional timelines). He’s also been among the few who called for more troops and a focus on counter-insurgency operations for years now. His track record isn’t unblemished, but at least the Washington Post hasn’t seen it necessary to keep a history of back and forths so that people can keep up with the Iraq for/against/kinda for/kinda against shifting that Obama’s done.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html
When it comes to GWB and Iraq…yeah, I got to agree with the generals who’ve been there the most, the leaders on the ground, and even the NYT….popular or not (no war should be a woohoofest), he did the right thing, he stuck it out despite bad polling, and he’s bringing success where no one thought possible. When the NYT sucks it up and says the war is being won…’nuff said.
Only losers see success as impossible.
The media wants us all to believe that the American economy is “BAD”. But in reality, after 20+ quarters in a row of domestic growth, a couple of bad quarters is suppose to “scare” the American man and woman into believing that the War in Iraq caused all the problems we are now confronted with like the housing crisis, gas crisis, etc.. Guess what, the problems of our current economy have NOTHING to do with the war! The problems arose long before the war began. We needed to get stability in the Middle East and President Bush stepped up to the plate and swung away to get the ball in play. Now, we need a man to keep it in play! BHO is NOT that man.
Don’t rise to the bait, guys. I live amongst the common folks. They know BS when they see it. They’re a lot smarter than you think. Let the retards have their slogans. It’s called elevation -90. That’s shooting yourself in the foot for those not familiar with field artillery.
As my barber says: “Half full? Half empty? Depends on whether it’s Budweiser or horse piss.”
The dems and the media have been as obstructive as they can be. If Bush is for something they are against it. If Bush changes his mind and decides to try it their way they change their minds and are agsinst what they were for before. They have meddled in foreign policy from the Iraq war to Pakistan. They have trashed our allies and made negotiation difficult for Bush.
The housing problem is only on the coasts where property has been astronomical. I haven’t noticed any change in my area at all. I get a letter from a local real estate every quarter and there is absolutely not change. The same number of houses are bought and sold at about the same prices.
The problem with the mortgage companies is that the govenment enacted a law that would not let the companies refuse people who could not make their mortgage payments. The dems will not allow drilling in this country which is why gas is so high which in turn makes everything else sky high. And the dems and the media have talked down the economy until some people believed it and stopped buying. The dems will do any thing to gain power even to the point of bringing down this country and even the whole world into a depression like in the 30s.
You may take more of the McSame, but last night’s speech’s didn’t reflect that stance:
That’s why this election’s selling point is ‘change’, and why it’s nearly become a ‘name brand’ issue on who owns it; it’s all about who is further from Bush this election. It explains, too, an awful lot why Palin was chosen.
In regard to Palin, now she has to work that ‘selling point’, she needs to deliver the goods on ‘Change.’ Yet, presently she ain’t selling anything. She’s still sealed up, tight, insulated from the national media, no interviews granted– she’s a church mouse …appears she’s won’t talk until after the convention.
As I see it, by that time there will be so many questions for her it’ll be a ‘pile on’.
Two things will come from it. She’ll either _lose_ her image as an agent for change, or, the there may be public reaction that the media is being unfair to her. Of course, too, both could happen. She may even be not the kind of change desired.
Bumpy ride in any case.
Doug, Palin’s off the circuit for the same time period that Biden was pre-convention speech. It’s no big deal, and it’s a great strategy to let the shockwaves roll out and let the waters calm before stepping into the talk shows.
I think you’re probably, mostly right, but you’re also ignoring something: every little thing she does gets watched and reported on ad nauseum now, and that reporting takes away reporting on Obama (something he’s had WAY too much of this year).
As to change desired…that’s interesting. BHO and Bush and McCain have the same foreign policy, so where’s the change? Nah, some themes (change for example) resonate well with some demographics (democrats), but to win over Republicans you need something different, and to win over independents, something else. Let BHO stick w change, and he’ll only be kissing up to one demographic that he’s already won over.
Let’s all remember this as the road for Palin get rougher.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/did-palin-call.html
Scott, possibly, it’s a ‘great strategy’, IF she can take the heat, if she wears, carries the coals without a problem, is a fighter, and comes across as insightful, then it will probably pay off.
But again, ‘high risk, high reward.’
That’s a lot to ask for. But who knows? She may do it, she may stand against the media Goliath and have a sling.