SINthysist
Rural Racist Homophobe
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 11,940
September 16, 2002
Morten Kondracke [From Roll Call]
President Bush made a brilliant bid for world acceptance of his Iraq agenda last week and simultaneously left most of the Democratic Party in the dust.
He challenged the United Nations to enforce its own mandates on Iraq and began working diplomatically to forge a new international coalition to threaten war if Iraq does not comply.
Conceivably, if the coalition is determined and menacing enough, it could force Saddam Hussein to submit to inspections and disarmament without war - or induce elements in his government to topple him and effect "regime change."
Meantime, Democrats seem totally confused - forced to cheer Bush's latest moves even as they resist GOP demands to force an early, blanket vote of support for his policies.
With the exception of Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), who called for Hussein's ouster last October, lately joined by Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), Democratic presidential contenders look distinctly un-presidential on Iraq.
It's not necessary that they be war hawks, but they need to be cogent and active - leaderly. Most have been querulous, passive and indecisive.
In particular, Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.) seems to be a man with 1,000 questions about what Bush intends to do about Iraq - but with no good ideas of his own.
It's perfectly legitimate to ask questions when a president is proposing to go to war. But somebody who wants to be president himself should have his own opinions on such an important matter and state them forthrightly.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) told me last week that he'll probably end up supporting Bush, but he writes and speaks like a philosophizing Hamlet, musing that the United States should go to war only if it has to, not because it wants to. The real question is: Should we go to war?
Daschle and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) worry aloud that Bush is politicizing Iraq policy. He may well be doing so by putting it at the top of the U.S. agenda and asking for a vote of approval before the November elections, pulling attention away from domestic issues.
Suspicion about GOP motives certainly was deepened last week by the demand of Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) that Congress vote to support Bush immediately. It would have been more collegial to have quietly negotiated the timing.
My guess is that Republican rush tactics are designed to force Democrats off their apparent strategy - also politically based - of trying to delay the vote past November.
As The New Republic points out in a scathing editorial this week on the Democrats, voters have a right to know how candidates stand on so important an issue. And they're going to find out anyway. Journalists, opposing candidates and voters themselves will demand to know.
It would have been smart - conceivably, it still could be - for Democrats to fashion their resolution, urging the U.N. Security Council to take united action to compel Iraq to stop flouting U.N. mandates. But it may be too late.
As The Weekly Standard pointed out last week, the Democrats' current reticence stands in sharp contrast to their sharp rhetoric in 1998 backing President Bill Clinton's warning that if Hussein developed weapons of mass destruction "some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
Daschle, at the time, said, "Look, we have exhausted virtually all of our diplomatic efforts to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements. ... We've got to force them to comply." Others were similarly strident.
There are two explanations for the gap between the 1998 Democrats and the 2002 Democrats. One is that they were supporting a president of their own party then but won't support Bush.
The other - the more likely one - is that they knew that Clinton's idea of "forcing" Iraqi compliance was to launch a punitive air strike or two and move on. Bush obviously means business.
Clinton's lack of seriousness was on display again last Wednesday when he had to get the final word on Sept. 11 commemorations by appearing on CBS' David Letterman show - and used it to raise doubts about Bush's Iraq policy.
Clinton and the Democrats' behavior stands in embarrassing contrast to that of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is courageously bucking massive anti-war opinion in his country and Labor Party to back Bush.
Meantime, Bush took exactly the right tack in his U.N. speech last week, identifying U.S. aims with those of the world body but making it clear that the United States would act if the United Nations did not.
It's conceivable that Bush could induce Russia and France to stand with him on the understanding that they can participate in post-Hussein governance in Iraq - ensuring that Russia will get the $6 billion owed it by Iraq - and that the coalition will scare Iraq into "regime change."
If the United States achieved such a victory without war, it would be a Bush triumph of the first order. But to do it, he has to make war seem inevitable.
And he's doing so.
FOR p_p_man, REDWAVE, and The Don of Down-Under...
[...and lefties Laurel and lavy.]
Morten Kondracke [From Roll Call]
President Bush made a brilliant bid for world acceptance of his Iraq agenda last week and simultaneously left most of the Democratic Party in the dust.
He challenged the United Nations to enforce its own mandates on Iraq and began working diplomatically to forge a new international coalition to threaten war if Iraq does not comply.
Conceivably, if the coalition is determined and menacing enough, it could force Saddam Hussein to submit to inspections and disarmament without war - or induce elements in his government to topple him and effect "regime change."
Meantime, Democrats seem totally confused - forced to cheer Bush's latest moves even as they resist GOP demands to force an early, blanket vote of support for his policies.
With the exception of Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), who called for Hussein's ouster last October, lately joined by Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), Democratic presidential contenders look distinctly un-presidential on Iraq.
It's not necessary that they be war hawks, but they need to be cogent and active - leaderly. Most have been querulous, passive and indecisive.
In particular, Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.) seems to be a man with 1,000 questions about what Bush intends to do about Iraq - but with no good ideas of his own.
It's perfectly legitimate to ask questions when a president is proposing to go to war. But somebody who wants to be president himself should have his own opinions on such an important matter and state them forthrightly.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) told me last week that he'll probably end up supporting Bush, but he writes and speaks like a philosophizing Hamlet, musing that the United States should go to war only if it has to, not because it wants to. The real question is: Should we go to war?
Daschle and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) worry aloud that Bush is politicizing Iraq policy. He may well be doing so by putting it at the top of the U.S. agenda and asking for a vote of approval before the November elections, pulling attention away from domestic issues.
Suspicion about GOP motives certainly was deepened last week by the demand of Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) that Congress vote to support Bush immediately. It would have been more collegial to have quietly negotiated the timing.
My guess is that Republican rush tactics are designed to force Democrats off their apparent strategy - also politically based - of trying to delay the vote past November.
As The New Republic points out in a scathing editorial this week on the Democrats, voters have a right to know how candidates stand on so important an issue. And they're going to find out anyway. Journalists, opposing candidates and voters themselves will demand to know.
It would have been smart - conceivably, it still could be - for Democrats to fashion their resolution, urging the U.N. Security Council to take united action to compel Iraq to stop flouting U.N. mandates. But it may be too late.
As The Weekly Standard pointed out last week, the Democrats' current reticence stands in sharp contrast to their sharp rhetoric in 1998 backing President Bill Clinton's warning that if Hussein developed weapons of mass destruction "some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
Daschle, at the time, said, "Look, we have exhausted virtually all of our diplomatic efforts to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements. ... We've got to force them to comply." Others were similarly strident.
There are two explanations for the gap between the 1998 Democrats and the 2002 Democrats. One is that they were supporting a president of their own party then but won't support Bush.
The other - the more likely one - is that they knew that Clinton's idea of "forcing" Iraqi compliance was to launch a punitive air strike or two and move on. Bush obviously means business.
Clinton's lack of seriousness was on display again last Wednesday when he had to get the final word on Sept. 11 commemorations by appearing on CBS' David Letterman show - and used it to raise doubts about Bush's Iraq policy.
Clinton and the Democrats' behavior stands in embarrassing contrast to that of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is courageously bucking massive anti-war opinion in his country and Labor Party to back Bush.
Meantime, Bush took exactly the right tack in his U.N. speech last week, identifying U.S. aims with those of the world body but making it clear that the United States would act if the United Nations did not.
It's conceivable that Bush could induce Russia and France to stand with him on the understanding that they can participate in post-Hussein governance in Iraq - ensuring that Russia will get the $6 billion owed it by Iraq - and that the coalition will scare Iraq into "regime change."
If the United States achieved such a victory without war, it would be a Bush triumph of the first order. But to do it, he has to make war seem inevitable.
And he's doing so.
FOR p_p_man, REDWAVE, and The Don of Down-Under...
[...and lefties Laurel and lavy.]
