> And this is different from the attacks people made on Bill Clinton during > his term, exactly how? Like how he had Vince Foster killed and other > patently absurd claims...
I fully agree that the claims that Bush will start a war with Iraq for purely political reasons is about at that level. I've heard lotsa right wing idiots claim that Bill had a hit put on Vince Foster and ordered the plane carrying Ron Brown to crash. But, I don't remember JDG writing that. Now, to make a more nuanced statement; given the fact that Bush and the Republicans honestly believe that we need to go into Iraq, one might still say they are politicizing the process. If Iraq is not an issue in October, then the economy will be. That would favor the Democrats. So, it still behooves the Republicans to get as much political mileage out of Bush being the Commander in Chief as possible. Indeed, even someone as pure as Carter used foreign affairs for domestic political reasons (the Rose Garden strategy was used to keep from debating Ted Kennedy). Dan M. Right............but Bush wants a vote NOW, so if Dems got off their horse and did something other than cry, then they would have a full month to discuss the economy and whatever other phantom issues they can come up with. Here, this says it much better: http://www.aim.org/publications/guest_columns/weyrich/2002/sep23.html (provided anyway with reference) A Vote On War With Iraq Before November? By Paul M. Weyrich September 23, 2002 It is a good thing for Democrats that the political memory of most voters lasts about a week. Were it not the case, they would be in big trouble. It was only a few weeks ago, when President George W. Bush was making noises about going into Iraq without a further vote from the Congress, that the Democrats were livid. They demanded that they be consulted and have the opportunity to vote on this all-important issue. After all, they said, if the president is going to put our young men and women in harm's way, then he had better answer a lot of questions and he had better afford the Congress the opportunity to vote. It was the elder Bush who sought Congressional approval for the last war with Iraq and, even though the evidence was very graphic, in the form of troops and tanks that had invaded Kuwait, he only managed to eek out a very narrow victory in the two houses of Congress, which were then controlled by the Democrats. Virtually all of those who were demanding a vote a couple of months ago voted against the elder Bush's resolution. These same Democrats were also demanding that Bush seek a vote at the United Nations the way the elder Bush did in 1991. They were saying this because at the time, it appeared that Bush had almost no international support. Well, the president has called their bluff. He went before the UN and spoke as no president ever has before that body. He compared their eleven years and 16 resolutions of inaction against Iraq with the League of Nations, which was just a debating society. Following his speech, Bush began to pick up support. He is not out of the woods yet, but even France has warmed to his approach. And he has told Congress that he wants a vote before Congress either recesses or adjourns for the November elections. So now these same Democrats who were clamoring for a vote a couple of months ago, all of a sudden claim that we should be in no hurry to vote. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she has heard nothing that convinces her that Iraq is an immediate threat to the United States or to anyone else. So she suggested that if a vote occurs early next year that would be time enough. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) has said that while the president has begun to make the case, he is, as of yet, not persuaded. He has hinted that he would like to see a vote postponed until after the elections. Daschle wants to have a lame duck session after the elections this fall. His Democratic Senators, then, would have no fear of a backlash from voters from whichever way they voted on a resolution giving the president authority to pursue Iraq. I have news for Pelosi and Daschle and all the others who don't want a vote before the elections. Come the first week in October, according to sources in the Speaker's office I have consulted, the House will take up the resolution and there will be a vote. Given that House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO) also supports "regime change," the vote in the House is likely to be overwhelming. At that point Daschle will have two options. He can postpone the vote until after the elections, in which case every Democrat running for the Senate will have the war as the principle focus of the campaign, or he can take up the measure and allow for a vote before the Senators go out for the elections. I don't agree with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) very often, but I think he is correct when he says there will be a vote and the president will prevail by a margin of 70 to 30. Some of the Democrats claim that the president wants a vote before the election because he is playing politics. On the contrary. If the president wanted to play politics, he would get that House vote and then would have Senate Republicans help to postpone the vote until after the elections. Then the issue of Iraq, which helps Bush and the Republicans, would be front and center all the way from adjournment to the election. I am confident that when Daschle weighs his options, he will have a vote this October and I think McCain may be too conservative in his vote count. I'd bet on a vote closer to 75 or 80 votes. Okay, I'm on record now. So if I am way off base, you can gently remind me when the time comes. Paul Weyrich is president of the Free Congress Foundation. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
