One poster here chose the solemn occasion of the 9/11 anniversary to accuse Democrats of playing politics with the Iraq situation, even though it would have been a dumb thing for them to do, politically speaking. At the time I said I could as easily accuse Bush and co. of playing politics with Iraq, though I was loathe to do so. I am no longer loathe to do so. This administration has been so transparent in bringing a non-urgent military issue to the foreground, promising to prove the urgency, and failing repeatedly, in plain order to avoid domestic issues (like father, like ****ing son), that all I can say is: Said poster, here it is. Again. Couple this with the blatantly political article I emailed you shortly after 9/11 and find a new candidate or continue to cynically support this one. You know you have my respect. You would have it in greater quantity if you joined me in disdaining this grotesque playing of politics with human lives. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62783-2002Sep24.html In President's Speeches, Iraq Dominates, Economy Fades By Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, September 25, 2002; Page A01 As he seeks to boost Republican candidates in the midterm elections, President Bush is increasing his emphasis on terrorism and national security, shedding his previous determination to demonstrate his concern about the flagging economy. Four times in the past two days, Bush has suggested that Democrats do not care about national security, saying on Monday that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people." His remarks, intensifying a theme he introduced last month, were quickly seconded and disseminated by House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-Tex.). At a fundraiser for GOP House candidate Adam Taff in Kansas Monday, Vice President Cheney said security would be bolstered if Taff were to defeat Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.). "Cheney talks about Iraq at congressional fund-raiser/ Electing Taff would aid war effort," read the headline in the Topeka Capital-Journal. Such rhetoric represents something of a shift for the administration. When there were marked signs of the economy stumbling in the summer, Bush spoke daily about the economy's health to demonstrate his concern. In recent days, however, the proportion of Bush's stump speech devoted to domestic concerns has slipped from about 50 percent to about 20 percent. The shift has come despite a flood of grim new economic statistics. The Dow Jones industrial average fell yesterday to its lowest level in four years, and the Nasdaq composite index hit a six-year low as consumer confidence and corporate earnings slipped. When Bush kicked off his effort this month to build support for an Iraq campaign, his aides angrily dismissed accusations that they had a political motive, saying that the timing, two months before the November 5 election, was coincidental. But as Bush continues his record-setting fundraising effort, he has shown an eagerness to discuss the topic in political venues as polls show the effort is aiding Republican candidates. Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) blasted the White House and Republicans for trying to gain political advantage from war planning. "I hope the American people are cognizant of this effort, and demonstrate their intolerance and chagrin that people would stoop to that level," Daschle said in an interview. Anxiety has spread through the Democratic caucus. "We have a crashing Dow Jones index, economic indicators that continue to depress people in Illinois and across America and the White House does not want to talk about this," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). "This is not something the president will even take time out fundraising for to address." To drive home this point, Senate Majority Whip Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to call on the White House to detail how much taxpayer money is being spent to underwrite his campaign travel. The White House says the GOP's tactics are proper. "The voters will make the judgments," said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. "I don't think anybody has the right to tell the country it shouldn't consider either party's views on war and peace." Fleischer said Bush's economic agenda is "front and center," pointing out that he will deliver a speech Thursday on corporate accountability. Yesterday's 2.4 percent decline in the Dow Jones industrials, the fourth triple-digit loss in six sessions, brought the average back to the four-year low it reached in July. But while Bush spent much of July demonstrating his concern about the economy, he did not mention the falling markets yesterday until asked during a question-and-answer session with his Cabinet. Bush said he was "optimistic" about the economy, using the word six times, and he said his administration inherited a recession and falling stock market from the Clinton administration. To boost the economy, Bush called on Congress to pass terrorism insurance legislation, make last year's tax cut permanent and restrain spending. But while emphasizing those three items -- all long-term items -- he made no mention of the short-term stimulus package, which the White House and Republican House leaders have shelved. Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. said yesterday that Bush is "still open to and looking at options" on the economy, but "you'll hear from him if and when he sees that combination that he thinks has practical value." Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, in Nashville yesterday, made no mention of economic stimulus, saying "the latest indicators look good." There are indications that Bush and the GOP have succeeded in directing voters' concerns to Iraq rather than the economy. A new poll by the Gallup organization found that by a 49 percent to 41 percent margin, voters are now more concerned about Iraq than the state of the economy when deciding whom to vote for this fall. This marks a 16-point shift in voters' attitudes from three weeks ago. Similarly, a poll released Monday by Ipsos Public Affairs, found that Americans, by a six-point margin, now believe the country is on the right track, a 13-point improvement. Yet Democrats still have hope that their domestic issues will resurface. "It will get through," Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), a likely presidential candidate, said yesterday. "In a short period of time, Congress will have dealt with Iraq and we'll be on to other issues." There is some reason for Democratic optimism. Independent pollster John Zogby said that when voters -- 66 percent of whom have retirement accounts -- get their quarterly statements in October, "that thrusts the conversation right back to the economy." Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said Bush may be creating a "long-term disadvantage" by dropping his visibility on domestic issues in voters' eyes. Damaging or not, the change in Bush has been stark. In July, the White House, in addition to events highlighting homeland security and war, focused on corporate corruption, the economy, welfare reform, trade, disabilities, adoption, prescription drugs and Bush's "faith-based" plan. In September, Iraq and Saddam Hussein dominate virtually every major appearance by Bush, except for an odd event to spotlight education or the economy. Fleischer said Bush's speeches are "very balanced" between domestic and foreign. "He's always done half on the war on terror and half on domestic policy. Now he's put Iraq into the war on terror part." Before this month, Bush did devote about half of his typical stump speech to domestic matters and half to security and war. But when Bush flew to Trenton, N.J., on Monday, the 4,200-word speech he delivered at the airport included 3,100 words devoted to war and security and 700 devoted to domestic matters, with the balance devoted to introductions. Next, at a fundraiser for GOP Senate candidate Doug Forrester, war and security got 3,000 of his 4,500 words, with domestic matters receiving 800. At last night's fundraiser for Senate candidate John Thune of South Dakota, he spent twice as much time on war and security. At the Forrester fundraiser, Bush took the stage as donors chanted "USA!" The commander in chief declared: "I believe it's in America's interests that Doug Forrester be the next United States senator from this state."
lol. half on war: pretending Iraq is in the US' critical path in an election year; after the break. Iraq? Seriously? half on war2: when your intelligence agency contradicts you, have your croney playboy from the UK (nice tan, btw) make up some stuff. It's probably all true, but somehow rearrange the material question from the more important point: "should I care" to the current "is it true". half on domestic policy: i'm confident, we're ammarrica. ammarrrica.
Rove's been talking about this since January. The following column ran earlier this month: WAR: KARL ROVE'S ULTIMATE WEDGE ISSUE By Matthew Miller Tribune Media Services You can't understand today's Iraq debate without understanding Karl Rove's view of the nation's political crossroads and the longer-term struggle between Democrats and Republicans to achieve a new governing majority. If you're convinced that Iraq is purely about national security, read no further. If you want to understand the full picture, let's go to the heart of darkness. The defining feature of American politics in recent years has been the remarkable parity between the two parties. You can't get closer than the presidential tie in 2000, not to mention the narrow majorities in Congress. Yet periods of closely divided power are unusual in America. Our system of government has generally favored the creation of effective majorities. Think of FDR and the New Deal coalition, which lasted from the 1930s until it gave way in the late 1960s under the strains of Vietnam and the backlash against civil rights. Ronald Reagan presided over a period of conservative power from 1980 to 1992. Most analysts view eras of closely divided power as periods in which one system of effective majority has broken down and the next system of effective majority has not yet come into being. In this view, the 1990s look transitional: Reagan's majority broke down, but Bill Clinton couldn't get Democrats to the promised land. In their important new book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," John Judis and Ruy Teixeira argue that long-term trends - in particular, the rise of suburban professional women, Latinos, and a white working class that feels economically insecure - favor the Democrats. Many Republicans think these trends favor Democrats, too. That's why George W. Bush, learning the lesson of Newt Gingrich, has always pretended to have a "compassionate" agenda. But Republican political consultants privately know the surest way to stem the Democratic drift is for the war on terror to become the master narrative of American politics. In their view, one of two things will happen in the next few years. In the first scenario, national security (and internal security) become the dominant issues in our politics, and Democrats, trusted less on these matters, revert to their minority status of the 1970s and 1980s. The other scenario is that the public tires of the struggle, or terrorism remains (thankfully) rare, or there's a decisive "victory" somehow. In this case Republican weaknesses on domestic problems come back into focus. These weaknesses were a problem in the 1990s but not fatal, in GOP eyes, because of the public's qualms about Bill Clinton's character. But under a less-vulnerable new leader, in this scenario, Democrats should be able to re-emerge as a "third way" majority party. As one conservative thinker said to me, "If the war on terrorism is not a big deal, it's hard to see the conservatives ever coming back." On the other hand, if the war on terrorism remains a big deal, the Democrats may split. One benefit of invading Iraq that conservatives speculate openly about is that it will tear the Democratic Party down the middle, as did Vietnam. A peace candidate in New Hampshire in 2004 is the new Republican fantasy. It turns out affirmative action and immigration were just the warm-up. Now war is the GOP's ultimate wedge issue. I'm not saying this is all that motivates the White House. But I have no doubt it is part of what motivates some powerful people near the president. Serious Republican thinkers believe the only way for their party to achieve a governing majority is for the theme of war to be dominant. This is a fact, and whatever else you may think of it, it's a little scary.
Another column from the same guy. I can't believe we'll be going into the 2004 elections without a "Code red" or some other crisis. MY "REPREHENSIBLE" SUSPICIONS ON IRAQ By Matthew Miller Tribune Media Services I know Dick Cheney finds it "reprehensible" that anyone could think the White House's timing on Iraq is politically inspired, but the administration has exhibited a pattern of behavior that (as Cheney rightly warns with Saddam) creates a context that raises extra concerns. What else should reasonable people make of these facts? - In June a floppy disk found in Lafayette Park across from the White House turned out to contain a Powerpoint presentation used by Karl Rove to detail the White House's strategy for the midterm elections. "Focus on war" was a key point in a talk that centered on the White House's desire to "maintain a positive issue environment." - Around this time Rove was upbraided (at least for PR reasons) after he told a Republican gathering that the war and terror themes and the associated military buildup could and should play to the Republicans' advantage in the midterm elections. - When White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was asked why the administration waited until after Labor Day to launch its campaign to convince the American people that military action against Iraq was necessary, Card replied: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." - Cheney's own language in dismissing political concerns on "Meet The Press" the other day was quite careful. He spoke of how he and the president have been "talking about Iraq for months," a formulation consistent with the possibility that they've been talking for months about fall being the right time to ratchet up public discussion. - A mere two months ago inquiries about Bush's past business practices, corporate scandals, the sagging economy and stock markets dominated the front page. A little Iraq invasion talk and - presto! - they're all gone, creating the "positive issue environment" Rove wanted. Every top media outlet has redirected manpower and managerial attention to the question of Iraq. It's worth noting how easy it is for a president to transform the political/media culture by invoking national security. - Lawmakers coming out of classified briefings in recent days say they don't understand Bush's urgency. According to the Washington Post, a senior GOP leader opined that if "top secret" information was not enough to sway Democrats and some Republicans here, "Bush would have trouble winning over a skeptical international audience." Let me offer the obvious but sincere caveats. It may well be that the cumulative threat of Saddam's activities require action, even invasion, very soon. The president's warning that this new era will require acts of preemption rings reasonable to anyone (including me) who thought Israel entirely justified in taking out Iraq's nuclear plant two decades ago. But a cynic might imagine a different scenario - one that should at least be on the table as events unfold. In this Stage Manage Events For Political Purposes Scenario, we'd see Bush and the GOP ride the benefit of today's calculated Iraq focus between now and November. Then, in a show of eminent reasonableness, Bush would agree to work first through the United Nations, which would authorize a resumption of inspections. Bush would allow these inspections a year to see whether they work, as any patient global statesman would. Then, just as the presidential campaign heats up in 2004, something will happen, and Bush will say that time has run out, that inspections have proven fruitless, that the danger is even closer than we thought, and the nation cannot wait. Another "positive issue environment," in other words, that would shift attention from the administration's budget deficits, economic mismanagement and bankrupt domestic agenda. Again, let me be clear because I know some people will misread this: It may be an entirely sound judgment that we need to act against Iraq because of imminent threats to U.S. security. Like every patriot, I'm ready if this is the case. I respect the experience of Messrs. Cheney, Powell and Rumsfeld and don't doubt their sense of duty and responsibility. And yet - is it just me? - I can't shake the suspicion that we'll be doing this again in 2004, when the real invasion is close at hand as Bush's reelection campaign looms. And Dick Cheney will again be calling questions of timing "reprehensible."
Are you sure? It sure doesn't sound like it when you'd accuse me of cynically supporting anybody. Your assertion directly assails my integrity. Don't insult me one sentence and then tell me how much you respect me in the next. Why don't I just knee you in the groin and then tell you how much I like you? I doubt that would get a warm and fuzzy response either. When did I not? It bothers me to the nth degree. This is the one thing in which I have bashed Bush. If you'll recall I said openly on this BBS that Bush's comments before were "disgusting." This is disgusting too. But it's not like Bush has the market cornered on playing politics with this. you admitted that the Dems are doing so as well. What you did not admit but is equally true is that the Dems who don't want to vote on the resolution before the break are playing politics with this just as much as Bush is. I disdain the behavior of BOTH SIDES on this issue. If Congress thinks it's wrong...VOTE IT DOWN. Then go back to the people and tell them why...and tell them you made a moral stance. THAT I will respect...but certainly not the BS that is being bantered around now. I back Bush not because I agree with all of his beliefs and tactics. I back Bush because I agree with him more often than not. I also disagreed with Bush regarding stem cell research...but I digress.
Rimrocker, thanks for this article. I heard about that disk on the radio, buy had yet to see anything about it in print. It is interesting that Refman does not seem to challenge the Republican political motivation of the urgent Iraqi focus before the elections.
Sorry to disappoint you Batman Jones, but despite your determination and persistence in running a smear campaign against our leader, in a time of war no less, Bush continues to enjoy 66% approval ratings. I'm sure the thousands of troops we have sacrificing their lives for your protection appreciate your shallow and misguided criticisms of their commander-in-chief. Under your theory history must be repeating itself. Bill Clinton decided to drop bombs on Iraq right after stories of cigars, interns, and the oval office broke out. Oh, but you chose to ignore that use of 'bringing a non-urgent military issue to the foreground, in a plain order to avoid domestic issues.' I'd expect nothing less than that type of hypocrisy from you.
Wow, wasn't it like 90% not long ago. Nothing beats following in the footsteps of Daddy. Oops, this is a time of war, I guess I shouldn't exercise my right of free speach.
why? so he can be personally criticized again? this is the problem with personal attacks like this...they tend to chill conversation quite quickly...in the original refman thread that batman refers to here, batman used the words "shameful" and "disgraceful" to describe refman's take on the issue...all the while saying, "but i respect you...i respect you...let's still be best buddies...of course, i will really be buddies with you if you agree with my politics" it's old and it's tired...and i imagine it's why refman hasn't responded directly to the real meat of the argument. if it were me, i would have walked a way a long time ago.
There is a big difference between exercising one's right to free speech and maliciously slandering the commander-in-chief of our military every chance you get. Batman's predictable, baseless attacks are truly a tired act.
Who's playing politics? Well, Gore, for one. 1991: “I want to state this clearly, President Bush should not be blamed for Saddam Hussein’s survival to this point. There was throughout the war a clear consensus that the United States should not include the conquest of Iraq among its objectives. On the contrary, it was universally accepted that out objective was to push Iraq out of Kuwait, and it was further understood that when this was accomplished, combat should stop.” 2002: “Back in 1991 I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s departure from the battlefield.” No. I believe it peaked at 82 percent, immediately after our course of action to attack terrorism was announced. And at that point, an inanimate carbon rod would have gotten 82 percent. I think it's telling that a year later, his approval ratings are still at 66 percent, and polls solidly indicate the voting populace thinks the Democratic opposition to military action in Iraq is a political ploy that they'll drop as soon as the elections are over.
Playing politics? HELLO, they're called POLITICIANS. It's what they do for a living. Their goal is to stay in power.
I don't see what's the big deal. People can sort out what's a wedge issue. Just choose your side. It's gonna fly or backfire. The US is in the unique historical position of sole superpower, with the power and influence to make war and dictate terms to present and future threats. Do we do it? Yes, that is a political question. The answer will depend in part on the case made to the nation.
It is pretty funny you used those quotes at 10:20 this morning because at 11:00 Rush used the exact same quotes on his show. I am going to e-mail him a link to this thread, he would love to see someone beating him to the punch.
Some might argue your point on merit, but I'll stick to perception and interpretation. You see Batman's perspective as incorrect, and as such you call it slander, and malicious...He sees it as correct, therefore he sees it as opinion. Slander is not relevant to matters of opinion, like whether or not a President is doing a good job, etc...What IS subject to the law is accusing someone else of a crime in print based on your own opinion...like, say, falsely accusing someone else of slander in print.....
I weigh about as much as one of Limbaugh's thighs, and yes, I know he's slimmed down considerably from his Pork Soda days.
