The Grey Lady gives us this further discussion and analysis of the President's press conference, wherein the President made it very clear that "the Democrat Party" wants to cut and run from Iraq, and, let's face it, if you vote for a Democrat in the mid-term elections, Osama bin Laden will personally follow you home and murder your children.
As we come up on the fifth anniversary of September 11, 2001, look for the fever pitch of this kind of argument-- which, when you look at it in the light I just presented it, is incredibily asinine. But, in substance, that's the argument. In practical terms, of course, the President runs foreign policy and the military; at this point, all Congress can provide is oversight and some level of accountability.
What the President (who famously said "I'm a uniter not a divider") means is that voters should irrationally fear the consequences of restoring checks and balances to the government, if they elect the opposition party to a majority in either house of Congress (let alone both), somewhat reminiscent of his lashing out earlier in the week at accountability from the judicial branch.
It really is as simple as that: his campaign for Republican control of Congress is based quite simply on that position: an accountable government, and the terrorists will win.
I suppose there are still people who fall for that sort of nonsense. By all means, they should vote Republican. For everyone else, this sort of appeal to baser fears and instincts has worn off. It's not even clear what effect the three or four "orange alert" terror scares between now and the election (by the way, this is the only country in the world that tells the terrorists how much we are paying attention so that they can best plan their attacks, if they were planning any), and the Zawahiri and OBL tapes we can expect in early and late October, respectively, will have on most people.
It sure looks like not even Diebold will be enough this time. Of course, I've been wrong before.
The only thing we have to fear is not fearing enough.
Posted by W Franklin D - 40 at August 22, 2006 11:31 PM
Not to mention the fact that a vote for an "accountable government" could also mean a vote to save thousands lives... but who wants that?!
Posted by The Wisdom Tooth at August 23, 2006 2:35 PM
I think you know better. Like it or not, whichever party wins in the next Presidential election (or even in November), they will be faced with the "you broke it, you bought it" doctrine. Regardless of the 20/20 hindsight, if we bail out in Iraq, more people will die than if we stay and bring some sembelence of stability. Sure, they may be in Israel and not U.S. Service people, but the fact remains, that an emboldend Iran and every terrorist group in the Middle East being victorious is going to bbe bad news everywhere. . . .even in France.
And don't even get me started with the Diebold comment.
Posted by RockRib at August 23, 2006 10:41 PM
Scroll down several posts and you will see that I have said that we is stuck in Iraq.,, regardless of party. NOT because of "we broke it we bought it" (well, actually... yes.)
We have destabilized the region. If we leave, we run a risk of chaos spilling over into Saudi and the Gulf States... which would, of course, send oil prices to the moon. As horrifying as the ongoing costs of staying in Iraq are, they pale in comparison to the economics of $150/bbl. oil.
As to Diebold, the issue isn't about the mechanics, it's the focus: Junior (unlike St. Ron and even Poppy) cares not one jot for governance, good or otherwise... HIS DEFINITION OF SUCCESS IS WINNING ELECTIONS, and the entire governmental apparatus is a public relations machine. Which, frankly, creates too many incentives at the margin for shortcuts... electoral or otherwise... but this has been nearly 6 years of nothing but shortcuts and gimmicks. Yes, the room looks clean, but we KNOW the closet is running out of room and the door will soon burst open... housing prices are the canary, and they are straining... the deficit ain't gettin' better, etc.
So, all that said, given that neither party can extricate us from Iraq-- and everybody knows it-- then what the President must be doing IS LYING THROUGH THIS TEETH, and worse, still juxtaposing 9-11 and Iraq at the very same moment he tells us they are unrelated. HE KNOWS it matters not if Dems or GOPers are elected to Congress: he has either party bound to some large presence in Iraq for the indefinite future. That's the way it is, as long as we are dependent on Saudi oil.
Scroll down to my Lakoff interview and you will see that this Iraq9-11 Iraq9-11 juxtaposition is quite intentional-- the human mind listens in big pictures, not details... and the bastard keeps doing it.
Posted by the talking dog at August 24, 2006 8:20 AM