Republicans in Panic over Iraq

[poskonig]

A very interesting turn of events has taken place over the last few weeks. The Republicans have always had trouble justifying the Iraq war. Previously, with the absence of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons of mass destruction, the case for war was changed and placed on a humanitarian basis. Hussein was a very evil person, Iraqis love America, and we occupied Iraq for the greater goods of free markets, civil liberties, and democratic government. Nevertheless, many Americans agreed the war was the right thing to do.

However, over recent weeks, it has become apparent that the planning for this national reconstruction project simply was not there. Iraq's infrastructure remains a mess, unemployment is at extremely high levels, and many Iraqis are seething with anger. Given our troops were more prepared for combat operations than peacekeeping duties, mistakes with dealing the Iraqi people, often fatal, have added to our problems. And with the people who can help us out -- Russia, France, China, along with the United Nations being bashed daily by the Republicans, it is clear we will not be getting additional troops and reconstruction funds while Bush remains in office.

These facts have changed the Republican attitude towards the war. When one talks with the rank'n'file now, the attitude is extremely bitter. Many lash out at liberals, as if they are somehow responsible for Republican failures. Others are angry with the Iraqis themselves, desiring military operations against them. Some even go as far to suggest carpet-bombing civilians in Tikrit and Fallujah, effectively waging genocide against the Iraqis.

This leads to a sharp and bitter contradiction. If the war was not about weapons of mass destruction, and was not about the well being of the Iraqi people, as the "kill'm all sentiment" indicates, what was the war about? The logical dissonance explains the emotional outbursts of many conservatives, who will, sooner or later, have to stop idiotic, mythological, nationalistic chest thumping and come to terms with the stark reality that confronts them in the present.

Otherwise, they will be in a political situation of their own creation they cannot win. And if the recent consumer spending numbers are indicative of anything, Republicans aren't going to have any legs to stand on next summer.

I love kicking these guys while they're down, btw.

[hang a left]

1. Great post!

I was thinking while I was reading. Wouldn't it be great if one of our candidates or even Clinton had some meetings with Russian, French and the Chinese, and could get them to commit to help, once the current administration was gone.

[julka]

11. you mean like Perle did in Israel in 2000?

that would be called treason, yknow, if a dem did it

[Zorra]

12. That is an awesome thought.

What a slap in the face that would be to the crime family, and a benefit to the Dems.

[acmavm]

2. They wont' have a political leg to stand on by next summer? Actually,

I think that the game was lost before the first bomb was dropped. The only people fooled by the Bush administration we those that were too damn lazy to think. I recall predictions of all this chaos before that sneak attack to try to take out Saddam and his boys before the 48 hour warning had expired. That action was the first of many proofs of how bad their intelligence was.

But just out of curiousity, what political grounds do you think they still have to maintain this farce? Just asking because I think they lost the fight for credibility a long time ago. No Al Quaeda connection (pre-war), no WMDs, nothing.

[qanda]

3. Very interesting

Do you have a link for this?

[lcordero]

4. anytime they bring up the word "humanitarian"

I point out Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan and his role in the "coalition of the willing"...it really upsets them.

[jiacinto]

5. Here is the other fact

OBL remains at large too and the situation in Afghanistan continues to detioriorate. The American public has been patient up until now, but there is going to come a time when they will tire of these wars. And unless Bush achieves a major milestone--capturing OBL and Saddam Hussein--he is eventually going to have to fact tough questions.

[Resistance Is Futile]

6. Two words: October Surprise

Bet on bin Laden or Saddam Hussein (or at least convincing body doubles of either) turning up either in custody or dead in October or before.

Also expect PNAC to resume the 7 nations campaign to make the Middle East safe for Israeli expansion at just the right time for the idiot king to ride a patriotism wave through the election season.

[lcordero]

7. Nah

The nation is pretty much immune to another "October Surprise". The comment that I heard the most when the Hussein brothers were "killed" was "this is the umpteen time that they are "killed"". The public is very cynical now there is nothing that can save * now.
An "October Surprise" will only serve to infuriate the public because its going to be viewed as an insult to the public's intelligence.

[charlie]

8. Even Iraqi Salam Pax is expecting an October Surprise

My cousin,after his 3rd beer, is the smartest person on this planet.

For some reason we started talking about whether Bush will have another term on the big chair in the White House. I thought he's out because of all the trouble in Iraq. My cousin puts down his beer and tells me that I am a fool, because:

"Bush is the Devil himself, and you can't beat a Shaitan. Saddam will magically appear in cuffs two months before the elections and American soldiers will be at their homes partying by New Year's. The ground will start spitting up WMD's and al-Qaeda links the moment he touches the ground with his nose, and he will be the next american president".

he puts his beer down and tells me my tuna salad is the worst ever.

http://dearraed.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_dear_raed_archive.html#106655653045086921

[proud patriot]

9. Good they should be , They fucked up ...Big Time n/t

[goforit]

10. As Forest Gump once said..."Stupid is what stupid does"..........

The GOP MOTTO

Mass murderers!!!!!!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. True. But if we nominate Dean the country will stick with Bush

Only Clark or Kerry offer a competent, militarily informed CiC who can take over the reigns.
Dean's "The U.S. will not always be the strongest nation in the world militarily" will be dragged out as just one of the many disqualifiers against him. That and his theoretical 'NO' on IRW.
Whether or not the economy improves, it is clear that Dean offers no advantage to Americans in foreign policy or national security.

[Scott Lee]

14. Gephardt practically handed Bush his war

This moron's lack of courage and inaction helped President War put the nation in it's current position. Gephardt is the natural one to "take over the reigns" of such a disaster, I'll grant you that.

[screembloodymurder]

15. Unfortunately, we're going down with them.

Our country is suffering a huge loss; world opinion will drag down our diplomatic standing and those large deficits will drag down our currency. Every American will pay for Bush's half-baked foreign policy.