It's the economy stupid
It seems the warbloggers are the only one's who haven't figured out why Dubya is so anxious to go to war, or as George might put it fool a warblogger once ha ha ha fool a warblogger again ha ha ha again. It's the economy stupid. Without a war Dubya would lose control of congress, American's would discover how bad things really are domestically, not only does he murder the English Language, but he is murdering the country. A war helps him keep political control. Two articles from Salon the second requiring a paid subscription make essentially the same point.
Iraq: The phantom menace
By Robert Scheer
Now we know just how vicious Saddam Hussein can be. Agreeing to unconditional United Nations inspections at a time when our president had his heart set on war is just the sort of mean-spirited treachery that one can expect from this modern-day Hitler.
The only greater betrayal will be if it turns out, upon inspection, that Iraq is not still building weapons of mass destruction and has no nuclear capability after all.
Still, we must go to war or voters might start focusing on the dismal state of the economy under George W. Bush's stewardship and return a Democratic Congress in the November elections, right? Fortunately for Bush, arguments over Iraq now dominate water-cooler talk, rather than group commiseration over our Incredible Shrinking 401Ks -- but that can change.
What if people start asking about that miraculous tax cut that Bush made the centerpiece of his domestic program and that now has left the national accounts once again floating in red ink? The failure of inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction would make it appear that Bush has been using Iraq as a scapegoat for his own domestic problems.
Joe Conason's Journal
Why are we going to war in Iraq?
The question that tore America apart long after Congress passed the seemingly innocuous Tonkin Gulf resolution -– What is the purpose of this bloody conflict? -– must be answered now about the Bush administration's rapid drive toward war in Iraq. At the risk of alienating those on both sides of the debate, I have to say that so far, only a single convincing rationale for the president's policy has been argued
According to the best estimates, Iran's nuclear program is more threatening, and North Korea's missile program is much more advanced -- yet there seems to be no immediate imperative for "regime change" in those countries.
Nobody believes Iraq can build an atomic bomb, or construct a long-range ballistic missile, between now and Election Day. That leaves us with the last, most plausible reason for the Bush team's sudden decision to press for war: because it is the best way to mobilize public opinion behind the president and his domestic political objectives, notably preserving his party's strength on Capitol Hill.
Comments
With a 70% approval rating of the American public, I highly doubt he needs a war to maintain the nation's ear.
You wanna talk about a guy running scared? How about Daschle, Gephardt, Clinton, etc. waiting until September to introduce the continuing problems of Prescription medication, education reform, drought relief (something that's already part of the existing farm bill), and people who make minimum wage not begin able to afford a home (sorry, but when could they ever afford a home?). This is the agenda of someone who's scared to lose their foothold.
Oh, and I don't know about you, but my 401k doubled last year. And it wasn't because my company suddenly started kicking in more money. Maybe because I was smart enough to manage it properly?
It's hard to take anything from Salon seriously these days. Sure everyone has their biases, but frankly they have given up all auspices of being fair.
Addendum to 2:
The Democrats have had the majority long enough to deal with all of these and have done nothing. Their focus on "domestic issues" to the exclusion of dealing with threats to our national security is what put us in the situation we are in today.
The reason he has the 70% rating is the war talk. No war people start focusing on the economy ratings fall. Nothing like a little fear to keep the troops in line.
Your right the democrats are running scared they see Bush keeping the focus off domestic politics to their detriment. When have they ever been able to afford a home. Don't you think in the richest nation in the world someone at minimum wage should be able to afford housing. I do.
Your 401k doubled last year. Great, nice to hear that not everyone got screwed. The fact is that the average loss of value was 30% (thats off the top of my head) so it's clear the economy is suffering. If the economy is doing well everyone makes some money some just more than others.
It's hard to take Salon seriously. Salon just published stories by two individuals. Conason arguably not a liberal. Address their specific arguments, not the person. Thats why ad hominem arguments are considered fallacious. Discounting the source but not addressing the substance of the argument is a problem.
I don't think that Iraq is currently a threat to our national security. What the Democrats did or didn't do doesn't alter that.
Thanks for the visit Vinny always nice to hear from you.
It isn't scare talk. It's what people want. You can't chalk all 70% up to war talk. I know you'd like to, but you can't. People like this President, and it just drives people crazy
When the issues that are dogging the economy and killing citizens aren't brought up until the election when the party bringing them up could have control of the agenda and didn't take it for years, it's a blatant election ploy. Scare tactics? Sure... Daschle standing in front of charts saying how bad the economy is since Bush took over (mind you 8 months in he had the worst catastrophe a President has ever had to deal with that quickly) which DEVASTATED our economy. Top it off with years of corporate fraud that flourished under a Democratic President, and you have the makings of an economic downturn.
My point is my 401k made money because I made it make money, not because the economy was doing well, which it obviously isn't. People can't just leave their money to others and need to take an active role in their own retirement accounts. Plain and simple.
If the Weekly world news argued Osama bin Laden was meeting with Space aliens, would I have to take them seriously? No. Salon leans so heavily left that they'll publish anything against President Bush, regardless of its validity. Especially when it's an argument that's already been made 1000 times over.
Point is, the same Democrats that say that now were not saying it in 1998. He was a threat when the UN inspectors left in 1998, no one has been there in 4 years, and suddenly he's not a threat? NO one can make that case make sense. The truth of the matter is that no one knows what he has or doesn't have. But the fact that we had inspectors there and people like "Lies across America" Ritter resigned over the inability of inspectors to do their job, prove that he is most definitely a threat to our national security. We've let him get away with thumbing his nose at the UN for 12 years. Why is no one willing to enforce the Security Council resolutions all of a sudden?
Always good to visit, and hopefully, I've done a better job of answering your points than the warbloggers... :-)
respone to Vinny's comments:
1. It isn't scare talk. It's what people want. You can't chalk all 70% up to war talk. I know you'd like to, but you can't. People like this President, and it just drives people crazy
Yes it is, and yes I can. You forget the Left is right and the Right is wrong, or on this blog the Right is left out. You are right that it drives me crazy.
2. When the issues that are dogging the economy and killing citizens aren't brought up until the election when the party bringing them up could have control of the agenda and didn't take it for years, it's a blatant election ploy. Scare tactics? Sure... Daschle standing in front of charts saying how bad the economy is since Bush took over (mind you 8 months in he had the worst catastrophe a President has ever had to deal with that quickly) which DEVASTATED our economy. Top it off with years of corporate fraud that flourished under a Democratic President, and you have the makings of an economic downturn.
Both Republicans and Democrats bullshit about the economy it is a complicated issue, I don't think 9/11 accounts for the state of the economy although it was certainly a factor. Spending billions on Nation Building will come back to bite us in the butt in the future. I remember Johnson's spending during the 60's and the aftermath of that.
3. My point is my 401k made money because I made it make money, not because the economy was doing well, which it obviously isn't. People can't just leave their money to others and need to take an active role in their own retirement accounts. Plain and simple.
When the economy is stagnant making or losing money becomes a zero sum game for every person who gains there is someone somewhere losing the same amount. Individuals may be sucessfull, you apparently were, but the point is that even if everyone made the very best decision they could there would still be winners and losers and no net gain.
4. If the Weekly world news argued Osama bin Laden was meeting with Space aliens, would I have to take them seriously? No. Salon leans so heavily left that they'll publish anything against President Bush, regardless of its validity. Especially when it's an argument that's already been made 1000 times over.
If they presented the aliens and they related the contents of the meeting, bin Laden confirmed it and Dubya said yep I talked to them too, you are damn right you would have to take them seriously.
5. Point is, the same Democrats that say that now were not saying it in 1998. He was a threat when the UN inspectors left in 1998, no one has been there in 4 years, and suddenly he's not a threat? NO one can make that case make sense. The truth of the matter is that no one knows what he has or doesn't have. But the fact that we had inspectors there and people like "Lies across America" Ritter resigned over the inability of inspectors to do their job, prove that he is most definitely a threat to our national security. We've let him get away with thumbing his nose at the UN for 12 years. Why is no one willing to enforce the Security Council resolutions all of a sudden?
The fact that the inspectors left is not proof that he is a threat. In fact you say a couple of sentences before that no one knows what he has or doesn't have. (I'm sorry for the following but I must "abscence of evidence is sometimes evidence of abscence.") It is probably evidence that there were things he didn't want them to see. I think Saddam wants to remain in power and that is a very strong motivation for him to refrain from any activity that would cause him to lose power i.e. launching a chemical or biological attack against Israel. Why hasn't the UN sought enforcment of resolutions Israel ignores. Politics of course everyone wants others to follow the rule of law, but think they should be excused.
Always good to visit, and hopefully, I've done a better job of answering your points than the warbloggers... :-)
Thank you for the visit and indeed you've done a better job than the warbloggers, when name calling is absent, people take the time to read what you say and that is always better.
My only response to anything you said:
"The fact that the inspectors left is not proof that he is a threat."
I never said it was. However, when they left, the general consensus was that they didn't see all they wanted to see, they didnt' do all they wanted to do, and that the Security Council had become more of an Iraq complaint department than an organization whose interest was discovering what if any weapons exist in the country... Since no one has been in Iraq since 1998, I find it hard to fathom people not wanting to get over there and turn over every rock in the interests of finding the truth, and if necessary kick the doors in to do so..
No name calling, just good political debate. :-)
It realy is a real shame that we actually have people in this country who cannot see the forest for the trees. President Bush is without a dought the worst president this land has ever had to endure. His demestic policys stink they provide for the rich and could care less about the common man. Thats always bugged me about politicians, republicans especially, how in the hell do they think they got where their at. Do they think God looked down on them and figured they wre so special he would bestow them with everything there little hearts desired. This current administration is so bad people ought to have him and half of his party ousted from there job. Its' clear to at least most of the United States,that he nor his cabinet give a damn about the wellfare of this nation.
Nicely put Tony. A good number of them think they are special since they can steal from their country and not get caught.
President George Bush wins the one and only award for being the biggest no brains numb nuts president that ever existed, in this country or any other. (AKA NUMB NUTS BUSH)!!!!! HEY STUPID REMEMBER THE AMERICAN ECONOMY! YOU KNOW THE DAMN COUNTRY WHERE YOU LIVE DUMB ASS!!!!!!