Premise: We find substantial WMD in Iraq. What do Dems Do?
I've been asking this for awhile and wondering about it as well. I haven't heard much feedback on it.
With all the recent Democratic criticism and the "Where are the Weapons" echo chamber, what happens if we find large quantities of Chemcial or Biological Weapons? Or say, an underground biowweapons plant? Or something worse...like weapons grade plutonium?
Almost all of the Democratic Presidential candidates have attacked Bush on this issue. The front runner, Kerry (joined by Gephardt) is now attacking Bush as well, essentially calling him a liar. Dean has said the thing is starting to look like Watergate. It's not going away, as jimmac says. But, that might not be a good thing for the Democratic Party.
So, it occurs to me that if Bush is proven right as he says he will be, things are going to be very, very bad for the Democratic candidate. It has also occurred to me, as I'm sure it has to many here, that the entire WMD thing may just indeed be a politcal trap of sorts set by the President. If he is called a liar enough, and then is poven right, it will be devastating to the opposition. More importantly, it will affect the 2004 Congressional elections as well. Bush will look invincible if WMD is found at this point...perhaps even more so than he would have if it became public within days of the war.
Don't forget that Bush, by his own statement, understands "political capital". He is far more cunning and savy than his opposition gives him credit for. If WMD are found in substantial quantity...he'll use it at the right time.
Thoughts? And please, let's ATTEMPT to stay on topic.
With all the recent Democratic criticism and the "Where are the Weapons" echo chamber, what happens if we find large quantities of Chemcial or Biological Weapons? Or say, an underground biowweapons plant? Or something worse...like weapons grade plutonium?
Almost all of the Democratic Presidential candidates have attacked Bush on this issue. The front runner, Kerry (joined by Gephardt) is now attacking Bush as well, essentially calling him a liar. Dean has said the thing is starting to look like Watergate. It's not going away, as jimmac says. But, that might not be a good thing for the Democratic Party.
So, it occurs to me that if Bush is proven right as he says he will be, things are going to be very, very bad for the Democratic candidate. It has also occurred to me, as I'm sure it has to many here, that the entire WMD thing may just indeed be a politcal trap of sorts set by the President. If he is called a liar enough, and then is poven right, it will be devastating to the opposition. More importantly, it will affect the 2004 Congressional elections as well. Bush will look invincible if WMD is found at this point...perhaps even more so than he would have if it became public within days of the war.
Don't forget that Bush, by his own statement, understands "political capital". He is far more cunning and savy than his opposition gives him credit for. If WMD are found in substantial quantity...he'll use it at the right time.
Thoughts? And please, let's ATTEMPT to stay on topic.
Comments
But in the end I don't think that it really makes much difference to the American voting public. The US has moved hard to the right, from my perspective, over the past 20 years. Heck, even a right-wing democrat like Clinton (and the Dems were already pretty right-wing) was pilloried for being too liberal.
Bush will get reelected in any case.
I hope I have not strayed too far from topic.
Originally posted by SDW2001
...the entire WMD thing may just indeed be a politcal trap of sorts set by the President.
This would be easy to set up. Just pay off one scientist to show up with a cabinet full of documents and said program is found. It's just the reality of the situation.
I know it's what you're hoping for, because it would 'clean the slate' so to speak, but wouldn't it bother your morals if it were the case? Or is 'winning' all you would care about in this scenario? Just curious.
Two aspects of this current situation that favors the Dems. One is that a seed of doubt has already been planted. The next few months will decide if that spreads to more areas or is limited and dies on its own. If the doubt spreads across multiple accounts and areas, magically finding something still might not be enough to sway the swing voters. They're too cynical.
The other is the Brits. Any investigation over there is going to shed light on certain situations that Bush might otherwise have kept quite. They might poke holes in his ship if there was any wrongdoing.
what happens if there is a republican challenge?
don't think for one minute mccain wouldn't like to even the score and pounce on a wounded administration. what is it six or seven months to the first primary? that's how long they have to right the ship.
i think they'll still find WoMD, but i don't think it will really hurt the Dems at all at this stage. frankly they have every reason to want more info, more proof of what we said we'd find.
at best you're talking about a situation where (if played right) you just have the democratic party saying "where's the proof" if it shows up, they can easily say "wonderful, now we know that this whole war thing was on the right grounds".
the only thing they need to be careful of is to not drop into an attact based questioning. come across as inquiring and finding WoMD is just the answer to a question. come across as attacking and WoMD will be a serious slap to the face.
as it stands, they look to come off as the more rational party. you can be wrong w/o being stupid or embarassed.
Originally posted by bunge
This would be easy to set up. Just pay off one scientist to show up with a cabinet full of documents and said program is found. It's just the reality of the situation.
I think this is fair indication of a terminally narrow-sighted mindset on this issue. SDW2001 presents a scenario, and then bunge gives the impression that the only way this scenario can happen is by dishonest means (rather than it simply happening).
Quote:
I know it's what you're hoping for, because it would 'clean the slate' so to speak, but wouldn't it bother your morals if it were the case? Or is 'winning' all you would care about in this scenario? Just curious.
Where in the discussion is it pertinent what SDW2001 is "hoping" for? Is it also not a bit arrogant for you to presume what you think SDW2001 is "hoping" for? Then by asserting that he is "hoping" for such a cover-up, you question his morals for "hoping" for it (wherein SDW2001 has yet to make any clear statement that he is hoping for a cover-up exactly as you describe). Then you take a final jab, asserting that since he seemingly wishes for a cover-up, and it evidently does not bother his morals, he must only care about "winning" no matter what the scenario or the consequences (except you word it as a question so as to not seem too accusing, if that is even possible at this point).
The rest of SDW2001's premise seems to have been summarily ignored, in exchange for your own scenario which describes the voters as only becoming further disenfranchised with doubt. What SDW2001 was asking was will there be a backlash for Democratic candidates who have attacked Bush on this issue, given that SDW2001's scenario does come to bear. I think the right term is "attacked". If they simply were pushing for further and prompt disclosure from the Bush administration, there wouldn't be a problem (I think we all want this). However, it seems they have already made their mind up that he was lying and elaborate deception was involved, and thus the ensuing attacks on presidential competence. Thus the potential for backlash is very great, if the evidence does surface. You can't have it both ways. You can't veraciously accuse the president of lying, but then suffer no backlash once it appears he has not. Similarly, you won't make up much popularity ground by sidestepping the accusations of "lying". So you roll the dice...
FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR.
that's why i maintain that someone not seen right now is president bush's achilles heal.
so i think to be fair to randycat, no. no democrat (that has announced his or her candidacy) will beat the president if WoMD'S are found.
but there are so many other ways president bush can lose.
Hmm.
Originally posted by groverat
I remember being told that Bush WILL plant WMD if they aren't found.
Hmm.
not by me.
at the same time, have at least two contenders take the more laid back approach. that way you can capitalize on the best of both worlds. the only issue would be that at least one canidate would have to be willing to sacrifice themselves in the case that WoMD are found. their canidacy would be over. but in the case that by the time the primary is ready to begin no WoMD have been found, they'll have gained ground for being a "no nonsense" style canidate.
of course they could then be seriously torpedoed by a WoMD find, but politics is full of risk.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Then you take a final jab, asserting that since he seemingly wishes for a cover-up...
Sorry, he wishes for a WMD find, not a coverup.
Do you remember writing this?
Originally posted by bunge
This would be easy to set up. Just pay off one scientist to show up with a cabinet full of documents and said program is found. It's just the reality of the situation.
Nice try, though.
Originally posted by Randycat99
No, no, no- you insinuated there would be a "plant" (thus a "cover-up"). He suggested there would be a "find".
...
Nice try, though.
Don't be a condescending ass. Look at the piece I quoted. That's what I'm referring to. Yes my original text is unclear. That's why I reiterated.
Don't be a condescending ass.
Originally posted by bunge
Don't be a condescending ass. Look at the piece I quoted. That's what I'm referring to. Yes my original text is unclear. That's why I reiterated.
Don't be a condescending ass.
Oh, it's just me being an ass...
Originally posted by SDW2001
I've been asking this for awhile and wondering about it as well. I haven't heard much feedback on it.
With all the recent Democratic criticism and the "Where are the Weapons" echo chamber, what happens if we find large quantities of Chemcial or Biological Weapons? Or say, an underground biowweapons plant? Or something worse...like weapons grade plutonium?
Almost all of the Democratic Presidential candidates have attacked Bush on this issue. The front runner, Kerry (joined by Gephardt) is now attacking Bush as well, essentially calling him a liar. Dean has said the thing is starting to look like Watergate. It's not going away, as jimmac says. But, that might not be a good thing for the Democratic Party.
So, it occurs to me that if Bush is proven right as he says he will be, things are going to be very, very bad for the Democratic candidate. It has also occurred to me, as I'm sure it has to many here, that the entire WMD thing may just indeed be a politcal trap of sorts set by the President. If he is called a liar enough, and then is poven right, it will be devastating to the opposition. More importantly, it will affect the 2004 Congressional elections as well. Bush will look invincible if WMD is found at this point...perhaps even more so than he would have if it became public within days of the war.
Don't forget that Bush, by his own statement, understands "political capital". He is far more cunning and savy than his opposition gives him credit for. If WMD are found in substantial quantity...he'll use it at the right time.
Thoughts? And please, let's ATTEMPT to stay on topic.
It wouldn't surprise me if weapons are planted to save political face. Of course, that's just my cynical side talking and I would be suspicious of either party who has the power of doing so.
This isn't really as much of an issue as people think. It was a terrible mistake if there weren't WMD there. And the press and Dems are acting acordingly since AS OF YET there hasn't been conclusive proof. I would not be surprised if there is WMD we haven't found yet. I mean so far they've done a great job hiding Sadam, and we haven't found bin Laden either. Doesn't say much for our intelligence...
Maybe we should call Crocodile Dundee in to help us track 'em down?
alcimedes that's depressing. I was kind of hoping McCain would back for another bout. He's the man! And that's coming from leftist nuttie hippy.
edit-there should be a 68k filter. bunge I think is on to something. Our administration with all of its black ops funding has at least the capacity to plant WMD.
ascivious means or not?
Not unless they're going to dress the nukes up all sexy like in thongs...:P
It wouldn't surprise me if weapons are planted to save political face.
Such a "smoking gun" would be impossible to plant, too many people would have to know about it for it to work on foreign soil. Small amounts of evidence could work, similar to the stuff found few weeks ago, but as we've learned that is very debatable, but then again evidence is always debatable.
PS. Bottomline is that we won't ever know anything for sure unless we magically become part of the top rung of the political spectrum. All we can do is hope that this mess turns out for the best and vote.
Just like intelligence. You don´t ask them to lie. You ask for a best and worst case senario. Then you ask for a even worser case senario and then you only present that.
Keine Hexerei nur Behändigkeit
Originally posted by FUBUiMacIZbACK
mooveon.org
misleedar.org
da tooth iz out thea
I BELIVE EVERY SINGAL WORD UV IT
RAIZE UP BROS.
Will somebody please shut him up?