THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal


Thursday, January 19, 2006


Republicans to Break With Bush On Reasons for Iraq Invasion

Tommywonk this morning blogs on the The New York Times report that "a high level intelligence assessment" debunked the story of the sale of uranium ore to Iraq nearly eleven months before Bush's infamous "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address.

If this new reporting proves anything, it proves that the Bush regime's strategy of running out the clock is proving effective (at least in the short term) as each new story about how we were led into war on a pack of lies seems to get less and less attention in the "liberal" media.

But what about the long-term implications? As Tommy put it, "White House claims that Bush based his case for invading Iraq on errors made well down the chain of command of the intelligence community are even less credible than before."

This credibility gap will take a toll on every Republican running for office in '06 and '08. Republican's from Castle to McCain will either have to align themselves with Bush on Iraq and continue to pretend that the emperor has no clothes, or they will break with the President in order to establish some credibility of their own. Either way, this is a lose/lose situation for republicans up and down the ticket.

It is only a matter of time before someone like McCain or Gingrich send the first little bit of water over the dam.

Then, the deluge.
Bush is no principled conservative. Ultimately Bush is a dupe of the big-money interests, and they will abandon him as soon as they can get no more out of him. He has accomplished much of his mission already by cutting taxes for the rich, and by enlarging the national debt (which is a permanent engine for upward transfer of wealth).

If Congress had any balls, they'd require a declaration of war for future military adventurism and short-circuit all this "CINC is above the law" crap.

Having said that, kudos to Bush and CIA for the smoking crater where those AQ guys used to be in Pakistan.
It would not be a lose-lose. Bush is a lame duck. Breaking with him to establish independence would not hurt a candidate in any way, especially in moderate states. And most Democrats voted for the resolution, so a "flip-flop" charge wouldn't carry much weight.
Keep dreaming. If you don't think the "stay the course crowd" is not going to eneter into a civil war with the "Bush screwed up crowd" you are crazy.
I think you overestimate the power of a lame duck president over Congress. They, most likely, are going to be there in three years, after Bush is gone.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   May 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]