Does Bush Wag The Dog?

[heidi]

It is dangerous for an American president to launch a
military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude
he acted only out of narrow self-interest... Perceptions that the
American president is less interested in the global consequences than
in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a
further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in
conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached.

That's from the Wall Street Journal back in 1998, and it was in an
editorial they wrote about Clinton's bombing of Iraq that fall, just
before the House started impeachment proceedings against him. The
quote was one of many in an article in Slate Magazine
which showcased various "Wag The Dog" allegations.

So why do I find this so ironic today?

It's because of an article today in the LA Times which reports, "The
Bush administration will delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in
Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration
officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect
the U.S. presidential race."

Now, here's a quote that's pretty presumptive about the results of the
election - "When this election's over, you'll see us move very
vigorously." That's what one senior administration official is quoted
as saying - he said it under a promise that he'd remain anonymous. In
other words, the article goes on, top officials are untilling to sign
off on any new/further offenses right now.

But here's the problem with this delay - the reporter notes that a
"delay in pacifying Iraq's most troublesome cities, could alter the
dynamics of a different election: the one in January, when Iraqis are
to elect members of a national assembly. U.S. commanders are
scrambling to enable voting in as many Iraqi cities as possible."

So Bush, it seems, is less interested in the consequences for Iraq of
holding off on having any additional or new offenses against the
insurgents, and, I assume, the terrorists, than he is in maintaining
his own power.

Ya think the WSJ thinks he should be impeached?

Also, I'm now a security mom for kerry/edwards. See my statement here (about halfway
down, as of the now).

Comments

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

Gee, a hypocritical, self-serving politician...who'd a thunk it. He should have been impeached when he lied to us about the reasons to go to war or the fake documents he used in his State of the Union or...guess you have to get caught with your zipper down to get impeached in D.C. Good thing he hasn't got anyone killed.

[ashkitty.livejournal.com]

That is...comforting. Thank you for the link. The whole 'security mom' thing had me pretty upset, when I first heard it on the Diane Rehm show one morning.

[didi75.livejournal.com]

Right, Bush is afraid of the duration and costs of any offensive in Iraq before the election. Something could go wrong and more American soldiers could die. I haven't read a lot about Bush's specific reasons, but it sounds like political forces are driving his decisions in Iraq. Not a big surprise.

After the whole Clinton impeachment trial, tons of political scientists did studies on the diversionary politics of war (i.e. wag the dog). Mainly because of the media buzz. So it seems Bush is trying to avoid bad press from (1) the wag the dog watchhounds and (2) the possibility of something going horribly wrong in Iraq before the election.

About the Security Moms, I thought that the testimonials were so heartfelt and convincing that I'm seriously thinking about sending a few out to friends (who are Republican security Moms). I know I can't really change their minds, and they know my politics are much different from theirs, but it kills me to see so many women support Bush because they think he's "tuff" on terror. The Moms on that site expressed my feelings so much better than I could have. It almost made me want to cry...I think I'm just overly emotional right now. ):

[no-remorse.livejournal.com]

I consider this whole situation fairly ironic, considering that a few people believe that the whole Iraq war is a Wag the Dog situation. I am not sure whether I agree with those people, but all domestic issues and their overall absence from the media considered - the employment situation, the economy, the deficit, the re-teachings of sex ed ("Abstinence is the only way, no never heard of condoms."), the Patriot Act and its consequences, the environment issues, Cheney and Haliburton etc etc etc - one could say that it worked. Although probably not in the way the Bush administration wanted it.

[(Anonymous)]

So Bush, it seems, is less interested in the consequences for Iraq of holding off on having any additional or new offenses against the insurgents, and, I assume, the terrorists, than he is in maintaining
his own power.

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/04285/393827.stm

"During his recent trip to Washington, Allawi expressed his interest in reclaiming insurgent-controlled cities in the Sunni Triangle in time for the January election.

Yet officials say the man who owes his job to President Bush -- and who might not have such a warm relationship with a President John F. Kerry -- does not want to press his case too hard before the U.S. election in November."

It's not just Bush's decision.