Wednesday, September 24, 2003

The Tipping Point On Iraq Here is an interesting article from the Boston Globe, addressing the implications of Bush's request for $87 billion, and how that may have crystallized opposition to the Iraq war. This isn't discussed in the article, but I wonder if the reason for that is just the clarity of the request.  After all, it's hard to know who to believe regarding events leading up to and taking place in the war.  Was the war a success?  A failure?  Necessary, or based on cooked intelligence?  A lot of that depends on point of view, and perhaps on partisanship. But there's not a lot that's ambiguous, or needs to be interpreted, about an $87 billion dollar request.  Democrats who were against the war see it as a waste, as the chickens coming home to roost for Bush.  And traditional fiscal conservatives, who were already squeamish about Bush's proclivity for big government and deficit spending, took a hard line on the request as well. As the Globe article says, this now makes Iraq real to a whole host of Americans who perhaps viewed it as a "political" event that they were not connected to before.  Most telling: the Gallup Poll indicates that 57 percent in the Pew survey said they were willing to freeze Bush's tax cuts rather than sacrifice any domestic programs to foot the Iraq bill. Man, if that's not a recipe for disaster, I don't know what is.  The public, moreso than I would have imagined, has latched onto the pricetag of Iraq, and not just the rightness or wrongness of it, or even the lethality of our continued occupation there.  This poll suggests even that people are not willing to blindly support the President in the War on Terror if it means that the bill and cuts associated with it will be too big. In light of that, wouldn't you think the tone in future addresses to the U.N. would be just a little different?  Because if this poll is right, the biggest issue going forward is that big, bad number: $87 Billion.  And if Bush can't find a way to make that number come down? Trouble. And naturally, that $87 billion is only a downpayment.  Expect that chorus to get very loud as we get closer to November, 2004. 3:03:01 PM    Say what?[]

Bush and the UN Well, Bush spoke at the UN yesterday, a speech that he reportedly had prepared for for a number of days.  This was the best he could come up with? Here's a little tour of what some of the various news outlets, some partisan, some not, are saying about it. The Washington Post is puzzled, more than anything.  They see Bush in a tough spot, needing UN cooperation to fix a problem largely of his own making, but facing a conservative base that is deeply skeptical of UN involvement. The NY Times writes extensively about the UN General Assembly's reaction, which they called "icy".  And why wouldn't it be?  The U.S. condescends to the UN, blows the UN off, finds no weapons, then comes back hat in hand and not the least bit contrite, nor willing to cede any oversight power?  All this when the UN knows that Bush's ratings are in free fall, and that the CBO has publicly said that the U.S. can't maintain the current force in Iraq beyond next spring?  It's moments like this when I just never know what to think about this Administration.  Is it that they don't want the UN's help, and are trying intentionally to alienate them for some larger gain?  I don't see how that could be, given the money and force realities they are facing now.  Or is it that they are just so arrogant, and so delusional, that they think they can just strongarm the UN the way they did Florida in 2000?  I think it's the latter, but either way, it's scary, scary stuff.  Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo is following up on the notion that Bush's speech was primarily for domestic consumption, since little that was said was new to the delegates.  That domestic focus might also account for the tough tone, rather than the conciliatory one, though I don't think the group in charge would know a conciliatory tone if they heard it.  But Marshall interestingly picks up on one example of that domestic focus, Bush's call for an "anti-proliferation resolution".  Turns out, that apparently was just put in by the speechwriters, and the U.S. or British policymakers had heard nothing of it till the speech.  (Sound familiar?)  Of course, there are already resolutions that cover anti-proliferation, so this was strictly window-dressing for people here at home, to give the appearance that we are trying to work it out with that incorrigible UN. Fox News seems to think it all went pretty well, and paints a picture that France, Germany and Russia are all coming around to the U.S. requests.  There is also an article headlined "Iraqis Criticize Bush's Speech To U.N.", but the gist of that article is that the conditions in Iraq are really bad right now.  Which is very much in conflict with this other headline on Fox News, citing a Gallup Poll: "Poll: Baghdad Residents Glad Saddam Is Gone".  But much like the Zogby Poll that Sean and I discussed last week, there are other responses that show a very mixed Iraq, such as the fact that 47% of those polled think Iraq is worse off than it was before, compared to 33% who think it is better.  And just for the record, Fox News hasn't cited the Zogby Iraq poll, either... I guess I'm not sure what the endgame is for Bush.  Iraq is still muddy, with the election nearly a year away.  Things should get better between now and then, at least in terms of violence against U.S. troops on the ground there.  And we should be able to transfer at least some democratic authority to Iraqis in that time. But will we be able to lessen our troop deployment?  Will we be able to get some financial aid from these other countries?  Because if we can't get those two things, I'm not sure how Bush is going to solve his other problem, the economy.  I suppose you could just pretend that the deficit doesn't matter at all, but considering how much of the conservative base won't buy that, and that the Dems can now take a lot of credit for being the budget balancers around town, I would think a massive deficit that will grow substantially larger to pay for Iraq won't go unnoticed in a campaign. All of which seems to mean that Bush getting U.N. cooperation is an important part of his reelection campaign.  So why the adversarial tone and unwillingness to play ball?  Maybe they are just driving a hard bargain, but it's hard to see what capital or leverage Bush has at this point with the U.N. And finally, as I look at the timeline relative to the elections, I can't help but think: It's going to be cutting it awfully close, in terms of getting Iraq and the economy stabilized before the election starts in earnest next year.  Very, very close.  When the U.N. was making such impassioned pleas for a few more weeks of inspections, and the U.S. decided to forge ahead with their plan, why was that?  Was it because we knew the weather window for an invasion was closing?  Was it because we had some powerful intelligence that told us we had to act then?  (Not much credibility to that one these days, is there?)  Or was it simply because they knew they had to get that invasion started and done with before the election cycle started in earnest?  They are cutting it very close, closer than they wanted.   1:25:49 PM    Say what?[]

© Copyright 2003 Doug Hennessee. Last update: 9/30/2003; 11:51:55 AM.