Decision ‘08

Want To Have A Debate On Iraq? Bring It On…

By now, no one is even pretending that yesterday’s partisan move by Harry Reid was anything less than a gimmick to try to derail the Bush comeback:

Democrats did not deny it was a stunt: a brazen effort to change the subject from the Supreme Court confirmation of Sam Alito, which Republicans prefer, to war deaths and Scooter Libby’s indictment. “Alito had his day,” a Democratic leadership aide said as the chamber dissolved into confusion. “We’re going back to our story.”

That doesn’t strike me as a Democratic Party that has much strength or faith in its message; obviously, the message was failing to resonate, so they have to resort to extreme manuevers to get back to the ‘real story’, i.e., the lead-up to Iraq.

I say, bring that debate on - but let’s make it a real debate, one that starts far before George W. Bush; in the words of the great Christopher Hitchens:

The sole point of the non-findings of the Fitzgerald non-investigation, into the non-commission of non-crimes and the non-outing of a non-covert CIA bureaucrat, is (as Messrs. Kerry, Krugman, Rich, and others keep reminding us) that it might even yet trigger the long-awaited inquest into the Iraq intervention. I very strongly hope that there is a full-dress postmortem into this country’s Iraq policy, though I am not ready to assume that “inquest” or “postmortem” are the correct terms for it. Let’s just say a serious blue-ribbon, bipartisan, full-out inquiry. This inquiry, however, could hardly be confined—as Kerry, Krugman, and Rich so obviously hope—to the years 2001-05.

At the very minimum, the starting point of such a retrospective should be the decision, in 1991, to confirm Saddam Hussein in power after his expulsion from Kuwait and to keep his population under international sanctions. Another place to begin might be the apparent “green light,” given by the Carter administration, for Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran. Real specialists and buffs might wish to start with the role of the CIA in the 1960s military coup—or coups—that brought the Baath Party to power in Baghdad in the first place.

The first George W. Bush often says, when asked why he didn’t go ahead and take out Saddam in 1991, that the international mandate was only to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Well, Israel didn’t have a international mandate when it took out the Osiraq nuclear facility in 1981; nevertheless, it was not only the smart, but the humane decision to make, when one considers all the bloodshed that was avoided. If only Bush 41 had shared that same foresight…

UPDATE 11:03 a.m.: More from Glenn Reynolds (that’s the Instapundit to you, buddy!), including a group of quotes that show the hypocrisy of the Reid stance in all its naked partisanship…

4 Responses to “Want To Have A Debate On Iraq? Bring It On…”

1 mtl Says:
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:43 am
The biggest problem about taking the dems on?

The administration doesn’t have the guy who can carry the debate. The opportunity to move* Rove down, and bring in fresh blood…

Someone who is older and more charismatic.

(*move=his role is to organize the republican message, not necessarily deliver it. Bring in a respected conservative(cough… C Boyden Gray…cough), who adds some maturity. This move would not change any responsiblities of Rove, but the public perception would be that it was punishment, perhaps satisfying some small margin.)

Right now the list of Republican spokesmen is Gillespie, Mehlman, McClellan…

Bush is on his own. They need to get a sharp mind, that can also speak well. The three mentioned are loyal, but are not the best at defending the WH, lacking credibility of Foreign policy.

The WH really needs to get a lawyer quality spokesperson. Losing powell after 2004(or really 2003) was huge.

If there is someone who is defending the WH positions, with authority, I’m missing it.

I agree, Hitchens has been great…as well as Krauthammer, Krystol, et al., but these guys are all press people-not directly speaking for the WH.

Rove should recognize that the WH is lacking quality messengers and make it a top priority to get somebody who has credibility to discuss foreign policy. Rice is the bet thing they’ve got going, unfortunately she is working on about 9 different projects. Be nice to have a spokesman who could realy this.
2 mtl Says:
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:56 am
One more small point on the lack of having a messenger…

Bill Frist. Losing him is not going to be a loss, and judging by the Zogby polls, he will be replaced by another Republican.

Getting a Majority leader in there who will do the shows, and tote the party line with effectiveness.

My short list for his replacement?
Hatch.

but I’ll add…
McConnell, Warner, Grassley.

It’s too late to get a better Majority leader for Bush, by the time jan 07 rolls around, this will have been settled for better or worse.
3 Mark Says:
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:07 pm
All right, admit it, you ARE C. Boyden Gray, aren’t you?…
4 mtl Says:
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:49 pm
His retarded step-son.

or actually I’m chained to a desk at Liberty College, given the choice of making donation calls, or hyping Gray.

I’d be congo-bongo over Howard Baker, but he may be the only person with a worse heart than Cheney.

Hitchens is dead on about one key point-the GOP should be pushing for a pre-war intelligence investigation starting in 1991.
Items of interest?
Every statement the dems made during the Clinton years, and post 9/11, regarding their belief that Saddam had WMD’s or posed a threat. (apparently McClellan is starting this theme, which Limbaugh has been banging home for years.)

Would like to know how much our human intelligence funding was cut. Maybe Valerie could pass it on to Joe, and Joe could pass it on to the NYT.

Would really like to know at what point the CIA began telling the WH, that all previous statments and beliefs were wrong…

IRaq is an issue now, becuase it is the weakest area for Bush, but ironically it is an even weeaker issue for the dems.