I think my hypothesis that Bush will go after the Dems in Congress to commit on Iraq is making more and more sense. Bush has a "Win, Win, Win", IMO.
Not a lot of evidence out there to argue that you are wrong. But i'll still take a shot.
1. I don't think there's any doubt that the Bush folk wanted to make an election issue out of the Iraq vote. Somewhere I read they wanted a vote by Oct. 4th. Means they think they can start beating up on the Dems for foot dragging for a full month before the election.
2. Moreover, the Dems, like the Republicans, are divided over procedural questions--whether to involve the UN, if so what sorts of questions to ask, what to do if they get turned down, etc.
3. If the Bush proposal is to go without UN approval, then he gives his opposition (let's call it opposition rather than Dems because of 2 above) grounds for discussing, amending, whatever, perhaps to run the vote into November. If, however, he uses squishy language like "involve" the UN, he invites even more amending, etc.
4. Thus, my guess, thinking as I type this note, is that the Bush folk will offer a proposal that says he's going to the UN but is squishy because they will be unwilling to give the Security Council veto power. That will leave an opening for critics on the grounds they are as worried about Saddam as the next citizen but we should not do anything without UN approval, as in the first Gulf War.
5. If that happens, we'll get to see who is the better politician. If it were Clinton we would know who could out politic who. We are still learning with Bush. One minute and on one issue he seems quite adept; on the next not so.
Interesting fall.
But one thing is certain, Bill, if the US attacks Iraq with the level of evidence now publicly available and with the level of allied support now available--Britian and Israel, the country will divide, sharply, quickly, and scarily. If Bush does that he runs a very serious risk of a one term presidency. He doesn't strike me as that dumb. |
