Is Andrew Sullivan reading Bilow?
The biggest problem I have with Carl's argument is that it would be political suicide for Bush. At this point, if Bush does not extract a signficant win in the battle for Iraq, the right will turn on him like a pack of hungry dogs. They are all out on the WMD branch with Bush and will not appreciate being left holding the bag for him. If Bush does not push in Iraq it will make 'Read my lips, no new taxes' look like brilliant political strategy. I don't think Bush, Cheney or Rove would paint themselves so far into a corner. If the US held off on any action in Iraq until autum and there was another large scale terrorist attack on US soil in the mean time, I doubt Bush could win the nomination in 2004.
I don't think the WMD strategy was needed but now that is has been used Bush cannot fold.
Paul
andrewsullivan.com
THE DELAYING GAME: No surprise that Hans Blix wants more time; that January 27 is now seen as the "beginning" of the arms inspection; or that other countries are quite happy to see the process drawn out indefinitely. This was always the danger of the U.N. route. The administration, as is its wont, seems to be saying almost nothing about its plans, which worries people like me. We can only hope that its a way to out-psyche Saddam. But it's beginning to look like Saddam is out-psyching Bush. The question will therefore soon arise: can we wait until the autumn? My own view is that this would be a disaster. There is absolutely no guarantee that any weapons of mass destruction will be found by Blix's merry men by then; and the long summer and fall will be a golden opportunity for other rogue states to take advantage of the U.S.'s preoccupation in the Gulf. Those who oppose the war now will oppose it then. And there will be further opportunities for terrorist attacks on the West. Moreover, nothing would galvanize our enemies more than to see how timorous Washington is when dealing with a murderous dictator who has violated the terms of the 1991 truce and continues to thumb his nose at the world. Our perceived weakness toward Saddam has already emboldened the North Koreans (whom it appears we are now willing to appease as well). It will embolden others - from the meddlesome French to the American left. What Bush is in danger of drifting into is Clintonism - dragged along by events, rather than determining them, acquiescing in evil rather than confronting it, and coming ever so close to appearing easily knocked off course. That hasn't happened yet. But the danger signs are there. Saddam was right. Time is on his side. As we wait and wait for a conclusion we cannot even know will come, the anti-war lobby in this country will gain strength; and the remarkable success we have so far enjoyed in preventing another catastrophic terrorist attack will merely serve to lull Americans into another false sense of security. I'm not panicking - yet. But a question keeps nagging: Are we at war or not? If we are, when on earth are we going to get serious? |
