Frank Rich: Noun + Verb + 9/11 + Iran = Democrats’ Defeat?

[babylonsister]

Noun + Verb + 9/11 + Iran = Democrats’ Defeat?

By FRANK RICH
Published: November 4, 2007

WHEN President Bush started making noises about World War III, he only confirmed what has been a Democratic article of faith all year: Between now and Election Day he and Dick Cheney, cheered on by the mob of neocon dead-enders, are going to bomb Iran.

But what happens if President Bush does not bomb Iran? That is good news for the world, but potentially terrible news for the Democrats. If we do go to war in Iran, the election will indeed be a referendum on the results, which the Republican Party will own no matter whom it nominates for president. But if we don’t, the Democratic standard-bearer will have to take a clear stand on the defining issue of the race. As we saw once again at Tuesday night’s debate, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, does not have one.

The reason so many Democrats believe war with Iran is inevitable, of course, is that the administration is so flagrantly rerunning the sales campaign that gave us Iraq. The same old scare tactic — a Middle East Hitler plotting a nuclear holocaust — has been recycled with a fresh arsenal of hyped, loosey-goosey intelligence and outright falsehoods that are sometimes regurgitated without corroboration by the press.

Mr. Bush has gone so far as to accuse Iran of shipping arms to its Sunni antagonists in the Taliban, a stretch Newsweek finally slapped down last week. Back in the reality-based community, it is Mr. Bush who has most conspicuously enabled the Taliban’s resurgence by dropping the ball as it regrouped in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Administration policy also opened the door to Iran’s lethal involvement in Iraq. The Iraqi “unity government” that our troops are dying to prop up has more allies in its Shiite counterpart in Tehran than it does in Washington.

Yet 2002 history may not literally repeat itself. Mr. Cheney doesn’t necessarily rule in the post-Rumsfeld second Bush term. There are saner military minds afoot now: the defense secretary Robert Gates, the Joint Chiefs chairman Mike Mullen, the Central Command chief William Fallon. They know that a clean, surgical military strike at Iran could precipitate even more blowback than our “cakewalk” in Iraq. The Economist tallied up the risks of a potential Shock and Awe II this summer: “Iran could fire hundreds of missiles at Israel, attack American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, organize terrorist attacks in the West or choke off tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s oil windpipe.”

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/opinion/04rich.html?_r=1&ex=1351828800&en=656b9dd498585bad&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin

[R_M]

1. Would Democrats and Independents support such action?

Not sure. I know the Republican base would. 40% right there.

[Poiuyt]

2. I think many would

Rally 'round the flag, and all that. There is a tendency to support your leader in time of conflict. Congress would want to show a unified front to the world.

[Skink]

3. I'm sure Richardson has thoughts on this.

Choose the antiwar canidate.

[Mandate My Ass]

4. Why allow it to be the "defining issue" of the race?

The MSM will carry repug water and act like it is and the Dems will trip over themselves trying to sound tough, but it should be laughed off as the latest neocon bullshit scare-tactic followed by utter and assured disaster in implementation. :shrug:

This is an open admission that the MSM will not question anything, no matter how false on its face, that comes from the Bush administration but instead will ask Democratic candidates loaded questions like, "Do you want to bomb Iran or do you hate America?"

[OHdem10]

5. George Will, One of Most Serious Conservative THINKERS, Tells

Congress to get a spine and re-establish the power of the Congress.
Stop Bush from going to war in Iran.

When George Will shows more depth than some in our own party, it
is time to think.

This information was posted earlier today here at DU.
under Geo Will tells Congress to get a Spine.

[ginchinchili]

6. This set of circumstances is exactly why Democrats need to throw their support to Joe Biden

The Middle East is a potential powder keg and there are a lot of interrelated pieces. No presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, has demonstrated a clear understanding of the situation, much less a policy to deal with it, except Sen. Biden.

Sen. Biden was just on Face the Nation talking about the Middle East situation and, in particular, Pakistan, which is potentially the most serious threat to the U.S. and our allies. But he understands the enormity and complexity of the problem, and does not shy away from stating what he believes we should do.

For one, we need to make changes in our Iraq policy that gives us some light at the end of the tunnel without irresponsibly just "pulling out." He believes we should help Iraq fulfill what they have stated in their Constitution creating a federation of semi-autonomous regions not unlike what we have here in the U.S., with a limited centralized government. That way they avoid the one size fits all approach that Bush has been trying to force down their throats. As we begin pulling out of Iraq, some of our intelligence apparatus and special forces will go to Afghanistan to help stabilize that country and, provided we have the intelligence that backs a successful outcome, go after bin Laden and his cadre of supporters in Pakistan, because Musharaf is not going to get the job done, and it needs to be done.

On Iran, the saber rattling has to stop. It hurts, not helps, our situation. Threatening Iran with war does not serve our national interests.

The Middle East is not a child's game of checkers. This is serious business. Biden may not be the latest fad candidate, but he sure as hell is the most qualified to take over the presidency beginning on day one. After watching him speak again, this time on Face the Nation, I'm going over to his website and donating $100.00 to his campaign and would strongly encourage others to do the same.

[R_M]

7. We need to stop voting based upon popularity.

No more of this "folksy, awe schucks", backwood nonsense!
Statesmen and Political leaders are not supposed to "have a beer" with you. They are supposed to govern.