From the WaPo:Speaking in the shadow of Air Force One on a Texas tarmac and at later campaign events, Bush called the verdict a "landmark event" in Iraq's transition to democracy, and aides hoped it would be seen as vindication of his decision to go to war. Democrats were quick to agree that justice had been done for a vicious tyrant but argued it would not fix what they see as the debacle in Iraq.
The rhetoric fell into place instantly. The moves were so obvious. But which characterization of the event resonates more for you? Same position you were already in, right? The question is whether anyone's position is changed by the new material.
The timing of the verdict, which had been scheduled weeks ago, stirred anxiety among Democrats who worried it could be a "November surprise" that would persuade Republicans to turn out, much as the release of an Osama bin Laden tape just before the 2004 election was credited with helping to put Bush over the top. Some voiced suspicions that the Bush administration had orchestrated the court schedule to influence the vote, a contention the White House rejected.
Oh, yeah, show your paranoia. American voters
love to put their trust in paranoids.
Posts
11 comments:
Kerry opens his stupid mouth and denigrates the troops, a monster gets convicted and sentenced to death and some of the troops are starting to speak out against cutting and running from Iraq. Add to the mix the Euroweenies speaking out against the death penalty and Human Rights groups doing the same, and it cuts into the projected Dem gains. Hard on the troops, soft on the terrorists as my Granny used to say, that's the ticket....
The verdict will influence the elections, if it does at all, by reminding voters that not everything in Iraq has gone badly. That is, it adds a little perspective to the mix. This is also what John Kerry's comments did last week. It reminded voters of why they did not trust Democrats last time around on national security. It's now harder for voters to buy into the whole "we ought to change because no one could do worse" meme. Saddam's verdict reminds voters that Bush has not screwed up everything. Kerry's comments suggest that, yes, Democrats could do worse.
-and from the Huffington Post we have this respondent who reflects well the radical Left from which mainstream Democrats cannot disconnect themselves: "Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and many others need to be brought to account for their crimes against humanity.
The only appropriate punishment would be a public hanging."
tsk tsk - stupid soldiers doing a butcher's work need to be withdrawn from Iraq, that's the ticket to power...??
It does nothing to change anyones mind... that is unless and the liberal media start arguing that Saddam should not be put to death because they oppose capital punishment... or if they try to argue that Saddam's trial was not fair; or that George Bush is just as bad and he should be put to death also.
It is this wacky ACLU kind of insanity support for mass murderers that hurts the Dems because...frankly, it is insanity.
I mean come on.... you cannot apply the "it would be better that 100 guilty go free than one innocent be convicted" to Saddam Hussein. He is guilty of mass murder.
The latest conspiracy racing around the left-wing blogs is that Kerry turned into a Republican a month ago. Kerry changed parties so that he could be chairman of an important committee.
Kerry's speech to those college students was written by Rove, and Kerry gave the speech exactly as written.
If Pelosi, et al, had any sense at all, their response would have been, 'Good. We applaud the Iraqi court for its brave performance.'
Period.
I've long given up trusting anyone who "questions the timing" without actual evidence of collusion, or a showing that a single politically-interested party made the decision.
(Which is why I'm not buying the Hussein trial "question", but I'm perfectly willing to buy it re. the latest Lancet "study" and re. the Vanity Fair mangling of neoconservative opinions on Iraq. Both the latter are controlled by (in essence) a single person (the editors), with a documented political interest.
The Hussein trial? Not so much.)
There is no time at which someone could not "question the timing", given today's political news cycle. Thus the assertion is in-itself empty.
So Derve:
How about you - are you in favor of executing Saddam? Afterall, most people here freely express their own personal opinion without checking beforehand to see what their political party says.
Please understand I recognize simple questions that only require a yes or no response are very, very hard for a nuanced Dem to answer. But give it a try, will you?
I dunno, derve, I don't like either party. But I listened to Pelosi and one other Dem, and what I heard was, 'We wish ill to the Iraqis if wishing them well means missing a chance to kick the Rethuglicans.'
But perhaps she was just playing to her base and didn't give a hoot about making her party attractive to independents.
Better to continue blindly putting your trust into this administration, people.
That's not blind trust. We know pretty much what the Bush Administration is going to do, good or bad.
There's no indication of what the Democrats plan to do. They supposedly have some plan for Iraq, the war on terrorism, the economy, et al, but they haven't felt the need to actually say what it is. It is voting for them which requires blind faith -- you don't know that the Democrats are better, only that you think Bush is bad.
Wish all these people who are so vocally against executing Saddam had spoken up for all the people his regime was executing and torturing on a regular basis... you know, the same people who now watch the Iraqi death count so closely.
Post a Comment