No Replacement For Displacement

Being Right

In the previous post, I discussed things I did wrong, errors in posting, etc. Now, I am going to make a post about one time that I was right, at least on some of the larger points.

On August 11, I put forward the idea that on September 11, Bush would make the case for attacking Iraq. I wasn't right, but I was close. On September 11, he alluded to Iraq in his Statue of Liberty speech, though not directly. However, the very next day, he made the case in detail as to why Iraq must be overthrown. However, he did not draw a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I was wrong on this point, but I think the prospective audience played a factor here. The Al Qaeda link, while somewhat convincing, would not have the diplomatic impact of reminding the UN of how badly Saddam has ignored Security Counsel resolutions. By Bush playing up the latter points, he is basically telling the member states of the UN that their only brake on US clout would be lost if they don't agree to an "inspection by force", in other words, an invasion of Iraq by US forces to permit inspectors to do their job unassisted. No invasion resolution, and the UN becomes worthless by their own actions.

The domestic aspects are coming up even better than I expected. Daschle and the Senate Dems are playing completely into the President's hands. They are trying to delay a resolution on the use of force, and this delay is, if anything prolonging their agony. Daschle knows too many Democratic Senators will vote no, and he hopes to move the vote until after the election. This will backfire incredibly whether or not they succeed. If they fail, they look ineffectual. If they succeed, they look like they are afraid to be responsible, and they will have extended the war debate up to election day, and due to the fact that since Jean Carnahan's seat was a gubernatorial appointment, the Republicans may get a majority right after the election anyway. The best way for Daschle to deal with this is to get the vote over with, and move on to something else, but he isn't doing that. As a result, the Dems are or will be toast.

The diplomatic front is working as well. The speech in such close proximity to the anniversary of the Atrocity did have an effect on Europe. I also believe that Bush's speech putting UN credibility on the line pushed a lot of governments over the edge. If they truly believe in "multilateral" institutions, they can't not support an invasion. It would show them to be hypocrites.(They are, but that is another story). Bush even got the countries of the middle East to start changing sides. That microscopically sized fig leaf of the UN gives them plausible deniability. It isn't the United States doing an invasion, its the United Nations. Right. And I have the collected episodes of "Kiana's Flex Appeal" on tape because I'm such a fitness buff.

Militarily, it looks like the US is willing to go in November, probably right after the elections. I have some ideas as to how it will go, but I'm going to hold off on that for later.