Will Bush now "Wag the Dog" to save Republicans?
President Bush may not particularly care for John McCain, but he certainly is concerned about his own legacy. And losing Republican control of two branches of government wasn't what he was counting on as his exit cue.
Press and blog reports about a late, pre-election strike against Iran or or other October surprise threat to America or its interests have been circulating for months. The assumption here is that such action would throw the country into a war crisis right before the election - a scenario that historically favors incumbency and resists political change.
I wish I did not believe, as indeed I do, what should be the unthinkable: that Mssrs. Bush and Cheney are capable of plunging the country into more war, further de-stabilizing international politics and lying through their teeth about it, in order to save their political legacies. But a trumped up pre-election military action or fictional international emergency is fully consistent with their machinations over the last six years.
I am bracing myself for Bush Doctrine II: "If McCain and Palin can't win the White House on leadership, I'll win it for them on panic."
I honestly think most
I honestly think most American's wouldn't fall for that - they would see more troop deaths and a bigger deficit in the future and vote against it.
I think the only thing that would turn it for McCain at this point is another terrorist attack on US soil, and I'm not quite cynical enough to think that Bush/Cheney would let someone slip through just to help McCain - such an attack would still be part of Bush's legacy, after all.
If Bush pulled this, it
I don't put anything past
I don't put anything past Bush/Cheney, but I also believe that people today (unlike in 2004) no longer feel that the GOP are better at handling such events. The way they've bungled Afghanistan and Iraq, coupled with our growing confidence in Obama, makes me wonder if this would "work". And as KatMarie said, our eyes are wide open now. Most people would hopefully look at the timing of it and say "This doesn't smell right." Six weeks ago I would have felt differently, but given the economic crisis and the appalling nature of McCain's campaign, I don't think it would work.
What is so disgusting is that we even have to contemplate this. That tells you all you need to know about Bush's "legacy".
Tom -- I understand your
Tom -- I understand your concern. I have zero trust for Bush/Cheney. However, wouldn't he need approval of Congress to start another war?
The problems we face will not be solved by the minds that created them.
Technically, yes, b/c only
Technically, yes, b/c only Congress can declare war, but the President can send out troops by recognizing that the US is in a "state of war" as was done in Vietnam, and most recently Bosnia/Kosovo/Somalia.
I'm kinda waiting for something like that to happen, I would betcha that some in the war loving extreme would think that it would be an honorable sacrifice for something post 9/11 to occur to keep hold of the White House.
"wouldn't he need approval
"wouldn't he need approval of Congress to start another war? "
Sorry for the late response, KJS. (No political advocacy permitted at work, LOL). Obraxton has it right. Not that our current commander in chief gives a great deal of consideration to balance of power in the first place, but he can order all kinds of military actions short of a war declaration. If Bush gave an attack order, even without Congressional approval, the military would - and should - carry it out.
You have the wrong
You have the wrong scenario. External actions are very un-popular. Reactions by your everyday American would be against further commitment of US forces.
The SCARY scenario is if a terror act was "allowed" to occur on US soil. THAT would flip things.
wrp9 - sadly, you may have
"strike against Iran >>or
"strike against Iran >>or other October surprise threat to America or its interests<<<"
Actually, we agree. That's in the mix, too. Ugh!
Part of the reason people
But usminc, you're problem