Times Change

Let's just hope [Rove]'s not implying that Bush will follow FDR's lead and turn his attention to taking the country to war.

That's Peter Beinart, shrill Bush-hater and anti-war "doughface" for the record. It seems to me that if Democrats do take congress and create a hostile legislative environment, this really might increase the odds that Bush turns his attention to taking the country to war. Lame-duck status and congressional opposition have traditionally spurred presidents to take refuge in the greater autonomy offered by foreign policy adventures. The public might not stand for it, but Bush doesn't have a designated successor sitting in the naval observatory whose political fortunes he needs to defend.

Comments

Fight a war with what army? We can bomb, I guess, but that's it.

Posted by dj moonbat | October 30, 2006 2:51 PM

moonbat and Bill Kristol are not on the same page.

Posted by jhupp | October 30, 2006 3:31 PM

In order to combat this turn effectively, given that the public won't stand for it, the Democrats must turn this into a question about John McCain and other Republican Presidential contenders. Just because Republicans don't have a designated successor, it doesn't mean we can't nominate one for them, and then tear the nominee down.

Posted by Joel W | October 30, 2006 3:37 PM

I co0ntend that the Foley October Surprise was orchestrated by Rove, with the blessings of oldman Bush and his cronies, because they have now faced up to the fact that current Pres. Bush is an unmitigated disaster, that Cheney was not a sober minded, guiding hand and that Rumsfeld is an unhinged nutcase. Therefore, in order to avoid Bush fils being made into another Herbert Hoover, who set back the cause of perserving the rights and riches of the rich over the interests of the country, they had to try to ensure a divided government. If the Democrats take over Congress (one or both chambers), then Bush fils can pretend to be a conservative for the next two years by "fighting" back against the unwashed masses in the guise of the Democratic Party. This will be their attempt to say: "see, he really was a conservative at heart and we should stay the course in the future by nominating and electing like-minded Republicans like Jeb and Jeb's sons."

Posted by Cal | October 30, 2006 3:58 PM

We can bomb, I guess, but that's it.

Well, right, launching an unprovoked bombing attack on Iran would constitute starting a war with Iran.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | October 30, 2006 4:24 PM

Well, right, launching an unprovoked bombing attack on Iran would constitute starting a war with Iran.

But that's a very different kind of war than Beinart's parallel to FDR would suggest. I think there would be very little "rally 'round the lame duck President" effect associated with that kind of war.

Posted by Matthew Davis | October 30, 2006 4:42 PM

will follow FDR's lead and turn his attention to taking the country to war

But FDR didn't take the country to war. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did.

If Bush prepares for war and then Iran sets off a nuclear bomb on Hawaii, I guess Matthew would STILL be against war with Iran?

What an utterly silly point by Beinart.

Posted by Al | October 30, 2006 4:47 PM

But that's a very different kind of war than Beinart's parallel to FDR would suggest.

If we bomb Iran, the question is then what does Iran do in response and what do we do in response to that. Honestly, I have no idea what the response to those questions might be, but there's no particular reason to assume a short air campaign would actually be the end of it.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | October 30, 2006 4:49 PM

"Let's just hope [Rove]'s not implying that Bush will follow FDR's lead and turn his attention to taking the country to war."

'Cause, you know, we're not at war right now, so for Bush to take us into a war would be really, really bad.

Posted by Farinata X | October 30, 2006 4:57 PM

More 2nd term predictions

Coming Cataclysmic Fight to the Death
...kagro x at Next Hurrah citing Time

'You tell me administratively everything you can do between now and the end of the presidency. I want to see your to-do list and how you expect to do it.' We're going to try to be as ambitious and bold as we can possibly be." ...Tony Snow

There is more, mostly about oversight being total war or a complete joke.

An attack on Iran might be more useful to the Republicans in the summer of 2008, especially if Iran has a couple nukes by then.

Posted by bob mcmanus | October 30, 2006 5:12 PM

Won't Rove jump ship come January? I would think he'd start taking on clients and leave the catastrophe of Bush behind him. Which means we'll get to see a Bush administration completely without even political guidance.

Posted by Rob | October 30, 2006 5:26 PM

"An attack on Iran might be more useful to the Republicans in the summer of 2008"

By the summer of 2008, the Iraq fiasco will be even further fiascofied. An attack on Iran at that point would be political suicide for the Republicans. That said, I've gotten to the point that nothing W does ever surprises me any more.

Posted by ostap | October 30, 2006 5:53 PM

If Dems really investigate the administration the end result will be Cheney on the gallows. Will Bush pardon the traitor?

Posted by Lynne | October 30, 2006 6:41 PM

"If we bomb Iran, the question is then what does Iran do in response and what do we do in response to that. Honestly, I have no idea what the response to those questions might be, but there's no particular reason to assume a short air campaign would actually be the end of it."

That's my view. But I'd go a step further. If the Iraq/Afghanistan (for the Soviets) analogy is problematic (the Aghan civil war didn't really get underway until after the Soviets withdrew) my best guess is that it might become a less problematic analogy to a future war with Iran. It is not difficult to imagine a spiral of violence that leads from the bombing of Iran to an invasion of that country. And it is not difficult to imagine that a devout minority of Persians (I use this term only to denote the fact that with the exception of Kurds and a few other small ethnic and religious minorities Iran is a fairly cohesive country) could wage an effective insurgency with the support of a plurality of the Iranian people for some time.

Posted by Linus | October 31, 2006 4:13 PM