February 09, 2004


A fellow Right Wing Death Beast writes:

I'm increasingly convinced this WMD thing is a mega-disaster. Notice how all the Usual Suspects are totally on the front foot, while we are now on the defensive? I also think it could do for Bush, probably for Blair, and maybe Howard.

But perhaps I'm being unduly gloomy.

He/she works at a broadsheet and is surrounded by WMD obsessives, which possibly explains his/her pessimism. Me, I don’t think Bush or Blair are in any serious danger, and Howard’s bid for a fourth election win may be cruelled more by the fact that he’s aiming for a fourth election win rather than any WMD claims. Besides which, a Democrat government in the US and a Labor government in Australia guarantees more money for us freelance right wing media pundits. Bring on the goofy leftist rulers! I crave wealth!

Posted by Tim Blair at February 9, 2004 12:48 AM

If I was the RNC I'd go to Iraq and find the women and children with the biggest eyes. Then I'd do a series of commercials. Something like -

"My father was killed by Saddam in 1999. He was tortured for seven days because he said that Uday looked like a chicken. Thank you America."

Posted by: John Davies at February 9, 2004 at 01:24 AM

I just watched "Meet the Press", a Sunday morning political interview show here in the States. Pres. Bush had an hour to articulate his position on various matters from the War on Terror to the US economy. What I found interesting, is that Tim Russert (the host) was really pressing the WMD issue(Russert is one of the best and does not give softball questions) and it really demonstrated how weak that line of attack it. Bush was given time to answer the entire question and dismantled the main argument that Saddam was no threat to the US. More and more americans will hear that David Kay did not say there were "no WMD's", he said "There were no large stockpiles" and that "Iraq was infact a more dangerous place from what we have seen."

Granted, I'm a conservative, but I want to hear it from the boss's mouth, what his take is on all of the intelligence discrepency.If the President carries his argument on into the general election, Kerry will only have one hope of winning, job growth in our economy.

If job creation continues at the current pace of 100,000 - 150,000 jobs/month (a very conservative estimate, most economist feel the US will have a higher job growth rate), in 8 months the US will see close to a million new jobs. That is about halfway to the 2.2 million jobs lost from recession, 9/11, corperate scandal, and the Iraq war uncertainty.

This is the Deocratic primary season, and you have seen the Democratic Nom. hopefuls attack President Bush and his policy for months with little to no retort. Once the Bush campaign gets into full swing, you will see the poll numbers change. It is still Bush's election to lose, if he can articulate his positions and decisions like he did today on "Meet the Press", he will handily trounce Kerry this November.

Posted by: mateo_g at February 9, 2004 at 01:54 AM

I think Bush can win, Tim, but I'm a card carrying member of the VRWC and, frankly, I'm a little worried.

Posted by: Andrew at February 9, 2004 at 04:15 AM

I intend to vote for GWB. Having said that I greatly fear that having an inarticulate leader at this time is a danger in our war against the enemies of our civilization. The deciding vote of the legitimate undecided independents will be swayed by oratory and Pres. Bush just doesn't make it. Woe unto us.

Posted by: Ted at February 9, 2004 at 05:16 AM

GWB supporters shouldn't have anything to worry about given he's got +$100m to spend prior to the election.

Posted by: Adam at February 9, 2004 at 08:48 AM

federal labor govt = double digit interest rates = mortgage foreclosures = MORE PROPERTY FOR ME! i craaave property.

Posted by: Roscoe.p at February 9, 2004 at 09:13 AM

Well I'm a Brit, I supported the war and I support our alliance with America (and Australia!) and I have to tell you that over here in the land of the Whingeing Pom, myself and people like me are pretty much being routed from the field. The whole WMD thing just won't go away. According to the polls, most people think the Iraq War was a good thing, or at least the right thing to do, but because of the way the case was made and presented before the war it's as though that doesn't matter and we've lost the argument anyway. People who made ludicrous claims about there being a genocide, millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands of casualties, Baghdad being the next Stalingrad etc etc and who should by rights now be laughed out of the TV studio or off the hustings whenever they dare open their mouths are being feted as though they were right all along and are enjoying a massive resurgence. It's like the world has gone mad.

In short, I think we're buggered.

Posted by: Anthony C at February 9, 2004 at 12:01 PM

Way too pessimistic, Anthony. You Brits do have the one advantage that should your government be replaced at an election, you will have conservative rule. Everyone's a winner!

Posted by: ilibcc at February 9, 2004 at 12:08 PM

with respect Timbo, the WMD obssevies are people like you who shouted at us how they were there without ever defining them of course.

Mateo-g how in heavens name did Saddam threaten the USA? bomb the hanging chad?

Posted by: Homer Paxton at February 9, 2004 at 12:59 PM


So you disagree with the UN`s definition of WMD`s?.

Posted by: Gary at February 9, 2004 at 02:26 PM

Anthony C,

My impression is also of a flood of disinformation that you just can't stop - for now. The bad guys are on top on this, it's obvious.

But I'm hanging out for a Bill Clinton impeachment effect. Elites will stay terrifically interested in this story. And they will be confident that if you dump enough poison into public information channels, there will eventually be a big result. But in fact, no.

In America, it seems Democrat voters don't give a damn about the war. That's bad of course. But on the good side, it seems that if your the wildest anti-war candidate, you can get the media looking on you as a savior, but voters even in your own party won't stay interested in you.

The big danger would be in this period of insanity a solid consensus formed that was more or less imperveous to review. But, thanks partly to Hutton, anyone who wants to look up the facts will see that the present hysteria is baseless.

The flood of lies will pass, and the rock of truth will stand. (crosses fingers) God willing.

However, that will leave the biased media. If bias is your job, and for some of them it seems to be, you're going to keep on keeping on whatever happens.

Posted by: David Blue at February 9, 2004 at 03:20 PM

Tim, I hope that Bush wins, but it's an error to underestimate your opponent. Kerry would be a disaster for the USA but he's a clever, seasoned campaigner. All he has to do is to persuade voters that his team can handle the threat just as well as Bush & co, and he may well win. To that end I would expect no major terrorist attacks until after the November election, as our islamofascist friends know that this would only tip the election in favour of Bush - a man they fear.

Bush is a master politician and well known top poker player. He always waits in silence, gradually allowing his opponents (the media and left wing) to become shrill and confident, before burying them. This has happened countless times since 9/11.

Personally I think he's holding a few cards up his sleeve. It's just a question of when he lays them on the table. Expect the unexpected in the coming months.

Posted by: TedD at February 9, 2004 at 07:14 PM

At the end I do think the American electorate is going to realize they don't want to look for four years at someone who most closely resembles Droopy Dog.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 9, 2004 at 08:08 PM

Bush will be a strong competitor. Thus far his campaign has not made even a first effort and is doing well. It's not hard to look good if you are the only man in the contest; I think this is as strong as Kerry gets.

The WMD issue is not a very hot issue with most Americans; at least not from what I hear around the office. It's the economy and that is doing pretty well.

Posted by: jonathan at February 10, 2004 at 02:06 AM

As Bush supporter,I do not underestimate the opponent Kerry at all but as sonn th primaries are over,too many skeletons will fall off from Kerry's closet. Also,he's Dukakis/Kennedy pet project and that will never sit well with "fly over" states.

As for Meet The Press,I watched it. Bush's answers or reluctancy on his responses about WMD's,I fully understand it. Many leads not enough proofs and why give away "might be a crucial" information to the media on a silver platter.
Loose lips sinks ships,methinks.

Posted by: Fly at February 10, 2004 at 02:56 AM

Gary my friend,
Do you think any country in thee area would be treatened by weapons of that definition?

Given that the US possess the greatest amount of nukes on the planet just who believes the US was threatened?

Posted by: Homer Paxton at February 10, 2004 at 10:01 AM

Oh dear. Be gentle with Homer, people: Alzheimer's is a sad fate.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 10, 2004 at 01:49 PM