This interchange chills me to the bone
(thanks to media matters and atrios...)
the fact that this discussion is actually being held among those who present themselves as communicators and shapers of public opinion is staggering... even more staggering is that i believe it's not only within the realm of possibility, i think it's in the realm of probability... if i was a betting man, i would say that it would either be iran as these cynics speculate or a major terrorist attack on domestic soil, either one well-timed for maximum poll benefit... Submit To Propeller
Tweet
On Hardball, Chris Matthews, Dana Milbank, and Pat Buchanan discussed what they agreed were the likely political benefits to President Bush and congressional Republicans if he were to launch a pre-emptive war against Iran.MATTHEWS: Do you believe, if we wake up tomorrow morning -- and things tend to happen like this. Dana, you first: If we wake up tomorrow morning, it's 9 o'clock, and we learn that the United States has attacked Iran, has attacked its nuclear installations, its laboratories, its bases, its silos, whatever, to pre-empt them from building a nuclear weapon, would the American people accept that and all the consequences that came with it?
MILBANK: Well, I don't know about accepting it, but it certainly would cause a rallying effect, you know, so, I mean, everything in this poll says lame-duck presidency. But you have to remember terrorist strike, national crisis -- well, he's still probably not going to get tax reform through -- but suddenly, he's a strong national leader again. So, you certainly can't rule out that possibility. You know on your --
MATTHEWS: Could they also think he's insane? . . . I'm dead serious about this. Could that be too radical a move? I'm trying to find this out.
[...]
BUCHANAN: I don't think he's going to do it for political reasons, but if he did do it for political reasons, you'd do it in October.
MATTHEWS: Why? To win?
BUCHANAN: Sure, you'd get right up the polls. Just like, you'd go right up, you'd win the election.
MATTHEWS: Dana, I'm staggered by the possible truth in what he just said. That a blitzkrieg-type action by the president -- do something before the public even thought about him doing it -- would put him on top of the heap again.
MILBANK: There is undoubtedly a rallying effect. There's no way, there's no way around that. The question is: Exactly when do you do the action, and exactly how long do you stay up at the top of the heap here?
the fact that this discussion is actually being held among those who present themselves as communicators and shapers of public opinion is staggering... even more staggering is that i believe it's not only within the realm of possibility, i think it's in the realm of probability... if i was a betting man, i would say that it would either be iran as these cynics speculate or a major terrorist attack on domestic soil, either one well-timed for maximum poll benefit... Submit To Propeller
Tweet