Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: New conflicts overseas and the election
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:00:23 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center
Keywords: Iraq, Yugoslavia, election

In article <1992Jul22.144156.10133@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.130005.3890@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> pat@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (patrick m. ryan) writes:
>>
>>	Just to get the ball rolling, here's what I think:
>>As a Clinton supporter, I do worry that Bush might time such
>>an attack as to try to appear more "presidential" and evoke
>>memories of the Gulf conflict.  
>
>Frankly, I've always found the whole idea that George Bush would start
>a war to get reelected just a bit incredible (as in not credible).
>People have been saying this sort of thing ever since Desert Storm.
>Personally, if we found ourselves once again in the position of
>attacking Iraq, I would probably wind up voting for Bush.  Not because
>of that, but because we would immediately see all these people on the
>other side coming out with claims about how starting the war again was
>a 'political ploy'.  I would probably vote for Bush in reaction
>against those people.
>
>I personally don't think starting a war to get reelected would even
>occur to George Bush (although it might occur to some of his
>'advisors'), and I find it rather scary that it occurs so easily to
>folks who support the other side.
>

If it would accur to his advisors it would occur to him.

Let us look to Ronnie, remember Grenada, it took place just
few weeks after the Lebabnon fiasco of 269 marines dying.
Everyone thought it was great and overlloked the Lebanon mess,
as well as the problems with Greneda.  I.E. they really were just
building an airstrip that we had known abut and hadnt protested at all.
Or the fact that more medals were given out for the campaign then the
actual number of people who served on the island!

If you think that how could he start a war for politics b/c that could
mean people die, I would say that George wouldnt really
worry about that.  Desert Storm neednt hadnt started so soon, nor so
many Civilians in Iraq needed to be killed.  Nor did we help the Kurds
afterwards though we encouraged them to revolt.  In terms of 
American lives, he probably would really be convinced that he was
doing the right thing (my reelection is right for this country) that
it wouldnt matter.  He doesnt seem to care much about unemployed
Americans or homeless Americans etc. so dying in service of your country 
wouldnt seem too bad to him.

As George looks at the polls, he realizes that he is in deep trouble,
he also might think it will be harder to paint Clinton like
Dukakis, nor will Clinton roll over like Dukakis.  So what is a poor
pressie to do?  Why not repeat his previous triumph?   War
worked well in Grenanda for ROnnie.  And it worked well for 
Georgie in Panama (even if the Panamanians dont think so) and it
sure worked well over Kuwait.  So why not have Desert Storm, Part Two.



>[I don't plan on voting for Bush, but I don't subscribe to this 'the
>other side is the Great Satan' philsophy of political though, either.]
>



I know it seems mean, cruel to think our president would think like that
but I think he would.  He and his advisers are too intnet on trying to
hold on, that they have lost touch with America and as a consequence, I
dont think they would think that War would be bad.  They would think
it was justified for many reasons - getting Hussein again, and helping to
re-elect George.