New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | September 16, 2004

Doug Bandow passes the buck back to its original owner.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← New at Reason | Main | Kicking 'em While They're Down →

See all 12 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|9.16.04 @ 3:12PM|#

We were just about to win, but then those...cosmopolitan types from the cities who control the media and sneer at the traditional values of people from the heartland stabbed us in the back!

Always conspiring...

|9.16.04 @ 3:25PM|#

I expect a little more than a substance-light screed from Cato.

Come on, there are good, legitimate reasons to be very critical of Bush, and Iraq. Leaping back to the 'BUSH LIED' lefty standby is either preaching to the choir, or eminently ignorable, depending on one's grasp of the facts, and one's partisan leanings.

And glossing the highly relevant debate about how media coverage of Iraq diverges from the narrative told by on-the-ground, non-media reporting with "for more than a year Bush acolytes have circulated emails reporting "the good news that you aren't hearing" about Iraq" ... is nearly dishonest.

I mean, there *is* good news, it *isn't* reported. I don't think anyone but an actual member of the Bush Staff of EVIL would claim that Iraq is not a clusterfuck -- but it's far less dire than the media (and this piece) seem to want us to believe.

There's a more nuanced story about whose narrative of Iraq should be trusted, and how to arrive at a believable middle ground. This piece is not that story.

|9.16.04 @ 4:26PM|#

Doug Bandow says:

The biggest barrier to President George W. Bush's reelection is the unnecessary war and botched occupation in Iraq. No convention acceptance speech, however eloquent, can change that reality.

According to Rasmussen Reports, polls show support for Bush's handling Iraq by a 45% to 41% margin. Other polling organizations have an even wider margin. Bush leads Kerry on National Defense by 51% to 43% according to Rasmussen.

That kind of blows Doug's thesis out of the water. Iraq is not a net negative for Bush apparently. The economy is the weakest link in Bush's reelection hopes, not Iraq.

I wasn't a supporter of the Iraq invasion, but the facts are the facts. Talking about Iraq helps Bush, it would seem.

|9.16.04 @ 4:57PM|#

I see joe, that when you complain about people arguing with the "liberals in their heads," what you'd actually like them to do is argue "*as* the liberals in their heads."

|9.16.04 @ 5:17PM|#

April 30, 2005: Victorious American marines seen in photo (credit: AP) depart rooftop of U.S. Embassy in Baghdad by helicopter with Ambassador Negroponte while embassy is thronged by cheering Iraqis.

|9.16.04 @ 6:22PM|#

I've recently read an editorial that, in a few succinct paragraphs, sums up everything that's gone wrong with the war, from the "overprocessed" intelligence that was used to justify it to the half-baked Saddam-Lite we've installed as our man in Baghdad.

But what else would you expect from a stridently liberal rag like the Financial Times?

|9.16.04 @ 7:13PM|#

I just saw that over at http://www.rasmussenreports.com that Bush gets a 41%/41% split on the economy. So even that isn't much of an advantage for Kerry.

Hey Tim Cavanaugh... How much money did you put down on Bush in Vegas? You're starting to look like a genius.

|9.17.04 @ 7:15AM|#

Well, since Julian's smashingly successful bitch-fest of a posting isn't allowing any new posts, and his name-link doesn't correspond to an email address, I'll just say here that I can't believe you guys sit around thinking about this nonsense. Rabidly, from what I can tell. What is the point of Hit & Run, again? Clearly nothing more than ephemera.

|9.17.04 @ 10:18AM|#

What is the point of Hit & Run, again?

Oh yeah, to sit around and talk about the sunshine and flowers of Iraq and the pin-point accurate predicitions of the Bush administration's claims. I bet some of our soldiers are looking forward to taking Iraqi wives and living in mesopotamia bliss. I can't believe the deal we got for a mere $200 Billion plus!

|9.17.04 @ 11:25AM|#

Jack,

I think Lynch was referring to another post by Julian (kicking while down) that is not allowing comments, so he was saying it here. Did you fail to notice that, or, were you simply doing justice to your last name? :-)

|9.17.04 @ 6:43PM|#

American combat deaths in Iraq have climbed over 1000. The biggest barrier to President George W. Bush's reelection is the unnecessary war and botched occupation in Iraq.

One of the things I like about Reason articles is that it usually only take one or two sentences to figure out that there's no point in reading the rest of it. It's a real time-saver compared to, say, The National Review or The Nation, which tend to start out with relatively neutral statements and then start with the annoying unsupported statements after you've already wasted five minutes reading them.

|9.19.04 @ 5:09PM|#

Re: Doug Bandow Passing the Buck

The larger issue of this whole Iraq affair seems to me to be: How can it be that in the 60 years since WWII, Congress has declared no wars whatsoever yet tens of thousands of our military, not to mention hundreds of thousands of foreign combatants and innocents, have been killed, wounded, displaced, empoverished, etc.?

How does Congress get off the hook? "Well, Mr. President, you can use force if you want to, but no matter which way you choose, if it goes badly it won't be our fault." That's it?

Talk about passing the buck!

Paul