"Why the Debt Ceiling is Like the Iraq War Debate" --Washington Monthly

[KoKo]

Why the Debt Ceiling is Like the Iraq War Debate
Paul Glastris

When George W. Bush began moving towards war with Iraq in the summer of 2002, many security-minded Democrats, who knew full well that such a war was a terrible idea, got behind it anyway. They did so partly so as not to seem like wimps, but also because they believed, not unreasonably, that a certain amount of saber rattling could bring vital security benefits that might otherwise not be possible. International support for the economic sanctions and the no-fly-zone that had kept Saddam contained since the first Gulf War had been sagging; the prospect of war might get wobbly allies like France and Russia to recommit to the containment strategy. Weapons inspectors had been absent from the Iraq since 1998; the threat of invasion might persuade Saddam to let the inspectors back in.

As it happens, the drive towards war achieved both those goals by late 2002. Had Bush stopped there, history would have credited him with being a master of the realist exercise of power, and the Democrats who worked with him as savvy and wise. But of course Bush didn’t stop there. He invaded Iraq despite the fact that the inspectors found no weapons of mass destruction, because he had already made up his mind to invade—a fact Democrats who opposed the war rightly pointed out at the time.

I bring this up because I think there’s a parallel between the Iraq war vote and the drama now playing out on raising the debt ceiling. Obama and many other Democrats understand that the GOP effort to hold the debt ceiling hostage to spending cuts is crazy on its face. But they also see that it provides a vehicle for achieving some painful long term adjustments in Medicare and Social Security that, if made now, could secure those programs for the long term while setting right the fiscal position of the country generally. From that vantage point it makes sense to try to cut a deal with House leaders. But such a deal presumes that the GOP can be persuaded not to go through with its members’ threats to refuse to lift the debt ceiling.

-------
My concern is that the White House and congressional Democrats, having focused on the undeniable potential benefits of a deal with the GOP, have helped legitimate the Republican position that it is okay to hold the economy hostage the way they have. So if the hoped-for deal turns out to be, as I fear it is, a mirage, Democrats will partially own the subsequent economic disaster, which voters will see less as the insane unilateral actions of the House Republicans than as a failure by “Washington politicians” to work out their differences.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2011/07/why_the_debt_ceiling_battle_is030949.php

[Demeter]

1. Very Clever Spinning

No, the "painful long term adjustments in Medicare and Social Security that, if made now," WOULD NOT "secure those programs for the long term while setting right the fiscal position of the country generally."

Ending the 6 or more wars that the US is fighting, cutting the war budget and shutting down 90% of the bases, however, would. Killing the Zombie banks would secure our liberties and our economy and relieve the entire world of a parasitical infection that is draining all nations of health.

I almost forgot--tax the rich until they can't afford to buy politicians, and corporations, too.

Cutting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid will only kill people, innocent people.

[pretzel4gore]

2. glastris, you grinning stooge! 911 was staged.

bloody lying goofball! the Vietnam war was a fraud. The war on iraq is/was a fraud. Everything the rightwing pig does is fraudulent. The washington monthly is a fraud. And glastris knows it.