I wonder, what do you think are likely to be the main outcomes/repercussions of the Democrat’s victory in the US mid-term elections?
One we certainly know already; the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, who quickly identified himself as the Bush Administration’s designated fall-guy, but, beyond that, what else is likely to follow?
Is this likely to be a springboard to another Democratic victory in the 2008 presidential election and the beginning of new blue era in US domestic politics. The Democrats obviously hope so, although Gerard Baker, in the Times, is rather more equivocal in his views.
Will we see Bush spending his final two years in office as a traditional lame duck, hopelessly bogged down in Congressional gridlock, perhaps?
Will the Democrats use their newly won control of Congress and the investigative machinery of the US state to try an bury Bush under a mass of inquiries into his conduct of the war against terror and the war in Iraq, as the Republicans did to Clinton on altogether more trivial grounds? Its certainly possible, although there is a broad consensus building around the idea that too great a concentration on hunting the President might prove counterproductive at a time when many Americans are more concerned with the question of how they get out of Iraq rather than how they got in, in the first place.
Overall, the general mood, outside of that of died-in-the-wool Republicans, seems one of cautious optimism that Democratic success this week may not only curb the worst excesses of the Bush Administration but maybe even bring some fresh ideas to the table on the thorny question of where the US goes next in its commitments to Iraq and bring about a softening of its unilaterist stance toward greater UN involvement…
And then there’s this…
Hmmn. I think something different: that the most likely outcome of these mid-term elections is another major terror attack on America. Whatever the smart analysis of the likely shape of domestic American politics over the next two years, America has now signalled a faltering of resolve; and that’s the cue for a redoubled Islamist attack.
Yep, tinfoil helments at the ready, its Mad Mel (again) off on another jihadist jeremiad on the general theme of ‘the only way to beat a bunch of mad dog, shit-kicking, religious wing-nut terrorists, is to put your own bunch of mad dog, shit-kicking, religious wing-nuts in charge.
And its not just the fault of the politicians, either…
To vote in a bunch of people who have no stomach at all for fighting for the country’s defence, simply through impatience that the country hasn’t fought for it effectively enough, betrays serious confusion and lack of resolve. And it is precisely that which will now give such heart to our enemies. Have they not said, over and over again, that the west no longer has the determination or staying power to fight for its beliefs?
So, people of America, if there is another terrorist attack on US soil, it’ll be your own fault…
…which, curiously enough, is what everyone from the Stop The War Coalition to Al Qaeda have also been saying for years.
One thought on “Jihadis Anonoymous”
Hang on a minute… before the mid-terms, the Republicans were saying that terrorist attacks had stepped up to frighten people into voting democrat. Now the democrats have “won” the mid-terms the result will be… more terror attacks?
Fiendish, these terrorists. They’re deliberately trying to confuse me as to whether they’re attacking because Bush is strong or because the democrats are weak.