Support fading away for Bush administration, lame duck 2nd term

[jay gw]

Battered Bush watches as support ebbs away

With memories of his poll victory still fresh, the President already seems a lame duck. Backing for the Iraq war has collapsed and his domestic agenda is in disarray. Even his party is rebelling

Paul Harris
Sunday June 26, 2005
The Observer

At the centre of Bush's troubles is the Iraq war. Nightly images of mayhem in Baghdad have pushed the jubilant scenes of the Iraqi elections to the back of America's consciousness.

But Bush's troubles go deeper. His relentless plans to sell social security reform to the public have floundered. His energy bill is mired in trouble. Democrats have blocked the nomination of the radical John Bolton as UN ambassador. Once disciplined Republican senators and congressmen snipe at the White House on everything from the environment to stem cell research.

The polls are brutal. A survey by Gallup last week said 59 per cent of Americans now favoured US withdrawal. Polls by Pew and Zogby International also revealed that a clear majority of Americans believed they were on the wrong track in Iraq. Bush's approval ratings collapsed to 44 per cent in general and a paltry 39 per cent on Iraq. 'Iraq is at the front of Bush's troubles. Things are not going well and the American voting public sees that,' said John Zogby, head of the pollsters Zogby.

The talk in Washington is of the dreaded 'tipping point'. This is when Iraq's insurgency deepens into uncontrollable crisis at the same time as American public opinion collapses. That could spell the unthinkable: American defeat.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1514898,00.html

Iraq wasn't discussed and debated. At all. It's almost as if a group of people who had the power to shove it through did so, without any public participation or any discourse, nothing at all. Really ridiculous.

However, I'm absolutely in favor of democracy in Iraq, and hope the insurgents would just go away. I don't think they will defeat the US army.

[Ed]

I sort of think that that is the direction, though probably not as dire.

I suspect that GW is going to deliver a hot, stinky, viscous pile to the republicans in 2008. Watch the mid term elections, they should be very interesting.

[Zep]

It's typical of the GWB-type attitude that "withdrawal from Iraq" equates to "American defeat". But I fail to see how that could possibly be so.

Wasn't it last year, or 2003, that GWB declared military victory for "his side" unanimously, to the resounding cheers of the US populace? And then the Iraqi elections were also declared a resounding victory, this time for the Iraqis? Cheers all round then?

Unless it is actually staying there permanently as the real goal, which would indeed then make withdrawal a defeat... But of course, the USA doesn't want to stay there permanently, does it. No. It does intend leaving at some stage. Yes. So it will go then?

To stay too long would be tacitly admitting to the invasion and occupation of another sovereign country, something the USA is in principle totally opposed to and has fought wars over in the past. To stay too long would be hypocritical. To leave should mean the victory of a job well done, at least according to the GWB PR machine.

Shouldn't it?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Ed
I sort of think that that is the direction, though probably not as dire.

I suspect that GW is going to deliver a hot, stinky, viscous pile to the republicans in 2008. Watch the mid term elections, they should be very interesting.

While I agree that the midterms will be interesting, and telling even, I have no idea what viscous pile he might deliver.

His support is waning, as is typical for most second terms, but I wouldn't read too much into it. His support was waning in the time between the midterm and the election as well.

He's not running again so he's got no worries but he is, if nothing else, a party-animal. He'll play a key roll in who gets the nomination. His endorsement will mean ten points in the primaries; in both '06 and '08.

Nah, he's taking a political break. That's my take. My opinion hasn't changed much in four years. The fact that "'merca's" opinion changes day-to-day, hour-to-hour, doesn't concern me much at all.

In fact, I bet he even manages a damn fine start on Social Security, Nuclear reestablishment, Supreme court stacking, and Iran before this 'lame duck' term is up.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Zep
It's typical of the GWB-type attitude that "withdrawal from Iraq" equates to "American defeat". But I fail to see how that could possibly be so.

Wasn't it last year, or 2003, that GWB declared military victory for "his side" unanimously, to the resounding cheers of the US populace? And then the Iraqi elections were also declared a resounding victory, this time for the Iraqis? Cheers all round then?

Unless it is actually staying there permanently as the real goal, which would indeed then make withdrawal a defeat... But of course, the USA doesn't want to stay there permanently, does it. No. It does intend leaving at some stage. Yes. So it will go then?

To stay too long would be tacitly admitting to the invasion and occupation of another sovereign country, something the USA is in principle totally opposed to and has fought wars over in the past. To stay too long would be hypocritical. To leave should mean the victory of a job well done, at least according to the GWB PR machine.

Shouldn't it?
Zep, I detect a tongue-in-cheek post here, but I am not sure. Just in case, note that we are building 11-14 permanent basis in Iraq We're going to be in Iraq as long as we're in North America.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by SezMe
Zep, I detect a tongue-in-cheek post here, but I am not sure. Just in case, note that we are building 11-14 permanent basis in Iraq We're going to be in Iraq as long as we're in North America.

That's not necessarily so, depending on how long you think we'll be in North America. I'm guessing 50 years. We've probably got another ten to go in Japan, and various locales in Europe. North Korea is a tougher call. Ten, surely, but it could be as much as twenty. Not much more than that.

Then again, the next hot spot is Taiwan, and both Japan and Korea are excellent staging points. Maybe ten years is optimistic.

[Zep]

Originally posted by SezMe
Zep, I detect a tongue-in-cheek post here, but I am not sure. Just in case, note that we are building 11-14 permanent basis in Iraq We're going to be in Iraq as long as we're in North America. Well, sorta tongue-in-cheek.

Yes, I noted the permanent bases too. That, and other moves noted in the news, supports the long-realised notion to an outsider that the US never had any intention of leaving from the get-go, having marched into the region uninvited, so to speak. Which, in turn, gives lie to the previously stated reasons why the US is there in the first place. Which, in turn, has significantly diminished any trust placed in the USA by other nations - we could just as easily be next, on any old trumped up excuse, should the urge arise in Washington.

Which can be summarised as follows: We like you guys, but jeez! - we don't trust your administration as far as we can throw them with our left hand girly-style. Is that the sort of national alliance you like having?

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Zep
Well, sorta tongue-in-cheek.

Yes, I noted the permanent bases too. That, and other moves noted in the news, supports the long-realised notion to an outsider that the US never had any intention of leaving from the get-go, having marched into the region uninvited, so to speak. Which, in turn, gives lie to the previously stated reasons why the US is there in the first place. Which, in turn, has significantly diminished any trust placed in the USA by other nations - we could just as easily be next, on any old trumped up excuse, should the urge arise in Washington.

Which can be summarised as follows: We like you guys, but jeez! - we don't trust your administration as far as we can throw them with our left hand girly-style. Is that the sort of national alliance you like having?

they started building a huge embassy and those permanent bases shortly after we moved in there.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by SezMe
Zep, I detect a tongue-in-cheek post here, but I am not sure. Just in case, note that we are building 11-14 permanent basis in Iraq We're going to be in Iraq as long as we're in North America.

Interesting point. Can you lose and have a base there. I suppose Cuba has Guantanamo.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Renfield
they started building a huge embassy and those permanent bases shortly after we moved in there.

Permanent might mean the physical structure, not the political affiliation. I wouldn't pay a lot of attention to that.

Subic Bay, anyone?

http://www.subicbaypi.com/

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
That's not necessarily so, depending on how long you think we'll be in North America. I'm guessing 50 years. We've probably got another ten to go in Japan, and various locales in Europe. North Korea is a tougher call. Ten, surely, but it could be as much as twenty. Not much more than that.

Then again, the next hot spot is Taiwan, and both Japan and Korea are excellent staging points. Maybe ten years is optimistic.
Well, Rob, my own tongue was somewhat planted as well regarding the timeline. I think we'll be there as long as mideast oil is important - 50 years at least. Also as long as there is a strong strain of fanaticism in Islan. At LEAST 2-3 generations which means 75-100 years.

I am not sufficiently informed to speculate about our bases elsewhere.

[jay gw]

What's the worst thing that could happen if the US army withdrew from Iraq?

[Zep]

Australian newspaper cartoonist's POV.

(Don't know how long this link will stick, though.)

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/06/26/27cartoon_gallery__550x328,0.jpg
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/06/26/27cartoon_gallery__550x328,0.jpg

[normdoering]

Originally posted by jay gw
What's the worst thing that could happen if the US army withdrew from Iraq?

Civil war. The insurgents win the civil war and force a restrictive Islamo-facist government on Iraq that's controlled by Mullahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia, raise the price of oil and fund more terrorism than we've ever seen.

That's a possible price for losing now we wouldn't have had to pay if we'd never gone into Iraq and instead kept our focus on Osama bin Laden.

[Kopji]

Maybe a three way political split to start. Then it gets more interesting.

Too bad because I actually like the Kurds and think they outta have their own state and some oil wells, even if it pissed Turkey off. They could garner some support by donating output of a few wells to the Palestinians.

So... Sunni, Shiites, Kurds make a sucking sound as they back into their regions would be an early possibility. I don't see that as being all that bad, except Turkey would attack the Kurds because, well, I don't really know. They would have oil, maybe thats a good enough reason.

Maybe if Turkey were staring at some US artillery pointed their way they might hesitate. I predicted a couple years ago that US troops might end up facing Turkey. Humm, ok I'm patient but I don't think we have the balls to do the right thing by the Kurds.

I could be pleasantly surprised though.

Next, Iran would align more closely with the Shiites and maybe even move some missiles a little closer to Israel for 'defense'. They may be thinking pretty soon that they don't have anything to lose cause Israel's a comin' no matter what.

Who would the Sunni's turn to? Probably more of the same terrorist ilk. Be harder to move around though.

So what does Israel think of the Kurds??? They seem fairly secular compared to the rest of the religious rabble. Gotta be a plus. A win-win scenario looks like Israel bombing the heck out of Iran and Shiite/Sunni divisions, and getting them to blame each other. Leave the Kurds alone.

Lots of cool violence and bloodshed. The Kurds stroll in and clean up, sign a peace pact of some sort with Turkey and Israel. Iran would not matter by then.

Of course Saddam was secular too. (Don't remind me we replaced a secular government with a more religious one...) But they ARE better off because the majority are religious psychos. Ah democracy.

Yeah I should be president. I'm full of **** but hey this is the politics forum...

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Zep
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/06/26/27cartoon_gallery__550x328,0.jpg
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/06/26/27cartoon_gallery__550x328,0.jpg
Zep, I think this cartoon is interesting, but has it bassackwards. It is not "US Public Support" that is feeding "Iraqi Democracy" as delivered by Shrub, but rather that Shrub is trying to feed"Iraqi Democracy" with "US Public Support" which is waning.

That said, I thoroughly enjoy political cartooning. The ability is capture (distill? simplify? distort?) complex political issues in a picture is a real talent.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Kopji
Maybe a three way political split to start. Then it gets more interesting.

Too bad because I actually like the Kurds and think they outta have their own state and some oil wells, even if it pissed Turkey off. They could garner some support by donating output of a few wells to the Palestinians.

So... Sunni, Shiites, Kurds make a sucking sound as they back into their regions would be an early possibility. I don't see that as being all that bad, except Turkey would attack the Kurds because, well, I don't really know. They would have oil, maybe thats a good enough reason.

Maybe if Turkey were staring at some US artillery pointed their way they might hesitate.

Gee, that sounds like a good idea, push the only country in the region that's even remotely pro-western in an anti-American and direction, and foment the growth of militant Islam in the country. Ohh and the reason that Turkey would oppose a Kurdistan and particularly a Kurdistan with oil isn't that they want the oil for themselves. It’s because they have their own Kurds of which some want independence, and they have little desire to see a neighbour who would encourage such ambitions.


Who would the Sunni's turn to? Probably more of the same terrorist ilk. Be harder to move around though.
The Sunni's would most likely turn primarilly to the Saudies.
So what does Israel think of the Kurds???
They think the Kurds have too many enemies close by, to make trouble for Israel, which makes supporting them logical. I believe that Israel supported the Kurds under Saddam based on a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" rationale.

A win-win scenario looks like Israel bombing the heck out of Iran and Shiite/Sunni divisions, and getting them to blame each other. Leave the Kurds alone.

Lots of cool violence and bloodshed. The Kurds stroll in and clean up, sign a peace pact of some sort with Turkey and Israel. Iran would not matter by then.
It might be a win-win scenario, but it's also a pipe dream. The Kurds aren't anywhere strong enough to "clean up". They might be able to control their own area but not to take over the rest of Iraq.

[Zep]

Originally posted by SezMe
Zep, I think this cartoon is interesting, but has it bassackwards. It is not "US Public Support" that is feeding "Iraqi Democracy" as delivered by Shrub, but rather that Shrub is trying to feed"Iraqi Democracy" with "US Public Support" which is waning.

That said, I thoroughly enjoy political cartooning. The ability is capture (distill? simplify? distort?) complex political issues in a picture is a real talent. I thought the latter was what the cartoon indicated, but I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder!

Yes, I've seen some brilliant political cartoons from all around the world.

[demon]

jay gw:
"What's the worst thing that could happen if the US army withdrew from Iraq?"


They would feel the need to invade somewhere else, pronto.

[Skeptic]

Yes, I always consider cartoonists the #1 source when I want to make up my mind on a political issue.

In any case, the whole thing is odd. The next presidential election is 3.5 years away. "Predictions" about what Bush's current support level means for the elections, in which he cannot even run, is less than meaningless.

Hmmmm... wait a minute! Bush was never REALLY elected in 2000 or 2004--it was all an evil conspiracy! So I guess he can run in 2008 and 2012 after all...

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
While I agree that the midterms will be interesting, and telling even, I have no idea what viscous pile he might deliver.How about an emasculated military, a swollen national debt, a bubbled-up economy, a failed energy policy, a nation in hock to foreign influences, and a crisis in credibility . . .

In fact, I bet he even manages a damn fine start on Social Security, Nuclear reestablishment, Supreme court stacking, and Iran before this 'lame duck' term is up. Social Security reform is dead. Dead as a doornail. It's not a crisis, never has been, and his credibility on the issue is toast. And starting some idiotic thing in Iran will not only end his Presidency and his party, it might end our country as well.

[Tony]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/27/bush.poll/index.html

[normdoering]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
How about an emasculated military, a swollen national debt, a bubbled-up economy, a failed energy policy, a nation in hock to foreign influences, and a crisis in credibility . . .

How about an anti-flag burning amendment. They tried it before -- but they got further this time.


Social Security reform is dead. Dead as a doornail. It's not a crisis, never has been, and his credibility on the issue is toast. And starting some idiotic thing in Iran will not only end his Presidency and his party, it might end our country as well.

How about that anti-flag burning amendment?