Is it the End of the Line for Bush?

[Mr Manifesto]

Bush seeks an exit strategy as war threatens his career (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4635.htm)

Report by Paul Harris in New York, Jason Burke and Gaby Hinsliff


Sunday September 7, 2003: (The Observer) George Bush will attempt tonight to convince the American people that he has a workable 'exit strategy' to free his forces from the rapidly souring conflict in Iraq, as Britain prepares to send in thousands more troops to reinforce the faltering coalition effort.
Frantic negotiations continued this weekend in New York to secure a United Nations resolution that would open the way for other countries to deploy peacekeeping troops to help after Bush - with one eye on next year's presidential election - signalled a change of heart on America's refusal to allow any but coalition forces into Iraq.


The President has been left with little practical choice. Concern among the American public has reached such a pitch that, with his approval ratings plummeting, he will deliver a televised address to the nation tonight to reassure them that they do not face another Vietnam. With their sons and daughters dying daily in guerrilla attacks, Americans may now be becoming more frightened of being bogged down in a hostile country than of the terrorist threat against which Bush has pledged to defend them.


It would have to make a president look pretty weak if you go into a country half-cocked, then leave someone else to clean up your mess because you were too stupid to think your strategy through. It has been traditional for countries to elect leaders with no more than 4-6 years forward planning. Would the American people want a leader who doesn't even seem to have 4-6 months forward planning?

[Jude]

The site you offered wouldn't load for me, but I found a mirror. If anybody else is having problems: Bush seeks an exit strategy (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1037015,00.html)

[Mr Manifesto]

Bwa-hah-ha-haa! 'Time is right' for UN role in Iraq: Rice (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s940831.htm)
"There are other countries that may not be able to contribute troops but it's important to have financial contributions," she added.

I'll bet those financial contributions are important, considering the US is sinking under Iraq-war debt. Makes you wonder if you should have had UN backing before going in. Hate to say I told you so, Condy...

[Jon_in_london]

"There are other countries that may not be able to contribute troops but it's important to have financial contributions," she added.


Hang on a sec! wasnt the US throwing money at various nations in order to buy some support for the war before it kicked off? Remember the whole 'coalition of the billing' ???!?!

Sheesh! The US really is holding out the begging bowl!

[DrChinese]

Have I got this right?

1. No WMD found after Bush said they were in Iraq.
2. No Osama found, and Al Queda is still active.
3. No Saddam found, and troops dying after we "won" the war.
4. Record deficits predicted for next year BEFORE new Iraq spending is considered.
5. Over one million additional Americans unemployed since Bush took office.
6. Bush is giving BILLIONS in tax cuts to the rich.

AND

7. The cost of getting us out of Iraq: "Whatever it takes..."

How do you top this? I'm sure Bush will be creative if he gets 4 more years...

(After all, he has all those "great advisors" such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft, Ridge, Powell, Wolfowitz. They should be able to get us out of this mess any day now. Riiiiiight.)

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Would the American people want a leader who doesn't even seem to have 4-6 months forward planning?

I think one could make a compelling case that Bush has no forward planning skills whatsoever. He's always struck me as the kind of guy who just makes stuff up as he goes along and has faith it will all just work out in the end.

When he was pushing the WMD rhetoric at the start of the war, I really wondered if he even gave a seconds thought of what the reprocussions would be if the coalition didn't find any. Now I think it didn't even occured to him it was possible none would be found.

The same thing goes for the tax cuts, I don't think he gave any thought to the fact that the war would be a huge financial burden.

His latest f*ck-up is the "Bring it on!" quote. What does he think will happen if AlQueda responds with another big hit and gloats about it?

The answer is he doesn't.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony
Is it the end of the line for bush?

I think so, every girl I know shaves "down there".

So what's your occupation, Tony? No need to be specific, just the general category will do.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


Graphic designer.

Oh, good. At least you're not a comedian.

[Crossbow]

I would say that it is the end of the line for Bush, for is now facing a moment that he really does not want to face.

He is still able to raise far more money than anyone else, but he knows that money only goes so far and that ultimately one needs at least a plurality to win a election (I do not think he can count on what happened last time to win it for him this time).

And now it looks like his public support is eroding and unless something big can happen to win it back (like a turn-around in the economy, or greatly reduced deficits) then it looks like he will loose if the Democrats can get some degree of organization.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Crossbow
unless something big can happen to win it back (like a turn-around in the economy, or greatly reduced deficits) then it looks like he will loose if the Democrats can get some degree of organization. I agree. Unless the Democrats pull a boneheaded move (*cough*Sharpton*cough*), Bush will be a one-termer.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I would say that it is the end of the line for Bush, for is now facing a moment that he really does not want to face.

He is still able to raise far more money than anyone else, but he knows that money only goes so far and that ultimately one needs at least a plurality to win a election (I do not think he can count on what happened last time to win it for him this time).

And now it looks like his public support is eroding and unless something big can happen to win it back (like a turn-around in the economy, or greatly reduced deficits) then it looks like he will loose if the Democrats can get some degree of organization.

Why can't he count on it? If it's close again, having five lackeys on the Supreme Court goes a long way.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I agree. Unless the Democrats pull a boneheaded move (*cough*Sharpton*cough*), Bush will be a one-termer.

Sharpton? The Dems may be stupid, but they're not deranged.

[Hexxenhammer]

I don't think it's the end of the line for the Shrub. His approval ratings are still high and Joe Six-Pack is not known for thinking to hard about things like lies about the war or how there are probably more terrorists now than there were before 9-11.

[shuize]

From the news I get here in Japan, Dean is leading the pack. As happy as that may make the anti-war, anti-Bush primary crowd, I don't think he has much chance against Bush in the general election.

[Hexxenhammer]

I think you're right. And do they really pay attention to the US election a year before it happens even in other countries?

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I think you're right. And do they really pay attention to the US election a year before it happens even in other countries? It's already getting regular mentions on the broadcast media here in the UK and a fair amount of column inches in the broadsheets. The red tops are still too busy reporting on the size of J-Lo's ass though thank goodness.

Edit: Spelling 5/10

[New Ager]

You guys are really funny. You all sit around trying to convince each other that Bush's days are numbered.

Unless all of you are politically naive and unaware, the Democrats have very little chance of unseating Bush next year.

So, get ready for the headline...

Bush Wins In A Landslide!!!

[Oso]

Originally posted by New Ager

So, get ready for the headline...

Bush Wins In A Landslide!!!
If Dean gets the nomination maybe so.
If General Wesley Clark gets it, bye bye shrub.

[American]

The best "exit strategy" is a bloody exit wound in the head of the enemy. Unless you're a liberal, and then it's to run away with your tiny d!ck between your legs.

[crackmonkey]

You think anyone takes Clark seriously? If he gets past the primaries, his own multiple equivocations in the past will hang him. He's a lightweight.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrChinese :

Have I got this right?
1. No WMD found after Bush said they were in Iraq.
2. No Osama found, and Al Queda is still active.
3. No Saddam found, and troops dying after we "won" the war.
4. Record deficits predicted for next year BEFORE new Iraq spending is considered.
5. Over one million additional Americans unemployed since Bush took office.
6. Bush is giving BILLIONS in tax cuts to the rich.
7. The cost of getting us out of Iraq: "Whatever it takes..."


1. true (i could argue this but i know what you meant by the question and wont nitpick)
2. true
3. true
4. true
5. sorta, very misleading, sounds like Hillary Clinton rhetoric
6. sorta, once again very misleading, sounds like Tom Daschle rhetoric
7. true

If you had left out 5 and 6 you point would be better taken.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
You think anyone takes Clark seriously? If he gets past the primaries, his own multiple equivocations in the past will hang him. He's a lightweight.
He's not likely to make it past the primaries, simply because he is a Republican in Democrat's clothing. But if he did make it past the primaries, he would be a true danger to Bush because he would draw a whole lot of conservative votes. He is a true war hero (not a chicken hawk, like Bush) with mostly conservative values, but thinks the Iraq war was botched. That would play well with a lot of conservatives, and of course he would get most of the Democratic votes simply because he is not Bush. But it ain't gonna happen. The Democrats are not going to let a yellow dog Republican take their primary. I have mixed feelings. I want Bush out, but I can't think of any Democrat I'd like less than Clark (except maybe Sharpton).

Yeah, Dubya may get a free pass to another four years due to the ineptitude of the Dems at supporting a viable candidate. Where's Bill when you need him?

[Tesserat]

I may be cynical, but if something happens like the US catching Saddam two weeks before the election, the wave of patriotism would put Bush back in. The reason that Bush works so well in the states is that most people (and I'm one, but in Canada) care more about feeling good in any one particular moment than about consistant responsible behavior.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by New Ager
You guys are really funny. You all sit around trying to convince each other that Bush's days are numbered.

Unless all of you are politically naive and unaware, the Democrats have very little chance of unseating Bush next year.

So, get ready for the headline...

Bush Wins In A Landslide!!!

Maybe he'll win, but a landslide?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tesserat
I may be cynical, but if something happens like the US catching Saddam two weeks before the election, the wave of patriotism would put Bush back in. The reason that Bush works so well in the states is that most people (and I'm one, but in Canada) care more about feeling good in any one particular moment than about consistant responsible behavior. I'll join you in that wave of cynicism, Tesserat. I think I've mentioned elsewhere that US elections are not fought and won on deep issues but on shallow razzamatazz. So shallow you can't get even your feet wet. So is it any wonder we shake our heads in despair out here every four years?? :rolleyes:

[shuize]

Originally posted by Zep
... is it any wonder we shake our heads in despair out here every four years?? :rolleyes:

Yes, it's too bad the rest of the world just can't be Australia ... everything would be just peachy then.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by shuize


Yes, it's too bad the rest of the world just can't be Australia ... everything would be just peachy then.

But probably pretty crowded.

[Zep]

Originally posted by shuize

Yes, it's too bad the rest of the world just can't be Australia ... everything would be just peachy then. Jealous, are we?? :)

I think we've been through this a few times already here, so let's just say that you have got the wrong end of the stick, and I seem to have hit a nerve.

But perhaps you might also just go watch the various US political parties select their candidates (the "primaries"??) and you will see what we mean. Crowds cheering madly, brass bands, colourful balloons, big hands, banners, silly hats, arm-waving, shallow rah-rah speeches and pork-barrelling, etc, etc. Just like at a football game, yes? And that's BEFORE the actual election process starts! For the position of one of the most powerful and responsible people in the world...

*sigh*

[Zep]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy

But probably pretty crowded. No no, he said just BE Australian, not BE IN Australia!

Gack! You would be so right - it would be VERY crowded!

:)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Zep
No no, he said just BE Australian, not BE IN Australia!

Gack! You would be so right - it would be VERY crowded!

:)

I heard once you could fit the entire population of the world in Tasmania.

I think we should give it a try. :: pats nuclear weapons:: Sooooon, my pretties! Soooon! Mwah hah ha haaaaaaa!

[Zep]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I heard once you could fit the entire population of the world in Tasmania.

I think we should give it a try. :: pats nuclear weapons:: Sooooon, my pretties! Soooon! Mwah hah ha haaaaaaa! Steady... That's my home state you're talking about. {looks right} You shutup! {looks left} You too!

[The Don]

Originally posted by Zep
I'll join you in that wave of cynicism, Tesserat. I think I've mentioned elsewhere that US elections are not fought and won on deep issues but on shallow razzamatazz. So shallow you can't get even your feet wet. So is it any wonder we shake our heads in despair out here every four years

To fight on deep issues there needs to be some kind of fundamental difference in ideology between the major parties. Given that this increasingly not the case (IMO) in many western countries where we appear to have a choice between two "Christian Democratic" parties., the only differences boil down to rhetoric.

Isn't that an inspiring though to get you out on the campaign trail?

[Zep]

Originally posted by The Don
To fight on deep issues there needs to be some kind of fundamental difference in ideology between the major parties. Given that this increasingly not the case (IMO) in many western countries where we appear to have a choice between two "Christian Democratic" parties., the only differences boil down to rhetoric.

Isn't that an inspiring though to get you out on the campaign trail? As Peter Cook said, you fill me with inertia.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Zep
Jealous, are we?? :)

I think we've been through this a few times already here, so let's just say that you have got the wrong end of the stick, and I seem to have hit a nerve.

But perhaps you might also just go watch the various US political parties select their candidates (the "primaries"??) and you will see what we mean. Crowds cheering madly, brass bands, colourful balloons, big hands, banners, silly hats, arm-waving, shallow rah-rah speeches and pork-barrelling, etc, etc. Just like at a football game, yes? And that's BEFORE the actual election process starts! For the position of one of the most powerful and responsible people in the world...

*sigh*

Jealous? Yeah, OK. Talk about something worthy of rolling eyes ... My post was a sarcastic response to the silly assumption you seem to have made that the average American gives a rat's ass what the rest of the world in general, and New Zealand (or is it Australia ... whatever, same difference) in particular, thinks of our political process. (Of course, thanks to us you still have one of your own. Otherwise you'd likely be offering prayers to the Emperor of Nippon right about now.) But I disgress. From a citizen of nation that doesn't even have the balls to declare itself a republic ... Sure, I'm jealous. If that's what it takes to make you feel better about your country. Just keep telling yourselves that you matter. And if you can win a rugby match against the English sometime, maybe you will.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shuize

Just keep telling yourselves that you matter. And if you can win a rugby match against the English sometime, maybe you will.

You mean like this (http://www.nrl.com.au/news.cfm?ArticleID=7441&SearchClubID=20)?

Ah, it's like shooting goldfish in a barrel...

[shuize]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


You mean like this (http://www.nrl.com.au/news.cfm?ArticleID=7441&SearchClubID=20)?

Ah, it's like shooting goldfish in a barrel...

Well, I was thinking of the more recent one that actually mattered. Remember: The World Cup Final lost AT HOME (http://www.rugby2003.com.au/)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shuize


Well, I was thinking of the more recent one that actually mattered. Remember: The World Cup Final lost AT HOME (http://www.rugby2003.com.au/)

Ah, yes, but we beat England AWAY. And, of course, let's not forget that the Union match was only lost in the 99th minute of an 80 minute game.

Hmm... Never imagined I'd be hijacking my own thread on the subject of footy...

[Oso]

Originally posted by Tricky

He's not likely to make it past the primaries, simply because he is a Republican in Democrat's clothing. But if he did make it past the primaries, he would be a true danger to Bush because he would draw a whole lot of conservative votes. He is a true war hero (not a chicken hawk, like Bush) with mostly conservative values, but thinks the Iraq war was botched. That would play well with a lot of conservatives, and of course he would get most of the Democratic votes simply because he is not Bush. But it ain't gonna happen. The Democrats are not going to let a yellow dog Republican take their primary. I have mixed feelings. I want Bush out, but I can't think of any Democrat I'd like less than Clark (except maybe Sharpton).

Yeah, Dubya may get a free pass to another four years due to the ineptitude of the Dems at supporting a viable candidate. Where's Bill when you need him? Tricky you may be right about the Dems not supporting Clark because he's no't a yellow dog Democrat, (Clark's not a 'yellow dog' of any stripe), but if they do, he'll beat Bush.

If you want to beat the shrub, Clark's the only choice. In fact I see in Clark someone that accurately reflects my beliefs on everything except religion. I'm interested in what your concerns are.
Oso

[Skeptic]

I don't think it's the end of the line for the Shrub. His approval ratings are still high and Joe Six-Pack is not known for thinking to hard about things like lies about the war or how there are probably more terrorists now than there were before 9-11.

(sarcasm)

Yes, it IS such a drag "joe six pack" and other such inferior creatures get to vote despite actually occassionally disagreeing with the enlightened opinion of the educated classes.

Why, if it wasn't for THEM, the right-thinking, left-leaning, enlightened liberal democrats would have won every single election since WWII, at the very least.

How they are still allowed to vote after such criminal behavior, I really don't know.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Is it the End of the Line for Bush?

OH PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE yes?
Altho with Americans split 50-50 and George II's war chest at 200 MILLION dollars, unless he fooks up royaly.. I have my doubts. =(