September 18, 2004
Pass The Bush Lemon Law!
Three news items I came across recently, cerebrally converged to spark speculation of what a Bush second term might look like – and, it ain’t pretty. If it turns out that the needed number (but, not necessarily majority) of the American electorate, buys the impressive ‘bait and switch’ conjured up by the boys at RoveVision, they might want to check the warranty’s fine print, first.
The escalating violence in Iraq is getting it’s proper coverage from the American media, even in the company of real stories (Hurricane Ivan), and the manufactured ones (Killian Memogate). But, more surprisingly, the inescapable evidence of which path such bloodshed may possibly preclude has also been starkly laid out to the American public. Moreover, the release of the (previously) classified Intelligence Estimate on prospects of a future Iraq should’ve been the lit fuse of a resulting public outrage.
But, right now, the American public only sees the carnage and body count of Iraq police and civilians, and has turned a blind eye to the increasing toll of violence against Coalition soldiers. That just may be the next ‘loyalty oath’ condition on the Bush/Cheney ’04 campaign trail, along with declaring yourself a parent of a slain American soldier in Iraq. Jittery Democrats can no longer fret, now that candidate Kerry has turned his boat straight into the direction of enemy fire. Each day for the last two weeks, Kerry has supplied direct and stinging headlines, critical of Bush and Cheney. While Bush, avoiding specifics on any major issues, coasted on his perceived front-runner status with vague warnings about Kerry.
Yet, if the blunder of allowing Bush a second term is to come true, the ample evidence of an inevitable Bush Vietnam has to be kept from the American voter. According to the Intelligence Estimate, Iraq is closer to all out civil war, than to now ‘scheduled’ elections in January 2005. America is closer to a massive troop build up in Iraq and compensatory draft, than Iraq PM Iyad Allawi is to finally (and singularly) taking control of his country. And, with sustained sabotage of oil pipelines and no established economy, Iraq is closer to being a major drain on the U.S. economy, than a self-sufficient, sovereign nation.
Remember, in the 2000 election when the electorate was assuaged that veteran advisors would surround the inexperienced Conservative Wunderkind, a few even on loan from Poppa #41? The Bush/Cheney team of the MBA and the CEO? Well, what if they decided not to stick around? Of course, Colin Powell has long been rumored to have already decided to take a pass on four more years as a valued, influential advisor, whose experience and pragmatic approach to foreign diplomacy has already shaped the very nature of the Bush Doctrine. But, what if he is followed out the door by a massive exodus of aides and cabinet officials? Is this the chance to finally pull out the neo-Conservative ideology heavy armor assault weapons?
As a matter of fact, it also begs another urgent and vital question – if this administration is deserving of another four years, then why is everyone bailing?
Bert,
Great post! Right on the mark!
And we haven’t even started on domestic side!
Two wars, a recession, & a deficit.
9/11. It happened on his watch.
The Supreme Court will see several openings in the next few years. Another four years will almost guarantee overturning Roe v Wade.
It’s speculation at this point, but I believe war with Iran will be a high priority for another Bush administration. Since the situation in Iraq will force us to draw down troops, and withdraw within a year, simply as a matter of logistics, the possibility of a draft increases. At some point the US will probably have to eat a loss in Iraq, it’s just a question of whether we give Iran control of the country outright (and avoid a draft), or war with Iran first, institute a draft, and then cede control to the Shias.
Truth is, whether it’s Kerry or Bush, the next few years are not going to be pretty for American policy in the Middle East.
Good article Bert. I have no doubt that the election in Iraq will proceed as scheduled. Bush will make sure of that, just like he’s pressured Karzai to hold (illegal, according to the Afghan constitution) presidential elections in October.
With ongoing violence, threats, and attacks on polling centers and anyone holding a voter registration card, it’s hard to know what an Afghan or Iraqi election will really mean. If Bush doesn’t secure either occupied country, it’s certain that large numbers of people will stay or be kept away from the polls.
The worst case, of course, would be an unpopular result that triggers a civil war. The best case, as the President’s NIE makes clear, is two countries “whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.”
Either way, we’ll be losing soldiers, and pieces of soldiers, over there for a long time.
American Pundit,
I have to disagree on a few things in your assessment, I think America is starting to wake-up from it’s somnambular terror war pipedream post 9-11. More and more signs are saying that domestic issues such as immigration are taking center stage in republican circles. People of conservative persuasion are seeing the massive and rising deficits, complete mismanagement of the treasury department, partially the problem of outsourcing (even though they have it backwards and think the opposite to which is “isolationism” which is not the case and a mistake on their part). Then there’s the spending, they support the tax-cuts ofcourse not having the common sense to know that the bill for the war PLUS the capitol hill spending of Bush 2 are still coming around the bend and straight at them in the middle classes.
If Kerry could capitalize on this it would be a landmark turn-around in terms of support for this administration.
then there’s the war and no plan nor end in sight just rhetoric coming out of the mouthpieces for this administration.
So dispite the CBS nonsense Bush is on a hastened walk(I would say he is on the run but that’s up to Kerry to raise the gauntlet on him more viemently, to get said Bush on the run)
One question that keeps running through my head is this “Does Kerry look like a man that wants this job in the first place?”
I mean to say the things Kerry is going to inherit from Bush 2, are things that are irreparably difficult to solve and will leave us in a hole for some time and could come to the democrats detriment in the political bread and circus.
See, you know this, when we go and tax the ultra wealthy, they retaliate in harsh ways and forgive nothing such as with Clinton. So as Kerry raises the taxes on the rich and closes up their taxless havens and loopholes et al, there will be a viement backlash and allegations such as Clinton faced down which ended in Monica Lewinsky and Hillary’s claim of “A vast right wing conspiracy” which was fact. The ultra-rich buck hard when they do as we saw with the Scaife-melons and the rest of the warchest and coffer-filling cabal. Kerry will definitely be in their sights, much like a baby gazelle through the eyes of a hungry cheetah.
Kerry looks to me like he’s fullfilling a role here on behalf of the DNC even down to Bill Clinton’s convention speach of “Send me..”. Is Kerry a sacrificial lamb to the corporate and Scaife-Melon altar?(if you know what I mean).
the dems know what Kerry has to leap through to do anything amidst a republican congress but on top of that a cabal of money-is-no-object inside players that will be nipping at his heels the whole way. Innevitably influencing the media until Geraldo makes whatever looks politically scurrilous involving Kerry a topic of cablenews chat seven nights a week.
If Kerry wins this this will be a tough row to hoe, no doubt. If we win we still lose but it’s still better than Bush.
Posted by: J Diablo at September 19, 2004 01:28 AMJ Diablo,
You actually sound like the spokesperson for the victimized ‘ultra wealthy’, while strongly suggesting they have a well funded operation specializing in the covert-ops of ‘Politics of Personal Destruction’?
And, what are the issues you feel America has finally awakened to? Immigration? Mismanagement of Treasury?
I have a strong sense, you’re of a Conservative mindset. And, although I am very tempted to take you to task for your like-minded President’s total abdication of core Conservative principles (and not a peep from folks like you), I’d prefer you go back and re-read my post and kindly offer up your thoughts on it’s subject matter.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at September 19, 2004 01:57 AMFantastic collection of links Bert! Readers who haven’t done so should go back up and check them out.
Moreover, the release of the (previously) classified Intelligence Estimate on prospects of a future Iraq should’ve been the lit fuse of a resulting public outrage.Indeed, it seems every third story or so one hears OUGHT to be the lit fuse that blows Bush’s campaign out of the water, but the blinders being worn by those who feel it is their patriotic duty to support their putatively god-fearing president seem impervious to just about anything. Posted by: Walker Willingham at September 19, 2004 03:32 AM
J Diablo, that’s a pretty good analysis, I think. You point out that conservatives are a little anxious because Bush & Co. have torn them away from their conservative roots.
Foreign adventures like Iraq have traditionally been anathema to conservatives - especially when they’re based solely on humanitarian issues, which is all Bush has left in the way of justification.
Immigration and fiscal responsibility have always been hallmarks of conservatism, but Bush has moved completely away from those principles in an effort to repay campaign donors and court votes from groups of people who don’t traditionally vote Republican.
I agree that if Kerry can hammer Bush for not being a real conservative, he could do some damage, but what’s the alternative for disaffected “paleo”-cons? I don’t think they’re going to vote for Kerry just to send Mr. Bush a message.
One question that keeps running through my head is this “Does Kerry look like a man that wants this job in the first place?”
Haha! They said that about Clinton, too. :)
It’s true that a year ago, this race was George Bush’s. Period. Did Kerry really think he had a shot when he threw his hat in the ring? I don’t know. But he’s got a real shot at glory now. If Kerry can turn this country around in four years (I think he can), then he’s a hero. Like Clinton.
And like Clinton, he’s going to get hammered by every conservative, rich or poor, who thinks a Democratic President is an aberration of the laws of nature. Kerry has taken the pounding so far with grace. And once he’s in the White House, he’s going to have a lot of support from his Democratic base.
If Kerry uses his veto the way Clinton did to smack the Republican Congress back in line, and I think he will, he’s got a real shot at making America better.
AP:
I dont see Kerry as someone who would be able to get much, if anything, done. First off, he would be facing a Republican controlled Congress, which would make it tough for him to enact policy. Secondly, he is not known for being directive and sureminded. He IS known for having a change of heart on things. Thats not a good recipe for enacting change.
To me, it seems that the “Anyone but Bush” argument is really the only good reason to vote for Kerry. Kerry on his own is not a good candidate—note how often even his supporters fall into the habit of bashing Bush rather than praising Kerry.
I will be voting for Bush, because I agree with his stances. But aside from that, I see so many questions, even from the left, about Kerry and his nuanced ways. I just dont see him pulling off a victory, and if he does manage that, I dont see him enacting change.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 19, 2004 10:58 PM“With all due respect to the president, has he turned on the evening news lately? Does he read the newspapers?” Kerry said. “Does he really know what’s happening? Is he talking about the same war that the rest of us are talking about?”
(From one of Bert’s linked articles, as said by Kerry to Bush.) Uhhh, who the hell needs the news when you have the entire CIA at your disposal? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Even if you want to blame Bush for your electric toothbrush running out of battery juice, you should give him another four years to sort out his own mess. I don’t think we’re in a mess. I do think that some Americans are [pussycats](1) who pale at “X people died in Iraq today” red, bold faced headlines. If you want to pale at some headlines, pale at these.
Modern slavery, children especially
http://www.anti-slaverysociety.addr.com/toc.htm
http://www.afrigeneas.com/forumb/index.cgi?noframes;read=10420
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_sud.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/29229.htm
The only thing that needs to be said on the subject of Iraq is that the people who are complaining the loudest AREN’T the people risking their lives in Iraq. Ironic.
(1) Wording altered by WatchBlog Manager - Let’s keep it G rated, please!
Posted by: semper at September 20, 2004 12:45 AMsemper said: “The only thing that needs to be said on the subject of Iraq is that the people who are complaining the loudest AREN’T the people risking their lives in Iraq. Ironic.”
No, semper. One more thing needs to be said. The people who are ordering the loss of American lives in Iraq and the maiming of their bodies are ALSO not risking their lives in Iraq. It is easy to spend lives when they are not your own, wouldn’t you say? It should NEVER be easy to spend American lives, and doing so should never be without the checks and balance of vocal critics.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 20, 2004 01:55 AMFirst off, he would be facing a Republican controlled Congress, which would make it tough for him to enact policy.
So did Clinton. What did we get? A golden age.
Secondly, he is not known for being directive and sureminded.
Oh, please. I thought I was responding to joe, not Gillespie.
AP:
John Kerry is no Bill Clinton. Clinton was likable, while Kerry is aloof. Clinton had a visceral connection with people that no one else has, and certainly not John Kerry. They are both Democrats, but that’s where any similarities end.
Clinton was able to get legislation passed, and some of what he passed was simply by matter of co-opting Republican ideas. Certainly, Clinton did not plan the idea of welfare reform; rather, he took the idea away from Republicans and ran with it. By the way, in doing so, he got my approval on that issue.
Kerry simply wont be able to get things done. If elected, he will make attempts, but I dont see any major changes happening. Democrats will then blame the Republican Congress for any of Kerry’s failures, despite not having allowed Bush to point to issues that predated his administration. The hypocrisy will be rich.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 20, 2004 02:09 PM“The people who are ordering the loss of American lives in Iraq and the maiming of their bodies are ALSO not risking their lives in Iraq.”
Yes, the generals in control of military have never seen combat. RIGHT. They also are INTENTIONALLY ordering that their military personel go be maimed in combat. RIGHT. Also, the people who are ordering military action in Iraq are elected by the American public and, in most cases, by a significant number of illegal immigrants from Mexico. I.E. Those officials you are complaing about? Yeah, they were elected by YOU. And don’t pull the “Who me? I didn’t vote for them!” Well somebody had to because they are sitting in their ELECTED offices.
“It is easy to spend lives when they are not your own, wouldn’t you say? It should NEVER be easy to spend American lives, and doing so should never be without the checks and balance of vocal critics.”
Who said it was easy? And what balance is your voice providing? You shame the men and women in the military with your lack of service. We die while you exercise the very freedoms that we die for. All the while you “protest” our deaths instead of fighting along side us. Great idea, let us die while you protest it.
Posted by: semper at September 21, 2004 01:03 AMClinton was likable, while Kerry is aloof.
Interesting. I find Kerry just as likeable as Clinton.
Clinton did not plan the idea of welfare reform
despite not having allowed Bush to point to issues that predated his administration.
Dude, are you kidding!? All I hear from the right is how the recession started in late 2000.
I, and all the Democrats I know couldn’t care less when it started. We just want to know why Bush never did anything about it.
We die while you exercise the very freedoms that we die for.
Oh, please. semper, I assume you were a Marine. Wasn’t that your job description? Isn’t the Constitution, and all the freedoms therein, the first thing you swear to support and defend?
If you want to be bitter, go be bitter at your commander in chief. He’s the guy who screwed the military out of the victory parade for this one.
semper, take a civics course already. Generals don’t order our troops into war, they just pass them on. Civilians order troops into war, does the name President Bush ring a bell? How about the Constitution of the U.S. which delegates war declarations to the Congress, not the Generals.
Sheesshhhh!
AP:
Nice to see that you are consistent in your partisanship. Very nice to see.
You say that you want to know why Bush has done nothing about the recession…..although in prior posts and threads, you castigate him for the tax cut legislation. You virtually admit that the economy had turned down BEFORE Bush got into office, which is something the “left” in general wont admit (despite the ease with which it is proven by economic FACT).
Have you not noticed the 1.7 million jobs that have been created in the past year? Did you miss that? Thats a pretty good response to a recession. How about housing starts, falling unemployment numbers, a recovering (slowly) stock market, better manufacturing numbers in terms of production etc etc etc. Are these not enough response for you? If not, then what is??
The fact that YOU like Kerry is wonderful—but not very salient. Anecodotal evidence rarely is. My point was that Kerry is sort of an aloof guy(or at least comes across that way on the campaign trail)—and certainly not like Clinton. Its not a slam on Kerry at all—just fact.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 21, 2004 02:02 PMSo, um, what exactly would Kerry do differently to stop the violence in Iraq?
Posted by: Damon at September 21, 2004 05:16 PMHaha! joe, I’m very consistent.
2/3 of the US economy is generated by consumers. 25% of Bush’s tax-cuts-for-the-rich are targeted towards the 95% of consumer who make less than $200k/yr - people who are far more likely to spend the money. 75% are targeted at the other 5% who put the majority of their earnings in savings or investments (captol).
We don’t have a capitol shortage, we have a shortage of consumers. Bush’s tax cuts were mistargeted and they prolonged and deepened the recession.
Even Greenspan just wacked Bush for it,
Mr. Greenspan said he thought the tax cuts were well-timed to help the economy bounce back from the 2001 recession. But he agreed that the government could have taken other steps that might have provided an even bigger boost to growth.
Have you not noticed the 1.7 million jobs that have been created in the past year?
Which still puts Bush a million jobs short of where he started, and if you add in the 150,000 new entrants to the job market every month, he’s also about 7 million jobs short of keeping pace with growth.
As for the rest, if you’re happy with a slow recovery, then good for you. Greenspan, Kerry & I know this recession didn’t have to be as bad as it is.
My point was that Kerry is sort of an aloof guy(or at least comes across that way on the campaign trail)—and certainly not like Clinton.
The fact that YOU find Kerry aloof is wonderful—but not very salient. Anecodotal evidence rarely is… Where are we going with this? :)
So, um, what exactly would Kerry do differently to stop the violence in Iraq?
Damon are you out of the country, or doing hard time? Kerry just made a big speech where he laid it out in detail. Turn off American Idol and read a newspaper.
Interesting that W could say nothing more about CIA assessments in Iraq (one of them noting the distinct possibility of civil war) than to say that they were “guessing” about what could happen.
Again, Bushie appeared to have no idea on what to say and appeared to not even know about the substance of the report. Sickens me to think that we have elected and may again elect, someone who has difficulty putting a sentence together without a teleprompter.
Where is Dan Quayle when you need him? At least with him around, even the president would not look quite so stoopid. Looks like all the cocaine/alcohol he did in his early years fried his brain…
Posted by: mark at September 22, 2004 12:53 PMA.P.
First you say that Bush “never did anything about” the recession. Then you say that you dont like what he did about the recession, specifically how he targeted the tax cuts. So….which is it—-he did nothing, or you dont like what he did. (by the way, this little flip-flop of yours gives me a better understanding of why you like the candidate you do.)
Secondly, its not ME saying Kerry is aloof. Its the voters out there. Again, its not meant to be a slam at Kerry. He would love to be as “likable” as Bill Clinton—heck, so would nearly every candidate on both sides of the aisle. That was one of Clinton’s best features…his ability to connect with people.
Kerry doesnt have it. Neither did Gore. According to nearly everthing I’ve read, from all sorts of media, Bush has more ability to portray himself as a “normal guy”. I readily admit that he’s NOT a normal guy, but he plays it better than Kerry.
Face it, both Kerry and Bush are extremely rich, and as such, are NOT normal guys. But whereas Bush is seen jogging, cutting brush, riding a bike etc., Kerry is seen windsurfing off Nantucket, or kite surfing. While Kerry is probably a better athlete (hockey etc.), Bush is SEEN as a better athlete…this was polled for some reason.
In the end, it is the voters who get to decide.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 22, 2004 03:35 PM
