Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bush is a Real Cowboy - or Is He?

“Shoot first and ask if you have got enough troops later.” “Don’t change horses in the middle of a stream” - if its dead, just beat it harder. Be the world’s “Lone Ranger.” This is his new? Iraq policy? You real cowboys need to step forward and disown this guy.

Winning the war in Iraq is an excellent idea. Losing / withdrawing will have terrible consequences. Sending more troops to stabilize the country is an excellent idea. I agree wholeheartedly. In my article titled: "Is It Always Darkest Before the Dawn?" I set forth certain preconditions for my support for a new policy in Iraq. Bush has failed to meet those preconditions as expected. Bush had a very short window of opportunity in which to gain my support. That window has now closed.

Sending more troops in concert with the rest of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group would be a good idea. It might even work and I was willing to give it one small chance. Twenty one thousand troops is not going to get it, especially in the absence of the rest of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. It brings us back up to what??? 160,000. We needed at least 250,000 when we invaded in the first place. The situation is far worse now, 21,000 is far too little, far too late - and Bush knows it. You want to win the war in Iraq now without the help of Iran and Syria??? I am a reasonable guy. I can support that - 500,000 troops to stabilize Iraq - 500,000 more amassed on the border with Iran to intimidate Iran and control the border - 500,000 more amassed on the border with Syria for the same purpose - re institute the draft - roll back tax cuts to pay for it all... Does my plan sound wildly unrealistic? That is the level of commitment that the "Lone Ranger" needs to make if he plans to win. "Lone Ranger" ain't gonna do it. Tonto ain't even following him into this fight. Tony Tonto Blair is withdrawing. Get in or get out. Play to win or shut up and get out of my face. We are not going to get in therefore we need to get out. When the war is lost, the war is lost. When you are no longer willing to pay the price to win, the war is lost. The war is lost. Get it. The war is lost. Bush knows the war is lost - 21,000 troops is about trying to pass problem / blame along to another President or force the Dems to cut off funding and take the political blame for his failure.

And this $#%$%^# still wants to start preemptive nuclear war with Iran through Israeli surrogates. See: "Bush's Rush to Armageddon" and "Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran"

And he is bombing Somalia???

Posted by Ray Guest at January 14, 2007 9:30 PM
Comment #203275

“Does my plan sound wildly unrealistic?”

Yes Ray. We don’t have enough ground forces to do it. We never did. Occupation is a labor intensive project, Bush & Co, rejected the possibility that would even be neccessary.

Bush & Co. are still rejecting reality. They always will.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 14, 2007 11:09 PM
Comment #203283

Calling W a cowboy is an insult to real cowboys (and cowgirls, my sister reminds me).

Trying to keep an eye to the big picture, I would favor W continuing his 6 years of %$#*$@ it all up and the GOP’s continuing (albeit, crumbling) support of W. I say, bring it on!

By 2008, W will have single-handedly destroyed the GOP and conservatives will be returned to the back benches with the Neanderthals where they belong: it is where they perform a valuable service for the country with cautioning grunts and groans but no power to harm this country as they have done for 25 years.

W’s bio can then be titled, The Last Cowboy.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at January 14, 2007 11:48 PM
Comment #203300

Opening Salvos of a greater Middle East War

A war involving the US, Israel, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda…..

Posted by: Alan at January 15, 2007 6:46 AM
Comment #203314

Bush isn’t a cowboy. He’s the evil emperor. His manipulators have dressed him up in fine words and heroic aspirations, but now the mirage is receding. His nakedness is apparent for all to see. As we rush headlong towards Armageddon, see the words of Reagans Republicans…..

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at January 15, 2007 11:04 AM
Comment #203350

Hmmm, news out of Kuwait City:

“Indicating participants of the meeting agreed to impose restrictions on the ambitions of Iranian regime before April 2007 without exposing other countries in the region to any danger, the source said “they have chosen April as British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said it will be the last month in office for him. The United States has to take action against Iran and Syria before April 2007.”

“Claiming the attack will be launched from the sea and not from any country in the region, he said “the US and its allies will target the oil installations and nuclear facilities of Iran ensuring there is no environmental catastrophe or after effects.” “Already the US has started sending its warships to the Gulf and the build-up will continue until Washington has the required number by the end of this month,” the source said. “US forces in Iraq and other countries in the region will be protected against any Iranian missile attack by an advanced Patriot missile system.”

“He went on to say “although US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice suggested postponing the attack, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on attacking Tehran without any negotiations based on the lesson they learnt in Iraq recently.” The Bush administration believes attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calm down the situation in Iraq and pave the way for their democratic project, which had to be suspended due to the interference of Tehran and Damascus in Iraq, he continued. The attack on Iran will weaken the Syrian regime, which will eventually fade away, the source said.”

I believe this bears repeating: “The Bush administration believes attacking Iran will create a new power balance in the region, calm down the situation in Iraq and pave the way for their democratic project”

Sounds very believable to me.

Impeachment anyone?

Posted by: KansasDem at January 15, 2007 1:47 PM
Comment #203369

If Bush and the rest attack Iran, this has to prove his incompetence. This has to be the stupidest move. We don’t have the resources or military to do this, nor a valid reason. God, I hope this is just propaganda, as bad as it is.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 15, 2007 3:10 PM
Comment #203376

Bush’s stubborn “decider” attitude really scares me. If he were to add more troops to Iraq, then wage war with Iran and Siria. What is that actually saying to the middle east and the world? What does that make us look like? Dare we say it?
And, where are these troops to come from? He cannot do this without reinstating the draft. Which, as we all know, the new dem congress will be blamed for that.

I agree with Kansasdem - I say impeach him before he gets us all killed.

Posted by: ziem at January 15, 2007 4:07 PM
Comment #203382


There was no circumstance that existed back in 2003 for which invading Iraq was a justifiable military action. Nonetheless, since it was invitable—because GWB was going to do it no matter what—I agree with the strategy you pose. Our troops needed to take control of that entire country, secure it borders, etc. But, more importantly, politically, the US needed to be an “occupying” force and build that nation up. Even Colin Powell tried to make that clear to the “president.”

It is too late now to try to do what should have been from the very beginning from a military standpoint. Preventing further US casualties should be the main issue surrounding any “new” Iraq policy. I find it very difficult to believe that there is any military or political strategy than can justify the loss of life of even ONE more US soldier. Withdraw the troops, leave Iraqi’s and their neighbors to their own devices. Concentrate military effort in securing the US from the US. It may be a pleasant reality, but it the one that GWB has created, and American lives are more important than any current political debate over this fiasco that is Bush’s war in Iraq.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at January 15, 2007 4:59 PM
Comment #203392

This is me being an optimist. For the Iraqi regime to have any chance to succeed Bagdad must be secured. 20000 is not enough troops however if troops are withdrawn from other ares,hopefully with the Iraqis taking over,and redeployed to Bagdad it is possible to secure the capital for long enough for us to make a graceful withdrawel and at least leave the Iraqis a fighting chance. One reason I have for optimism is Bush did find a geniunly competent general to oversee the operation.
Failure to talk to Iran and Syria is probably the fatal mistake to this plan. They are nieghbors and have a vested interest in Iraq no matter how much we disagree with them. It would be just like Bush to pull another defeat out of the jaws of victory. Oops,there went my optimism again.

Posted by: BillS at January 15, 2007 5:34 PM
Comment #203450

Thanks for all of your comments.

I read all of your links. It is absolutely chilling. This is a mad man.

I just threw this article together because I am busy with another project.


For a good analysis of Iran’s stake in Iraq read: “Chatham House: Iran, Its Neighbours and the Regional Crisis”
which I based my article titled: “Iran has won the war. It is time to sue for peace.” on. Anyhow, Bush is planning to talk to Iran - WITH NUCLEAR BOMBS!!!

Posted by: Ray Guest at January 15, 2007 10:03 PM
Comment #203453

Thanks for the links here.
I agree, Bush and the Neocons are madmen, and that the president and vice president should be impeached before they get us all killed.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 15, 2007 10:12 PM
Comment #203457


Great to hear from you! Unfortunately, he is moving so fast, I think that we are too late to impeach him. There are some wild eyed new age freaks out there that think he is an alien shape shifting lizard. They may be right after all. Metaphorically, they are dead nuts on…

There are protest coming up in DC. I am going to have to find time to write articles and promote tham more aggressively.

Posted by: Ray Guest at January 15, 2007 10:27 PM
Comment #203490

“Great to hear from you!”

Thanks, Ray!

“Unfortunately, he is moving so fast, I think that we are too late to impeach him.”

You might be right. Still, Nixon went down pretty fast because it was a bi-partisan affair. Republicans in Congress may soon realize it’s in their best interest to get rid of these nutters before they start World War III?

Btw, here are a couple of articles related to this subject that I was just reading in Rawstory:

Major investment bank issues warning on strike against Iran

Gates: ‘Iranians are acting in a very negative way…we’re going to be there for a long time’

Posted by: Adrienne at January 16, 2007 2:13 AM
Comment #203508


It might be a good time to hedge investments.

Posted by: Ray Guest at January 16, 2007 10:47 AM
Comment #203511

Ray, Adrienne, All

If all the links in these posts add up to reality it most definately is time to begin impeachment proceedings in an attempt to save the world from the lunacy of this administration.

I have not been an advocate of impeachment sinse I felt there were more important matters at hand which impeachment proceedings would only hinder. However in light of the 60 minutes interview and strategic realignment of weapons after his big speech the other night, it is apparent that this man and his administration has either lost touch with reality or his strings are being pulled by some mighty powereful puppet masters.

I was about 13 when The Bay of Pigs happened but I can remember the fear it instilled on me as a child. It is the rememberance of that fear which has made me realize the severity of the situation at hand. Lets hope all Americans are watching this closely and are willing to put their two cents in.

Posted by: ILdem at January 16, 2007 11:00 AM
Post a comment