Thank you for your replies and hijacks…
I concede to the majority. Perhaps y’all should start another thread to continue this debate?
Peace.
I remember it well. I was already married and out of college.
This is nothing like the first Gulf war. The first Gulf war had nothing to do with U.S. security. Once it was over, it was forgotten. On the contrary, the echoes of 9/11 will continue on for a long time, and a successful war against Iraq would be a huge boost to President Bush.
In addition, you’re underestimating just how difficult the U.S. position is in the world with respect to security. In my opinion, Bush is intentionally downplaying the North Korean problem in order to prevent further distractions from Iraq. But that problem is potentially far more difficult. It’s getting harder and harder to see how the U.S. can avoid war with North Korea, or at least a long, drawn out, very tense situation. I expect to see that whole situation elevated in importance as soon as Baghdad falls.
And the war on terror doesn’t end with the downfall of Saddam. There is still Iran, NK, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, and lots of other countries harboring terrorists. This battle will be going on for a decade or more.
In general I agree, but that just shows how weak the Democrat’s position is. If there’s an attack, the security concerns play into the Republican’s strengths. If there’s not, the Republicans can play the, “Don’t change a winning team” card. The Democrats are really between a rock and a hard place.
It depends on what the attack is. If it was something the Bush administration could have prevented, then yes. And I note that the Democrats are already setting themselves up to be able to play the ‘I told you so’ card by making various vague complaints about the lack of homeland security. But that’s a dangerous game - if they are perceived as being opportunists after a horrible attack, that will hurt.
Maybe we can agree that the political ramifications of another terror attack will pretty much depend on the type of attack and how the administration responds to it.
The Democrats veered to the left? Hardly. If people are pissed off at the Democrats, it’s because most of them caved to Bush and voted to support his war against Iraq. I think the Democrats veered to the right if anything.
And Cheney returning as Veep? Please. Not even Bush is that stupid. He’s in bad health and probably the most scandal-vulnerable of anyone in the administration. I’ll put my money on Tom Ridge as his running mate in 2004. Hell, if he had picked TR as Veep in 2000, he would have most likely won Pennsylvania and the whole Florida thing would have been moot.
He ought to just let Big George be his running mate…
hot damn, that’s the ticket
how’s that go? better than two in the Bush…
What I meant was the the Democrats have veered to the left since the 2002 election. Apparently the Party agrees with ElwoodCuse that they were too far to the right in 2002. The election of 2004 will be a test of this theory.
I think the Democrats will be proved wrong. I think most of the votes are in the middle. I think the voters will punish the Democrats for their anti-war obstructionism, not to mention their anti-tax-cut obstructionism, anti-Estrada obstructionism, anti-eleciton reform obstructionism, anti-school choice obstructionism, etc.
Are you suggesting that the Democrats nominate Robert Byrd? 
I am not so sure. The only thing to be certain is, if GWB has as bad a time in Iraq as he is having now in Afghanistan, the Dems will dig it up and use it against him, even if the media is going to forget about Iraq like it has forgotten Afghanistan.
Another thing to consider is the cost of war. Suppose Gulf War II is going to cost 100B US and rebuilding Iraq will take 200B US. Without UN sanction, the only country that may help foot the bill is the UK. You can forget all about Japan, the Arab States, and the EU. 300B, minus say 10% from the UK, that’s a 270B extra burden placed on the US economy. Not pretty.