I’d view Wesley Clark as sort of a reverse Colin Powell. VP or secretary of defense doesn’t really matter.
I think that fundamentally Bush’s opponent will have to show that he is better for national security than Bush. Wether or not people give Bush a break on Iraq is very big for this because Bush can lose the trust of the average person over Iraq. If Bush seems to be a liar and does poorly in Iraq then I think he and his administration can manage to reverse the idea that Republicans are good on national security.
Not to mention the fact that homeland security has been neglected recently and Bush has been cutting military pay. If the military starts talking out against Bush Bush loses.
Sam Stone that is about what I believe happened, but that would be worse for Bush than him knowingly lying. Because ultimately it still means that he lied and it also means that he is going to ignore the evidence in intelligence gathering that contradicts what he believes.
It’s been proven that some of -the claims were wrong. It hasn’t been proven that Bush, Powell, et. al. knew they were wrong at the time they repeated them. I’ve seen Bush bashers assert that these African uranium claims had already been debunked, but I’ve not seen any convincing evidence of that assertion. Do you have any evidence?
Note: Repeating the assertion in CAPITAL LETTERS doesn’t count as proof.
This seems fundamentally impossible unless Bush has a huge fuckup under his belt by next spring regarding national security. Afghanistan’s or Iraq’s chaos isn’t going to count for much.
Just like last year, things are relatively quiet now. Even better, no media simmerings about Enron and Worldcom. Just those pesky WMD questions, but nobody really cares about that, right?
So, gang, what new product will be rolled out in late summer/early fall 2003?
Are you implying that the voting public is saying “Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your candidate president can do for you?”.
Excuse me December, but it seems that a president was involved in decisions that may have triggered 9/11 and a questionable motives for the war with Iraq. Are you saying that we should forget those decisions and not even ask if he is going to continue the same Foreign Policy blunders, causing more mayhem?
Bush’s credibility over the reasons for the invasion of Iraq is important because most everyone has trouble admitting they were wrong. ( Not that you would ever notice it in this enlightened forum! ) It is much easier to say “I was tricked” than “I was wrong”. I’m sure that has been brought up here in GD before but I wanted to mention it in relation to the poll findings. Looks to me like a lot of Americans are leaving themselves some wiggle-room. I’m also sure that it has been noted here that America isn’t likely to be able to get out of paying for most of the reconstruction of Iraq. Putting those 2 factors together should make Bushies rather uncomfortable.
Of course there is the Repub war chest to make them feel better. The $200 million figure is just what Bush plans to raise for the ( uncontested ) primary. He’ll ask for and get even more for the general election. Personally I am far from convinced Bush will lose again.
As an international relations wonk, I’ve gotta say… I like this random capitalization of Foreign Policy…
Dubbya has arguably done more with less, toppling Saddam with only Britain and Sp… sorry, the coalition of the willing helping, rather than all of Western and Eastern Europe; but winning the first Gulf War didn’t do anything for Sr. because he put the economy in the proverbial crapper.
Ironically, we’ve won Gulf War 2 ™ and the economy is again in the crapper, and the First Trained Monkey and ringmaster Cheney will be out of office again.
Americans aren’t waking up, they’re snoring ever more loudly, but the Wall Street Alarm will make everything okay
Yes, I’m afraid so. That’s why both parties want to give Medicare’s prescription drug coverage to well-to-do seniors, not just those who need it, even though Medicare is is already in financial difficulties.
I’m not sure who “we” is in your question. I’m not making a moral statement. I’m saying the voting public won’t pick a President on that issue.
Motives are just too subtle. Results count. To make this a real issue, Democrats would have to argue that America is worse off because of war with Iraq. They have to argue that in a second term Bush will make similar foreign policy blunders. But, that pretty much means arguing for a less aggressive war on terror, which I think loses them more votes than it gains. The Dems won’t get anywhere claiming that they’ll pursue the war on terror with greater skill.
It’s not like the Dems can point to a history of successful warfare under Democratic leaders. I think Clinton did very well in the former Yugoslavia. However, he didn’t even notice that al Qaeda was making war on the US. Reagan is given credit for winning the Cold War, despite Democratic resistance. Viet Nam and Korea were Democratic wars that we lost.
AFICT
Well, the CIA has testified that they cabled the White House, Cheney in particular, about the Niger forgeries in 2002. So while no smoking gun along the lines of a signature on a memo showing that Bush or Cheney read it, there is ample evidence that the White House had the capacity and obligation to know.
The IAEA fellow who got the Niger reports used Google to find out that certain elements of the documents were false, ( the dates of the constituional laws referenced, the signatures of various officials who’d been out of office for more than a decade at the supposed date of the letters, etc.).
So between being informed by the CIA and the capacity of the average American adult to Google the Bush Admin certainly should have known taht these docs were forgeries. If they did, then it is an example of intentional attempts to mislead the public. If they did not, then it is an example of gross incompetence and/or negligence.
Henry Waxman makes me ashamed to be a Jew. He’s from a reliably Democratic district, so he can safely make the most outrageous smears, consisting of hints and innuendos. It’s noteworthy that even this McCarthylike partisan didn’t accuse Bush of knowingly making false statements.
The best he could do is to hint that Bush should have known that the uranium story was inaccurate. And, he didn’t fully prove that. All he said was that some people had some doubts about the story. But, intelligence is always imperfect. There are doubts about most intelligence info.
It should be easy for anti-war folks to acknowledge that intelligence is an inexact science, seeing as how their own predictions about the war in Iraq turned out to be wildly wrong. Remember the doomsday forecasts of thousands of US casualties, tens or hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, uprisings in other Arab countries, destruction of the entire Iraqi infrastructure, torching of the oil wells, widespread use of WMDs against our troops, etc.
Although you didn’t intend this cite to show that there was no evidence that Bush lied, that’s how I read it.
I thought you were looking for evidence that “these African uranium claims had already been debunked.”
My bad. I don’t have any evidence that the Bush admin was lying. That would require some evedence of who knew what when. All that has come out in th emedia is that the info to know that these documents were forgeries was available to the White House prior to the White house presenting the info to the public. The White House may not have knowing engaged in misrepresentations, but then they have engaged in shoddy vetting of evidence in a grave matter related to national security…
Of course, you conveniently left out World War I and II. The US did pretty well in those, I understand. Reagan is given credit for winning the Cold War only by simple-minded right wingers.
Of course, Democrats could also point to the massive amount of Bush lies are right in line with major Republican scandals such as illegally selling arms to terrorists (Reagan) and Watergate (Nixon). And pointing out how many of the members of this Administration supported Hussein during the 80s.
That disastrous results from the invasion of Iraq did not occur is an utterly meaningless point. The possibility, even probability, of such disasters was accepted as part and parcel of the dreadful necessity for war: a war to protect ourselves from horrible consequences, i.e. WMD.
The President can be likened to a man who bets all of our lives on drawing one card to an inside straight and wins: he got lucky, he got away with it. Still doesn’t make it a smart move.
I think this was smaller than some intelligence errors made by other Presidencies. The Clinton Administration supposedly turned down more than one opportunity to capture OBL. FDR allowed the Holocaust to occur. JFK thought there was a missile gap with the USSR. Jimmy Carter allowed the Iran to be taken over by anti-American religious fanatics.
Still, there’s no question that the Bush administration got this one wrong. He deserves to be criticized for the error.
Crap, arrogant damn crap. You’ve had the history of US involvement explained in countless threads. It’s their country and if they wanted to get rid of a US installed puppet it’s their right. Allowed indeed.
This sentence sums up the arrogant presumption and pig shit thick ignorance of the Ugly American, here personified by December, yet again.
