Well, the first time, the American voters gave more votes to Gore than Bush. T’was the Supreme Court that settled that one.
2004 can be placed at the feet of the voters, though.
All part of a clever plan. They’ve been knocked so far back, Iraq will not be able to invade the USA for at least another 50 years.
The fact that we haven’t been invaded by them shows that we have obviously been successful.
Isn’t it obvious?
-Joe
It sure as shit wasn’t me. And in 2004, the margin of victory was pretty narrow. And with Ralph Nader as a spoiler, who knows.
Still doesn’t excuse the lies, though.
The pragmatic part of me thinks that Bush will just drop this hot potato into the lap of the next president. But the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Bush will find a way to convince us that all of the objectives have been met and that the Iraqi government can function on its own, thus making him look like a hero.
Robin
You’re still complaining about Iraq? That was, like, three years ago.
Seriously. Of the five people who work for me, two are ex-soldiers (both sergeants) in their mid-twenties who have been driven to detest the current administration. I have no doubt that both would still be in the Army right now if not for the mind-boggling parade of incompetence and indifference shown them in the past five years.
Can’t forget the estimated 2.3 million Iraqis now living in exile, or the estimated 1.9 million Iraqis displaced from their homes but still in Iraq.
Bingo. Not only that, but that ensures that the new (democrat) governement will have some defeat that they can attack for the next election cycle. Geesh, see how they messed up Syria, we were about to win in Iraq and now they are making a mess of all our endeavours. Time to get Jeb to finish the job.
We, as a nation, are responsible for what has been done to Iraq. That we as a populace were strongly divided over the issue doesn’t change that. Whatever happens to Iraq in the Middle East from this point on has our name on it.
Besides, if the tables were turned, do you think we would give two shits that a large minority opposed the destruction of our country?
Not the US. In 2000, it was a faulty ballot design coupled with incompetent voters in Florida. In 2004, it was a rigged election in Ohio.
Yes, but you didn’t see revolution over election fraud, did you? You didn’t see millions of people marching in the streets and writing their elected representatives and vocally demanding justice. If it is true that the election was flawed (and I believe it was in 2000; I’m on the fence about 2004), we, as a nation, still allowed the innauguration to take place with very little protest and thus gave our tacit seal of approval. Even with the supreme court’s decision, we could have demanded another election and better safeguards against exactly this sort of procedure. But we did not. We still largely blame Ralph Nader (because goodness knows the Republicans didn’t elect Bush, the Greens did; the millions of people who did not vote would have changed nothing, but those nasty Greens, daring to vote for their preferred candidate in a two-party system…)
Okay, I’m ranting. I’ll stop now.
Demanded of who (or is that of whom)? I’m not being snarky, I’m curious as to how you see this playing out.
The Supreme Court hands down the ruling and then…what?
A fair question. I don’t have a good answer. I think the Supreme Court ruling solved the immediate question of who was to be innaugurated in Jan. 2001, but what I would have liked to see is a two-pronged populist groundswell to deal with events after that. Prong one would have limited Bush’s reward for an unfair victory, and prong two would have ensured that it never happened again. This would have been accomplished by millions upon millions of people writing their congressional representatives and marching in the streets and beseiging the media. Newspapers would have led cities and regions to call for a free and fair presidential election be held in November of 2001 to elect a president for the remaining three years. Yes, I know it would mess up the neat pattern of every-four-years-since-1789, but why not essentially have Bush preside during a one-year interregnum? (Don’t bother me with the practical answer, this is a fantasy.) There was talk at the time of amending or ending the Electoral College, but that did not happen, either.
I can understand the reasons, both practical and psychological (not to mention consitutional) why none of this happened. And, of course, the timing of 9/11 certainly would have made it moot. But in a system where all of our governing documents are amendable, and where the rule of the people is in theory paramount, we didn’t really protest all that much. We just said, “oh well, that was unfair, but he’s president now, nothing we can do about it, it’s just easier to muddle along and wait for 2004.” I’m as guilty of this as anyone. My point is that while we live in a country where we have even an infinitessimal amount of say in who governs us and how, we cannot say that we bear no responsibility of Bush’s decisions just because he stole the election. To some degree, albeit a small one, we are the ones who let him get away with it.
Rednecks.
Dang, I always thought we had to fight them over there so that we didn’t have to fight them somewhere else over there.
C’mon - you can’t possibly think voters are dumb enough to forget…Ooh! I see something shiny.
The neocons think things are going OK. They are still in power. If Iraq had fallen and been quieted quickly ,they would have gone on. The plan included Syria,Iran and maybe Saudi Arabia. They do not respect a nationstate.
The neocon plan includes controlling radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, elections, and wrapping up the natural resources they desired. Much has been accomplished. Listen to Kristoll and other neos. A few deaths are the cost of doing big business.
Bush has stated that they have to do something about Iran soon because the next administration may not agree that it has to be done. I am still in great fear.
Joint Chiefs nominee says political solution in Iraq needed. (NYT link)
Hints that we might need to do something about Iran.
And crackers, some snake-handling hillbillies. Peckerwoods are sick of him.
Yeah, the US is really “worried” about what happens to the poor people of Iraq:
IRAQ: A Little Easier to Occupy from the Air
Video of her story linked to in one of my posts upthread.
Could you kill more if you wanted? Of course. Have you already killed too many? Obviously.
And for what? Oh, that’s right, it’s the Iraqis’ fault that your oil is buried underneath their land.
What I don’t understand is all those goddamned stupid soldiers and families of soliders that’ll sit there in the hospital or wherever and shake hands and smile in a photo-op with Dubya, while their other hand has been blown off solely because of him and his stupid war. If I lost a limb or worse in Iraq, I’d have to be a goddamned imbecile to sit there and smile and make small talk with the bastard who did this to me- its like taking a picture with your rapist.