# How bad could Four More Years be? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 9, 2004, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230 "2004-07-09T04:16:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/41 "2004-07-10T03:15:30Z")
## My problem right now is that I feel you aren’t taking my posts seriously. This doesn’t incline me to extend that consideration to yours. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/42 "2004-07-10T03:30:18Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > My problem right now is that I feel you aren’t taking my posts seriously. > This doesn’t incline me to extend that consideration to yours. :rolleyes: In order to serve you better, we need to know how big a deal something needs to be before it is a “prob” - it is your thread, you should define that, since you don’t consider things like global hatred of America to be a problem. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/43 "2004-07-10T03:47:31Z")
I’m afraid that reply did nothing to convince me of your sincerity. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/44 "2004-07-10T03:49:41Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > I’m afraid that reply did nothing to convince me of your sincerity. _shrugs_ Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/45 "2004-07-10T03:55:52Z")
Lets see. Abortion would be made illegal. Mass protests, but does Bush care? No. Social Security will be looted entirely to pay for the military we NEED for all those countries which “sponsor” terror. Or… The rapture actually happens; Bush is taken; America realizes there IS a God and He did them a HUGE favor and peace reigns forever. ---
**Author:** ![quelquechose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6f9a4e/32.png) [@quelquechose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quelquechose)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/46 "2004-07-10T04:00:25Z")
> [@vanilla](#): > > The rapture actually happens; Bush is taken; America realizes there IS a God and He did them a HUGE favor and peace reigns forever. Isn’t realizing that Bush was a good president a little like “realizing” that the sky is green? ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/47 "2004-07-10T04:03:24Z")
how are you getting That from my post? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/48 "2004-07-10T04:20:38Z")
The rather obvious possible drawback of four more years of Bush is four more years of not winning the war on terrorism. Maybe I’m the only one who’s noticed, but Bush has failed to capture Osama bin Laden and has failed to win the war in Afghanistan (not that the media likes to talk about it, but that war’s not going all that well, ya know) - both in part because he started a second war before winning the war on terrorism. The single most important issue of his administration has thus far been a quite obvious failure. The world’s most dangerous terrorist is at large, a country that was a terrorist breeding ground is still a lawless terrorist breeding ground - what’s been accomplished? Nada. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/49 "2004-07-10T04:32:31Z")
**vanilla** , ## No lesser court can overturn _Roe v Wade_ for the nation; only the Supremes. The President can not appoint judges to life terms or loot Social Security unilaterally. He needs the consent of 60 Senators to appoint an anti-_Roe_ Supreme Court Justice and the same plus a majority of the House to eliminate Social Security. These things are not likely to happen. > [@RickJay](#): > > The rather obvious possible drawback of four more years of Bush is four more years of not winning the war on terrorism. ## I don’t disagree with you. In fact, I am firmly in the “Bush has made terrorism more of a threat” camp. But as I argue in the OP that damage is already done. Four more years of groping towards eptness isn’t as good as having effective leadership but it’s not invading Iraq all over again. Bush has radicalized the Muslim world. We have to deal with that problem no matter what. I wouldn’t say that putting off taking responsibility for another four years is a good thing but it’s not the end of the world either. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/50 "2004-07-10T07:18:43Z")
**Zagadka** , I think “no prob” means “no probability”. “More tax cuts for the rich? No prob.” -\> I think **2sense** means “More tax cuts for the rich? Ain’t gonna happen.” I hope this is right and that you can come back to the discussion… ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/51 "2004-07-10T07:41:16Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > I don’t think it likely Bush would invade Iran. Iran doesn’t offer the potential benefits that Iraq did. **No oil** , no opportunity to change America’s view of foreign involvement, no making Bush a “War President”, no revenge for Daddy, _et cetera_. But if it does happen remember that **Iran doesn’t have much oil** so holding it isn’t a priority. We sliced through Iraq in three weeks. I imagine we could do about as well with Iran given a prolonged bombing campaign to soften them up and allow us to move more assets into the region. ( **Emphasis** added.) Depending on who you believe, Iran has the [second](http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6§ion=0&article=47841&d=4&m=7&y=2004) or [third](http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html) largest petroleum reserves in the world. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/52 "2004-07-10T07:48:22Z")
About Iraq, I’ve always been of the opinion, “Get the occupation out”. Want to halve the insurgent attacks on occupation troops? Simple. Just draw down the 160,000 occupation troops to 80,000. Now, finally, [this insight seems to be slowly starting to spread](http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10086503%255E1702,00.html), at last. So turning to the OP, and remembering how much the Bush administration has had to backtrack already on Iraq so far, I think a second Bush term would see a good chance of getting the troops out sooner rather than later. > **[Jonathan Steele: Kerry would keep US troops in Iraq far longer than Bush](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/09/usa.iraq3)** > > Jonathan Steele: The Democrat looks like the one with the long-term imperial agenda. > [@](#): > > Given this analysis, what would Bush do if he won a second term? The conventional view is that he is one of the most ideologically, even religiously driven, presidents of modern times. He would pursue his pre-emptive war on terror in Iraq and beyond. > > But there is another possibility. Iraq has been a millstone for the past year and a half, and he might well choose to declare victory and withdraw. Iraq’s January election provides the perfect escape hatch. We have brought Iraq to the first democratic poll in its history and now we move out, he could announce, as he sets a timetable for a three-month withdrawal. As the rest of the quoted article notes, this would be a relatively good outcome of a Bush 2 administration. I also agree with **2sense** generally, that Bush has generated so much opposition, that there is relatively little new harm left that he could realistically expect to inflict. Sorry for saying this, seeing as this thread is not interested in comparing a Kerry term, but I’ll add that a second Bush term might well be less bad overall than a Kerry term. The real cause of all evil in America is the monopoly on political power and government held by the two corrupt political parties. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/53 "2004-07-10T08:03:41Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Except, of course, that this misses the arguments made, the facts, and most of the history surrounding this issue. Ah, a typical blithe, sarcastic, overly simplistic response from **pervert**. No thread would be complete without one. > [@](#): > > 1)Iraq and Al Qaeda did have links, just not the sorts of links which led them to cooperate on attacks against America. Read the papers much, there - pervert? Happen to catch the conclusions of a little gang called the 9/11 Commission? Saddam and Osama weren’t cooking up _anything_. Trying to say they had some “other” kinds of links is just grasping at straws. What, did they happen to use the same brand of toilet paper or something? > [@](#): > > 2)Standing up to terrorism does not mean “attacking countris that supported terrorism”. It means attacking countries which supported terrorism and which would not cooperate with the American lead effort to end terrorism. You mean not cooperating with “We will attack you no matter what”? Bush’s “American lead effort to end terrorism” was to attack Iraq. There was never any doubt in his mind, never any question. It was something he was dead set on doing since his first day in office. “Standing up to terrorism” means attacking a country that has less to do with terrorism than any of the other countries around it? And I guess “cooperating” means pretending to be best buds with Bush and funding al Qaeda behind his back, like the Saudi royal family. That’s a pretty piss-poor “effort to end terrorism”. > [@](#): > > Saudi Arabia certainly has a checkered past. However, their leaders are talking to us. And they are making some changes. So it’s _not_ about terrorism at all, is it? It’s about “cooperating” with the U.S. All this talk about “fighting terrorism” has nothing to do with it. We aren’t any closer to busting up al Qaeda after all the U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq. If anything, the situation is worse. > [@](#): > > Iraq, on the other hand had more than 12 years of just the opposite sort of non cooperative behavior. Oh, I see. So we go back in time 12 years for Iraq, but that criteria only applies to Iraq. Don’t forget to mention he tried to kill Bush’s daddy, too. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/54 "2004-07-10T08:23:36Z")
2 sense… some of your “no prob” I might agree… shockingly so. Still before Bush I really thought any Brazilian president wouldn’t be so different… or any US president wouldn’t be so different from others. Maybe a bit more competent or a bit more militant. The idea that overall constitution and congress would rein in excesses… How mistaken we were ! I think Bush can still do damage… and a lot of it. From religious initiatives to new military adventures. If he does win he will have very little leeway though as compared to his first term. Osama Bin Laden will be forthcoming though to help his main propaganda booster… and expect to see more from the “war” president then. ``` Iraqis also will not stop insurgents from acting while Bush is in office... once he is out its harder for insurgents to justify themselves ? Hopefully Kerry will use the goodwill of the world once he takes over to heal US relations and help Iraq get on its feet. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Master\_Wang-Ka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/master_wang-ka/32/3325_2.png) [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/55 "2004-07-10T13:50:06Z")
I’d like to think that the Iraqi resistance would ease up once Bush was out of office, but I suspect that may be naive. If my country was occupied by enemy troops, and I had a basement full of bombs, I’d be roadside bombing the hell out of my occupiers, whether their president was Bush, Reagan, Lincoln, or Bozo the Clown. Saddam may have hated Bush I, but I really don’t think most Iraqis take it that far. I think we’ve pretty much taught them to hate Americans in general, for the most part. Perhaps the more intelligent folks there would agree that the Bush Administration is to blame, but the average guy – in Iraq as in America – is only so bright. ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/56 "2004-07-10T14:48:38Z")
I like what this guy has to say in [The Village Voice](http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0428/coates2.php) with his plan to winnow out the voters. All my wishes in one place. > [@](#): > > 1. And just to show that my demands aren’t just aimed at socialist pinko bastards, people who believe Saddam Hussein planned 9-11 shall be summarily disenfranchised for life. It matters not that this could equal half the electorate. > > 2. Getting back to the socialist pinko bastards: People who believe Bush planned 9-11 shall be summarily disenfranchised for life. > > 3. People who get their information from The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, Saturday Night Live, The Onion, or Fox “News” shall be subject to a poll tax, grandfather clause, literacy tests, and failing all else, “reeducation” camps. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2004, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/57 "2004-07-10T16:42:55Z")
> [@Frankenstein Monster](#): > > **Zagadka** , I think “no prob” means “no probability”. > > “More tax cuts for the rich? No prob.” -\> I think **2sense** means “More tax cuts for the rich? Ain’t gonna happen.” Oh no, I did mean “no problem”. Still, your take is actually a more accurate reflection of my meaning. The problem I refer to is not for the world but for my thesis that Bush is unlikely to do as much damage in a 2nd term as in his first. I do think additional major tax cuts would be a big problem but as you say it is unlikely to occur and thus that possibility doesn’t cause problems for the argument I put forth in the OP. What I was objecting to was **Zagadka** ’s simplistic misrepresentation of my position. What I wanted was for him to make a substansive effort to reply to my arguments. In the process it would have become clear to him that his assertions that I favored theocracy and terrorism are absurd. ## Of course, they are absurd on their face and yet he posted them anyways. This leads me to believe he is interested in something other than open and honest debate. You say you hope he will return to the discussion. I am all for that so long as he conducts himself in a responsible manner. Sniping isn’t debate. > [@MEBuckner](#): > > ( **Emphasis** added.) > > Depending on who you believe, Iran has the [second](http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6§ion=0&article=47841&d=4&m=7&y=2004) or [third](http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html) largest petroleum reserves in the world. ## Ouch! Thanks for the correction. This complicates matters. The oil reserves aren’t at risk in an attack but the production of 3.9 million barrels per day certainly is. America might still stomp Iran; they would just have to be a lot more careful about collateral damage. And the world would have to suck it up as uncertainty over oil drove the price way up. > [@Rashak Mani](#): > > Still before Bush I really thought any Brazilian president wouldn’t be so different… or any US president wouldn’t be so different from others. Maybe a bit more competent or a bit more militant. The idea that overall constitution and congress would rein in excesses… How mistaken we were ! ## I don’t know how things work down there but here the constitution and national legislature do reign in the president. Unfortunately for the rest of the world that restraint is geared toward domestic abuses and not international affairs. Americans are very selfcentered. Few of us think globally. That includes me. I spend more time thinking about American problems and even tend to approach global problems from an exclusively American perspective. If the chaos were here in the USA people would be calling for Bush to be strung up by his testicles but brown people dying halfway around the world is another story. Every issue of the USAToday faithfully totals the American servicemen who have died in Afganistan and Iraq to date. Only the Americans. They don’t keep track of coalition casualties every day and I have never seen them estimate the Iraqi body count. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/58 "2004-07-11T06:27:04Z")
> [@lee](#): > > One of the things that scares me about four more years is how Bush seems bent on destroying the civil service. There were good rules about how one got a civil service job, mostly designed to avoid patronage, and that was just thrown out the window with homeland security. With more stuff being rammed into homeland security, I wonder what will be left of the civil service. This is turning out to be a time bomb in the federal service. However, because there is so much widespread animosity towards government workers, the public doesn’t care. By the time they might care, considerable and long-term damage will occur. > [@](#): > > One day after she was fired, former U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers accused the Bush administration Saturday of silencing dissenting views in the rank and file. > > Chambers’ departure may not garner the same spotlight as those of former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, but it appears to fall into a similar category: officials who leave or are forced out after questioning Bush administration policies. > > – snip – > > “It wasn’t the reaction we expected,” she said. "But we weren’t surprised. > > “But it’s not about me,” she added. "I’m a player in it. It’s got far-reaching implications. > > “The American people should be afraid of this kind of silencing of professionals in any field,” she said. “We should be very concerned as American citizens that people who are experts in their field either can’t speak up, or, as we’re seeing now in the parks service, won’t speak up.” Source: [http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/10/park.police.chief/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/10/park.police.chief/index.html) This story is only the tip of the iceberg. It is going to get much worse. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2004, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/59 "2004-07-11T19:13:31Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > ## I don’t disagree with you. In fact, I am firmly in the “Bush has made terrorism more of a threat” camp. But as I argue in the OP that damage is already done. Four more years of groping towards eptness isn’t as good as having effective leadership but it’s not invading Iraq all over again. Bush has radicalized the Muslim world. We have to deal with that problem no matter what. I wouldn’t say that putting off taking responsibility for another four years is a good thing but it’s not the end of the world either. Four more years of concentrating on easy wars while ignoring the war on terrorism is certainly worse than the alternative - winning the war on terrorism. Saying it can’t get any worse doesn’t change the fact that the status quo is quite a bit worse than stopping al-Qaida. And anyway, I can’t agree that it won’t get worse. Bin Laden and his cronies could be deriving enormous benefit from what’s going on; I’m not sure the situation could possibly be better. The USA is almost TRYING to hand bin Laden this war on a platter; they’ve started a pointless second war that has the dual effects of recruiting more terrorists to the al-Qaida cause while doing little to hurt al-Qaida and spreading the U.S. armed forces too thin. Consequently they’re losing the war in Afghanistan, the one war that actually DID matter in the war against terrorism. And by fighting the war illegally, both in terms of starting the war and in terms of the way they’re fighting it (torturing and murdering people in dungeons is not a way to impress people with a moral cause) the USA is alienating its allies and drudging up even more new al-Qaida recruits. If this continues, al-Qaida or their various lookalikes absolutely will be better off in four years. And that’s bad. ---
**Author:** ![akennett](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@akennett](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akennett)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/60 "2004-07-12T20:08:13Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Since I don’t believe we’ve ever had any good presidents to start with… No kidding. Some of the ideologies of former presidents have been fairly good, but get them into office and watch out! I don’t have anything productive to add to the thread, and I’m not going to bother to address the unbelievable claims some have made. I am just amazed at how two people coming from as different a pair of poltical starting points as possible can see things as similarly as we do - both from this thread and the Nader one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230.md?page=4)