# 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:** 9\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/81 "2004-07-15T05:59:43Z")
> [@akennett](#): > > So, since there is no apparent culpability with those who vote to authorize military force, should we just get rid of that process entirely? What means should have been used that weren’t? Asking Saddam _pretty please_ can we have unfettered access to the sites we want to see? If Blix’s inspections were so effective we would have had more proof one way or the other as to the disposition of the WMDs in Iraq Blix and team uncovered no evidence of WMDs or active programs thereof whatsoever, nor have following US inspections. If Blix and IAEA had been allowed to complete the job, they might have found evidence, if it existed, but not finding any evidence would have completely invalidated Bush and Blair’s case for war. Since the inspectors and the UN were booted out of Iraq by impending US and UK-sponsored war (NOT by Saddam), the premature departure of independent weapons inspectors is best not brought up as evidence of UN failure, because it’s nonsense. They were doing a fine job up until they were kicked out – the one failing of the Blix inspections was that they failed to find what Bush wanted them to find. > [@](#): > > (I’ll feign shock that he would present his own efforts in the best possible light). The UN refused to act, many of our so-called allies were in bed with Saddam, and much of the world was even against the embargo imposed on Iraq. The UN was “acting” just fine until Bush decided to derail the process. And most countries would have preferred to see the inspections process completed before resorting to war, for various reasons that include economic, religious, and cultural considerations in addition to bleeding-heart pacifism. We’ve heard a lot of hot air about “so-called allies” who were “in bed with Saddam”. Please let’s get away from this simplistic nonsense and try to focus on real issues, such as evidence instead of the cheap demonization coming from Bush and Blair and their partisan minions on this subject. As for the UN debates, those were routinely derailed and mischaracterized by US and UK officials, who repeatedly alleged that France and Germany would “never” accept a war, and that therefore the UN must be sidelined. The actual comment from France was along the lines of “France will not support a resolution leading to **automatic** war”, which is what the US was pushing for. That has to be the most demonized comment I am aware of in recent history. France and Germany also provided several warnings of “clash of civilizations”, counter-productive actions, terrorist-stimulus, and so forth, which are all pretty straight-forward instances of logical reasoning, not far-fetched crystal-ball gazing. > [@](#): > > I really dislike hypotheticals that have nothing to do with reality. If Saddam had opened up and shown his (hypothetically empty) hand, then there would not have been any support at home for a war on the WMD charge. He said he had none. Inspectors failed to find any evidence whatsoever of such weapons, and said as much, corroborating Saddam’s denial. The US said that the reams of documents Iraq provided did not demonstrate the non-existence of all suspected weapons programmes; one of the problems is that the US analysts (or, more likely, certain politicians) failed to take into account despotic bureacracy, the personal accountability of scientists and project leaders who report failure to Saddam, the chaotic and disorganized nature of Saddam’s regime, and so forth. So, still without any evidence, the US and UK continued to trumpet “imminent threat”, “WMDs”, “mushroom cloud”, etc, in pure and simple alarmist influence tactics _even when the intelligence services of both countries provided strong warnings about the flimsiness of WMD evidence (warnings that were routinely ignored by politicians as they sensationalized each and every unproved claim they could lay their hands on)_. This war was decided long before Blix even got sent to Iraq. It had been on the agenda for at least a year prior to invasion and (oh look) fit in perfectly with the bullshit drafted by PNAC, so let’s not kid ourselves with the whole “blame Saddam for the war because he did not show evidece of absence” propagandist cagal. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/82 "2004-07-15T06:51:02Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > He won’t have carte blanche. He is restrained, as I have said, by the ambition of his subordinates ( who do the actual work) . . . What makes you think Bush’s military adventurism is **restrained** by his subordinates? I think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc., are significantly more hawkish than Bush himself. And I see no prospect of his purging the neocons from his second-term administration. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2004, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/83 "2004-07-15T12:14:48Z")
> [@akennett](#): > > Please show me where I said that having a Dem President would have produced the same result. I did point out that Kerry was one of the Dems who did vote for the use of force, but that was a statement of fact, not an assertion of his hypothetical actions as Pres. > > … > > Again, please quote where I claimed Dems “as a whole” or “in general” approved. > > … > > Which shows that if they feel sufficiently alarmed at the President’s decisions they will take actions against them. I fail to see how this weakens my argument. So, what I have discovered in this argument is that your definition of “tacit approval” for Bush’s policies by the Democrats seems to rest on the fact that they did not filibuster **all** of the things that we find objectionable (like the tax cuts). So, apparently, your definition of “tacit approval” means that perhaps 1/5 of the Democratic Senators do not feel strongly enough in opposition to the bill to completely stop all Senate business in order to block it. Just wanted to clear that up. Thanks. > [@](#): > > So, since there is no apparent culpability with those who vote to authorize military force, should we just get rid of that process entirely? I have never said that the Democrats are blameless. I think it was very ill-advised to give the awesome power they gave to someone who was known by that time to be a compulsive liar. > [@](#): > > What means should have been used that weren’t? Asking Saddam _pretty please_ can we have unfettered access to the sites we want to see? If Blix’s inspections were so effective we would have had more proof one way or the other as to the disposition of the WMDs in Iraq (I’ll feign shock that he would present his own efforts in the best possible light). The UN refused to act, many of our so-called allies were in bed with Saddam, and much of the world was even against the embargo imposed on Iraq. I fail to see any other diplomatic solution. > > … > > I really dislike hypotheticals that have nothing to do with reality. If Saddam had opened up and shown his (hypothetically empty) hand, then there would not have been any support at home for a war on the WMD charge. If he had shown a working WMD program, I don’t think we would be having this debate (rather, this part of it at any rate). What level in between those two would spark a war? I honestly don’t know, and I doubt that you do either. As it was, he refused to play along with the demands placed upon him after his last overt act of agression, so the whole question became moot. There is little left in your arguments here for me to dissect after **Abe** completely shredded them. (Thanks, **Abe**!) But, I think it is priceless that you suggest that all Saddam had to do was open up and show his empty hand because my impression is that this is basically what he did and our response was to claim that he was hiding several aces up his sleeve…You know all those WMDs [that we knew where they were around Tikrit and Baghdad.](http://electroniciraq.net/news/printer1063.shtml) And, if he had shown a “working WMD program,” that would have been quite a feat because we haven’t been able to find such things after the fact. Basically, you have answered my question which is that you cannot explain, given what we know at the moment about what he had, how he could have possibly satisfied Bush. The war was a pre-ordained conclusion. Bush’s demands were simply not possible to meet. ---
**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 16, 2004, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/84 "2004-07-16T04:19:35Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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. > [@2sense](#): > > You paint a disturbing picture. Particularly disturbing for me because I can’t disagree. I’m less sure now about the proposition I offered in the OP. Perhaps the idea of things getting a lot worse during a 2nd Bush Administration isn’t so far fetched. You and others have said it already, but I’d like to reaffirm the point I agreed with: the reason that Bush 2 won’t be as bad as it might seem, is not because of anything in Bush himself, but because of the opposition he has generated. People aren’t going to let him do evil stuff. There was/is already opposition _in the military_ about the Iraq adventure, (IIRC against the way the civilian leadership was going about it). Next year, when Bush 2 starts to prepare the attack on Syria, the military might well quote that famous great statesman and vice president and say: f— you. As for terrorism, remember that there is also more \*counter-\*terrorism going on than ever, and everybody except the Americans are also [getting better at it](http://www.brook.edu/views/articles/fellows/shapiro20030301.htm). So these things should kind of balance out. > [@Antiochus](#): > > I’ve read all the posts and there seems to be little to no mention of the economic catastrophes we’ll endure under 4 more Bush years. > > The national debt is out of sight, so is the trade deficit. > > We are exporting jobs to cheap overseas labor at an alarming and ever increasing rate. (The frightening thing about this, is I doubt Kerry has a clue about how to ameliorate job losses. ) > > With 4 more years of Bush, won´t these - and other economic issues - reach tragic proportions? Great point and I agree that this is the greatest worry. Especially since it looks probable that either the Republicans or the Democrats are going to win the elections. Neither party has good positions on these issues. On the other hand, I have been hearing doomsday projections since 1994. It is true that these things could fester for a long time and then suddenly explode. On the other hand there have been crises (e.g. 1998) already and they seem to have largely dissipated. Most importantly, I trust the judgment of Alan Greenspan. That guy is really good in ways that are rarely appreciated as far as I can see. The enormous depth of his analysis, the number of factors and indicators he is considering, and his ability to recognize when **things have changed** and old indicators are no longer indicative and there’s need for a new analysis, all of this is unprecedented and unmatched. And it seems that Greenspan doesn’t think that right now we’re on the brink of a crisis, or that we’re exceptionally vulnerable right now. Breaking news - just read this in WSJ > [@](#): > > CHARLESTON, W. Va. – John Kerry set a three-part test for removing U.S. troops from Iraq if he is elected president, while warning that President Bush might commence a more rapid draw-down this fall to improve his re-election prospects. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/85 "2004-07-16T04:48:39Z")
> [@Frankenstein Monster](#): > > Most importantly, I trust the judgment of Alan Greenspan. That guy is really good in ways that are rarely appreciated as far as I can see. The enormous depth of his analysis, the number of factors and indicators he is considering, and his ability to recognize when **things have changed** and old indicators are no longer indicative and there’s need for a new analysis, all of this is unprecedented and unmatched. > > And it seems that Greenspan doesn’t think that right now we’re on the brink of a crisis, or that we’re exceptionally vulnerable right now. He is however going to raise interest rates even though core inflation is extremely low because he has to try to fill the huge gaping hole that the three Bush tax cuts have left behind – tax cuts that Greenspan himself OK’d in spite of being in a position to know better. While I agree that Greenspan is (and certainly was) an eminently capable economist, I would be VERY hesitant to assign him significant measures of trust after the last few years and especially after the tax cuts episode. Greenspan has been talking and testifying about how good the economy is for the last few years if I am not mistaken – a lot of it seemed like lip service and reassurance instead of the hard-cutting economics I would expect from him. This is your credibility. This is your credibility after you collude with the Bush administration. Greenspan didn’t handle the Millennial situation too well either. His interest hikes took place too late, were too severe, and were implemented over too short a period, with the result that inflation was kept in control, yes, but entire sectors of the economy (and not just the “New Economy”) crashed and burned instead of performing softer landings (which led to increases in things like mass outsourcing to cheaper labour and knowledge markets and exacerbated the job growth problem). As for Bush, well you would be hoping vainly IMO in saying that he will be restrained by anything at all. Remember, much of Bush’s agenda actually comes from the neocon camp that pervades his filthy administration, and they won’t have to worry about criticism or getting re-elected for another term – something they have to worry about now (which is just scary, considering their behaviour). ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/86 "2004-07-16T06:28:49Z")
Please read this article: [http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=TqpbUhQ%2FgtL9SmIvpLHkfw%3D%3D](http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=TqpbUhQ%2FgtL9SmIvpLHkfw%3D%3D) It is alarmist, but I think most of the alarms that Chait sounds are reasonable. We are witnessing a slow intentional erosion of democracy in this country. The executive and legislative branches have seized an ideological mandate which was never given to them by the voting populace. They have used fear and bullying to cement it. IMHO. If a fearful, complacent public hands these clowns an actual popular victory in November, the country is screwed. There will be no excuse for them to unleash the full majesty of their ideology on the country. The power of the opposition parties will be eroded through gerrymandering and rule changes and complete disregard for the institutions of democracy and governmental openness. They have been doing it at full throttle since 2002 so I see no reason why they would change. An electoral victory, no matter how narrow, will just serve as proof to them that the majority of Americans are on the Bush axis of economic policy (“spend like a drunken sailor”), the Santorum/Cornyn/DeLay axis of social policy (“gay sex is gross and should be illegal”) and the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz axis of foreign policy (“the sun will never set on the American Empire.”) I am hoping and acting to at least return this country to the days of glorious gridlock. Let’s put the brakes on this out-of-control minecart of policy that is the Republican hegemon. ---
**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 16, 2004, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/87 "2004-07-16T07:55:13Z")
**Abe** , good points. People sometimes disagree with Alan Greenspan and it used to be, comparing the merits, that I thought Greenspan had the stronger case. But I concede I haven’t been following him too closely the last few years and he might indeed have gone mushy. Also fresh from reading the [latest](http://billmon.org/archives/001601.html) [right-wing](http://billmon.org/archives/001595.html) [shenanigans](http://billmon.org/archives/001593.html) I concede that there is a large and criminal class at work and it’s indeed scary to contemplate what they might be able to achieve with their illegal and semi-legal machinations. ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/88 "2004-07-16T15:50:54Z")
When I think of four more years of Shrub, one phrase keeps coming to mind. “Patriot Act 3” :eek: ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230/89 "2004-07-16T19:26:46Z")
Edwino, I read the article you recommeded, above. Every Doper should read it, too. On the second page, second paragraph from the bottom, Jonathan Chait writes, “What does it mean to call the president “undemocratic”? It does not mean Bush is an aspiring dictator. Despite descending from a former president and telling confidants that God chose him to lead the country, he does not claim divine right of rule. He is not going to cancel the election or rig it with faulty ballots. (Well almost certainly not.)” **Like hell he won’t!** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-bad-could-four-more-years-be/254230.md?page=4)