So you’re comfortable with taking your chances on whether Bush bombs Iran or not?
Good for you. I’m not. And I think Marshall makes a better case now than I did then about why there’s a nontrivial chance that Bush will do something like that.
Well, you can relax then. AFAICT, he said no such thing.
I strongly prefer to put others’ arguments in my own words, but if I can’t see how I can improve on their words, ISTM that quoting is the only reasonable thing to do.
No, it certainly does not. We usually have a President who takes the interests of his country seriously, and has enough humility to acknowledge he might be wrong. We do *not * get a lame duck President every 4 to 8 years with a narcissistic/messianic disorder.
For the 28% of the nation that are still true believers, George W. Bush IS the United States of America. Therefore, what is good for GW is by definition good for the country. And that is why they see criticism of Bush and his policies as outright treason.
A word on impeachment. Last I read 45% of the country wanted Congress to begin to explore impeachment proceedings.
I’m a moderate on this issue: I agree with the media that impeachment would be a divisive distraction.
I propose a compromise: George Bush and Richard Cheney should resign.
I call upon all responsible and patriotic Republicans and Democrats to respectfully request George Bush’s resignation. Let the healing begin.
It could happen in slow motion. An Atlantic Magazine sponsored war game (a la Fred Friendly, but run by a military professional) established that bombing probably wouldn’t be sufficient to stop Iranian weapons development, but would only redouble their determination.
Furthermore, the country is about twice the size of Iraq, IIRC. Fighting 3 muslim countries at once and alone and without a draft would be logistically challenging.
As of today, current odds of US or Israeli airstrikes on Iran before Mar 08 is placed at 22% by tradesports. Somewhat worrisome.
The only way they’re going to resign, no matter how many people from all points on the political spectrum step up and request them to, is if they’ve been impeached and the likelihood that they can hang onto 34 votes in the Senate appears dim.
I think we all know that.
I think we all also know that very few if any active Republican politicians will request Bush and Cheney to resign. So let’s give up that pipe dream.
Impeachment almost surely won’t happen either, but at least there’s a potential route there: angry Democratic voters badgering Democratic politicians. And while Democratic politicians don’t want to move in that direction either, they’re certainly more movable in that direction than GOP politicians are.
Thanks for the link Brainglutton, that’s the article: Dec 2004 issue, wargame conducted before the election.
Since neither impeachment nor resignation is likely to happen, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t give our Republican friends the opportunity to address George Bush’s two failed wars in a constructive fashion.
Colin Powell would make a fine interim President. The ultra-hawk John McCain would even receive some bipartisan support. If we wanted a unity government, we could appoint General Wesley Clark as VP: in between state funerals, he could share his experience in prosecuting successful wars, as he did under Clinton in Bosnia and Kosovo. Cheney and Ashcroft explicitly spurned that scholar’s strategy, just as the Bush administration tossed out the recommendations of the bipartisan Baker commission. That’s ok, now we know what works and does not.
What we don’t know with clarity is which Republicans can learn from experience and which are wed to ideology and personalty.
Now coming from a Democrat like myself, this proposal means little. But I’d like to learn of a superior alternative from my Republican friends. Such thoughts and reflections would help provide good reference material when evaluating commentators on future administrations.
It is not sufficient to merely say that Bush would never resign unless forced. We know that.