Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (137978)	6/25/2004 3:26:19 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Carl, American public support for Bush was at 80% soon after he started the war. The American public was spoiling for a war. The 80% approval rating doesn't mean that the American public was spoiling for a war so much as it means that the American public loves to win wars. Doesn't matter if it is in Iraq or in Grenada. What the American public hates is to lose wars. Bush approval rating ebbs and flows depending on how the war is being perceived at that moment. My current guess is that if things go badly after the handover, Bush's approval rating will plummet far more than it has so far. It is the prospective handover--and the fact that someone was finally identified as a "leader" in the new govt who speaks English, is presentable, and is agreeable to the admin--that is keeping his ratings up for now. If the carnage continues at the current rate into July and Aug, we will see the approval rating will drop precipitously. where we differ most is probably on the question of whether or not it is possible for Bush to have learned a lesson from the invasion of Iraq. My argument is that Bush clearly has, and that his reduction in rhetoric against Iran, Libya and South Korea proves it. His failure to bring back the draft shows that he does not have further adventures in mind. As you can probably guess, I disagree with this completely. Bush is a political animal, and will say whatever he/Rove thinks is necessary to say to win the election. He isn't going to be presenting any ideas for new invasion when the latest one is going badly and when it should be obvious to anyone without ideological blinkers that the planning for this invasion was abysmal. Error after error after error, after of course the biggest error as you yourself have pointed out many times of doing the invasion in the first place. Absolutely no contingency planning. Of course Bush isn't going to propose a draft before an election--that would be the worst political move he could make other than proposing a tax hike. His silence on this matter means nothing. Nor does his "softening" rhetoric, IMO. He can't afford another war right now. Of any sort. We are overextended as it is. He likes to claim that he is a "patient" man, he waited for 5 long months before commencing the Iraqi invasion, he says--but you know that the military wasn't ready for war until at least late Feb, and possibly even after that. It had little to do with "patience." He wanted Saddam's scalp--end of story. Now he has his gun hanging in the WH. Good enough for him, I'm sure. One thing in your favor is that the leaders of Iran or NK haven't personally dissed him or his father enough to provoke a war response. But like playground bullies, I think he could be provoked into one in a second term. At least if his advisors or the military allow it, which they may not. But why on earth take any more chances with him? Kerry can't lay out a full blown plan on Iraq. No one can at this point. Events change too quickly. Any plan will have holes it--including yours of simple withdrawal. I concur with cnyndwllr when he says that Bush's proven incompetence--proven over and over again--makes him a sad and perhaps disastrous choice for reelection. True, Nixon kept Vietnam going--but Kerry is no Nixon, and he is not likely to appoint a Kissenger as Secr of State. Personally, I trust his judgement far more than Bush's, Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, or Powell's, all of whom have said and done completely things over the past couple of years which even you admit have been far from reality.