Bush Opens Fall Congressional Campaign (Vote Nov. 7)

The "new" Bush. Act nice, Geo, Karl Rove said. Admit you have made mistakes. Geo W said, "do I hafta?" You decide. With the House now up for grabs, and should the Dems capture it, Geo W will be looking for some hard times like he has not known since he went 'missing' in Alabama, lo those many years ago. With Daddy-War-Bucks now out of service, Geo W may have to do his own covering over the mess. And for that, he has not been too good.

The Dems need to make a net gain of 15 seats to win the House. Even with Geo W in the low 30s approval wise, it will not be easy since the great majority of seats are, DeLay style, gerrymandered in favor of the incumbent. The Dems will have to poll 55+% of the popular vote to gain 50.1% of the House seats.

Let’s go to W-DC. President Bush admitted Thursday that his bellicose "bring 'em on" taunt to the Iraqi insurgents was a big mistake. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair carefully avoided setting a timetable for removing coalition forces from Iraq.

Meeting when a new Iraqi government offers the promise of a way out of an unpopular war that has damaged both leaders’ standing at home. Bush and Blair were calmly reflective on some of the grievous errors critics say has intensified anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world including South America.

It was in July 2003, when the tough-talking Texan (154 executons, a record) responded to a question about the growing Iraqi insurgency by saying "bring 'em on." In a joint news conference with Blair, after three years of war that has killed more than 2,400 Americans and thousands of Iraqis, Bush said that remark was "kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong message to people."

"I learnt some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner, you know. Wanted, dead or alive; that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted," he said. [Misinterpreted? I think not.]

Bush said the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal was "the biggest mistake that's happened so far, at least from our country's involvement in Iraq. We've been paying for that for a long period of time," Bush admitted. Blair said the effort to rid Iraq's army of members of Saddam Hussein's Baathists could have been done better. "I think it's easy to go back over mistakes that we have made. But the biggest reason why Iraq has been difficult is the opponents determination to defeat us. I don't think we should be surprised at that," Blair said.

Both leaders foresee real difficulties immediately ahead as Iraq’s new government works to improve the competency of Iraq’s security forces and to move them into more territory. Blair said "over the next few months there will be a real attempt by the anti-democratic forces to test them very, very strongly." Bush agreed Baghdad needs a more effective police force.


Gen. George Casey, the US top commander in Iraq, met with Iraq’s new Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki Thursday to plan how to improve joint security operations in the capital. "It is very important that Baghdad, the capital city, become a lot more secure," Bush added.

The two leaders are under heavy pressure to show progress in Iraq so they can start the withdrawal of coalition forces. There are now 132,000 US troops and 8,000 British troops in the chaotic country. Blair recently visited Baghdad and said he believed it was possible to meet Maliki's goal of having Iraqi security forces in control of all of Iraq by the end of 2007.

Said Bush: "Listen, I want our troops out - don't get me wrong. I understand what it means to have troops in harm's way . But I also understand that it is vital that we do the job, that we complete the mission." Bush said he would consult with his military commanders in Iraq about security issues. He will seek information from the new Iraqi government about its needs and any decision would be made based on the conditions on the ground.

Blair explained that "Inevitably, over time, we have to transfer responsibility" because it will be easier for an Iraqi interior minister "who is the product of an Iraqi-elected government to go in and take the really tough measures sometimes that is necessary to sort out some of these issues." As for now, he said, "This directly elected Iraqi government has said they want us to stay until the job is done."

Both leaders acknowledged their decision to invade Iraq in 2003 unexpectedly divided their people, but they also agreed it was time to look to the future now that the Iraqis had gone to the polls and freely elected a new government. "Primarily, it is our duty, but it is also the duty of the whole international community to get behind this [Iraqi] government and support it," Blair said.

The new prime minister said there was no reason for the array of armed gangs and militias in Iraq, now that the country had an elected government. He said the real problem for the government was the armed gangs, rather than the organized militias.

(From stories on Yahoo.com.)


[edit on 5/25/2006 by donwhite]

Well, I think it would be rather hard to get the troops out now. Although it is true that Iraq has a new government, I still think that civil war looms in the streets. And if a full civil war were to explode, then, it would spell trouble for Mr. Bush.

Mr. Bush has no choice to "pretty up" Iraq before the mid-term elections because polls had indicated in the past that national security is the one thing that the American people support him on overwhelmingly. Unfortunately for him, he has the problem of immigration on his hands. Despite the bill being passed in the Senate, now a unified immigration bill has to be worked out on both houses. That means, immigration is going to take up more time than the Iraq war. And from what I have seen on C-SPAN, both sides of the debate on immigration has been rather acrimonious. The House and the Senate bill had wide gaps of disagreeability in them. So, I think that there is more to that story than what will happen in Iraq.

People are more concerned about their own border than they are about Iraq now. They recognize--except the very few--that the war is a mess started on false pretenses. And the more that comes out leads toward that end.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice....

And now with the corruption that is looming in Congress (swept by the mighty reach of Mr. Abramoff) and the convictions of Messrs. Skillings and Lay, things are getting a little hot under the surface. People are rather incensed--especially when it brings up memories of Enron.

So, donwhite, I think that Mr. Bush will have more sleepless nights despite his "new look".

Toto has effectively pulled the curtain away now. Mr. Bush has nowhere to hide.

posted by ceci2006

They recognize that the war is a mess started on false pretenses. I think it would be rather hard to get the troops out now. If a full civil war were to explode, then, it would spell trouble for Mr. Bush.

Mr. Bush has no choice to "pretty up" before the mid-term elections Toto has effectively pulled the curtain away now. Mr. Bush has nowhere to hide. I think that Mr. Bush will have more sleepless nights despite his "new look." [Edited by Don W]

CC06, I could not agree with you more. The Supreme Court did it to America in December, 2000. We are still paying the price of America’s first designated president. The public was in a quandary in 2004 with no obvious way out. We are still there and it just gets older but not better.


[edit on 5/26/2006 by donwhite]

Well, I think that people are waking up slowly, but surely, donwhite. What fascinates me are those who continue to support him despite the mess that was made out the Administration. I don't know if anyone could honestly support Mr. Bush even in the realm of national security after the mistakes that have been made in response to 9/11.

I further question (now that Lt. Gen. Hayden is almost possibly to be sworn in as new CIA Director) how people continue to believe in "national security" when their own best interests are being undermined by domestic spying. The weird thing is that this harkens back to what SS and the SA did during Hitler's Reign. Hitler was so suspicious of his colleagues that he had the secret police spy on them.

And if domestic spying is out of Hitler's playbook, I would be hard pressed to say that Mr. Bush is a rather suspicious man and also a very insecure one as well. If he has to spy not only on the members of government, but the American people. Surely, it would not take a lot to figure out that we, as American, citizens are in deep trouble.

That is why I think that the November 2006 elections will be pivotal in many ways. It does get older, not better. But, we as a country, has never been this unstable historically, save the Civil War.

In your experience, has there been any time in American history as turbulent as the present day?

The opening line from “The Tale of Two Cities” by Charles Dickens. A story about the French Revolution, which began with great hope as expressed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and ended with the coronation of Napoleon Bonaparte as Emperor of France.

The ignominious end of the French Revolution confirmed the earlier observation by King George III speaking about George Washington after he had stepped down on the expiration of his second term as president, in 1797, saying, “George Washington is the greatest man in the world!”

posted by ceci2006

“ . . this [NSA monitoring] harkens back to what the SS and the SA did during Hitler's reign. Hitler was so suspicious of his colleagues that he had the secret police spy on them . . our domestic spying is out of Hitler's play book . . Mr. Bush is a suspicious man and a very insecure one as well. Surely, it would not take a lot to figure out that we as American citizens are in deep trouble. That is why I think the November 2006 elections will be pivotal in many ways. In your lifetime, has there been any period in American history as turbulent as the present day? [Edited by Don W]

No.

OTOH, the 1968-1974 period was tumultuous. I believe this was due to the use of the military draft in the Vietnam War. The Army’s Infantry and the USMC were filled with poor whites and poor blacks. Those units sustained most of our KIAs. The all volunteer armed forces fixed that. The Tet Offensive in January, 1968, showed Pres. Johnson that he not only could not win the war, but had already lost it. Sure, we could have “nuked” Hanoi but that was not in the cards. Back then, unlike today, we did not consider using nukes unless we were nuked first. MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction.

Congress, ever alert to aid the rich and famous, enacted a law permitting a limited few men to join their state's National Guard for 6 months active duty - for training, not for overseas deployment - then to finish their 8 year obligation doing one weekend a month and 2 weeks in the summer. The policy to enforce this rather easy way to serve your country was to call up to active duty anyone who went AWOL or otherwise misbehaved. That is the issue underlying Geo W’s alleged AWOL.

Governors of the several states are in command of the state National Guard unless activated by the Federal government. Each state NG maintained a list of applicants. Applicants far outnumbered the NG's vacant slots. Those with political clout like VP Quayle and Pres. Geo W. used that clout to get to the top of the list. Many men lost the “race” and were drafted before the NG had an open slot. VP Cheney of course married and had a child to avoid the draft. To his credit the marriage has held and the child is honorable.

In 1968, Richard Nixon ran on the implied promise to end the War. Instead, on his election as president, Nixon and Kissinger prolonged the war 6 years. During this time period, more than 20,000 men went KIA. Talk about dying in vain. Once I looked up the last name on the Vietnam War Memorial Wall, but I have forgotten it now. How little glory there is in dying for one’s country.

While I want to see Iraq end its catharsis of death and misery ASAP, I would hate to see it end barely in time to give the Republicans a chance to claim “I told you so” just before election day. I guess I would rather see it end than to win the election although as you point out, we are slipping fast into a very dangerous time, civil liberties and constitution-wise. I do not know of a more dangerous man to have ever been Attorney General of the United States than Mr. Gonzales. And the man who put him there. Geo W.

Ooops! I overlooked one similarity between Vietnam and Iraq. Halliburton was there, too. Kellogg Brown Root constructed the largest port facility in Southeast Asia at Cam Rhon Bay. It was the most expensive port facility anywhere up to that time. KBR was the darling of the Democrat back then. Hey, which is more important, money or loyalty?



[edit on 5/27/2006 by donwhite]

By the way you put it, it's most obviously money. All I can do is shake my head when I read your last post, donwhite. How can a person be in power and live with themself while poorer men are dying in a war that the person helped create? Mr. Bush (and Mr. Gonzalez) must indeed be cold-blooded if they are allowing countless people not only in America but overseas to suffer.


What is amazing to me is the involvement of the corporation during both of these wars. Profit indeed outweighs loyaty. Class does too. But the 29 percent still forget that when they think of Mr. Bush as a war hero (an oxymoron if I had ever heard one) and that he is an honorable man. How can he even be believed with all the corruption coming out of government now?

But judging from reading the history over other governments with similar turbulence about them, a leader who inspires fear can easily be believed--and defended to keep the big lie alive.