Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush's second effort (325 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Disagree (none)
    Now Bush will ineptly lose it for himself.

    I think we are dreaming if we think this will happen. Bush will, as it was once said, "Declare victory and bring the troops home." Most Americans will forget this ever happened (except to remember it as some kind of victory at best, or some distant, foreign problem at worst), and there will be few headlines about Iraq in the American press after we leave.

    What should be a black eye for Bush is going to wind up down the oubliette of the American body politic.

    Swing State Project - Analyzing the 2004 battleground states.

    by David Nir on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:25:37 AM PST

    •  you could be right (1.42)
      If Bush manages to wrap up Iraq within the next 3-4 years, it will be a huge + for Republicans.
    •  When oil hits $120/ barrel (none)
      an Islamic state is declared, and civil war ignites, Iraq will be eminently memorable.

      Even if Bush bails. Which he won't.

      Cause he's a messianic chimp.

      •  I Guess We'll Find Out Now (none)
        whether Novak was on to something when he wrote that column predicting a second Bush administration would withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq after the elections there in 2005, whatever happens.
        •  We'll find out (none)
          that Novak is a sly, duplicitous scumbag who probably wrote that to assuage the fears of those who might not vote for Bush becasue of the prospect of unending war.  They could read this and think it might not be so bad to re-elect him.  After all, he'll most likely get out of Iraq, too.  Hoigwash.  He's in it for the long haul, for the oil and to have a long term foothold in the Middle East.   Otherwise why build 14 permanent bases?
    •  I agree with you... (3.50)
      ...once again Kos is using reason, but our news media and Bush supporters don't care about that. The Bush supporters are true believers and the media is owned by Bush backers.

      Bush will push through everything he wants. If they need to invade more, they can just allow another terrorist attack and send us onto a "war footing", bringing back the draft, which they will do anyway, and producing massive amounts of weapons. That will put some people back to work and for everyone else who complains because of the failing economy, well, we are in a war and you shouldn't be picking on the man who is protecting us. Why do you hate America and freedom?

      Unless you can find a way to get Bush thrown in jail, there isn't anything that is going to stop him. If the economy tanks, that's just fine, because that's what they want anyway. They could kill Social Security, etc., then. The fascists that have backed Bush want that to happen. It's part of the plan! Norquist wants this to happen and it most likely will.

      Due to terrorism and protecting America, which is hard work, we're just going to have to tough it out for the good of the nation.

      If you guys think his followers won't put up with that, your fools. George Bush has God on his side, just ask them.

      If you want to stop Bush, you have to get a wedge between him and his believers. Outside of that, the rest is irrelevant.

      Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

      by Alumbrados on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:37:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bush's believers will not be dissuaded. (none)
        The thing is, a shitload of people who voted for him aren't actual 'believers'. They were just ignorant of what they were buying. We will let Bush show his true colors, run a real Democrat from the plains who doesn't come off as weak (like Daschle and Gephardt do) and watch the Repugs retreat back to the South where they belong. And we will keep them there for good because we won't make the mistake of running a schoolmarm for Pres (don't get me wrong, I liked Kerry but yours and my vote ain't gonna win it for us). Democrats are tough-minded folks. We have to make sure the non-city dwellers (who vote more for individuals and less for ideas) see that. And if you want to argue about what I just said regarding the non-city dwellers, then explain how the same person could vote first for Reagan and later for Clinton (clearly many people did just that).

        moderation in moderation

        by solaroh on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 12:27:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site