Bush's Big Political Gamble

[UpInArms]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/28/politics/main626506.shtml

The formal end of U.S. civil authority in Iraq could mark a turning point in the Bush administration's hopes to win the peace in Iraq and possibly four more years in office.
If the peace is not won, Mr. Bush probably loses the presidential election, polling indicates. If it is won, if Iraq appears to be tangibly moving towards stability, Mr. Bush will likely win reelection, provided the economy continues to improve.

Fifteen months, more than $100 billion and 852 American fatalities after the U.S.- led invasion, Saddam Hussein is in custody and, as President Bush said Monday, the "Iraqi people have their country back." Speaking in Istanbul, where he was attending the NATO summit, the president added, "We have kept our word."

Monday's transfer of power to an Iraqi interim government, two days ahead of schedule, is of great symbolic importance to Iraqis, but little is expected to change on the ground for the short term.

<snip>

But because Americans tend to look forward rather than backward, and have short historical memories, the ends in Iraq will likely justify the means by which the president went about the war.

Though the original case for war was based upon claims Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, still not found, and largely disproved administrative inferences of ties between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a stable Iraq may still be enough to justify this war for American voters.

...more...

If the US citizenry is this shallow, I shall :puke:

[Eloriel]

1. Uh oh. Know what this reminds me of?

Reagan/Bush vs. Carter, 1980:

But by October of 1980, one thing was clear: If the hostages were released prior to the election, Carter would be re-elected. If not, Ronald Reagan would win. All major polls -- including one by the primary Republican pollster, Richard Wirthlin -- showed a 10 percent swing on just that issue.

In early October, word spread through the world media that Carter had negotiated a deal for the hostages' release. It was widely believed that he had agreed to unfreeze some $4 billion in assets claimed by the deposed Shah, and to supply spare parts to the American-made arms inherited by the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolutionary regime. The hostages were due home by mid-October, in ample time to assure Carter's re-election.

Then, mysteriously, the deal was off. The hostages weren't coming home after all. What happened?

http://old.valleyadvocate.com/25th/archives/bushs_watergate.html

Read the whole article to find out what happened. What kind of October surprise will the Bush Crime Family cook up for us this time? :scared:

[grytpype]

2. How bad do things have to get?

How badly does Idiot Boy have to fuck things up before a clear majority of the country turns against him? It's hard to imagine him doing much worse, unless he starts a nuclear war.

[54anickel]

3. Big gamble? Seems the house owns the media and that is what

will shape the image of the new Iraq. Look for an attempt to put an even tighter lid on the truth coming from Iraq.

[tlcandie]

4. What news 54? I bet you will not get diddly squat from Iraq from here

forward, but drippingly sweet tidbits! Sugar-coated propaganda and lies so sickeningly sweet it will make you wanna :puke: !

We will see if Americans fall for this newest bag of tricks. I'm thinking they will. :cry:

[54anickel]

9. Hell, it already started with his and Blairs comments on the hand-over.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=651874&mesg_id=651874

Text of Bush-Blair news conference

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=Bush%20Text

snip>
(Shrub)
In Iraq, we're serving the cause of liberty. And liberty is always worth fighting for. In Iraq, we're serving the cause of peace by promoting progress and hope in the Middle East as the alternative to stagnation and hatred and violence for export. In Iraq, we're serving the cause of our own security, striking the terrorists where we find them, instead of waiting for them to strike us at home.

snip>
(Blair)
And that is why, in a very real sense, because al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are actually there in Iraq now, what is happening in Iraq, the battle in Iraq, the battle for Iraq and its future, if you like, is, in a genuine sense, the front line of the battle against terrorism and the new security threat that we face.

And that security threat is what has dominated our discussion here at the NATO summit. And that security threat, which is about this new and poisonous and evil form of extremism linked to a perversion of the true faith of Islam and repressive unstable states that proliferate in and deal in chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, that security threat is the threat of our times.

snip>
QUESTION: Mr. President, Iraq's new prime minister has talked in recent days about the possibility of imposing martial law there as a way of restoring security. Is that something that you think a new, emerging government should do, and particularly with the use of U.S. forces, who would have to be instrumental in doing it?

snip>
(Shrub)
And so, Prime Minister Allawi, as the head of the sovereign government, may decide he's going to have to take some tough measures to deal with a brutal, cold-blooded killer. And our job is to help the Iraqis stand up forces that are able to deal with these thugs.

snip>
(Blair)
And remember, the innocent Iraqis who are dying in Iraq today are dying because of these terrorist acts.

:puke:

[Miss Authoritiva]

5. Incredibly superficial "analysis"

Things go bad in Iraq, good for Kerry. Things go good in Iraq, good for Bush. Economy's good in US, good for Bush. Economy's bad in US, good for Kerry.

And as a special added bonus: one HUGE unverifiable assumption -- Americans have "short historical memories," so "the ends in Iraq will likely justify the means by which the president went about the war."

Thank you, CBS News, for telling me that Americans are so addled by attention deficit disorders that by the November election we will forget the last 15 months, more than $100 billion, and 852 American fatalities!

[Chico Man]

6. "appears to be tangibly moving towards stability"

It does not to indeed have to be moving towards stability. It only has to "appear to".

[rocktivity]

7. What gamble? He cut and ran!!!

The only thing that's changed in Iraq is that Bush has an official excuse to say he can't be bothered anymore! He's majorly crapped out as far as I'm concerned.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Fovea]

8. This is not Bush cutting and running.

This is a strategy wherin civil unrest is the problem of the Iraqi puppet regieme and NATO, and guarding the oil infrastructure is the US and KBR.

Bush is going to stay in Iraq, and claim that the civil
war is Iraqi's concern, not America's.

[mike1963]

10. Exactly. Someplace else to stop the buck. And the horror is it might work

:grr:

[Fovea]

12. I find myself more and more convinced that

the current world is a plot dreamed up by Frank Herbert...

If the spice flows from Iraq, Emperor Dubya III will survive. If not,he and Baron Vladimir Rumsfeld will end their days inside a pain amplifier.
The Navigator's Guild has spoken, and the Bene Geseret have been discredited for bad information. Worse, the mentat Rove has gone insane since Fremen Moore broke his conditioning, and mentat Cheney's hands are shaking wildly.

Everyone is asking, will Kerry drink the waters of life? What has become of the Beast Ashcroft?

[cliss]

11. Let's look at it this way:

Bush is gambling that the "New" Iraq "government" will be a success. If people quiet down and accept that they are now a vassal state to the US, then everything will be fine. They can continue pumping out the oil and Bush will be re-elected.

But if it doesn't go well - meaning, there will be a dramatic upsurge in violence, and even Mr. Allawi gets assassinated, then Bush is finished.

I have some news: Bush is finished. He himself has warned of much, much worse violence to come. Wolfowitz (for once, in the real world), warned of it and so did RumsFailed.

So they're all aware of it. They've even warned in other articles that Iraq could implode and it could become civil war.

BeelzeBush is just a gambler. A hard-core, desperate, blow on the dice, about to blow the mortgage money on the craps table kind of guy.

And he's about to lose the mortgage money.

[Insider]

13. peace?? who said they want peace?

cost of 9/11 investigation = $2.6 million (est)
cost of war so far = $100 billion