|
all about the Iraq thing failing while politically owned 100% by Republicans.
We all know it's failing and will end in failure. The people who still support it all are beyond convincing by our words, they're only amenable to the facts that prove the failure.
How horrible things have to get? That's a question of what happens and for how long. I'd say we're on the brink of Bush losing the crucial bloc of American voters he needs to keep things going beyond this year.
-The hardcore Left (8%) opposed it immediately when Bush proposed the thing. Simply because the hardcore Right wanted to do it, really, but there's always some excuse to be found. (The hardcore Right kneejerks the same way toward stuff the hardcore Left does, of course.)
-Liberals (24%) agreed that Hussein was a problem. But decided, on the evidence, in the late fall of 2002 that Bush was grossly exaggerating the WMD threat and had no adequate, let alone desirable, plan to deal with the aftermath of toppling Hussein.
-Moderate Democrats and leaners (~11%) gave Bush the benefit of the doubt and agreed with the war/occupation when it began. But when no WMDs were found and the criminal bungling around Baghdad became clear, they gave up on the venture as a pack of lies in April 2003.
-Indies (~19%) didn't have high expectations, but they bought into the bringing democracy to Iraq part of the "freedom and democracy" sloganeering. The January 30 2005 elections were the test, and when in March there was no democracy forming or happening- just more of the same, cronyism and corruption and military rule and disrespect/ignoring/abuse of the average Iraqi- they gave up on it.
That sums up the blocs opposed at the moment.
-Moderate Republicans (6%) have fairly low/cynical expectations, but they bought into the freedom part of the "freedom and democracy" marketing. They don't mean great things by freedom, just basic ability to conduct business and physical safety and mobility. They've staked their support of the Bush venture in Iraq on whether this constitution and 'government' elected in December 2005 achieve this standard of freedom to conduct business and make a small profit. A tolerated or unsuppressable state of civil war, with all its daily highway robbery and extortions and risk of being killed, probably makes their support go away.
This is the wavering political bloc. Bush cannot afford to lose it- with it a pile of Republican Congressmen have to break with him or lose reelection, ergo he loses Congress on Iraq, and with that the funding and lack of oversight that keeps the game- maintaining the prospect of 'victory'- going. Lose that bloc and it's Game Over, Bush Loses. The Samarra mosque attack and its aftermath may be enough, or it'll take another major incident of the kind. I don't think we have to wait very long either way...a few weeks, maybe into summer.
As for the rest of the geniuses in support of the continuing travesty:
-The hardcore Right (8%) doesn't care about Iraq itself. Saddam Hussein hurt their ego in an unforgivable way. They'll support Bush until he's gotten Hussein killed, and after that they couldn't care less about anything involving Iraq- except possibly inflicting violence on other Iraqis they feel hurt their precious egos in the meantime, that is.
-The hardcore "conservatives" (24%) insist on victory, reality be damned. But what kills them is when the leader they've put all their trust tells them he won't deliver. That he lied to them. That he had all the power and still couldn't get them victory.
I realize this is not the straight answer to the question you asked. But it's the roundabout one, to the best I've been able to figure it out.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
