I think we will hear more about Dubya's agenda tomorrow. I think there is a move afoot to give the inspectors 30 more days. Despite what the Military says, they are not ready, unless the situation is forced upon them. I think Dubya understands that something dramatic needs to be shown to the US people, and I suspect that he is prepared to do just that. I did not vote for the guy, but I would not want to play poker with him.
I think he has arranged a giant good cop/bad cop with Powell, and Rumsfeld. We are at the pause before the storm. I think he understood the need for a "Cuban-like" dramatic disclosure. He has been waiting to see if Saddam shoots himself in the foot before playing the final card. Frankly Clinton lost me with the whole Monica thing. He was riding a huge economic bubble and he would have had to have been an idiot to screw it up, and he ended up diddling an intern in the oval office. Plain stupid.
Clinton was smarter on issues, but sleezier. Bush is a patient poker player, and is going to out Reagan even Reagan. Who would have thought it?
On the issue of war with Iraq, you have a large number of Americans who haven’t had their opinions firmly fixed as yet. I do think that more people are starting to form deeply set opinions which is why I am disappointed with Mr. Bush in not getting the facts out. I agree that an Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection is just the kind of thing that would set public opinion firmly in favor of war with Iraq. But I don’t think anything THAT dramatic is necessary.
OG: Something that Bush has that Clinton did not is that the American people, in a large majority, are prepared to believe him when he tells them something. Frankly, by not saying anything of substance for awhile, he is letting the debate get away from him. I understand about waiting to play the final card; but, I just haven’t seen him playing any cards for awhile. And it frustrates me because I think he’s got a “lock” hand and is having trouble figuring out what to do with it.
Maybe tomorrow will be the day, when Mr Bush will finally connect back with the American people. Atleast he will try. There are still a lot of dots to connect. So far, I agree, he has failed to effectively link OBL with Iraq and that is what most Americans wanna know. An Iraqi WMD is not something visible, bcz Americans have seen OBL's fanatics crash planes in WTC, but they have not see Saddam's Republican Guard gassing Kurds. So, its out of sight out of mind.
Most opinion polls agree that a majority of Americans will not want to go it alone in Iraq and (2) they are not convinced of a real and present danger from Iraq. If Bush fails tomorrow, the case will become more bitter in weeks to come. At the moment all comments from Andrew Card, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Powell are clutching at the straws by connecting how Saddam is linked to Al-Qaida. The OBL Lieutenant they tracked to Baghdad, has been sitting in Kurdish areas according to their own news sources. So that kinda washes the whole thing.
On economic front, I am not sure what Bush could have done to avoid what happend since early 2000 or what he can still do to revert back. Its a downward slide and market mechanisms gotta turn around on their own. Greenspan has done what he could. You can only get lower interest rates so low. GWB was caught like a lame duck after the Y2K on economic front. If he loses a second term, the democrat prez will likely swing the victory sword of economy once again, bcz a realistic recovery will be well under way in 2005 anyway. Talk about free-bies.
Clinton was good at laissez faire government. During certain periods this is possible and when possible it is the best method. - Bush II seems to be very honest, problem is, he's often too much so. (Not to mention personal honesty doesn't matter if you are discussing a dishonest policy.) Even though Bush II repeatedly promised "no more big government" his methods are becoming increasingly intrusive, domestically. - Bush I... the fact that he retired after only 4 years should say enough.
Clinton used passion to make points. Bush II uses passion as the point.
I could go on with this topic for days.. just to make it short and simple:
I have noticed many polls say that the Americans trust Bush II as a person, yet they do not understand or agree with [in majority] his policies. For some odd reason, I believe the efficcacy of the President should not be measured in terms of how friendly he seems; rather, how effective he is.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
I agree that an Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection is just the kind of thing that would set public opinion firmly in favor of war with Iraq. But I don’t think anything THAT dramatic is necessary.
[/QUOTE]
MV
if you look back at the number of americans in support of the war vs. sanctions back before desert storm, as well as GHWB's approval ratings, you will note that less than 50% of the ppl were in favour of the war, additionally the approval ratings of GHWB were low, but when the first fire was shot, it changed things. the approval ratings went up to 80%+ range and the public was solidly behind the war.
I dont know what changed so quickly, is it that the people did not want to be the voise of dissent and be labelled as unpatriotic, or groupthink kicked in. My view is that I will hold a point of view and unless you convince me otherwise thats my point of view, just because you start something you should not excpect my support. Kinda like if you are rooting for Manchester United to win but arsenal starts kicking their butt, as soon as that happens, you become a solid arsenal supporter. bandwagon..I think that sort of an approach will get war as well as presidential approval ratings high, but as a guest said on hardball today, thats like a sugar high, when its gone u realize u are even lower.
This post should probably be split into a diff toipic about american psyche on war, but essentially i am just saying that I dont think public opinions mean anything much at all, agreeing that nothing drastic is needed to swing the polls. People will just support the war once it starts.
People are just scared. They don't know why we should risk our blood in a far away land. But, much like Afghanistan, when they see what's in the caves, and they find videos the action gets vindicted. The same will happen with Iraq. When the 101st airborne finds a huge bunker of chemical weapons, and documents are dug up about the evils of Saddams' regime, and the average Iraqi is seen tearing down a picture of Saddam, or a news crew goes sweeping through the slums of Iraq in one shot and a monsterous Palace in the next, Americans will realize that there is some logic. The test of our country will be the follow through in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Clinton was a policy wonk. He would not have made tough decisions, nor would he have acted bravely. This is a guy who parsed the word "is". Not someone who can assume the moral high ground. George, for all of his shortcomings, truely believes in what he says. Clinton always gave me the impression that he ran back into the White House to see the instant replay of his performance and take a quick poll. Bush does not care what the polls say, at least for another year. Ulitmately it takes 20 years to judge a president.
yep and thats why if teh govt is holding some trump card in its hand they should show it sooner rather than later to the public. Daschle said the same thing today.
Yep.. that’s exactly how the war movie will be played.. u described it frame by frame. Insulting intelligences world over, bunkers of chemical weapons invisible so far to the numerous inspections will suddenly pop out of nowhere just like incriminating videos appeared unattended in abandoned caves in Afghanistan
PA: "that" is a relative term . I have yet to hear any plan for mess in Iraq as an alternative to sanctions, force in keeping Iraq to abide by the terms of surrender. And why the heck are the Pakis so upset? Iraq is not afghanistan or India. When US invades India then you guys can rail against the US. Until then, zi just don;t see how this affects Pakistan.
With troops surrounding it do u think Iraq will be stupid enough to repeat it's folly?
Iraq can be 'monitored' by those interested in keeping it's WMD capabilities in check.. 'invading' a sovereign nation should NOT be an option.
It's not about Pakistan, although many think it'll be after Iraq and Iran.. and just as Iraq will desperately launch an offensive against Kuwait or Israel, Pak could resort to taking it's frustrations out on India... so every Indian should be as concerned about this invasion.
Why should Pak be frustrated? Pak should worry about the raods and infra of lahore and leave the arabs to do what they do best. Pakistanis are smart, hardworking and entrepreurial people, kissing Arab ass (as this is surely the case) does not become them.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
Why should Pak be frustrated? Pak should worry about the raods and infra of lahore and leave the arabs to do what they do best. Pakistanis are smart, hardworking and entrepreurial people, kissing Arab ass (as this is surely the case) does not become them.
[/QUOTE]
You sure don't understand "a sovereign" state, do you? That would mean any state believing itself as mightier than other can stand up and start hitting the weak neighbor because the mightier thinks that weaker has some intention/weapons to threaten the mightier!!
And you sure don't understand that for all the hue and cry of pakistanis over UN resolutions in kashmir..they are decrying US enforcing the resolutions in Iraq. What gives????
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
That would mean any state believing itself as mightier than other can stand up and start hitting the weak neighbor because the mightier thinks that weaker has some intention/weapons to threaten the mightier!!
[/QUOTE]
In this case it is a nation that was defeated in war and agreed to unconditional terms of surrender that it has not yet fulfilled. If by 'sovereign' you imply "freedom from external control" - they are not 'sovereign' until they have met the conditions of surrender, which they haven't.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
And you sure don't understand that for all the hue and cry of pakistanis over UN resolutions in kashmir..they are decrying US enforcing the resolutions in Iraq. What gives????
[/QUOTE]
if anyone is serious about enforcing UN resolutions, let's start with the country that stands in violation of the highest number... .. fair I guess?
Exactly Fraudz..so shut your mouth and do the job. Let the arabs worry about what they need to worry about. India should stop that as well. There are enough problems in the damn country.
