What’s Taking Bush43 So Long?

You don’t get to be president without having a gut feel for the electorate. You know and I know B43 talked to Bob Gates before November 7. You know B43 and Rummy “staged” his dismissal, and had agreed to make it look dramatic to the American voters, to make it look to voters as if B43 was at last making a decisive move albeit a couple years late. You also know that after 10 months of deliberation by 10 highly respected and informed citizens, five Republicans and 5 Democrats, the Iraq Study Group really served only one useful national purpose: it gave the president the “cover” he needed to get out of Iraq and save some face. Legacy.

For a day or two, about a week after the election and after many “leaks” from the ISG Report, and several press conferences by Baker and Hamilton, the public’s reception of the ISG Report was tested. Sure, Baker and Hamilton protested they could not say what was in the ISG Report.

When the Report was released, it put the ball clearly in B43's court. For reasons we may never know, B43 never took the bait. When he first showed up on tv, trying to be nice, he did not say those words we were all straining to hear. Gradually, it has become apparent without B43 actually saying so, the ISG Report was “dead on arrival” at the Oval Office. DOA. So much for an easy way out of a deadly quagmire. Now B43 has us put on “hold” while he staggers around talking to anyone who will talk, hoping to find a “way out” of the quagmire he so blithely dragged us into. And the KIA happen every day.

Unwilling to say publicly on Day 1 he was rejecting the ISG Report out of hand, instead B43 took cover and delayed facing the music, by claiming he was waiting for yet another “review” by the Pentagon - still manned by Rummy’s people - and wait for a “look-see” by his “new” appointee, his dad B41’s old chum, Bob Gates. So now, Bob has been there - Iraq - had all the de rigeur photo ops, sat down with the foot soldiers, asked their opinions, and he is now back in the US of A, safe, and thinking to himself, “where can I get 30,000 fresh troops to “surge” Baghdad?”

So what’s the options open to B43?

1) Quit the Iraq Civil War and come home before KIA #3,000.
2) Stay on the present course, which is going nowhere, unlit January 20, 2009.
3) Apologize and adopt the 79 recommendations of the ISG.
4) Convene a region-wide Peace Conference, including Syria and Iran.
5) Restart the Road Map for a serious settlement of the Israeli-Arab (Palestinian) Conflict.
6) Resign from office as an abject failure suffering from extreme mental fatigue.


[edit on 12/28/2006 by donwhite]

1) Quit and come home before KIA #3,000.

Not very likely. Bush was re-elected on a continual military involement in Iraq.

2) Stay on the present course, which is going nowhere, unlit January 20, 2009.

Yep and with KIA being in the region of 5,000.

3) Apologize and adopt the 79 recommendations of the ISG.

Bush will adopt those recommendations which suit him. Makes you wonder why the ISG was convened

4) Convene a region-wide Peace Conference, including Syria and Iran.

This is policy today.

5) Restart the Road Map for a serious settlement of the Israeli-Arab (Palestinian) Conflict.

Not very likely with the Jewish lobby so strong in Washington.

6) Resign from office as an abject failure suffering from extreme mental fatigue.

And replaced by the vice president. Which is worst?


And the UK will not do anything unless we are told by the US. So we will have to continue to accept UK KIA and WIA

posted by Freedom ERP

In Response: “Bush was re-elected on a continual military involvement in Iraq. Yes [stay the course] and with KIA being in the region of 5,000. Bush will adopt those [ISG] recommendations which suit him. Makes you wonder why the ISG was convened. This [convene regional conference] is policy today. Not very likely [to settle Arab-Israeli conflict] with the Jewish lobby so strong in Washington. [B43 resigns] and is replaced vice president Cheney. Which is worst? And the UK will not do anything unless we are told by the US. So we will have to continue to accept UK KIA and WIA.” [Edited by Don W]

Although it is argued B43 was not a Neo Con convert, he surrounded himself with those people and VP Cheney sounds like the movement’s step-father. Perhaps like his daughter, he was artificially inseminated? The fiasco in Iraq has shown the Neo Con thought process was as bankrupt as most educated people always thought. What we never imagined was they would get a change to test their zaney theories in the unforgiving laboratory of real life, real time. You can thank the US Supreme Court for designating B43 to be our president, instead of saying, “Hey, re-vote in Florida or divide Florida’s electoral vote evenly.” Or say, ”We’re outta here. Let the House decide as is provided for in the US Constitution.”

I understand the leading Tory prospective candidate for PM has declined to meet any Americans until after the next election. If it gets worse in Iraq, the Labor Party may lose their already thinned out majority which nearly brought down Tony Blair. It would not surprise me to see an election in 2007 before our next Labor Day . . First Monday in September, not May 1.


Foot Note: In 2000, there were 2 conflicting laws in Florida. One said the Secretary of State should designate the winner in 14 days. Another law said that recounts were available in races where the difference in votes was less that 1%, county by county. Florida has 67 counties. Under the SC’s ruling, the recount was stopped with the GOP ahead by 537 votes.

Bush polled 49 million votes, Gore 49.5 million votes and Nader’s Green Party, polled 3 million votes. 70,000 in Florida. Assuming most of the Green votes came from otherwise Democratic voters, you could say Nader spoiled the 2000 election . Ralph Nader is persona non grata in Democratic circles.


[edit on 12/28/2006 by donwhite]

You forgot one thing bush could do:
Stay there indefinitely and fight till armegedon arrives.

Frankly unless they have a plan to duck it, they will not follow any of what you listed, it would only be a political stunt to buy some time or allow them to do something underhanded.

This is getting REALLY BIZARRE. I thought the whole point of throwing somebody on top of a grenade was that it keeps you from getting fragged too.

But what does Bush do? He tosses Rummy on top of it, then gets back up and yells at the enemy "bet you can't get one that close again!"

Why would you do that? I like to think that I'm politically savvy, but it doesn't add up to me. It was supposed to be B41's man rushing in to save the day, presumably with B43's blessing, since he DID let the man into his administration, but Bush refuses to let anyone touch the steering wheel, even though he isn't holding it himself, and apparently he's just going to take Gates down with him.

So, the question in my mind is this: Is Bush SO stupid that he still doesn't know which side he's on; he let his dad send a man in for him, but he's still listening to other elements in the administration?

Or was Gates not brought in to end Iraq at all? At this point, I'm starting to wonder if maybe Gates was brought in because Rumsfeld screwed up his first war and they want a new man for the next go. I had sort of assumed that it was too late for another war, and really I still think it is. The politics just don't add up... unless of course Tim Johnson dies or resigns.

History would seem to indicate that recent buzz about an attack on Iran this Spring is only sensationalism, providing that the USS Eisenhower's stay in the gulf isn't extended and no carriers other than Stennis are sent- which would be a real big warning, but the lack of action just doesn't add up.

I doubt we'd go into Iran full-on, but maybe just whack 'em real good, and don't want to be anymore understrength in Iraq than we already are at the time, for fear of them retaliating...

hmm, I'm thinking as I type here and I think I like that explanation. 30k extra troops for a short time, buzz about extra carriers, but they can't stay long without screwing up training and maintenance cycles... maybe we're just securing the theater against possible escalations of airstrikes on Iran?

Or I could be way off. Maybe they're putting Gates in a position to be nominated as VP so that they can whack Cheney. Who knows. I don't believe that last one for a second though.

Bush will only make token gestures aimed at the Baker report. Even thou Bush is in his 2nd term he wont risk the rest of his admins Iraq policy's as being gross failures. Rumsfeld policy's are a proven failure because they ran against the current way the war on terror is being fought.

We wont see any genuine changes in the US policy towards Iraq until Bush and co leave office. People would have forgiven the lack of modern WMD stockpiles had Iraq been sent on the path to a stable Middle Eastern democracy. People forgave Reagan for Iran Contra because the Soviet Union completed its self destruction shortly after he left office.

[edit on 1-1-2007 by xpert11]