RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Will the Iraq situation cost GW the election?(12 posts)

Will the Iraq situation cost GW the election?ColnagoFE
Nov 10, 2003 8:56 AM
How many more helicopters can be shot down and how many more people can come home in body bags before the public finally has had enough? How long can the public go without hearing a plausible exit strategy?
re: Will the Iraq situation cost GW the election?Jon Billheimer
Nov 10, 2003 9:34 AM
The exit strategy question is a good one...to which I don't have an answer. However, related to this is that when the American people finally begin to realize that what is going on in Iraq is not going to make the middleast a safer, more stable place nor make America safer from Islamic terrorism they will demand a change to a saner foreign policy.

What Bush has done so successfully is to cater to everyone's post-9/11 fears and to give the public what it wants: a lot of swagger and good old fashioned Yankee chest-thumping. It props up the national ego but doesn't do much to actually accomplish anything worthwhile.
It won't be a "one issue" electionMR_GRUMPY
Nov 10, 2003 11:13 AM
Iraq will be like a dragging piece of toilet paper from his shoe. It won't be much better a year from now. It will take at least two years. The only way for george to save face, is to have the U.N. take over.
The election is multivariate...TJeanloz
Nov 10, 2003 9:37 AM
Clearly, public opinion has swayed against President Bush's handling of the war. That doesn't mean, necessarily, that public opinion has swayed against the war itself. I'm beginning to dissapprove of the President's handling of the situation, but I still approve of the war. Subtle difference.

The question, thus, is: would any of the other candidates handle the situation better? And I'm not sure any of them would. The truism of the situation, for better or worse, is that we will have troops in Iraq through the entire next administration, whether that administration is overseen by Bush or the Democratic contender. And at this point, I might still prefer Bush overseeing that mess than any of the Democrats, with the possible exception of Wesley Clark. The Democratic contender can't just avoid the question by saying: I wouldn't have gone to war in the first place - they need to tell me how they're going to make the situation that exists better.
Do you think reports are credible...filtersweep
Nov 10, 2003 10:28 AM
that Saddam attempted to thwart the US invasion at the last minute when troops where lined up in Kuwait by offering the FBI (literally) full access to anything they wanted regarding WMD? That he offered democratic elections? That GW was past a point of no-return and just pulled the trigger anyway?

I've been a bit surprised this news wasn't more widely reported than it was. It contained a large amt of damning information... assuming there was a shred of truth to it.
I think they probably are,TJeanloz
Nov 10, 2003 10:39 AM
I think that those reports probably have some merit. But given the situation, I'm not sure that pulling the trigger wasn't the right move. Saddam claimed to have been giving full access - so what more could he give? And if he wasn't honest before, why would he be in the next round of "full disclosure?" And that assumes that the report was accurate.
and the fine print . . .ms
Nov 10, 2003 10:44 AM
I think that among the fine print was that the democratic elections would be in TWO YEARS. Even if the reports are accurate, it sounds to me like a delaying action rather than anything of real substance.
It'll be the only thing that might. Nothing else for the Dems..94Nole
Nov 10, 2003 1:18 PM
to complain about. Well, alot to complain about but will fall on deaf ears.

You can believe that the economy will take a back burner in the media and the lives being lost in IRAQ will take front stage for the next 12 months.
Solution: Get Bush to construct Iraq War memorialLeonnard
Nov 10, 2003 2:52 PM
Bush and his advisors are responsible for the NEED for a new memorial. They should apply their "Strike First" mentality and build it before anyone else gets the idea. That ought to hush up all those liberals who say Bush ignores the casuality toll.
And if Bush gets re-elected, we can add more and more walls or wings on to the memorial as needed.
No. (nm)HouseMoney
Nov 10, 2003 3:20 PM
re: Not just iraqjrm
Nov 10, 2003 6:09 PM
Alot of things are surfacing recently that are seriously hurting Gdubyas creditability. I read something interesting today that said you know people want to believe in something until that something impacts them directly. At which point they begin questioning the person making the "beleive" statements.

Its only going to get worse. And dubya isnt the kind to say he's worng either. This is the dangerous part of it all. If he focks up it will be well critcized. The world is just waitning to pounce
Probably but128
Nov 11, 2003 11:10 AM
how should I know.

Probably but only if the economy tanks and is war perceived as unjustified. The trade deficit, weak dollar and protectionism could linger on W's (non-pregoratively speaking)watch and he'll be tagged with it.

Otoh, if the American public was more informed of the benefits to Iraqi people's lives of knocking out SH, W would stand a good chance if the econ. improves. Blustering neocon arrogance I think prevents a more honest 'selling' of this military/humanitarian/mid-east effort.