Like father, like son - Bush support starts to unravel over Iraq

[Dinner]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
I still think Iraq will be more like Lebanon.

I agree with this. The most frustrating part is that it could have and still could be avoided if Bush wasn't such a control freak. All he has to do is turn over political control to the UN and France, Germany, Russia, and India will all send troops. I'd go for a compromise where the UN gets political control (who wants to be involved in that rats nest any way?) while the US, having the majority of military forces, keeps military control.

[PLATO]

How do you seperate military and political control in an occupation?

[Sava]

The economy is starting to show some strong signs of rebounding.

But hasn't rebounded....

Jobless claims down.

the rate of jobless claims is slowing... but still... each week, more jobs are lost. Call me when we start to have positive job growth. But don't hold your breath.

The Dems have not provided any acceptable alternative.

There are nine of them that are all better than Bush.

I can see it now... in 2007 when we finally have a strong economy and positive job growth with a Democratic president, dopey conservatives will hail the Bush policies.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
The economy is starting to show some strong signs of rebounding. Economic leaders are up. Jobless claims down. Taxes are lower and we still have over a year to make it look like Iraq is getting under control. The Dems have not provided any acceptable alternative. At this point a Bush 2nd term looks likely. It is, of course, still way to early to tell.

That new jobless claims are dow does not mean that new jobs are being created. Growth at 2.5% (Which is what is forcasted) isn't enough to create many jobs: 2.5% isn;t strong either, anyway. As for taxes being lower, not if you count people's local porperty taxes and other local taxes going up to meet local problems.

[Sava]

\We won "the war" in Iraq. That in itself makes the Vietnam scenerio moot. The fact is that Iraq, if it resembles anything at all, is like the Phillipinnes after the Spanish American War..

nah... the invasion was successful... that's it. The occupation is going bad. In Vietnam, the US had much military success... but it couldn't accomplish it's goals... and thus... failed. I'm only using that comparison because it was a situation in which overwhelming military superiority amounted to didley squat.

The problem in Iraq is an admin. unwilling to own up to the true size of the commitment they need to end up with a sucess in Iraq. The US has the resources to "win" in Iraq but we are politically unwilling to bear them alone, yet this amdin. is unwilling to accept the sort of international support needed to make up for this lack of enthusiasm at home.

I agree... just like Vietnam... the admin is unwilling to do what it takes to win because of political considerations. You can nit pick all the differences between the two conflicts all you want. They are very different. I'm making a broad comparison based upon the goals. To compare it with a conflict in around the turn of the 20th century is a mistake.

[PLATO]

Sava, it is true that the rebound has not happened yet. ALL indicators are that it will. If it does, then job growth is almost a given.

As to the acceptable alternatives, I was refering to how I believe main stream America will not embrace any of them. Perhaps I am wrong, but none appear to have broad support even in their own party.

[Sava]

As for taxes being lower, not if you count people's local porperty taxes and other local taxes going up to meet local problems.

That's the old Reaganomics bait and switch. Sure... cut federal taxes for the rich... then let state and local govt's raise taxes across the board and shift the blame.

Sava, it is true that the rebound has not happened yet. ALL indicators are that it will. If it does, then job growth is almost a given.

well call me when it happens, mkay

As to the acceptable alternatives, I was refering to how I believe main stream America will not embrace any of them. Perhaps I am wrong, but none appear to have broad support even in their own party.

You do realize that you are comparing them to the most unpopularly elected president of all time? Mainstream America hasn't embraced Bush at all. You are confusing post 9-11 patriotic furvor with support. It's actually quite pathetic considering he pissed away the popularity he had after 9-11.

[PLATO]

I like the so called "bait and switch" you describe. I can actually drive over to my councilman's house right now to gripe about taxes and spending. (In fact I will see him at the ballpark in a couple of hours as his son plays on the same team as mine.). I have never been able to do that with a national representative. Local funding gives more local control. Surely a good thing, don't you think?


As to your second point...mkay.

And lastly, I do not claim that Bush has broad support, but he is a sitting President(and that does help with many undecide at poll time) and he does have the support of his party. The Dems have an uphill fight. Bush has made it easier in ways, but it is still nat an easy rode for them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
nah... the invasion was successful... that's it. The occupation is going bad. In Vietnam, the US had much military success... but it couldn't accomplish it's goals... and thus... failed. I'm only using that comparison because it was a situation in which overwhelming military superiority amounted to didley squat.

The goas in Vietnam were limited: keep the South Vietnamese government in control. That being our aim the startegy we used was not going to help us win, speically against a well armed opponent woth significant outside support. None of these things are even remotely true about Iraq. Our goals in Iraq are not limited, and the enemy is far weaker and external support is small in comparison to our own commitments.

I agree... just like Vietnam... the admin is unwilling to do what it takes to win because of political considerations. You can nit pick all the differences between the two conflicts all you want. They are very different. I'm making a broad comparison based upon the goals. To compare it with a conflict in around the turn of the 20th century is a mistake.

As I said, goals in Vietnam were limited, not in Iraq. The US never planned to invade North Vietnam, destroy the communists there, unify the country under Saigon's control and tempt a war with China and/ or the Soviets. Any limitations on the US today are a direct result not of geo-politicla concerns, but political ideology and aims at home. This makes Bush's relative failure even more gauling in this case.

[Sava]

I like the so called "bait and switch" you describe. I can actually drive over to my councilman's house right now to gripe about taxes and spending. (In fact I will see him at the ballpark in a couple of hours as his son plays on the same team as mine.). I have never been able to do that with a national representative. Local funding gives more local control. Surely a good thing, don't you think?

nah... maybe in some places... but not where I live... in local governments, you don't have the diversity or the level of debate. In Naperville, or even Dupage County, or local government consists of all white, conservative dickheads that do whatever they want.

There are more checks and balances on the national level. And since we are one country, I'd rather things like education, health care, and economic policy are controlled at the national level so that we can more easily give equal opprotunity. If you "deregulate" things to the local levels, you get the great desparity of quality in things like education. That's part of the reasons rich suburban schools do so well and poor inner city schools suck.


edit: but that's the conservative dream... decrease national responsibility and let everyone fend for themselves on the local level.

[Sava]

Gepap: well regardless of the specific differences... the overall outcomes are the same... failure...

[Verto]

I was under the impression the Iraqis attacking US/British troops, were Baathists who had lost what power they had, when Hussein's regime was toppled. It is not a widespread Iraqi rebellion against the US.

And once again, we'll see.

[Verto]

And Vietnam was a failure because we never had a clear objective, and those directing the war were politicians.

[PLATO]

Sava, I agree with you on the points you outlined. I would say that federal funding is very adequate for defense and education. I have no problem with national policies and national funding on these issues. But when I see my federal dollar being spent to study the maiting habits of snail darters then I think they have to much $$ for our own good. My councilman would not be able to walk out his front door if he voted for that one.

Federal policy and funding definately has its place. The problem is that it has overstepped its bounds. Many decisions do belong at the local level. Cutting federal funding (i.e. tax cuts) should force the government to reasses priorities. Unfortunately, Congress has the power of deficiet spending. Not a bad thing in itself, but the abuse the hell out of it to keep from having to make tough decisions. To bad for all of us.

[Dinner]

We have the same problem now.