Oh fer Chrissakes! Can we get any more amateurish?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
I disagree that he didn't have the capability to obtain WMD. I see that I am in the minority here, and part of the problem is there are not enough Americans here to discuss my actual point which is the divisiveness of America. It makes sense that if you're not American, you don't care about that topic, so I concede defeat.

(He is American.)

[Elok]

I am American, and it's a matter of fact that Hussein couldn't get squat. He was sitting on a pretty big stockpile of yellowcake (had been for years, there was no point in him buying more from Africa and no reason to care if he did), but had no means of enriching it. At least, that's what I read in The One Percent Doctrine, which was based on interviews with various sources in the U.S. Intelligence community before, during, and after the invasion of Iraq.

And VG, I cannot imagine Bush winning an election after this without accomplishing something utterly spectacular to salvage his reputation. Maybe if he traveled back in time to 1933 and beat Hitler to death or something. Otherwise, not happening. All but the very farthest right wing finds him embarrassing now.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why is anyone responding to his functionally illiterate posts?

Speaking for myself: boredom and maybe a little bit of post count increase. Also, he's a lot more lucid than your average right-wing online partisan, though I admit RoboCon would be more fun.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Elok And VG, I cannot imagine Bush winning an election after this without accomplishing something utterly spectacular to salvage his reputation. Maybe if he traveled back in time to 1933 and beat Hitler to death or something. Otherwise, not happening. All but the very farthest right wing finds him embarrassing now.

Well, I couldn't imagine him winning in 2004, either. Now, given that Hillary is the front-runner and a lot of people hate her... Granted, I don't really get how John Kerry lost to Bush. I mean, sure, he wasn't the best candidate out there, but he certainly wasn't the worst like Bush.

[East Street Trader]

Can he stand again? Isn't two terms the limit?

Or does he want to be something other than President.


On a different tack I, for one, am very happy to hear your views, Shrapnel.

I agree that the US seems destructively divided about Iraq at the moment and it would be better if some measure of consensus emerged.

Politicians will be too busy pursuing their own interests to try to find common ground or to learn any lessons. But others in the US could productively attempt that.

So, for example, is there anything that can now be said about the WMD worry before the Iraq war which is not controversial?

And if there is, does it have any relevance to the current worry about Iran?

[Elok]

No, he can't run again. We were just speaking hypothetically.

[East Street Trader]

Thanks, Elok.

You have picked some real duffers of late. I hope that next time you can find someone with a bit more to them.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Well, I couldn't imagine him winning in 2004, either. Now, given that Hillary is the front-runner and a lot of people hate her... Granted, I don't really get how John Kerry lost to Bush. I mean, sure, he wasn't the best candidate out there, but he certainly wasn't the worst like Bush.

3 things happened (or didn't happen) in 2004:

1) The extent to which Iraq was a fiasco was not yet clear, and the extent to which our involvement was based on faulty premises and bad information was still being deliberately obfuscated by the White House.

2) The GOP played the security card very very well. Until recently, the GOP has enjoyed a clear advantage on questions of national security and defense; if they can succeed in making the election about those things, they win. In 2004, they did. (Recently, and for the first time ever, the Dems have begun outpolling the GOP on the question, "whom do you trust to keep America safe?")

3) The Democrats had a terrible candidate in Kerry. He had no vision, he had no ability to explain his votes on Iraq, he had no executive experience, and he came across as effete. On top of that, he ran a terrible campaign.

Even when all that is said, a mere 75,000 votes out of over 120 million cast would have flipped the election to Kerry (by changing Ohio's votes in the electoral college).

And while I agree that it would be useful to have some consensus emerge, you must take into account how powerfully feelings are running in at least three camps: those still commited to defending the war, who are becoming increasing shrill as their defense becomes less and less tenable; those who supported the war only to feel a deep sense of betrayal over how it has played out; and those who never supported the war (often saying we'd be there for years as the country decended into anarchy), and were publicly repudiated as traitors for doing so -- and now have understandably large chips on their shoulders labelled "told ya so." Bringing these three groups to the table to make common cause is very hard to imagine.

[Elok]

Thanks, EST. I'm hoping for someone better myself. Not that election coverage thus far has given much cause for hope, but it's still early.

To what Rufus said, I'd like to add that W's approval rating was like thirty points higher in 2004. Back then he was merely divisive, not political poison.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Elok
To what Rufus said, I'd like to add that W's approval rating was like thirty points higher in 2004. Back then he was merely divisive, not political poison.

More like 15-25 points, but an excellent point nevertheless (most polls right before election day had him in the 45-50% range; here's an interesting graph of the various polls).

Also worth mentioning:

1) The US has never unseated a president during wartime;

2) The margin by which Bush won re-election -- under 3% -- is the narrowest margin by which a president has ever been re-elected (even Truman had more than a 3% margin over Dewey in the infamous "Dewey defeats Truman" election of 1948); and

3) Apparently, I really like numbering things.

[Patroklos]

3) Apparently, I really like numbering things.

a.) numbers suck.

b.) letters rock

[Arrian]

KrazyHorse

-Arrian

[Victor Galis]

Fair enough, though I still have little faith in an electorate that picked W twice*.

Remember in 2000, his critics were saying that he was a moron, and the counter was: Yeah, but he's surrounding himself with good advisors.

But as far as the Iraq mess is concerned, I think the problem is that it's a lose-lose proposition. Lose if you leave, lose if you stay. This makes it somewhat hard to offer a solution, and so really all you are left to run with as a Dem is: punish those guys at the polls for putting us in this mess. That's not quite the most compelling of messages unfortunately.


* Let's not get into the 2000 Florida/popular vote debate.

[Lancer]

We should stay, but out in the desert somewhere. Every time the Iraqis put up some terrorist or dictator, we invade, tear down his statue, and go back to the desert.

We invade good.

[Patroklos]

Lose if you leave, lose if you stay.

Self fulfilling prophecy.