IS BUSH SURRENDERING?

andrewsullivan.com ^ | Friday, May 24, 2002 | Andrew Sullivan

[ThePythonicCow]

IS BUSH SURRENDERING? Dreadful news today that the president may be wavering in his intent to destroy the Iraqi regime. If true, then those of us who have supported the war on terror need to revise our assessment of this president. He told the German press yesterday that there is no plan to invade on his desk. He said it almost proudly. His military leaders, in a sign of their determination to risk nothing and achieve nothing, are now leaking to the Washington Post that they have all but scotched a serious military option in Iraq. The arguments they are using sound like they might come from a Gore administration. After all that this president has said, after all that he has asked, a reversal on this central question would be nothing short of a staggering betrayal of trust, a reversal of will and determination. Of course, there should be no peremptory, rushed or botched war. Of course, all options should be examined. But the signs are unmistakable. This president, having begun as an improvement on his father, is showing signs that he could end up as something even worse. It's time he heard from his supporters that this is a critical matter on which there can be no compromise. If he balks, it will be worse than his father's betrayal on taxes. It will be a betrayal of the very security of the American people.

[ThePythonicCow]

Thanks y'all for the words of encouragement. Time will tell. Certainly, Bush is the man for this job. But the forces of liberal appeasement are everywhere.

[Miss Marple]

I am reminded of his comment in an interview, during the campaign, to the hand-wringers in DC. "Some of these folks jump out of the foxhole at the first shot. Don't worry, I know what I'm doin'."

[Howlin]

Maybe some people wanted him to say, "The invasion of Iraq will began at 7:19, Tuesday...."

Maybe some people want a national referendum on it.

Did Ike discuss D-Day with the press? :-)

[ThePythonicCow]

the parable of the old bull and the young bull

For those like me who didn't know this parable, from Stangian X-Day Report 7-10-98 , slightly edited:

On July 3, Dr. G. Gordon Gordon related to me this parable.

Two bulls are standing on a hilltop, looking down at a herd of cows down in the valley below. It's a young bull and an old bull.

The young bull says, "Hey, Pops, let's run down there and f* some of them cows."

The old bull looks at the young bull and replies, "No, let's WALK down there and f* ALL of those cows."

[Howlin]

Sullivan voted for Bush.

[Howlin]

I remember one of Rumsfeld's press conferences when one of the reporters said, "We're having trouble getting information out of the DOD."

Without batting an eye, Rumsfeld said, "You are? Great. Glad to hear it."

They are DOLTS.

[The Great Satan]

Saddam dies and New York and DC are history. That's what the anthrax letters mean. We are in a MAD posture w.r.t. Iraq. That's why we've been getting the run around for seven months on the origin and significance of those letters. That's why Bush rattles his saber at Iraq, but an attack is off the table. This is so obvious, a child could figure it out. All you have to do is set aside foolish pride, put down the rose-tinted spectacles, and look at the facts in the face. Something nobody in the commentariat, with the possible exception of Krauthammer, seems willing to do, apparently.

[Howlin]

LOL.......I knew it, but I loved reading it.

[LS]

If, and I repeat, IF what Rush and Sullivan think turns out to be right, then I will be the first Bush critic. But there are several things at work. First, in case everyone hasn't noticed we aren't through in Afghanistan yet and I think it sensible to ensure that everything there is cleaned up first. We also have troops/advisors in two other fronts: the Philippines and Yemen. Can we reasonably add yet another major campaign? I doubt it.

Second, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush and Putin were not talking about more than oil. A US/Russian joint force to take out Iraq is not out of the question.

Third, I don't think the military is fully rebuilt yet, although I disagree with the piece that says the Pentagon hasn't dealt with a restructuring. For ex., I don't think we need Crusader, but can put that money into other things. I think we need tanks, but not as heavy a concentration as we did during the Cold War.

Finally, although I think Bush is tremendously honest, I wouldn't be surprised if he was lying through his teeth about these war plans. There is no reason to tell these evil people what we are up to, and a little smokescreen is a good thing.

[Poohbah]

Live, from the Pentagon Press Room, it's THE RUMMY SHOW!

[Reagan Man]

Never forget, the duo of President Bush&Karl Rove, are smart as a fox. Don't believe this Andy Sullivan BS!

[Poohbah]

Second, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush and Putin were not talking about more than oil.

You misspelled "awl."

[hchutch]

I've noticed that Bill Gertz has had few front-page stories, too. It's good news, IMHO.

[CWRWinger]

I have said this before, it's time for the Republican Party to inform Bush if he wants to run again it will have to be as a Demokrat or Independent. The party needs to select another candidate for 2004.

Actually, wouldn't Hitlery have a fit if GWB switched parties and ran as a RAT?

[BluH2o]

I voted for Bush ... but only once. He let the farm bill slide thru, he granted amnesty to illegal aliens, now he's wavering on his hard line position on Iraq and terrorism. Maggie Thatcher, at a conference in Aspen, told Bush's father not to go wobbly on her, as she was prepared to take a hard line against Saddam shortly after Iraq attacked Kuwait. The Iron Maiden knew Bush Sr. well ... it seems his son may have the same problem.

[Richard Axtell]

Clinton apologists like Alan Coombs like to point out that since the war in Afghanistan was so successful, Clinton did not really undermine the military so badly. Afghanistan was a sandbox exercise compared to Desert Storm, and Clinton's gutted military can not mount another operation of that size and scope at this time. Clinton did reduce our military's readiness, capabilities, logistical depth, and morale, in ways and degree that is much worse than Ford/Carter did. If Rush's opinion is correct, and members of the Joint Chiefs are pushing back any invasion date, this is why. Woe to us if Saddam gets the bomb, and gets it in a ship, container, plane, or missile to our country before we can counter his threat.

[ThePythonicCow]

I voted for Bush ... but only once.

If the next election came out even closer than the last, and it came down to one vote, in your state, to decide the result, and that vote was yours, and you could either vote for Bush again and put him in office, or vote any other way, including abstaining, and put the Democrat in office, what would you do?

Obviously, elections don't work this way. We never know if we are the "deciding vote" until long after we've cast our ballot. But I like to ask myself something like the above "thought experiment" before each election day.

What would you do?

[Reagan Man]

If I remember correctly, Bush41 prosecuted a successful war over Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Without Bush41 and massive US military force, there would have been no great victory, against the forces of evil back in 1991. Throwing up an unsubstantiated comment by Lady Thatcher and connecting Bush43 with Bush 41 in the manner you have, is pure nonsensical rhetoric.

OTOH, the farm bill was pork barrel corporate welfare, but in the end, may have been a stroke of political genius on President's part. I didn't support 245i, but it wasn't a blanket amnesty and applied to maybe 200K immigrants caught up in a terrible system.

If you look at the entire record on Bush, you would see a preety good picture, so far. Kyoto is dead, the ABM treaty is history, a NMDS is becoming reality, Bush said NO ICC for the USA, Bush says RKBA is fully constitutional, Bush told Cuba/Castro the embargo stays and Bush has given working American's, two tax cuts. Along with winning the war on terrorism, Bush is doing a great job for America and the American people.

Who do you support, Algore or may be Hillary Rotten?

[Nonstatist]

This sickens me. He's a fool, if this is true.