IS BUSH SURRENDERING?

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

[hchutch]

I think that's a possibility. Bush struck me as having learned the lesson taught by the parable of the old bull and the young bull (see post 24). He's not thrown off by the bashers and second-guessers.

[Recovering_Democrat]

And Bush has said Saddam WILL be dealt with.

Where the hell were you people at the State of the Union?

And haven't you ever heard of "carefully chosen words"? Bush seems to choose his words carefully--being honest and straightforward but not necessarily telegraphing his actions. The nation IS ready for war: WE ARE AT WAR AS A MATTER OF FACT.

methinks the lady doth protest too much...

[BluH2o]

Throwing up an unsubstantiated comment by Lady Thatcher and connecting Bush43 with Bush 41 in the manner you have, is pure nonsensical rhetoric.

Your response is well worded ... however, Lady Thatcher's response is verifiable ... she in fact did make the "wobbly" comment; Bush 41 made joking reference to it in an interview. As far as voting for a democ"rat" that won't happen ... my track record as a "FReeper" the past four years will attest to that ... I simply won't punch the ballot when it comes to voting for a President.

[Smile-n-Win]

The party needs to select another candidate for 2004.

That's exactly what I've been thinking.

[Smile-n-Win]

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?

President Bush has been on a course to forfeit the confidence of many of his supporters--perhaps even too many for him to be nominated in 2004. Or, if he is nominated, a third party may make it to become a second party, as we saw it happening in France. And once you've become a second party, it will be much easier subsequently to finish first.

If I had the choice between a Rat and a RINO, I would still prefer the RINO, but what I really want is a Gipper.

[ThePythonicCow]

Then they have cut themselves off from future complaining when he does.

One can never cut off Democrat complaining.

For example, in almost the same breath, they complain that (1) Bush knew all about 9/11 ahead of time but didn't tell us for political gain, and (2) knows nothing about current terrorist threats and is just making the latest warnings up for political gain.

But more likely you meant that when such complaining occurred, Bush's current talk might reduce the affectiveness of that complaining. Could be.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

[SamAdams76]

Maybe we're not invading. Maybe we are just bombing the heck out of them and letting some other anti-Saddam group run the country (like we did in Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance).

[ThePythonicCow]

Maybe we're not invading ... maybe ... bombing ...

Saddam is far more entrenched militarily into Iraq than Osama was in Afghanistan. I think it will take a good sized regular army to take him out.

[zarf]

We'll thorw em a curve ball and make it 7:21

[Reagan Man]

Whether it was substantiated, or unsubstantiated, isn't the real point. I think its unfair to link President Bush, with his father, beyond what is obvious. Yes, they are father and son. No, they aren't clones. Besides, Dubya is more like his mother anyway, tough, smart and savvy. But we shouldn't forget, Bush 41 had excellent skills in the area of foreign affairs and was a good, decent man and a respected public servant for thirty years.

Its your duty as an American citizen to vote. I've seen ten presidents lead America in my lifetime. Next to Reagan, Bush 43 is the most conservative leader we've had in that time. Historically, you'd have to go way back, to President Calvin Coolidge, in the 1920`s, for a POTUS who was as conservative. Think about it.

Remember what Reagan said:

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Ronald Reagan, from his autobiography, An American Life

[section9]

Yeah, I heard Rush going on about this this morning.

I was trying to tell you folks that there would be no invasion until the Winter of 2003. The tail just isn't there yet. Especially the JDAM production lines. It will take until the end of June to get them up to 3500 JDAMs produced a month. JDAM's, and plenty of them, have to be plentiful and on hand. Then there's Infantry conditioning to take into account.

If the brass says they need some time to put this together, then I'll go with their recommendations. But when George W. Bush says he has no war plans "on my desk", that tells me everything I need to know.

Some people, Andrew Sullivan included, need to watch how they react to planned leaks.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Mahone]

Don't be ridiculous, I know you've been exposed to people like Clinton for 8 years, but your frame of reference needs to change!

[tsomer]

Chris, I've followed your remarks for some time and you seem to know what you're talking about. I think we and the press wish to see Dub invade Iraq because we want to see Bush Senior's job completed. There's a nice poetic ring to the thought of Dub completing what we now think the old man should have done. And I have no doubt that Dub wants to do it too. But that's no reason to invade. Neither Bush is responsible for Clintoon's 8 years of neglect.

I've been wondering if the administration is backing off because they've decided, measured against what is currently over there, Sadam is not so bad afterall. I've always wondered about Sadam's stupidity in invading Kuwait, and known that he's brutal and cultivated a cultic adherence among his followers etc, but he has survived & he probably wouldn't have had he been nice.

Who would we replace Sadam with? What happens between the Sunni ruling class and the Shiite majority, and how will this effect the possibility of moderate reform in Iran? As to the tribal minorities inhabiting the mountains in that region (I can't remember their names), can we be sure that those societies haven't been subverted by Al Qaeda style Islamists? Some might say give the region to Turkey; my wife is Armenian so you can understand my misgivings there.

In short, seems to me we're considering changing a known evil for a different, unknown and possibly worse evil. What are your thoughts?

[rebelsoldier]

If Bush pulls a "Bay of Pigs" on the American people in this war against terrorists attempting to wipe the United States off the face of the Earth, he may end up just like JFK did. Remember the "0" election year curse.

[ThePythonicCow]

I'm not section9, but I think it's more than just "finishing the work of the Father". We need to start breaking down the entrenched terrorist supporting nations. They will continue to kill, within increasing efficiency (perhaps dramatically increasing, with weapons of mass destruction). We don't need to take them all down at once. Each one we take down will change the dynamics of the remaining, and at some point, the remaining regimes supporting terrorism will collapse. But until that point, one by one, they must go. Iraq is next.

[section9]

I disagree.

Saddam Hussein is a psychological bad-actor. The sad thing is, he has access to petrodollars and the weapons research that flow from them. Hussein is motivated by revenge, and the chance that he could go down in history as a latter-day Sahal-a-din is too much for him to ignore.

So you build a small bomb, say five to fifteen kilotons, and you give it to al-Qaeda, who are messianic enough to actually not be deterred from acting on your revenge.

The prospect of Baghdad being turned into a nuclear cinder pile would not alter Hussein's historical sense of mission one whit. After all, he knows the Arab Street, and he knows that he and bin Laden would go down in history as Arab heroes who brought low the arrogant Christians. What is one's life, or the lives of millions, compared to that legacy, eh?

Nope, I'm fully convinced that Bush is aware of the danger, and I am fully convinced that Bush intends to unseat, retire, or otherwise place into suspended animation Saddam al-Hussein. It's actually a good thing that if this leak is only partly true, the Pentagon is thinking in terms of covering all bases: perhaps up to 200,000 guys to handle all the contingencies plus LOTS o' airpower. I don't think the uniformed military is trying to spook Bush into cancelling an invasion altogether. I do believe that they are telling him that Iraq and Afghanistan are two different things entirely. There's another factor:

You have to throw in the entire Israeli Air Force and perhaps several divisions of the IDF keeping our Syrian friends busy. The Israelis will want to sit at the top table at the Peace Conference, just like the Russians and the Brits, so they'll make their down payment in blood money, so to speak. The Russians will want guarantees on their eight billion dollars, plus a say in oil development, and the Brits will want their own "occuaption reward" in exploration rights for BP, plus a free trade agreement between the "Federal Republic of Iraq" and the UK.

We'll be so generous that we'll allow the EU to do the catering. It'll bring a whole new meaning to the term "frog's legs".

What kills me is that this is an interagency leak. Someone from State was sitting in on it and got the gist of the conference to Powell, and Powell decided to leak again. That's what pisses me off. Or it's someone lower down on the food chain who's doing it because Powell can't be compromised. The Pentagon didn't leak this. State did.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[MissAmericanPie]

I don't see why this should be laid at Bush's door when his top Generals, the "Sugar Plum" top brass, given to us by the Clinton administration, are the one's that can't handle Iraq.

No, I don't intend to vote for Bush again because of his globalism, and failure to keep his oath about our borders. But fair is fair, I don't consider this in any way, shape, or form his fault.

If you think our news media is packed with socialist/liberals, give a thought to how many agencies, FBI, INS, IRS, CIA, are packed with liberals, who can't be fired, and are just waiting for four years to pass to get back to business as usual.

[Whilom]

Better to keep everyone in the dark, change the subject, and strike when it best suits us.

Ah so, the Yamamoto plan.

[Balding_Eagle]

Well, we never invaded the Soviet Union either but we still won the cold war.

Very good point.