Bush has become the weak one

[Guest endymion]

One of Bush's only real points in the first debate was that he's the strong one and that Kerry is the weak one. He says that it's critical that we show the world a united and resolute face and that his administration is the only one that could do that. Yet the week after he kept saying that, his own administration exploded in dissent over Iraq and the war on terror and Bush is making weaker and weaker chess moves in the campaign.

Signs of weakness this week:

New justification for Iraq, never heard before

"Saddam was systematically gaming the system" This new argument is that Saddam was messing with the UN food-for-oil program in order to get support from allies so that sanctions could be ended. Desperate and weak man, this is the first time we've heard this new justification. Also, trying to get sanctions against the country you're in charge of is not an evil thing? Hello? This comes right after:

White House admits there were no WMD

Bush: "Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there." Flip-flopper.

Rumsfeld accidentally says 'no evidence of Iraq / al Qaeda link'

Said on Monday that he hadn't seen any "strong, hard evidence". He retracted his statement on Tuesday. Oops, the tight and disciplined Bush Administration PR machine has lost control of Rummy, while he's fighting a war for them in the middle of a campaign? Spectacular sign of weakness and division in the ranks at the top.

Paul Bremer says we didn't have enough troops

On Tuesday, quoted saying that we "never had enough troops on the ground". Bush continues to support Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld continues to support stupid neo-conservative Wolfowitz notion that we really do have enough troops involved right now. Oops another PR fuckup! Man the White House just doesn't have any control over these people at all any more because they are trying to distance themselves from President Head-in-the-sand. Powell already said we didn't have enough troops from the beginning. Bush can't keep his own people on 'the course' because they don't agree that it's the right course. Bremer withdrew his statement not by saying that he was wrong, but by saying that he hadn't intended to be quoted. In other words, sorry for the PR foul but I really do feel what I said.

Spectacular violence and instability in Iraq every day this week

It is obvious to everybody but Bush and Cheney what is going on in Iraq. We are losing. They have their heads in the sand. You can't fix a problem until you admit that there is a problem. "Stay the course!" for no reason other than communicating firmness in the face of an obvious failure in progress is insanity.

Or no, it would be incompetence. It's the sign of a failed leader's grand vision falling apart. Weakness.

[V. Barbarino]

spin spin spin spin

tech, the war is 2 years old, the issue at hand is where do we go from here. The debate on right or wrong is mute at this point. no one is swayed whats so ever to either side by any evidence.

move on, or maybe you want to bring up if clinton lied years ago?

[Guest pod]

I'd rather deal with Bill lying about giving Monica a pearl necklace than GW lying to justify the war.

You know my take, I think he should have just said "Saddam is a jerk, and he's gotta go..." rather than making some spurious story up about WMDs.

Heheh, I said pearl necklace.

[Guest endymion]

tech, the war is 2 years old, the issue at hand is where do we go from here. The debate on right or wrong is mute at this point. no one is swayed whats so ever to either side by any evidence.

Uh no, what I'm saying is: Bush says that we should pick him because he's the strong one and we need to show resolution and determination. He can't hold his own administration together on "the course" that he wants us to stay on.

That was his ONLY point during the whole debate, that he's the strong one, that Kerry would be weak, that he can present a face of clear and decisive leadership.

His own people are disagreeing with him in public. His only point during the debate has evaporated. He has become the weak one and it's looking more obvious to more people.

[Guest slamminshaun]

There's always two wars to each war. The real one, and the public relations one. I think they've done about as well as you can do in Iraq to this point, but the public relations war was an absolute disaster. They should have had another clear reason besides WMD for going in from the beginning. I would supported it, and alot of other people would've too, but obviously not as wide a support.

[V. Barbarino]

tech to quote your guy:

"i voted for it, right after I didn't vote for it"

something like that.. you get my point, kerry is no stronger or weaker on this war than bush.

the question is: where do we go from here....

it's like being lost in the jungle and argueing the whole time, who got the party lost... what you need to argue about is how to get out of the jungle..

[Guest endymion]

You can't get out of the jungle if you're afraid to even admit that you're lost.

[V. Barbarino]

You can't get out of the jungle if you're afraid to even admit that you're lost.

then tell your boy kerry to shut up already and provide more than monday morning quarterback ideas about iraq. I can do it better bla bla bla isn't going to get him elected.

[Guest JMT]

all kerry has to do is keep spouting empty promises.

[Guest endymion]

"There has been a huge mistake, we need to correct it" is actually exactly what I want to hear. Kerry is the only one saying that, Bush continues to be unable to even admit that anything is wrong.

Back to my point: Bush's big justification for why we should vote for him is only his firmness. He didn't have much to say about his correctness. His administration is falling apart around him, contradicting his primary campaign plank.

If he isn't the strong one then what reason is he giving us to vote for him? All he could come up with last week was that he's the strong and resolute one and that his administration can stay the course. His administration doesn't like the course he's got them on, he's not making sense with that debate point at all?

[Guest JMT]

thats bc all they have been talking about is Iraq.

[Guest endymion]

thats bc all they have been talking about is Iraq.

That's because Iraq is the HUGE RELEVANT MISTAKE that makes lots of people want to fire Bush.

All night last week in the debate he was all "stay the course", 'my administration can succeed'. That was his argument. Days later Rumsfeld and Bremer are both openly undercutting his policy in public.

Okay, so he fully commits to wildy mistaken decisions with no ability to realize when to switch to Plan B, and he's also not capable of keeping his own inner circle of most trusted people on the same page. That is not strength and resolution.

Kerry kept talking throughout the debate about policy, about material policy issues relevant to the presidency. Bush on the other hand just kept saying 'stay the course' and he kept saying that Kerry will be an ineffective leader because he has no credibility with the world because 'you can't say XX and then do YY, people won't respect that and they won't respond to your leadership'.

Well okay, Bush said 'there are WMD' then 'there are no WMD'. His argument about his administration being the strong one is falling apart and he also has worse flip-flopper credibility issues than Kerry by far at this point in the eyes of the world and our adversaries. The people who he's saying won't respect Kerry because of saying XX and then later saying YY. He says the world won't repect Kerry for that at the same time as he's saying that a "global test" is silly, and while the world will respect him less for the same thing.

So basically even the prepared points that his people coached him with before the debate, even those points don't hold up. He may have looked charming but he lost that debate.

[Guest web_norah]

i'll say in my own words

Iraq was one HUGE and COSTLY mistake. i am tired of seeing the results take over 2 yrs and the lives of people, beheadings, journalists murdered, etc.

there are other issues within these borders that are 100000 times more important. and this whole "security" and terrorism threat is one of them - how has the war in Iraq changed this? so, Sadam is in jail but Osama is still at large. ???

what else is going to justify this war? warrant all civilian deaths?

[tgibson]

No one is going to admit they did something "wrong" during a campaign. To think that someone would do that is assinine. It's not like the American people are going to say, "hmmm, you know what, that was an honest answer, let's vote for the guy who just told us he did something wrong". It's just not going to happen.

What I want to know is how come no one is making real accusations as to why they think Bush went into Iraq.

All we hear is that he lied, but not why - surely they must have a sound theory as to why they did it? Some grandios agenda? Right?

Any thoughts why this isn't part of the debate? I would think if there was a real reason why they did it, then people might buy in to the fact that he "lied" to do it.

[tgibson]

there are other issues within these borders that are 100000 times more important. and this whole "security" and terrorism threat is one of them - how has the war in Iraq changed this?

Why do you think they did it then, if not to attempt to quash a terrorist-sponsoring hotbed (where they were told there was an imminent attack threat)?

[Guest endymion]

We killed thousands and thousands of people and lost over a thousand of our own over a 'presumption' that Iraq would 'initiate' a new WMD program.

Bush is putting on a straight face and telling the world that the above statement is true and that he has no regrets. Weak. There are real nuclear weapons in North Korea. There is real genocide in Sudan. Desperate humanitarian situation in Haiti. There are a hundred thousand shipping containers a mile from my apartment that have not been inspected for WMD or smuggled terrorists. Osama bin Laden is on the loose and successfully franchising Al Qaeda to other smart evil people.

But right, Saddam had to go because he had strong ties to France. Those people had to die. We didn't make a mistake. It's all justified and it should be the most important priority of the presidency in a time of outsourcing and homeland security fears, riiiiight. The current Bush 'no regrets' policy is insanity or incompetence, you pick.

[Guest endymion]

Why do you think they did it then, if not to attempt to quash a terrorist-sponsoring hotbed (where they were told there was an imminent attack threat)?

If you question "why" and point out that Bush and Cheney business connections have been the only people in the world to benefit from Iraq then right wing zealots will immediately brand you a conspiracy theorist.

[Guest JMT]

There are real nuclear weapons in Iraq.

i think you mean iran

[Guest JMT]

Why do you think they did it then, if not to attempt to quash a terrorist-sponsoring hotbed (where they were told there was an imminent attack threat)?

If you question "why" and point out that Bush and Cheney business connections have been the only people in the world to benefit from Iraq then right wing zealots will immediately brand you a conspiracy theorist.

such an ignorant lie. youre funny.

[Guest endymion]

Heh, I actually meant North Korea. Gosh there are a lot of imminent threats. Why was Iraq the top priority again?

[Guest endymion]

If you question "why" and point out that Bush and Cheney business connections have been the only people in the world to benefit from Iraq then right wing zealots will immediately brand you a conspiracy theorist.

such an ignorant lie. youre funny.

You yourself have called me a conspiracy theorist for saying just that.

[Guest JMT]

how about for starters there is no proof. there is a certain thing called "evidence."

so, if the shoe fits....

[Guest endymion]

So you actually agree on this 'no regrets' policy?

[Guest JMT]

So you actually agree on this 'no regrets' policy?

not sure exactly what that is at this point in the thread.

[Guest web_norah]

there are other issues within these borders that are 100000 times more important. and this whole "security" and terrorism threat is one of them - how has the war in Iraq changed this?

Why do you think they did it then, if not to attempt to quash a terrorist-sponsoring hotbed (where they were told there was an imminent attack threat)?

i fail to see a direct connection to the imminent attack? if you still think that the men that were on those 9/11 planes were Sadam recruits, you're sadly mistaken. so Sadam is now the terrorist not Osama?