An Interesting Take on Bush Presidency

Hee hee. I hadn't thought of that, but maybe.

 

Gold / Ragu - good stuff. I agree that Viet Nam war was a result of central theme of the era - stop the spread of communism.

With the Afghanistan and Iraq war I see a parallel in stopping terrorism and fear of WMD's getting the hands of the wrong people. It's really the "central selling point" for the war.

The big difference now is a much more skeptical general public not willing to follow govt line completley.

It will be interesting to see in 10 years how we look at Iraq.

 

Oh, the general public was following the government line pretty good in the winter and spring of 2003.

Only when the WMDs never turned up and a civil war started and the reasons for war kept shifting depending on the day of the week and some reporters finally got balls and former generals started speaking out and the troops came home to a roach-infested military hospital did the general public finally open its eyes.

The rare person who dared speak out in the winter of 2003 --- let's call her Natalie Maines --- paid dearly for her transgression.

 

In the months before and after the election of 2002, about 70 percent of the people in the US favored the Bush plan. After all, Saddam was a really bad guy and would get the weapons of mass destruction. And we would win the war in a couple of weeks, oil would flow, the Iraqis would welcome us with pastries, etc., etc. The only reason 30 percent of the people opposed the war, as I did from before the start, was the example of Viet Nam and the fact that the Middle East isn't like a real nation.

I remember talking about it with two people I worked with and one guy, a conservative and a real nice fellow, talked about how bad Saddam was. I agreed, but said the Saudis were pretty bad themselves and 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. I said the US would win the war in six weeks but the problem wasn't going into Iraq, the problem would be getting out of Iraq and we would be there at least five years.

I wish I was wrong.

 

Both Viet Nam and Iraq had events prior that played a big part in making a convincing story.

Pre Viet Nam we had Cuban missile crisis and pre Iraq we had 9/11. In either case not many politicians were going to disagree with prevailing thought.

 

Yeah, the Taliban is certainly crushed!

http://uruknet.info/?p=m32884&s1=h1

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/southasia/news/article_1304723.php/Pakistan_hotel_bombing_kills_25_-_Taliban_link_suspected__Roundup_

 

Pre-Vietnam we had the Cuban Missile Crisis, Gracie?
So Vietnam began after 1962?

 

I'm just wondering what spin Fenian will put on the fact that as unpopular as GWB is, he is still four points (33 to 29) ahead of the Democratically controlled congress in the favorable ratings......

 

I'll put this spin on it:

The Democratically controlled Congress is still more popular than the Republican controlled one was.

You make it too easy, zag.

 

Way to practice what you preech zeke:

thanks for adding to this discussion

 

No, not really actually.

The figures are 29 percent and falling.

And once again you fail in the comprehension department because to hear Fenian talk, Bush is the most despicable and unpopular figure in the country except, there are 535 others in his own town who are apparently even less popular.

You make it too easy Zeke.....

 

You want it? You got it.

Look at the internals.

Republicans' approval of Congress is basically unchanged.

Independents' approval of Congress is basically unchanged.

It's the DEMOCRATS who have caused the decline. Congress had a 44-percent favorable rating among Democrats that has now dropped to 37 percent.

Because Democrats don't believe the Democratically controlled Congress they elected is playing tough enough.

If Congress did what the Democratic voters wanted them to do (end the war, subpoena every corrupt member of this administration, etc.) . . . its approval rating would skyrocket . . . and you would be screaming bloody murder.

Is that really what you want?