Posted by Frank James at 12:20 pm CST
Center for Strategic and International Studies security expert Anthony Cordesman has a new article out today that starts with this stark and trenchant passage.
Hopefully, President Bush already realizes a grim reality. If his next effort to develop a workable strategy in Iraq does not succeed, he will spend his last two years -- and the rest of history -- being perceived as a failed President presiding over a failed presidency.
Fairly or unfairly, he will be measured by the success or failure of the Iraq War.
Cordesman lays out the steps Bush has to achieve to be able to claim some credible measure of Iraq success. They are daunting.
Let's take just one. Cordesman says the Bush must "Help the Iraqi government achieve a level of political conciliation that will halt the drift towards division and all-out civil war, help create a stable internal political structure, make the development of effective Iraqi governance possible over time, and create the conditions for a meaningful rule of law."
Conciliation and Iraq aren't two words that rest easily in the same sentence, given the facts on the ground. Both Shi'ites and Sunnis have scores to settle, some old, some new.
By most reports, the sides see the contest for the future of Iraq and its oil riches as a zero-sum game. It would require the U.S. to persuade them it's not. Good luck.
Read through Cordesman's list of requirements the Bush administration needs to pull off and it quickly comes home with a thud that he's outlining Mission Impossible.
Cordesman doesn't rule out success for Bush or the U.S. But it's difficult to see how it happens, given his list of requirements.
A New Strategy for Iraq: To Surge or Not to Surge is Not the Question
By Anthony H. Cordesman
Hopefully, President Bush already realizes a grim reality. If his next effort to develop a workable strategy in Iraq does not succeed, he will spend his last two years -- and the rest of history -- being perceived as a failed President presiding over a failed presidency.
Fairly or unfairly, he will be measured by the success or failure of the Iraq War. His efforts at democratic reform have made little progress. The rebirth of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the survival of Al Qa’ida and other neo-Salafi movements have denied him victory in the war on terrorism. More broadly, survey after survey shows that he has presided over a dramatic drop in the popularity and reputation of the US all over the world.
The Congress may well be as much to blame, but he has not had any major domestic successes. He has presided over yet another massive and ill-planned rise in the long-term cost of entitlements. He has not reformed Social Security or put forward a meaningful energy policy. He also has little future chance of pushing any major new initiatives through a Democratic congress.
The Need for Strategy, Not Surge
For President Bush to succeed, however, he must deal effectively in countering the steady trends towards civil war in Iraq and he must implement a strategy that offers longer-term success. He cannot do this simply by sending more troops to Iraq, although that may be useful as part of a coherent strategy.
For President Bush – and Iraq and the US – to succeed, he must advance a program that meets the following goals:
--Accommodate the wishes of a sovereign, Shi’ite- dominated, Iraqi government that can accept or refuse US plans and proposals.
--Help the Iraqi government achieve a level of political conciliation that will halt the drift towards division and all-out civil war, help create a stable internal political structure, make the development of effective Iraqi governance possible over time, and create the conditions for a meaningful rule of law.
--Halt the growing level of civil violence and tension between Arab Shi’ite, Arab Sunni, Kurd and other minorities.
--Halt the growth of the Sunni extremist elements of the insurgency in Anbar and other Sunni-dominated areas.
--Bring day-to-day security back to the life of ordinary Iraqis.
--Create an effective mix of Iraqi military, national police, and police forces that can eventually stand on its own in both defeating the insurgency and civil violence, and defend the country without outside aid.
--Make progress in dealing with a crisis in underemployment and unemployment that affects some 40-60% of the population, and to begin true economic reconstruction after the major failure in an aid program that cost the US and Iraq some $34 billion.
--Help Iraq find a way of sharing Iraqi oil revenues, and to rebuild and expand its decaying oil production and energy sector.
It must also be stressed that such a strategy cannot consist of vague options or concepts. Success requires detailed operational plans where some degree of progress can be made visible to most Iraqis as soon as possible.
There is little time in which to begin such efforts. One more year like 2006, and Iraq and the war there are lost. Empty slogans like the recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group, or calling for more American troops without detail plans for using them, can only reinforce failure.
Winning Iraqi Government Support and Approval
President Bush will need Iraqi government support for any strategy he proposes, and to give any US surge meaning. The US can influence, but not impose.
So far, however, it is not clear that the US can win such support. Maliki has tried but lacks a political consensus and solid power base even in the Shi’ite coalition. The recent meetings with Hakim showed he is only interested in attacking the Sunni insurgents, and raised questions as to whether the US can strike a lasting deal with SCIRI.
It is equally unclear that Maliki and Dawa can be pressured into hard action in dealing with Sadr. Certainly, Sadr has made it even clearer that he will not support any major US effort and continued influence and presence.
If anything, the current pressure from Shi’ite leaders and parties seems to be to reduce US interference in Baghdad and mixed areas and push the US more and more towards a military focus aimed at Sunni hard- line insurgents. Both Sadr and Hakim have also said in different ways that if the US threatens to leave, or actually reduces its forces, the Shi'ites will win anyway.
US military strength and aid do, however, give the US great influence over the Shi’ites, Sunnis, and Kurds if they are skillfully used as political leverage. Here, a conditional offer of a surge might help.
Political Conciliation
US success – almost regardless of the number of US troops deploys in Iraq – also depends on Iraqi progress in conciliation. Almost every expert agrees that a surge without conciliation can do little more than produce a cosmetic, temporary tactical victory that might mask US withdrawal and defeat.
Progress to date has been halting and slow. A US a surge may well have to be decided on before conciliation actually occurs. This would be a high risk, but potentially necessary approach.
The fact progress has been grindingly slow also does not mean there has been no progress. Important Iraqi efforts towards conciliation are underway: these include the Maliki conciliation plan, letting more Sunnis into the army, the oil revenue deal, conciliation conferences etc. Moreover, for all the violence, more than half of Iraq’s provides are relatively secure, and open major violence has not started in Basra, Kirkuk, or Mosul.
Building the Army, National Police, and Regular Police
Improving the quality of the army, cleaning up the National Security Police, and making the regular police more effective are all additional keys to making a US strategy work and any surge meaningful.
The US is probably already on a solid track in improving many army units. In the near term, however, many units will need substantial support for US advisors and partner units.
The Army and MOD will be largely Shi'ite with significant numbers Kurds. This makes the US effort to boost the army a de facto tilt towards the Shi'ites, and adding more Sunnis is critical. It also makes serious political conciliation even more critical to the success of any US strategy.
Without conciliation, a US surge would tend to strengthen Shi'ite-dominated forces as civil tensions continue to rise. If such army units then took sides in the fighting, this would make a civil war even worse.
With conciliation, the army can attract moderate Sunnis; the government can pressure or exclude Sadr and the Mahdi army, and reach a compromise with the Kurds that ties Kurdish forces Shi'ite forces. It also allows a narrower focus on hardcore Islamist insurgents with less attention to other Sunni factions.
The police will be far more of a problem. The police are at least two years away from being able to replace local militias and security forces.
A workable US strategy must recognize that adequate Iraqi force building can’t be accomplished between now and the end of this spring, or even rushed to completion in 18-24 months. It may well require a US surge that lasts a year, and significant US advisory, aid, and combat support through 2010. Certainly, building a successful police will take serious US help well beyond 2008.
Deciding What to Do About Militias and Local Security Forces
No US strategy or surge effort can work without a militia and local security forces strategy. Simply buying temporary security in Baghdad is pointless without such efforts. Yet, no consensus now exists within the Maliki government on the treatment of the Shi'ite and Kurdish militias, how to deal with local Sunni forces, and over a schedule for action.
Fixing the police and justice system will take years, and it is far easier to call for the militias to be disbanded than create real day-to-day security. The Iraqi government and the US may well need a plan to try to coopt such security forces, rather than disband them, and gradually include them in the police or pay them to find other jobs. Surging US forces to try to forcibly disband them before any other forces can provide local security seems a recipe for disaster.
Deciding How Much of the Surge and Overall US Effort Goes to Iraqi Force Development
All these factors make determining the exact role of US trainers, embeds, and partner units in dealing with the Army, national police and regular police critical. No surge is meaningful without detailed, workable plans for putting the right time and resources into such efforts.
This requires both immediate advisory and partner action to arrest civil violence, and clear plans to make Iraqi forces truly independent with adequate mobility, armor, artillery, air power, and force enablers.
If this is to be funded, it needs quick Congressional action unless the US simply turns over its high cost US combat equipment to Iraq.
Moreover, time and patience will be needed as well as resources. Most experts doubt that it is possible to create an effective enough mix of Army, national police and regular police in 18-24 months. Significant US advisory efforts may well be needed for the next 3-5 years.
Deciding Where to Surge, What to Surge Against, and How Long to Surge
Another problem with surging – and with maintaining the present US military commitment in Iraq -- is to decide firmly what the objective is. Some argue the surge should concentrate on greater Baghdad and the secure provinces, and leave Anbar and clearly Sunni areas alone. Others argue for a Sunni Islamist extremist concentration. What is clear is that 20,000- 30,000 more men and women can’t do everything that is needed.
There are other hard questions that must be answered. There is no way that the US can simultaneously surge, withdraw into main bases, abandon FOBs, and then expose advisors and combat elements forward at the same time.
Time is also a critical issue. The duration of the surge will be an immediate issue, but no one has yet begun to describe how any variant of such strategies can credibly take less than six months, or why it may well require over a year.
Addressing Force Quality as Well as Force Quantity
Equally important, total troop numbers are meaningless without a definition of what kinds of troops are needed and what the mission is. Moreover, any strategy and practical effort at surging US forces must explicitly answer key questions exist regarding how many qualified translators, trainers; MPs, civil-military and other skilled forces are available.
Put more simply, a meaningful strategy and plan must reflect the fact that the brains above the boots are as important as the number of boots beneath the brains.
Economic Aid and Incentives
The political and military dimensions of any successful strategy need a matching economic dimension. This means new and practical US plans for economic aid and encouraging the sharing of oil revenues.
No such plans have yet been announced, although some sources indicate that the NSC evidently does have an options plan and some number may have gone to OMB.
It is essential that any real world “surge” plan involve a surge in aid plan. Disincentives alone cannot work. The US cannot win by simultaneously surging and threatening to leave. Moreover, threats to leave come far too close to the kind of withdrawal option that plays into Sadr and Iran’s hands. The US needs to use incentives, not disincentives.
Not Breaking the Force
A Bush strategy and plan must also deal with the question of how long the US can surge without crippling retention and recruiting in both the active and reserve forces. There are growing problems in retaining US forces, and any strategy that involves a surge plan must also have a retention plan and incentives.
The President also needs to stop appealing to patriotism and explain his strategy and goals to the military. Far too many men and women in uniform are becoming confused over what the US is trying to do, and whether it really has a practical strategy.
The Last, Best Test of George Bush?
Few now argue that 2007 will not be a decisive year, or that the next few months will not be critical. There is probably an equal consensus that the odds of US success are not good, and may well be less than one in four.
That said, leadership does not consist of facing good situations with easy options. President Bush still does have a serious chance of success if he faces all of the issues he must deal with, and develops a comprehensive strategy.
It is also a fact that if her (sic) can achieve any major success in 2007, this will greatly reduce the pressure for rapid withdrawals and to cut spending. Americans are almost certainly far more willing to sustain success than failure.
In short, the real test of this Presidency may still be to come.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
If this is the Neo Cons last shot,I'm praying Cheney's not gonna take it!
Unless,Bush is front of him.
Posted by: Raving Loon | December 19, 2006 12:52 PM
Last chance Bush you better do something sending 30,000 more troops is not the answer
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 19, 2006 1:34 PM
For all those out there who continue to bash Mr. Clinton, please explain how a presidency based on doing the reactionary opposite of his has worked out? How will history compare the presidencies of George Bush Jr. and William Jefferson Clinton? What will be our current president's signature achievements?
Posted by: Just Wonderin' | December 19, 2006 1:43 PM
There's absolutely nothing he can do that would convince me that he's not a miserable failure in everything he's ever been put in charge of. Bush should just go away now.
Posted by: Cheryl | December 19, 2006 1:52 PM
Just Wonderin': Since you ask, let me itemize a list of President Lone Ranger's achievements during his Cowboy Presidency -
1. Run up the country's largest deficit (Even after inheriting a government surplus.)
2. Caused several thousand deaths of America's bravest and best soldiers by starting a war based on faulty evidence.
3. Helped to divide this country into two halves. It was not enough that he helped to create the Civil War in Iraq but with his Policy decision making based on his "Faith Principles" he helped to create Civl Strife in this country.
4. Send the technological advances of stem cell research back years in this country while China and the European Union make advances in this technology.
5. Led the country in "Executions" while Governor of Texas.
If nothing else, this President is the most efficient at having people killed. He will go down in history as being known as "The Great Executioner".
Posted by: MASTER of REALITY | December 19, 2006 1:57 PM
"Hopefully, President Bush already realizes a grim reality. If his next effort to develop a workable strategy in Iraq does not succeed, he will spend his last two years -- and the rest of history -- being perceived as a failed President presiding over a failed presidency.
Fairly or unfairly, he will be measured by the success or failure of the Iraq War."
----
Sounds bad for Jr.
All the while he will be receiving a harsh bikini waxing from Henry the Wax Man and 'go ef*#% yourself' Leahy. I bet Dub wishes his old pard Cheney had been a little less harsh on old Pat.
November 04 was the time for the graceful exit (of GWB). Those days are long gone.
Wait until the 'old crew' starts to sniff out the
impending ☁ storm, and all start to bail out on the guy. By this time next year it may be just GWB and the C team.
Posted by: c.morris | December 19, 2006 2:10 PM
He has no domestic policy achievements. All his foreign policy endeavors have been absolute disasters. Beyond the posibilty of "winning" Iraq, we might not even pull through in Afghanistan!
There's no question that his presidency is a failure. What remains to be seen is whether it will go down as one of the worst presidencies of all time.
Posted by: Neil | December 19, 2006 2:23 PM
C'mon Dubya Baby!
Crack open the Jim Beam and rock that sandbox!
Posted by: tom | December 19, 2006 2:41 PM
When I read something like this, I always think about Bush's cowboy mantra -- "I don't do nuance." Well, unfortunately, the world does, and that is not going to change. Its more often gray than black and white. If it was all as simple as rolling in the tanks and then declaring Mission Accomplished while dressing up like a soldier, well, there would be a lot more invasions and occupations in the world. Its really shameful what Bush, Cheney and Rove have done. America is still the greatest country in the world, but sometimes even the greatest needs a harsh wake up reminder.
Posted by: kb | December 19, 2006 2:43 PM
I quit counting the times Bush has had a "last chance" to keep from having a failed presidency. Why does the media keep this question alive? I've never seen such concern with a sitting President's "legacy".
Bush's gigantic failures cannot easily be rewritten as successes.
Posted by: reese | December 19, 2006 3:09 PM
Now we have another cute word...surge...This will surely change the tide in Iraq. We'll just keep using our new word. We can just add it to our list of cute words/phrases until we achieve victory...shock and awe...mission accomplished...democracy is messy...stay the course...stand up/stand down. How can we be losing when we are so clever? The real issue is the complete and utter failure to understand the reality on the ground. This failure has ben delusional for some time but now has reached the level of derangement. God, I hate incompetence.
Posted by: Fred Carani | December 19, 2006 3:19 PM
"The last, best test of George Bush"? I don't know if this country can survive any more of Bush's neocon experiments. It's going to take a generation to bounce back from the disasters he's delivered so far.
The Iraq Study Group and the Pentagon's own internal study, were all part of a Bush charade. After the results of all the studies have been "discussed", parsed over, ect., Bush will dismiss them all.
Instead he will adopt a desperation plan devised by the ever-delusional neocons, and supported by the Military-Industrial-Complex. It will be some variation of this "surging" nonsense. McCain will latch onto the plan as the centerpiece of his candidacy.
These neocon geniuses who have fought no wars, conducted no wars, nor led any armies, will ignore the advice of career military people who have been involved with events "on the ground". They will dismiss the advice of career diplomats and policy experts in the region, as they did prior to the start of this ill-advised "adventure".
In the end, Bush will charge ahead with more troops, without a definable mission (still), and without an exit strategy. Probably the only thing these flawed policies will succeed in, is the destruction of the National Guard and Army Reserves as we now know them. Already strained to capacity, how will these branches of the military survive the "creative" multiple deployment's of this administration. Will anyone voluntarily join the reserves again knowing it's just a back-door draft anyway.
Anyone who objects to this Bush's "last, best test", such as Colin Powell, or the majority of leaders in the Pentagon, democratic leaders, anyone, will be labeled as weak, defeatist, unpatriotic. In other words, business as usual in the world of Bush's politics.
Then, if Bush's strategies fail, and they almost certainly will, Bush and McCain and all the chicken-hawk republican pundits will try to blame the whole debacle on the democrats.
We heard all these same arguments for escalation in the Vietnam War. All that resulted from this flawed policy was the deaths of thousands more US troops and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, many civilians, as we tried to bomb Hanoi back to the stone age. Some things never change.
Posted by: unlettered | December 19, 2006 3:24 PM
Bush's last chance to not be considered a failed President passed during the aftermath of Katrina. The nearly complete failure of the Federal Government to respond appropriately to that disaster (not including the Coast Guard!)doomed Bush to be remembered as the President who played air guitar while New Orleans died.
Posted by: Tony | December 19, 2006 3:27 PM
Nice comments all! How many of you are in the idiotic 51% THAT VOTED FOR THIS MORON?
Posted by: jp | December 19, 2006 4:01 PM
If President Lone Ranger continues to listen to the NeoClowns on Iraq he will be impeached.
I have no doubt whatsoever.
Bulldog Waxman,the ball is in your court big guy,bring it home baby!!
Posted by: John E. | December 19, 2006 4:36 PM
Here is the problem: Iraqis think of themselves as Shiite/Sunni/Kurd first and being Iraqi second. So their first allegiance is not to their country, but their religious sect.
Posted by: TMOTTB | December 19, 2006 5:02 PM
" The real issue is the complete and utter failure to understand the reality on the ground. This failure has ben delusional for some time but now has reached the level of derangement. God, I hate incompetence.
Posted by: Fred Carani | Dec 19, 2006 3:19:47 PM"
Fred C,
Lately you have been showing me something! It's like the Rubick's cube has locked in, or something.
Some call it 'blow back'. I call it 'reality snap back daze'.
(good one, huh?)
The magnitude of the mess is still being realized by many.
He, Bush, has put the US in a 'we can't afford to lose' position.
Note to Bush; The whole idea of diplomacy is;
'Never allow yourself to be put in that position'.
Posted by: c.morris | December 19, 2006 5:11 PM
Dang, c.morris, do you think the 'RSBD' will hit the RRR? That would really be a shock to their system...
Posted by: Tom O | December 19, 2006 6:01 PM
since shrub boy spent his life failing at everything he touched, I'd think he'd be pretty comfortable with the Failed president thing. He should since he is already concidered a failed president.
Posted by: vwcat | December 19, 2006 7:07 PM
If only that dip$#!+ G.W. would have listened to Mr. Cash:
"Don't take your guns to town, son. Don't take your guns to town."
Posted by: Karl B. | December 19, 2006 9:16 PM
Ok Tom O,
Since you enjoy baiting a harmless old man, I'll rise to it.
What's the RSBD?
Really silly boring dems?
Rubick's stupid big dilemma?
Rummy's short bearded dwarf?
Posted by: c.morris | December 19, 2006 9:22 PM
Boy-George has always been failure in life. Why'd anyone vote for him? He has never succeeded at anything unles his father did it for him.
The guy's a failure, has destroyed everything the miltary has rebuilt in the past 25 years, embarrassed the U.S. abroad, hurt our military prestige, and set back economics 50 years pst the Eisenhower years.
Boy-George has failed, again.
Impeach the Fool!
Posted by: Bruce Amaro | December 19, 2006 9:54 PM
He was a failure before he was even elected, surge on you &*%$!@$ twit.
Posted by: maddy | December 19, 2006 11:33 PM
I remember the first exciting days in Rummy's war department as the roll out phase for remaking the military as a smaller technologically skilled bolt of lightening force. Basically a force that, if we wanted to, could have your family, village, or city damaged or detroyed tonight by some spy shit. Is the request by the ground pounders (Army and Marines) for more marines and army men a direct repudiation of Rumsfeld's plans to focus on technology. Probably. The good news is that we'll keep the technology funding, and then still probably get up about 30,000 more skilled troopers. What I call a win-win situation folks!
Posted by: Nick | December 20, 2006 12:16 AM
Hey, This is for all you Bush haters, we have 95% full employment and low interest rates. No inflation, he has overcome all the problems the Clintons left. He is holding fast in Iraq, even with all the fold up the tents and run folks. Just wait and lets see what Nancy and that bunch can do. Cliff
Posted by: cliff zeider | December 20, 2006 7:02 AM
Cliff Z: Amazing that your name is Cliff - From your post you definitely sound like that blowhard know-nothing Cliff from Cheers. You mention 95% full employment but fail to mention that a majority of the high tech jobs and now it appears that even the automotive jobs have been farmed out to China/Asia, etc. Your Chimp in Flight Suit Commander in Chief even had the ignorant nerve to once state that "Americans should embrace outsourcing and competition for tech jobs with overseas facilities." This from a spoiled, drunken frat boy Lone Ranger who never had to work an honest days' work in his entire existence. Everything he has ever had was a hand-out from daddy. This from a guy who once even ran a major oil company (Handed to him from Daddy's friends) and ran that business into the ground. How does someone run an oil company, in Texas, into the ground? Your Ignorant, Arrogant, Imbecilic President Lone Ranger did. Compared to the problems he is going to be leaving behind for generations to come, I for one wish for the days and problems left behind by the Clinton Administration. Go back to watching Bill O'Reilly and listening to Rush Limbaugh and get away from the computer - You might hurt yourself.
Posted by: MASTER of REALITY | December 20, 2006 7:44 AM
Under President Bush:
1. Country at full employment, with unemployment at 4.4 percent. Folks, that is a nation employed.
2. Incomes up.
3. Inflation under control.
4. Tax cuts so the American citizen keeps more of the money they EARN (well except for folks like John E., Catherine, Janet, Raving Loon or JOhn E 2, C morris, etc.).
5. Defeat of dictator regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.
6. No attacks on U.S. in or outside of this country since 9/11. Hmm, Clinton had first WTC attack, two embassies bombed, U.S. military housing in Saudi Arabia, the U.S.S. Cole.
7. Rounded up or killed thousands of terrorists.
8. Judges who follow the Constitution rather than make up their own.
9. Depsite a fall-off this year, the best sustained housing market in this country's history.
10. Economic growth every quarter since the last quarter of 2001.
11. Record high stock market.
12. I could go on, but 11 is enough for now.
Posted by: John D | December 20, 2006 9:09 AM
Cliff, I don't think there are any Bush "haters" that can hold a candle to the Clinton Haters.
By the way, there was 4.0% unemployment in 2000. Does that mean 96% full employment?
Posted by: Catherine | December 20, 2006 9:15 AM
Hey Cliff, the unemployment rate now is higher than when GWB took office in 2001. Consumer prices went up last month at the highest rate in 30 years.
As to the "holding fast in Iraq", even Bush now admits we're not winning the war.
Posted by: Tony | December 20, 2006 9:36 AM
Cliff:
Not sure what you are referring to with the "problems Clinton left" are. Perhaps the large budget surplus that Bush did away with, or mabey their failure to give credence to the al-Qaida information passed on by the Clinton group.
Come down out of your Ivory Tower and see how great the economy is for the middle and lower class who have faced higher living costs with staganet and lower wages.
Don't you ever feel like you are living the "Groundhog" movie? Every morning we wake to the same old B.S. from Bush. You do have to give him some credit though, since the election, he has learned to package it a little differently. This man has wrecked this country in about everything he has done. If this guy was President or Chairman of the Board in a company you held stock in, I'm very certain by this time you would been screaming for his ouster. Well, probably he would have been gone a long time ago.
Bush should wish he was Clinton. His place in history will be much much lower. He's yours Cliff, I sure don't want anymore of him. We'll be better off when the "decider" is trying to figure where the best brush cutting is.
Posted by: Ken | December 20, 2006 9:49 AM
Listen to this John D (Dunce). Sounds like his heroes are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. All are chickenhawk draft dodgers, like Bush and Cheney, so go figure.
What about budget and trade deficits?? What about the diaster in Iraq, 3,000 dead U.S. soldiers, and the hundreds of billions of dollars it's costing the tax payers?? What about the environment, our relations with allies, and violence and crime in the U.S.?? What about the 45,000,000 Americans without health care??
Bush has been the worst president in my lifetime without question. He has zero knowledge of history, cultures, or foreign policy. He has no credibility whatsoever. He's an embarassment. He can't even speak correct English. Watch him and listen to him. If he's such a great president with all sort of achievements and accomplishments why is his approval rating like 32%??
Posted by: Doug R. | December 20, 2006 10:05 AM
Oh Douggie Poo, the U.S. has been running trade imbalances for decades. Even under your boy Slick Willie, our trade imbalance was hundreds of billions every year.
Environment? Our environment is fine. You keep watching Al Snore's movie about global warming. Just remember, at one time, Chicago resided a mile under a glacier, which stretched beyond the Ohio River.
Our relations with England, Australia, Japan, Canada, Germany (under much better leadership now) are doing just fine, thank you. France, you can have that.
45 million without health insurance? Seems to me in 2000, we were talking about the same numbers of those without health insurance. But you know what, on every hospital wall, it says something like, "We will not turn away anyone who needs care based on an inability to pay."
And too bad you so ignorant as to know that Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly dodged nothing. In fact, as a reporter, Bill O'Reilly saw more combat and bullets fly than John Kerry ever did, well except those Kerry shot into himself.
Posted by: John D | December 20, 2006 10:28 AM
"Hey Cliff, the unemployment rate now is higher than when GWB took office in 2001. Consumer prices went up last month at the highest rate in 30 years.
As to the "holding fast in Iraq", even Bush now admits we're not winning the war.
Posted by: Tony | Dec 20, 2006 9:36:16 AM"
Tony,
I would only add that private debt is also at an all time high, and the savings rate last summer was described as the lowest since the Great Depression.
Posted by: c.morris | December 20, 2006 11:37 AM
"Dang, c.morris, do you think the 'RSBD' will hit the RRR? That would really be a shock to their system...
Posted by: Tom O | Dec 19, 2006 6:01:09 PM"
Thanks Tom O,
I need to up the dosage.
Posted by: c.morris | December 20, 2006 11:40 AM
"November 04 was the time for the graceful exit (of GWB). Those days are long gone."
Posted by: c.morris | Dec 19, 2006 2:10:31 PM
Well, c., George Bush was beatable in 2004. We'd been in Iraq for a year and a half, and it already looked like a mess. The budget surpluses of the Clinton years (and let's not lose sight of the fact that balancing the budget was a political defeat for ol' William Jefferson C., forced on him by the Republican triumph of 1994) were a fond memory. The Democrats could have changed history if they'd run someone who could actually, you know, win.
But what did the Democratic field look like? People who never stood a chance in the first place, and whose ego-driven presence served mainly to distract the electorate from the task of deciding who among the others would be the best candidate. A pretty-boy Southern senator with a speaking style that amalgamated those of a televangelist and a used-car salesman. An Eastern elite Brahmin-by-marriage who pandered to every audience he spoke to and never seemed able to connect with the people.
This time around, it's shaping up to be no better. A carpetbagging New York senator for whom "polarizing" may be too polite a word. (Winning elections is a process of addition, not subtraction; one doesn't get elected by driving people away.) A freshman Midwestern senator who seems like a breath of fresh air, but who hasn't compiled enough of a public record to judge how he'd be as leader of the free world. The pretty boy. One of the big egos with small chances.
It all comes down to which party will field the more appealing candidate. The Democrats failed at that in 2000 and 2004. The job approval rating, however low it might be, falls away when a voter is standing in the booth and has to choose one of two.
Posted by: Dave Brann | December 20, 2006 11:46 AM
John D,
You don't believe global warming is real? It was 75 degrees in Washington DC this week in the middle of December. To speak in words you and our president can understand: that ain't right. No serious scientists dispute man-made global warming, but when the tides rise to overtake you I bet you'll be screaming how those "loony lefties" should have just shut their mouths, quit complaining and enjoy that fantastic yet elusive economic growth that you laud.
As for the pundits you defend as having "dodged nothing," I will not interject on that assertion. However, none of them actually "served" in combat, though I do not know for a fact that they "dodged" the war, though all were of age to have been drafted or fought voluntarily. Chickenhawks to the end, you fit in nicely with that bunch. http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
Posted by: Bryan | December 20, 2006 11:53 AM
Bryan,
I got da Minnehaha blues
I got me da Minnehaha blues
Why do ya ask me ?
I tell ya why
Cause it don snow in Twin Minnehaha no mo.
Posted by: c.morris | December 20, 2006 12:05 PM
John D,
From today's Washington Post about temperatures the highest in 1300 years...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121901681.html
Keep denying reality, John, you can be in the same mental state as Our Fearless Leader.
Posted by: Bryan | December 20, 2006 3:09 PM
Dave Brann,
I would agree that in '04 the Democrats crowned JFK way to soon, and I flinched like a school girl in a French brothel on buck night when I heard the chorus, 'he can win!'.
The biggest mistake the Dems can make is to name an early pick.
Among other things, it gives the opposition more time to snipe and Swiftboat the choice.
That's one reason I am appalled at the all this early speculation about who is winning the Dem. pres. pick.
It's too soon!
But, I am still riffing on the 'Minnehaha Blues'.
Posted by: c.morris | December 20, 2006 6:53 PM
"No serious scientists dispute man-made global warming . . ."
Posted by: Bryan | Dec 20, 2006 11:53:45 AM
Well, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT disputes man-made global warming, but I guess he's not serious.
No one argues that the climate, particularly the winters, is not warmer now than it was, say, 30 years ago. The dispute is over the cause. The trouble with the carbon dioxide increase from human activity - global warming correlation is that it doesn't work over the long term. For the past 30 years, sure, but when you look at the correlation over centuries, it breaks down.
Coincidentally, I just read an article in a publication from my alma mater, the University of Maine, about some work they have been doing with elephant seals in Antarctica. Elephant seals don't exist in Antarctica today, because they need for about two months out of the year to crawl out on a beach to raise young. Antarctica doesn't thaw enough today to make beaches. But there are elephant seal fossils, and whole mummified seal corpses, in Antarctica, indicating that between 6000 and 1300 years ago (by radio-carbon dating of the remains) Antarctica was warm enough to create beaches, this with the pre-industrial CO2 concentration of about 288 ppm, versus about 385 ppm today.
I remain skeptical.
Posted by: Dave Brann | December 20, 2006 8:58 PM
OK, Dave, you're skeptical.
So, do we do nothing and wait to observe that it absolutely 100% for sure happening, at which point the damage will be irreversible, or do we take reasonable and common sense measures to limit our production of a substance that there is a very high probability is contributing to the problem before it's too late?
Posted by: Tony | December 21, 2006 8:20 AM
Oh Bryan, what an inability you have to understand and know. Hmmm, Chicago just had one of the Top 10 coldest Sept-Nov. periods on record.
75 degrees in Washington DC in December? Not that unusual. It's happened before and it will happen again.
Warmiing planet? Truth is, Earth has been warming for thousands of years.
Where were all the hurricanes this past season? Why is that while the Atlantic hurricane season set a modern-day record in 2005, overall hurricane activity throughout the planet was at historican norms? Surely, if global warming is going to increase the activity of the Atlantic Hurricane season, it will do the same throughout the planet, right?
Sorry, but I have done more research than the average bloke about global warming. Ten years ago I was a believer in it. But research, reading, intelligence showed me that global warming is a "man-made event" alright, but only in that the media-driven phenomena is mad-made not the actual "global warming."
Posted by: John D | December 21, 2006 1:57 PM
John D,
Humor me and provide a link to a reputable source that says this winter was especially cool. Its nice to see that you at least admit that the planet is warming http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=599&tstamp=200612
I was home for Thanksgiving in Chicago and the mercury reached near 70. I've lived in DC for 10 years and though DC has warmer winters than Chicago, nonetheless it is generally cold in Washington in December. The previous record that was shattered this week was 72 degrees in 1982, the mercury reached 76 degrees, shattering the previous record. That, my friend, is BY DEFINITION unusual.
Do you own beachfront property, John D? Have you witnessed with your own eyes the rising sea levels of the last handful of years?
The ultimate problem is that the pace of warming is accelerating, and this process will be extremely difficult to slow, much less reverse. I'd love to hear about some of this "research" you've been doing, starting with evidence of an exceptionally cold Chicago winter.
Species are being brought to extinction at an ever-accelerating pace. And as the jet stream becomes skewed as the overall surface temperature rises, ironically highs will get higher and lows will get lower. Expect more mega storms that will make Katrina (only a type 3, the devastation resulted from faulty Corps of Engineers work) look like a small thunderstorm.
Since you are such a reactionary, talking points "conservative," if the president and Republican party came out in support of treating global warming as a serious national security threat, would you believe it then?
Posted by: Bryan | December 21, 2006 9:51 PM
Bill O'Reilly never saw any combat and was at one time as raging liberal reporter when he worked in Boston.
Posted by: Bruce Amaro | January 26, 2008 9:43 PM