Is Bush risking his presidency on Iraq?

J

jbtrader23

The drumbeats of "war" with Iraq seem to continue nonstop. I think Bush is being way too optimistic and naive about what this could do to his presidency.

First off, there is a distinct possibility that the economy could be worst in 6-9 months than it is now. If unemployment is higher, if the markets are still shakey, if the housing bubble/consumer bubble take a hit, who in there right mind would support an expensive "war" against Iraq (with possible OPEC oil embargo consequences)? Not to mention what would happen if Al Qaeda were to strike on US soil while he was in the final stages of drawing up "war" plans. Bush would be crushed in the polls. Focusing his attention on Iraq, when the number one threat to America remains Al Qaeda, I think the public would see through this charade (if no evidence is presented of a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq).

He seems to be going out on a very long limb here.
 
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are only designed with the Civilised World in mind as targets... Saddam's gotta go, we gotta get a new guy in who won't be a threat to us... also, in times of energy deficiency, we need a better hold on the oil reserves in that part of the world... imperialist? perhaps... but its a case of survival of the fittest, and Saddam's life expectancy is probably no longer than a year... this time we gotta go in hard and take out the entire evil Iraqi military machine with massive ariel bombing (so as not to risk soldiers on the ground)... yes, there will be massive collateral damage, but that's the unfortunate price of war... God Bless America and the Civilised World... and may God have mercy on any surviving Evil Doers...
 
Originally posted by candletrader
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are only designed with the Civilised World in mind as targets... Saddam's gotta go, we gotta get a new guy in who won't be a threat to us... also, in times of energy deficiency, we need a better hold on the oil reserves in that part of the world... imperialist? perhaps... but its a case of survival of the fittest, and Saddam's life expectancy is probably no longer than a year... this time we gotta go in hard and take out the entire evil Iraqi military machine with massive ariel bombing (so as not to risk soldiers on the ground)... yes, there will be massive collateral damage, but that's the unfortunate price of war... God Bless America and the Civilised World... and may God have mercy on any surviving Evil Doers...
More...

not according to Scott Ritter who was actually over there and performed the inspections. i also love the mohammad atta/iraq connection that turned out to be false. then you have the iraqi opposition that keeps giving us "bad" information. and let us not forget that April Glaspie basically gave Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait. These neocon war mongers are not putting America first, they just want us to do their dirty work and i would rather not have americans die over a bunch of propaganda!!!!!!!!!
 
Originally posted by candletrader
... this time we gotta go in hard and take out the entire evil Iraqi military machine with massive ariel bombing (so as not to risk soldiers on the ground)...
More...

That's what "we" did the 1st time, and it didn't work. You can't bomb out an entire country, whether its afghanistan, iraq, germany, etc. Bush knows this, but if you read 1984 you'll know that protracted war with no clear goals in mind is the best way to distract the people from the real issues.

As for Bush "risking" his presidency, there's no way in hell this clown is going to get re-elected. You can't send in an amateur to do a man's job. It's time people accepted this and voted for someone who can actually do the job. My thoughts are that the outrage Bush is causing amongst the educated Americans who didn't vote for him will far outweigh the party votes, military votes, elderly votes, and blue collar votes that he would get otherwise. Let's just hope the democrats put up somebody who is not controversial, and the problem will be solved.

Bush is the poster boy for stupidity. His foolish antics know no limitations; regardless of what his dad tells him to do, re-attacking Iraq would be a huge mistake and a waste of time. He's so dumb that nobody even jokes about him anymore. It'd be like mocking somebody who is mentally retarded - it's just too cruel, and would force americans to cope with the problem of a useless president.

It's time we get some professionals in to run the country; no more actors/rich kids/other imbeciles running my country.
 
I couldn't believe it when Bush said that he was 'confident' that the SEC would find Cheney innocent. Even Cheney himself has on several occasions said that he can not comment on any ongoing investigation (because it can then be construed that he is attempting to influence the SEC).

I couldn't believe the head of the free world could committ such a simple error!

I mean we all know he won't be taking the potato salad to the MENSA picnic but come on!

------------------------------------

About attacking Iraq: according to www.stratfor.com the only reason Iraq hasn't been attacked yet is that the US army is rebuilding its ammunitions inventory (after Afghanistan).
 
Stoopid Replubicans!
They should stop being so stoopid!
Uhbeleivable! They don't know anything! I just cant beleive it! What an ideot! That bush should be a posting boy for the stoopid if you ask me! Whatever you do dont vote for him.
:p
 
Remember when Mullah Mohammed Omar (head of Taliban) said that we were too cowardly to attack Afghanistan? I wonder what he thought on 10/7/01 when the B-52's paid him a visit. Remember when our international friends said "Afghanistan would not be as easy as the Persian Gulf War" Now they are saying "Iraq will not be as easy as Afghanistan" If the United States puts its UMPH! into it, we could take out ANY country in the world let alone a country led by Satans boyfriend (watch South Park the Movie).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top