Posted on 05/25/2004 12:11:52 AM PDT by kattracks
May 25, 2004 -- GEORGE W. Bush is a high-stakes player, a political gambler. And last night he took a fantastically bold gamble: In the teeth of bad polls, an atmosphere of panic in his own party and the barely concealed glee of his rivals . . . he has decided to stand pat.He didn't change course last night. He didn't use the occasion to announce elevated troop levels or faster elections or any of the panacea urged upon him over the past few weeks (including by me).
In other words, he is betting his presidency on the soundness of his approach and its prospects for success.
For there is no question now that Iraq is and will be (barring another terrorist catastrophe) the only issue in the presidential election. Bush has powerhouse economic numbers that any politician would kill for, and still more than 60 percent in every national poll say that America is on the "wrong track."
That's solely because of Iraq. And in a way, there's something heartening about it. The American people are identifying themselves and their country's fortunes with the progress or perceived lack of progress in Iraq. They're not just floating away on a tide of good news. The nation is at war, and the nation is taking that war seriously.
There would be no reason for Americans to believe that things were going well in Iraq after all the bad news these past weeks, from the prison scandal to the confusing pullback from Fallujah to the even more confusing raid on Ahmed Chalabi's house.
Left-wing policy analyst Ruy Texieira said last year that the danger posed to Bush by a poor economy was not that he would appear out of touch (as his father did) but that he would appear incompetent. Texieira may have gotten it right even though he got the subject wrong. If the American people judge that Bush is totally incompetent in his handling of Iraq, they might well take a chance on John Kerry in his stead.
The speech's purpose was to address and answer that concern about his competence. That's why it was so long and so detailed, with a five-step plan for political change leading up to direct elections of Iraqi leaders at the start of 2005. The president sounded stalwart and engaged, aware of all the moving parts and gear-shifts that will be necessary in the coming months.
Bush's decision to stay on course may not simply be an example of stubbornness. The fact is that the news from the battlefield in Iraq these past five or six days has been remarkably good. The forces commanded and directed by the thug-cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are on the run or nearly destroyed in three different cities.
Sadr's uprising two months ago was the moment at which even passionate supporters of the war and proponents of the success in achieving civil order began to grow terrified that somehow the United States might actually lose in Iraq. So shouldn't the fact that we're routing him be grounds for some optimism?
It's very meaningful that other Shiite clerics in the city of Najaf now feel safe enough to issue what must be judged an astounding denunciation of Sadr in the past few days.
As reported on the brilliant Healing Iraq blog (healingiraq.blogspot.com), Najaf clerics laid the blame for the entry of U.S. forces into that holy city: "It is the movement of Sayyid Muqtada [Sadr] that has encouraged the occupiers to cross the red lines," the senior clerics in Najaf wrote. "And it is clear that the organization of Sayyid Muqtada - and whoever follows the Sadrist movement - were the first to violate the sanctity of" the city's holiest shrine.
The president said that "history is moving and it will tend toward hope or tend toward tragedy." At a moment of great political peril for him, Bush is remaining calm.
He's placed his bet.
E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com
Imagine what would happen if a well placed, small nuclear device were to detonate in an American city (or at the base of Hoover Dam). What amounts now to frustration, anger or annoyance at Ted Kennedy's political dishonesty would become much more than this, if he were to continue with it past that point.
I can't agree with you. The stakes then, and more so now, are enormous. What happens in during the next 6 months could have a lasting affect human history, for good or for bad. This is not lost on people who are paying attention, and there are a LOT of us, everywhere. If things go for the bad, and it results from treachery, there could be a little trouble.
I agree with you completely and you have freepmail.
They're not even doing it out of a love of controversy. They're doing it, most of them probably not believing themselves, just to try to win an election.
I think it's more than that -- the media can still convince people that, although things seem pretty good for them, there's lots and lots of other people taking the brunt of the "bad" economy. I don't get the impression the good numbers are being reported on, and you can always find a few good sob stories no matter how good the economy is.
I was just wondering [here or there]...
And I totally agree. But the small nuke won't be wasted on a dam...or any American City
It will come to America by way of pleasure yacht, staffed with anglo's, and will enter the Chesapeake and makes it way up the Potomoc just in time for a State of the Union...
I keep both just in case.
For now, I'm happy that I can type faster than I can shoot.
We are free. Unfortunately, we are free to vote stupidly, on the basis of very little, false information, and we see in the polls that most people do indeed vote on the basis of very little information and most of it false.
I am proud to death of Bush for going for the big picture and not for self-glorification. Maybe it comes from serving a Higher Authority than himself.
Worse. Those with "the vision thing" have played out the chess pieces of the weak, scared Western nations and the strong, deadly Al Qaeda, and seen where that got the world. The Bush doctrine realizes that our American way of life and our freedom will cease to exist if we don't play upon the chessboard of the world.
The American left is actually willing to destroy the WORLD just to elect a Democrat. They whine about baby seals but would rather put the whole world up for grabs for a few moments of feelgood.
"I awoke in the middle of the night thinking about the civil war that is very likely coming,"
Does that mean you support the use of force and war anytime your side does not win an election? Would you also support thr right of those you disagree with if they took up arms if they lost an election? Thinking & discussing a 'civil war' dangerous and worrisome.
Think much harder about the keyboard and less about the gun(s). Persuading your opponent intellectually is a far better course than taking up arms and killing him. And, if you can't change his mind by yelling at him & calling him names, you may want to try a little tenderness. How do you respond when someone yells at you and calls you derogatory names? It's that old vinegar/honey conundrum.
Wait until the reconquistas like La Raza, Mecha, etc. get their ducks in a row......then you're going to see a real civil war. Might be time to join the Republic of Texas.
Disingenuous straw man. Prairie said nothing of the sort.
One thing I've learned from Common Tator is that a team that is winning does not change stratagy. The Whitehouse and Rove have very good polls and those polls tell them not to change tactics. Kerry has polls to and they tell him he is doing so poorly that he may need to decline the 'rat nomination at convention and pick a Republican Senator as a VP to win. The media polls are worthless. Look and see what the candidates are doing and you can see who is winning and losing. A winner doesn't say petty things like "did he lose his training wheels." Losers say stuff like that.
My money is on Bush. I called the White House comment line this morning and said I was disappointed in the speech, though. I said I support Bush 100% but I thought he should have been more outraged over the atrocities against our people over there - also over the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein against his own people. And I said he needs a new VP - no offense to Cheney but he's dragging down the ticket.
Did you see this NYP story on Bush's speech? Good reassuring read.
My money is own him. Our future is on him. He is playing the hand very well and not distracted by others' bluffs.
Bush in 2004!!!
own = on.
What in the Sam Hill are you talking about? If you bothered to read the responses on this thread, you'd perhaps see that I was responding to what another poster said about the clash of right and left this IS occurring in this country and the world. I voiced my own agreement about becoming much more spurred to action than I'd ever have dreamed I would be because of it.
If you don't think it's happening, take a look at the Catholic church and gays wearing rainbow colors being denied communion for just one example of a great many. Take a look at gay marriage. I, as well as other posters on the thread, am convinced that the clash or right and left will continue and perhaps escalate. Families are being torn apart even today over it. Heck if I know whether words will be enough to eventually find a solution. But what I do know is that NOTHING can be accomplished unless BOTH sides are willing to discuss, negotiate and come to terms. The antics of the DemonRAT party, since they lost to Bush and since 9-11 convince me more every day that they have no genuine interest in being tender, understanding or coming to agreement on any issue with the likes of me. So be it.
The election is a side issue (important of course) but still a side issue of the content of this article, Bush's speech and the WOT. Not once did I state or infer that it isn't OK to disagree. But it's unwise to not consider potential possibilities, even if we hope and pray that somehow, someway we can start coming together as a nation again. It seems that several of us are thinking along the same lines.
Prairie
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.