Has Bush, personally, reached the point of no return on Iraq?

Given he made getting rid of Saddam a campaign issue and was spouting his "yer with us or agin us" bellicosity as the lead-off to his amazingly inept war build-up, did he EVER leave himself an "out"?

Or let me ask you this - in all seriousness, what do you think could realistically happen that would stop Bush from going in? I'm talking realisitcally here, not Saddam turning himself over to the US or Vishnu coming down from heaven or anything.

 

Whenever I hear people talking about maintaining credibility, I can't help but think of Vietnam. I'm not saying that this war in any way will be a repeat of Vietnam. But when 'maintaining credibility around the world' comes to be a major justification for going to war, it seems to remove the possibility for seeking alternate solutions.

 

The trouble is that the Bushies foolishly locked themselves into only one course of action from the get go. "Credibility" therefore became an issue from Day One. Somehwere, Macchiavelli, Richelieu, Metternich and von Bismarck are just laughing their asses off at these amateurs.

 

He made the issue out of thin air, starting way back in April 2002. Yeah, he was yapping about overthrowing Saddam in the campaign, but so was Gore. After 9/11, people were only interested in Saddam on the premise that he had something to do with the attacks. Anything after that was created out of whole cloth by Bush.

He can come back, of course, if some huge event happens and he is somehow able to handle it better the second time around - like Rudy Giuliani, who was political poison in NYC before the attacks.

What really needs to be pointed out, though, is the distinction between George W. Bush's credibility and that of the United States of America. Just because the administration made a series of stupid and mendacious moves doesn't mean that it doesn't all go away in January 2005, when the adults will be back in charge. This too shall pass.

 

I'm going to make a bold prediction based on absolutely nothing but my reading of reported events.

Not only can Bush back down, but he's in the process of doing so right now.

(willingness to state these ridiculous predictions for the record is why I'm GringoTex and the rest of you are just pretenders)

 

Hussein disarming might stop us from going in, but 12 years and 17 UN resolutions haven't stopped that from happening.

Hasn't Hussein backed himself into a corner? Sure, he has. But he's learned that as long as he has $ 60 BILLION DOLLARS of promises to France he has a decent chance of continuing this charade.

 

I don't recall Saddam's name on the campaign trail. I thought the big issues during the campaign were economic issues.

 

250,000 troops in the area. Either he gets concessions from Iraq or we're going in.

 

What's the one saving grace regarding our economy right now? Interest rates. But that little bubble is about to burst. The federal government wil soon have to start selling bonds to pay off the deficit. They can only make these bonds attractive to investors by raising the rates. This will effectively put an end to the housing construction boom and the rest tumbles over like a house of cards. And then AMERICAN AIRLINES will declare bankruptcy. That's the biggest branding black-eye possible for the USA.

All Bush has to say is "Saddam has finally disarmed. NOW aren't you all glad I acted like such a dick?"

Glad you lernt yer lesson.

 

Go to Google.com and get a transcript of the second presidential debate.

You may not recall it, but it was there. Prominently. It was the backbone of Bush's foreign policy (presumably because it was the only other foreign country other than Mexico that he'd ever heard of).

 

Saddam will NEVER disarm.

And if Bush backs down now and Saddam remains in power, Bush politically is gone.

And at the same time Saddam will be stronger politically than he ever has been because it will be viewed in the Arab world that he "defeated" Bush.

At this point, anything short of Saddam being removed is a huge victory for him. Bush cannot back down now.

The mere fact that he said he was going to call for the UN vote this week and didn't is a sign of weakness to Saddam and the UN.

 

Once again, The Onion comes to the rescue:

Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War

WASHINGTON, DC—Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences."

 

In theory, Bush could disarm ... errr...resist going in. After all, he started his Presidency with the avowed purpose of not giving a damn about the rest of the world, so he can fall back on that. What does he care if he has no credibility with leaders of countries he doesn't care about?

In reality, I heard an NPR report today that Kurds are fleeing Kirkuk because Sadaam's troops are setting up defenses there. Like a canary in a coalmine this is a predictor of a war that has already begun.

 

Once the ball started rolling, this war was always going to happen. This war is already happening.

Any idea that this was ever going to be a "possible" war with Iraq was deception on the Bush administration's part to buy time for build up in Kuwait, and a cliff hanger ploy by news programs to keep you tuned in.

We're going in, even if it destroys the U.N.
The only thing that might stop it is a preemptive strike by North Korea. But that will only redirect attention for awhile.


And once Iraq goes down it won't stop there. Sudan. Iran. North Korea. Maybe Syria. Maybe Columbia. We're already in the Phillipines. It's been the army's plan since 9-11. Afghanistan first and go from there. This is the true nature of the blank check payed out to the order of "The War on Terror".

 

Sudan I can see. But Iran and and Syria and Columbia? We'd have to go after Pakistan too if we did that and they have nukes. I'm not sure this perpetual war could be forced even on Americans without us becoming overtly totalitarian. Granted, that would explain Ashcroft...

Also, "North Korea"? Not without China's permission.

 

"Has Bush, personally, reached the point of no return on Iraq?"

Actually, I think Saddam has reached the point of no return in Iraq .

 

Yes

He has reached the point of no return, in fact I think he is beyond it. I guess we will see. Of course I have been wrong before.

 

ColOmbia?! You are smoking some sh!t, some really good sh!t...

 

Not all at once.
And not all in the same manner.


Columbia is a definate sooner or later. It's one of the easiest to justify...we already support their military, and a third of their country is controlled by rebels that fuel an enormous proportion of the world's drug trade (which can easily be spun into the world's terrorist trade). Also the regime change in Venezuela is just more proof that we're loosing our grip and require a more hands on approach where South America is concerned.


Sudan is very likely. As long as Iran and North Korea behave for awhile. They're an easy mark and relatively close by (to what will be our bases in Iraq). And It provides us with bases in a region that we have little influence in as of right now.



Iran seems a little more far fetched because it would require an obvious escalation....possibly even World War. But if we come out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sudan without so much as a bloody nose, I think that will leave the American military with confidence enough for a real war in the middle east.
Syria would just be part of the package. Since Iraq would be under our control, the Middle East will be split between those who comply and those who won't. I think If it comes down to a real doosy of a conflict, Jordan, Egypt, and the Saudis will stay out or on our side. It all depends on how much build up and effort our military and our remaining allies are willing to put in.


North Korea is the longest shot. We don't want war with North Korea. At least not any time soon. That's evident by the kid gloves we've been using with them so far. But North Korea may not give us the choice...as one regime after another falls, and as our military resources get stretched, I think they're going to hit first. How and with what, who knows.


Much of this depends on how quickly and effectively we take out Iraq. As long as we're "winning" it will keep going.

It also depends on our next political administration. All this stuff is going to take time, money and effort. Which is why Bush and the pentagon are depending on a stunning victory in Iraq and (if the lord is truly on their side) another nasty terrorist reprisal on our soil to seal a re-election and to fuel the fire.

That's a reasonable point...if you're assuming that a nation's Nuclear and Terrorist capabilities are the real reason we attack them. I'm not so sure that's it.
I think our current administration will let the pakistanis have their nukes, and they'll let us have our war...as long as their current regime stays in power and as long as Kashmir doesn't suddenly turn into WWIII.

Americans buy what they're sold, and will do as they're told.

 

</yawn> Iraq (and Saddam) will be mowed over in a month. A democracy will emerge within a year. Liberals will start crying about something else. Most likely Iran, since we'll be working on N. Korea and they HAVE to have something to bitch about.

Kevin