New CNN Poll

There is a question here?

 

No, I wish it were over six years ago.

 

Are we in the replying with a question thread?

And I will leave that (quasi)response as it stands, as I have been known to get into trouble by making my answers too clearly left.

Oops.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jan 29 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]382491[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Jan 29 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]382492[/snapback]</div>

Sorry gang...I took too long to think about this one. An issue clearly not a problem with the current "leadership."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Jan 29 2007, 02:27 PM) [snapback]382477[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I think the Bush presidency ended on the evening of November 7th, 2006. He might stay in office a couple more years, but won't accomplish anything significant, and won't have the opportunity to improve his legacy.

Dan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Jan 29 2007, 06:34 PM) [snapback]382522[/snapback]</div>

I have a feeling Iran is about to be bombed.Just a hunch.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Jan 29 2007, 03:34 PM) [snapback]382522[/snapback]</div>

"improve his legacy..."?

Isn't a legacy supposed to be positive to start with?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jan 29 2007, 07:05 PM) [snapback]382533[/snapback]</div>

Yeah send them a ICBM barbeque

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Jan 29 2007, 05:27 PM) [snapback]382477[/snapback]</div>

... and the other 42% said they could wait until after dinner ...

 

He's still the commander-in-chief. He still has the big red button. He still believes that the end of the world would be a good thing. My hope would be that the generals would refuse to obey when he orders them to nuke the world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 29 2007, 04:45 PM) [snapback]382548[/snapback]</div>

I would hope the same, but am not holding my breath...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Jan 29 2007, 04:22 PM) [snapback]382540[/snapback]</div>

Not necessarily. Jack the Ripper left a terrible legacy. Herbert Hoover's legacy is the great depression (and a Katrina like lack of support for the nation), while F.D.R.'s legacy is getting the country out of the great depression. Nixon opened relations with China, and arguably laid the foundations for the end of the Vietnam war. Is that his legacy? Nope... Watergate is.

The reason Bush's legacy is in trouble is that he'll go down in history as being the president that ignored global warming, got us out of the Kyoto protocol, got us bogged down in an unwinnable and dubiously justified war in Iraq, had a flagrant disregard for the bill of rights, and screwed up Katrina recovery. Bush could have salvaged his legacy by doing something spectacular before leaving the office, but with the Democrats in power, it isn't likely Bush will be able to accomplish anything that would overshadow what he has done in the first six years of his presidency.

As an example, look at Bush's stupendous approval rates directly after September 11th. Had that been the significant event of his presidency, his positive legacy would be assured. Unfortunately for Bush, the defining event of his presidency will probably be bringing the country into the Iraq war. Bush probably won't get the credit for getting us out of the war... that is likely to happen after his presidency ends.

Of course, I'd be concerned that Bush will try to cement his place in history some other way. Attacking Iran comes to mind, of course, but can Bush even do that at this point? The president doesn't have a whole lot of credibility justifying wars at the moment, and I doubt very seriously that Iran will do something to provoke the U.S... like attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon.

Interesting article from the Washington Post regarding this. It's a couple of months old, but still worth reading:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6120101511.html

Dan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Jan 29 2007, 05:18 PM) [snapback]382567[/snapback]</div>

You are correct. I guess I was thinking more connotation than denotation.

"It all depends of what the definition of 'is' is..."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Jan 29 2007, 08:18 PM) [snapback]382567[/snapback]</div>

And bankrupted our future. Let's not forget how long we'll be paying for his "presidency".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 29 2007, 05:31 PM) [snapback]382570[/snapback]</div>

All after cheating his way in.....

 

"Nearly 86 percent of Democrats shared that sentiment, compared to 59 percent of Independents, and 21 percent of Republicans. The poll also indicates Bush's sagging approval rating may seriously impact the race for his replacement.

Nearly half -- 49 percent -- of all registered voters would rather see a Democrat elected president in 2008 while just 28 percent want a Republican."
21% of republicans wish that it was over. My only worry is that the democrats put in a lame candidate who proceeds to screw it up even more than the bushies already have. History repeating as a very competent Gerald Ford was voted out and a moron was voted in just because the sheeple hated Nixon.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Jan 29 2007, 08:18 PM) [snapback]382567[/snapback]</div>

The article was both excellent and sad. It reinforced what I view as a horrific but unnoticed aspect of the war, in that it reveals a lot about the soul of America. If Mr. Bush had merely killed a few 100K Iraqis and "won the war", he'd have been hailed as the hero that he expected to be. Instead, he bungled it, and now there is disenchantment. But not based on the amorality of the Bush administration, just based on winning and losing.

My only other statement is that, so far, you would not have gone wrong betting on Mr. Bush choosing the most foolish possible policy alternatives. Can you imagine having our soldiers in harm's way, and having the Commander in Chief say "bring 'em on", effectively trying to goad the enemy into attacking our troops? What kind of leadership is that? Where is the common sense there? And having the right wingers eat that up, as if it was some profound statement about American resolve.

My prediction is that a) the surge is there to support the bombing of Iran, because b) we need the additional troops to help secure our bases against the retaliatory attacks to follow, c) that the number of troops is simply the largest increase we can scrape up, given the state of our military, and has nothing to do with any detailed strategic planning for their use, that d) the far more numerous Shiites in Iraq, who up to now have largely spent their time killing Sunnis, will turn their attention fulll-time to killing our troops, and e) if they get serious about it, Mr. Bush will lose us an entire army in this Iraq folly.

So, figure it out. Our troops have no place to retreat to. Their bases are enclaves surrounded by hostile territory, and supplied by roads passing through hostile territory. The majority of the territory and the majority of the population are Shiite, our overthrow of a Sunni dictator put us in their good graces, and that's largely what has allowed the occupation to work as well as it has.

Given that situation, what would be stupidest thing you could do, the one thing that would put our entire military presence in Iraq foolishly and needlessly at risk? Well, how about nuking the Shiite country next door?

Which is why I think Mr. Bush will do exactly that.

 

On the other hand, if you wanted to read some intelligent analysis of the "surge", as opposed to my paranoid blather, I found the link below to be both intelligent and plausible. The gist is that Mr. Bush has decided to fight absolutely everyone in Iraq, simultaneously, which is a reversal of prior policy that kept us loosely allied with the largest fighting forces of the Shiite majority. The analysts cited in the article (military, press and other) all seem to feel this is a major mistake.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA31Ak01.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Jan 29 2007, 09:21 PM) [snapback]382588[/snapback]</div>

What military academy did you attend?

No place to retreat? Retreat? Our soldiers are neither french nor Democrats.

Supplied by roads? Roads? You should read a little military history - you can start with Bastogne/Battle of the Buldge.

We agree - the number of troops in our military should be increased by at least 100,000 over the next few years.

And we agree - Iran should be taken down either peacefully or at the least their ability to create nuclear weapons should be destroyed (no troops on the ground there).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 29 2007, 07:45 PM) [snapback]382548[/snapback]</div>

Sick and wrong. The generals obeyed clintons every order - including the ones not to take out obama, to retreat from somalia, not to take action after we were brutally attacked in 1993 and the near sinking of the uss cole...... I am sure the generals wanted to do something - but they listened to clinton and did nothing and hence we are were we are today.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jan 29 2007, 08:45 PM) [snapback]382575[/snapback]</div>

he could have cheated on his wife too :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(danoday @ Jan 29 2007, 06:34 PM) [snapback]382522[/snapback]</div>

could be worse, he could have been impeached, disbarred, lied under oath, and committed adultry all in the same term :lol: What a legacy - wonder if they consider a stain in the oval office carpet a legacy??

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jan 29 2007, 07:05 PM) [snapback]382533[/snapback]</div>

Agre.