Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

Talking about GWB - the coke head

ROTFLMAO!

Yeah, that one:


- Scott Ritter, who sounds like the Bush reelection team's worse nightmare

Veterans Against the War

Wow, 3411 endorsers. I'm sooooooooo impressed.

Let's get 'im.

Someone should tell Mr. Ritter that votes talk and bull$$it walks.
The only thing that will get rid of Mr. Bush is the vote of the American people.
At the present time it does not look as if that will happen. The action that this "regime" took struck the fancy of a majority of the American people. The only thing that can sink Bush's election hopes are continued and worsening conditions on the domestic front.

There is a good 30 per cent that is totally against bush and know him for what he is. Another 30 per cent can be changed and the actions in Iraq will let them know who this guy really is. It doesn't hurt for the truth to come into sun light!

The biggest trouble in America is that only about 50% + vote!

Bill


That's where I think you are wrong. The action in Iraq is viewed as a success it has captured the imagination of the American electorate and is a plus. Further if he can put an end or a lessening of tensions between the Israeli's and Palestinians he will be unbeatable. That is if he isn't already.

Paul Krugman hits all the relevant points in his analysis of Bush's little aircraft-carrier photo-op:

(1) American Presidents don't go running around in military garb for a very specific reason, because they are supposed to be the civilian head of state (Eisenhower never put on the uniform or flashed a medal while he was running or was in office). When it comes to tinpot dictators wearing soldier uniforms, it's best to stop at Hitler, Castro, and Saddam.

(2) It was a lie that the tailhook landing was necessary because the ship was so far out to sea (it was actually within forty miles of shore).

(3) The establishment American press provided little but gushing coverage of this event. (Chris Matthews in particular revealed his fawning crush for the "jet pilot/cowboy".

(4) Bush failed to show up for for the last year of duty while in the National Guard.

(5) Bush still hasn't found bin Laden.

(6) It was primarily U.S. soldiers who brought the statue of Saddam down and not hordes of Iraqis (all one hundred of them) as reported by the press.

(7) It is significant that no WMD have been found yet in Iraq.

(8) The GOP plans to hold their nominating convention in early September, in NYC, in order to use the bodies of the 3000 killed at the WTC for political purposes.

(9) The foot-dragging of this administration on putting together and funding the independent commission to study intelligence failures prior to 9/11 is, likewise, under-reported.

Listen up, Democrats: you will never defeat this yahoo unless you are willing to absolutely hammer him on every single one of these points non-stop from now until next November.

Demand answers to these questions.

A second term is Bush's to lose

By Godfrey Sperling

WASHINGTON – It seems to be a good moment to pose a few questions. Q: What is the president's political standing and his likely political future?
George W. Bush's poll ratings were in the high 70s immediately following the war in Iraq. And although this standing has dropped a bit, it still is reminiscent of his father's high approval following the 1991 Gulf War.
Most observers thought the elder Bush's popularity would hold up. I recall the roar of acclaim that greeted him shortly after the war when he entered the banquet hall at the annual affair of the Gridiron Club (the exclusive Washington journalists' group). Journalists joined with government officials and business leaders to cheer him to the rafters.
As Bush stood at the speaker's table, with yellow roses covering the wall behind him, we thought we saw a conquering hero who would be unbeatable in the next presidential election.
But Bush's popularity plummeted as the public memory of the war quickly faded when he didn't deal effectively with a faltering economy. And then he lost his bid for reelection. Some observers are predicting that this will happen to George W. But I don't think so.
I believe that W's situation is more like that of Franklin D. Roosevelt than that of his father. And FDR was an unbeatable war president from Pearl Harbor on. Before that, starting with 1932, he had swept from victory to victory because of the way he had dealt with economic woes. But it was Roosevelt's war leadership that made him unbeatable as he won a fourth term even though the voters could see, in newspaper photos and on Pathé News reels at the movies, that their president had become frail.
I think that George W. - like FDR - will remain a widely admired war president, a standing he first achieved from the way he responded to the terrorism of Sept. 11, a standing enhanced by his emergence as a strong war leader.
No, I don't think this will give him the clout that will let him get all he wants as he pushes his domestic programs. We have seen that as he has had to compromise on his tax-cut requests. But his war-against-terrorism and national-security requests will be heeded.
And, like Roosevelt and not like his dad, he may well be unbeatable when he seeks another term.
Q: Who would be the strongest Democratic candidate against him?
Those Democrats who clearly opposed the Iraq war - like Howard Dean and Bob Graham - might win the nomination. Liberal Democrats are looking for an antiwar candidate, pollsters tell us. But against this war president such a nominee could become the George McGovern of 2004.
Joseph Lieberman, Richard Gephardt, John Edwards, and John Kerry possess the needed credentials for taking on Bush: They all voted for the congressional war resolution. But I'd say a military man, some general or admiral, would be the best candidate the Democrats could field at this time.
I think that everyone would agree that if there were a General Eisenhower out there who was a Democrat and interested in being president, well, he might give Bush a run for his money.
Had FDR lived, he probably could have won again in 1948 - had he wanted a fifth term and had the strength to seek it. But in his absence, the war hero, Eisenhower, had the presidency thrust in his direction when President Truman said to him when they were together in Germany right after the war: "General, there is nothing that you may want that I won't try to help you get. That definitely and specifically includes the presidency in 1948."
It turned out that Eisenhower wasn't interested in running for president at the time. Further, the voters found a few years later that he was really a Republican, a disclosure that caused a miffed Truman to break off his friendship with Eisenhower - so much so that he came close to refusing to take the ride to the inaugural with the general when Ike succeeded Truman as president. (I mentioned Eisenhower's relationship with Truman in an interview I had with Truman after he had retired and he snapped, "I don't have any use for that fellow.")
But there is no celebrity Democrat general waiting in the wings that I know of. There is retired Gen. Wesley Clark. He does well enough as a military analyst on TV. But I don't think that will carry him very far politically. Oh, yes, there is one military man whose political horizon has seemed unlimited. That's Colin Powell. But the last I heard, he was a Republican.
Q: Who then - and what - could beat this formidable Mr. Bush?
He could beat himself by gross mismanagement of the peace in Iraq - coupled with a sudden, deep decline in the economy. I just don't see this happening.

PDiddie -- My paper has just come in and I haven't had a chance to see the Krugman article, but what you quote is right on target. Why are we so shy (well, not me!) about going after the bastard?

Mind you, Krugman's words have a way of getting things started these days. Maybe we'll see some action.

As for point #5, what is your proposal to solve this? Elect a democrat, and invite Osama to the Whitehouse for a little love-fest?

Break out the skewers, it's kabob night at the party palace.

Your own link doesn't even say he accepted funds, just that he was offered them. If you're going to "roll on the floor laughing", at least know what the hell you're saying.

Uh, it says "...he confirmed that he had received money from Mr al-Khafaji...". It also states that he personally pocketed almost $50K from the donations he received. Are we reading the same document?

By the way Snood, I made you a friendly offer on the "Guess the movie..." thread and got no response from you.

You would be good in the Bush regime, real good! ROTFLMAO

Billw, say something with content, you're smarter than that.

By the way, has anyone seen cicerone lately? Maybe he's on one of his excursions?

You got the spin dude, the article says one thing you say another - gees, get real, I say again - You would be good in the Bush regime, real good! ROTFLMAO

Funny coming from someone who appears to be break dancing...

No talking bad about break dancing..........it's an art. Let's look for a candidate to take Bush out that can break dance and sing at the same time.