What Will Happen With FOUR MORE YEARS?

Bush Almighty
I'ts a puzzle to us Brits why Bush is in again - but look how long we had Thatcher!

Having watched F911 the night before the Bin Laden pre election endorsement - I was TRUELY amazed Bush was back.

Feel sorry for you folks

He gives Bush a bad name.

Sarah Morgan--

He gives Bush a bad name with people who will buy anything from anyone. Sensible people would not make a judgement about someone based on gossip and lies. They would check sources for veracity. Moore has been proven a liar and a partisan showman here.

***********
To the topic--

I guess I'm a Neo-con--which I take to mean "new conservative"----<oooohh, shudder! I'm scary!!>

I was thankful Bush was re-elected. I feel I know what he will do--because he accomplished-- or at least attempted--almost every item he set out as his agenda during his first campaign.

He is serious about improving tax policy, addressing Social Security--which the Democrats would have ignored, as they said they would-- Bush will hold the line on Iraq--rather than flip back and forth in the political wind, and screw the whole thing up by turning it into a politically expedient tool--which I was seriously concerned about Kerry doing.

Bush is the right man to complete the next four years with Iraq--NK--Iran--the UN-- In this case, I feel we really did need to keep the same rider crossing the stream. Continuity is important right now. I feared with a Dem at the helm, we'd just end up owing blackmail money (NK, Iran...), as this is generally the "diplomacy" the Dems tout. Our "payments" would come due every time we turned around.

No Child will get at least four more years to show signs of working. It took us a few decades to get public education in such a mess. We should at least give our best solution to date one decade...

I am not very hopeful about repair between us and the usual suspects in Europe. Bush didn't cause this divide, but he provided a conspicuous excuse to increase it. (He has the audacity to wear cowboy boots --Europe's biggest complaint, to read their newspapers) Chirac is thrilled. He's actually in the international news for more than the cut of his suit. The French mindset has hated the US for a couple of decades, but now they have happily dragged it out into the open. If it weren't for their complicity in the OFF corruption, we may have a chance to at least make the appearance of soothing the rift--but because of what is about to be made public, it will be crystal clear that we and Britain were trying to fight the good fight, while the rest of the world was fighting us above the table, and stealing from us and the Iraqi people, under that table.

I suspect Bush will leave office with historically notable gains for the US, and quite diminished credit. His worth will only be recognized after his tenure.

It also seems that Putin is waxing nostalgic for the good old days of the Cold War. I am concerned that Bush may have to deal with a militant Vlad. And, I have confidence that he will do that successfully.

Not really expecting much change ahead, there wil continue to be offerings to god while taking the road to mammon, Reagan all over again.

dyslexia encapsulates it perfectly.....the heart of the matter...all the rest just details.....

Well, that's nothing to lose sleep over.

Bushophobes take heart!

A return to the day's of yesteryear. Herbert Hoover has been reelected.

I expect my parents to become ever more annoying with their talk about how Bush is the man we need now that we are approaching the rapture.

Church and state will be melded into one happy family. Well not so happy.

I will still be the worlds oldest metal head...but it'll probably be a felony by then......

Lash wrote:


Yes, but don't forget Condi speaks fluent Russian I actually see Putin being more of a help than a hindrance in the GWOT.

Could Bush be so reckless?




EDITORIAL

Groundhog Day


Published: November 20, 2004
Stop us if you've heard this one before. The Bush administration creates a false sense of urgency about a nuclear menace from a Middle Eastern country. Hard-liners talk about that country's connections to terrorists. They portray European diplomatic efforts to defuse tensions as a feckless attempt to appease a rogue nation whose word can never be trusted anyway. Secretary of State Colin Powell makes ominous-sounding warnings about new intelligence, which turns out to be dubious.

That is how President Bush rushed the country into an unnecessary conflict with Iraq in his first term, and we have been seeing alarming signs of that approach all week on Iran.

Let's be cleareyed about this: Iran has an active nuclear program, has not tried terribly hard to hide it and has been dishonest in its dealings with the West. But nothing we have seen suggests some new, urgent development in Iran that would impel American officials to start talking about "the military option." In fact, the most recent developments have been encouraging. Last week, under the threat of a looming U.N. deadline, Tehran said it would freeze all uranium and plutonium processing and invite back international inspectors.

It was a welcome step, resulting from efforts by Britain, France and Germany, and signaled that even the hard-liners in Tehran are susceptible to economic appeals. If the negotiations over Iran's nuclear programs go well, Europe promises to resume talks on a preferential trade agreement. If they don't, it will be time for international economic sanctions. After meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Bush went out of his way to praise and endorse the Europeans' efforts.

But on Wednesday, Mr. Powell suddenly offered scary sounding talk about new intelligence that supposedly showed that Iran was not only working on enriching uranium, a big step toward making a bomb, but was also working on ways to attach such a weapon to a missile. His alarmist tone was a bit puzzling, since everyone has already agreed that Iran has nuclear ambitions, and it's hard to imagine a country wanting to own a nuclear bomb without exploring ways to use it. The world has also known for years that Iran was testing guided missiles.

Puzzlement turned to alarm yesterday when The Washington Post reported that Mr. Powell's comments were based on unverified information that had been brought to the United States by a previously unknown source whose reliability and authenticity had not yet been vetted. That certainly did bring back old memories - of Mr. Powell assuring the world that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, based on fanciful intelligence reports about aluminum tubes.

Steven Weisman of The Times reported that administration hawks were also talking about fresh intelligence on Iran's support for Hezbollah, which the world has known about for decades, and Iran's support for insurgents in Iraq, another old story. The hawks seem to be already starting to throw cold water on the prospects for a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear problem while trying to open the door to contemplating a military option. An administration official told The Times that Mr. Powell was trying to avoid meeting with the Iranian foreign minister at a conference both men are to attend in Egypt next week.

Small wonder, then, that the Europeans started to accuse Washington of trying to undermine diplomacy with Iran, just as the Bush administration thwarted their efforts to resume the U.N. inspections of Iraq - inspections that we now know had been highly effective.

Iran has long been a target of the hawks in the administration, who are undoubtedly feeling their oats after the election. But we hope that President Bush has learned enough from the Iraq adventure to understand the dangers of using flawed intelligence to create a false sense of urgency about a national security threat.

Obviously, a nuclear-armed Iran run by its current brand of extremists, who have twisted religion to support terrorism, would be a cause for real concern. But there is no military solution here. Iran's scattered and secretive nuclear program cannot be bombed out of existence. And even if the United States had not stretched its military to the limit in Iraq, invading Iran, a country of nearly 70 million people, would be a catastrophic mistake.

The Bush administration has said that stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons is at the top of its foreign policy agenda. That's where it belongs. But it's a goal that can be pursued only through truly multilateral diplomacy, in which the United States works with its European allies, rather than trying to undermine them, and the Europeans are prepared to stand behind Washington with a credible threat of economic sanctions when they are justified. It is not an excuse for war or even for pretending that war is a rational option.

Yeah, JW. I was reading up on Condi's bio. Russian Politics and Music were her specialty. She advised Bush 1 through the fall of the USSR. I can't say enough about her. She's brilliant, self-actualized, self-motivated--one of the strongest people--not just women--I've read about.

I hope more people discover her story. Quite a distinctly American success story.

OK, JW, I give up... GWOT?

I get George W Over Time... What is it?

Seriously, do you really believe this will happen?

Lash, I'm surprised at you -- Global War On Terrorism

Reagan all over again? We can only hope. GWB is a keen student of history, however, and has been better than Reagan at not getting sucked into controversy and/or scandals fabricated for the specific purpose of sinking him. Not that Reagan didn't survive those fabrications quite handily.

I am sorry for the people who so much wanted Bush to lose. It's so much more fun being optimistic, positive, and hopeful than it is pointing fingers, whining, complaining, and preaching doom and gloom.

It really is isn't it?

Finn d'Abuzz
With this republican and born again Christian dominated government I am sure that the restrictions regarding separation of Church and state will be severely stressed and blurred.