In Your Own Opinion - What happens to Bush if WMD's are not found?

Well, I haven't done this in a long time: I agree with haven. All except for the second-to-last paragraph (I don't think that waiting 12 years was too quick)... Excellent post, too bad everyone ignored it. It always happens that way.

As for the thread question: nothing. Nothing will happen to Bush. Oh, there will probably be a hearing or two on the issue of intelligence failure, but nothing will come of it. As the Gallup poll shows, the WMD issue just isn't important enough in the minds of voters right now, and that is what is really important.

What do you think will happen to the Democratic or (even worse for them) Republican Senator who decides to make a circus out of an issue that polls show Americans don't care about, and against a very popular president who is just coming off of a successful war against an undeniably despicable regime? Not good for the guy who tries to smack that hornet's nest...

 

Naw, that's wussie rock. I prefer Nelson.

 

I honestly think Bush got duped by his own people.

The buck stops at Bush's desk.

The WMD fiasco will not be Bush's undoing. Its the economy, stupid.

I know it is wishful thinking but I hope Bush learns from this mistake.

 

regarless of whether or not they find WMD, I am NOT voting for him in 2004.

 

Actually, I would liken this to the Iran-Contra scandal more than the Lewinski thing. A large number of people start hearing about intelligence failures or doctored intel or whatever, and they tune out because 1. it can be complicated, and 2. it's BORING.

I don't think not finding any WMDs hurts Bush to any real degree. Perhaps a more dynamic opponent in 2004 can make something of it in a non-boring way to help in the election (but who knows what issues will play with the American public by then. If the economy is still stalling next summer, I would expect that to be the major issue), but I wouldn't expect that to be easy, and it could backfire.

A lot of people just aren't going to care (and those who do care are quite often going to be those who were never going to vote for Mr. Bush anyway).

 

Another interesting question is what happen to Blair if WMD are not found. Blair is much more politically vulnerable than is Bush. If Blair does go down because of this issue, the American public may re-elevate this issue as a consequence.

 

Me either. Voting for him in the last election was the mistake of a lifetime.

 

he doesn't need your vote, he'll win Texas by a land slide, even Bob Dole won texas. Most of these people on this board speak for the small minority in texas or the other way of saying it is majority in california.

 

A surprising number of people on this board don't post from texas.

 

So far so good? Tell that to the Iraqis, living in lawlessness, without electricity or clean water, disease running rampant.

DD, whatever you are smoking, pass it over here. You're high as a kite.

 

What happens to Bush if WMD's are not found?

Nothing the American public (in general, not you and I ) are idiots who have tiny attention spans and have been duped and blinded by jingo-ism and this administration's hi-jacking of 9/11. GWB will win re-election in 2004 and then be shot, per the all Presdients elected in the first year of a decade rule ...or was that something we were just trying out last century?

 

RMtex,

Electricity is up, they are getting food, and the lawlessness is subsiding.

I guess they were better off with Uday running around chopping up their parents in a grinder, and imprisoning their kids.

I can't believe all the people on here who will do anything to criticize Bush but fail to look at the big picture and see the people are MUCH better off now.

Whatever, keep living in your hatred of conservatism, and remember you have already given up on being rich.



DD

 

Check your facts before you spout off like a teakettle. And exactly what the hell are you trying to say, anyway?

 

I am saying that liberalism is all about redistribution of wealth and darned close to socialism.

I like our capitalistic society where a person can take a risk and get rich, and not have to share his wealth with the lazy bum down the street.



DD

 

I like our capitalistic society also. Those who take risks either get rich if they succeed or head to the poorhouse if they do not. Your definition of "liberalism", however, is a wee bit myopic...even though I know what you are trying to say.

 

your definition of liberalism is hopelessy divorced from reality.

 

I think that you've listened to Rush too much.

The "redistribution of wealth" is more close to "socialism" on an economic sense. But "liberalism" is not directly tied to "socialisim." That's just something that republican talk-show hosts throw out.

It's just mud-slinging. Similar to how liberals call conservatives "neo-nazis."


liberalism
n 1: a political orientation that favors progress and reform (fight "business as usual")
2: an economic theory advocating free competition and a
self-regulating market and the gold standard (fight "monopolies" that hinder competition)

1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party


www.m-w.com


By the way, I find it funny that the conservatives support a strong military, which happens to use a solcialist economic structure (free healthcare, dental, food, and housing, and some education).

Not that I would want that system for the general public. But I just find it funny how the conservatives will throw out attacks of "socialism" anytime someone suggests social services in any form.

This has more to do with protecting their corporate interests than not helping citizens.

But in order to justify their position, they say that all social services are "evil" or "communistic" or whatever. Even though some social services work well within a capitalistic society.