Can George W get any worse?

[starbug]

I thought I would throw this into the mix as frankly I am appalled by what I have seen reported in the last day or so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3088772.stm

So now we are sending in more of our soldiers and Bush is asking for more money to support his failed crusade to 'liberate' the iraqi people from terror (everyone seems to have forgotten WMDs for the moment).

Worse than this, he is now asking (begging?) other countries to fall into line and appealing to the UN to sort it out.

Mr Bush also appealed for international help to resolve Iraq's security problems, saying the United Nations had a "responsibility" to take on an expanded role in the country.

I wonder if they realise how offensive this sounds to the rest of the world... so, the UN now has a responsibility to clear up the mess of this war? The audacity of this is astonishing.

I mean, it's good for the Iraqis as finally there might be some organised work going on, but surely Bush realises that the way that speech was written was abominable.

And now we brits are going to let the government send more troops in. Well, if Georgie says jump, that's what we must do!

I am disgusted.

[andrewgd]

I'm actually glad its happening. Maybe he hasn't come out and admitted it, but he's taking actions that mean that they've realized they screwed up, and are now going to the UN to help.

Sure, we'd all love him to do it on his knees, but we also know that he "ain't gonna do it."

At least Powell got him to go back to the UN. Granted, it is to bail us out, but its needed. The US economy is bad, our own infrastructure needs work, and he's asking for $87 BILLION dollars to help a country he just broke? HA!

Even if he doesn't take responsibility for it, I'm glad he's willing to suck it up and go to the UN, and admit that he needs help. I do hope the UN sticks it to him pretty good though.

[lance]

I thought I would throw this into the mix as frankly I am appalled by what I have seen reported in the last day or so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3088772.stm

So now we are sending in more of our soldiers and Bush is asking for more money to support his failed crusade to 'liberate' the iraqi people from terror (everyone seems to have forgotten WMDs for the moment).

Worse than this, he is now asking (begging?) other countries to fall into line and appealing to the UN to sort it out.

Mr Bush also appealed for international help to resolve Iraq's security problems, saying the United Nations had a "responsibility" to take on an expanded role in the country.

I wonder if they realise how offensive this sounds to the rest of the world... so, the UN now has a responsibility to clear up the mess of this war? The audacity of this is astonishing.

I mean, it's good for the Iraqis as finally there might be some organised work going on, but surely Bush realises that the way that speech was written was abominable.

And now we brits are going to let the government send more troops in. Well, if Georgie says jump, that's what we must do!

I am disgusted.

I definately hear your disgust Starbug.

Can W get any worse?

Yes, actually.

With regards to Andrewgd's comments I agree, Bush is going to the UN for help, better late than never.

As to whether the Administration will share power with the UN and thereby freeing up Indian, Pakistani, Bangledesh troops to help out, remains to be seen.

I still am praying for all the troops in the region and the ones who will soon be going.

Its a mess over there and sounds like it will be for sometime for quite sometime to come.

LanceMan

[starbug]

Well, I'm glad he is going to the UN finally - for the good of the iraqi people (oh, and his 'public support' figures). I suppose I just wish he'd eat some public humble pie. Oh, and lose the next election over it

The people I feel sorry for in all this mess are the Iraqis. And maybe if Bush is successful at persuading the UN to join in, things will get better for them. On the other hand, I hope Kofi Anan makes him feel tiny about having to do it. And that he makes him relinquish some control.

I saw on the news last night some coverage of a 'riot' by iraqi ex-soldiers. Apparently, they had been promised 3 months wages as compensation because the coalition refused to allow them be soldiers and earn their living any more. So the iraqis came to ask for their wages, only to be told 'sorry, you no longer qualify'. Well, I'd be upset if that had happened to me, and I might even throw a few rocks.

I really think that it seems like the 'nation-rebuilding' is totally stalled. Is Bush planning to spend his $87bn on reconnecting fuel and water and getting food and medicine in? Did you know that's $1000 per US family to keep the soldiers there?

[andrewgd]

Well, gee, we did get that $400 refund check, so it all evens out right? At least a majority of american's now realize that this will cause more terrorism, not less..

[starbug]

$400 refund check

what was that for?

[fnordboy]

$400 refund check

what was that for?

Buying votes....err..I mean jump starting the economy...yeah..thats it!

[lance]

$400 refund check

what was that for?

Buying votes....err..I mean jump starting the economy...yeah..thats it!

Laughing until it hurts,

I didn't get my $400.00 bribe...er check.

LanceMan

[starbug]

Seriously? He supposedly sent people a $400.00 cheque to 'jump-start the economy'?



I think 'buying votes' has more of a ring of truth about it

[andrewgd]

Not sure where this would go, but I thought it was a good analysis, but didn't need its own thread. (I've started enough )

It pertains to the latest (wonderful!) polls about Bush's approval rating, and his ranking up against Clark and Kerry.

I'm hearing many conservatives say now that the White House political office is off their game. But I see no real evidence of this. The problem is more fundamental. For quite some time this White House has functioned like a heavily leveraged business, an overextended investor that suddenly gets a margin call. To extend the business metaphor, the White House has been surviving not on profits but expectations of future profits or, in other words, credibility. The White House has been able to get the public to sit tight with a lot of objectively poor news (a poor economy, big deficits, bad news from abroad) on the basis of trust.

But a combination of the manifest incompetence of the planning for post-war Iraq and the dishonesty of the build-up for the war have become increasingly difficult to defend or deny. And that's struck a grave blow against the president's credibility.

Credibility of course is unitary. And the erosion has ricocheted from foreign policy to domestic policy and back again in escalating fashion. Suddenly the White House's explanations for why the country has fallen back into half trillion dollar deficits are ringing hollow.

As we've seen recently, a hollowed-out company can push along for some time so long as no one takes a good look at the books or calls in their loans. But when it happens the fall can be dramatic.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0304.html#0924031029pm

Its pretty interesting comparing the Bush house to a company, since thats supposedly how he intended to run the government. Or told us how he wanted to run the government. I'm so confused between what he says and what he intends.

Another interesting note: California can recall its governor because they claim he's running the biggest state debt in history. Yet its fine that our Prez does the same.

[TomSpeed]

Was it Bush's recession? The answer seems to be -- apparently not.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... rowth_dc_1

[lance]

Was it Bush's recession? The answer seems to be -- apparently not.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... rowth_dc_1

It was widely reported by pundits on both sides in 2000 that the economy appeared to be heading toward some kind of recession.

Question is: Did Bush make it better or worse by the economic policies he put in place?

-LanceMan

[fnordboy]

Was it Bush's recession? The answer seems to be -- apparently not.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... rowth_dc_1

I don't know, was this every even a question? I can remember most of the 90s being told we were heading into a recession.

I don't know very much about economics, but it has always been my understanding that it is not so much what the government does that puts us into recessions and/or prosperity. It is the natural ebb and flow of the game. Sure drastic policies and such will impact, but it is also natural (well as natural as economics can be).

[TomSpeed]

Was it Bush's recession? The answer seems to be -- apparently not.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... rowth_dc_1

I don't know, was this every even a question? I can remember most of the 90s being told we were heading into a recession.

I don't know very much about economics, but it has always been my understanding that it is not so much what the government does that puts us into recessions and/or prosperity. It is the natural ebb and flow of the game. Sure drastic policies and such will impact, but it is also natural (well as natural as economics can be).

You are right. But how many times have the Dems said that the nation's economic problems are Bush's fault?

[TomSpeed]

Was it Bush's recession? The answer seems to be -- apparently not.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... rowth_dc_1

It was widely reported by pundits on both sides in 2000 that the economy appeared to be heading toward some kind of recession.

Question is: Did Bush make it better or worse by the economic policies he put in place?

-LanceMan

I think we are already seeing the answer -- those policies are generally helping the situation.