Bush Ain't Withdrawing

[Iluvleiberman]

He'll leave us in Iraq in case he loses the 2004 election. Then the Dem candidate is stuck with a messy withdrawal.

Sorta like Poppy Bush, Somalia and Clinton.

[Ediacara]

1. why is withdrawing a good idea?

Answer me that.

By the way, you've misspelled Lieberman in your username. You should get that corrected.

[Ein]

4. I think both sides have good arguments.

My mind was swayed a bit towards withdrawal.

On one hand, some think staying is commiting to the useless and equate it with Vietnam. (Vietnam seemed to have the NLF to unify the majority of the country, so I am still a bit skeptical about the comparisons.)

On the other, some think withdrawing would draw the country into total choas.

I have no clue what the best solution would be :(

[Agent X]

9. I'm with you

on this Ein. Of course, the best solution was not to go there in the first place. Now that we are there, I'm not sure what we should do. I feel we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to rebuild their country, but is that even possible? Oh my god, this sucks.

[Clete]

2. If he loses then at least the new President can get

the UN and NATO involved if need be, something Bush and Rummy won't do. Bush almost has to have a continuous war going to maintain his credibility in the White House. Other than that we would have been questioning the economy and domestic problems long before now.

[aquart]

3. He can't withdraw.

It would be acknowledging he made a ghastly error or, even if somebody competent could have done it, HE couldn't.

And it isn't manly to turn tail and run. Why some people are still testy over his little flight to safety on 9/11.

[never cry wolf]

5. Are you trying to say that

whistle ass is capable of making an error and if that improbability were to occur he would not be magnamanous and forthright and just admit it?? i am SHOCKED!!

[JVS]

6. I am more than shocked. I am shocked, Shocked that W screwed up

:-)

[goforit]

7. Well he can just take the bad PR along with it.

This will mark his name down in history and everyone in his family's name for generations to come!

Watch the storm brew!

[Lori Price CLG]

8. LOL, he's ready to steal 2004, and won't 'lose'.

Karl Rove is so blatant about the 2004 theft of election, that his Ohio tool, the Diebold exec., openly told the media he's ready to obtain the votes for Bush. LOL. But, if Dean wears an ugly necktie, that should make for a couple of days' news cycles. That or Kobe Bryant's Starbucks stops.

Rove doesn't have to worry about the media --MoreSh*tNoBrainsCable is already in his pocket, do I even have to mention Faux or AOL's CensoringNewsNetwork?

They're all set.
:)-Lori Price

[punpirate]

10. There is a way to do it...

... but Bush isn't about to take that opportunity. The Norwegians and the UN together could be installed for the specific purpose of creating and supervising free elections, to be held in, say, 180 days, to oversee registration of parties and candidates and formation of rules of political party conduct, while the UN went about providing some repair of infrastructure. All that _could_ be done as long as US troops left. There would not be a backlash against the UN, if US troops were gone.

Bush isn't going to take the opportunity, for several reasons, the foremost of which is that doing so deuces every frothing-at-the-mouth corporation vying for control of a totally privatized market in that country. The only way to ensure that is US troops. They aren't going to invest a nickel in Iraq if they aren't sure it can be protected--both literally and from eventual nationalization. This is especially true of the oil companies--they are literally salivating at the prospect of extracting oil for $1.50/bbl (cost to do the same for West Texas intermediate is about $25/bbl).

There were two reasons for this war, and neither of them had a thing to do with terrorism or 9/11/01. The first was to provide a series of permanent US bases there (first, to protect "American interests," meaning Saudi oil without actually having troops on Saudi soil, and second, to engage in more adventurism in the region). The second was to use those troops to encourage complete privatization of the country by US (and a small handful of British) companies--i.e., to create a colonial market system in Iraq.

That's why Bush won't withdraw.

Cheers.