Hi cnyndwllr; Re: "In view of his denials, ..."
Politicians generally don't admit to errors. What's that neutral phrase? "Mistakes were made". A failure to admit an error is not evidence of a lack of learning. It's just politics as usual, made stronger by the obvious need of the American public for a strong leader in time of "war".
Re: "... his actions ..."
Since the Iraq invasion, Bush has not made a single "action" indicating that he failed to learn his lesson. Quite the contrary. He ended sanctions against Libya. He failed to push for sanctions against Iran. He failed to punish North Korea. He didn't increase the size of the US military. He gave up on conquering Falloujah. He didn't have Sadr arrested at all costs.
Re: "... and his refusal to substantially change course in Iraq ..."
What's your point here? It would have been politically impossible for Bush to have done anything much different from what he's done in Iraq since the invasion. Kerry supports a continuation of exactly the same thing. Hell, Kerry just said that he'd keep our troops in Iraq at the current level at least until the summer of 2005. So as far as voting for Kerry, what's the point? From Kerry's own mouth his policy is identical, namely getting other countries to send troops (a hopeless cause), increasing the Iraqi police force (as if we haven't already maxed out our efforts in this area), spending more money on improving the situation in Iraq (money is already unspent because of lack of security so all Kerry would do would be to leave more money unspent).
Re: "... I think that you're transferring you own strongly held views ... It seems that when logic and emotions conflict emotions will set our course, even for the brightest of us. Ed"
This is just psychological drivel. Try to stick to the facts. It's laughable that you would challenge me about logic.
Re: "The reality is that the past actions of Bush clearly reveal that Bush will have to be hit on the head until he's bleeding from the ears before he'll accept the truth; the truth that the great American power that swells his ego has some very definite limits."
Then how come he hasn't invaded Iran or North Korea already? If your analysis of Bush were correct, we'd have invaded all these countries already. It's like you think that Bush's desires are equivalent to Bush's abilities. They're not. To invade North Korea, Bush has to ask a whole bunch of people to figure out very detailed plans for it. When those people come back with "no can do", Bush has little choice but to accept the truth.
With Iraq, there were a lot of people who believed it would be easy and a lot who believed it would be nearly impossible. Unfortunately, Bush listened to the "easy" crowd. Even if you could claim knowledge about the internal state of Bush's beliefs based on what he says, the fact is that his advisers will no longer let him get in over his head.
The left wing goes on and on about how Bush is an empty suit whose decision making is done by Karl Rove. Instead of arguing that Bush didn't learn anything, you must instead argue that Karl Rove (aka "Bush's Brain") didn't learn anything. Instead, all the information you have is that Bush still talks like he has a big stick.
You want to know why Bush still talks like he has a big stick? Pretty simple. Go look at the poll results. Six months ago the left wing were certain they could get a yellow dog Boston liberal to beat Bush but now it doesn't look that easy. If Bush were talking right now about how weak our military is, what do you think the poll results would be? That's right, Kerry, the war hero, would be up by double digits.
Talking big and getting into fights are two different things. The hell you come around claiming that politicians are not lying to us.
Re: "He'll hold on for the outside chance of a viable election or a transfusion of courage into the numerous but resolve-deficient Iraqis who silently share his views of what Iraq should be, or for some other way that we can "win." In the interim he'll show no signs of weakness and alienate the world and half of our population while our troops pay a heavy price, our deficit grows and his dream of a foothold in the oil rich region of the Mideast flickers and ultimately dies."
In what way is this plan any different from what Kerry just suggested? The only difference between the candidates is that Bush has been in control in Iraq longer than Kerry, and is undoubtedly more tired of the place.
Kerry has all the appearances of being much more of a true believer (as in let's all get together and make Iraq a better place) than Bush (as in let's do what will get Republicans elected).
When the American public wants the troops back from Iraq, Bush will find a transparent excuse for bringing them home just like he found a transparent excuse for sending them over there. I'd rather have that sort of predictability than to put Kerry in there.
-- Carl |
