What's next?

[Truth Soldier]

This will likely be taken as just a partisan post, but whatever...

Bush seems to be struggling recently. The media's coverage of him has turned much more negative, his poll numbers have dropped, people are talking about impeachment (but not too seriously, because the Republicans control Congress).

Now personally, I don't like Bush and I never have. Why? In my opinion, he doesn't seem to think. I don't imagine him considering different points of view, I don't imagine him seeing the complexities of issues. I think our leaders should have insight. I think our leaders should be able to deal with complex situations in complex ways. They're our leaders after all.

Of course, many people obviously do not agree with me. That's OK.

IMO, the reason Bush seems to be in trouble now is that there doesn't seem to be a Next Good Step. This "Bush lied about war" isn't really a big deal; no one cares that much. People didn't really care that Clinton lied, because the economy was good. People don't regret invading Iraq, because Saddam was bad and we kicked ass pretty good over there.

But what's the Next Step? The media needs something to report about. Politically, the top stories recently have been accusations against Bush, coupled with an American soldier dying every single day in Iraq. Plus a pretty poor economy, and projections for absurdly bad deficits for years to come. This is just bad news, and the one thing Bush has going for him -- personal likeability, honesty -- is going to the wayside as he ducks for cover. (No matter how unimportant you think the deceit leading up to the war was -- I happen to think it is important, but many people have no problem with it -- you have to admit there was deceit. Just look at how the administration is responding to accusations. "Oh it's not Bush's fault, he just stands there and reads the speeches. And Clinton lied too.")

Bush's strength is the War on Terror. But we have had no dramatic discovery of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq yet, and it seems unlikely that that will come. So what's next? How is the news cycle going to change?

The smartest response to the accusations of lying, IMO, would be along the lines of "I'm sorry for exxagerating the threat... I take responsibility... In these post-9/11 days, we must extremely vigiliant about the American way of life" blah blah blah... basically spin the eagerness for war as a deep concern about the dangers of terrorism. I'm surprised Bush hasn't made such a speech yet; instead, he seems to be retreating.

I also think it would be logical for Bush to continue to pursue the war on terrorism -- move on to the next step. What exactly would that be? I don't think the country is in the same mood for an invasion as it was for Iraq -- we haven't found those weapons of mass destruction yet, so how can Bush conjure up an image of urgency, a need for war?

[The Mad Hatter]

As long as Rove is around, you can be assured that if Bush is struggling in the polls come early 2004, we will be "provoked" by a country that poses a threat to us and has links to terrorism.

[E. Blackadder]

This will likely be taken as just a partisan post, but whatever...

Don't worry about it. Hope you don't mind if I "fisk" your post.
Bush seems to be struggling recently. The media's coverage of him has turned much more negative, his poll numbers have dropped, people are talking about impeachment (but not too seriously, because the Republicans control Congress).
The lack of an impeachable offense would normally be sufficient to forstall this kind of talk -- but not these days.


Now personally, I don't like Bush and I never have. Why? In my opinion, he doesn't seem to think. I don't imagine him considering different points of view, I don't imagine him seeing the complexities of issues. I think our leaders should have insight. I think our leaders should be able to deal with complex situations in complex ways.
1: Certain kinds of beverage consumption are said to help one achieve "clarity." Perhaps Bush -- having imbibed enough for a lifetime -- has established clarity.

2: "should be able to deal with" s/b "should not under any circumstances deal with"

Here's why.

What would dealing with a complex situation in a complex way involve? As a citizen, I prefer laws to be simple enough that I can understand (which you'll agree is pretty simple indeed.), and I prefer unambiguous moves, because subtlety can be wasted. An example of dealing with a complex situation in a complex way is the Form 1040. After 20 years, I've given up on rolling my own.

The other issue with complicated dealings is that they don't work so well. A plan that requires the success of 5 interrelated sub-parts is almost five times as likely to fail as an integral plan.


They're our leaders after all.

Of course, many people obviously do not agree with me. That's OK.

They are indeed our leaders.


IMO, the reason Bush seems to be in trouble now is that there doesn't seem to be a Next Good Step.
Yup! But remember -- and I posted a thread on topic several months ago -- Bush's administration has as it's default the appearance of internal discord and weakness. Right up until he sucker-punches the opposition with a kendo stroke. There's really quite a lot of evidence for this by now.


This "Bush lied about war" isn't really a big deal; no one cares that much.

Especially because he didn't lie. and because the invasion is seen as the removal of a vile person from a government at the least.

People didn't really care that Clinton lied, because the economy was good.
a good economy can help forgive a multitude of sins.

People don't regret invading Iraq, because Saddam was bad and we kicked ass pretty good over there.


But what's the Next Step? The media needs something to report about.

No they don't. If there isn't anything to report, they're perfectly capable of making things up. And it's far from clear that governance should be based on the exciting headlines du jour


Politically, the top stories recently have been accusations against Bush, coupled with an American soldier dying every single day in Iraq. Plus a pretty poor economy, and projections for absurdly bad deficits for years to come. This is just bad news, and the one thing Bush has going for him -- personal likeability, honesty -- is going to the wayside as he ducks for cover. (No matter how unimportant you think the deceit leading up to the war was -- I happen to think it is important, but many people have no problem with it -- you have to admit there was deceit.

In war, truth is the first casualty.

Anyone who stands up and says "I want to know everything about what we're going to do in this war tomorrow" deserves scorn. The administration's analysis of conflicting reports seems to have been around average. It must also be clear that the consequences of being wrong one way were far greater than the consequences of being wrong the other way.


Just look at how the administration is responding to accusations. "Oh it's not Bush's fault, he just stands there and reads the speeches. And Clinton lied too.")

I missed those. Rense??


Bush's strength is the War on Terror. But we have had no dramatic discovery of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq yet, and it seems unlikely that that will come. So what's next? How is the news cycle going to change?

Bush's strength is the need for resolute action in crisis. His weakness is when there's no pressing need for direct action. The endless news cycle can be damned. The News Cycle is much like the Discovery Channel. This week, a pack of hyenas devours a gazelle. Next week, a pack of lions will kill a hippo. The endless circle of death and rebirth lives on. And is continually meaningless.

The smartest response to the accusations of lying, IMO, would be along the lines of "I'm sorry for exxagerating the threat... I take responsibility... In these post-9/11 days, we must extremely vigiliant about the American way of life" blah blah blah... basically spin the eagerness for war as a deep concern about the dangers of terrorism. I'm surprised Bush hasn't made such a speech yet; instead, he seems to be retreating.

That method has been shown to be counterproductive. We're a news-cycle driven electorate. Forgetful, too.


I also think it would be logical for Bush to continue to pursue the war on terrorism -- move on to the next step. What exactly would that be? I don't think the country is in the same mood for an invasion as it was for Iraq -- we haven't found those weapons of mass destruction yet, so how can Bush conjure up an image of urgency, a need for war?

We've found lots of interesting pieces, plans, and some things that either can be used to make weapons or which are weapons. WMDs include bioterror and chemterror, both of which Saddam had and the latter he employed.