Bush's Bid To Stay Relevant

Jan 26, 2007
181
17
16
from the January 26, 2007 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0126/p09s02-cods.html

The president's effort to change minds about his Iraq war strategy isn't working. By Daniel Schorr / WASHINGTON

The atmosphere after the State of the Union address this week brought back to mind 1995, when President Clinton, after sharp Democratic reverses in the midterm election, told a news conference that, under the Constitution, he was still "relevant."

It also recalls 2004, when a newly reelected President Bush told a news conference that he had earned "political capital" in the campaign – capital that he intended to spend on issues dear to him, such as Social Security, tax reform, and the war against terror.

That capital has run out, and Tuesday night's State of the Union speech, professionally crafted though it was, reflected the bruising rejection of the president in most of the opinion polls and, more significant, in the November election. There are growing demands that the American military extricate itself from a conflict that increasingly looks like a Sunni-Shiite civil war.

The usual practice for a president in trouble on the domestic front is to shift his emphasis to the international scene. In this case, the speech was almost evenly divided between domestic initiatives such as healthcare, Social Security, energy, and immigration, and the foreign scene, meaning Iraq – the inescapable subject.

But there was no sign that he changed many minds. Mr. Bush talked of trying to avert a "nightmare scenario," of facing a defeat that would be "grievous and far-reaching," and he appealed to Congress and the public to give him one last opportunity to win, with his new strategy featuring a temporary military reinforcement.

But that is falling on deaf ears. On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, acting by design immediately after the State of the Union, approved by a vote of 12-9 a resolution saying that an escalation of American troop strength in Iraq is against the national interest.

The resolution is what's called "nonbinding" – that is, not obliging the administration to do anything. But it makes Bush look like a lame duck indeed.

* Poor Blinky * :sad:
 
The President's job isn't to change people's minds. His job is to do what it takes to win the war, even if folks like you would prefer he fail. You can win a war as long as you are willing to fight, you lose a war the minute you quit.
 
The President's job isn't to change people's minds. His job is to do what it takes to win the war, even if folks like you would prefer he fail. You can win a war as long as you are willing to fight, you lose a war the minute you quit.

thats not what the Constitution says...oh ya right i forgot..america is decidership state now
 
thats not what the Constitution says...oh ya right i forgot..america is decidership state now

Feel free to move out since your so oppressed by the dictator, though I don't know what a 'decidership' is. Or let me guess, you're blogging between torture sessions at a secret Bush detention center. :rofl:
 
Feel free to move out since your so oppressed by the dictator, though I don't know what a 'decidership' is. Or let me guess, you're blogging between torture sessions at a secret Bush detention center. :rofl:

No a retired Master Chief, but hey that retirement check that is direct deposited is spent well every month and to think you could have been a civilian but opted to make a career in the Navy. You fooled a lot of folks with that one.
 
how about demanding the government represent the will of the people instead?

I believe that is what 2004 was about. He won. We are NOT a democracy, but a democratic republic. Get another shot in less than 2 years.
 
The President's job isn't to change people's minds. His job is to do what it takes to win the war, even if folks like you would prefer he fail. You can win a war as long as you are willing to fight, you lose a war the minute you quit.

If he were actually doing what it takes to "win the war", it wouldn't be an issue, now would it. Bearing that in mind, I would say he's lost any bid to remain relevant.
 
If he were actually doing what it takes to "win the war", it wouldn't be an issue, now would it. Bearing that in mind, I would say he's lost any bid to remain relevant.

Relevant to who? Poeple like you? Why would he waste his time....
 
I believe that is what 2004 was about. He won. We are NOT a democracy, but a democratic republic. Get another shot in less than 2 years.

well theres a few problems like voting machines ect and the fact both selected candidates offered where skull and bones with very similar voting records. but even if you put all this aside there is also a bill of rights and a constitution and this thing called the congress ,all of which have been ignored
or violated
 

Forum List

Back
Top