FORT BRAGG, N.C. (June 28) - President Bush on Tuesday rejected calls for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq or sending more troops, counseling patience for Americans who question the war's painful costs.
"Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it," Bush told a nation increasingly doubtful about the toll of the 27-month-old war that has taken the lives of more than 1,740 U.S. troops.
Bush spoke in an evening address for a half-hour from an Army base that has 9,300 troops in Iraq, hoping to persuade the public that his strategy for victory needed only time - not any changes - to be successful.
The audience of 750 soldiers and airmen in dress uniform listened respectfully, breaking into applause when Bush vowed that the United States "will stay in the fight until the fight is won."
I don't know what more I can say in this analysis. It is more of the same ole...same ole. President Bush makes a major televised speech, with all the main networks covering it. The site of his speech is at Fort Bragg--at the site of a major Army base. His audience is 750 soldiers and airmen--a perfect audience. You're not going to expect any protesters waving any anti-Bush signs during that speech. It is the perfect Republican campaign rally, with the perfect audience, providing perfect televised news coverage. And what does Bush say? The war in Iraq "is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country....The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of Sept. 11 - if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like bin Laden.....For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch." Bush makes the same speech he's been making for the last 3 years.
I feel like I'm listening to a broken record, playing snippet of the same tune over and over again, its needle stuck within a single groove. And as that record plays in its single-minded purpose, the needle digs deeper into that groove, forcing the record player to keep repeating that single tune. Pretty soon, the record will no longer be playable. You will have to find a new record to play a new tune. And just as Bush is a broken record, repeating the same speech over and over again, we have to remove Bush from office. Find someone new who can give us a new tune.
Wissy: To be honest, I have no clue as to who the Democrats could select for a presidential candidate. I don't think the Democrats have a clue as to who to select.
ReplyDeleteA big problem with the Democratic Party is that they have no fresh, new blood or talent for a presidential candidate in 2008. And what fresh blood they do have, would be so controversial that it could fracture the country even more along the red state / blue state faultlines. The Democrats certainly need someone to energize their party base, and excite the country with true bipartisan-ship at the same time. Who would they choose? Joe Biden? John Kerry? Al Gore? Joe Lieberman? All these possible candidates are has-beens, who will say the same thing, making non-controversial or partisan policy positions while trying to act Republican. They would be an elephant dressed in a donkey suit.
Hillary Clinton is certainly the top star for the party. True, she doesn't have experience in international affairs, but she has one of the most experienced advisor on everything presidential in her staff--her hubby Bill. In some ways, she would be a breath of fresh air for the Democratic Party--the first real female candidate who would have a serious shot at winning the Oval Office. The problem is that she also comes with some serious liabilities. As the former first lady to Bill Clinton's administration, the Republicans would love to eat her for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
The problem with a Hillary / Obama ticket is that it would really piss off the Republicans, the Deep-South-hard-lined- conservatives, and the evangelists. Would you want to see a Clinton and a woman, as president, with a black man as vice-president? A black man who is only a heartbeat away from the presidency? I'd half-expect to see the Deep South secede from the Union if that were to happen. It is true that Obama is being groomed for bigger things, such as putting him on the Senate Foreign Relations Committe. And Obama is certainly fresh blood for the Democratic Party. But I don't see Obama seriously running for President until 2012 or 1016--depending on which party controls the White House. He would have a Senate record, and some political clout to become a serious contendor to the presidency.
The Republicans will not nominate someone like McCain or Guiliani--both have moderate social views which the Religious Right will refuse to accept. Like it or not, the Religious Right controls the Republican Party platform. The litmus test on abortion will be a major factor as to who will be elected to the Republican nomination. Remember, it is only a matter of time before Supreme Court justices Rehnquist, O'Conner, Stevens, and possibly Ginsburg will either retire, or die in office. They will be replaced--either in George Bush's second term, or by the 2008-elected president. That's the main criteria for the Republicans.
The Republicans will elect Bill Frist. Karl Rove is certainly grooming Frist for the ascendency to the throne. Rick Santorum is a long shot--he's certainly a darling for the Religious Right. But Santorum is having political problems due to his latching onto Bush's Social Security privatization plan. His poll numbers have been slipping in his home state of Pennsylvania. If he loses his re-election campaign in 2006, I doubt he could make a credible run for president, though he would be a prospect for vice-president.