Bush's best chance for victory in November, end the war

He could do it but I doubt he will or his PNAC masters won't let him do it.

Figure this. It's taken them 10 years to get here and I don't think they feel they have had enough success yet. They will stay the course because they believe in themselves.

If we lose this war how will they get their oil riches?

They will continue to prosecute this war on into November and that's why Kerry will win.

He can smoke and mirror it with 9/11, he can pull a trusty platitude from his right pocket, he can shift the responsibility any number of times, but he can't end the guerrilla war now in place, on his watch, on his table. Not on his terms, whatever those might be. I don't think he ever had a contingency plan for this event and never asked his handlers to prepare one. We are flying by the seats of our pants....

"stay the course", "victory", "mighty American army". its pretty evident that he will see withdrawing as "losing", and its extremely evident that the knuckle-dragging neanderthals that comprise his base will perceive a withdrawl as a "loss".

What frightens me is that there is now no goal. What frightens me worse is the new "stated goal" is free elections in Iraq. Bush in charge of free and fair elections, we are officially in bizarro-world folks.

And if we leave now... they'll be no point... so they'll start to get angry at Bush for blowing so much money and lives pursuing some stupid infintile pipedream.

Bush has to hamfistedly stumble along the path he chose until he gets ousted or a miricle comes along and saves his ass.

mission creep, by definition.

he had his hand stuck in the soda-pop vending machine.

All he had to do was let go of the can inside, but it never occurred to him.

a "withdrawl" - handing over power to Chalabi.
"free elections" - handing over power to Chalabi
a "victory" and "peace" in Iraq.

meanwhile, our contractors will still be looting (private security will remain). our armies will retreat to bases instead of occupying. you'll see alot of blaming of the international community for a lack of support. propaganda will be stepped up & you won't hear so much about violence and nothing about attacks on contractors. Bush will try to focus on our military "withdrawl" to detract attention from the continued privatization. pump more money to the contractors & you'll still get plenty of suckers willing to go there w/ lighter security - just for the money. Darwin at work.

This is far, far more likely than the more sensationalistic scenarios. It is what has happened in the past, and it is what will happen this time.

More evil is done by sleight of hand than by brute force.

The “war on terror” and American democracy—some ominous warnings
By Patrick Martin
27 November 2003

Three commentaries published recently in the US media, all by well-connected observers of the US military, have suggested that a major new terrorist attack within the United States could disrupt the 2004 elections and even result in military intervention on the streets of America as well as the suspension of the Constitution.

On Friday, November 21, the right-wing web news service Newsmax.com published an account of the interview given by General Tommy Franks to the lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

Franks said that a terrorist attack employing a weapon of mass destruction and causing mass casualties, either in the United States or against an ally, would likely result in replacing the American Constitution with a military government.

As the commander of CentCom, Franks led US forces in the conquest of Afghanistan in 2001 and the invasion of Iraq earlier this year, before retiring during the summer. In his magazine interview, he outlined this scenario:

“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world—it may be in the United States of America—that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Frank remains a fervent supporter of the Bush administration, describing Bush as “a very thoughtful man,” and declaring, “Probably we’ll think of him in years to come as an American hero.”

But according to Franks, it may be under the administration of this “hero” that “the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we??ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

The retired general placed the responsibility for this possible turn to dictatorship on “our population,” and was silent on what role the military leadership or the Bush administration would play in its establishment. The American media has apparently failed to ask him anything about it since.

more...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/warn-n27.shtml