Politcal promise for Bush in Nuclear Peril?

The Mission: Find a Way to Stay Revelant page 43 by Mike Allen

One Bush adviser sees POLITICAL PROMISE for the President in NUCLEAR PERIL. "Certainly,
there's going to be a serious showdown on Iran," he said. "He's very relevant on
that, and that may help his numbers a little bit."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1172231,00.html

just got the issue at the supermarket

:-)

something "that may help his numbers a bit"??? he is taking us to the brink to "help his numbers a bit" and this political adviser thinks this is a GOOD THING? I know these people live on a planet completely divorced from reality, but this goes beyond that kind of blind arrogance.

This is more than a bubble, this a vacuum that they are in. I can't believe that they
would subscribe to such dangerous practices as a political ploy. Why hasn't Karl Rove
been indicted. Why hasn't someone made them accountable for the dangerous political games
they play.

As far as I know the only game of nuclear brinkmanship ever actually played out was Kennedy vs Khrushchev in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

I've studied that for a long time primarily because I lived in Florida when it happened and realized at the ripe, old age of 15, there was no high ground and no winners in any nuclear exchange. If you want a good idea of what I thought would happen, go check out a copy of the book Alas, Babylon!.

What saved us in 1962 wasn't just Kennedy's resolve and determination, but it was Kennedy's ability to recognize when to compromise, when to let your opponent off the hook and how to make concessions. Kennedy was magnitudes more intelligent than Dubya and while Dubya prides himself on his ability to "stick to" a decision, he fails to understand how that inflexibility negates any gains once the opponent starts to compromise.

A basic book on negotiating lays out the premise that you should always remind yourself that your goal is to reach a settlement. It is not, to kill your opponent.
God help us if he ever decided to play "brinkmanship" with a viable enemy. George wouldn't know when to quit. He wouldn't know when he had won, unless the whole frocking world was going up in smoke.

But this is only a response to a potential threat like that posed by Iraq. Thanks for
the book recommendation. I too thought that we were in our last days back then. I remember
people in my neighborhood laughing as they raked leaves that fall. Saying "I never thought
I would have to rake these." Then the fundy angle, where pushing nuclear war brings the
rapture closer. I admit that I am nervous and wish that there was reassurance that wiser
heads will prevail here.

given that I lived right next to NORAD, knowing we were amoung the top three targets in the nation.

Then I decided that being at ground zero wasn't a bad idea--since I wouldn't be around for the horrendous aftermath.

remember what Dr. Helen Caldicott said about a nuclear war being the first time the survivors would envy the dead?

what in the HELLLLLLLLL are these jackasses thinking??????

apparently it's all in an attempt to prevent a Democratic majority and that would
prevent an impeachment hearing. I too remember people quoting the bible saying that
"the living would envy the dead." I think that even today there is little that can
be done for high levels of radiation.

That is the bottom line.

The entire world would rise up in anger against America, and we have come to rely on
imports for our very survival, our food, oil, natural gas, clothes, cars are all imported
and they would stop, probably, forever. He'd have dozens of Katrina areas instead of
just one and no money to heal a broken land. He would be King of the junkyard.

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

the rest of you would be able to keep on, keeping on, but I don't think that it would
be a day at the beach, more like a grade b movie.

Of course, if they MIHOP again, they'll do it in some big blue state,
and they especially despise California, but the fallout won't stay in California. All those
red states to the east of us would get dusted plenty.

since he and his shadow government elites have bunker space, he could care less about
his buds in Congress, with the Northeast and New Orleans gone, the Democrats would lose
much of their base, he thinks, he must not realize that he polling below 50% in many
of the red states.

…IMPEACHMENT hearings? They'll be ALL ABOUT BUSH**!

Something must be done about George Bush, this is not a win, win Democratic stategy but
he can not be allowed to fumble us into war with Iran like he fumbled us into war
with Iraq.

I didn't think about that....if George is tied up fighting off a censure resolution, or, better yet, IMPEACHMENT hearings, he won't have the opportunity to "FUMBLE" us into a war with Iraq.

We need to distrat him.....in a BIGGGGGGG WAY!

I remember reading of a woman that was in a Nazi prison camp and every day they were ordered
to report for a "shower." And every day, she asked her father, when they should go, she wanted to go first thing, and he kept saying wait, wait. He would take the family down
and stand in line during the last 30 minutes, they were always at the end of the line
and they never got their turn in the showers.

Has everyone gone mad?

I feel like a character in one of the old Twilight Zone series shows.

Here's how they define criticism in the same Time article: The Mission: Find a Way to Stay
Relevent

The critics are conducting their conversations with the President's men in polite code, such
as asking how they can help. "There is a drumbeat," a Bush friend explained. "but it's not
resonant in the White House. These are the people this Administration and the President
in particular disdains. You scrape 'em off your shoes and-and keep going."

I find it maddening that they say this for publication, yet will not pen their names to
it.

wrote in his book The Price of Loyalty?

He said that he never saw a "white paper" (policy proposal)

He said he never heard a discussion on policy at all.

Every issue was discussed in terms of POLITICS ...in other words how will this issue help or hurt election chances?

And now, is it really so hard to believe that he would see the threat of nuclear incineration of a significant part of the Middle East in terms of whether it will hurt or help his poll numbers?

Sociopaths.....all of them.

Bush fumbled us into war with Iraq, an unjust war where there are approx. 133,000 troops.
What would happen to them, if Iran is attacked. The Shias would rise up to support
their Iranian brothers and kill our troops, even if they could not reach the US with
their current technology, they have major pacts with both Russia and China, who do
possess such weapons.

The cynical explanation for the Bush Administration's threats against Iran is that, like the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, the real objective is "regime change"
If the Republicans lost control of Congress, the way becomes open for hearings into the constitutionality of the Bush Administration's use of wiretaps on Americans without warrants as required by legislation.

How far the Bush Administration is prepared to go in Iran in order to avoid losing control of Congress to a hostile Democrat majority, which might opt for impeachment, will have fundamental consequences for the global economy in 2006.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/bushs-iran-plan-a-time-bomb-with-explosive-results/2006/03/19/1142703218248.html