Bush Can't Win Anything

George Bush has finally realized that he cannot win. He can't win the war on terror, and he can't win the election. He pretended that terrorism had something to do with Iraq, and he diverted necessary resources to that country, creating yet another failed state that is seething with newly minted haters of America. In the process, he has done little about the real terrorists, leaving the US more threatened than ever by Al Qaeda and similar groups. Here's what he said on NBC today, completely contradicting the bold assertions of victory he has been spouting for the last three years:

Asked "Can we win?" Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

The conditions Bush has created make terrorism the tool of choice for powerless people all over the world—since America no longer recognizes the international venues for dealing with injustices and disputes, and since no other country or group has military forces that could challenge the US. It would be possible to create conditions to discourage terrorism, but that would require policies that are 180 degrees from Bush's unilateral, preemptive, incompetent militarism.

Furthermore, Bush pretends that the invasion of Iraq was forced upon him by the events of September 11. In fact, it was a war he created for political purposes. Juan Cole provides some history:

No American president has more desperately sought out a war with any country than George W. Bush sought out this war with Iraq. Only Polk's war on Mexico, also based on false pretexts, even comes close to the degree of crafty manipulation employed by Bush and Cheney to get up the Iraq war. Intelligence about weapons of mass destruction was deliberately and vastly exaggerated, producing a "nuclear threat" where there wasn't even so much as a single gamma ray to be registered. Innuendo and repetition were cleverly used to tie Saddam to Usama Bin Laden operationally, a link that all serious intelligence professionals deny.

Bush will also lose the election to Kerry, in part because he failed to protect us against terrorists but in part too because his reign of lies is now so transparently unsuccessful in every way. The Republicans will try to convince everyone this week that the Swift Boat Veterans for (Orwellian) Truth hurt Kerry's support, that he's slipping in the polls. That's another lie. Ruy Teixeira has the real story:

The Myth: The SBVT controversy seriously harmed the Kerry campaign. Bush comes into his convention in much better political shape than he has been for quite a while.

The Reality: The race has changed little since the start of the SBVT controversy. Bush enters his convention with basically the same political vulnerabilities he had previously.

Let's go to the numbers. The poll that best provides a before-SBVT damage and after-SBVT damage picture of the horse race is the Gallup poll. That's because Gallup polled both on August 9-11--about a week before media coverage of SBVT really heated up--and on August 23-25, right after the coverage peaked and just as the Kerry campaign began its push-back.

What do the Gallup numbers show? As Gallup's release on their latest poll succinctly puts it: "No Change in Presidential Race Despite Attack Ads". Just so.

In fact, to the extent their numbers show change, it's in the opposite direction to the one everyone is assuming. In their August 9-11 poll, Kerry was behind by one point (47-48) among RVs; in their August 23-25 poll, Kerry's ahead by a point (48-47). (Bush's approval rating also declines by 2 ponts between the two surveys).

Perhaps Bush should resign right now and save himself the anguish of the next two months. That's what Republican Congressman Ed Schrock of Virginia did today. Schrock has fought the right-wing fight against gays with as much fervor as anyone, cosponsoring the Hate Amendment—but at the same time he has apparently been seeking out gay sex on telephone dating services. At least he knew when to throw in the towel. A good model for our unelected resident of the White House.

Comments

[Paul Burch]

Fact to add to your fantasy: Bush is winning the war on terror, and he is currently winning in most election polls.

Go back and read Bush's comments in the context in which they were said. The war on terror isn't like a war on a country. There isn't one defining moment where the enemy will wave a white flag and say "I surrender" (ala The French). The victory over terrorism will be a gradual one.

[Robert Silvey]

Ridiculous, Paul. You are a victim of the Bush propaganda machine, and you are being willingly stripped of your rights, your economic security, and your safety.

The world is a far more dangerous place than it was on 9/12/2001, and Bush has put us there. Indonesia, for example, is a place I know something about, and support for the US has gone from 70% to 30% in the last three years—that's a lot more people who hate America. Iraq and Afghanistan are both failed states, unsafe for their inhabitants and breeding grounds for terrorists, due to our intervention. And where is Osama bin Laden, that person never mentioned by Bush the flip-flopper?

Of course one does not win a war on terror; that's what all of us on the left have been saying from the beginning. It's not a war—that was Bush's first conceptual error—it's a serious, international criminal conspiracy. So why go to war? There were no good reasons, and even the bad ones have turned out to be lies. Yet until yesterday Bush said again and again that we will win, so the point is that he finally confessed his mistake. He has realized now that his policies are bankrupt, and he has admitted he has done everything wrong and therefore made us much less safe.

Here are the polls. If you have some facts to share, rather than warmed-over bromides from the Fox Opinions network, I'd be glad to hear them. But you call an unsupported opinion a fact, even though it flies in the face of what's really happening in the world. It's not so just because you and Dick Cheney say it's so.

This just in. Today Bush says, "We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war (ie, the war on terror) we did not start yet one that we will win." So Bush is having an argument with himself, and he's losing that too.

[Paul Burch]

Robert, Do you actually believe WE started this war? The terrorists started it on September 11, 2001, or have you forgotten the little detail of 3,000 plus people killed on that day?

You liberals want to make terrorism a "criminal" issue...that's why there are two missing twin towers now. After the first Trade center attack in 1993, Clinton treated it like a criminal act. The source of the problem, the terrorist network, was untouched. Bush inherited the problem because of Clinton's incompetence. There were 10 terrorist attacks during Clinton's presidency. Clinton himself said he was going to declare a "war on terror" back in 1998. But he didn't have the guts to do it. Then, when Bush WON the Presidency in 2000, he actually stepped up and took on the challenge.

History has Churchills and Chamberlins. Fortunately, Bush is a Churchill.

[Paul Burch]

[Comment deleted. Paul, I have written to you before about the need to post links, not long articles, with your context. If you want to post this again, use a link. —Robert Silvey]

[Robert Silvey]

Bush paid no attention to the terrorist threat for 8 months, refusing even to meet with Richard Clarke. That inaction made the attacks somewhat more likely.

Then he attacked Afghanistan, killing thousands of innocent civilians while allowing Osama and others to escape. That was a war on Afghanistan, not on terrorists.

Then he attacked Iraq, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians and throwing the country into continuing chaos. That was a war on Iraq, not on terrorists.

Now there are terrorists in both countries. Bush is a Johnson, using false information to start a war and then becoming increasingly mired in the aftermath. At least Johnson was smart enough to withdraw from the presidential race. Bush is hard-pressed to rise to the level of Herbert Hoover or James K. Polk.

Read some history, and start with Juan Cole's essay.