WHY is Bush toast?

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

I see alot of folks on here claiming that "Bush is done", "he's finished", "he is toast". Why exactly? Sure, the CIA is taking credit for the exaggerated intel, but why all of the sudden are people around here talking like he won't even run in '04?

[CMT]

1. good point

I think he will run and we should enjoy this while we can because the media will be back whoring for him again soon enough.

Dean/Richardson '04

[kstewart33]

2. He is not toast

Bush will survive this. However, this emerging scandal merits our attention because it is the first to put a sizeable dent in Bush's image as an honest, ethical and 'plain-speaking' president. On the talk shows this morning, his team's parsing and maneuvering were anything but direct, honest and plain-speaking. As long as WMDs are not found, his credibility to the world remains seriously damaged.

[grytpype]

3. Because Iraq is Vietnam in fast-motion.

The Iraq adventure is not going well.

We are going to have half our Army tied down in Iraq getting shot at until the election, for sure. There will probably be at least one mass-casualty event before then (think Beruit). The public and the press are beginning to wake up to the reality we've always been aware of... that Bush lied to get this country into that quagmire.

Bush was gambling that the war would go well and that WMDs of some description would be found. In that case, who would care that he told a few dozen lies? But he lost both bets. Now he has nowhere to hide from the growing public outrage over his lies and incompetence.

Considering that he lost the election in 2000 and has nothing to run on in 2004 except the war, I would say he's looking pretty well fucked right now.

[trof]

7. Excellent observation.

And several have been made in the few replies here.
There were no live TV broadcasts (AFAIK) from Viet Nam.
Video tapes had to be airlifted to the states.
Everything is now moving almost literally at the speed of light, or electrons or whatever.
We see it here while it's happening.
I do believe if there had been this technology in Viet Nam we'd have been out a lot sooner.

Y'all are SMART!

[tsipple]

18. Remember Somalia?

It is possible that, within weeks, some international press will capture video of dead Americans dragged through the streets of (insert favorite Iraqi city here), with cheering citizens as backdrop. I wonder how the U.S. public would react in that event.

I certainly hope this scenario does NOT come to pass. I'm obviously rooting for our side and a successful transition to peaceful democratic government. The challenges are formidable, though.

[Beetwasher]

4. He doesn't have an out

He can't use another war to distract and anything else would be too obvious as a wag the dog. Another terror attack would only underscore the massive intel failures we've already had. That being said, I'm withholding judgement on him being done for. They've weaseled out of too much before and too many powerful people have a stake in covering for him. However, I do like what I'm seeing, the veneer has been lifted and it's open season.

[caledesi]

11. Summed it up beautifully BW.

He is handcuffed concerning any other war venture and Karl Rove must be pissed bec he wanted to run ol' W as the "wartime" president...all war all the time

Yes another terrorist attack and people will now say "what is wrong with our "intelligence"....


Things don't look good for these thugs and I can't wait to see every one of them go down.

[Mechatanketra]

5. Because they aren't taking credit for it.

To the best of my knowledge, the CIA isn't saying "We fed him a bogus report", they're just saying "Well, I guess maybe we could have stuffed him in a sack and sat on him, but we didn't. Our bad."

Personally, I don't think Bush's goose is cooked right now ... but it can be. At this point, it's a question of will: if his opponents go for the jugular, he's vulnerable. If they let the moment pass, the opportunity probably won't return.

[On the Road]

6. People are Saying This . . .

because that the Niger uranium story has (1) brought the media into attack mode, (2) made the administration look like liars to every politically savvy person anywhere, (3) given ammunition old enemies (the 911 Committee, for example) who are in a position to pursue the attack on other fronts, and (4) created powerful new enemies when Rice blamed the CIA.

This is a powerful combination. Maybe it will fade -- it needs new developments to stay in the news. But there are many people in this town who want to keep the heat on, and there is a media that seems suddenly open to running stories like these.

Bush will run for reelection unless there's a Watergate-style smoking gun, like an incriminating tape recording, that causes him to lose so much support that he's a guaranteed loser next year. Even then, I think he'll ignore his advisors and run anyway. However, I think that kind of smoking gun is unlikely.

[trof]

8. Key phrase:

"politically savvy people"
Are there enough of us?
Based on local experiences I'm not optimistic.

[On the Road]

14. The Reason "Politically Savvy People" are Important

is because they form the basis for future consensus. I'm not talking about DU'ers so much as influential and mid-level people who read the Post or the WSJ because they need to be informed. They may or may not be partisan.

Without saying a word, it's plain as day now to a critical mass of people that the administration lied and is covering up. Maybe this incident will blow over, but the perception will not. They have lost their virginity.

[Jonte_1979]

9. I agree with you

Bush is not done by a long shot.

[iH8repukes]

10. I think the reports of Bush's "death" are greatly exaggerated.

By the'04 election, nuclear threats from Korea and Iran will on the front page of every newspaper along with story after story about sleeper cells of Al Quada operatives in the U.S.

The question upon which the election will turn is "who will do a better job of protecting America".

All this Iraqi "scandal" has proven is that Bush will OVERREACT to a perceived threat. That is what the majority of Americans want . . . a president who will overreact and not underreact like we did on 9-11.

Unless somebody comes forward and says they personally told Bush that the Niger document was forged, then no one will be able to prove Bush knowingly lied.

I feel sorry for all the people who are celebrating Bush's imminent defeat. I'm afraid their celebrations are much, much too premature. Kinda like the repukes celebrating Clinton's problems with a 19 year old intern. They were absolutely convinced Clinton was going down too. I'm waiting until I see a poll that shows a democrat firmly in the lead before I believe Bush will lose.

Gore in '04

[roughsatori]

12. He is not toast and he will not be impeached

We must not stop fighting. He still has the corporate media on his side. We must concentrate on winning the election. It is wishful thinking that claims. He is not--but the heat has finally been turned on.

[Coffee Coyote]

13. I get in trouble for saying so

I have long made the derision of "BushToast" a hobby here in GD. Even being diplomatic, reasonable, and nice about it will get you flamed.

People have the right to keep digging in the manure and looking for that pony somewhere. I will retain my right to poke 'em with a reality check.

What galls me is that some of these toast people think that theirs is the ONLY way to be optmistic. I say 'phooey' - we can be optimistic in countless ways. Endlesslesy clamoring that he is 'done' isn't the only way to feed our hopes and wishes. Bush will be toast on either one of two dates: January 20, 2005, or January 20, 2009, which will be much less sweeter for us, since it means he got away with it all.

We all WANT this latest news to be his demise, but as long as it contributes to his defeat next year, I will be satisfied.

[procopia]

15. Because...

what he did is the most reprehensible act imaginable: he risked American lives and detroyed another country, killing thousands of innocent people on the basis of lies. If this doesn't make him "toast," what in heaven's name would?

[iH8repukes]

17. Proof that he knowingly lied.

Seriously, if it is ever PROVEN that Bush personally KNEW that the British claim of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from west africa were false, he would have to step down or face impeachment.

We need that proof!!!!!

But there are a few problems with that. First, the British still stand by their claim. Second, no one has come forward with proof that Bush himself knew the British claim was false.

Gore in '04

[ButterflyBlood]

16. He's not toast, but he's weaker

He won't be impeached, he won't resign. But this is yet another chink in his armor, another nail in his coffin.