Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Could Bush Save His Presidency Now?

I was thinking last night, what if Bush did decide to take drastic measures to save his presidency, would it work, or is it simply too late? What if he did get rid of Donald Rumsfeld and reached across the aisle, however short a distance, and replaced Rummy with Joe Lieberman? Such a move would likely provide a boost to his sagging poll numbers, but nothing would really change. Lieberman would keep the war going and “stay the course” as it were. And what if Cheney did resign, would it really make any difference beyond the political front? We all suspect that Cheney is the driving force behind Bush administration policy, but the course is already set, whether Cheney stays or not, and we know that Bush can’t admit mistakes, so a course correction is unlikely.

I am of the opinion that Bush could replace his entire cabinet with Democrats at this point, and all that would happen is Democrats would then share in the blame for this little tyrants future exploits. I don’t think anyone can get through to this man now, he is on his way to rock bottom, and like with most addicts, no one can save him from himself.

And things just seem to be getting worse and worse. The Bush administration has managed to isolate North Korea, and not in a good way, and now they are lashing out. “Pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States,” they say. There was little doubt that the Bush doctrine would come back to bite us on the ass, and how little Napoleon chooses do respond will probably only inflame the situation. Diplomacy is not his strong suit. When he does attempt it, he ends up either giving away the store or fueling the spread of anti-American sentiments. Short of tying him down and muzzling his petulant mouth, we are bound to see more blunders with dire consequences for our future, and at this point, no amount of cabinet shuffling will help. I doubt he’d even consider it anyway.


Anonymous Dale Hippert said...

Don't worry about N.Korea, they'll need to get off a 'lucky shot' against our 5/8 effective anti-missile system!

Seriously, suicidal terrorism notwithstanding, I don't see why Mutual Assured Destruction, more 'assured' for them than us, can't deter N. Korea and Iran as effectively as it deterred the USA and the Soviet Union
from attacking each other.

As for supplying nukes to terrorists, I think we can simply tell either 'nation', throw in Pakistan for good measure, that if there is a nuke/dirty bomb detonation on U.S. soil...well, they better hope it doesn't happen/work to prevent it from happening, because "we'll 'assume' it came from you". Don't mean to go all 'Dr. Strangeloveian' on you, but deterence works!

Plus, they KNOW we'll go absolutely bat shit and that we won't be doing CSI level investigating before teeing off!

Both those countries leaders also know that one MIRV'D (Multiple Idependantly Targeted Re-entry Vehicle)
missile from one Trident sub or one silo can 'drop off' up to 10 warheads, enough to end their 'societies' for generations.

I don't think the techno-literate generals in either of those two nations, knowing full well what will assuredly be 'on the way' from us, will ever follow the orders to 'shoot'.
I also think they'll be 'inventorying' their nuke bomb material most carefully.

As for the rest of it, we had our chance for an 'intervention' for the dry drunk in Nov of '04.
No dice. Have to wait for enough Dem Congressman to begin the investigations.

Before the Dec. 15 launch, it had been two years since a test. The program had gone five-for-eight in previous attempts to intercept a target.

Impact unclear
No date for the next test has been announced. It is unclear how continued test failures would affect two experimental interceptor bases in Alaska and California.

Those two bases, Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., are positioned to oppose the threat of attack from North Korea. Both are still classified as experimental but, officials say, they could fire interceptors in an emergency.

The Pentagon has not declared those bases “operational,” but officials say they would work anyway once certain mechanical blocks are removed from the interceptors themselves. Six interceptors are at the Alaska site, with two more in California as a backup. Up to 10 more will go into silos in Alaska this year, officials say.

11:02 AM  
Anonymous dave said...

I don't know if Bush could save his presidency, but from the GOP point of view he can save the NEXT presidency (if you want a GOP prez). I firmly believe that sometime after the Nov '06 elections, Cheney will resign, and McCain, Guiliani or some darkhorse Republican will be nominated for the VP. From the GOP's point of view, Cheney does them no good post 2006, as his 18% approval rating is just toxic for the party. I think the advantage of incumbancy, especially, if they choose someone who isn't a household name right now (George Allen?) would be a huge boon to the '08 GOP nominee.

9:36 PM  
Anonymous Dale Hippert said...

Dave, interesting premise.

However, appointing either McCain, or especially Guiliani, might piss off evangelicals.

Also, all three that you've mentioned may be apprehensive about being saddled with being part of an Administration they might be better off, increasingly, distancing themselves from.

Lastly, it may appear to be too much an 'annointment' from one, who if he were a priest, would've been defrocked by now!

4:45 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home