Bush's Second Term

What will Bush do in a second term, other than make the world more peaceful? Well, he's not about to give the secrets away.

Comments

[thoreau]

I doubt we'll see too much warfare in the second term. Without the worry of re-election he won't need any wars. He'll be able to devote his full attention to no-bid cost-plus contracts for cronies.

[thoreau]

Oh, and federal grants to religious organizations as well.

[hydroman]

Hope he stays in his religious compound in Crawford for the duration. We can send the BATF from Waco if we need him for intelligence briefings

[read between the lines...]

Actually he's already got some of his agenda already mapped out... if you can read into some of his comments.

From Fox news... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125939,00.html

Bush also accused Fidel Castro of exploiting children by encouraging a Cuban sex-tourism industry designed to draw cash to the impoverished island nation.

"The regime in Havana, already one of the worst violators of human rights in the world, is adding to its crimes. The dictator welcomes sex tourism," Bush said.

Bay of Pigs II anyone?

Or if you read more closely into it, Meese Commission II. According to some sources, AG John Ashcroft was prepared to wage a new jihad against the adult entertainment industry, but had to put that on hold because of 9/11. Now he's gearing up again for that crusade.

THERE is Bush's 2nd term agenda for you.

[zorel]

thoreau,

"Without the worry of re-election he won't need any wars ..."

Bush was a shoo-in for re-election BEFORE the Iraq war, and is not BECAUSE of the war.

What do you base your statement on?

[RAH]

Does anyone think Kerry will be any different? The man changes his policy depending on which way the wind blows?

Heaven forbid another terrorist attack - that spineless man will pick a country to attack (any country) just because the masses will be screaming for blood. Once the bombs start falling and the inevitable outcry starts, he'll turn around and give 'em hugs instead (meaning $600 billion in aid)

Oh well, better than Bush I suppose.

[Mayor Quimby]

If that's the way the wind is blowing, let it not be said that I don't also blow.

[Dan]

President Says U.S. to Examine Iran-Qaeda Tie

Bay of Pigs II anyone?

If I thought that Bush was actually going to take action against either the mullahs or Castro during his second term, I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about voting for Bush.

Or if you read more closely into it, Meese Commission II

... but, yeah, that's probably what we'll get instead.

As it is, I'm just voting for Bush because he's not Kerry.

[thoreau]

If I thought that Bush was actually going to take action against either the mullahs or Castro during his second term, I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about voting for Bush.

Are you talking about invasion, or do you have something else in mind?

Invading Iran seems both dangerous (who knows exactly how far along their nukes really are) and unnecessary (the reform process is underway, and given time the Iranian people will eventually fix things themselves).

Any sort of action against Castro seems doomed to fail. The man is immortal and will plague us forever, or at least until the time of the Gathering 🙂

[Rick Barton]

From a review of; THE BUSH BETRAYAL by James Bovard:

2004:http://www.lfb.com/index.php?deptid=843&parentid=26&stocknumber=CU8836&page=1&itemsperpage=24

Bush is expanding federal power and stretching prerogatives in almost every area that captures his fancy. Though Bush continually invokes freedom to sanctify himself and his policies, Bush freedom is based on boundless trust in the righteousness of the rulers and all their actions.

Even if Bush wins reelection, the more Americans who recognize the failures and frauds of his first term, the more difficult it will be for Bush to perpetrate new abuses in his second term. Americans must understand the Bush betrayal if they are ever to rein in the government.

Though this book focuses primarily on the blunders and deceits of Bush and his team, Democratic members of Congress are either complicit in or acquiescent to most of Bush's abuses. Democratic members of Congress as a group have been less vigilant and courageous in opposing misgovernment than were Republicans during the first Clinton administration.

James Bovard is fearlessly straightforward in laying out his views. And his analysis of the Administration will be one of the few in this election year that declines to buy into the malarkey of either the Left or the Right.

[Rick Barton]

And, Bush's almost total lack of principle have allowed the Dems to go to the ultra left with Kerry who is among the top five biggest spenders in the senate!

http://www.ntu.org/misc_items/rating/VS_2003.pdf

Check out the list and see how your rep and senatores score.

Here is a list of the most frugal mambers of the House:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=40

and the Senate:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=41

All Republicans in both cases, btw.

[Rick Barton]

If I thought that Bush was actually going to take action against either the mullahs...

Be careful now! Some of those mullahs are on the side of liberalization and any Bush "government action" would likely be even more ham-fisted than making Iran a member of some axis of evil, to say the least. Also, government "action against" Iran would not be fair to Americans because Iran is not a threat to our security.

How about this for a regime change plan for Cuba?:

Our government works out a deal allowing free trade with Cuba AND it insists on more freedom of expression in Cuba plus all media be allowed in as part of the deal. (so they can read Reason) Each of these two things would put pressure on Castro's brutal regime that it might not be able to resist.

Our government shouldn't be stopping private citizens from trading with Cuba anyway.

[Dan]

Are you talking about invasion, or do you have something else in mind? Invading Iran seems both dangerous (who knows exactly how far along their nukes really are) and unnecessary (the reform process is underway, and given time the Iranian people will eventually fix things themselves).

Well, "given time" the sun will expand and engulf the Earth. The Iranian people might overthrow the mullahs, but I have zero confidence that that will happen before Iran finishes developing nukes. As for how far along their nuke program is -- well, the fact that Tel Aviv and New York still exist proves, to me, that they don't have nukes yet.

Should we invade? I don't know. I have mixed feelings about it, and lean strongly towards "not unless it's the only way to stop their nuke program". But I do think we should be taking military actions against them -- pulling an Osirak on their research facilities, for starters, and responding to their various acts of war within Iraq by bombing their military bases. Assassinating each and every person who has ever been involved in acts of terror against the US. That sort of thing.

Also, I'd like to suggest smuggling as many weapons as possible into Iran. When the people finally rise up, they'll need to be armed.

[Rick Barton]

"the fact that Tel Aviv and New York still exist proves, to me, that they don't have nukes yet."

Pakistan and India both have had nukes for quite a while, yet both still exist. Iran has serious explosive ordinances that dwarf those used, for instance, in the OKC bombing. Aggressive action by our government would only make it more likely that we would be targets.

Also, I'd like to suggest smuggling as many weapons as possible into Iran. When the people finally rise up, they'll need to be armed.

There are other ways besides fighting. The situation is very fluid in Iran. Iran has real internal pressure for a freer society and a public discourse that is open in a way that is nothing like Iraq was, the Soviet Union until the very end in a few parts, and in Cuba today.

The reformers complained that the "axis of evil" speech hurt their cause. Note also that Iran has real elections. Those in power limit there effect when the wrong folks win, but they can't completely negate them. They are a good start.

If you want to help, go to their chat rooms:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Iranian+chat+rooms&btnG=Google+Search

Listen to what they have to say and tell them about the wonders of free enterprise and civil liberty. Tell them that the US government does hideous and stupid things that most private citizens would never do. Relate to them our struggles against the expansion of power by our own government and how much better it is to fight against state power when individual liberties are guaranteed

There are many Iranian entrepreneurs and others over here who travel back and forth and in other ways communicate with the Iranians back home. Some in the Iranian government complain that they are a bad influence on the polity of Iran. Good! Let's encourage more of it. Our government should let more of them in. . History provides many examples of tyranny wilting when it interfaces with liberty.

[c]

I think yesterday's headline tells us all we need to know about Term II:

President Says U.S. to Examine Iran-Qaeda Tie

[zorel]

I would also like to think we 'll whack the 'dear leader' in North Korea.

- warmonger

[Dan]

Pakistan and India both have had nukes for quite a while, yet both still exist.

Yes, but Pakistan and India are ruled by rational people, and Iran is not.

There are other ways besides fighting.

Look, the goal here isn't "a free Iran". The goal is "an Iran ruled by people who don't want to kill Americans". The mullahs have shown no willingness to share power. It doesn't matter what reforms are implemented, unless those reforms result in someone else ruling Iran. The Iranians can have all the freedom of speech and freedom of movement and freedom of trade they want, but that doesn't do the United States a lick of good unless the mullahs get replaced by people who *aren't* terror-supporting Muslim fanatics.

From the United States' point of view, the reformers have made precisely zero progress in the last twenty-five years. They don't *have* another twenty-five years to work with; they might not even have five years. They're on the clock, here. If Iran gets its hands on nukes, and a couple of 80-year-old religious fanatics decide that martyrdom doesn't sound so bad, New York is going to go up in a mushroom cloud. And about twenty-four hours later, we're going to turn the nation of Iran into a radioactive wasteland. Oh, and North Korea, which helped them with their nuke program. And Pakistan, for the same reasons. And probably a couple of other countries that I've forgotten, but which are known to have helped them.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Maybe he could commission a study at NIH to figure out how the hell John Kerry's face happened.

[Rick Barton]

"Pakistan and India are ruled by rational people, and Iran is not."

That doesn't seem like a rational assumption to me, certainly not anything to plan government aggression by.

"The Iranians can have all the freedom of speech and freedom of movement and freedom of trade they want, but that doesn't do the United States a lick of good unless the mullahs get replaced by people who *aren't* terror-supporting Muslim fanatics."

But that's just the point. Liberty makes it possible for people to get rid of leaders that endanger them.

Also, it doesn't follow that mullahs who are terror-supporting Muslim fanatics would necessarily nuke us if that had a chance because in this scenario that serves as pretext for aggressive US government action, you're assuming that the folks at the top of the Iranian government would be devoid of any desires for the survival of not just themselves, but of all the Iranian people.

But, it's more sure that the hands of anti- Americans in Iran are strengthened by aggressive US government action and this action to stop martyrdom could wind up spawning an awful lot of it.

[joe]

Rick,

"How about this for a regime change plan for Cuba?:

Our government works out a deal allowing free trade with Cuba AND it insists on more freedom of expression in Cuba plus all media be allowed in as part of the deal." Castro would be happy to say no to both. Who would he blame the state of his economy on if there wasn't an embargo by the Yanquis?

Dan, "Look, the goal here isn't "a free Iran". The goal is "an Iran ruled by people who don't want to kill Americans"." Sounds a lot like both Bushes' policies towards Arabia and the House of Saud. How's that working out?

[thoreau]

Also, I'd like to suggest smuggling as many weapons as possible into Iran. When the people finally rise up, they'll need to be armed.

Because supplying lots of weapons to a conflict in a Muslim nation has never, ever come back to bite us in the ass. Why, look at all of our involvement in Afghanistan. Nobody's ever attacked the WTC and Pentagon...

Oh, shit!

[thoreau]

On a less sarcastic note, I recall that some Iranian reformers have pleaded for the US to stay out. Support from the US, or even the perception of support from the US, could undermine their legitimacy in the eyes of Iranians who don't like the mullahs but are skeptical of the US gov't. (And since we supported the not-so-lovely shah, as well as selling weapons to the mullahs and aiding Saddam Hussein when he used WMD against Iranians in the 1980's, you can't really blame Joe Iranian for being skeptical.)

So I'd be reluctant to start arming resistance movements in Iran.

Then again, there are some on this forum who believe that any problem in the world can be solved if the US gov't just spends enough money on it. Well, any problem outside our borders, anyway.

[Dan]

Because supplying lots of weapons to a conflict in a Muslim nation has never, ever come back to bite us in the ass. Why, look at all of our involvement in Afghanistan. Nobody's ever attacked the WTC and Pentagon... Oh, shit!

What is it that you're claiming, here? That the Taliban attacked the WTC and the Pentagon? Or that we gave weapons to al Qaeda? That 9/11 wouldn't have happened if we hadn't sent weapons to Afghanistan? None of those claims are true. Indeed, even though al Qaeda used Afghanistan as a base of operations, it didn't need, or even use, Afghanistan for the 9/11 attacks. Those were financed by Saudis and other wealthy Arabs and carried out by people based in, and trained in, the western world.

Now, it *is* true that the Muslim victory over the Soviet Union convinced bin Laden that Islam could conquer all. But -- and this is an important but -- he believed that the United States was a *weaker* enemy than the Soviets, because we had a record of running home, with our tails between our legs, from virtually every conflict we'd entered since the 1960s. So an Islamic defeat in Afghanistan would not have convinced bin Laden to refrain from attacking America. Of course, this is a moot point; knowing what we know now, the mujahadeen would have won even without our help, simply because the Soviet Union couldn't afford to perpetually pacify a hostile, and practically valueless, nation. So the Soviets would still have been defeated, and al Qaeda would still have proceeded to attack the "weaker" secondary target, namely us.

On a less sarcastic note, I recall that some Iranian reformers have pleaded for the US to stay out

The United States needs to act in its interests, not those of the Iranians. If the two happen to intersect, as they did in Iraq, then that's a happy coincidence. Our goal must be to remove the Islamists from power in Iran before their nuke program is complete. The Iranian reformers are making no progress towards this goal. Furthermore, at present time they have no way of making progress towards that goal, because their only means of removing the mullahs from power is for the mullahs to voluntarily give it up. That's not going to happen for years (decades, probably), because it's not going to happen until the older generation dies out. I don't think the Iranian people have that kind of time.

Another thing to remember is that most leaders of any reform movement rank their priorities as follows: #1 they should be in charge, #2 reform should happen. Domestic examples include... well, almost every politician and activist, from Jesse Jackson to George Bush. So I am unsurprised to hear Iranian reformers criticize United States involvement, because US involvement tends to amount to "US control", which violates principle #1. I'm not ruling out the possibility that they're sincere; I'm just saying that they would react exactly the same way if they weren't.