It should take a very long time to recover. The next administration must restore the US “influence” but not the “military might” that is so opposed by everyone. It should be noted that a friend living abroad mentioned to me that most people do like America and Americans but can’t stand Bush. Given that, there is still hope.

So how long will it take — after George Bush has left office — for our power and influence on the world stage to return to the level it was at in 2001?

Never. It's over. The world after 2008 will be different from the world in 2001. George W. Bush and his puppeteers squandered our reputation and our advantages. What they didn't waste, they stole. We're not getting it back.

The best we can hope for is to rejoin the ranks of solvent and respectable nations, working to earn back alliances that may counterbalance the growing power and influence of China and other countries that have profited from our mistakes.

The world after 2008 will be different from the world in 2001

And it would even if we weren't hitting peak oil about that time.

Um, never, Kev. We are a nation on the decline. It happens to every empire. Our consumption habits have simply put too much strain on our ability to forge a rational foreign policy, and we are incapable as a society of changing our ways until change is forced upon us by a catastrophe or, more likely, a series of catastrophes. Bush has crowned himself dictator, an executive above the law, who will not be reined in even by a two-house majority of Democrats. Two more years of his recklessness will simply put us further beyond redemption. We may have to go through a decade or two of chaos and authoritarian rule merely to recover our democratic system, if that; hoping for anything beyond that is simply out of the question.

If he had set out to willfully and deliberately expose our weaknesses to the world and undermine our strengths, he couldn't have done more to cripple America's power and influence in the world.

I'm telling you, he did set out to do just this. He and Cheney are Al Qaeda sleeper agents. No other explanation makes any sense.

Well, I guess except the possiblity that Georgie got levered into office as the public face of a bunch of corrupt megalomaniacs who just wanted power and money, but no actual responsiblity. But who would believe that?

GOSH Kevin! I don't think that I am the only one who is so sick of your posted views on things that are so important. How about if I just make some comments...."I just don't know","I can't make a decision","I am torn","It's not my pay-grade","I need more facts"ect.,ect.,ect,ect,ect........I would like to see a whole thread like that.You might as well be a Troll yourself!

"I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn." -- George W. Bush

Anyone who thinks we can just continue on down the primrose path for another 30 years is fucking delusional. This is the first of many energy wars to be fought over dwindling fossil-fuel resources. The industries that are sustained by these resources are being propped up, even though it is an exercise in futility because the resource is finite. (This topic makes my head explode. Fair warning.) How much progress could we have made toward alternatives with the money spent to fight for six months.

And what the hell has happened to the Apollo Alliance website?

So how long will it take after George Bush has left office for our power and influence on the world stage to return to the level it was at in 2001?

Recover? Kevin, you're deluding yourself. America has never been in a stronger position. When Clinton was in office, North Korea and Iran were building nukes knowing that Clinton would do nothing to stop them, Saddam was killing his own people and putting them in rape rooms and torture chambers while he was funding terrorists organizations, and Lebanon was under the control of Syria.

Today, North Korea and Iran are under threat of military attack if they try to create nukes. That's why they're demanding negotiations with America. They know without negotiations, America would destroy them and destroy their military capabilities. Today, the terrorists in Iraq are running in fear because they know the new free and democratic Iraqi government with the new Iraqi army are hunting them down and killing them one by one. And after the Cedar Revolution, which was inspired by Bush's liberation of Iraq, Lebanon is free and democratic free of Syrian influence. What could be a better situation than this?

They know without negotiations, America would destroy them and destroy their military capabilities.

How, pray tell? With what Army?

Frankly, the invasion gave Iran the decisive victory in the Iran-Iraq war - which we thought ended in the 80's, by the way. History takes the long view, but Americans do not.

Al, you are sniffing glue. What military would we attack North Korea or Iran with? We can't even put in the proper amount of troops in Iraq. We are destroying our National Guard system. There is no new Iraqi army; the shambles that exists is underperforming or infiltrated by insurgents--it cannot operate on its own. Israel just crushed the emerging democracy in Lebanon and Bush egged them on, pushing Lebanon closer to Hezbollah.

We'll be lucky if we get away with sinking into obscurity like Great Britain. With our arrogance, I would not be surprised if the next rising
giant(s) took it upon themselves to crush us.

4: We're winning in Iraq, and our exit strategy is victory. I'm starting to understand the liberal lies about Ira: No matter how succesful the project is, it will never be so wildly succesful that liberals can't pretend it's a failure. It's much how liberals obsess over the minor blemishes of corporate america, while ignoring the role it has in creating wealth and jobs.

Al, you're making even less sense than usual. Go to bed, for fuck's sake.

So how long will it take

I would say that a return to sanity would be welcomed almost immediately by most of the world. Of course, that isn't going to deter terrorists like Bin Laden from trying to attack us, so the real test will be what happens the next time we are attacked. Our subsequent reaction would be the true test of whether we've learned anything from Bush's mistakes.

If we react well, we'll be well on our way to re-establishing our credibility with our allies as well as with our enemies.

No matter how succesful the project is, it will never be so wildly succesful that liberals can't pretend it's a failure.

That's right! Like 600,000 dead! I mean, what the fuck is that? Surely we can kill more people faster - this Boosh character must be some kind of moron.

In Rwanda, they've managed to kill about a million of each other, and they've only got knives!

Man, America just isn't what it once was.

our exit strategy is victory.

Put down the crack-pipe. Victory is a desired outcome, but it is not an exit strategy, nor is it a battle plan.

We're winning in Iraq, and our exit strategy is victory

Retired generals say you're full of shit:

"All in all, Iraq is a failure of monumental proportions."

Adm. Stansfield Turner NATO Allied commander for Southern Europe, 1975-77; CIA director, 1977-81

"[Iraq is] a huge strategic disaster, and it will only get worse."

Lt. Gen. William Odom Director of the National Security Agency, 1985-88

"Iraq is a blood bath, and we need to be dealing with this in a much more sophisticated way than the cowboy named Bush.

Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence, 1997-2000

We have a force in Iraq that's much too small to stabilize the situation. It's about half the size, or maybe even a third, of what we need.

Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94

"Have you seen an American strategic blunder this large? The answer is: not in fifty years. I can't imagine when the last one was. And it's not just about troop strength. I mean, you will fail if you don't have enough troops, but simply adding troops won't make you succeed.

Gen. Wesley Clark NATO supreme Allied commander for Europe, 1997-2000

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6593163/the_generals_speak/

Note: these quotes were from November 2004, back when the situation in Iraq was a LOT better than it is now.

I'm convinced only the very dim troll here anymore.

I'm afraid we'll never recover our position in my lifetime, but I am truly frightened for my children and grandchildren. The world they grow up in will be totally different than that which I remember.

McCaffrey, Zinni, Clark, Odom, Shinseki, Powell, McPeak, Eaton - and those are just off the top of my head.

Flag-rank officers speaking out against the policies of a sitting CinC is unprecedented.

Bush is not an Al Queda sleeper agent, he is a Chinese one.

He has just pushed up the timetable for them to be the dominant world power - both economically and militarily - by decades.

If you have kids, get them learning Mandarin early.

To address Kevin's original question: The so called “blueprint” is a feint – nothing but a bone tossed to people who are teetering on the edge of loosing faith in the administration's handling of the Iraq war. It's like the “compassionate conservative” slogan – it allows the many deluded people who really want to vote Republican but have doubts to reassure themselves that somehow Bush will do the right thing. It's a standard Rovian ploy, and as always, millions of people will fall for it.

Of course, Bush is unable to “do the right thing” when it come to Iraq. A withdrawal without total victory would be a total repudiation of everything Bush has stood for since 9/11/01. No doubt many advisors inside and outside of the government are telling him that the war is lost and, in effect, every additional life lost is a life wasted. But Bush lacks the humility, introspection, and depth of character to let that possibility enter into his thinking. We went to war with the president we had, not the one we wanted and deserved. Now we as a nation, and more importantly, hundreds of thousands of innocent souls have paid and will continue to pay the price until Bush's time runs out and his successor inherits grim task of bring it all to an end. Bush will retire and comfort himself if the certain knowledge that he was always right and it was only the next administration that lacked the vision fortitude to succeed. A Shakespearian tragedy being played out in real life.

God help us.

aa

Not only is he a mole, he flaunts it:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

The problem isn't Bush so much as it is that Americans have proven themselves incapable or uninterested in electing sane leaders. If Bush had lost in 2004, his miserable regime could have been written off as an aberration. But he didn't, so it can't.

I agree with bobbo's contention that America is in decline. There is no longer any generally-agreed idea of what it means to be American. We no longer excel at anything except entertainment and consumption. The things that make a country an exemplar, that make a country dynamic, are social and cultural: how intelligent and wise we are; how inventive and innovative we are in dealing with social changes and needs; how self-sufficient we are.

America as a whole fails on all counts. Our culture and our politics celebrate ignorance, brutishness, and display. We've outsourced our manufacturing base. We don't encourage the sciences; our kids don't even study math and science. We don't encourage fine arts or literature, preferring entertainments that are simplistic, flattering, and require no thought or introspection at all. We don't encourage thinking, period.

These are characteristics of a senescent culture, not a dynamic one.

I have a feeling the bar for these "milestones" will be set unrealistically high, and the consequences for not meeting them will be the withdrawal of more American troops. This will set up the Iraqis to take the blame for the Administration's failure, and their country's further descent into chaos.

Regarding how long it will take for the resuscitation of the U.S., the answer is never. A decline was of itself inevitable -- just look at a)history and b)global demography -- but a process which would have taken two generations plus has been accelerated. It is irreversible.

Well, who know the actual limits of this president's incompetency - probably the closest thing humankind have come in the way of infinity... But in any case, the scenario itself seems quite classical - we'll get positive sounds of a new course prior to the election and after that there is a speedy return to the reality of this utter disaster. This game was played to exhaustion during the Vietnam era. One wonders whether it will change the basic dynamics of the election but probably it gives some cover to the Republicans who are dropping "stay the course" faster than light (remember, just a couple of months back that very thing was still the equivalent of treason...) Where the grim reality itself was powerless to change the course, polls have turned out to be effortlessly stronger. Talk about playing politics with national security.

Recover? Kevin, you're deluding yourself. America has never been in a stronger position.

Lord God.

So how long will it take — after George Bush has left office — for our power and influence on the world stage to return to the level it was at in 2001? When I'm in a good mood, I figure five years. Realistically, ten years is probably more like it. And when I'm in a bad mood? Don't ask. It's really all very depressing.

I don't really know what the question means, but I suppose if you're asking about American "power and influence," you want to know when we can call the shots like the good old days. Well, let's hope the answer is never. And that's not depressing. It's liberating.

Better we live in a world where power is shared among a number of players. That so many in this country believe it is our birthright as Americans to be Masters of the Universe is the only thing that's depressing. The PNAC vision of the country has done nothing to help our cause, but it has done irreparable damage to the special qualities of our heritage that made us a great nation.

Truth is, we had a unique opportunity in 2001. We were, one, the only superpower on the face of the earth, and two, on the receiving end of the world's sympathy after 9/11. We could have led the nations of the world in any number of ways. And frankly, we fucked up. We blew it. We showed the world that we cannot be trusted.

We'll see better presidents come along, but let's hope that power to do anything with impunity is a thing of the past. It would only lead to abuse anyway. Let's get over it, and over ourselves.

President Bush's Iraq "victory strategy" consists of scrambling to find any way to give the appearance of victory in a chaotic situation over which he now, in reality, has limited influence.

43's team barged into office on the slimmest of margins with a "Step aside, let us show you how it's done" kind of arrogance. But the neocons blindly mistook having power for knowing when and how to use it.

We can begin to restore America's influence in the world by electing a Congress right now that can demonstrate to the international community America understands the power inherent in being responsible world citizens. Build from there.

How long will it take? Well, it will go alot faster if we impeach the bastards (that's Bush and Cheney) and start the process moving. Then we can get rid of Rumsfeld too.

That influence may never return. Look at history, over and over it is the case that what took centuries to build in the way of nations are quickly undone in a short time by a bad ruler. The nation often never recovers and just goes into a decline until it disappears. Bush and his cohorts act like they've been trying to champion the American way when in reality they've done more damage to country than if it had been invaded by hostile outside forces.

Despite my exterior cynicism, and a tendency towards snark, I firmly believe that a great American recovery is doable. Not only doable, but doable in remarkably short order. Of course we will need to get our ducks in a row and pay a karmic toll.

That is why we need Barack Obama to run for and win the presidency. He is one of the sharpest pencils in the pack; he has had an internationalist up-bringing; he is charismatic; he can, and, will change the world’s perception of America. The visuals alone would send an important message around the world, “America is growing up!”

Great people can manage great things….

"sensible" middle course (Kevin)

I don't think a middle course will work. The responsible thing to do (which we won't even consider) would be to flood Iraq with a million American and allied soldiers and police and hundreds of billions of nation building dollars for ten or twenty years.

Of course the irresponsible thing would be to wash our hands of the mess we've created.

What we will do is try various middle courses until we finally give up and get the hell out. The only good that will come of it is that American militarist jerks will be reluctant to invade any more countries for a while.

Timetable?
We're on a timetable now except it's unstated.The operating principle remember has been that as Iraqis stand up,we'll stand down.The problem with that principle as well as why the "timetable" to be proposed is a feint,is seen in Balad.
The DoD has proudly announced each time an Iraqi unit has taken over an area.The Iraqi 4th Army division supposedly took over the area around Balad.And once they did,the attacks began anew and the Iraqis,I suppose,sat back down and the US stood back up.
We haven't adequately supplied these Iraqi units with weapons and equipment,like Humvees and battle tanks and artillery.We and our allies have given them old Eastern Bloc equipment like AK-47s,Gaz and Naz trucks and Hungary donated the tanks.

We can't afford to properly quip these units for fear they turn on our units but without proper equipment,there's little chance they can suppress the terrorists. The only way the Iraqis could do the job,would be superior leadership and there is no real evidence of that.

So,a proposal that would look like a timetable will be as empty a promise as "as Iraqis stand up,we'll stand down".
Personally,I think the administration just likes to poke the citizenry in the eye to see how long the wingers can take it.The liberals are pissed but (mostly) unarmed.

This lede was posted on CNN.com (emphasis mine):

A senior U.S. State Department diplomat causes embarrassment in Washington after telling Arab satellite network Al Jazeera that there is a strong possibility history will show the United States displayed "arrogance" and "stupidity" in its handling of the Iraq war. The White House has distanced itself from the comments.

On another note, I know I'm paranoid but you know all this giddyness about what the polls are showing for the Dems is reminiscent of recent times. I mean the last several elections. Will this be a repeat wherein people are allowed to get their hopes high only to have them dashed by once again having the polls and election rigged? Is this some twisted game by the foul creatures in office? Well it's the middle of the night so allow me a bit of paranoid speculation.

One other thing. You know I've never been comfortable with the Repugs having the noble elephant as their mascot. Except for girth the elephant is nothing like them. Thus after careful consideration I believe their mascot would be more accurately pictured as a fat pig. A swine. They're loud, violent, greedy and love to wallow in mud. Just look at Rove's or Limbaugh's puffy mug and you'll instantly see the resemblemce. Seriously.

I've often said that Bush's failures - foreign and domestic - would screw up this country for as long as I'm alive.
For the record, I'm 45.

1) the "blueprint", like the road map and 'victory strategy in Iraq' are all bull, all theater. First and foremost, the situation in Iraq is completely out of American control - no one is really listen or cares. But also, the bushliar-criminal regime is incapable of putting together an effective strategy for anything, and the ones driving the bus have no desire to change course even if they were capable. So the "blueprint" if it emerges is meaningless.

2) its some leap of faith to assume that the US will ever recover from the reign of bush terror and destruction of the US. First of all, we haven't even started on any kind of road to recovery - we are still hurtling on the dissent to totalitarianism. The capabilities that enabled the bushlier-criminal reigme to gain, maintain, and grab power are fully functional, including a majority mindset completely devoid of principle whereby the ends justifies any means, and the media is fully on-board with enabling republican lies, deceptions, distortions, and manipulation. That bush could run a close race in 2004, that shredding the constitution could pass congress and which shredding could occur without widespread outrage, that bush could maintain a 35% approval rating inspite of all that is known about him, that there still is no functioning opposition, that the republican totalitarian threat is not recognized by the most...these all point to fully functioning totalitarian machinery: the mindset, the media enabling, the destruction of protections for dissent, religious influence in government, a leaderless opposition.

Bush may or may not complete the total implementation of totalitarianism in America - his successor may need to; the midterm elections may or may not slow down the dissent to totalitarianism, but a turn around - nothing on the horizon as yet.

I heard Bush say last night that he was considering a change in tactics, but not in his goal.

I've forgotten what the goal is, in the meantime. To win? Win what? Where is there a gain for any American, other than the war profiteers?

So how long will it take — after George Bush has left office — for our power and influence on the world stage to return to the level it was at in 2001?

As we all tend to have a self-inflated view of our power and influence, I'd say our power - economically and militarily - is exactly the same. We can blow the planet up still, so we remain one of the gorillas in the room.

Our influence is mainly down on the ethical scale, and will remain so till we have an ethical President in power for a few years, someone who reassures the world that sanity's returned.

But if you mean the influence of our political leaders over every Dick, Jane, Jose, Giuseppe, Maria, Olga, Wen-hu and Kahlil in the world, I'd say that's largely irrelevant. Most folks are too busy getting on with life to trust our politicians or their own.

Powerful people in other governments will still listen to pur leaders because they wield sufficient power that they cannot be ignored. Among the commonfolk, everyone but extremists and the easily misled recognizes that even a good people can marry abusive, idiotic psychopaths with a God-complex.

They only get worried if we divorce them to marry another who's the same.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican congressman responsible for protecting minors online and calling for more severe penalties for internet predators, Mark Foley, made friends with a wide circle of teenaged U.S. House of Representatives pages, then singled out "hot" boys to write to. A former top aide to Foley said he told senior aides to GOP house leader Dennis Hastert about Foley's behavior three years ago, but Republican leaders said they did not know about the explicit e-mails sent by Foley before media reports. Four more former pages have now said they were sexually solicited by Foley. One said Foley sent him e-mails years ago when he was 16 asking about "my roommates, if I ever saw them naked" and said Foley hinted about a GOP job opportunity "because I was a hot boy". Two years later the page wrote Foley to ask about hotels in Washington. "You could always stay at my place. I'm always here, I'm always lonely, and I'm always up for oral sex," he quoted Foley as saying in reply. Another former page said he felt he had to flirt with Foley. Foley has said he is a homosexual and an alcoholic. "I didn't want to piss off a member of an institution that I really revered," the former page said. "I figured maybe someday I will want to be involved in Congress. I didn't want to make an enemy."

2 Things:

1.Re Iraq:

Recently I have come up with the "Producers" paradigm. Suppose, like the Broadway play, it were possible to make money by assembling backers for a war and then losing it on purpose so you didn't have to pay any of them back. Suppose we had asked the Producers to plan and execute the War and Post-War phases:do you think they could have done any worse?

2. American Influence:

Yes, our reputation and influence have suffered greatly under the Bush Administration, but we can still come back. Whether it likes it or not, the World still needs us. Once a responsible administration takes over you will see a huge resurgence in U.S. influence.

James M.

Sadly, I agree with the many who believe AMERICA has lost it's luster...and, that getting it back will take decades. Often happens to BULLYS...still, when my daughter (and, perhaps son-in-law - he expresses NO POSITION) is beginning to have her EYES OPENED...they like to throw around the "WE'RE CHRISTIANS" talk but are finally noticing that the things that JESUS (who is ALL YOU NEED in their opinion) proclaimed and required are at the bottom of the LIST, they are wondering. In fact I KNOW my daughter won't be voting Republican this year...whether or not she votes at all I'm not sure of. SLOWLY one person at a time good old GWB is disillusioning his base! Is there enough time left before he completes the destruction of OUR democracy???

Very unlikely the U.S. can stop the decline let alone come back. The outlines of peak oil and climate change are becoming apparent now. Europe will align with Russia, who supplies their energy, or freeze. China will listen to us precisely as long as Americans can afford to import from them, which is not much longer. We have severely damaged our manufacturing base and have no way of getting enough exports to eliminate the trade deficit, let alone to get enough money to pay off the national debt.

Worse, the elites in the U.S. will continue on the present course to keep their own personal gravy trains running.

免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 两性生活 性教育片 两性健康 性爱图片 免费激情电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 免费电影在线看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸图片 美女祼体图片 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 强暴图片 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 强奸小电影 自拍裸体 美女床上自拍 黄色电影下载 在线色情电影 裸露美少女 av美女贴图 色情电影下载 同志图片 性爱视频 明星露点 激情写真 女性阴部 美女乳房 美女裸照 性激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 妹妹贴图 美女做爱图片 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人图片 人体写真 美女手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情 另类铃声 联通铃声下载联通手机铃声 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 搞笑手机铃声 个性铃声 dj铃声 唱得响亮铃声 手机铃声图片 高频铃声下载 手机铃声格式 搞怪铃声 比特铃声 自编铃声 adp铃声 七彩铃声 经典手机铃声 最新手机铃声 手机铃声制作 诺基亚手机铃声 小灵通铃声 移动手机铃声 手机动画 手机彩图 手机铃音 手机铃声论坛 短信铃声 来电铃声 音乐铃声 歌曲铃声 铃声试听 手机壁纸 彩色铃声 v3铃声下载 手机待机图片 免费手机图片 三星手机图片 手机mp3下载 手机主题 如何制作手机铃声 真人原唱和弦铃声 qd铃声下载 经典铃声 联通手机彩铃 神奇铃声 最新铃声

Doubt if this plan will be presented to al-Maliki by the end of the year. It will probably be presented to Iyad Allawi, the strongman. Is it not great to be an empire? You get to depose at will. Once George gets the hang of it, he can move on to the Governors of New Mexico and Washington.

How long? Depends. IF there's a (pardon the expression) largely bi-partisan rejection of the neo-con approach, maybe 10 years with good leadership and some serious luck.

Keep in mind that the Bush administration has greatly reduced our effective capacity. On the other hand, the rest of the world (even China and even Chavez) really wants us to play a leadership role.

So how long will it take — after George Bush has left office — for our power and influence on the world stage to return to the level it was at in 2001?

If we don't try any more insane adventures, America could recover as much as it will recover within five years. But the world is growing faster than America is growing. That can be good if we're wise enough to join something bigger and better.

The American political elite, Republicans and Democrats, believe in the idea of a functional American empire. The American people are pretty much OK with it, too, except for one vital detail-they refuse to pay the price of running one.
We can't project economic power because we're now based on a system where consumption is all. We can't project military power. Want to see riots in the streets? Install a draft.
That leaves persuasion and hard work. Yeah, our government's always up for those.
I don't think we're an empire in decline so much as we're a lame duck empire. We're nominally in charge, but no one listens to us, because they're waiting to see what comes next.

republicans are very skilled in the art of making democrats look bad and preventing them from acheiving any of their goals: review 1994 to 2000 if you doubt it. If you think for a second that bush would in anyway go along with a democratic controlled congress, your an idiot. So the options for the next two years include:

** a rubberstamp republican controlled congress that gets nothing done because most of the country hates them
** a democratic controlled congress that bush stonewalls and the republican/corporate media alliance scapegoats for everything that doesn't get done - 'see democrats can't do any better than republicans'
** or a split congress that bush just laughs at because they can't do anything but accuse each other of being incompetent.

So...
** bush only wants to stay the course (he could never pull out because he'd look worse thn poppy).
** There is no one to implement anyhthing else over bush's objections.
** the "blueprint" excercise is nothing more than election cycle politics - never to be heard from again 3 weeks hence.

The US will have no means of starting recovery for at least 2 years, short of impeaching and removing bush and cheney, which in and of itself would take 2 years.

see ya in 2009 (if there is anything left of the US).

Three more Marines killed in the Anbar Province, however, DOW hits record high.

Seventy Eight US troops killed so far in October, however more people own their own homes.

Thousands upon thousands of Iraqi citizens killed and maimed so far, however, American citizens have unprecedented wealth due to tax cuts.

Remember, liberals, We must fight them over there, so Jenna and Barbara do not have to fight them in country and western bars over here.

Timeline:

1) Sectarian violence doubles again
2) Blair steps down and Great Britain pulls out
3) Sectarian violence triples
4) US troops retreat to bases, decide to rely on artillery and laser guided bombs to keep the peace
5) McCain/Gore/Richardson pull out from all but 8 permanent bases. These are kept so that they can keep fighting terrorists with artillery and laser guided bombs. 2/3 of Iraq is labled a no terrorist fly zone.
5) Iraqi PM writes famous obscenity laced snarky rebuttal to American state of the union speach. Quotes Bin Laden 4 times. US renogiates with laser guided bombs.
6) China uses this as excuse to stop shipping clothing to the US, dumps US treasury bonds.
. . .

Never.

Reese Schoenfeld - "It's time to get down. In fact, it's impossible not to be down. By now it is clear that Iraq is a war of deceit and defeat. It is equally clear that our political choice is between the incompetent and the impotent. Superpowers should be defined as having nuclear capability, energy surplus and a sound currency. We no longer qualify."

"Under accelerating incompetence in America, this may change. Social systems can survive a good deal of folly when circumstances are historically favorable, or when bungling is cushioned by large resources or absorbed by sheer size as in the United States during its period of expansion. Today, when there are no more cushions, folly is less affordable." Barbara Tuchman "The March of Folly"

"It is unclear how much longer the world will trade Americans real goods for pieces of paper that the US economy cannot redeem with tradable goods and services." - Paul Craig Roberts: 'Artificial recovery, real job losses'

"It makes many angry that, in a time when America seems to be strip-mining its environment, its credit and its people, we are ruled by the most reactionary American political party to take power since the days when strikers were shot by state militia units, a party that has chosen not to address any of these problems, but instead, tells us that all will be well." Sterling Newberry

An unfair libel of the porcine: >>A swine. They're loud, violent, greedy and love to wallow in mud.

In point of fact, pigs are generally acknowledged to intelligent and clean - we're the ones who keep them in squalid conditions.

"America's power and influence in the world"

As we can see, both parties are afflicted with this idea that the rest of the world can't survive without our "leadership," without an American empire or hegemony or globocop or whatever. Which is why I have little hope that things will change for the better with the Dems in power.

Barney gives me great military advice. He assure me that victory is just around the corner!

So how long will it take — after George Bush has left office — for our power and influence on the world stage to return to the level it was at in 2001?

My father asked the doctor a similar question shortly before he died.

"Timetables", "plans", "blueprints" - they're all just liberal code words for surrender.

In the end the American people know that our great president is resolutely pursuing Victory - nothing more, nothing less

I agree with Kevin that things aren't going well in Iraq. After that, I have some disagreements, several of which have been mentioned already.

1. Does the US have less power and influence in the world than we did in 2001 Let's see: in 2001, the Taliban/al Qaeda ruled Afghanistsn... NK was secrectly violating it's agreenments and developing nukes...Libya was developing nukes... Saddam had kicked out the UN weapons inspectors and was masively cheating on the oil-for-food program, while developing an enormous military... Syria controlled Lebanon by military force...the Palestinians routinely sent suicide bombers into Israel. In short, our alleged power and influence were nowhere to be seen in 2001.

2. Did the US have a reputation for being able to win guerrila wars before Bush came into office? Of course not. We failed to win such a war in Vietnam and haven't tried since. Our lack of success in Iraq merely confirm what the world already believed.

3. Is any country particularly good at winning guerrila wars against determined and ruthless enemies. No. Look around the globe at Northern Ireland, Peru, Colombiam, etc. Guerrial wars typically can last for decades.

4. Bush's failure to win a guerilla war should be balanced against his willingness and ability to win a traditional war. Our military did a terrific job in ousting the Taliban and then Saddam much more quickly than their critics predicted. As long as Bush is in office, tyrants fear US power. That's why Libya gave up their nuclear program. Similarly, Bill Clinton deserves credit for effectively intervening against tyrants in the Balkans, even though post-war conditions aren't ideal.

It should be quite obvious that BushCo knows quite well how to wage a propaganda war: they "won" the presidency in 2000, gained congressional seats in 2002, and won the presidency again 2004.

You may object that you were talking about America winning propaganda wars, but there you presuppose that they care about America except as a prize to be seized by the GOP.

Sadly, even when this President hints that he is willing to look at alternative strategies, he uses language that further fuels the flames of fanaticism. In defining the goal of those who oppose us as a clash of civilizations, whereby he asserts that they seek to "extend the caliphate", he once again obfuscates the potential for reasoned clarity and measured dialogue. Unfortunately, I'm not sure he has the discipline needed to restrain his confrontational outbursts. Further, it has yet to be seen if he can moderate his goals to match that which can reasonably be achieved in Iraq and the Middle East.

The larger question is if this President can accept the more modest goals to be offered by Baker's task force or if they will be met by resistance or even a campaign to discredit. It is increasingly difficult to determine where George Bush's convictions end and his need to be right might begin. He has held fast to the argument that he isn't concerned with polls or politics and yet his reported convictions continue to evolve to fit the changing circumstances. The essential question is how he actually views the concept of adaptation. The evidence suggests that he prefers to adapt his rhetoric to fit the circumstances rather than adapts his strategy to address the realities. As he receives this important report, I fear the former...but I'm hoping for the latter.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Let's see now, according to ex-liberal the military did a terrific job in ousting Saddam.

Saddam kicked out the UN weapons inspectors because he knew it was humiliating, it was a fishing expedition and because he had no WMDs. NK exploding nukes. Syria controlled Lebanon by military force, and the Israelis made it all better by bombing Lebanon back to the stone age. TRhe Palestinians routinely sent suicide bombers into Israel, and still do and will as long as they perceive regional inequity.
Hundreds of billions in debt now, hundreds of thousands of lives lost in Iraq, a country that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 911. Thousands of American troops dead. An invigorated radical Islamist military (they love war as much as the Bush boys). Bogged down in a losing war. The rest of the world hates us. OBL still on the loose.

Yes, the sweet smell of success.

By the way Kevin, any way of banning mmf铃声 (lami2@126.com)?

Taliban/al Qaeda ruled Afghanistsn

False. Al Qaeda had zero governing power in Afghanistan; they were a miniscule presence in the corner of the country living in camps. Once again you don't know what you're talking about. Secondly, as bad as the Taliban were by Western standards, they were the first group in a decade able to bring some law and order to a country that had been churning in the chaos of civil war, and the average Afghani respected them for that.

Saddam had kicked out the UN weapons inspectors and was masively cheating on the oil-for-food program, while developing an enormous military

That is ridiculously untrue. It's clear from how the war progressed that Saddam's military was neither enormous nor effective.

Here's Gen. Zinni's analysis:

"I saw the intelligence right up to the day of the war, and I did not see any imminent threat there. If anything, Saddam was coming apart. The sanctions were working. The containment was working. He had a hollow military, as we saw. If he had weapons of mass destruction, it was leftover stuff -- artillery shells and rocket rounds. He didn't have the delivery systems. We controlled the skies and seaports. We bombed him at will. All of this happened under U.N. authority. I mean, we had him by the throat."

Gen. Anthony Zinni Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000

Please discontinue posting blatant falsehoods. The eight-grade analytics are bad enough as it is.

"the military did a terrific job in ousting Saddam"

Yeah, that rush northward from Kuwait will be studied by military experts and historians for years - Especially, how they were able to stave off that tremendous Iraqi Air Force which Saddam hurled at them. Hard to imagine the sheer terror faced by those tankers when Saddam's Herman Goering Squadrons of Stukas dove out of the sky.

So many aces created that day in what will be forever known as "The Battle of Baghdad", or is that the current ground war.

Never so few and all that.

Paul - go check your email. I have arrived.

Craigie Why don't you think anyone will buy the idea GWB is the front for megalomaniacs who just want power and money ? In a heartbeat.
Pluege You're a new name to me. Your 6:55 pm and 9:13 am comments are among the most singularly compelling on the thread.
One of the absolutely scariest pieces I've seen lately originated at GlobalResearch.ca. If GWB and friends haven't completely shot their wad the nightmare may have scarcely begun. Sorry, it's a long link. Apologies Kevin. You guys will have to pull the link from Oct 20 at http://opit.wordpress.com/

So how long will it take — after George Bush has left office — for our power and influence on the world stage to return to the level it was at in 2001?

We won't live that long. Our relations in the world had great foundations, and the Republicans have dug them up and thrown them away for their own selfish interests.

Now too many other world-power options are fast evolving, China, India, 'all-of-Islam', unified Europe, and that we have to become significantly engaged with Mexico, all of which will limit our ability to move arbitrarily in anything.

Thanks, George!

When do we return to the level we were before Bush? As soon as we elect an intelligent adult to the office. It isn't like filling a swimming pool.

The hard question is when do we elect an intelligent adult as president.

"Stay the Course" is still #5 on the "Top 10 GOP Sound Bites List."

I have arrived! This post was the featured link on Top Ten Sources.

I'm liable to be insufferable for a while. Yesterday, I was on the same page with Matthew Parris from the Times of London. I want to get all heady about it, but pride goeth before the fall...

Here is that Global Research link that Opit referenced. Everything on that page is worth reading.

The US will regain its moral infuluence when Cheney and Bush are impeached and sent to the Hague to be tried as war criminals- odds 1 in 100 to 1 in 10,000.

influence

Take your pick: (a) They're serious about this....

I think the answer is (d) Bush needs a way to evade accountability for the Iraqi debacle, and a timetable is just the thing.

Let's face it, he can't blame himself or anyone in his cabinet for the ongoing problems in Iraq as that would make them look weak by essentially admitting to a mistake.

So he's going to blame the Iraqis.

Give them a timetable they obviously can't meet, "tut tut" when they fail to meet it, and use their "lack of cooperation" as an excuse to begin pulling out of Iraq (leaving forces deployed at permanent bases, of course).

The Republican faithful already feel that the Iraqis are "ungrateful" for "all that we've done for them" (read the comments section of "Healing Iraq" for some utterly putrid examples of this). Pointing to an unmet timetable for "progress" is all this administration needs to convince their base that the Iraqis simply refuse to be helped, and hence the White House can't be blamed for the failures there.

We will never return to where we were in 2001. The Iraq invasion has demonstrated that the United States is no longer the superpower everyone thought it was 5 years ago. We are still a major player in the world, perhaps the most important player, but our dominance is no longer what it once was. Countries have also learned that they can thumb their noses at us (and I am talking about our European allies as much as our enemies), and while they may have to pay a price for it, they can still go their own way without any regard for us.

Give them a timetable they obviously can't meet, "tut tut" when they fail to meet it, and use their "lack of cooperation" as an excuse to begin pulling out of Iraq (leaving forces deployed at permanent bases, of course).

The circular firing squad being formed by neocons is trans-atlantic. From yesterdays Times of London:

It is no small thing to have embellished the philosophy, found the prose and made the case for the most almighty cock-up in politics that we are ever likely to witness. They meant for the best, these politicians, dreamers and writers. They didn’t think it would end like this. But it has: more killed than even Saddam could boast, and nothing to show for it but an exhausted British Army and the global energising of violent Islamism on a scale of which Osama bin Laden never dreamt.

Our British neocons have invested heavily in this ill-fated craft, and the wreck is total. How shall they be saved? Never fear. They’ve been working on the elements of a rescue plan. By Christmas all will be singing from the same sheet. All together, now, warrior-columnists and soon-to-be-former Cabinet ministers: one, two three . . .“The principle was good but the Americans screwed up the execution.”

Oh diddums, guys. Damned awful luck. You had this fantastic plan for invading a foreign country and harnessing a grateful populace behind your ideas for rebuilding an Arab nation along better lines — and then along come the Americans and make a mess of it. Now why in Heaven’s name would they do a thing that? Vandals.

It is not just Bush, after all. It is the coalition, which elected him.

The main trick in any political system is not to secure a majority for one party or the other, or for one political outlook or interest. It is to establish an implicit coalition of the sane and rational against the "radical" elements across the political spectrum.

FDR established such a coalition, when he used WWII to put a moderate, internationalist group, including the Bush family, in presumptive control of the Republican Party. McCarthy and Goldwater, notwithstanding, "bipartisanship" became a standard pattern for good governance. And, it should be noted that it was a pattern that allowed Democratic leaders to strategically isolate the reactionary Southerners in their own Party.

Bush is not an accident. His base elected him, because they see in him, themselves. To many Bush supporters, Bush's stupidity and ineptness is part of his appeal. Resentment is the dominating emotion motivating the mass of Republican voters, who are not rich.

If the Democrats have a chance of achieving an electoral majority it is because a relatively small slice of Republican voters, who are sane and rational, are sufficiently disturbed by what they see, to migrate to the Democratic Party.

It is possible that political power, itself, may migrate away from "bipartisanship" into the Democratic coalition, where moderates and liberals will forge practical compromises to move forward progressive reform, and isolating the irrational rump of the Republican Party. The Democratic moderates will derive significant support from Corporate America, which may be fatally corrupting, or not, and the liberals will derive support from a activist base and from the deep Blue, solid Northeast and West Coast.

The resentful, faux populism of the cynical Rovian Republican machine may continue to aspire to political leadership, but fail to galvanize an effective response from Democrats, and from moderate and progressive political sentiment in the Northeast and West. Or, the Rovians may find it relatively easy to corrupt and subvert rational and responsible governance from their privileged positions, kinda sorta out-of-power, but still in charge of the bulk of the corporate Media and the lobbying establishment.

windhorse and 3rd paul - it's easy in retrospect to point out weaknesses in Saddam's military. But, go back 3 or 4 years and read what libs were saying. They argued against making war on Saddam because he'd be so difficult to defeat. They said he had the 4th or 5th largest military in the world. They pointed to all his weapons stores. They said our soldiers would be incapacitated by the sand and heat. Etc.

Now that Saddam is overthrown, you guys have finally figured out what George Bush knew four years ago. Congratulations!

But, go back 3 or 4 years and read what libs were saying

"Libs" like myself were saying that it was clear from the overall intelligence that there were no WMD's, that they were clearly a trumped up charge to invade Iraq for other purposes -- and that the army would not be that difficult to defeat (and might in fact surrender, which some battalions did) but that Iraq's factions would obviously devolve into fighting with one another.

Now that all those predictions have been borne out, you have finally figured out what some "libs" knew four years ago. Congratulations.

Recover? how long did it take Rome to recover from Nero? This is the single greatest challenge of the next decade, will we remain relevant and in ascendency, or continue the long intermi