WHY GEORGE W. BUSH CAN'T WIN

WHY GEORGE W. BUSH CAN'T WIN
Fri Sep 5, 8:03 PM ET


By Richard Reeves

WASHINGTON -- It could be argued now that President George W. Bush (news
- web sites) cannot be re-elected -- not after screwing up most
everything he touches.

Richard Reeves

If you doubt that, look at the record. The poor guy is a disaster. I'll
just list the first 10 reasons GWB looks like a lame duck -- or a dead duck:

1. GWB misunderstood the limits of the super power he inherited and
over-reached around the world. He learned a bit about far places --
Afghanistan (news - web sites), Iraq (news - web sites), Iran, Syria,
North Korea (news - web sites) -- and then personally declared war on
them, war on the cheap.

A classified report being prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
"Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned," obtained by Rowan
Scarborough of The Washington Times, discusses the search for weapons of
mass destruction and concludes: "WMD elimination and exploitation
planning efforts did not occur early enough in the process ...
Insufficient U.S. government assets existed to accomplish the mission."

2. In the process of going to war, GWB began mocking and pushing around
old allies like a school yard bully. Then he was surprised when they --
beginning with France, Germany and Russia -- began pushing back.

3. Rushing in as fools are said to do, GWB has tied down the greatest
military in the history of the world. Ours. Half our combat-ready army
is looking for snipers and bombers in unruly countries that look as
tribal as they were a century ago when the British failed as
imperialists in the same sand and mountains.

4. GWB dissed the United Nations (news - web sites) (and, again, our
allies) and now is coming back to ask everyone else to help clean up the
mess he made.

5. "He" -- we always overstate presidential power over the domestic
economy -- has "lost" 2 million jobs here at home as the stock market
went south.

6. GWB is presiding over the economic decline of millions of American
families -- and not only the poor ones left behind long ago. Take a look
at the new book "The Two-Income Trap" by Elizabeth Warren and Amelia
Warren Tyagi, published by Basic Books. Comparing the early 1970s with
the early 2000s, the authors report that a typical family with only the
husband working earned $38,700 30 years ago, and after fixed expenses
like shelter, food, transportation and taxes, had $17,834 to spend for
tuitions and other incidentals. Now, with both husband and wife working
(if they're lucky) and earning $67,800, the fixed expenses total $50,755
and $17,045 is left to pay for everything else. (That's all in constant
dollars.)

7. GWB is a "big government" big spender, compared to, say, his
predecessor, Bill Clinton (news - web sites). The Center for Public
Service at The Brookings Institution, directed by Paul Light, has just
issued a report indicating that the number of federal employees and
contractors is increasing for the first time since the 1980s, led by a
43 percent increase in employees of defense contractors feeding on
federal contracts.

8. GWB is running a "borrow as you go" government, exploding the
national debt by hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars compared
to Clinton-era surpluses. Given the choice of "tax and spend" or "borrow
and spend," he has chosen to pass the bill on to new generations.

9. GWB's environmental record is comic, confirmed when Jon Stewart of
"The Daily Show" showed him walking through a national park filled with
"future two-by-fours."

10. GWB lies a lot.

At least, these are the things that Democratic candidates for president
should be saying. The one coming closest is Howard Dean (news - web
sites), he of thin credentials and not much to lose, and that has made
him the Democratic front-runner at this moment.

That shows Democrats are not totally clueless, but this moment is not
yet election time. Many Democrats, and some Republicans, too, might
agree that Bush has not been a very successful chief executive or
commander-in-chief, but is he more impressive and more trustworthy than
whoever the Democrats finally chose as his opponent? After all, assuming
the economy begins to improve and there are more jobs out there, the
president may well look a lot better than he does at the end of this
summer of our discontent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.

okay charlie wolf your right!!!!!!!!! but it surprises me that no one says
hey your are pissing wrong, what has this to do with vietnam ???????? for me
a lot because america,s imperialistics began in korea and vietnam so be it
Charlie Wolf heeft geschreven in bericht
<85AEVZ7L37870.6864467593@anonymous.poster>...
>WHY GEORGE W. BUSH CAN'T WIN
>Fri Sep 5, 8:03 PM ET
>
>
>By Richard Reeves
>
>WASHINGTON -- It could be argued now that President George W. Bush (news
>- web sites) cannot be re-elected -- not after screwing up most
>everything he touches.
>
>Richard Reeves
>
>If you doubt that, look at the record. The poor guy is a disaster. I'll
>just list the first 10 reasons GWB looks like a lame duck -- or a dead
duck:
>
>1. GWB misunderstood the limits of the super power he inherited and
>over-reached around the world. He learned a bit about far places --
>Afghanistan (news - web sites), Iraq (news - web sites), Iran, Syria,
>North Korea (news - web sites) -- and then personally declared war on
>them, war on the cheap.
>
>A classified report being prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
>"Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned," obtained by Rowan
>Scarborough of The Washington Times, discusses the search for weapons of
>mass destruction and concludes: "WMD elimination and exploitation
>planning efforts did not occur early enough in the process ...
>Insufficient U.S. government assets existed to accomplish the mission."
>
>2. In the process of going to war, GWB began mocking and pushing around
>old allies like a school yard bully. Then he was surprised when they --
>beginning with France, Germany and Russia -- began pushing back.
>
>3. Rushing in as fools are said to do, GWB has tied down the greatest
>military in the history of the world. Ours. Half our combat-ready army
>is looking for snipers and bombers in unruly countries that look as
>tribal as they were a century ago when the British failed as
>imperialists in the same sand and mountains.
>
>4. GWB dissed the United Nations (news - web sites) (and, again, our
>allies) and now is coming back to ask everyone else to help clean up the
>mess he made.
>
>5. "He" -- we always overstate presidential power over the domestic
>economy -- has "lost" 2 million jobs here at home as the stock market
>went south.
>
>6. GWB is presiding over the economic decline of millions of American
>families -- and not only the poor ones left behind long ago. Take a look
>at the new book "The Two-Income Trap" by Elizabeth Warren and Amelia
>Warren Tyagi, published by Basic Books. Comparing the early 1970s with
>the early 2000s, the authors report that a typical family with only the
>husband working earned $38,700 30 years ago, and after fixed expenses
>like shelter, food, transportation and taxes, had $17,834 to spend for
>tuitions and other incidentals. Now, with both husband and wife working
>(if they're lucky) and earning $67,800, the fixed expenses total $50,755
>and $17,045 is left to pay for everything else. (That's all in constant
>dollars.)
>
>7. GWB is a "big government" big spender, compared to, say, his
>predecessor, Bill Clinton (news - web sites). The Center for Public
>Service at The Brookings Institution, directed by Paul Light, has just
>issued a report indicating that the number of federal employees and
>contractors is increasing for the first time since the 1980s, led by a
>43 percent increase in employees of defense contractors feeding on
>federal contracts.
>
>8. GWB is running a "borrow as you go" government, exploding the
>national debt by hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars compared
>to Clinton-era surpluses. Given the choice of "tax and spend" or "borrow
>and spend," he has chosen to pass the bill on to new generations.
>
>9. GWB's environmental record is comic, confirmed when Jon Stewart of
>"The Daily Show" showed him walking through a national park filled with
>"future two-by-fours."
>
>10. GWB lies a lot.
>
>At least, these are the things that Democratic candidates for president
>should be saying. The one coming closest is Howard Dean (news - web
>sites), he of thin credentials and not much to lose, and that has made
>him the Democratic front-runner at this moment.
>
>That shows Democrats are not totally clueless, but this moment is not
>yet election time. Many Democrats, and some Republicans, too, might
>agree that Bush has not been a very successful chief executive or
>commander-in-chief, but is he more impressive and more trustworthy than
>whoever the Democrats finally chose as his opponent? After all, assuming
>the economy begins to improve and there are more jobs out there, the
>president may well look a lot better than he does at the end of this
>summer of our discontent.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
>The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
>is unverified.
>
>

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 18:46:59 +0200, "Guus Koopman"
wrote:

>okay charlie wolf your right!!!!!!!!! but it surprises me that no one says
>hey your are pissing wrong, what has this to do with vietnam ???????? for me
>a lot because america,s imperialistics began in korea and vietnam so be it
>Charlie Wolf heeft geschreven in bericht
Well - for one thing - I didn't post it.
Regards,
snipped...