Why the Dems won't impeach President Bush

“Two words; Dick Cheney.”

Incoming Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Bush's jibe talking

You've lost the Senate, you've lost the House, you're a lame duck President with plunging approval ratings - chances are you're a bit miffed. You gotta blame someone, and that person obviously can't be you. Here's your 'to do' list:

1. Take full responsibility, then
2. Sack the defense secretary you said was unsackable, and
3. Make a barbed joke at your chief political strategist's expense:



If Mr Bush does try to pin any of the blame on Karl Rove, it seems he'll get short shrift from his party, according to today's FT:

Republican analysts on Thursday said the jibe was unfair. The election was an indictment of Mr Bush’s Iraq policy, not political tactics. “Nobody thinks that Karl is in charge of the occupation of Iraq,” said Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, who has close ties to Mr Rove. “I haven’t heard any complaints about him. In a conference call with conservative groups no one faulted the turnout effort.”

Mr Norquist is an exemplar of the Republican right, as is clear from his penetrating analysis of the GOP's defeat in the key swing state of Pennsylvania:

“Bob Sherwood’s seat would have been overwhelmingly ours, if his mistress hadn’t whined about being throttled,” said Mr Norquist. Any lessons from the campaign? “Yes. The lesson should be, don’t throttle mistresses.”

The clock has now tocked

It's interesting, sometimes, to look back at old blog postings. On the day of George W. Bush's second inauguration, 20th Jan, 2005, I wrote an article, After Inauguration - will it get better from here on in?:

... a mandate is about power, and power is a slippery, fluid, elusive commodity. ... There are other factors, too, which might mean Dubya's victory is as good as it gets for the Republicans. ...

Dubya's first term may well come back to haunt him in his second. Most obviously - let's hope not inevitably - Iraq could slip off the precipice on which its teetering, and descend into civil war. The US and its Allies would not be able simply to wash their hands of the bloodshed they've fomented. Active military re-involvement, not the disengagement for which even the neo-cons are now hoping (if only so they can flaunt their hawkish menace further afield), would be an unavoidable, and humiliating, outcome. ... thirdly, the domestic agenda is by no means assured. Dubya has, somehow, to attempt to curb his reckless spending habits, and to staunch the spiralling budget deficit.

Control of the White House, Congress and Senate present Dubya with immense leverage, a generational opportunity to carve the political landscape in his ideological image as clearly as Mount Rushmore. He remains the most polarising of politicians, squeaking both his presidential victories, governing as if they were landslides. His approval rating continues to hover at 50%, remarkably low for a freshly re-elected second term President. Most of his Party are already looking towards the 2006 mid-term elections. He has three years until he becomes a lame-duck President. He's enjoyed his day of glory. But the clock is now ticking.

Bush campaigns for Dave Lamberti

Just a shame his name is Jeff.

George Bush proved right about Iraq

That's George HW, the 41st President, rather than George W, the 43rd... speaking on 28th February, 1999, to 200 Gulf War I veterans:

"Had we gone into Baghdad - We could have done it. You guys could have done it. You could have been there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most-secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power - America in an Arab land - with no allies on our side. It would have been disastrous."

(Quoted in State of Denial (p.11) by Bob Woodward.)

Denial doesn't just run through Egypt

A couple of years ago, Bob Woodward’s book, Plan of Attack, was listed as recommended reading on the Bush/Cheney04 campaign website. Perhaps not surprisingly, given that Amazon.com observed that it “demonstrates the tremendous conviction and dedication of the people who decided to carry [the invasion of Iraq] out”.

Mr Woodward has now published a follow-up, State of Denial. It’s not merely an unflattering depiction of the neo-cons in power: it’s a searing indictment.

Here’s what John Dickerson has to say about it on Slate.com:

The disclosures so far have been devastating. The book paints the administration as clueless, dishonest, and dysfunctional. … State of Denial is a significant blow to the president both politically and strategically. …[Woodward] charges the president has not been straight with the American people about how bad things are in Iraq and how much worse it's going to get. But his most damning claim—screaming at you right there in the title—is not that Bush is deceitful; it's that he's clueless. People many not care if Bush admits reality to the public, but they hope he's admitting reality to himself. …

… the problem the Woodward book presents for the Bush administration is not that his anecdotes of mismanagement seem shocking or unexpected, but that they don't. Woodward isn't going to change minds, but he'll do something more dangerous: He will confirm the doubts about Bush that a majority of Americans already have.