Bush is a lock, you know it. C'mon admit it. And, hey, where's my name on the list?

I'd say he has a very good chance at re-election, but I wouldn't call it a lock yet. There's still a year to go and anything can happen.
Having said that, it seems to me all the Dems have been doing is criticize Bush ("He has no plan!") yet fail to come up with any original ideas for themselves. If anyone's lacking a plan, it's the Democrats.
If the economy keeps moving the way it's headed, we'll be better off in Nov 2004 than we were when Clinton left office. And if the situation in Iraq continues to improve, the Democrats are f*cked.
But a year is a very long time and anything could happen. Who knows? For all we know, Saddam and/or Osama could be digging latrines in Gitmo at this time next year.

I don't think Bush has is it locked yet. I know people who voted for him last time but will not vote for him again because of his lies about Iraq. If Iraq continues to sour, I think that could cost him the election. Remember LBJ had a booming economy but had to withdraw from the Democratic nomination because of Vietnam.

'because of his lies about Iraq'

such as?

'If Iraq continues to sour'

another myth. iraq has seen nothing but a complete upswing since the invasion. it is a better place to live now than it was a year or six months ago. don't fall for the vietnam-blinded media.

The last poster seems to have forgotten about the missing WMD that the Bush administration claimed existed.

And 2 helicopters down in a week seems to suggest things getting worse not better.

Before and After War:

Iraq better in South and North. Worse in Sunni Triangle.

Paul:

I, like most Americans, do not care if Iraq is better or worse than before. I care how many Americans are dieing over there. And those numbers are up.

Things are going to suck, soldiers will be killed today tomorrow, next week and next year in Iraq, Afghanistan and in any of the 60 or so countries that the US has Special Forces in that we will never hear about on the nightly news, if it's not gruesome and bloody it's not news........

Iraq is a small picture in a much larger war, one that many seem to have forgotten about given the short memories of most of Americans......hey the Bengals won again!

Paul posted his comment while I was writing mine...so I just felt I should chime in and say he's right. Everything is very good...outside of the Sunni Triangle...but that is never reported....blood/death gets our attention...schools and civility does not.

'The last poster seems to have forgotten about the missing WMD that the Bush administration claimed existed'

1) the weapons did exist - remember the iranians and the kurds?

2) it wasn't just the bush admin. who made this claim - the clintons made it, the dems made it, hell even france made it. did they all lie too? (before you answer, read the first point)

3) because the weapons haven't yet been found, does that mean they were never there? and that people who said they were there are therefore lying? thats horrible reasoning.

4) even if no trace of wmd are found, the u.s. invasion was still justified on specifically these grounds (as well as a half dozen others). saddam was ousted not because he had these weapons, but because he refused to comply with the u.n. inspections.

to go from missing wmd to 'bush lied' is a leap in logic only a democrat could make.

Good authors with great books? Try Joel Rosenberg's "The Last Jihad," and "The Last Days."

I think that you will find the comments were tongue in cheek - the Democrats are barely getting any press here at all.

Scot and Scott:

The Bush Administration claimed that the war was to stop Iraq's WMD program. We now find that there was not much to it possibly because sanctions and inspections did work. Bush also made a false claim about attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium. Many people believe (and I am a Republican) that the Bush administration misled the U.S. into getting into a war.

And as far as Iraqis going to school, I could not give a sh*t. They were going to school last year before the U.S. invaded. What I care about is Americans dieing. I do not think that American lives are so disposable.

Dan, you are the exception to the rule regarding voting for Bush. Most people that voted for him the last time will vote for him again and he will be picking up the new liberal on social issues/conservative on the economy and foreign policy crowd.

I don't understand how you don't even entertain the idea that the WMD could have already been sold, that we waited too long to go to war? How are you so comfortable in the belief that Saddam was telling the truth all along. I'm not going to have the same argument over and over with you (if Saddam had no WMD, why didn't he just prove it, etc.) but how can you be so comfortable in the idea that since we can't find them that they were never there?

Bobby, I realize there was a tongue-in-cheek element to the comments, but I still find it odd that you, Andrew and Graeme all said pretty much the same thing (except that even they aren't deluded enough to believe in a president Kerry :-) ). That must mean something, no?

Kashei:

I am not the only I know who is disenchanted with Bush. And I suspect the numbers will grow as American deaths in Iraq continue.

If the WMD were really there but are now missing, then the president should say that. But instead, he pretends that we found them, when we have so far found diddly squat. If the problem was our intelligence was bad, he should say that, too. He should also fire people responsible for that bad intelligence.

I do not think that Hussein was honest. I look at the evidence. And so far, the evidence for WMD is not there.

Dan

K, I wouldn't even have heard of Kerry or any of the others if it hadn't been for this blog spot. And I get all my news from the biased BBC news web page or Channel 4. I just live in hope, thats all

Dan, do you know many other Republicans who were against the war in Iraq like you were (I mean know in person)? I don't. You are the only Republican I know who was against the war, the only one I know who is 'disenchanted' with Bush over the war and the only Bush voter I know who will not be voting for him next time (I can also add the only Bush voter I know who is considering Howard Dean as an alternative.)

We just don't know what will happen with the WMD. Maybe they'll find them tomorrow. Maybe they'll find us in the form of Al Qaeda using them on us. Maybe we'll never find them. If there is a complaint to be made it's that we let Saddam hang out for over 10 years without doing anything about him. That's a lot of time to handle the WMD, potentially sell them etc. Just because he woke up to the threat of terrorism on 9/11 doesn't mean that the terrorists weren't there all along. Who knows what kinds of deals could've been made in that time? Your opposition to the war should not blind you to the scary realities that very well may exist.

Scot,

Good post and I agree. This guy Dan, repeatedly exagerates or creates a poetic hyperbole to make his points.

Also, Saddam had many reasons to lie about the extent of his arsenal. Have we forgotten the argument "If the U.S. attacks he could use his WMD's and it would be the US's fault". Also if you could completely understand the Arab "street" mentality you would understand why he may have lied about the weapons.

I for one would rather see lives lost in prevention of war than the mass killings that a major war brings.

"Urban unrest, poverty, pressures on welfare, education of our people, law enforcement and law and order, the continuing crisis in the Middle East, the conflict in Vietnam, the dangers of nuclear war, the great difficulties of dealing with the Communist powers, all have this much in common: They and their causes-the causes that gave rise to them-all of these have existed with us for many years. Several Presidents have already sought to try to deal with them. One or more Presidents will try to resolve them or try to contain them in the years that are ahead of us." LBJ state of the Union 1969.

U.S. casualties in Vietnam 1968: over 105,000 KIA, WIA, MIA.
U.S. casualties in Vietnam 1969: over 67,000 killed, wonded or missing.

These numbers do not inclued the number of ARVN troops killed or wounded during these 2 years, to the tune of 350k. So not to play the numbers game but how does LBJ and Vietnam compare to Bush in Iraq ? Prevention vs War, Bush in my opinion has done a tremendous job for the American people in Iraq.

I also recommend "The Last Jihad", aka the terrorist Tom Clancy book.

I saw a cartoon the other day that had a picture of a Democratic hopeful saying, "There are no WMDs in Iraq! We haven't found any." Then a little girl says to him, "We haven't found Saddam Hussein either. Does that mean he never existed?"

Kashei:

I am worried about WMD and terrorism. But I think that the Bush administration has a real credibility problem out there. They made a lot of claims (including things like Iraq was buying aluminumm tubes for its nuclear program) that were just untrue. "Where are the WMDs?" is a perfectly good question and one that the administration has failed to address.

And I do know other Bush voters who are disgruntled. They may not be party activists but they vote. If Iraq continues to go badly, a lot of support for Bush will vanish.

Dan

Dan, can't it be that they just don't know? That they expected to find them there but haven't been able to do so? That maybe they too are worried that we are too late and the weapons have been sold? That maybe they don't want to alarm the American public by saying this? This is just a guess. We don't know yet. We have to wait and see.

Kashei:

It is quite possible that the administration is clueless about what happened to the WMD. That would be a problem.

If they do know something, they have a duty to divulge it to the public.

Dan

But Dan, you realize that the administration is just made up of humans, right? That they can't possibly know everything and that there will always be things they don't know. What I don't get is how anyone can be happy that they don't know where the WMD are. The fact that they existed is indisputable. The fact that they are not there now (or that we haven't yet found them anyway) should worry everyone, even those who opposed the war and are somewhat happy that this lack of WMD looks bad for Bush.

Dan, so what happened to the program that had existed? Did Saddam just decide he no longer wanted it? Or did he just particularly enjoy the sanctions imposed on his country and didn't want to see them lifted? Where is the logic that says Saddam destroyed these programs but didn't want to tell anyone? It makes no sense to me. How does it to you?

Kashei:

I do not know the answer to these questions. I do know that Bush administration claims were exaggerated and that the alleged WMD have not been found. That to me is the issue since it was the alleged reason for going to war.

Dan

K, the lads over at Will Hill, Britain's leading bookmaking service, share your generally optimistic assessment of Mr. Bush's prospects. One suspects that this is informed opinion.

Bush is the odds-on favorite at 8-13 (you have to wager 13 pounds to win 8 on Bush), while the Democrats fetch longer prices. For example Clark is second choice at 3-1, Dean at 5-1 and Kerry at 9-1.

Here's the Will Hill website:

http://www.willhill.com

Click on Politics on the menu on the left.

I think the real question is who sunk the USS Maine ?

lol

WMD"s was "A" reason for getting rid of Saddam. So the U.S, errrd on the side of caution. The U.S. Will not wait until a mass tragedy before acting. The US and NATO took down Slobodan Milo. for much less (which you were probably against judging by your comments and WW II as well ??). The real questions we should be asking is: How can we get Iraq to pre-Saddam levels of growth, both socially and economically and more importantly get U.S. and coalition troops home with the job completed ?
The second guessing is real irritating and probably the major reason why govt's do not inform the pupulace of every piece of info they have.

Double handful on Bush to win.

The problem for Democrats:

"Bush Administration Frees Nation From Genocidal Dictatorship"

-- or --

"Bush Lied About WMDs"

Even if both were true (and I believe the second statement to be willful revisionism from the anti-Bush brigade) one has a lot more power than the other.

And Democratic memos talking about how to smear the first story don't make the second story more appealing...