Bush was always gonna be a one-termer. His polls were in the shitter by Sept '01. People seemed to be realizing that the "good-ole-boy" shtick was not going to override his ineptitude.
He saw his Poppy's grand plans for a "new world order" evaporate as he lost that second term, and I'm sure that in '01, junior was determined to make his FIRST term a doozy, so that even if he did not get a 2nd one, he would have "succeeded" where Poppy had failed.
Clinton's flush bank account was just too tempting to pass up, and he HAD to get his hands on it..and quickly. As the boomers started to actually retire in a few years, the money would start flowing OUT faster than it was flowing in.. but HOW to take it all and FAST..
Tax cuts as a payback to the "campaign-cash class" could only take so much, as could beefing up the military budget.
There also has to be some justification for beefing up the military in a post cold war world. Of course he had EVERY opportunity to "know" that there was a war coming.. He SHOULD have known it.. he PLANNED to have a war..and soon.
9-11-01 gave him all the "cover" he needed..and then some, but Afghanistan was still not BIG enough to empty out the treasury.. Iraq fit the bill.
The trick was to get boots on the ground QUICKLY. Once they were IN, it would be a snap to pilfer the treasury. The public remained scared and shocked enough to buy every "story" his minions told, and once the troops were there, it was easy-peasy to get ALL the cash, AND to run up the biggest debt ever.
A republican congress rubberstamped his every whim, and anyone who dared to question, was immediately labeled an al qaeda-sympathizer. The heist was ON.. Bigtime.
Once in, the polls started to rise, so all that was needed was that glorious second term, to seal the deal.
The war "stories" helped him "win" that second term, but the bloom was definitely off the rose as far as the winning of the war went, and now that congress is no longer in his pocket the war is no longer necessary, and he's lost his enthusiasm, he is a sulky, sore-loser , just as he always was. Once he loses interest, he bails..but the war is bigger than that now. He can't get out, and all the money is gone (safely tucked away in bank accounts all over the place, no doubt). It's obvious that he's lost focus and is just ticking off the days until he can go play again.
By forcing the democrats' hands he has now placed THEM in the "box". He created the fiasco, got them to go along at the beginning and now he's tossed the whole mess to them to clean up.. Vintage george.
George figured out that it's always better to NOT ask for permission..The answer might be
No!".
The war was "necessary"..but only to HIM..
..........................................................
http://baltimorechronicle.com/trifecta_jun02.shtmlHow Bush Hit the 'Trifecta' on 9/11--and the Public Lost Big-Time
It is sickening to contemplate an administration intentionally looking the other way while terrorists scheme so that whatever havoc they wreak can provide cover for the president to raid Social Security.
by Brad Carlton
See letters sent us in response to this OP-ED
Bush, in the weeks before September 11, pledged to
honor the sanctity of the Social Security lock-box except in the event of recession, war, or a national emergency. But after "everything changed" on 9/11,
he reportedly gloated to his budget director, Mitch Daniels, "Lucky me--I hit the trifecta!" snip...
Whenever someone is suspected of a crime, investigators look for a motive in addition to actual proof of guilt to determine, a posteriori, whether there was malice aforethought. In cases of criminal negligence, motive must also be deduced, a priori, to answer the question: were preventive failures due to craftiness or mere cluelessness?
snip....
Think back to the days before 9/11. The topic on everyone's lips (Condit aside) was: what will happen when budget realities force Bush to raid Social Security? He had explicitly promised during his campaign to establish a contingency fund for severe emergencies that would keep Social Security untouched. But
the economy was tanking and the costs of the tax cut made the raid inevitable. Even Daniels acknowledged that the government would be forced to tap Social Security to the tune of $14 billion to fund pending legislation. Strangely, Bush kept insisting, "We can work together to avoid dipping into Social Security." But, beginning
August 24, he gave himself an escape clause: "I've said that the only reason we should use Social Security funds is in case of an economic recession or war." (Three days earlier he had said that there should be "special consideration" in the budget for these contingencies. Otherwise, this was completely new rhetoric.)
September 4: businessman and commentator Ben Cohen ran a mock "help wanted" ad reading, "Serious enemy needed to justify Pentagon budget increase. Defense contractors desperate." Same day: a CBS poll found that 66 percent of Americans did not think a recession (extant, but not yet confirmed) was reason enough to tap Social Security. September 6: Bush invented another exception. "The only time to use Social Security money is in times of war, times of recession, or times of severe emergency." September 11: he had all three. Lucky Bush.
snip...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
