On 28/07/2007 Sabu wrote:
>On 28/07/2007 bomber pro wrote:
>>S.A.B.U
>Thanks for that BP, totally uncalled for and real mature of you......
Well it was a 3am post ... always a dangerous time!
You're right in saying there is no obvious if any solution, Sabu. The strange thing is that the governments who got us into this mess are the ones to argue, "we got us in, so we should get us out", and voters tend to be susceptible to that argument. As if only they know where the reverse gear is.
But what should Joe Public's response be? Imagine if a company you invested in made a disastrous merger or acquisition. At the annual shareholder's meeting, would people be inclined to say "the incumbent board should get us out of this mess?" or would you try and ditch the CEO and the rest who stuffed it up?
A lot of the problem is that Bush and, for his share, Howard, are as much focused on making themselves look good as worrying about the situation and how to resolve it. Bush's "surge" is an attempt to make it look like things are on the improve, so that he can get out or leave office while the Coalition is on the front foot. And when it all turns to crap thereafter, he can blame the next mob. In the way that conservatives still maintain they could have won in Vietnam (oops there's that word again) after the Tet offensive, if only those bleeding heart lefties hadn't thought it was all over.
Howard is staying the course - with our limited involvement - because he can't back out after his "cut and run" and "stay till the job is done" (which is what, or when?) statements. If he gets re-elected he's expected to find a way to get out in February, when it's a safe political thing to do, post-election.
|