BUSH yes or no

Carrera

I think the election of Bush was a fundamental mistake but I'd disagree with your view that only uneducated fools voted him in office. Schwarzennegger has a business studies degree and obviously voted Republican, Vladimir Putin is a shrewd politician and wanted Bush to win, as did Don King (the self-educated boxing promoter) who campaigned for Bush.
Bush's core vote came from the religious right-wingers who reside in the Bible States but he would have gotten votes from various people who were persuaded his alleged strong line on terrorism has made the world more secure.
After 9/11 people wanted to see something being done and the Bush Administration successfully conned people that by removing Saddam Hussein (and making various threats against Iran, Syria and North Korea), global terrorism would be on the retreat.
However, these voters don't yet understand that Al Qaida has significantly strengthened its rank and file under George W Bush and is far more stronger now than it was 4 years ago. This is because Al Qaida has always alleged the West is mounting a kind of Christian crusade against the Arab world. Very conveniently for Bin Laden, Bush happens to be a devout religious leader who imposed a puppet regime in Iraq, killling 100,000 civilians in the process. So, even moderate Arabs are now confused as to who the good guys and the bad guys actually are. More potential terrorists have been created over the last few years.
What Arabs see is Bush, bible in hand making political speeches while images of Iraqi casualties are beamed all over the world. The photos of the prisoner abuse scandal in Baghdad would also seem to have confirmed this idea of an anti-Arab crusade being conducted in the name of religion. That disaster alone should have driven Bush out of office but responsibility and blame was shifted instead to the rank and file guards.
For this reason, more recruits are flocking into the ranks of terrorist organisations and, of course, we shouldn't forget, Al Qaida even has a foothold in Iraq now that the secular Saddam is out of power.
It's amazing the electorate didn't grasp all of this when Kerry explained it but we have to bear in mind Americans still feel under threat and simply associated John Kerry with liberalism and weakness. Plus, they were convinced Kerry's willingness to seek allies abroad and improve intelligence gathering e.t.c. was tantamount to giving in to the U.N. or surrendering political initiative to other countries. Not what Kerry had in mind at all. But how cleverly the Republicans were able to exploit this sense of nationalism and insecurity.
So, what will happen next?
My guess is that the mess in Iraq may escalate to such a degree that, at some stage, people will come to understand that the U.S. economy won't be able to sustain such a prolonged campaign in that country (which is what happened to the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan). Plus, if more terrorist attacks get through from Al Qaida, people may finally begin to question whether the whole idea of invading Iraq has been such a good idea after all. This may push the Democrats back into office in 4 years time but the question remains as to how long it will take till Bush's Middle Eastern Policy starts to crumble and the electorate wakes up to the fact they were conned (by a draught-dodger who assumes the role of war-leader).
It was basically predicted that after 9/11, the liberals would basically lose ground so that the Party with the biggest bark would win over the electorates in various countries. What is yearned for at this stage is plenty of chest-pounding and testosterone but, at some point, people will probably seek a return to shrewd strategic thinking and the need for solid alliances.