|
President Bush will not be re-elected. And the reason
is Iraq!
The fact is, we have lost it! Democracy will not happen
there. In addition, we will soon be talking an "exit strategy" as
Iraq plunges into civil war! Unfortunately, all this will be clear to
voters by election day as more and more bombings, deaths, kidnappings and beheadings fill our daily headlines and TV screens!
Look at these headlines: "Insurgents infiltrate Green Zone, kill 4 Americans...Iraqi judge assassinated...Allawi says January elections may have to be postponed! Why listen to me? For intelligence, you can take to the bank! November of 2001 I knew that Iraq was next me and some of my more pundit of friends discussed
"Bush means business and will invade Iraq" -- 16
months later, he did!
Bush's "mission accomplished" speech was that the "U.S. will be bogged down in a guerrilla war in Iraq for years." Today, we are bogged down in a guerrilla war! Chaos and violence will continue in Iraq
With President Bush surging in the polls right after the Republican Convention, and with Kerry seemingly losing ground in many swing states, most of us figured the President would easily coast to re-election. But not so fast...Before the debates, Bush had a clear lead. Now the polls show the race tied, or with Kerry slightly ahead. What caused the shift? It was not Bush's performance, as the pundits would have you believe. He did just fine. It is that most Americans are uneasy with the President's foreign and domestic policies and are taking a second look at Kerry. The proof is in these polling stats...
1.
Fully 57% believe that invading Iraq was a mistake!
2.
Only 45% of voters (just 11% of undecided) believe
Bush deserves a second term!
3.
55% of voters believe Bush is taking the country in
the "wrong direction" and are uneasy about his ability
to handle a "foreign crisis."
Pre-election al-Qaeda attack likely
My Middle Eastern intelligence sources tell me Al - Qaeda is planning an attack against the U.S. shortly before election day, but not here in America.Instead, they'll launch a tea party offensive-style attack in Iraq that overwhelmingly proves we're losing there(last thursday's daring attack in the Green Zone may be the start). And that will be devastating to the President.
President Bush's own CIA intelligence assessment gave him a grim review: under the best case scenario, the violence and chaos in Iraq won't improve any time soon. Under the worst case scenario, the country will plunge into civil war. And this report was given in July, when things were not nearly as bad as they are today! When this intelligence report leaked out, the president tried to put a positive spin on it, saying,"The CIA was only guessing." But that was the wrong thing to say to voters who had just learned that two American citizens were beheaded by Iraqi insurgents. My Washington intelligence sources tell me that today,the argument is no longer between those who predict failure and those who predict success. The argument is between those who predict failure and those who predict catastrophic failure! First, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was determined to fight the war on the cheap with a small number of troops and a lot of high-tech weaponry. He
got his way, but do you remember when General Shinseki said we would need up to 300,000 troops to do the job and Rumsfeld scoffed at that? Well, Shinseki was right and Rumsfeld was wrong. Then, without enough troops to provide security,looters had a field day. Insurgents committed murder and violence with impunity. Water and power and other
basic services became difficult to supply. The oil fields and pipelines were continually blown up. Jobs and reconstruction were delayed. And all this continues today, only worse! Second, before the invasion, President Bush put Condi Rice and Doug Feith (from Paul Wolfowitz's office at the Pentagon) in charge of post-war Iraq planning.
Wrong people for the job. Colin Powell and State should've done it. You see, Condi and Doug may be big thinkers, but they're lousy administrators. And of course, they didn't know Iraq. The fact is, they
botched it. And their man in field, Paul Bremer,failed too, though he now claims he didn't have enough troops to succeed.The third reason is the unfortunate Abu Ghraib prison-abuse scandal, which caused a dramatic increase in anti-American sentiment. The result is that the
percentage of Iraqis who call us "occupiers" rather than "liberators" is 98%. And the percentage of Iraqis who are willing to cooperate with the insurgents to get us out of Iraq is now a majority of the
population.
Beheadings horrify Americans
By any objective assessment, Iraq is a violent and chaotic mess, with unemployment at 70%, essential services far worse than under Saddam, and physical security practically non-existent in most areas.
You may be surprised to learn that the most successful new Iraqi business today is not one building new homes, schools, and hospitals, but one building "concrete barriers" to separate the Americans from the
Iraqi people! Today, Iraqis see Americans as liars, occupiers, and oil-stealers, so it's easy to understand how the insurgency, which started out with only 1,000 - 3,000 fighters and supporters, has grown to a majority of the Iraqi population. And that's why horrifying kidnappings and
beheadings will increase in the weeks to come. Already, voters are asking, "Why do we have to stay in Iraq when we didn't find W. M. D. s? Why should we spend $120 billion per year there, when we have $450 billion
deficits at home? And why should our young men and women die there -- now up to 1,107, an increase of 39 in just 10 days -- when the Iraqis are unwilling to provide for their own defense. Well, there is a
reason...
The main reason we went to Iraqand why Bush won't leave. President Bush can't talk about this in public -- it's too sensitive. But the main reason for invading Iraq was not eliminating WMD, fighting terrorism, or the feel good reason,” freeing the Iraqi people." It was to secure for America the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Look at how much Bush increased the strategic oil reserves No, I'm not expressing a cynical point of view. And
I'm not being critical of the President's policies. The fact is, we absolutely must have that oil to preserve and extend our economic and military power! With China, India, and other former developing countries rapidly industrializing, the global demand for oil will accelerate to double today's consumption in just the next 10 years. Meanwhile, no large oil fields have been found since 1976 (Mexico), the North Sea is almost out of oil, and total worldwide oil production is no greater today than it was in 1979! Less oil in the Middle East than reported. My Middle East sources tell me OPEC has been lying about their reserves. Several oil geologists have suspected this for years and have refuted Iran's, Iraq's, and Saudi Arabia's stated high reserves, claims they say were mere ego-posturing to maintain
their dominant OPEC positions. Now, these same oil experts predict that as early as 2014 we'll see severe world shortages, and by 2029 all
the world's current known oil will be used up, including Saudi Arabia's hyped reserves, unless we find more...Some of our oil executives believe more oil will be found in Iraq. And no question America desperately needs a BIG new source of crude oil. U.S. long-range
planners know this. And President Bush knows it.
That's why he made the difficult call to go into Iraq, install a U.S.-friendly government, and ensure U.S. access to Iraq's oil, which is vital to our economy and way of life. Obviously, we weren't going to get any favors from Saddam Hussein (not after bombing him for 10 years), although France, Germany, and China were. And that's why they opposed us at the U.N. You see, Bush's advisors knew all too well that our "policy of containment," started by Bush 41 and continued by Clinton, was successful. They also knew that Saddam Hussein despised us and would never cooperate with our oil companies once the sanctions
were lifted. Window of opportunity on Iraqi oil was fast closing
Thus, without overthrowing Saddam, we would've been frozen out of the oil contracts, not to mention other business with Iraq. And then there was the problem with the dollar...In November of 2000, Saddam switched the trading of Iraqi oil from the dollar to the Euro. That didn't mean much during the Food-for-Oil Program, but it was going to be huge once the sanctions were lifted. And global pressure was mounting to lift the sanctions. Trading the world's 2nd largest oil reserves on the Euro would have undercut confidence in the dollar. Remember, we carry a lot of debt. Our economy is highly leveraged. We need to maintain confidence in our currency and financial markets, and we need oil...lots of it. That's why taking down Saddam was a top priority for President Bush from the first days of his administration. And, after ousting Saddam, the President wisely restored Iraqi oil trading back to the dollar (May'03). And, of course, Halliburton took control of the oil fields to put us first in line for the oil. Unfortunately, it has not worked out as planned...Iraq has 7,000 miles of oil pipelines and 260 oil facilities. We cannot possibly protect all of that. And
the insurgents have been very successful at bombing them. Today, in spite of our state-of the art technology and best restoration efforts, Iraq is pumping 150,000 barrels per day less than it pumped under Saddam, at a loss of $2 billion per year. That's hurt Iraq's economy, and our image, and it's even contributed to crude topping $50 a barrel!
To fight the insurgents...or not to fight! Earlier this year, President Bush ordered a low-profile for our troops, in order to avoid U.S.
casualties in the run up to the election. Probably a mistake. That just let Moqtada al-Sadr and his fighters walk away with their arms intact, and also allowed the Fallujah insurgents to grow bigger and stronger. Also, our attempt to get the Iraqis to do the fighting have failed, just as it did in Viet Nam. Attacks on Americans and Iraqi collaborators now run to the hundreds every day. But our military has only cautiously engaged the enemy, knocking out 125 insurgents in Samarra while mostly avoiding Fallujah. Unfortunately, like some hydra-headed monster, another 500 insurgents pop up for every 100 we kill. And that's because most Iraqis are against us!
The Iraqis despise the U.S.-backed Allawi government in Iraq, and they hate us. So, in the weeks leading up to our presidential election, terror, violence, death, and destruction will only worsen in Iraq. And that means an increasing number of voters will see Kerry as a way out, or at least as a faster way out! And here's another big problem for the president.
President Bush vulnerable on the economy
KEY POINT: This year, only 8% of the voting public is undecided. And when the majority thinks the country is on the wrong course, this undecided group historically breaks to the challenger, provided the challenger is a reasonable alternative. And Kerry, for all his
negatives, passes that test. That means 7 of 10 of these votes will go to Kerry.
KEY POINT: While investors believe the economy is rapidly improving, that corporate profits are good, and Bush's economic policies are creating thousands of new jobs, the average Joe believes his job is at risk of being shipped overseas, that his pay and benefits are being reduced to increase corporate profits, while his costs of living are skyrocketing. That means the Reagan Democrats will vote for Kerry.
KEY POINT: Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are must-win swing states with 64 electoral votes. And all of them are still in recession, today, two and a half years after the U.S. recession officially ended.
By November 2nd they'll go for Kerry, who says he'll penalize companies that outsource jobs and reward those who hire American workers.
Another interesting point about Michigan -- they have a large Muslim population there, who in 2000 overwhelmingly supported Bush. Not this year. They're voting for Kerry, believing he'll do more to protect
their civil rights. Real wages are down this year
KEY POINT: Labor Dept. stats show that the new jobs added in the last 3 years are paying, on average, 30% less than the old ones lost, and with reduced benefits. In fact, there's a $280 billion gap between what workers have today and what they had at this point in the previous six economic recoveries. And take-home pay, as a percentage of the economy, is at its lowest level since 1929.
None of this is good news for the President. And even if you figure that most Americans don't know about these stats (and they don't), they do know what's happening in their lives, and they're feeling the
pinch!
BOTTOM LINE: Swing states that are struggling economically...that have seen good-paying jobs replaced with low-paying ones...and whose workers
either can't find a job or can't make ends meet...will go to Kerry!
Finally, consider that Bush's approval rating is hovering around 47%, and historically voters match that number on election day. I'm going to go out on a limb and make a prediction: Kerry 55%, Bush 43%, and
Nader 1% (1% for others).
Sophisticated detection systems
With terrorism up 35%, the 9/11 Commission recommending increased homeland security, and several domestic security bills about to become law, this company is poised for rapid growth. Its systems can detect non-metallic weapons, plastic explosives, illegal drugs, radioactive bombs, even low-level dirty bombs hidden in vehicles or containers. Police departments are wild over its "Z Backscatter" vans capable of "drive-by" urban surveillance.These are must-have products in the War against Terrorism.
True or False you decide.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
