George Bush Is Becoming An Increasingly Dangerous President

[WhiteTara]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060421.html
If Past Is Prologue, George Bush Is Becoming An Increasingly Dangerous President
By JOHN W. DEAN

snip to end
What We Can Expect From Bush in the Future, Based on Barber's Model

As the 2006 midterm elections approach, this active/negative president can be expected to take further risks. If anyone doubts that Bush, Cheney, Rove and their confidants are planning an "October Surprise" to prevent the Republicans from losing control of Congress, then he or she has not been observing this presidency very closely.

What will that surprise be? It's the most closely held secret of the Administration.

How risky will it be? Bush is a whatever-it-takes risk-taker, the consequences be damned.

snip

If there is no "October Surprise," I would be shocked. And if it is not a high-risk undertaking, it would be a first. Without such a gambit, and the public always falls for them, Bush is going to lose control of Congress. Should that happen, his presidency will have effectively ended, and he will spend the last two years of it defending all the mistakes he has made during the first six, and covering up the errors of his ways.

There is, however, the possibility of another terrorist attack, and if one occurred, Americans would again rally around the president - wrongly so, since this is a presidency that lives on fear-mongering about terror, but does little to truly address it. The possibility that we might both suffer an attack, and see a boost to Bush come from it, is truly a terrifying thought.

:hide:
As always, John Dean is very thoughtful in his analysis.

[electron_blue]

1. Sounds like Dean is accusing Bush of planning a terroristic attack on US

indirectly, between the lines.

[Grateful for Hope]

2. Yes it does

He's not the only one who thinks this way, I am sure.

[WhiteTara]

7. or warning us?

:shrug:

[L. Coyote]

3. The real question is

how many June, July, August, September, and October surprises they have up the political sleeve.

Has anyone graphed the rise and fall of oil prices in relation to the 2-year election cycle??

Some surprises are better in April, to avoid have the issue on the front burner in October.

[guidod]

8. Nuke Iran? Marshall Law?

What election?

[FloridaPat]

4. If there is another "terrorist attack", all the Dems have to do is play

* speech from the Kerry debates where he says if the Dems are elected there will be another terrorist attack. This could backfire big time for him, which would make my year.

[wishlist]

5. I agree w/Dean that Bush would like to attack Iran to boost Repubs

Dean says "But more likely, Bush may mount a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear facilities - hoping to rev up his popularity. (It's a risky strategy: A unilateral hit on Iran may both trigger devastating Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks in Iraq, with high death tolls, and increase international dislike of Bush for his bypass of the U.N. But as an active/negative President, Bush hardly shies away from risk.) Another rabbit-out-of-the-hat possibility: the capture of Osama bin Laden."

Fasten your seatbelts.

[bdamomma]

6. We have to challenge this jerk

when we will stand up to this regime? Either we get our country back, or face it, PNAC here we come. Mike Malloy just said the 3 presidents who damaged America are Nixon Reagan and W.

[Bucky]

9. Look at what Dean's NOT saying: Either October Surprise OR a terror attack

Look again at the deep structure of this article. Dean is saying something, maybe, without coming right out and saying it. This one is going out to the tinfoil crowd, by the way. First, the title: Bush Is Becoming An Increasingly Dangerous President
Not reckless, not irresponsible, not incompetant. Dean is saying "dangerous." Pretty ballsy stuff for a mainstream commentator like John Dean.

He then goes into Bush's personality, treating like a pathology, really. He labels Bush an active/negative president and lumps him in with four deeply flawed presidents: Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. He ridicules the president's impudent, impetuous qualities, comparing the unthinking president's "I'm the decider and I decide what's best," to the infantile retort "I'm the Daddy, that's why."

Next Dean connects the dots to the president's unconstitutional actions, "(H)e is using terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans." He then builds a case for viewing Bush as a "radical risk-taker" who uses the presidency in rash, and ineffective ways.

Then comes the kill: Dean states categorically, there will be an "October surprise" this year; Rove and Cheney are already planning it. He ticks off some possibilities: a new VP, a diplomatic coup or a military action in Iran, or at long last the capture of bin Laden. And then comes the weird part... Almost as tacked on as an afterthought, Dean adds on "the possibility of another terrorist attack". At first this seems out of place, not part of the thesis of the article Bush is a dangerous risk-taker, Bush will do anything to hold onto Congress this year.

If the article is all about what Bush will do, why suddenly switch topics and discuss what might happen from the terrorists' side. This has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand: Bush's personality, Bush's recklessness. I have to wonder if maybe Dean is implying, without outright implying, that Bush may be willing to go a lot further to win in November than what is discussed in polite society. Is John Dean sending us, or more likely sending his legal audience a message that this is something they need to be talking about? Is this an SOS sent out to moderate Republicans that, if something happens, the gloves come off?

Nothing's bubbled to the surface here, but I have to wonder if Watergate vet Dean is laying the groundwork for a fairly risky discussion for lawyers to engage in.

[smoochpooch]

10. Why would anyone rally around him after another terrorist attack?

I don't think so.

[mwb970]

11. That's what I was thinking.

32% popularity, and we're attacked again? I don't see him leaping up to 90% by standing on rubble with a bullhorn this time. If anything, he'd go down.

"I thought we would get hit and hit hard if we voted for Kerry...?"

[jerry611]

13. The use or fear

When the nation was attacked on 9/11, people became afraid. And the people, will rally behind their government and their leaders to protect them.

When such an attack occurs, people will start to rethink their priorities. Suddenly nothing political will matter anymore. The only thing that matters would be the protection of themselves, their spouse, and their children. That's it.

[Vinca]

12. I'm convinced Bush is insane . . . seriously.

I used to think it would make a great screenplay, the country under the leadership of a maniac, but this is real life and it's terrifying. I don't put anything past the guy. He's nearly destroyed our country completely with more than 2 years to go.

[Jacobin]

14. He'll do anything to avoid a democratic congress. Anything

Because he knows the investigations will lead to his impeachment AND conviction.

Since Russia and China and Iran have signed a defense pact, attacking Iran is going to be a Cuban Missile Crises moment, but I think he's going to try it, within six weeks of the elections and DARE any democratic candidate for congress to oppose it....call them traitors, etc.

It will work.

:cry: