George W. Bush spoke with all the confidence of a perp in a police lineup. I first interviewed the guy in 1987 and began covering his political rise in 1993, and I have never seen him, in public or private, look less convincing, less sure of himself, less cocky. With his knitted brow and stricken features, he looked, well, scared. Not surprising since what he was doing in the White House library was announcing the escalation of an unpopular war.And
What the voters saw on TV just now was a man struggling to come to grips with his own unwillingness to face facts. It's still a struggle. His acknowledgement of mistakes was oblique and not as brave as it sounded at first blush. Mistakes were made, and he said. "The responsibility rests with me," he said. What he meant to convey was that others had made the mistakes, but that he was stepped up to take the hit. Hoo-aw! He said that he had "consulted" congressional leaders of both parties before he came to a decision on sending more than 20,000 additional troops. He didn't really consult with members of Congress, and certainly not with Democrats, unless you consider Sen. Joe Lieberman a Democrat.I noticed the rhetoric in the "mistakes" section of the speech, too. He never admitted to actually making any mistakes, only taking responsibility for the mistakes that were made.
Sneaky. And only a few years ago lotsa people thought Bill Clinton was sneaky, too.
Then there's Larry Johnson over at TPMCafe:
Johnson, by the way, is a former Intelligence officer with the State Department and the CIA.George Bush still does not get it. The war in Iraq is not and never has been about terrorism. The attacks, the vast majority of attacks carried out against U.S. troops and Iraqis, are not the work of foreign jihadists operating under the direction of Osama Bin Laden. The facts on the ground do not support it.
Although U.S. forces have killed the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Zarqawi, violence has soared unabated. The reason is simple and the solution complex. The U.S. presence in Iraq has unleashed a sectarian war that pits Sunni against Shia. The United States now finds itself confronted with equally unpalatable choices: 1) Back the Sunnis and piss of the Shias, or 2) Back the Shias and piss off the Sunnis.
Bush tonight signals that we are going to pitch our tent with the Shias except we also are going to fight the one Shia, Moktada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia, who are the most anti-Iranian of the Shia. Great! The one group of Shias not closely aligned with Iran are the ones we will attack. This is madness.
Rudy Giuliani over on Roger Ailes' "news" channel:
And everyone know who Rudy is.Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said President Bush "did the right thing” in deciding to send additional U.S. troops to Iraq.
Appearing on Fox News Channel’s "Hannity & Colmes” after the speech, Giuliani said he agreed with the change in U.S. strategy in taking the fight directly to the terrorists.
30 comments:
Dayvoe, you have been off of your game a lot lately, even more than usual.
So, W provides a major policy speech on fighting a war, a final push, and you critique his mannerisms? How he looks at the camera?
Obviously, you have no position on whether or not this was the right move, because you are torn: If you think this is a positive move, you'll come across as agreeing with something that W says. That's worse than death to you.
If you say cut and run, you are leaving Iraq to whatever will happen, and the potential consequences that would occur in the region and , ultimately, the US.
Why don't you turn on the lib talking points and state, blindly, that its time for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country? No substance, unlike Bush's speech, on how to do this.
But it sure sounds good.
Fox is the only station where the news is truthful. But clevery description as being Ailes.
Gotta hand it to you, x, you've got loyalty. You listen to your leader stand up there and say, "We recognize that it isn't working, but we're going to keep doing the same thing except with a few more troops, and maybe it will." And you call that substance. You are one steadfast guy.
Guess who said this: "It's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a plan fails when you're trying to make a plan work."
Of all the righty memes, "cut and run" is one of my favorite. Because it encapsulates so well why we are in this mess. Everything is black and white. It's stay and let our guys be butchered, or it's "cut and run and they'll come attack us on our shores."
I also like how it's a "lib talking point" that we need to get the fuck out of there and let the Iraqis run their country, despite the fact that every poll shows a large majority against staying in Iraq, against adding more troops. Even more people who call themselves "conservative" now believe this.
So, tell me, how is it a lib talking point? I guess because it's true, and we all know that the truth has a liberal bias.
"And everyone know who Rudy is."
Yes, we do. The next President of the United States. :)
Isn't it funny that the liberals do not demonstrate a single care in the world when it comes to fighting the war on terror? Isn't it funny that the newly elected congress isn't interested in fighting terrorism either. First on their agenda? Raising the minimum wage of course. And of course, just how are the mom and pop shops able to meet that outrageous demand that congress put upon them? By firing Johnny because they can no longer afford to pay his salary. Or, by raising their prices. Either way, the liberals don't care. Liberals live in a world of self importance and a world of entitlement. Nothing else matters.
It all clearly shows with the current mindset of the liberal left, not to mention the liberal left media.
Go ahead Ms. Pelosi, make it illegal to profile Muslims. It'll end up being your worst nightmare. Of course you and your liberal friends will pin the blame pointing fingers at Bush and the Republicans because that is what you're all good at.
Mr. Shitrock continuously demonstrates his desire to live in a pre-9/11 world. Problem is, 9/11 happened and he and his liberal friends don't know what to do.
Not once have I heard a solid plan from the Democrats when it comes to the war on terror. Not once have I heard a logical (keyword: logical) plan for Iraq. The liberals all want to turn the Iraq war into another Vietnam and they're doing their damnedest in order to accomplish just that. Their latest coinage in response to Bush wanting to deploy more troops into Iraq is "Escalate the war in Iraq..." Sound familiar? It should to all of you who grew up in the 1960s and early 1970's.
The Democrat plan is simple: Cut and run. Why? Because they want to show the terrorists that they are on their side. Think that's harsh of me to say? Well, prove me otherwise then.
Until I hear otherwise, then I guess your "silence" is proof enough.
Mr. Shitrock continuously demonstrates his desire to live in a pre-9/11 world. Problem is, 9/11 happened and he and his liberal friends don't know what to do.
Hey Lefties! Good news! According to...I don't know, some Anonymous wingnut...sixty-one percent of the American public is now LIBERAL!
And that is your lame attempt at a logical response to what I said?
Pa-the-tic
Keep living in that Pre-9/11 world you're in.
:)
And, YOU, "Anon", keep living in a world where tired boilerplate is worth more than a few spitballin' comments in the ol' blogosphere.
You ain't driving this ship o'state no more, mmmmmkay?
But I still love you, as do we all.
;P
Hey Lefties! More good news! According to...I don't know, some Anonymous wingnut...Sam Brownback, Chuck Hagel, and Chuck Grassley are now LIBERALS!
Gee Shawn, I didn't know that "You were driving this ship o'state, mmmmmkay?" either. The last time I checked, George W. Bush is STILL the Commander In Chief. I am sure his veto pen is well polished and ready to go.
You're so stupid, you didn't even realize how absurd the prior comment you made to me was.
Like I said, Shitrock...
"The Democrat plan is simple: Cut and run. Why? Because they want to show the terrorists that they are on their side. Think that's harsh of me to say? Well, prove me otherwise then.
Until I hear otherwise, then I guess your "silence" is proof enough."
You still haven't provided any. Why is that? Oh wait, because you can't. And why is that? Because if you did, you would show a sign of supporting Bush, and we all know that we cannot have that.
But don't anyone ever question your patriotism, right?
Hey Lefties! Still more good news! According to...I don't know, some Anonymous wingnut...there are now TEN Republican Senators who are now LIBERALS!
John, I look at this as a modern-day Vietnamization (you remember that term. I don't know if fellow bloggers are old eneough):
If we merely insert Iraqi brigades in and around Baghdad, without our help, it may or may not work. W's plan, to coin their new term, is clear, hold, build. By imbedding our troops into these Iraqi units, the goal is to clear out the danger areas and neighborhoods with overwhelming force. This has been done now for four years, and will work.
The second is to hold the areas, instead of pulling out to other hotspots. This always created a vacuum, which the insurgents filled. Now, we want the Iraqi units to fill that void, with American help.
Finally, and this is crucial, by upholding the rule of law and ending the sectarian violence in these areas, the people within those areas can now attempt to live a semblance of a normal life. Being able to merely walk down a street unafraid, let alone go to work, will finally start them down the road to stabilization.
Finally, note W did put a stop date on this: November.
Let us all hope and pray that we'll be done with this war then.
Yeah, I heard all that.
I expect that the Bushies would be be very quick to denounce your comparison between this "New Way Forward" and Vietnamization. Certainly you remember the overwhelming, resounding failure that policy represented.
November, huh? I hope you have a large sum of money you would care to hazard on that wager, unless you are going to claim that the invasion of Iran will end US involvement in Iraq.
Well, I said it was LIKE Vietnamization. Let's hope it works better.
As you can probably tell by my comments, I am ever the optimist about the welfare of the US. I have a son in this fight, in the Army Infantry, and I fervently hope this will be the last push.
Well, here's the rub regarding our attempt to, er, "Iraqify" things: what does this current government want? I've started to see the Maliki-led government as being less than enthusiastic about playing nice with the Sunni arabs. I think we're seeing the start of an attempt by the Shia coalition within the Iraqi government to establish themselves as THE dominant power within that country. Where this leaves the Kurds exactly, is a good question. My guess is that the Shia would be just fine with a cordial, if distant, relationship where the Kurds are essentially left alone as long as they don't interfere with Shia dominance in the southern 2/3 of Iraq.
I hope I'm wrong, but I ain't holdin' my breath.
I sincerely feel for you, x. I can't completely identify, because my 31-year-old kid never had any military inclinations and I must admit I am very glad she didn't.
One theory is that what you are hoping to be the "last push" is actually just a staging exercize for Operation Iranian Freedom. For the sake of you and me, our kids, and the entire country, I hope they're wrong.
Not one of these liberal left imbeciles has indicated the desire for the United States to win the war on terror, which includes Iraq, of course.
Ponder that thought, folks. We all know what side these guys are on. It shows, all of the time.
Funny thing is, not one of these lefties has ever given me any information to make me not say that I believe that they are on the side of the terrorists. I am still waiting.
I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long, long time.
There's your patriotic Democrats.
Well, since you seem to feel so strongly our (we, that is,the Democrats among all yinz) hatred of U.S. & A. "anon", why don't you get some of our politicians (e.g. Nancy Pelosi, Russ Feingold) charged with treason?
Go on, there's nothing stopping you. Get a fund going, hire some lawyers, and be true to your beliefs. I mean, isn't that what the blogospher is for? It's practically your duty. After all, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
We're waiting.
Again, you failed to prove me otherwise, which is what I expected. I say (and still stick with) that you and your liberal left would love to see nothing more than the United States to fail in Iraq.
I say that because you and your liberal left friends have not given me any proof to say otherwise.
And your response is this???? your response. There's my proof. Enough said. Nice cop out answer, Shawn. You have no balls to sit there and say you want us to win, or you don't. Afraid of pissing off your friends on here? You could be labeled that you're "not one of them" after all. What a terrifying concept to you that must be.
You *just* don't get it.
I'll say this ONE more time. And let's see if you (any of you, for that matter) can answer me without responding to my question with a question this time:
I believe that you and your liberal left party wants to see the United States fail in Iraq. Why? Because you have not given me any proof whatsoever to say otherwise.
I am waiting....(again, and again)
Anon, let me fill you in on a little something.
The United States has already failed in Iraq.
Wingnuts, like yourself, can't face the fact that your president's policies have failed. You're in such denial about it that your only conceivable "solution" now is to throw more Soldiers/Marines at the problem in the bleak hope that maybe this time something else will happen.
Won't happen.
What this means is that the casualty numbers will keep going up because you (and Bush) can't face reality. You NEED to see more servicemen killed because you can't face the fact that your president has already failed.
It's disgustingly obvious. Your denial has lead to and will continue to lead to needless American deaths.
YOUR denial.
And I know this to be true because you have not given me any proof whatsoever to say otherwise.
You accuse me of ignoring a question and then "answer" a challenge to you and yours with non-answer. Classic!
Even better, you don't respond to the idea that you ought to try to bring a charge of treason against a Democratic official or officials and then call someone else a coward! Classic squared!
Still, you're very generous. I mean, you claim to be against a lot of what "we" stand for and yet here you are, bumping up a liberal blogger's stats! Awesome!
Well played! Well played!
Shawn, you shithead:
I asked you a question, and you respond to it with something like, "if you don't like it then have our politicians charged with treason..." crap. Dude, you simply cannot respond do the statement directed toward you, and you have the audacity to say shit like, "classic!"
You still fail to see my point. I doubt if you ever will.
Oh and Anon:
"The United States has already failed in Iraq."
That's because you want more than nothing to see that it does just that. Your response just proves it...and hell, I just quoted you on it.
The president's efforts and policies have constantly been undermined by the liberal left and by the liberal left media. Every single step of the way has been undermined and critizized. Why is it that the main stream media insists on reporting on the bad things which happen in Iraq and not on the good things. Never, do we hear anything from the media about the good things taking place. The liberal left and media have made an effort to Vietnamize this war to the point they want to convince the American people that no matter what, it's the wrong thing to do. I wonder, have you tried speaking to an actual Iraqi citizen about this? Of course not. And we cannot count on the main stream media do to that either, considering the fact that the associated press has been caught getting "information" from someone in Iraq who doesn't even exist. That being said, just how reliable can the media be? But you will keep sucking it up like a crack whore.
And then you have the liberal mentality to try and say crap like:
"It's disgustingly obvious. Your denial has lead to and will continue to lead to needless American deaths.
YOUR denial.
And I know this to be true because you have not given me any proof whatsoever to say otherwise."
I am not in denial. We were all told the tremendous effort it would take for a victory in Iraq. But how can their ever be victory when people like you and John Kerry, and John Murtha say the things that you say about our military? How can their be any victory when our own mainstream media always insists on concentrating their "reporting" on the negative things in Iraq.
How original. Certainly you can be more creative than that. You still have FAILED to answer my original question.
I am SO convinced that if we were all living in the times of WWII and the fly by media that we have now existed, along with left wing kooks like you all, WE ALL would be speaking German right now. There's absolutely NO DOUBT about it.
But don't anyone ever question your patriotism, right?
Now, that is "original!"
From one Anon to Another;
Ah...where to begin?
Here. You wrote:
===
The president's efforts and policies have constantly been undermined by the liberal left and by the liberal left media. Every single step of the way has been undermined and critizized.
===
It's that damned free speech again! That's what's loosing us Iraq! The ability of people to SPEAK ABOUT AGAINST IT! Damn that 1st Amendment!
A little later you wrote:
===
And we cannot count on the main stream media do to that either, considering the fact that the associated press has been caught getting "information" from someone in Iraq who doesn't even exist.
===
Gotta do your homework, Anon. Jamil Hussein does exist. The Iraqi government even says so.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003528028
Check out the text:
===
The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media.
Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press.
The captain, whose full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, was one of the sources for an AP story in late November about the burning and shooting of six people during a sectarian attack at a Sunni mosque.
The U.S. military and the Iraqi Interior Ministry raised the doubts about Hussein in questioning the veracity of the AP's initial reporting on the incident, and the Iraqi ministry suggested that many news organization were giving a distorted, exaggerated picture of the conflict in Iraq. Some Internet bloggers spread and amplified these doubts, accusing the AP of having made up Hussein's identity in order to disseminate false news about the war.
===
So you're wrong about that, aren't you? If you're gonna play with the grownups you gotta come prepared.
But this part is the part I love. You wrote:
===
I'm not in denial.
===
Yea, EVERYONE in denial says that. Hahaha! But you do yourself no favors by follow it with this:
===
We were all told the tremendous effort it would take for a victory in Iraq.
===
Really? So I guess you missed the whole "Iraq will be a cakewalk." stuff.
How much credibility DO you have left, Anon? Not much by my criteria.
But since you're in denial about so many things, I am sure you'll just deny everything here too.
Hahahaha!
Have a good Saturday, Anon.
All of that typing you just did and you still cannot provide the ammunition to disprove what I said about you liberals wanting the United States to fail in Iraq.
Since your little brain has trouble contemplating what I said before, I'll give you one last chance to redeem yourself before I give up on you numskulls given the ludicrous responses I get on here.
And you people breed? Now, *that* is scary.
One LAST time:
Tell me I am wrong when I say that I believe that you and your liberal left would love to see nothing more than for the United States to fail in Iraq. Prove me wrong.
Consider that a dare.
And please, prove me wrong without the long-winded response(s) which have absolutely nothing to do with proving me wrong that I believe that you people want us to fail in Iraq.
I betchya can't.
That's what I thought.
Your silence speaks volumes.
Still nothing? Wow. I must of hit home really hard.
Psst! Anon! They're ignoring you! Shhhh....
Of course they are. They have nothing to say. They don't want to be accused by their peers of "not being one of them."
Post a Comment