I am simply fascinated by the Bush & Co psychology of ignoring not just friends (who apparently aren’t being told what he plans — see below) and the electorate, but the experts (ie, military) who understand this won’t work. What will work is up in the air, but the surge ain’t it.
Reminds me of the great Stanley Kubrick film, Paths of Glory, where WWI generals order troops to attack knowing they can’t succeed. Winning isn’t the point.
For GOP Senators, Bush’s Next Step in Iraq Means a Delicate Dance
Senate Republicans, dreading President Bush’s prime-time address tonight calling for more U.S. troops in Iraq, emerged from their weekly party luncheon yesterday displaying more dance steps than the Joffrey Ballet.
“We should listen to what the president has to say,” proposed Sen. John Warner (R-Va).
“I want to hear the president’s plan,” Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) concurred.
“I want to see what he’s proposing before I make dramatic statements,” an unusually skittish Trent Lott (Miss.), the No. 2 Republican, told a thick knot of reporters.
And you didn’t want to get too close to Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio). “We need more information, okay?” he insisted.
But the Republicans’ principal dancer yesterday was Sen. John Sununu (N.H.), perhaps the most endangered of all GOP senators in 2008. “We haven’t discussed ‘the plan,’ ” he maintained. “That would suggest that we were told exactly what is going to be announced tomorrow, and that is certainly not the case.”
Reporters had barely digested that one when Sununu offered a second disavowal: “I don’t really know what they’re thinking about proposing, so given that, it wouldn’t be wise for me to suggest that I do or don’t know whether their conditions are appropriate.”
Dear Senators,
Here’s what he’s proposing: He’s going to send a lot more troops to Iraq. He’s going to squeeze promises from the Iraqi government that can’t and won’t be met. He’s going to make promises to support peace through social and political mechanisms which he will forget in two days.
It’s not complicated. Now what do you think?
This is what you get for electing texans to public office
#2, no that is what you get when the grandson of a Nazi, and a born with a silver spoon up his ass member of the Skull and Bones STEALS the election. We elected Al Gore. We need a new direction in America, one that embraces the workers who make the country work and not the wealthy who oppress them.
3 Bush bashings in a row by 3 diff guys. That’s awesome!
“Bush bashings” – ah! That certainly makes them wrong, then.
It’s not that the military is against a surge, per se, it’s that those extra forces will most likely just be doing the same, man in the middle, thing that already hasn’t proven to be too successful.
Maybe he’s seen too many of those movies where just believing in yourself more than the other person is what wins the day.
“Insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting a different result.” — I think Benjamin Franklin said that.
#8 – In which case you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush is insane.
Two words: f*ck Bush. Actually, more: f*ck those who elected the guy.
I don’t think he’s stupid. He’s doing exactly what he was put there to do. Drain the US treasury and transfer it to the corporate greedheads who put him there. All of his masks,- chistian conservative, joe-niceguy, macho ceo, are personas he feels quite comfortable wearing. But he knows what he was put in for and so for he’s doing a heck-of-a-job.
#11 You are quite right. Corporate interests helped him steal the election so that he could help his friends further oppress workers, kill non-whites, spy on his enemies, and steal as much oil as Halliburton can handle. He has done nothing to help the workers who make the country run, he would rather enrich their corporate slavers. Let’s not forget his father was drug-runner-in-chief in the 1980’s in yet another illegal war for profit against more non-whites. The Republicans will do anything for money, sell weapons to Saddam, Iran, death squads in Central America, sell drugs to its own citizens, steal resources off anyone they can, torch jungles for corporations to build more sweatshops, outsource everything to destroy the middle class and turn us into serfs.
Wow… Someone who get’s it. Good post Alias.
Of course, as my good buddy gquaglia would state, it would be the same of the democrats…
#7, I think you might be on the right track here. Reminds me of that little blue train on Dora the Explorer that beat the bigger trains because she believed in herself and really wanted to win the bell. Picture Cheney as Boots.
#14
God, I really hope you have kids??
Herman –
Have you by any chance heard of an institution called the Electoral College? And can you name one Democrat since 2000 who has moved to abolish it and actually have direct popular election of the president and vice president? You can’t? No surprise there.
Frank,
Have you ever heard of a thing called ‘democracy’? I know it’s hard for you to understand the will of the people, but the PEOPLE (not the corporations) spoke and did not elect Baby Bush. Why don’t you ask one of the millions of blacks who votes were not counted? Why was Baby Bush so afraid of recounts? The Electoral College was put there to STOP the will of the people, so that the controlling interests could keep them in line. Maybe we should go back and take the vote from women and blacks too. I however prefer to let the PEOPLE speak, not slave owners.
Sorry, loser. Bush was elected by a majority of both the voters and the electoral college in 2004, and by a majority of voters in enough states that he was elected by the Electoral College, PER THE CONSTITUTION.
Instead of whining about stolen elections, maybe you should work on nominating candidates that could have defeated Bush.
The democrats nominated reasonable candidates for the house and senate elections in the 2006 primaries, and by doing so, were able to win both the house and senate.
Since you reject the vote of the majority, you therefore reject democracy and you’re nothing but a petty dictator yourself, Herman.
#19 – Herman’s no dictator. I believe he’s a leftover/throwback hippie. He’s kind of entertaining.
But he would sooo love to be a dictator. So that he can shove his twisted mind’s perception of “the will of the people”, down the throats of said people.
2000 election results:
Al Gore: 51,003,926 votes
Baby Bush: 50,460,110 votes
Now who is rejecting the vote of the majority? You claim to speak for the majority of the people but you are afraid of what they vote for. Typical right wing crap. Go back to your dreams of plantations and slavery. I prefer to let the people’s will triumph, not the moneyed corporations who control the puppets in congress and the white house.
Rather silent on Mumia Abu-Jamal I see. Maybe your corporate masters haven’t told you what to say yet.
Did you sleep through the American Government class in which the Electoral College was explained, Herman?
You can’t explain away 2000 and 2004 with the electoral college. In both cases the conservative waged a scorched earth policy to suppress the vote. Whether it is illegal or legal may be an open issue, but I have no doubt they did this.
The result is widespread skepticism about whether our votes will be counted. This is bad for the country. Very bad.
Living overseas, I have found it nearly impossible to vote. I have tried in every major election over the last ten years and only finally succeeded in the last election.
I’m a pretty trusting guy but I now have to wonder if this isn’t an intentional hindrance of the predominantly Democrat expatriot vote.
When I told a conservative friend that my vote gets routinely rejected, he cheered! He cheered!
To me this is symbolic of how many conservatives view the vote — winning is more important than a fair democracy
Greg, how do you know your vote was rejected? I’ve done absentee ballots a couple of times and there’s no feedback – you fill out the form, stuff it into 3 nesting envelopes and mail it in.
#26
Most of the time, the ballot was send late and thus not received in time. I never even mailed it.
In 2004, the ballot was never sent — instead I got a card asking me to verify my absentee request — even though I had done so.
The card came AFTER the election! Interestingly, my wife who lives at my address got her ballot. We sent in our ballot request on the same day.
A couple of times after the 2000 mess, I have been sent a post card saying my vote was not counted, and why. (usually having to do with date).
Finally, the last time, I think my vote made it. (at least I haven’t received a rejection card!).
And I lived in a blue state that does all voting by mail, now. So, you’d think they’d have this figured out.
#26 – Certainly does sound screwed up. My first time I actually was able to fill out the ballot at the courthouse, stuff it in the nested envelopes and turn it in by hand right there – no mail involved. Second time I got the ballot within a week of mailing the request.
(Maybe I am getting something of value for the ridiculous taxes we pay here in MN. 😉 )
Yes, Greg Allen, I too find it extremely troubling that dead Democrats are being denied the right to vote.
But seriously, if you were objective, you would know that problems with absentee ballots actually affect Republican voters more than Democrat voters – because a higher proportion of absentee voters (in particular military voters) tend to be Republican.
#22
Clearly Herman must be a loose reference to Munster.
>Have you ever heard of a thing called ‘democracy’?
Yes we have. It is something the Founding Fathers DESPISED and thus the reason we do not have a democracy. We have a republic which brings us back to the Electoral College. The Electoral College helps dilute the “sheep” effect which occurs in major population centers.
2000 was not the only election where a candidate won the Electoral College but not the popular vote (1876,1888). People do not vote for the President directly; the STATES vote for Presidents. It is upto the States to determine how they allocate their electoral votes HOWEVER, whatever the rules are going into the election, the States cannot change the rules during the election. If a State wants to change how it allocates its electoral votes it must do so after the election. This was the problem that occured in Florida.
That the 2000 election was even close was due to California. California, having 54 electoral votes, allocates its votes based on a simple majority. Whomever gets the majority gets all 54 votes. If instead California had allocated its votes based on proportion of the CA popular vote, Bush would have won in a comfortably. In 2000, CA was split approximately 41%/54% Bush/Gore in the popular vote (the other percentages going to Nader). That means Bush would have gotten about 22 electoral votes (and Gore would have lost 22 electoral votes) and won the election regardless of what happened in Florida.
Clearly Herman must be a loose reference to Munster
Not quite, think about 20-30 years earlier.
It is something the Founding Fathers DESPISED and thus the reason we do not have a democracy.
In the Federalist Papers it was called ‘mobocracy’