This is, after all, what losers always do. Lyndon Johnson did it. Nixon did it. Cripes King George 3rd of England did it!
After no one is surprised by what Bush will say, tonight — will anyone be surprised by reactions from the assorted pigeonholes of American media? We know what Fox will say. We know what CNN will say. We know what the follow-on press conferences at the White House will be like — and what Tony Snow’s answers will be.
We know that Bush’s “popularity” will rise 5-6 points in the various polls evaluating the gullibility of the American electorate — after his escalation — for a couple of weeks.
We know that the most lapdog denizens of American journalism will probably be upset over anyone even using the word, “escalation”.
Want some reputable sources? Try here and here and here.
Will anyone be surprised — that we continue to lose the war?
Maybe if a CEO wants paid more, he should pay his people more, instead of downsizing them so he can steal a few more million.
Again, how do you presume to decide what a CEO, an employee, or anyone for that matter should be paid? You don’t own the company and you have done ZERO to create the jobs that ANY of these people have.
Have you ever actually CREATED a job for someone?
BanGy –
Yes, I too find it rather amusing that people like Herman want to give the police and the military a monopoly on guns.
Herman, you and President Chavez should get together and discuss economic planning. He’s following the path you’re advocating and you may be able to help him out cause he’s gonna need it.
36,
YES I think many of us, keep certain jobs abundant…
LIKE…
My doctor
the guy at McD’s, burgerking, and others
My dentist
The truck driver that delivers to Fred meyers, that sells me my GOODS…
YES I keep many working..
Anyone else find it INCREDIBLY IRRITATING that Bush lectures the Democrats about cooperation and bi-partisanship last week, then HE choses escalation — the least satisfactory avenue for the Democrats and most Americans?
For nearly three years the dems have been whining that there weren’t enough troops in Iraq. Now the worst thing you could possibly do is send more troops? I would agree that you need the right amount at the right time. However, they should try a little honesty and just say, “We’re against anything Bush wants to do.” They’re such a joke. Everyone knows they can’t wait for us to fail. Just admit it.
>>#42 For nearly three years the dems have been whining that there weren’t enough troops in Iraq.
Good parroting of the GOP talking point, Phillip.
Here’s the reality: More troops were a GREAT idea in 2003 and 2004. (During the looting, for instance.) But probably not now.
One of the most infuriating things about war-time Bush is that he just doesn’t keep up. This war has morphed several times since the invasion and Bush always seems to be reacting to some previous reality.
>> Everyone knows they can’t wait for us to fail. Just admit it.
I will admit no such thing. Never. The charge is an insult.
I was against this war because it was so obviously such a bad idea, that it was virtually doomed to failure. (But that’s very different than wanting it to fail! ) I love America and it pains me to see her humiliated like this. I also respect the troops so much that I can’t stand to see them so mis-managed.
What I don’t understand is how anyone who really loves America and the troops could ever have supported this war. Why would they support something so obviously and deeply flawed?
#34,
There was a plan…. for the month it took to take over Afghanistan and the three weeks it took to take over Iraq. The US Military is great at war, horrible at occupation… and for some reason no one wants to admit it.
There was? What was the plan?
Great plan for Afghanistan. We went into Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. We didn’t. We put a lot of War Lords back into power and have allowed the Taliban to come back. Yup, great plan there.
Yup great plan in Iraq. We went in there to stop the weapons of mass destruction because Saddam was thumbing his nose at the world. Our military demobilized the Iraqi military but didn’t secure the weapons. So they were looted. Now we have millions of small arms and tons of explosives unaccounted for. Today these weapons are not only taking American lives, but also hundreds of thousands of Iraqis too.
Yup. That was great military planning.
The truth?
The War in Afghanistan was fought mostly using CIA agents leading Afghani troops with some special ops for reinforcement and American air power. There were not enough American troops to effectively contain the Taliban and el Quaeda.
The War in Iraq was also fought with too few troops to secure the rear and towns vacated by Iraqi troops. The Military removed all Baath Party members from their positions thereby leaving the whole country without any bureaucracy or infrastructure. The troops were needed THEN.
Is this an affront to the military? No. The politicalplanners strategically screwed up. Tactically the military did their jobs well.
#44 Is this an affront to the military? No. The politicalplanners strategically screwed up. Tactically the military did their jobs well.
Don’t apologize! Any thinking person understands that you can criticize strategy or even a whole war but still be pro-troop. Sometimes being AGAINST a war is the best way to be pro-troop. That’s certainly the case with Iraq.
Who can forget that, during the ramp-up to this war, the conservatives shamelessly used the troops as pawns to demagogue support for the war.
I was against this horrid boondoggle in Iraq because I value our troops too much to send them to die for such a boneheaded foreign policy.
And yet, I was told again-and-again by conservatives that I was “anti-troop” and even pro-terrorist and a traitor. Now we know it was the hight of patriotism to warn our country off this horrid war.
Thank goodness the conservatives are no longer calling us traitors for having doubts about this war but they are now trying to pull a similar stunt.
Now, they are blaming us for losing the war!
That jackass Newt Gingrich was on Fox saying (I’m paraphrasing) “I think the Democrats should just vote to cut all funding for the war and admit they are the party of defeat.”
The Republicans lost this war all by themselves but the Democrats are the party of defeat? What a first class blow hole!
Up until about a week ago, the Republican have been IN TOTAL CONTROL of this war, yet the Democrats are the party of defeat? WHAT A JERK!
If America is defeated in Iraq, the blame is on Bush and the GOPs — they demanded this war and they lost this war while completely shutting out any input from the Dems.
Now they blame us for it. What jerks!
The fact that we Democrats are smart enough to recognize a boondoggle does not make us guilty of it.
Here’s the reality: More troops were a GREAT idea in 2003 and 2004. (During the looting, for instance.) But probably not now.
So you were for the “surge” before you were against it?
Any thinking person understands that you can criticize strategy or even a whole war but still be pro-troop.
Which one?
A couple points from the speech that I found interesting: President Bush admitting to several mistakes, the push for municipal elections, deployment of 15 Iraqi Army brigades into Baghdad, & increased pressure on militias. Municipal elections were a long time coming and I’m glad to see that this is goal was made public and part of the political objectives. The Iraqi Army brigades should be more effective in terms of clearing and securing objectives inside of Baghdad. As a side note I’m optimistic about the 2-3 Kurdish Brigades that will aid in the security operation, Kurdi zin duah!. This larger influx of Iraqi security forces seems to be the best way to help the Iraqi security forces learn what it takes to become an effective military force.
#46, Frank
Here’s the reality: More troops were a GREAT idea in 2003 and 2004. (During the looting, for instance.) But probably not now.
So you were for the “surge” before you were against it?
Greg A was quite correct. The neo-cons are trying to blame the Democrats for losing the war.
46 >>So you were for the “surge” before you were against it?
If you put it that way, then Bush was against the surge before he was for it.
Here’s the difference:
I was for more troops when they would have been helpful. (like during the looting)
Bush was against more troops when they might have been helpful!
But now that it’s probably too late, he’s all for them! Go figure.
But even today, I’m not categorically against more troops. I’d just need to hear a clear and rational explanation for why they would help more than they would hurt.
Bush made a few good points in his speech but not enough to convince me.
Did Bush make any mention in his speech, whatsoever, of the generals’ belief that more troops now would inflame rather than reduce the insurgency?
That’s a big red flag, right there.