Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window - Steve Wozniak

Not Making the Case
by Lee

A reader to Sully’s blog sends in this email.

I certainly agree with Zalmay that stakes are high in Iraq – precisely because we’ve put all of our chips, so to speak, on this wild gamble in the Middle East. But Bush has nobody to blame for dwindling public support but himself. This is a President that refuses to acknowledge that there is such a thing as “the American people” and that he is accountable to them. And he shows no signs of this changing. Every significant speech is made to cherry-picked crowds at military academies. Scott McClellan’s briefings have become unintentional comedy sketches. And his surrogates just buzz and strafe Sunday morning talk shows every so often to parrot the same useless talking points. Imagine how much public opinion could be shaped and how much criticism could be defused if he simply addresses the American people to tell us what ‘the course’ that we must supposedly ‘stay’ is. What IS the mission? How many Iraqi battalions being independent and battle-ready will it take before we can at least begin to draw down? When can we expect this to occur? What is he doing to draw the Sunnis more into the political process and away from the insurgents? What is he doing with neighboring nations like Iran to stop their meddling and to seek their help in securing the borders? There are countless other questions – the answers of which could be used to explain in detail our progress, our plan, and a clear direction for America in the Middle East.

But when he is silent and hiding away from his critics, it’s only reasonable for people to begin to assume that he has no progress to report, no plan, and no direction. It would be sad if the hard work of people like Gen. Casey and Zalmay is all for naught because their boss was too much of a fool to explain the rather significant benefits of what they’re now doing in Iraq.

Exactly the same point I’ve been making for the past few days.  Bush’s talking points, the same talking points he’s been regurgitating for months now, aren’t getting the job done.  He needs a new tactic, or we’re going to lose.  The American people aren’t afraid of war or sacrifice, but they need direction and reassurance that their sacrifice is going to be for something tangible.  Bush needs to articulate this and he’s failing.

Posted by Lee on 11/29/05 at 08:27 AM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 11/29/05 at 09:37 AM from United States

I may be the lone wolf here, but I since I listen when the president speaks and I educate myself by reading various publications and watching various news shows, not just Fox, I am at a loss as to why people think Bush hasn’t made the mission clear.  I got it the first time, I don’t need it repeated to me 10 times a day like I am an idiot.  Maybe some people do, but I don’t.  Why is it when he does go on TV it’s a “talking point”. How should he say it differently so it doesn’t sound like a “talking point’?  I not a baby who needs it all explained to me like I was 6.  Maybe that’s the problem.  Is everyone’s attention span that short that they need the prez to come on TV every other day and tell them the same thing 6 different ways?

Posted by Lee on 11/29/05 at 09:47 AM from United States

I may be the lone wolf here, but I since I listen when the president speaks and I educate myself by reading various publications and watching various news shows, not just Fox, I am at a loss as to why people think Bush hasn’t made the mission clear.

Because 99% of the people in this country don’t take the time to educate themselves and read various publications and watch news shows.  They have 15 minutes to watch the news while they’re eating dinner.  The rest of the time they’re shopping or sleeping or taking kids to soccer practice or doing all the other things that a busy working family takes part in. 

How can I say that Bush isn’t getting the message out?  Because his opposition is getting their message out, and their message is winning.  As long as Bush’s poll numbers keep going down, it means that his message isn’t getting out.  Not only do you have to make your case, you have to make a superior case to your opponents.  They’ve started going on the offensive against the Democrats, which is a good thing, but they need to do more.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 09:56 AM from United Kingdom

Can anyone furnish me with the transcripts or links of these messages that are not getting out? They should be out there on public domain - and we should be able to see where the liberal media blocked them.

Posted by Drumwaster on 11/29/05 at 10:05 AM from United States

They aren’t being blocked so much as being overwhelmed by opposing points of view. When you come on and say simplistic things like “we’ve got to stay the course”, those of us who recognize how crucial this mission actually is know what he’s talking about, but most people are about as aware of politics on a daily basis as they are of weather conditions in the central Pacific.

He needs to sit down and spell out exactly what he wants, step-by-step. Point out the lies that are being told against him (a good start has been made on this, but the lies are so firmly entrenched that people believe them). I just heard a Dem Senator say, quite matter-of-factly, “A majority of America knows that we are losing in Iraq”, and wasn’t challenged by the reporter.

That is why we get libtards in here who actually believe that nonsense, and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary. That IS Bush’s fault, because he isn’t shaping the message.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 10:15 AM from United States

just heard a Dem Senator say, quite matter-of-factly, “A majority of America knows that we are losing in Iraq”, and wasn’t challenged by the reporter.

Therein lies the problem Drum.  Few of these democrats are being challenged and of course that is simply because of the bias in the media.  And of course Lee is correct.  Most people get 15 minutes of news from CBS, NBC etc. each day.  But what the hell is Bush supposed to do?  I know he has started fighting back, but the fucking dems just keep up their bullshit and trot out the old “Bush lied”.  Talk about the same old talking points.  Bush lied and now it’s back to anyone who does fight back is questioning their patriotism.  They trot out the same shit day after day.  They don’t have any real plan to win the war.  Why is their bullshit, same old tired crap being bought by the public.  Are most people really that stupid?  Never mind I know the answer.  It’s just frustrating as hell to me.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 10:19 AM from United Kingdom

Drum - that wasn’t a dig, I actually wanted to hear some of these messages that Bush is trying to get out - I haven’t heard any (I’m abroad, and mainly get my US news from Blogs) - I marvel that it would be so easy to dismiss these lies by stating his position clearly, or by pointing to a speech where he outlined his position, but he doesn’t. This immediate withdrawl nonsense is a case in point - surely Bush should just be able to say “this is the gameplan I outlined in 2003, and we’re on target for what we thought we could acheive. Immediate withdrawl would go against our gameplan.” Instead, Bush and co seem to have kept things vague rather than admitting the war hasn’t gone 100% to plan (what war does?) and have put the immediate withdrawl thing on the table to score points against democrats. Meanwhile, Joe public is left in the middle asking “What is our gameplan?”

Posted by Drumwaster on 11/29/05 at 10:36 AM from United States

That’s part of the problem.

Case in point: the left’s almost rteligious fervor in reporting that Bush “lied” about WMD, and how WMD were the only reason given for invading a sovereign country.

All bullshit, disproven time and again, yet they keep repeating it like it was true.

They claim that Bush said that Iraq was an “imminent threat” when anyone can go back to the exact speech, and see how Bush pointed out that we could not afford to wait until Iraq became an “imminent threat”. In fact, the only person to actually use those words was Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).

The facts are out there, but the Dems routinely practice The Big Lie, and the media slavishly repeat it, giving it credence, while ignoring that they were the ones who reported the original speech.

Another case in point: Casey’s mom. She had a chance to meet with Bush, came out of it with a favorable impression, but once the numbers started shifting down, she popped back up like a bad penny, demanding to meet with Bush, and whoring out the memory of her dead son, and the media gave her MUCH more credence than they gave Bush, simply because they agreed with the message, giving her an “absolute moral authority”, while ignoring all of the thousands of other parents who disagree with her. (I guess they don’t have that same “absolute moral authority”.)

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 10:39 AM from United States

So what the hell do we do?  I swear this gets so frustrating to me sometimes I think I am going to go nuts.  I’m so sick of the media twisting everything to fit their agenda.  When did it go from a journalist reporting the news to “changing the world”.  I heard this the other night and wanted to puke.  It’s not your job to change the world you dumbass.  It’s your job to report what’s going on in it!!!  Christ!

Posted by Drumwaster on 11/29/05 at 10:47 AM from United States

Blame Woodward and Bernstein.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 10:49 AM from United States

Karen, two things fundamentally changed the news: Watergate and Walter Cronkite. Every pencil-jockey walking wants to break the next big story, or take down the biggest Republican they can target. Or, every one of the mealey-mouthed sumbitches wants to Shape History and Make Big Pronouncements like good ‘ol Walter.

It’s made most of them whores to their own ambition.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 10:53 AM from United States

I also think Vietnam changed the news as well.  Don’t you think it was the pressure of the media showing protesters on a daily basis and the carnage in Vietnam itself that turned people off of the war?  At that point the politicians bowed to the pressure they preceived from the public instead of the doing the right thing and that was trying to win the damn war.  Gee, sounds familiar doesn’t it?

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 11:07 AM from United States

Screwing the pooch, yet again.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 11:16 AM from United States

Bush needs to articulate this and he’s failing.

Last night W was here in AZ and he spoke at a fundraiser dinner for Sen. John Kyl that was broadcast on local radio.

He specifically referenced Iraq and its significance in TWOT and hit a total home run: He used historical references (Japan and Germany after WW2) to explain the significance of turning a defeated nation into a democratic ally in the region; especially as it pertains to fighting ideologies that seek to destroy us, as well as historical references to the consequences of cutting and running in the face of totalitarianism (massacres in Vietnam and Cambodia in the late 70s)

I have not heard such a compelling argument from W since early 2003. Unfortunately it came on a small stage to a limited group of republicans in this already red state.

If Republicans have any sense, they will continue to make this argument on a much larger stage…

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 12:47 PM from United States

I got it the first time, I don’t need it repeated to me 10 times a day like I am an idiot.  Maybe some people do, but I don’t.

Okay, then kindly explain it to us up here in the cheap seats. What is the “course” that we must “stay”? What are the targets for Iraqi military readiness? How close are we? How much longer do you think it will take?

Reality check:

- Approximately 100 Attacks Per Day; All-Time High.

- One of the Deadliest Attacks In Iraq Occurred Less Ten Days Ago.

- Unemployment Rates At 40 Percent.

- Iraq Oil Production Is Below Pre-War Levels.

- Water, Electricity, Health Networks Are Below Prewar Levels.

- Almost 60 percent of All U.S. Fatalities Have Occurred After The Transfer of Sovereignty

- Insurgents in Iraq Have Kidnapped More Than 225 Foreigners.

- Over $250 Billion Spent On Iraq War.

- Reconstruction of Iraq Has Been Spotty. “As the money runs out on the $30 billion American-financed reconstruction of Iraq, the officials in charge cannot say how many planned projects they will complete, and there is no clear source for the hundreds of millions of dollars a year needed to operate the projects that have been finished, according to a report to the U.S. Congress released Sunday.” [NYT, 10/31/05]

- Number of Troops Trained.
February 2004: Number of Iraqi Troops Reportedly Trained = 210,000 [Rumsfeld, 2/23/04]
September 2004: Number of Iraqi Troops Reportedly Trained = 95,000 [CNN, 9/12/04]
Now: Number of Iraqi Troops Reportedly Trained = 212,000 [AP, 11/28/05]

- Dwindling Coalition.
Peak # of Countries in Coalition: 37
Current # of Countries in Coalition: 27 [Boston Globe, 11/27/05]

- Almost 3 Years Later, More Troops In Iraq.

Posted by Poosh on 11/29/05 at 01:10 PM from United Kingdom

omg Channel 4 News, did something almost pro-Bush, while I didn’t watch the seqment the head-line was “ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! Bush wants them to stay, the country needs them but the right-wing of his party want them to go!” - followed of course by another headline about some of that bomb Al-Jazeera bullshit but still…

This is OUR media, dems get their message out because the media wants them to. Fox News can only do so much.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 01:19 PM from United States

Hazehead-it’s called a war.  How about the good news along with the bad?

School attendance up to 80% with more than 1500 schools renovated.

There have been 2 free elections, barely covered my the MSM by the way.

No more rape rooms or torture chambers.

No more gassing of his own people.

Oil production is about the same as before the war.  2.3 million to 2.5 million barrels a day compared to 2.8 barrels before the war.  I wouldn’t call that a drastic drop.  In fact, in light of the terrorist attacks and sabotage of the oil fields that’s pretty impressive to me.

Iraqi troop levels:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8984/interview_with_colonel_peter_mansoor_on_training_iraqi_forces.html

No it’s not going great, but it’s going.

Training of Iraqi troops

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 01:20 PM from United States

Oops, sorry for posting it twice.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 01:31 PM from United States

Bush needs to articulate this and he’s failing

Lee, I’m sure you’ll get pissed at me for saying this, but the only failure is one of comprehension on your part.

I think I’ve seen enough polling data to satisfy myself that we’re not in imminent danger of losing, despite what I think is your alarmism (but if you’re so concerned maybe you should throw in with the Dems less.....shall I just call myself a Bush sycophant now and save you the typing time lol?)

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 01:33 PM from United States

As long as Bush’s poll numbers keep going down, it means that his message isn’t getting out

Proves my point. His poll numbers have started going UP again (Rasmussen, which is a poll with a bit more credibility than anything CBS or AP etc cooks up)

Somebody is out of step…

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 01:58 PM from United States

I have not heard such a compelling argument from W since early 2003. Unfortunately it came on a small stage to a limited group of republicans in this already red state.

But HE HAS made these arguments!  Since day fuckin’ one!  Almost every speech he makes contains statements like these.

If people are only programmed to hear 15 minute sound bites from the big 4 lib networks, because they’re too busy to actually, you know, read other points of view, then I don’t know what the hell Bush is supposed to do.  Expecting him to communicate better won’t work, because he’s not a good communicator.  And, if I remember right (please correct me if I’m wrong), Bush’s speeches have not been broadcast by the big networks with the same frequency as prior presidents.  As I remember, the last one was only carried by the 2 cable news networks, and FOX broadcast network.  The big 3 didn’t even carry it.

When I was growing up, it didn’t matter if the president was Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc.  The idea that the president was not broadcast to the nation was unheard of.

Which brings me back to my initial belief - comparing Bush’s issues with Reagan’s issues with the media is not a comparison.  Bush has it WAY worse.

TV (Harry)

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 02:00 PM from Canada

- Approximately 100 Attacks Per Day; All-Time High.

- One of the Deadliest Attacks In Iraq Occurred Less Ten Days Ago.

- Unemployment Rates At 40 Percent.

- Iraq Oil Production Is Below Pre-War Levels.

- Water, Electricity, Health Networks Are Below Prewar Levels.

- Almost 60 percent of All U.S. Fatalities Have Occurred After The Transfer of Sovereignty

- Insurgents in Iraq Have Kidnapped More Than 225 Foreigners.

- Over $250 Billion Spent On Iraq War.

I noticed you didn’t site any of these claims with sources. Could it be that they are wrong? I see three that are wrong.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 02:15 PM from United States

One of the Deadliest Attacks In Iraq Occurred Less Ten Days Ago.

September 11, 2001, the deadliest attack on our soil, over 2000 dead.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 02:26 PM from United States

- Over 2100 US fighters have died in Iraq since March 3 2004.
- Over 400 have died from deer/auto collisions since March 3 2003 in the US.

Where is the outrage over our military doing nothing about this deer problem!?

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 02:40 PM from United States

Ukraine is leaving Kut (pop: 500,000) because the Iraqi troops took over. All Ukraine troops will be home by the end of December.

In a sense the WWII coalition has dwindled as well. Where is the outrage over that? If there is a massive German insurgency tomorrow, how will the Allies deal with this? Another failure by Bush, Halliburtion, Ann Coulter, Diebold and Fox News.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 03:00 PM from United States

In a sense the WWII coalition has dwindled as well. Where is the outrage over that?

How many Un nations sit on the Korean DMZ these days??
Posted by on 11/29/05 at 04:00 PM from United States

One of the Deadliest Attacks In Iraq Occurred Less Ten Days Ago.

September 11, 2001, the deadliest attack on our soil, over 2000 dead.

It’s amazing how many of you dittoheads think that 9/11 and Iraq have anything to do with each other. Iraq has as much to do with 9/11 as with the OK City bombing.

The only relationship is that by invading Iraq we’ve pretty much ensured that we’ll be hit with another 9/11 someday. We’re simply creating too many terrorists with our policies to avoid it.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 04:20 PM from United States

I noticed you didn’t site any of these claims with sources. Could it be that they are wrong? I see three that are wrong.

I noticed you’re a jackass, here’s where I got it if you want to look at the sources. None of them are Faux News so I doubt you’ll believe them anyway.

Suvdriver, what plane of reality do you live in? Perhaps you could come back down to Earth where the rest of us live?

Hazehead-it’s called a war.  How about the good news along with the bad?

Karen, it’s called an occupation and a very active insurgency. How about you pull your head out?

There have been 2 free elections, barely covered my the MSM by the way.

Yeah I didn’t anything about the elections on EVERY FUCKING NEWS CHANNEL and EVERY NEWSPAPER for a solid month… what were those blue fingers again?

No more rape rooms or torture chambers.

No more gassing of his own people.

Your really setting the bar high aren’t you? “No rape rooms, see we are doing really well”. I guess you haven’t seen the pictures of what happens to Iraqis in US/Shite prisons eh?

Oil production is about the same as before the war.  2.3 million to 2.5 million barrels a day compared to 2.8 barrels before the war.

According to the CGES they are at 1.9 million barrels a day in net production, lower than the 2.6 million it was producing in 2003.

And that CFR story on Iraqi troop levels argued my side of the issue more than yours. Basically he’s saying (very politically) that things aren’t doing so good and we should wait another year or so and see if they get better.

No it’s not going great, but it’s going.

Going where? This sort of vague clap-trap is exactly what I would expect to hear from someone with their head in the sand.

Posted by Drumwaster on 11/29/05 at 04:29 PM from United States

It’s amazing how many of you dittoheads think that 9/11 and Iraq have anything to do with each other.

If it weren’t for the fact that a Clinton-appointed Federal Judge ruled differently, I’d invite you to show us a single statement from any of Bush administration officials that say otherwise.

Now, if you have the balls to ask if Iraq has anything to do with the war on TERROR (which is what this is - and which 9/11 was just the first attack of that decade-old war to happen on American soil), you’ll be laughed at just as if you had asked “you mean the sun rises in the east?”

Y’see, you fucking moron, this is a global conflict, just like WW2 was. There are no nations that have been unaffected, one way or another.

Karen, it’s called an occupation and a very active insurgency.

No, dumbass, it’s still called a “war”. Iraq just happens to be where most of the fighting is going on this year. Next year, after they have built themselves up to the point where they can actually defend their fledgling democracy (that was done Not In Your Name, remember?), and we have drawn down the number of troops, are you going to start whining that Iran has nothing to do with terrorism, and that they are “being contained”?

Posted by InsipiD on 11/29/05 at 04:51 PM from United States

Blame Woodward and Bernstein.

Not half as stupid an idea as it might first seem.  Were it not for Watergate, noone would’ve heard of W&B;(I realize that’s a biggie, but how I wish it were true).  Because of Watergate, W&B;are almost go-to guys about corruption in politics.  Woodward regularly writes books that people actually read, while he’d just be working a DC beat if not for Watergate.  At least blame him for the current trumpet line about “GOP culture of corruption” since ‘73 or so is where it began.  FWIW, I like the portrayal of W&B;in “Dick”.  Absolutely a riot and probably at least as accurate as any other.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 04:59 PM from United States

If it weren’t for the fact that a Clinton-appointed Federal Judge ruled differently,

Have you actually read the source materials for that ridicolus website? NRO, The Hudson Institute?  Dittoheads strike again! Do you people ever push your oily heads from your stinking cocoons and collect input from the real world?

From one of only actual news reports linked from it’s “reference” material:
“Baer said lawyers relied heavily on “classically hearsay” evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors’ descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists.”

Whoa, not exactly a ringing endorsement, eh? Not to mention those defectors and Powell’s remarks have since proven to be bogus.

This case was a civil case pursued by victims who want to be paid damages. They had zero power to investigate intellegence claims which form the basis of it’s conclusions. BZZZZZT! Try again.

No, dumbass, it’s still called a “war”.

Calling it a war when it is clearly not a war will make it just as successful as the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty.

Here’s a great example of how the Iraq occupation is blunting our power to actually go after the real terrorists.

People like you think you’re such great patriots, but your part of the problem, not the solution.

Posted by Drumwaster on 11/29/05 at 05:20 PM from United States

Do you people ever push your oily heads from your stinking cocoons and collect input from the real world?

Ad hominem much, shit-for-brains? Why not try to actually disprove the data? And the judge’s ruling is a matter of public record, but maybe he’s a “dittohead”, too? Isn’t that a nice cubby-hole to put all uncomfortable information so that you can continue spouting lies.

Calling it a war when it is clearly not a war

We’re not the ones who started the WAR, numbskull.

And if it isn’t a war, what would you call it? “Gang violence”? “Social unrest”?

So just in case you have forgotten (or, given your lack of a firm grasp on reality, probably refused to hear), we have had New York City attacked twice, Washington, DC attacked once, two African embassies destroyed, a military base overseas attacked, and a Navy Warship attacked. Thousands dead, and at least five clear Acts of War, and you still don’t get it.

Hazey, it’s a total lack of comprehension like this that has everyone making fun of you.

how the Iraq occupation is blunting our power to actually go after the real terrorists.

So Al Qaeda isn’t the “real terrorists”? Oh, wait, that’s right, you think Bush and Blair are the actual terrorists.

You’re a fucking moron, aren’t you? No, wait, I take that back, you’re probably a VIRGIN moron!

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 05:22 PM from United States

Blame Woodward and Bernstein.

Not half as stupid an idea as it might first seem.

Classic example of how conservatives solve problems. Don’t clean the mess, kill the whistleblower.

You could almost be a parody if I thought you weren’t serious. Are you allergic to newsprint? Afraid of the glow of a CRT? How do you avoid the truth invading your narrow little world-view?

If you bother to read today’s headlines you’ll notice that the trumpet solo continues. Delay, Frist, Rove? It’s all Woodward’s fault…

Posted by Drumwaster on 11/29/05 at 05:26 PM from United States

If you actually knew what the hell was being discussed at any given moment, you might actually be able to take part in a conversation without sounding like a fucking moron, hazey.

Is your stupidity a congenital thing, or a satirical one, like Liberal Larry? It has to be an act, because I cannot credit that anyone like you could be so stupid on accident.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 05:32 PM from United States

Why not try to actually disprove the data?

What data? I quoted the fucking judge you are referring to who says the ruling is based on heresay. The intelligence that 2003 ruling was based on has been proven false. Go read a fucking real news paper instead of the dittohead link exchange and you’ll see the truth fucktard.

Calling it a war when it is clearly not a war

We’re not the ones who started the WAR, numbskull.

And if it isn’t a war, what would you call it? “Gang violence”? “Social unrest”?

So just in case you have forgotten ... at least five clear Acts of War, and you still don’t get it.

Saddam has been a busy boy! Fucking incredible, you just don’t respond to reason. Same tired arguments. We are talking about Iraq and our success or failure there, and how to measure it. You just keep cut and pasting from the dittohead talking points. Try again.

So Al Qaeda isn’t the “real terrorists”? Oh, wait, that’s right, you think Bush and Blair are the actual terrorists.

Again (getting tired, maybe I should try cut and pasting my debates too), READ THE ARTICLE. It is regarding how we are failing to make progress in blocking funds to global terrorism. That is at the very heart of the problem.

Dumbwaster, you should take a step back. Clear your mind of the NRO talking points, and think. Terrorism isn’t PRNK, it isn’t Nazi Germany, it’s a fucking franchise where the joining fee is killing Americans and hurting our allies and interests. You don’t solve this type of problem with an occupation of a nation who spent decades torturing it’s own people and writing the occasional 25K check to a suicide bomber. If you can explain to me how the occupation will contribute to the WOT please do… cleaning up the mess we made by invading doesn’t count.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 05:34 PM from United States

If you actually knew what the hell was being discussed at any given moment,

I was bringing up modern examples of GOP member’s culture of corruption, and refuting your pathetic attempts to smokescreen the issue.

Go back to one handed typing… you other internet activities are just a waste of time.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 05:41 PM from United States

I heard Bush is going to make a speech bout it soon.  I think. But the problem is, he needs to make the speech DURING the Nightly News. If he doesn’t, all of that Republican glory will be reduced to a few points on the news, which will be played down. You cannot let the media filter out your speech, which is what has happened in the past. If he goes on at 6:30, all the nightlies (which is when people watch) will cover it because it’s a big story. That 15 minutes people watch, it will be all Bush, no editorial crap.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 06:51 PM from United States

I noticed you’re a jackass, here’s where I got it if you want to look at the sources. None of them are Faux News so I doubt you’ll believe them anyway

No, but your link is from ‘stink progres’ (ha ha. I made funny like hazey.)

I notice some of their sources are over a year old to make their case. What politically motivated tripe. Try this.

While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America’s bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

And that’s hazey’s goal, seizing defeat from victory. You’re obviously against America hazey. Strap bomb belt and get it over with.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 06:56 PM from United States

Hazehead,

How can the Iraq occuation be blunting our power to go after terrorists when our troops still have time to do this?

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 07:04 PM from United States

The only relationship is that by invading Iraq we’ve pretty much ensured that we’ll be hit with another 9/11 someday. We’re simply creating too many terrorists with our policies to avoid it.

Iraq was harboring terrorists that killed Americans already. She was violating the terms of surrender from the 1990-1 war. By invading Iraq, we eliminated a potential threat. We’ve simply eliminated potential terrorists by exposing the existing terrorist for what they are to peaceful Iraqis. But, by your twisted logic, you think Iraqis will want to attack the U.S. because Zarqawi’s thugs blew up vegetable markets because they were full of ‘apostates’.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 07:06 PM from United States

According to the CGES they are at 1.9 million barrels a day in net production, lower than the 2.6 million it was producing in 2003.

Hazey’s quoting old dead links to make his case. Hahahaha.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 07:08 PM from United States

Here’s a great example of how the Iraq occupation is blunting our power to actually go after the real terrorists.

More dead links. Got any more from you leftist websites? Maybe you should ask Casey Sheehan’s uteran vessel for more.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 07:19 PM from United States

No, but your link is from ‘stink progres’

Yes, but if you READ THE ARTICLE (this is a shortcut now, as I get tired of typing it) you’ll see a long list of citations to major media articles supporting those statements I made. You asked, I delivered.

I did read your linked article, and I’m not going to disagree we are doing a lot of good in Iraq. The issue we are discussing however is are we helping or hurting our chances in a global struggle with fundamentalist Islamic terrorism? If we would have gone in with more troops, kept the officer core of their army intact, effectively spent reconstruction funds and, oh I don’t know, had a reason for going that didn’t end up being utter bullshit, then perhaps we could confidently say “we are helping”.

However, due to all these reasons, and more, it’s debatable. Our bombs and guns seem to be creating as many new terrorists as friends created by the good things we are doing. What is our goal in Iraq? A stable Athenian democracy in the ME, or just avoiding civil war?

Biggie G: I hate to break this to you, but rescuing cheetahs is not exactly proof positive that we are doing all we can to fight terrorism.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 07:22 PM from United States

Mishu, before you get too excited and have to change your Rush Limbaugh underoos, you should know there’s an issue with the link button. Remove the “target=new” at the end of the link and they will work.

Hence the reason for other’s links not working either.

I swear… it’s like talking to a pack of fucking ADHD kindergartners that forgot their ritalin in here. Do you people come to these blogs to think or for mental masterbation?

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 08:05 PM from United States

Funny hazey. My link works. Maybe if you pull your Janine Garafalo dildo out your ass and learn how to use this blog’s editing tools, you opinion may actually be considerable. Then again maybe not since you just regurgitate Move On’s talking points.

Posted by on 11/29/05 at 08:13 PM from United States

By the way, when thousands of arabs protest the actions of the chief terrorist in Iraq, it would appear we are making progress hazey.

Lookie, I edited the link before I posted it just for you hazey. Now take a bong hit and read.

Posted by salinger on 11/29/05 at 08:58 PM from United States

And if it isn’t a war, what would you call it?

Of course it’s a war dumbwaiter - how else could we have war profiteers?

another republican patriot!

Wish I had more time to join in the fun - but I’m on an imaginary deadline with my imaginary publisher.

Anyways, to paraphrase the vice president of torture - looks like the neocons are in their final throes, and being the bleeding heart I am I can’t bring myself to really kick your kind when your down.

Oh yeah,

Clinton got a blowjob in the oval office.

9-11

stay the course.

hard work!

Posted by on 11/30/05 at 02:29 PM from United States

You need to read up on Jordan a little, it’s Zarqawi’s backyard and now that he is sending Islam-o-bombs all over the fucking place he slipped a few in there because security was lax. This is not normal for Jordan and you’d expect them to get pissed. How does this translation to US progress in the WOT again? “Wow, sand niggers *against* suicide bombers? Must be Uncle Sam that showed them the error of their ways...”

Also Mishu, because I’m very very patient i’ll point out that your 8:51 post has the same target=new” link problem, as do many. Just remove the extra crap from the end. Go ahead… read my links. It’s only fair, I exposed myself to your’s and Dumbwaster’s odd stabs at rationalization.

It’s alright, go ahead… I’ll wait here while you sound out all the big words.

Don’t let fear hold you back.

Posted by on 11/30/05 at 03:20 PM from Canada

You are seriously stupid hazey. One guy taking bribes is the smoking gun behind the war? Hell, Michael Moore must have lobbied for it something fierce. He’s made more money peddling that crap you suck in than that congressman made on his bribes.

Now, what year old evidence are you going to pass off now about Iraqi oil production? Tell us about there is less electricity (pay no attention to those dams opened up. Sure they cause massive environmental dammage but it wasn’t Bush who caused it.) yet now towns are now getting electricity that never had it before. Now go ask Al Franken to tell you what to say next.

Posted by on 11/30/05 at 03:34 PM from Canada

Here’s some lernin’ for ya hazey. It may contain some big words but it’s about the Muslim Brotherhood—a group Egypt banned. They used to have quite a lot of clout in Egypt back in the day. Now people there realize what they are yet kettle heads like you and Maddie Albright want to embrace them because ‘they hate George Bush’.

Posted by on 11/30/05 at 03:58 PM from United States

You need to realize there’s no threaded discussion here, so sometimes you may have to hold two ideas in your brain at once. It’s kinda like watching Nascar and drinking beer at the same time… hard at first but after a couple of months you’re a pro.

The link to the corrupt Republican was in response to the bizzare notion that W&B;created a myth of republican corruption… (Boy do I get a gold star in patience this week or what? First I have to hold a HTML clinic then repeat myself slower and louder like an American tourist.)

And in regards to your latest example of cognitive dissonance: How do you expect to have a democracy when you exclude 1/2 the people in the society? Yes, Muslim fundamentalism (and their politics) is a big problem. Perhaps we shouldn’t have made all these claims about bringing democracy marching across the ME w/o a little research first?

Posted by on 11/30/05 at 04:24 PM from Canada

Where the fuck do you get half out of my last link hazey? Seriously, put the bong down and try to concentrate. Let me t-y-p-e r-e-a-l s-l-o-w f-o-r y-o-u.

By

exposing

Islamists

for

what

they

truly

are,

people

will

learn

that

the

Islamists

don’t

act

in

the

interest

of

the

people.

When people get a taste of self determination, they will naturally shun totalitarian groups and philosiphies. Except for perhaps you, you post-modernist twit.

Perhaps we shouldn’t have made all these claims about bringing democracy marching across the ME w/o a little research first?

How many people do you have to let die until you are done reading the koran there hazey?

Posted by on 11/30/05 at 10:41 PM from United States

So your one of those “the-election-will-solve-it” types? Okay, we’ve had two in Iraq, lets see how many before the homicide bombers stop.

I’m guessing high double digits.

Posted by Drumwaster on 11/30/05 at 11:09 PM from United States

So, you fucking moron (you don’t mind if I just call you “fuckstick” from here on in, do you?), exactly why are the terrorists blowing up other Muslims? I mean, since we are the cause of global terrorism and all, why are they killing each other?

Zarqawi’s last little pop in Amman was deliberately targeted against a Muslim wedding, and he has threatened the life of an extraordinarily popular monarch. His entire family has disowned him, more than a quarter of a million Jordanians came out against him (in a country of a mere 5.8 million, that’s about like 12 million Americans out in the streets, which is something that you anti-American protestors could only hope to accomplish after a full blotter sheet of Mother Owlsley’s best).

I’d say that Zark’s pretty much doing the “winning hearts and minds” part for us, which is also something you don’t want to see.

So, fuckstick, do you have any explanation why there are elections going on in the first place if it has been such a failure, much less how many or the fact that they were all accomplished ahead of schedule and faster than we did ourselves two centuries ago?

Take your time, fuckstick, I realize that Stuart Smalley is having a tough time coming up with new ways to deny reality for you. (Maybe he needs to borrow that Janey Garo dildo you so enjoy.)

Posted by on 12/01/05 at 01:52 PM from Canada

Reality check for hazey.

Posted by Drumwaster on 12/01/05 at 02:03 PM from United States

Better be careful when you use facts, mishu. You KNOW that hazey’s allergic to them…

Next entry: Big, Easy, and Wireless

Previous entry: Blame In On the Brits

<< Back to main