President Bush Fires Back Against Critics

[Channman 2]

It truely is sad that the American Left as well as many in the media have aligned themselves knowingly or unknowingly with the insurgents for an American defeat in Iraq. The Dems I believe in a time not long ago would have been viewed as traitors with there current meathods of political attack giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

But one thing for sure from my personal view point, is they have no desire to see victory.

On a positive note, Bruce Willis is in discussions on making a Movie that is very much in support of our American Troops, and will provide a glimps into the positive things our troops have accomplished as well as the fighting.

I had an oppertunity several years ago to meet Bruce during the filming of Armageddon which a portion was made here at the NBL over three days. A great American, and supporter of our fighting Men and Women, Cheers to Ya Bruce.

[billvon 3,118]

>Second, I doubt Bush is going thru with this . . .

We shall see. I think he's actually learning from his mistakes, which is good.

>from making a presumptious, unintelligible slam.

I said it first! Naah, naah!

(Now you can come back with something like "a typical liberal intelligent response" _or_ "naah naah naah!" which would trump mine by one naah.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>The pissy part was you calling a schedule "annoying" to those involved, not the schedule itself. I doubt the lack of schedule isn't the sole reason for being in Iraq "over two years longer" either. You could at least put some blame on coal miners and loggers and big business and Haliburton.

Iraq shouldn't 'ask' for a schedule, they should provide one. That would be more than reasonable, it would demonstrate one of the critical goals for exit.

You read both bits completely wrong just to push your own point and mistate mine (even though I credited you anyway with good intent and logic). It was a good discussion, but if you want to fall back on that old trick, I'm done.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

• Quote

[billvon 3,118]

>The Dems I believe in a time not long ago would have been viewed as traitors . . . .

McCarthy tried that in the 50's. Didn't work then, won't work now.

>But one thing for sure from my personal view point, is they have no
>desire to see victory.

I'm a liberal, and I want to see the people of Iraq have their victory - and I want our troops back home before too many more of them die. Sending a man to his death is not supporting him, no matter how many made-in-China US flag stickers you put on your bumper.

[Gravitymaster 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600745.html


Sympathetic Vibrations

By Chris Cillizza and Peter Slevin

Sunday, November 27, 2005; Page A04

Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.



A poll found support for Vice President Cheney's view that criticism of the war hurts troop morale. (J. Scott Applewhite - AP)

The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush's Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.

Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."

This poll is one of the few pieces of supportive news the administration has had lately on Iraq. Most surveys have shown significant majorities believe it was a mistake to go to war, as well as rising sentiment that Bush misled Americans in making the case for it.

Even so, there is still support for Bush's policy going forward. A plurality, 49 percent, believe that troops should come home only when the Iraqi government can provide for its own security, while 16 percent support immediate withdrawal, regardless of the circumstances.

[rushmc 23]

I love how the left likes to take credit for some one elses efforts.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Second, I doubt Bush is going thru with this . . .

We shall see. I think he's actually learning from his mistakes, which is good.

>from making a presumptious, unintelligible slam.

I said it first! Naah, naah!

(Now you can come back with something like "a typical liberal intelligent response" _or_ "naah naah naah!" which would trump mine by one naah.)

Since your response was both presumptuous and unintelligent, no further response is necessary. I'll let your words speak for themself.

[billvon 3,118]

> I doubt the lack of schedule isn't the sole reason for being in
> Iraq "over two years longer" either.

Oh, I agree. But I think it's one reason. If you're not working to a schedule it's a lot easier to not meet goals on time. Anyone working in business can see this effect; I see it all the time in my profession.

>Iraq shouldn't 'ask' for a schedule, they should provide one.

Iraq can't make us leave. We control our armed forces, and I believe any suggestion to put our armed forces under some other control (say, Iraqi leaders or a UN council) would be met with exclamations of horror.

Iraq has a very tentative, confused new government right now, and if they did come up with a schedule that we couldn't meet, that would be a huge blow to their credibility. Imagine - "we ordered the americans to leave and they didn't." It would be a very graphic demonstration of who's in charge, even if we'd like _them_ to be in charge for the most part.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600745.html


Sympathetic Vibrations

Yet even so, I still wouldn't stifle free speech even for morale. So this is a moot point for the topic of this thread. Maybe morale can be bolstered be largely sharing this poll anyway - the people care about their morale.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

>The pissy part was you calling a schedule "annoying" to those involved, not the schedule itself. I doubt the lack of schedule isn't the sole reason for being in Iraq "over two years longer" either. You could at least put some blame on coal miners and loggers and big business and Haliburton.

Iraq shouldn't 'ask' for a schedule, they should provide one. That would be more than reasonable, it would demonstrate one of the critical goals for exit.

You read both bits completely wrong just to push your own point and mistate mine (even though I credited you anyway with good intent and logic). It was a good discussion, but if you want to fall back on that old trick, I'm done.

Even though we hear it and see it over and over again, it still is hard to listen to the left tell us (those on the right) we know your thinking is messed up so we will take care of you until we (the Dems) can straighten you out

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[billvon 3,118]

>I love how the left likes to take credit for some one elses efforts.....

For once, can you admit that BOTH sides scored a success by compromising on a withdrawal plan? To simplify, that means:

Bush - good!
Biden - good!
Cooperation - good!

I mean, sure, that would be passing up an opportunity to slam a democrat. But by working together, both parties will be able to do a lot more than by being at each other's throats all the time. And that's good for the US and good for our troops, even if it's bad for the extremists who aren't happy unless someone is being disgraced.

[rushmc 23]

At least there is some proof that those that support "not spewing stupid retoric" and call GWB a "lier" are in the majority......even though we keep hearing that we are not

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/26/AR2005112600745.html


Sympathetic Vibrations

Yet even so, I still wouldn't stifle free speech even for morale. So this is a moot point for the topic of this thread. Maybe morale can be bolstered be largely sharing this poll anyway - the people care about their morale.

I was responding to Channman.

I agree with you that we shouldn't stifle free speech for morale, but I posted this to point out that the same people who constantly criticise and slam and then claim their words do no harm are wrong. They are just parroting words to win political points and try to pressure the Generals on the front lines to change the strategy of the war, in the same way that they are trying to get a valuless timetable without considering the implications.

[billvon 3,118]

>and call GWB a "lier" are in the majority......even though we keep
>hearing that we are not.

Literally true. The last Ipsos poll found that 6 in 10 americans think Bush is dishonest.

[Channman 2]

>The last Ipsos poll found that 6 in 10 americans think Bush is dishonest.

I would like to see the poll, the wording of the questions. Its a known fact that many polls are worded to get a specific response, i.e. create the News that best reflects ones views.

One big reason not to believe everything you read. Polls in themselves can be very miss leading unless you understand the questions behind them.

I'm trying very hard not to be stuck on stupid, but that public education keeps tripping me up.

[rehmwa 2]

>If you're not working to a schedule it's a lot easier to
> not meet goals on time. Anyone working in business can
> see this effect; I see it all the time in my profession.

A point I already made.

>Iraq can't make us leave. We control our armed forces
>, and I believe any suggestion to put our armed forces
> under some other control (say, Iraqi leaders or a UN
>council) would be met with exclamations of horror.

Iraq owns as much of the exit criteria as anyone involved. If they set a timetable, that would mean a lot in terms of their position on when it's best for us to leave. My only point here. They would set the schedule for success of the milestones, not 'order' us to leave - your statement that they'd "order" us to leave is nuts -especially when their timetable would be a set of goals for the Iraqi's, not the US, who's job would be to support the Iraq goals rather than dictate them to them.

>Iraq has a very tentative, confused new
> government right now, ......

exactly, so what part of an exit timetable gives them hope?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,118]

>Iraq owns as much of the exit criteria as anyone involved.

I agree. But only we have the power to actually make our troops leave, so when they leave is really up to us. I think it would be great if the Iraqis came up with goals/dates/timelines, but in the end, Bush is not going to leave before he believes he is ready. (Not a slam of the guy; leaving too precipitously would be a hazard to our _own_ troops.)

>so what part of an exit timetable gives them hope?

I think the mere existence of a timetable gives them hope. Without one, the rumors spread by the Al Qaeda/insurgent types that "the US is running things now and will be forever" are a lot easier to believe. I think a government that can show they will soon be standing on their own two feet has a bit more credibility than one that will play second fiddle to an occupation for the near future.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I think a government that can show they will soon be standing on their own two feet has a bit more credibility than one that will play second fiddle to an occupation for the near future.

"a government that can show they will soon be standing on their own two feet"

"Iraq has a very tentative, confused new government"

I don't think a 'timetable' provided by the 'occupying' force does anything in getting from your 2nd statement to the first. Again, US support of an Iraqi designed commitment to get on the own two feet is a real step. The idea that Iraq would do that in a vacuum, without our help, or issue it without our concurrence and agreement to fully support that goal (which is what you are implyiny) is not realistic. We are not their babysitters, we are supposed to be helping them stand on their own, once they take the initiative to get there, we help them finish, but that initiative is what signals the end. Not us ringing the bell, but Iraq taking ownership of the bell and ringing it themselves.

The US Congress putting out a timetable is just political PR with no teeth. To make us look better at home, we just pre-empted Iraq's best opportunity to show they mean business in terms of self governance.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

How would you be perceieved should you take the constant media bombardment? Quit literaly that is where the majority of the lies are coming from!!

But, I was commenting on the poll saying the people think that the type of retoric I reference is damaging, dangerous and it COST LIVES because it emboldens the terroris, scares the Iraqi people and demoralizes the troops!!

How do you think things might be today had you and your lefty friends kept the dialog more civil until a later time huh?? I think even you think we need to stay until the jop is done now right?

You want to talk polls?
Bush is no lower than most other Presidents at thier low time in the polls but there is one difference. The polls today show the Dems LOWER THAN BUSH!

Was the intelligence bad, probably. Did Bush deliveratly lie to go to war? Come on, I think even you know better than that.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

>the type of retoric I reference is damaging, dangerous and it COST
> LIVES because it emboldens the terroris, scares the Iraqi people
> and demoralizes the troops!!

A forever occupation costs lives too. It allows Al Qaeda to recruit new people much more easily - "See? The Great Satan has no intention of leaving! The only hope for your freedom is to fight!" And more importantly it gives them targets.

But if you (or I) think we understand terrorists so well that we can predict exactly what will happen - we are both kidding ourselves. You cannot predict how terrorists will react to ANYTHING. (I assume you will not claim that the terrorists you're friends with think X, Y and Z!)

In the end, what will save the most Iraqi and US lives is a rapid withdrawal and handover of power to Iraq. Whatever helps us get there is good.

>Did Bush deliveratly lie to go to war? Come on, I think even you
>know better than that.

I don't think that Bush is evil or nefarious. I think he honestly believed that the war was in the best interests of the US. And so he proceeded to sell it. He did not make stuff up out of whole cloth, but he very deliberately presented a picture that included:

-massive stockpiles of WMD's, just waiting to be used on US cities
-a clear connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein
-a thriving Iraqi military ready to pounce on its neighbors
-a short, happy war where everyone wins (except Hussein) and our valiant troops are greeted as liberators by joyous Iraqis

When people disagreed with that, they were 'reeducated', attacked or fired. When conflicting information came up, it was discarded. When critics questioned this approach, they were crucified, called anti-american and whatnot.

Thus he made his case for war. He went to congress and asked for authorization to deal with Hussein diplomatically, with the backup of force if he needed to use it. They agreed. He then abandoned diplomacy and attacked.

Now here we are, almost three years later. No WMD's. No ties to Al Qaeda. No happy ending (yet.) Over two thousand US troops dead. A pessimist might see that as lying, but it would take a pathologically insane optimist to say that this all worked out as planned, and that things are going great. They really aren't going so great, no matter how many new schools get opened, or no matter how many Iraqis own Ford Explorers.

The question becomes now - how do we get out with the minimum damage to the new Iraq and to the US? The right wingers answer is to "just trust Bush and all will be well" but based on his record I do not share their optimism. From poll results, neither do most other people. Fortunately, politicians watch poll results very closely, and are starting to pressure him for a real answer. Recently he has begun to respond. I see this as a very hopeful sign, an indication that the two parties are relaxing the endless bickering a bit and starting to concentrate on the more important issues facing us today. And that's good news no matter how much you hate the democrats (or republicans.) If we can keep this up, the result will be a coherent withdrawal plan, fewer dead US troops and fewer dead Iraqis.

[rushmc 23]

All I see is you twisting my statements in your post.
I never said "forever occupation". But you use those words to reframe the debate. But, interviews with captured al qeada members have said the the senators will fold because they will not acept the cost (lives)
A perdiction of a level can be made. And once again, you attempt to refocus the thread by the friends of the terrorists comment. You are constantly making "perdictions" about global climate change based on models on computers.

IMO, a rapid withdrawl will ultimaly cost more lives! What do you think will happen in the US or other countries. You think they will quite trying to kill us? (If you believe that I think you are badly fooling yourself) I also believe thousands of lives will be taken by the new power lord that will fill the void left if the US leaves

I am glad to see at least one lib on this site that doesnt think GWB to be an evil lier however, if you think that he exagerated the points you list then what did the Clintons, Kennedy, Edwards and a host of others do? Even before Bush was in office? That claim just does not make any sense to me......

And thier is evidence that S was trying to rebuild his WMD program, there is evidence that he was supporting al qeada. (There is an Iraqi that was in his office that was in the news this weekend that said so and has evidence. That was two years ago and he was ignored by the press. But this week he comes out and states the Iraqi police are doing the same now as when SH was in office and he is the media poster child

Damage to Iraq? I have no idea what you can be thinking here..........

We stay until the job is done right! That was the choice when it started and that has not changed today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

It truely is sad that the American Left as well as many in the media have aligned themselves knowingly or unknowingly with the insurgents for an American defeat in Iraq. The Dems I believe in a time not long ago would have been viewed as traitors with there current meathods of political attack giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

But one thing for sure from my personal view point, is they have no desire to see victory.

On a positive note, Bruce Willis is in discussions on making a Movie that is very much in support of our American Troops, and will provide a glimps into the positive things our troops have accomplished as well as the fighting.

.

I hope he does a better job than John Wayne in "The Green Berets" - what an awful, transparent piece of propaganda that is.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,118]

> And once again, you attempt to refocus the thread by the friends of
> the terrorists comment.

No refocus intended. Neither you nor I can predict what terrorists will do. Perhaps they will be heartened by talk of a withdrawal; perhaps their recruiting will go down the toilet once the Great Satan isn't killing hundreds of innocents a week. You can't predict that.

>You are constantly making "perdictions" about global climate change
>based on models on computers.

Actually, based on me seeing it in action in places like Barrow and Knik. But that's a different story.

>IMO, a rapid withdrawl will ultimaly cost more lives!

Too rapid - yes. The debate then falls on what "too rapid" is. Fortunately, they are finally having this discussion at the upper levels of the government. Is six months too rapid? Perhaps a year is more realistic. Perhaps nine months. "Forever" is (finally!) being seen as unacceptable.

>What do you think will happen in the US or other countries. You
>think they will quite trying to kill us? (If you believe that I think you
>are badly fooling yourself) I also believe thousands of lives will be
>taken by the new power lord that will fill the void left if the US leaves . . .

Too late to think of that. The time to think about what your child will be like is BEFORE you get the party chick drunk and do her. If you are worried about having kids, do not get anyone pregnant. If you are worried about what happens after you topple a government, don't topple governments.

>I am glad to see at least one lib on this site that doesnt think GWB
> to be an evil lier however, if you think that he exagerated the points
> you list then what did the Clintons . . .

They did the same sort of thing; they just didn't start a war over it. That's my beef. Misleading people is bad in my system of morals. Killing tens of thousands by misleading people is worse. More to the point of this discussion, if someone is willing to do that, it means they are willing to mislead people later. Blind trust in such a leader is a mistake. Indeed, it is our DUTY to question his judgement so that such a thing does not happen again.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me as the old saying goes.

>And thier is evidence that S was trying to rebuild his WMD program,
> there is evidence that he was supporting al qeada.

Nope. Our best and brightest could find no connection.

> (There is an Iraqi that was in his office that was in the news this
> weekend that said so and has evidence.)

Yep, and you say you have evidence too. I will take the best efforts of our best inspectors over either one though.

>We stay until the job is done right! That was the choice when it
>started and that has not changed today.

It will never be done right. The insurgency will never be crushed. We will never remake the Middle East into Disneyland. The best we can do at this point is get the Iraqis standing on their feet, get out and let them govern their own country (which includes making their own mistakes, and perhaps even doing things we dislike.) Maybe they will turn out to be a stable secular democracy; maybe they will become a center for radical Islamic fundamentalism. If we are not to be total hypocrites, though, that choice should be (must be) up to them, not us.

[rushmc 23]

I agree with you, misleading is against my morals too. I do however disagree with you about "who" is doing the misleading...........and even if he did, the "misleading" that is being done today in the press is much more dangerous because I do not think it is based on beliefs but rather, the reaquasition of power......................at any cost

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I hope he does a better job than John Wayne in "The Green Berets" - what an awful, transparent piece of propaganda that is.

How dare you not give proper respect to the Duke!