Once again, our sorry excuse for a president says that being against the way he has horribly prosecuted this war is to aid the enemy. Every day now Republicans are being arrested for corruption, they know that as inept as the Democrats are — they could actually win an election or two, and this is why they’re trying to take Iraq off the table. Don’t let it happen.
UPDATE: Dems hit back
“The Bush Administration’s attack, distract and distort tactics reflect a Nixonian paranoia that is un-American. It’s shameful that once again the Bush Administration resorted to attacking the patriotism of fellow Americans rather than answering legitimate questions surrounding the President’s failures in Iraq. Personal attacks won’t change the fact that hundreds of fatalities in Iraq could have been avoided if only our troops had the equipment they asked for.
“Democrats welcome and will continue to push for the open and honest debate that is fundamental to our democracy and the liberties we hold dear.”
Funny thing is that according to most polls over the last year, a majority of Americans believe that the Bush Administration misled the American people into war. So how are “Americans” going to tell the “difference” between “honest criticism” and observations that Bush and co. misled the nation into war? Is he saying that “Americans” – presumably the majority – will consider themselves dishonest critics of the war? His argument would make sense if only a fringe of America thought he misled the nation. But then again, if only a fringe of Americans thought he misled the nation Bush could ignore them. So, instead of convincing the majority of Americans that he led the nation to war for honest purposes – answering the critics on the merits, that is (and these are not fringe critics) – he attacks the majority of Americans for being dishonest critics who undermine the war effort. What a fool.
Shorter Bush: “Not in the face! Not in the face!”
Even Bush’s most ardent supporters do not really believe he is a great
President. They just want to put the best face on a less than mediocre
administration in order to prevent the greater of two evils, the democrats.
That sums up what history will say is the 2nd
Andrew Johnson administration
Even Bush s most ardent supporters do not really believe he is a great
President.
Evidence, please?
I have not posted here much lately, other than to ridicule Oliver for being a Redskin fan. They’re playing great D. That’s what wins the enchilada, btw.
Anyway….I am posting because I had a huge argument with one of my very best friends in the world this past weekend… on Iraq. He has excused almost every mistake, mistep, and misdeed from this administraton and had nothing to offer regarding the failed prosecution of this war of choice.. He even rationalized illegal spying, and the NSA scandal–a scandal btw, which now has an official “whistleblower.” That means that someone is in big trouble. When a whistleblower comes forward, it ain’t usually the whistleblower that ends up in an orange jumpsuit.
George W. Bush is dividing this country. He’s mishandling and mismanaging the war. He misled the American people leading up to the war, and he is now breaking the law and circumventing the constitution of the United States.
He needs to be removed from office. But since it’s just politics, he won’t be. If he had honor, he’d resign. He won’t do that either.
He gets a vote of “no confidence” from me. One American.
JK
Doesn’t look good for Cornyn and Sessions either.
Oh come on now: “Every day now Republicans are being arrested for corruption”? And the “misled us into war” statement is really lame. The guy who supposedly “misled” us will never face another election again. The Democrat senators & congressman who now claim that they were “misled” into a war will run again. I guess their slogan will be “As long as the President isn’t a really stupid Texan Republlican I will never be misled into approving a war by mistake again!”
Doesn’t sound like a winner to me.
Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Scooter Libby – that’s just the last six months. Coming up: Bob Ney, Karl Rove, who knows who else… The jails are getting crowded with elephants.
Clever, cleo. You’ve been getting some tutoring from frameone, I see.
Your bag of tricks would be empty, if you had a bag.
You’re probably sorry you voted for him in ‘04, eh, JK?
You get a vote of “disbelief” from. One American.
LOL
Frank;
Here’s the link for above opinion
http://www.GFYS
Is Sessions implicated with Abrahamoff? I haven’t heard his name mentioned. Sessions always reminds me of the little guy on the 70’s TV show Laugh In, who always came out holding a flower.
Stick, I’ll have to agree with you on your last point. I believe the gutless democrats who voted for the Iraq war did so because they were afraid it would be like 1991, not because they were “misled.” The republicans, as usual voted in lockstep, with the exception for the few that still have their integrity (i.e. Ron Paul of TX).
Furthermore, members of Congress who knew about telephone surveillance of American citizens in violation of the law should have done something then and not waited until the NYT went public over GWB’s objections. They could have addressed this in secret session. To hell with VP Cheney!
Here is a list of potential perps( Sessions connected to shut down of
Coushatta Casino)
http://www.thinkprogress.org/abramoff
The jails are getting crowded with elephants.
Oliver? Oh, Oliver? None of those people are jail.
Whats all the bouhaha? If you are a war critic be honest enough to acknowledge that what you are proclaiming can and often will provide comfort to the enemy. You can screech until doomsday but thats a fact. Now the correct anwer for a war critic is to say ‘yes it may provide comfort to the enemy and I don’t like that, but it is also necessary in a democracy to have a free and open dialogue – even about an ongoing war. ‘ That too is OK but the critic must realize that those soldiers are his soldiers equally as the presidents. They are ‘democracy’s’ soldiers. And at some point, the critic, a responsible,sane critic, that is, must acknowledge that we democratically voted to go to war and that we critics have some responsibility to support those soldiers. Now that to me would mean the cirtics should be responsible in their critism and not go overboard. And it would seem to me, that the man wh is charged with leading the war has every right to criticize the criics – easily including the cautionary about giving our soldiers’ enemy ‘comfort’.
Dugger, The Island of Sanity in OWs Sea of Nattering Nabobity
Mostly agree with you Dugger, but the extremists think ANY discussion
‘gives comfort to the enemy’
eg; the body armor issue.
“The Defense Department and Army said that they needed more time to acquire the armor and that publicly discussing issues of body armor
aided the enemy.”
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=1489733
Semanticleo,
From a purely practical, and tactical standpoint, the one which would concern the military most in my opinion, public discussions of our weaknesses aides the enemy. Perhaps thats the angle from which your quote comes, not from the political angle.
Semant, That is ABC’s version of what the Pentagon said re body armor. Would like to see the actual quote because I doubt they said it the way ABC paraphrased.
And actually, as a soldier, I would like the enemy to assume that I and all of my troops have body armor. Or if the cat is already out of the bag, I wouldn’t want them to know when I would have it. So I could understand their reluctance to provide specifics – if that is the case.
Re body armor, please understand it is the services that acquire this – for themselves. They have funds and contracting capability – something unforeseen (as is typical) probably occurred in the acquistion process. A less expensive contractor probably said I gurantee can give you 10,000 suits (or whatever) in 90 days and then was only able to provide 3,000 in 6 months. That happens all the time and it is very hard to fix it – without going sole source to the high bidder – which then brings bitter partisan attacks of waste and favoritism (ala Halliburton).
Dugger (Sorry for the boring rant – old job memories)
Invoking Sprio?
That’s telling.
i think what really gives aid and comfort to the enemy is civilian military leaders that can’t line up support, or prosecute the war in a winning manner. Let’s be real war supporters, we didn’t send enough troops in the first place allowing Iraq to be looted (looted Museum pieces are funding terrorism now) its ammo dumps to be unsecured(now being used to make bombs that kill Americans), and a premise that we would be greeted as liberators (a premise that quickly evaporated as we show no signs of leaving); not to mention the lack of meaningful international support in the invasion. Now we still don’t have enough troops to provide security, our reasons for invading have shown to be false, and we still have no chance of leaving with Bush in office.
You war supporters want to change history? Voting for the resolution in the first place was a mistake. Bush lied about its purpose and believing him was that mistake. Right up until Hussein tried to capitulate to all demands, Bush said he hadn’t made up his mind to invade. Does anyone believe that? Anyone?
Dugger;
I believe the body armor referred to is the type which covers the side
of the torso as opposed to front and rear only. I don’t know how
the enemy would alter it’s attacks based on that info. I tend to think
it would not matter.
I only make the point because it is typical for those who don’t want info
to reach the public, to issue blanket statements for the sake of safety.
I just think sometimes the security precautions have more to do
with CYA than they do the safety of soldiers as in the example posted
above. To your point, it is not a direct quote, but HC’s rebuttal
indicates that context.
I think the only thing that counts as illegitimate criticism is giving away true war secrets. For example, suppose a US reporter – embedded or not – publicly states that US counterinsurgent forces are about to launch a raid on some Euphrates River town before the US military has officially decided to announce it. That US reporter would be compromising US security. I don’t think any generalized criticism of the war, the Administration or the leadership counts as illegitimate, ever.
Dugger is right in saying that our enemies take comfort, to some degree, in criticism against the Bush Administration. But I bet they take comfort in the Bush Administration’s bungling as well. The insurgents probably understand that if the Bush Administration had done well, the chirping from war critics would have no real effect on the middle of the country. And it’s the middle of the country that will decide the war policy, ultimately. But considering the well-publicized failures of the Bush Administration in Iraq, the claims of war critics carry greater weight. But that’s democracy. Get the job done right, or get out of the way.
A parallel is the 1864 Presidential election, when the Democrats blasted Lincoln for incompetence for months while Union troops stalled outside Atlanta and Petersburg. Confederates openly encouraged this war criticism at the North, knowing that a propaganda battle was afoot. But the only way Lincoln was able to break through against his war critics was to sieze Atlanta on September 1, 1864. That military victory made it apparent that Lincoln was going to win, and the war critics moved back to the margins. Lincoln coasted to re-election in November, when it seemed likely that he would lose to McLellan in August.
So what would be the breakthrough in Iraq that would render US war critics irrelevant? Who knows? It’s guerrilla war, so it’s hard to highlight any major front. The problem is political. My guess is that if there are several months – or even a year – without any major newsworthy events out of Iraq, the public will sense that things are going well. The innards of Iraqi politics probably don’t captivate the American imagination the way a major terrorist attack does, or the death of large numbers of US troops in one day. So no news will probably mean good news. But that might take a while to reach.
eqfzltpo ochpf rsjthk fesiybnj igvlpkzxt codezn oezp
seuqvm ihqv szmvct wuehc krtqev pdmoxvfk ybqrenxs tcxzjna xymzlef