Bush is stuck. He cant say that things are going well (when the daily news clearly contradicts that assertion).
He cant say we have allies to lean on: he tried but I think his straining to point out that NATO doing some training is such a big help actually undermines his position.
He cant say that the Iraqi government is up to the task.
He cant take credit for Lebanon and Libya although he tries.
He cant point to timetable....anyway you get the idea..
The point is he has got nothing. So its back to the "hard work/resolute/praise the military" trough.
If anyone is moved by his blather it speaks to the dearth of quality in public education and the hegemony of the self-centered individual culture we have collectively embraced.
Posted by Maya at June 29, 2005 03:30 AMas i said in a post yesterday..it doesn't matter what he says anymore..he has no credibility..for anyone paying attention..IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11....we have wreaked this havoc based on made up lies...our moral compass is broken..that man is as hollow as they come..he thinks he is doing god's will...there is something very very stange about him...and it's my opinion that one has to be very strange themselves to follow him..i hope to god that some democrat or any leader for that matter..steps up to the plate and just says what we are doing there is wrong and we need to leave...any relationship conceived on deceit will never had a good outcome.
Posted by dennis at June 29, 2005 04:59 AMBush should have said, "I resign for being incompetent and a liar. Bill Clinton has nothing on me, and as a Godfearing Christian I better repent now before I fry in Hell. God Bless 'Merica!"
Posted by Sharon at June 29, 2005 05:00 AMTh prss hs rnncd bjctvty nd mbrcd bjct bjctnsm. N wndr mny mrcns nw fl th md hs md tslf lblty t th ntnl dfns.
[Editor: ignore=off]"Objectionism"? Heh, that's a good one. You're getting more like your hero every day!
Posted by jlb at June 29, 2005 07:36 AMSeriously, 'dito, "objectionism"? Not only isn't it a word; if it were a word, what would it mean?
The Perl guru who writes Bendito is good, but not good enough.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 29, 2005 07:46 AMwhat? that bandito guy has a great vocabliary.
Posted by dubya at June 29, 2005 07:53 AMThey have so screwed themselves. Hate it when that happens.
Posted by Jesusland Joe at June 29, 2005 08:02 AM"I'd like to thank you all for coming!" (Big reverb and feedback whine in sound system) "Hot mic...hot mic!" (Reverb and feedback diminish) "Hey, hey! Look at all that green out there tonight! Reminds me of my rolling tray at Yale." (silence) "You've all been to Yale, right? Gimme a hooha if you been to Yale." (crickets chirp) "Say, what do you call a Ranger with their arms and legs blown off by by an IED? Matt! Get it?" (silence) "You know, like a mat." (turns head to secret service agent) "Sheesh, tough crowd." (addresses soldiers) "How many Iraqi school kids can you fit in a Volkswagen? All of em if you use napalm first!" (crickets chirp. Wireless headset receiver crackles to life in his ear. Karl Rove speaks) "Ass Beads this is Smooth Balls. You're knockin em dead out there. Do the Iraq building joke." (Ass Beads speaks) "What do you get when blow up all the buildings in Iraq? Afghanistan with oil! (crickets chirp)
Posted by phidipides at June 29, 2005 08:13 AMAm I misinterpreting Bendito or is he indirectly calling for state control of the media?
Posted by muckcat at June 29, 2005 08:19 AMYeah Muck, that is what he's saying, guess his dream came true.
Posted by Jesusland Joe at June 29, 2005 08:41 AMI know it was not the intent, but today's Metro (a free newspaper distributed at subway stops in major cities) has a great major headline: Bloodshed 'worth it'. The Metro was a great start-up a couple of years ago, but it has been acquired by Community Newspapers (or, perhaps, a part of it), the parent of wingnutty Boston Herald (once a hot property of News Corp.). The headline says it all. I doubt the editors even realized what they released.
Posted by buck turgidson at June 29, 2005 09:08 AMIsrael plans to withdraw from the entire Gaza Strip and four small West Bank (search) settlements in mid-August, uprooting about 9,000 Jewish settlers from their homes
Whew! And we thought we had it bad with the latest Supreme Court ruling!
I wouldn't put it past our government to pull something like this some day.
Well, if we have settlements in Mexico, maybe. Otherwise it would be tough to imagine a parallel situation.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 29, 2005 09:27 AMSo what are you saying Centrist, you support our government giving protection to our citizens to go to Canada or Mexico and illegally build settlements on land they don't own?
I think you inferred earlier it was okay in Iraq. Just want to make sure we understand you clearly.
Posted by Jesusland Joe at June 29, 2005 09:34 AMThere have been an average of 160,000 troops in theater in Iraq during the last 22 months, that have had a death rate of 60 per 100,000 from firearms.
The rate in Washington DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington.
LOL! yea no shit.
Posted by Centrist at June 29, 2005 09:49 AMNo. Jesusland. You read way to much into my posts. Sarcasm seems to be wasted on you.
Posted by Centrist at June 29, 2005 09:54 AMI'll defer to Matt for a response.
Posted by Jesusland Joe at June 29, 2005 10:02 AMThe rate in Washington DC is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
How many car bombs has there been in Washington yearly? And how many Iraqis have been killed or wounded? Guess we don't count them in the statistics? What a crock of bs.
Posted by Mary at June 29, 2005 10:47 AMTry comparing the number of US military personnel killed in Washington D.C. to the number killed in Iraq and see where that gets you. Or law enforcement for that matter.
Or the total number of homicides, civilian and military combined in Iraq to the total number per capita in Iraq.
Fun with statistics!
Posted by at June 29, 2005 11:08 AMMary, remember when you're being "sarcastic" it's ok to make light of the tragic slaughter of innocent victims and make juvenile talking point references to the evils of gun control.
Posted by Jesusland Joe at June 29, 2005 11:12 AMDoes anyone think Centrist rhetoric sounds suspiciously like Toby P.?
Posted by Jesusland Joe at June 29, 2005 11:16 AMNo. Toby thinks to much of himself to bother commenting under an assumed name.
Posted by Assumed Name at June 29, 2005 11:22 AMOnce again, a self claiming centrist tries to steer the discussion by using unconnected conclusions and false facts.
I'm not sure where you going with the "self claiming" thing. Are you not a self claimed liberal? Is there hazing I have to go thru before I'm in the center? I also thought this was a venue to express OPINIONS! I rarely see you back up your rants with facts?
Who says we would be leaving Iraq to the "Terrorists?"
Most sane people would agree.
Define "Terrorists." Do you mean Iraqi's, Foreigners, Sunni's, Shia's, Kurds, Palestinian's, or do you just use that as a perjorative when you don't know what else to say?
I shouldn't have to explain to you what one is. Do you think that all these dumb asses blowing them selves up are just misplaced Iraqis citizens? Do you consider an Iraqi, with a bomb vest, blowing himself up in a Mosque just a misunderstood man? Come on. Get a grip man.
Why would Iraq become a base of operations for terrorism? It wasn't before, except against the Iraqi people and Iraq's neighbors. Don't forget, the Shia dominate the country, when we leave, whenever and however that is, they will fill that vacuum.
Iraq does not have the Army to deal with them now if we were to leave today. Do you think the Shia will suddenly come out of their homes in mass and take up arms against them? They were the dominate people before and look how the Sunni keep them under foot last time.
Do you have any sense of what the "terrorists", or is it "insurgents?" want? I think that attacking the US would not be the first item on their list. Maybe establishing home rule, or attacking the reactionary forces in Israel embodied, and that's a lot of embodiment, by Ariel Sharon.
Yea. "A holy war." How many time do you have to hear THEM say it before you get it. They want to kill all the infidels and anyone who joins with them, blah blah. Hell I hear it every time they make a damn video. Or maybe you think they are just kidding when they are screaming "kill the infidels" when they are cutting off heads?
Why is it ipso facto with you guys that the terrorists and their "terrorist idealogy" are so intent on blowing themselves up for the sole purpose of killing Americans? That's just stupid.
Never said that. They are killing more Iraqis than Americans right now. Why would that be? Could it be because the terrorists do not want a free Iraq? Could it be they want control? Could it be because they see them cooperating with us?
Support that contention with some real facts. I anticipate your bin Laden references with bated breath.
"Kill the Americans, Kill the infidels" Just go to your local flag burning on the corner and you'll get the gist. I assume you live in Iraq since you know the true feeling of Terrorists. I only have opinions. You seem to know the "facts"!
Lastly, is anyone advocating closing all our bases and hunkering down in our splendid isolation? Even remotely? I think that's one of those strawmen you hear about, an absurd argument easily beaten down so as to inflate one's debating skills.
Sure, It's the don't offend anyone attitude that does it. It's also our bases over seas that pisses off all these radical Muslims. I should also clarify that I was talking about our bases in the Middle East
Posted by Centrist at June 29, 2005 11:51 AMMary - Are you going to talk about this? I watch the news all the time and haven't heard about this...
Posted by old crone at June 29, 2005 11:53 AMCongratulations Centrist. Good post. Bottom Line: The violence is undoubtedly being funded and facilitated by Iran. Their hand has been in all terrorist activities against the U.S. for the past 30 years and their hatred toward us has been fomented by our policies since the 50's. If we walk away now, Iraq becomes a puppet state of Tehran, if we stay it's probably the same outcome. This is the biggest foreign policy blunder for the U.S. in generations with all possible outcomes spelling nothing but disaster for our national security.
Posted by Jesusland Joe at June 29, 2005 12:22 PMif we stay it's probably the same outcome
Apparently I trust our military to get the job done more than you do. That's where we differ and it explains a lot on where you're coming from.
Posted by Centrist at June 29, 2005 12:30 PMRealistically, with the pool of available troops at the U.S.'s disposal, we can keep a relatively serious presence in Iraq for what? Maybe a year?
That's why it doesn't make any sense to say that setting a departure date encourages the terrorists to just "wait us out." They can wait us out anyway, because they can see that our ability to sustain the occupation is becoming attenuated.
It's difficult to think of a strategy that allows us both to keep the army from breaking and to keep Iraq from devolving further into civil war. If we leave, we can keep the army from breaking. If we don't we might not be able to stop the civil war regardless of our efforts. Thus, declaring victory and going home is probably the least bad of all the shitty outcomes available.
Posted by Matt Davis at June 29, 2005 12:42 PMBut the president needs to be careful. In a war fought for and in the name of freedom, he doesn’t want to mimic, however inadvertently and superficially, the theatrical style of the tyrant we went to war to dethrone.
And there was something eerily, even disturbingly, evocative about the president’s speech at Fort Bragg. Here was a wartime leader depicting a nation under siege — his own — in what looked to be an airless, windowless place, speaking to a silent but supportive cast of beret-wearing military officers. Seeking to steel them for the struggles ahead, in which the very existence of the nation was at stake, he recalled the country’s great victories of the past. He called for new recruits to join the army, and on citizens to express their patriotism by creating public displays. He vowed he would never to give in — which brought thunderous applause from his loyal if perhaps a bit nervous officers. As he rallied his own corps, he seemed to imply that anyone who questioned the course he had set was exhibiting traitorous weakness.
We have to remake the Middle East, not turn into it.
Too bad you focused on the superficial aspects but glad you noticed Howard.
Centrist, I have complete faith in our military IF they have competent civilian leadership. As long as the current administration continues their failed strategy there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
Posted by Jesusland Joe at June 29, 2005 01:10 PMThey can wait us out anyway, because they can see that our ability to sustain the occupation is becoming attenuated
Not necessarily. Consider this. For every one Iraqi soldier that is trained for combat, one American soldier can go home, technically speaking.
The reason our troops are not coming home now is because we were always understaffed to begin with. The Iraqi Army is filling in the gap until our Generals decided there are enough Iraqis to do our job. You remember the bullshit Bush said last night about the amount of troops needed. "If the Generals say we need more troops I will send them" Well the General won't say that because that means they admit to fucking up.
Say we have 160,000 troops but we really needed 200,000. Once that 200,000 number is surpassed we will start pulling out. I'm sure we will leave special forces behind to help train and for special ops. The question is what that real number is and how long it will take to get there. How many Iraqis can we train in a month? Are they combat effective? These are questions that need answered.
Posted by Centrist at June 29, 2005 01:19 PMMexican authorities detain two Iraqis near U.S. border on immigration charges
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20050629-1100-mexico-iraqisdetained.html
I wonder how many they don't catch.
Centrist, My guess is the Generals are saying they need more troops but are rebuked because there are none to send. Then what? Contradict the civilian leadership and be fired for insubordination? This administration is divorced from reality and it is naive to think they are going to change their policies or strategy to deal with reality. They are in the same dilemma that Johnson created for himself. Without committing thousands, hundreds of thousands of troops to secure and stabilize the country it is hopeless. This would require a military draft which is wildly unpopular and he has no political cover to do it anyway. Unless congress decides to use some muscle and force him into action, nothing will change and the situation will continue to deteriorate daily over the next 3 1/2 years while the Tehran taunts us, Beijing feeds our credit addiction, Europe ignores us, and Moscow laughs at us.
Posted by Jesusland Joe at June 29, 2005 01:53 PMI agree with Phidipides comment earlier this a.m. that the president has lost the military. I saw no enthusiasm by the military listening to the speech. Did anyone watch Howard Dean on Hardball?
I was impressed by the interview. Will someone please explain to me the reason for the coziness between the Bush and Clinton families? Please explain why more democrat leaders have not called the Iraq invasion a blunder, like Howard Dean did this evening?
Will someone please explain to me the reason for the coziness between the Bush and Clinton families?
IMHO, it's because they both aspire to have long term dynaaties.
I get a sick feeling in my stomach at the thought of the Clintons being friends with the Bushes. It's almost like sleeping with the enemy.
Posted by Judith at June 29, 2005 07:05 PMWho can blame George H. W. Bush for getting attached to Clinton? Christ, just look at his family! Even Pappy Bush must need a little intellegent conversation sometime.
Besides. Maybe Clinton's working as a mole for the DNC.
Posted by muckcat at June 29, 2005 08:03 PMMuckcat, LOL. I like the idea of Clinton being a mole for the DNC. Yeah, I guess having an idiot son like GW makes one yearn for an articulate and intelligent substitute for a son.
Posted by Judith at June 30, 2005 01:50 AMI saw no enthusiasm by the military
They were ordered not to applaud unless the Bushies start it first. Which is why they only applauded once. This was widely reported after the speech.
Posted by Centrist at June 30, 2005 05:21 AMThey were ordered not to applaud unless the Bushies start it first.
Not what I've read.
What I understand is that the advance people from the Bush administration urged the brass at the base to keep it from turning into a rah rah peep rally atmosphere. That got translated down the line of command into 'sit on your hands'. Doesn't give me great confidence in the ability of certain people to effectively actuate orders. But then public relations has never been a strong point for the military.
Posted by muckcat at June 30, 2005 06:07 AM
Hey Centrist, regarding your D.C. comment, it's totally wrong.
You can check it out here.
http://doneasasociety.blogspot.com/2005/11/stupid-iraq-war-e-mail-forward.html
Posted by Prof. Schwarzenegger at November 4, 2005 10:13 AM