Looks like the exit strategy and timetable remains the same as it always was.
Posted by muckdog at November 30, 2005 09:50 AMTrue Muck; he's at least being consistent on this, but he is snubbing the Senate and not doing anything to gain confidence with the public for his approach.
Posted by Steve Soto at November 30, 2005 09:52 AMDumbya's latest speech on victory in Eye-rack will go over about as well as taking a big, stinking shit in the livingroom. Like taking a dump, he just pulls stuff out of his ass and tries to explain it. Which is hard for a moron who can't string together three words to form a sentence.
There's a reason he gave it at 9:45 AM, they didn't want anyone to watch it! The more exposure it got the worse the response would be.
Really pathetic.
Posted by Red_Neck_Repub at November 30, 2005 09:53 AMC'mon you aren't even doing Bush justice with that photo. A real appreciation comes only after you see the full back drop for the speech.
Posted by Simp at November 30, 2005 09:57 AMThanks Simp for that; picture changed.
Posted by Steve Soto at November 30, 2005 10:03 AMI skimmed the speech on the WH site. Major problem with it: Suppose the insurgency represents the true desires and aspirations of the Iraqi people, or at least a significant chunk of them?
That would make complete nonsense of all this stuff about "We will defend the democracy that the Iraqi people are trying to build." Actually, the US appears to be denying the Iraqi people the chance to express their true desires via a democratic process.
Posted by Rich at November 30, 2005 10:07 AMgood point Rich. Yes, by manipulating the election process in Iraq, the Bush Admin is using the same plan they use here...cheat to get your guys in power. Unfortunately, Bush and his idiots failed to heed the warnings (and lots of them) that Saddam or not, Iraqis/Muslims hate America's invasion of their country! The "insurgents" are as you suggest,i.e. Iraqi citizens fighting an invader. Oh sure, they may fight amongst themselves once the US is gone - that's why Iraq had an iron-fisted dictator to keep a lid on the situation before we drove him from power. But fighting amongst themselves is a centuries old tradition there. Fighting an invader is simply a momentary diversion in the stream of history. If we left tomorrow (wish, hope) they would quickly find another iron-fisted dictator to fill the void and go back to what they were doing before..selling oil to us and hating us for destroying their country and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Posted by T2 at November 30, 2005 10:19 AMLooks like the exit strategy and timetable remains the same as it always was.
Posted by muckdog at November 30, 2005 09:50 AM
_____
And what exactly would those be, pissthroat, you serial liar?
You see, assmouth, there is no exit strategy, and there is no timetable, and there are no real benchmarks, because these ignorant, incompetent, greed-ridden assholes NEVER ENTERTAINED THE THOUGHT THAT ANY OF THIS WOULD HAPPEN even though the experts all said it would.
No, suckhog, these heroes of yours are floundering around like fish in the sand and they have nary a fucking clue where the water is.
Posted by God Of War at November 30, 2005 10:21 AMThat's so embarassing that they actually had a giant banner like that made - at the taxpayers' expense, of course.
Posted by ann at November 30, 2005 10:24 AMjust as our good host Steve says the fact that they left out who controls the oil and whether the Cheney mob plans a permanent presence in Iraq should tell you all you need to know. The rest is obfuscation 101...
Posted by John B. at November 30, 2005 10:31 AMSteve
I object to your characterization of the Naval Academy audience as a "Stepford audience". My child is an Academy graduate and a fervent Democrat and opponent of Bush's policiesas are some other members of the same class. It is true that most at the Academy are Republicans, but not all are. In addition, we have seen that there are in fact many people in the military who oppose this criminal and his gang, but still are committed to serving their country by fulfilling their military duties, even when one of those duties is to sit and listen to this speech.
Posted by Merle at November 30, 2005 10:32 AMIs the admiral on stage with him there so the mid-shipmen don't throw thing at him or boo him?
Posted by Goose1 at November 30, 2005 10:54 AMMerle, thanks for the reminder.
I wish there were more like you and your son.
I had to turn off the TV after Bush's 2nd or 3rd line--something along the lines of "I'm traveling with someone who's done a fine job as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld." Couldn't stomach listening after that.
Posted by CG at November 30, 2005 11:33 AMYou're doing a heckuva job Rumsie!
Posted by John B. at November 30, 2005 11:53 AMCG, that was when I had to leave the room too. Just can't stomach the lies at all or the glorification of war criminals.
Posted by Mary at November 30, 2005 11:56 AMPLAN FOR VICTORY
Step 1: Putz around with your head up your ass for three years.
Step 2: Spin putzing around with your head up your ass for three years as the "Plan for Victory".
Step 3: Refer to Step 1.
Posted by snark at November 30, 2005 11:59 AMWhat's with the fucking banners?
Did Roosevelt need banners behind him whenever he gave a speech about the progress of World War II?
It's like a stupid built-in caption. Every God damn photo of this schmuck has got one of those damn banners in it. It's down right Orwellian. No need to think about what he's saying, we'll just sum it all up for easy consumption.
Fitting though, I suppose, seeing as they generally summarize the content of his speeches. All thesis. No body. No conclusion.
Posted by snark at November 30, 2005 12:08 PMSteve -- rather than Stepford or largely supportive audience, you could very accurately say that this an audience that is required by law to NOT say or express any disparaging comment about their C-in-C.
There is a reason the dictator wannabe speaks so often to military audiences -- they could be court-martialed for booing.
Posted by ck at November 30, 2005 12:09 PMI only read your entry and the subsequent comments because Hugh Hewitt linked to your site. I'm not sure why anyone would think you have any credibility and you certainly don't provide any support for your comments which makes it difficult to take you seriously. The majority of your commentors don't seem to have enough respect for themselves to make their arguments without profanity which shows that the arguments made are probably hollow and simply their emotional outbursts. From much of what I have read on the liberal blogs it seems pretty clear that most don't let facts get in the way of their tirades and spiteful criticism. How is that helpful?
Posted by John at November 30, 2005 12:18 PMSteve -- rather than Stepford or largely supportive audience, you could very accurately say that this an audience that is required by law to NOT say or express any disparaging comment about their C-in-C.
There is a reason the dictator wannabe speaks so often to military audiences -- they could be court-martialed for booing.
Posted by ck at November 30, 2005 12:09 PM
_____
This is exactly what LBJ used to do when it became obvious that 'Nam was cement boots in a shit pond.
Posted by at November 30, 2005 12:20 PMFunny that anon should mention LBJ. From the Sy Hersch piece in the New Yorker this week:
Bush’s public appearances, for example, are generally scheduled in front of friendly audiences, most often at military bases. Four decades ago, President Lyndon Johnson, who was also confronted with an increasingly unpopular war, was limited to similar public forums. “Johnson knew he was a prisoner in the White House,” the former official said, “but Bush has no idea.”
At least LBJ had some sense of self-awareness. My AP American History teacher always said he thought LBJ was the most corrupt President we ever had. I think that title has changed hands now.
John, Was there anything new bu$h said? Please, inform me?
Posted by bbtb at November 30, 2005 12:26 PMWell, let's see what the other elective branch has to say now that Bushco just shat all over them.
If Congress accepts this blithe dismissal of its war concerns by the Commander in Chief, our theory of government will be effectively shattered.
Interesting times.
Posted by euzoius at November 30, 2005 12:59 PMlargely-supportive audience at the Annapolis Naval Academy.
I saw it on C-span and when Bush stop to get applaud they did start after a while to show the cadets that did not claps and they were a lot. Guess
I see now on CNN they only shows the one who applauds. Woolfy are telling us that it was a great speech!
What's with the imperial backdrop for the speech? Is Bush running for emperor?
Posted by Craig at November 30, 2005 01:29 PMFeingold is definitely doing better than the rest of them. Still, the WOT is mostly a fabrication that grips only the US.
Posted by Marie at November 30, 2005 01:47 PMSteve Thanks.
ck Right on.
John Bite me.
Posted by Merle at November 30, 2005 01:58 PMDear bbtb:
I went back and listened to the speech again and while I'm sure there were new details that have not been included in previous speeches, like the last words of Cpl. Starr, I for one am glad that the content hasn't changed. The mission is still the same. The training of Iraqi troops continues, the march toward the December election continues. The rebuilding continues. I can't imagine you accepting anything less than a promise to immediately withdraw all troops and step down as president anyway. We'll just have to fight it out again at the polls to determine whether our nation survives or goes the way of Europe. Speaking of Europe, how about we bring our troops home from there first. Korea too. Maybe Kosovo? Here's some help for the folks that frequent this blog...
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/11/in-denial.html
I only read your entry and the subsequent comments because Hugh Hewitt linked to your site. I'm not sure why anyone would think you have any credibility and you certainly don't provide any support for your comments which makes it difficult to take you seriously. The majority of your commentors don't seem to have enough respect for themselves to make their arguments without profanity which shows that the arguments made are probably hollow and simply their emotional outbursts. From much of what I have read on the liberal blogs it seems pretty clear that most don't let facts get in the way of their tirades and spiteful criticism. How is that helpful?
Posted by John at November 30, 2005 12:18 PM
_____
Does Rush Limbaugh speak the truth, you fucking asshole?
Facts? I don't think your side wants to get into a "Facts" war. You're the ones who heap disdain on the "Realtiy Based Community", remember?
You do remember that, don't you, shiteater?
Posted by God Of War at November 30, 2005 02:07 PMRe: "stepford audience" An unfortunate choice of words, but an entirely apprpriate one. This is a judgement of the audience's outward appearace though, not of their true thoughts and feelings. Even when they express themselves via a notable lack of enthusiasm, the camera shies away from them and focuses on more obedient subjects. Steve wasn't commenting on what was in their heads.
As for John not finding anything new or original in this particular post, Steve was emphasizing the same-old, same-old, repetitive quality of the speech. The point was precisely was that there was nothing new here.
Posted by Rich at November 30, 2005 02:08 PMJohn, What facts are you talking about? Facts and the GOP do not go together. I see you have no facts in your post.
Posted by Goose1 at November 30, 2005 02:09 PMThe mission is still the same.
Which one? Finding the WMDs? Ousting Saddam? Oh, right, you mean that idea of foisting democracy on the Iraqis whether they want it or not.
Posted by ann at November 30, 2005 02:12 PMI just read John's recommended post. Very heavy on cutesy dressig-up of hoary old cliches, very light on anything reasonable. Like ID/Creastionism/Biblcal literalism, it's all window dressing and no substance.
Posted by Rich at November 30, 2005 02:16 PMHee hee. Check out the enraptured audience of midshipmen in the picture posted at FirstDraft
Posted by Merle at November 30, 2005 02:16 PMTo be fair (but why?), that photo was taken while the mids were waiting for the Preznit to arrive, not actually during his speech. As I have been told, at the Academy, there's a whole lot of "hurry up and wait" that goes on.
Posted by Merle at November 30, 2005 02:23 PMSELECTED TRANSCRIPT OF SPEECH:
...Let the world know that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans
A generation that is not afraid of endless war
A generation that is not afraid of endless debt
A generation that is not afraid to proclaim me their emperior for life!
All for one
And all for one
Let me hear it for me....
John, Did Korea,Kosovo or Europe ask us to Leave? Bush said he would leave if asked, they asked. He lied! Those are FACTS!!!!
Posted by goose1 at November 30, 2005 03:20 PMYou sir...are what we call in my neighborhood..a twit.
Posted by Ani at November 30, 2005 03:22 PMPeople who risk their lives to serve their country in the face of armed people looking to do them in deserve respect and to be treated with dignity irrespective of your opinion of George W Bush, his political faction, or the voters that put them in power twice.
That includes midshipmen who put themselves in harms way all over the world and that includes the people of Iraq who have gone to the polls twice in large numbers despite serious death threats. This also includes the 200k+ Iraqi military who are fighting and bleeding for a country that they believe in.
I'm a big believer that if you can spot the dog that isn't barking, you can determine the truth. I think that the milbloggers are key. They, by and large, are the best people around for providing a professional estimate of the combat capability of Iraqi forces. My meta-estimate is that it used to suck but has gotten pretty decent of late. Read on your own and do your own estimate.
Read, as well, how military men show their displeasure when the higher ups destroy a career for politically motivated reasons. It happens, from time to time, and you'll see that the english language is perfectly capable of conveying outrage without going over the line to conduct prejudicial to good discipline.
Whether you agree with their opinion or not, these people are, by and large, good writers and professionals in their field. The bulk of their opinion seems to be that we're winning the war and the last chance the other side has at victory is convincing the american people to pull out before the Iraqis are ready. The progress is there. The reports of Steel Curtain and other operations are out there. The improvements in Iraqi capabilities seem to be quite real. As long as progress continues to be made, we need to give the military the room to execute.
I hope that the Pentagon makes its published numbers of ~60k in troop reductions by end of summer 2006. That's a real, hard number and a metric we can measure against. Why don't we just do that?
Posted by TM Lutas at November 30, 2005 04:15 PMtm lutas, bush finally got around today to defining winning the war:
"Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation."
there's so much to say about the emptiness of these metrics for victory, but let's focus on the most important one: how can we tell that the iraqi security forces "can provide for the safety of their own citizens" until we leave? and that's not even mentioning that even with us there we can't "provide for the safety of (iraqi) citizens."
care to evaluate each of these metrics and why you think we're "winning?"
Posted by howard at November 30, 2005 04:22 PMTM, 200,000, 120,000, 1000, I have seen all these Figures. If they Have 200,000 trained then we don't need to be there at all. Why not just leave?
Posted by Goose1 at November 30, 2005 04:33 PMFacts?
DoD News Briefing
Saturday, December 19, 1998 - 6:55 p.m. (EST)
Presenter: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
Secretary Cohen: Good evening.
On Wednesday when U.S. and British forces launched strikes against Iraq, I stated that we were pursuing clear military goals. And as President Clinton has announced, we've achieved those goals. We've degraded Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. We've diminished his ability to wage war against his neighbors. Our forces attacked about 100 targets over four nights, following a plan that was developed and had been developed and refined over the past year. We concentrated on military targets and we worked very hard to keep civilian casualties as low as possible. Our goal was to weaken Iraq's military power, not to hurt Iraq's people.
1. Were President Clinton and his Administration lying when they gave as their justification for the massive bombing of Iraq the fear that Saddam had WMD?
2. Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan?
3. Would the US. have been better off had it removed the Taliban regime in 1999 or 2000?
4. Do you believe that al Qaeda would have used WMD if they had had them on 9/11.
5. Do you think that post 9/11, American presidents have to react differently to perceived threats against the country?
6. Did Zarqawi train in Afghanistan, both before and after 9/11, and did Zarqawi travel freely in Baghdad under Saddam?
7. Was Saddam's regime likely to have ever changed absent outside intervention, and do you think Saddam's sons would have been better or worse than their father to their own people, the region, and the world?
8. Did Saddam support terrorists?
9. How long before the UN Oil for Food program would have provided the financial resources to finalize Saddam's weapons programs?
10. Are you really so unable to connect the dots?
Last post for me, it is entirely too tedious to sort through all the childish name calling and posturing. It seems a waste of free speech to have this forum and yet not bring much that is constructive to the dialogue. There is an old saying that carries a lot of weight "It takes one to know one" GOW, that's for you...
John Perhaps you're gone by now, but I'll comment:
Where in that last post of yours labelled "Facts?" were the facts? You quote a 1998 press release (wtf?), then ask a series of questions like "did you support the bombing of Afghanistan" and " Do you believe that al Qaeda have used WMD if they had them". Exactly how are these facts, and how are they relevant to whether it is advisable or feasible to pull of of Iraq? It seems that to you, facts cannot be separated from the assumptions, preconceptions, spin and lies that Bush has used to frame the discussion of the war.
I think you are mesmerized by the web of deceit Bush has woven and so are afraid to look at facts because then you will have to confront the enormous evil we've been led into.
Posted by Merle at November 30, 2005 06:30 PMIt seems a waste of free speech...
It's ok John.
Really.
Free speech is an inexhaustable resource!
Well it used to be before George Bush, Dick Cheney and their ilk had anything to say about it.
And no profanity!
Are you proud of me?
Posted by snark at November 30, 2005 06:39 PMNone of these tendentious questions would lead any rational person to conclude that it was absolutely necessary to invade Iraq, John.
But I don't think anything could get in the way of your smug, priggish self satisfaction.
As they say, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.......
Posted by euzoius at November 30, 2005 06:41 PMJohn is an appropriate name for one so full of shit.
Posted by God Of War at November 30, 2005 07:18 PMStill waiting on them facts, John.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 30, 2005 07:47 PMJohn,
1. No.
2. Yes.
3. The U.S. had no justification for removing the Taliban in 1999 or 2000. You might just as well ask if the U.S. would have been better off having removed the U.S.S.R. in 1960.
4. Why not?
5. I believe president's should respond appropriately to any threat to the country. I also believed that prior to 9/11. I'm not a big believer in "9/11 changed everything".
6. Afghanistan? That I wouldn't doubt. And probably with the support of our Pakistani friends. Travel freely in Iraq? Under an assumed name I believe. And apparently not at the invitation of Saddam Hussein. Muhammed Atta travelled freely in the U.S. under George Bush. Should we throw Bush in the clink with Saddam?
7. Debatable. I've heard testimony that he had basically given up on his weapons programs. He was a beaten old man who simply rattled his apparently tin sword to keep himself in power. His sons were nothing but half-wits. I have no doubt that Saddams cronies had no loyalty to them. Had Saddam died in power they probably would have ended up as they are now. Regardless of that. They still had no means of developing weapons of mass destruction.
8. Well he did send money to the families of suicide bombers. But I doubt that was the motivation behind anyone being willing to strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves to bits. Other than that I haven't seen a lot of evidence of other support. The terrorist training camps were in Kurdish areas that were not under Saddam's control. No fly zones and Kurdish protection zones ya' know. Hard to pin that on him.
9. Wow! Finalize Saddams weapons programs? That's a stretch. Can you make weapons out of cash? That's all he got from the Oil for Food program. Christ. He couldn't even rebuild his conventional army. Let alone build an a-bomb.
10. Dick Cheney said he was doing a lot of connecting the dots before we invaded. It seems he draw the wrong picture. Not a great analogy for a guy concerned with the facts.
Posted by Facts? at November 30, 2005 08:06 PM"Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation."
(I have to mention that Bush could not put 5 word together without stumbling once. What a phony!)
Well the English learn there lessons after WW1. I guess Poodle Blair did not pay attention in History classes. We sure know that the chimp was not to interest in anything that did not come in a glass or in powder. It took the English 6 years or more to be kicked out. Who wants to have their children to dies last? This administration wants the OIL and will do anything to get it. Our youth and the Iraqi are collateral casualties that do not matter. That is a sick mentality.
Is 6 Billion spending a weeks, is good for you? That is what we are spending over there, good for Cheney’s stocks and the idiot president.
Rising poll numbers, economy growing at an even higher revised 3rd quarter pace, gas prices below pre-Katrina levels, another successful election in Iraq next month and a very good speach by President Bush. You folks may all need straight jackets before long. By the way, there is a great article on your views that is linked here
Posted by FresnoBob at November 30, 2005 10:22 PMIt isn't out-of-control conservatives tossing Molotov cocktails at police officers in San Francisco, burning American soldiers in effigy, and smearing pig's blood and feces on the walls and windows of military recruitment centers across the country to protest on behalf of peace.
What the HELL is Michelle Malkin talkig about here?!?!?
I recognize some of these tactics from 40 years ago, but have any of them occurred post-Vietnam?
I'll need to see documentation on these before I consider them more than a figment of Michelle's fevered imagination.
Posted by Rich at December 1, 2005 04:38 AMLast post for me, it is entirely too tedious to sort through all the childish name calling and posturing. It seems a waste of free speech to have this forum and yet not bring much that is constructive to the dialogue. There is an old saying that carries a lot of weight "It takes one to know one" GOW, that's for you...
Posted by John at November 30, 2005 05:43 PM
Publican troll throws lies and hypocrisy into a progressive blog's comments section, and then bugs out when he gets called on his kimchee.
Just as predictable as the lies and hypocrisy regurgitated by Putsch during his latest photo op.
Smarter ditto monkeys, please...
Posted by (: Tom :) at December 1, 2005 05:01 AMMerle, thank you thank you for that picture. What a hoot. I hope those men do not receive punishment for their lack of interest.
Posted by Judith at December 1, 2005 05:01 AMSorry Merle, I read your second post after I posted.
Mary Matalin just connected on Today the death of 3,000 with the Iraq War. God, they never stop.
Posted by Judith at December 1, 2005 05:20 AMJohn, I will make this simple for you. Bush said if the Iraq government asked us to leave we would. (fact1) They asked. (fact2). He has made no atenpt to start withdrwal (lied said we would leave now says we stay the course) It doesn't matter what ANYONE else said about the war. Understand?
Posted by goose1 at December 1, 2005 05:45 AMHey Goose1, care to post a link to your "fact2"? I have not seen an official vote or request from the Iraqi government asking for immediate withdrawal. Maybe I missed something.
Posted by FresnoBob at December 2, 2005 07:34 AMGoose, I said facts, not fantasy
Posted by FresnoBob at December 2, 2005 09:35 PM