How do we push the truth that for all of Bush's tough talk he's a weak president? A strong president actually gets things done and can often do it with a minimum use of force. A strong president moves quickly, fires or moves around people who can't get the job done, knows where to find good people, knows when its time to talk, and has good judgment when the evidence is brought to him.
Right now, Bush is accomplishing nothing in the broader Middle East. And it will continue for the next two years unless Congress holds him accountable and forces him to change direction.
Posted by Craig at September 20, 2006 01:47 AMHow do we push the truth that for all of Bush's tough talk he's a weak president?
If by "we" you mean, we the people, we the ones with no power but our own voices, our cash, time and effort, then I am not sure what else we can do that we aren't doing already.
The question, it seems to me, is what can we do to convince the Democratic "leadership" to make this message their daily task?
Posted by James E. Powell at September 20, 2006 01:58 AMPro war Senator Cantwell blew away her anti war opposition in yesterdays primary in Washington state. Where were y'all? Why wasn't she Lamonted? Oh well, I guess you just dislike Jews. Probably why ALGORE lost in 2000 in New Hampshire. Shame, that would have made him president. Pro war Ben Nelson, no opposition. Pro war Bill Nelson, no opposition. Who are y'all going to get to oppose that pro war senator in Louisiana next year?
Hey, why is Air America having so many problems? Why don't y'all support it better. Maybe there just isn't enough Democratic listeners to keep them on the air. Not even in NYC!
Posted by peter at September 20, 2006 03:49 AMI once thought Bush was going to limp along in Iraq until the RNC got through the '06 midterms. Now it appears fear of "cut and run" accusations will play out until the '08 prez run is over. With troop strength already assured through spring '07 why bail when just a few more months has you in the middle of presidential primaries? For once Bush told the truth when he said he was dumping this mess in the lap of the next president. Nothing much will change, with more death and a lot more burned cash, for the next two years.
Posted by steve duncan at September 20, 2006 05:13 AMI cannot imagine what it must be like to know that you are going to be called back to Iraq over and over again. With your life on hold, your children fearful of you not returning and your wife struggling to hold things together while you are gone, it must be truly horrific.
Posted by Judith at September 20, 2006 05:37 AMI'm afraid that the talk of things improving in Iraq is out of line even under a Democratic administration.
If history is any guide, we can expect the same type of foreign policy philosophy from either party.
We are all getting our panties in a bunch over rather superficial changes...new prez, congress, senate, what have you. But in my opinion, this country's foreign policy is not really developed by these players anyway. The belligerent tone to our policy has been in place for over 100 years...that is clearly understood by all politicos...it's just not discussed in public.
What Bush has done is rip away the veil, once and for all (well, there still is an extremely thin veil) for the world to see the ugly underbelly of the beast. Not that the world didn’t know already, but certainly the American people are learning a rush history lesson on why we do what we do.
A Democratic administration would simply place the veil back on but continue the same foreign policy….but thanks to Bush, with less fear from the people and the international community.
the American people are learning a rush history lesson on why we do what we do.
what an optimist, the people have not yet learned the last 200 years of history what makes you think its learning anything now.
replace Muslims with Indians and we are back in the 1880's
The media is not "swallowing it"......they are simply the messengers for Rove/Cheney. They are, for the millionth time, IN ON IT. Why does this blog and others continue to yell about the Media not reporting correctly? They are part of the scam....I mean, wasn't ABC's "Path to 9/11" proof enough for you?
Posted by T2 at September 20, 2006 06:28 AMIf history is any guide, we can expect the same type of foreign policy philosophy from either party.
Damn straight. Espeically with the weak-kneed undeveloped bullies currently in leadership of the Democratic Party. They'll be too damn scared of being painted weak-on-anything to significantly change policy.
Posted by idiosynchronic at September 20, 2006 06:30 AMThey'll be too damn scared of being painted weak-on-anything to significantly change policy
IMO it has nothing to do with being scared, they support the foreign policy and are fully behind it.
Posted by soccerdad at September 20, 2006 06:46 AMSorry, but I don't believe that a President Gore, or a Democratic Congress, would have invaded Iraq in 2003.
Dems have indeed supported a "cheap oil" foreign policy for decades, but which party do you think will have a hope of actually supporting and promoting alternate energy policies?
We usually characterize this outrageous invasion as the greatest strategic disaster in American history. Once a nation makes such a colossal military error, it is extremely difficult to figure out what to do and how to rectify it. There's no going back to square one, unfortunately.
There simply is no clear, obvious, "certain" answer. Thus, it will be very hard to thrash out a "new" policy, even for those not weighed down with personal interest in causing the disaster.
But there is no doubt that ratifying Bush's actions once again by returning a Republican Congress will lead to the worst possible outcome for the country.
I'm with Craig--a Democratic House or Senate will have an effect, will operate to hold Bush accountable on at least some level, and will not be meaningless.
Posted by euzoius at September 20, 2006 07:47 AMGee, am I the only one who remembers this administration telling reporters the US invasion of Iraq would probably last 4 weeks?
Easy in, topple Saddam, and then home?
So 3 1/2 years on, $400 billion dollars and 140,000 US troops and it's still not sufficient?
I'm feeling like I live in an echo chamber and they neocons keep changing the rules.
Posted by Christopher at September 20, 2006 07:48 AMwhaddya say? truth would be welcome about now, eh?
darn it, I keep forgetting, sociopaths don't know what it is
Posted by oldtree at September 20, 2006 07:53 AMPro war Senator Cantwell blew away her anti war opposition in yesterdays primary in Washington state.
Two issues: You really need to stop trying to spin stuff. You really suck at it...and I mean you are really, reeeeealy bad at it...rrrrreal bad. That's probably why having a HS diploma is a job qualification for spinmeisters in this current administration.
Secondly, do you really think no one follows primary news or has access to a computer on this blog? Fuck, dude, were all sitting here one URL away from google. You don't think anyone is going to look, and we'll just accept your nonsense? As Cantwell said:
"We need to change the course in Iraq so our troops can start coming home this year," Cantwell said in a victory statement on her Web site.
Hey, why is Air America having so many problems?
Because neo-con talk show hosts say they are? See my first statement to you about spinning. I also haven't heard Air America carry ads for butt paste, as I've heard hawked on Rush the Lush, etc.
Posted by phidipides at September 20, 2006 08:01 AM“Gee, am I the only one who remembers this administration telling reporters the US invasion of Iraq would probably last 4 weeks?”
You’re right. It only took 3 weeks.
Just another example of those lying Bush bastards.
Phidipides is absolutely correct.
Peter's spin skills are truly lacking.
Posted by snark at September 20, 2006 09:02 AM"The devil came here yesterday. He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world." - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez referring to Little Boots on the floor of the U.N. General Assembly.
Posted by Christopher at September 20, 2006 09:07 AMSorry, but I don't believe that a President Gore, or a Democratic Congress, would have invaded Iraq in 2003.
wasn't what we were talking about.
Now that Bush has, the Dems are fully behind it. If the Dem leadership took over everything tomorrow there would be no withdrawl.
Breaking news everybody, Lou Dobbs exposes voting scandal!
If only he would have listened years ago!
This is amazing:
Energy giant BP PLC said it is in the "final planning stage" of a $3 billion project to retrofit its Whiting, Ind., refinery to process heavy Canadian crude oil.
Reconfiguring the Whiting refinery, BP said, may increase the plant's production of motor fuels by about 15 percent, or 1.7 million gallons of gasoline and diesel per day. The refinery currently produces about 4.5 billion gallons of transportation fuels yearly.
Construction is expected to begin in 2007, the company said, and completed by 2011. The project is subject to regulatory approvals.
The investment "will modernize the refinery," and "reposition it as a top-tier refinery well into the future," said Mike Hoffman, BP's group vice president for refining.
The revamping will create as many as 2,500 jobs during the construction phase, but add just 60 to 80 permanent jobs post-construction, BP said.
An oil company actually spending some of its tax cuts and windfall profits on infrastructure. But considering it's BP and they're already under fire for not maintaining their Alaska pipeline, I doubt it's a trend.
Posted by ann at September 20, 2006 11:33 AMThe House is currently debating and will vote shortly on HR 4844. This is a new poll tax. This will disenfranchise millions of people. This will require photo id and proof of citizenship to be able to vote in Federal elections. This will disenfranchise people of color, the elderly, the poor, the disabled....in other words, Democratic voters.
Call Congress and oppose this crap.
Posted by Anjha at September 20, 2006 11:45 AMBut considering it's BP and they're already under fire for not maintaining their Alaska pipeline, I doubt it's a trend.
BP is the first oil company to start preparing for (1) a near-term tightening of the oil supply; (2) a mid-to-long-term exhaustion of that supply. They'll make less money over the next five years for their shareholders than some competitors, but after that, they figure to be better-positioned to keep making solid profits.
Posted by dj moonbat at September 20, 2006 12:07 PM"The devil came here yesterday. He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world."
I think this could be hyperbole. The devil is competent, although he is known to masquerade as neo-con christians in many churches.
Posted by phidipides at September 20, 2006 09:32 PM