Post subject: Tuesday (June 28, 2005): Bush At Fort Bragg
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 2:46 pm
too drunk to moderate properly
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
I'll prepare the thread with a little David Corn.
Quote:
June 27, 2005 No Reason For Networks To Show Bush's Iraq Speech?
On Tuesday night George Bush will give a speech on Iraq. His (impossible?) mission: to counter the sinking polls in which a majority now says the war wasn't worth it. This is a particularly hard task, given that in recent surveys a majority also says that Bush purposefully overstated the WMD threat (that is, he lied) to grease the way to war. Remember, back in the first year of this war, the White House every few months had Bush deliver yet another major policy address on the war? It all was to little effect. I vaguely recall one speech in September 2003, when the triumphalism of the initial invasion was long gone and it was becoming quite clear that the mission was quite unaccomplished. The White house built up expectations for days before the speech. Then came the address and--poof!--it did nothing for Bush. Months later, there was another one at the Army War College. This event was very Soviet-like, with the assembled military people applauding a commander-in-chief with not much enthusiasm as he said nothing new about a worsening situation in which their comrades-in-arms were continuing to die.
What has helped Bush in the polls vis a vis Iraq these past two years have been events on the ground. When Saddam Hussein was nabbed, when the elections were held--these occasions gave Bush and his allies the opportunity to peg their misleading happy-talk to something real, and the public, justifiably eager for good news, responded accordingly. But Bush jaw-flapping on its own has not been effective. Just look at the Social Security fight. The more he opened his mouth, the more he and his vague plan dropped in the polls. And these days, there are few, if any, positive developments in Iraq's security picture for Bush to exploit.
As Bush prepares his speech, I'm reminded of my favorite Washington Post story of recent weeks. The headline of the June 16 article was "Bush Is Expected to Address Specifics on Iraq." It said Bush would take a "more assertive and public role" regarding Iraq, and it noted that "his aides have concluded that recent events in Iraq have contributed to an erosion in support for the president--and that he needs to shift strategies." Here's the punchline: the article then said, "Bush's new approach will be mostly rhetorical."
Mostly rhetorical? That is, Bush would not be changing the actual policies that have failed and that have alienated the public. This was typical Bush. After the recent election, he was asked if he would be reaching out to those who had disagreed with him on Iraq and other matters. His answer: we're going to continue to try to better explain our policies. In his view, there are no mistakes. There's only a PR problem to be solved with better spin. So if Bush is not going to change anything but his rhetoric--and it's hard to imagine how he might alter his it's-hard-work-but-we're-going-to-stick-it-out-without-changing-policies-or-setting-timetables-for-withdrawal message--why pay attention to his speech? The broadcast networks ought to stick with their regular programming--even if they are into summer reruns.
Bush is not likely to explain why Dick Cheney says the insurgency is in its "last throes," while Donald Rumsfeld says it may take 12 years to defeat it. He's not likely to provide new details about how the United States can quickly train Iraqi security forces. (The Bushies still talk about 140,000 or so Iraqis being trained, when the number of those adequately trained is much less, perhaps a tenth of that figure. When Senator Joe Biden returned from Iraq recently, he reported that of 107 Iraqi battalions supposedly trained only three were operational.) And Bush is not likely to explain why US military officials in Iraq have been negotiating with the insurgents, whom Bush has dubbed direct threats to Americans. The insurgents are mostly not part of the terrorist threat posed to the United States by al Qaeda and its allies. (They are thugs fighting to gain control of Iraq, not to destroy the United States.) But Bush has made sure not to point this out while trying to rally support for the war. He has purposefully blurred the distinction. The US military's negotiations with Sunni insurgents, though, show that Bush has yet again overstated the threat to serve political ends.
Now for the obvious bottom-line: the problem is the war, not the rhetoric. Don't expect Bush to address that reality. A "mostly rhetorical" shift will gain him little. Americans can see the bad news out of Iraq, and a few finely crafted buzz phrases from Bush won't do much to convince them otherwise. I usually blast the broadcast networks when they do not air presidential addresses. But this time around I would find it tough to insist that they displace their usual assortment of sleazy reality shows and loaded-with-gross-details crime dramas for the latest White House word games.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
And ... the Rude Pundit:
The Rude One wrote:
6/28/2005 President Fluffy Fucker: Let us say that you're a guy who' datin' a woman who's totally into stuffed animals. She's got the Care Bears and their goddamn cousins. She's got bunnies, kitties, Build-a-friggin' Bears of every shape and size and costume. You thank Christ that she missed the whole Beanie Baby thing, but, c'mon, how many Gunds does one human being need? And one day she walks into her bedroom in her apartment and catches you fuckin' one of them. That's right. You're balls deep in Funshine Bear and you just didn't expect her home. It's bad enough that you're in her place when she didn't invite her. But now she's gotta deal with the sight of you, pants off, thrusting your cock into a smilin' yellow bear.
You also know she doesn't know the worst part, yet – that you’ve been sneakin' into her place for weeks, fuckin' the bunnies, the kitties, and those sassy ass Groovy Girls who just want it nasty. You can't stop yourself. You've got a problem. And while you know your relationship, such that it is, can never be the same, especially when she finds the crusty spots on Snookum Bunny, you might be able to ask for forgiveness and see what happens.
Except when she demands an explanation, you turn it around on her. Why can't she support you? She's got all these fluffy fuckers just layin' around here – why can't you have your way with 'em? Hey, in fact, by fuckin' Hello Kitty, you’re sayin', "Good-bye, pussy" and not cheatin' on her. And if she'll just be patient, you'll have worked this out of your system and everyone will be happy, if a bit defiled.
Seriously, and, c'mon, really, what the fuck can Bush say tonight that's gonna make everyone who's turned so viciously on him suddenly think that the war in Iraq is just jim-holy-shit-dandy. All it's gonna be is the same bullshit we've heard from Rumsfeld and McClellan and the rest: me stop terrorism, we safer, no rape rooms, the Keystone Iraqi forces are growin', we will win, loss of life bad, insurgents be foreign killahs. And, hey, lick my balls, we're stayin' the course.
To return to our story of hot fluffy sex: Any reasonably sane woman would throw you the fuck out her life and maybe, for good measure, have you arrested. Would that America might react the same way to Bush’s arrogant propaganda moment.
(Is this an absurd analogy? No shit. Welcome to America in the 21st century. Motto: We’re absurd, you can shove a fish up your nose.)
Tomorrow: Well, the Rude Pundit Was Right About the Speech.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Post subject: Re: Tuesday (June 28, 2005): Bush At Fort Bragg
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:07 pm
too drunk to moderate properly
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Peeps wrote:
B wrote:
http://www.bushlies.com/
wow, thank god you got that from a non-biased site
maybe next time someone posts how pedophiles are evil, i post something from the NAMBLA website showing the positives of it all
Bush lies. That's an unbiased fact.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Is this going to be a speech only or a press conference, too?
I just love to watch the press conferences. If nothing else, we can always count on dubya to say something incredibly stupid and get a good hysterical laugh out of it.
_________________ cirlces they grow and they swallow people whole half their lives they say goodnight to wives they'll never know got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul and so it goes
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
The Speech the President Should Give By JOHN F. KERRY
Published: June 28, 2005
Boston
TONIGHT President Bush will discuss the situation in Iraq. It's long past time to get it right in Iraq. The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course - a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success.
The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself - and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day - in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won't be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.
Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.
So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.
The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.
He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.
He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.
The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments. If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.
Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one - something that our generals now say could take two more years - it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.
The administration must work with the Iraqi government to establish a multinational force to help protect its borders. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India.
The deployment of capable security forces is critical, but it alone will not end the insurgency, as the administration would have us believe. Hamstrung by its earlier lack of planning and overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq, the administration has failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts. Consequently, reconstruction is lagging even in the relatively secure Shiite south and Kurdish north. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease.
Iraq's Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel - an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill - will go a long way. But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process.
The next months are critical to Iraq's future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.
John F. Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. ——————————————————————————————————————
I'll be anxiously awaiting the inevitable comments that Kerry's opinion doesn't count because he lost the election, despite the substance of his comments and the fact that he presents more in this piece as far as ideas and solutions go than the president has in over 3 years.
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
What a shock, he told us nothing new. Somebody needs to tell him that unlike him, we actually read newspapers and watch the news, we don't need him to recap what's happened the last two years.
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:43 am Posts: 870 Location: We chase misprinted lies.....
shinkdew wrote:
What a shock, he told us nothing new. Somebody needs to tell him that unlike him, we actually read newspapers and watch the news, we don't need him to recap what's happened the last two years.
Because newspapers tell the truth AND the opinion of the MILLIONS of residents of the USA.
Whatever dude. Put the fuck up, or shut the fuck up. We're sick of your 9/11 patriotic bullshit and excuses for this mess. Get a plan, get it now, and get our troops the fuck home.
Did anyone catch Bob Costas of all people interviewing McCain? He asked about the rationale that Iraq is the main front on the terror war, and that we often hear that if we weren't fighting them there, we'd be dealing with them in New York, etc. So Costas says, "Sen. McCain, if they have the capability to come to New York, why wouldn't they just do both?"
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
I made it to the part where he was talkingabout training the Iraqi police...and I ccould not help but add on to the end of each of his laborious fucking sentences:
"...so they can go get blown up."
_________________ cirlces they grow and they swallow people whole half their lives they say goodnight to wives they'll never know got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul and so it goes
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
He did say "hard work" and "working hard" a lot.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
What a shock, he told us nothing new. Somebody needs to tell him that unlike him, we actually read newspapers and watch the news, we don't need him to recap what's happened the last two years.
Because newspapers tell the truth AND the opinion of the MILLIONS of residents of the USA.
Fucking biased media.
(Bring it)!
I generally believe what's in most newspapers more than what a politician tells me.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
