Video: “We’re not leaving so long as I’m president”
posted at 2:35 pm on August 21, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
There’s a lot going on here — patriotism, the NSA decision, the connection between Saddam and 9/11, America’s “soul” — but the sound bite is the line I quoted. The full transcript is here.
It ends with a question, the answer to which is in serious doubt even among righty bloggers. Foremost among them is Moran in this widely-linked piece which says it’s time to crap or get off the pot. The Commissar and Rusty are dejected too, as, of course, is the high priest of civilizational pessimism, Mark Steyn. Watching the clip, one gets the impression that Bush thinks staying put is, in itself, a form of victory instead of a mere precondition. His resolve is admirable, but it would be a lot more admirable if it applied not just to things we shouldn’t be doing, like pulling out, but to things we most assuredly should.
Fortunately, the news isn’t all bad.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
There is something very strange about this. The worse the situation gets, the more recalcitrant Bush becomes, and with the same old plan. What is he thinking is going to happen–the democracy fairy is going to wave her magic wand and send in an army on unicorns?
What’s that saying about one of the definitions of insanity–doing the same thing over and over and being surprised when the result is always the same.
He is going to put some of his own party members up for re-election in a very tough situation.
honora on August 21, 2006 at 2:50 PM
And why is it, exactly, that you feel that not pulling our forces out before the job is completed is the same as doing the same thing over and over again, per your insanity definition? The President simply said we weren’t going to abandon the mission. He never said we would be operationally rigid and not change our tactics. There have been many changes over the years in Iraq, the latest of which is our new approach to the security situation in Baghdad. Do you even read the news?
Do you think our troops in the field are too stupid to adapt to the changing situation? Do you really think that the only alternative is to bow out now with extreme cowardice and leave our Iraqi allies to fight on their own?
This strawman isn’t even worth addressing. It’s just a figment of your overactive imagination.
Mojoski on August 21, 2006 at 3:05 PM
He thinks the Iraqis are gaining capacity and are increasingly able to police their own land. He thinks that eventually, sectarian violence is going to be stopped by the people who are having to put up with it…when they stop putting up with it.
He may be right and he may be wrong. Time will tell. But there’s only one way to find out and “strategic redeployment” ain’t it.
You do realize that 48% of Connecticut’s Democrats just voted for the pro-Bush hawk, don’t you?
Pablo on August 21, 2006 at 3:07 PM
this will be used by the dems
that hurt
Defector01 on August 21, 2006 at 3:16 PM
Of course. And you do realize that that dynamic works both ways, don’t you?
honora on August 21, 2006 at 3:16 PM
Are you suggesting that 48% of registered Republicans somewhere might shortly vote for a candidate that wants us to pull out of Iraq immediately?
Where, exactly, is that going to happen? Do tell!
Mojoski on August 21, 2006 at 3:19 PM
There is soooo much terror activity behind what we see. Terror that WILL follow us home if we pulled out. Read & think between the lines. They want free people DEAD.
Dozens and dozens of terrorist plots in UK alone? There are thousands of these crazed muslims(pissonthemall)and the war in Iraq is the battlefield front line. If we leave, they come here, they’ve already started. Already the Brits are overwhelmed by Islamafascists, they’ve moved in and taken over. Most US muslim groups still back the terrorists more than they do America and America’s freedom for ALL.
This is a “GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR”. Where do you want to fight it? Here, in NY, or Kansas? Maybe Utah? Where, you tell me/us where we should fight them? We need a friend inside Iraq’s borders, not another Iran. We need that area to have at least one semi-stable region of possible help to the free world. Even if Iraq never becomes democratic, we still can NOT give this land to terrorists and Islamafascists. Think about it. What would happen IF we were to leave tomorrow. Who would move in? Didnt Iran just ‘buy’ Hizbollahs friendship? Another terror organization? Muslims/Islamafascists have the money to buy friends all over the world, millions of them. That is their goal, to take over the world by forced submission, bought alliance, or death.
WE CAN NOT LEAVE!
shooter on August 21, 2006 at 3:21 PM
Oh I do indeed read the news. Since the Baghdad security initiative was rolled out in mid June, casualties have increased by about 50%. Do yourself a favor and read the links in A/P’s posts. I believe you have two alternatives:
1) a hard look at reality; if we are willing to significantly up our troop commitment, can we stop the violence and establish a stable Iraq (democracy would be nice but let’s be realistic) I am willing to consider the answer to this is yes; my fear is the Bush apologists aren’t willing to consider the answer is no. If the answer is no, vamoose. If the answer is yes,
2) institute a draft and stop these ludicrous half measures that are getting our troops killed.
honora on August 21, 2006 at 3:23 PM
Oh for heavens sake, don’t be so literal. It’s not clever, it’s tiresome.
honora on August 21, 2006 at 3:27 PM
Correct – I remember the Dems making the ‘04 elections about the same damn thing – I guess they are expecting different results this year.
Rick on August 21, 2006 at 3:33 PM
I was simply asking you to explain yourself.. If I was being too literal, then do enlighten me.
Mojoski on August 21, 2006 at 3:38 PM
So once again, your logic alludes me. We increase the number of troops in the hotest areas of Iraq, and you expect our casualties to go down? Is that what you are saying?
Oh, I see. You’re one of those. I won’t bother to respond again. Have fun.
Mojoski on August 21, 2006 at 3:40 PM
Honora,
To a certain extent, you have taken the Murtha stance on Iraq:
reinstitute the draft - our current volunteer military is more than capable. Despite the Murtha political spin, we are not stretched thin, and are capable of a lot more. It’s Washington and the MSM that are stretched thin on this issue. I get the feeling you only say this to show that it should be all or nothing – when you know that’s not going to happen. If the President were to reinstitute the draft, you would probably be the first in line to criticize it (next to Murtha).
Iraq security- you are quick to point out the current Baghdad casualties’ numbers, but what do you think the numbers would be if we just cut and run (as you suggest)? Or does it not matter once we leave? We aren’t the ones suffering the massive casualties – the Iraqis are. Us leaving will only make matters worse right now.
Rick on August 21, 2006 at 3:55 PM
In Joe’s case, the war was the thing. He lost the primary despite being a very popular Senator til now. If this holds true in other districts, it bodes ill for Republicans supporting the war.
honora on August 21, 2006 at 4:04 PM
It is interesting that the new PEW Poll shows that a majority of Americans believe turning over control of the Congress would make us less secure and would cost us the war on terrorism!
There is a great deal of grumbling and BDS going on right now; but I believe in the voting booth people will vote slightly more conservative than liberal because of fear the left is a cut-and-run, weak-sister, defeatist party!
Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 4:05 PM
IMHO, the President is at his best when he’s a little fiesty like this. Glad to see it.
mikeyboss on August 21, 2006 at 4:06 PM
Ok I give. Things are swell in Iraq and we don’t need to change a damned thing. The fact that we have had 3rd and 4th tours for the Guard and Reserves , well, let’s not read anything into that.
honora on August 21, 2006 at 4:07 PM
Rick: I support the idea of government service for all 18 year olds–military or non military. Don’t be so quick to assume you can predict other people’s thoughts and opinions. One of the dangers of polarization in politics–the assumption that belief systems are all or nothing. What rot! Do you know a lot of people who lack complexity? If so, you need a new circle of friends!!
;-)
honora on August 21, 2006 at 4:11 PM
They need to announce a “Slap a Liberal Day”.
venmax on August 21, 2006 at 4:17 PM
More bodies can’t do the job in Iraq, unless you redifine the job.
In order to stop terrorism you have to stop the ideology. A person who believes that, as a good Muslim, he will go to heaven if he dies during Jihad, and also believes that any other good muslims that die due to his actions go to heaven, and that if you are a bad muslim or an infidel then you deserve to die and burn in hell… well, that person is not going to really care what you think, say, or want. He will continue on with his agenda. So to change that you have to pick at the flaws in the terrorist argument. At the same time you also have to kill the terrorist that are trying to kill you, and when you do so you have to NOT make martyrs of them so they may be elevated into sainthood by the media and used as propaganda to indoctrinate others.
A draft can not accomplish this. The only thing that can is a systematic and patient method that will win over the hearts and minds of those that are not infatuated with the holy Jihad.
Or you can redifine the job and make it “kill all muslims”. Then draft americans (which is always popular) and send them forth to kill anyone in your way.
I am not keen on the second option. Sure, it is faster, easier, and will not cost as much in American blood (disregarding what the rest of the world may do or say) as the first option, but I think winning the Iraqui’s over to our side is a better stratagy.
But patience is the key.
Wyrd on August 21, 2006 at 4:25 PM
Honora: One of your gods FDR was soundly criticized and frequently for the military missteps and disasters during WW-II. It is a fact of life that no war is ever easy, without obstacles and even outright mistakes. What you want is a fast, easy war without any sacrifices, no costs and like American meals, via a drive through window.
While every America life is precious, the numbers of soldiers killed during this war are statistically insignificant when compared to many single battles durin WW-II and even Korea. My father commanded a Navy ship during WW-II and my eldest brother fought in the Chosin Reservoir in Korea, and both saw military deaths on a sccale that makes Irag and Afghanistian pale by comparison.
Have some guts, patience and understanding about what we are doing, the sacrfices our military are making, and the benefits to the Middle East and the world if we are victorious.
You can take heart though, I just read another poll that indicates Hillary is the likely President in 2008 by 74% of registered voters (63% Democrat and 11% Republican). So, in Januray 2008 we will surrender the war on terrorism to the IslamoFascists, and all our troops will be home, fighting the terrorists on our soil.
Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 4:32 PM
Joe’s 48% showing in a partisan primary, given his having been framed as a member of the other, extremely evil party, bodes ill for Republicans? With Joe still polling as likely to remain the Senator from Connecticut? You’re gonna have to map that one out. Name one of them and what this says about their race.
Pablo on August 21, 2006 at 4:35 PM
How about we drop the personal attacks and stick to the issues. Also, I don’t assume and/or predict other people’s opinions – I respond to what is said (or in this case, their comments).
Government Service for all 18 year olds – why?
Rick on August 21, 2006 at 4:39 PM
BTW…
Yes, please. Immediately if not sooner, like 3 years ago when we should have taken care of him. Hoping Sistani will do it for us is not panning out.
Root causes, Mr. President.
Pablo on August 21, 2006 at 4:55 PM
“Oh I do indeed read the news. Since the Baghdad security initiative was rolled out in mid June, casualties have increased by about 50%.” — honora
Who died and made you CENTCOM?
Where do you get your facts? Since May 2006 US casualties have steadily been decreasing in rate. Our casualties are getting lighter for 4 months now, in a not swift enough decreasing trend. Iraqi casualties may be increasing over the same period, including the month of July being the bloodiest month for civilian casualties, but they are slowly getting the upper hand. Even Iraqi security forces casualties are slowly decreasing. Those casualties are caused by Shiites killing Sunnis and vice versa. Iranian agents are inciting the violence and most of the killing is brought on by al Sadrs so called Mahdi army and other Iranian supported groups. When Shiite and Sunni insurgents are killed fighting the Iraqi or American forces, some are even dragged away, fake Sunni and Shiite IDs planted on them, and they are dropped to be found and blamed on sectarian violence. So called “ethnic cleansing”, if you will.
I suppose the last time America intervened in ethnic cleansing it was a bad thing also? When 8000 Muslim males were killed in Srebrenica, it was enough to draw demands (demands, mind you) from the press that America intervene to stop the killing. But when it is Iraqis who have thrown in their lot with American soldiers, well then it is time to abandon them and allow even greater casualties to be suffered by them and their families because we were too cowardly to help? Cleansed in the name of giving up because “we can’t change them”.
If we don’t try to change things, then things never will change. I don’t care if it takes 40 years, it is worth attempting. I fought the Soviet Union for 20+ years. My shipmates and our brothers in arms fought them for over 40 years. Today the world is safer than ever from Soviet (Communist) aggression. Are you saying the efforts required to protect civilization from Islamic oppression are not worth the same level of effort?
George Bush is the only politician in the world today who says the right things in this war. Republican cowards and Dhimmicrats alike do not have the guts and determination to see this through to the end. And when January 2009 comes around, whoever replaces him better have as much backbone as he does, or we’ll all be speaking Arabic and dressing our wives and daughters in burkhas.
History does repeat itself, folks. And every single one of you who thinks this will be over by simply throwing more troops (which we haven’t got, by the way, until you triple the size of our Armed Forces) at Iraq is missing the point of the ideological struggle underway. Islam (and I mean the entire Islamic world) has used America as a whipping boy since 1979. Whole generations actually believe we are the Great Satan. Unless you all intend to destroy them, all of them, utterly in nuclear fire, you better get used to fighting them just as I and my shipmates fought Communist oppression for over 40 yrs.
If you don’t have the stomach to keep up the fight, then you better make your will, find holes in the ground to hide your family away, and be prepared to lose your life because an imam in some sand flea infested location says you deserve to die, just because you aren’t the same religion as he is. Because I can assure you, if you can’t support the war that has been thrust upon us, you will surely find the grave a cold and bitter place to do your lamenting over your fate.
Subsunk
Subsunk on August 21, 2006 at 5:28 PM
Sweet, sweet juxtaposition.
Way to exploit the medium.
Knemon on August 21, 2006 at 5:32 PM
And by the way, it is not about how many times you get knocked down that makes you a winner or a loser. It is how many times you get back up, and ride the horse you have been saddled with till you reach the finish line. Finish the job in Iraq and move on to the next problem. If it requires fighting in Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, then so be it. My life and the lives of my countrymen are too important not to keep this up. And saving millions of Muslims while doing so, just makes this war more imperative than ever.
The race may not go to the swiftest or the strongest, but that’s the way I’d bet.
Subsunk
Subsunk on August 21, 2006 at 5:33 PM
I’m just as frustrated with Moran’s “we need to escalate” plan as I am with the “let’s just quit” crowd. Neither will leave Iraqis in charge of Iraqi affairs! Leaving now surrenders Iraq to Iran and increasing troops levels further emasculates the famously fragile egos of those unemployed Iraqi males I keep hearing about. (While I personally never encountered the “sullen and angry” stares of the “humilitated” during my own time in Baghdad, I’ll concede they exist. Probably standing in line with the thousands of others to join the Army and Police. A steady paycheck and a sense of purpose for every potential militant gunman, I say!)
What’s been seriously under-discussed is a third option: More advisors. Preferably Special Forces (or ex SF) trained in massaging tribal differences. Gonna take money for recruitment and training, but that’s money I’m willing to spend. In. a. heartbeat. SF for the Army and Police, engineers to build up infrastucture, civilian advisors to help convince Iraqi pols to root out coruption and convince them of the value inherent in a society ruled by law, not factions.
Our definition of “win” has, from the beginning, been a withdrawl of American forces leaving a stable, morally better system of government capable of defending itself from external threats like Iran as well as internal threats like the Sunni insurgency. Right? How does sending in more General Infantry (who, don’t get me wrong, are salt of the earth Americans all, confident, capable and true, but whose sole job is to kill people and break stuff) help teach Iraqi pols and troopers how to survive and thrive, after we leave? Beuller?
At best, sending more numbers only postpones the task of training the Iraqis to effectivly defend themselves. I’ve met the Iraqis. And they are worth defending!
More advisors. That’s the ticket. Simplistic analysis, I know. But it’s the most constructive suggestion I’ve heard since the situation in Iraq began to deteriate. Rather than send more troops, which Moran concedes may lead to more American casualties and inflame the greater region, let’s expend our effort and resources to change the makeup of the troopers already there and hasten the end of the Iraq War… with victory.
Kadnine on August 21, 2006 at 5:47 PM
Honora, the boys have argued with you, for futility. I conclude that you lide to be the ‘eye’ of the Coriolis effect. You couldn’t be more wrong on the WOT, of which Iraq is a part and on the Left’s chances for leadership, and on the Lieberman effect. The latter will byte you in the posterior in shark-fashion on Nov.
Ha, “We’re not leaving so long as I’m president” – the President just reinforced the Libs’ raison d’etre. “vote for us because we’re the party which will impeach Bush!”
Umnumzana, name what you want to bet on that Ms. Hillary will not be the next President. I need to know if I can afford the wager the bet.
Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 6:18 PM
Corrections :(
Honora….”you like to be the ‘eye’”…
Umnumzana…”can afford to wager the bet”
Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 6:23 PM
Fundraising, Right versus Left
Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 6:51 PM
Entelechy: I hope you are right about Hillary! I really do! My problem is I think the American people have the capacity for being that stupid on occasion. Okay, it’s a gentleman’s bet, just because I said it was possible!
I was thinking about Honora, I think she’s a fine lady and I thoroughly enjoy debating issues with her! But, I wonder if she has any appreciation for how easy it would have been for Bush to say no to going into Iraq; and even after our going in and his getting such bad press, to just say, ‘to hell with it, my polls are down and I want to leave office a popular President, so we’ll just declare victory and get out!’
Just think how hard it is for a real leader to make hard decisions he believes are in the best interest of America and to stick with that policy when everyone else is attacking him inside and outside America. I remember Reagan, my President, and how he was visciously attacked about the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), about his not giving up our weapons to just make a deal with Gorbachev, his building up the military and the increased budget deficit to spend the Soviet Union into oblivion. His polls were sagging, he was called a dunce, a senile old fool and denigrated in every way possible. But, he believed in what he was doing and said, ‘good policy is good politics.” Reagan stuck to his guns, ignored the Democrat attack machine and the Europeans calling him a “B” movie actor, a cowboy and a man who would destroy the world; and he brought down the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War without firing a shot; and those efforts set the stage for the economic boom in the Nineties that Billy Jeff falsely got the credit for producing.
While Bush is no Reagan as a communicator, he actually works better with the Congress, the world and the opposition party than did Reagan. He too is called a dunce, a cowboy, a gun mad fool destroying the world. But, thank God he is ignoring the polls and sticking to his guns; and if he is right, which I believe, we can look back in a decade or so and say “because of his strength of character and his core beliefs he changed the face of the Middle East for the better and paved the way for peace.”
Don’t get me wrong, I think Bush is far from perfect and I have criticized him on many occasions, mostly about immigration. I suspect he could have managed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan better and I wish he was a better communicator. But, I also criticized, Reagan as did many other Republicans, and yet in the end Reagan was a greatly respected ex-President because he had been resolved and steadfast; and I believe most Americans will within a couple of years after Bush ends his term in office, say the same things about him and hold him in the same degree of respect as Reagan. We need leaders not swayed by polls or influenced by the naysayer’s on the Left, we need principled leaders with a steely resolve, able to adjust to real demands and needs, but steadfast and true to their beliefs.
At least that is the opinion of this old man, after having experienced American life through twelve Presidents!
Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 7:26 PM
Umnumzana, when you write, it’s as if you’re writing what I think :) I enjoy reading your reports.
Yes, honora is a smart and nice lady, a unique left-leaning person who can take/give an argument, a rare one today. It’s really a pity for the country that things are this bitter.
Wow, 12 Presidents. Mr. Reagan was the first one I was able to vote for, in his 2nd term. I remember all they called him, especially in Europe. My job has taken me around the world several times. I used to get an ear full from every Western European country about his idiocy. All Dems, media here and there, and Europeans think that all conservative Presidents are dunces. Let them! We save their hides so they can be naive.
Recently I went to visit Mr. Reagan’s library. I was in awe at how open and unattended, simple and dignified the place is. In Europe it would be watched by guards and encased in nothing but marble…not our beloved! Not one guard in sight.
The populace has the capacity to be ’stupid’, as you say, but it isn’t suicidal. Also, the U.S. is getting tired of this Bush/Clinton/Bush/not again – we’re not a monarchy, in the end, enough already! But for way more serious reasons, the bet is on!
Entelechy on August 21, 2006 at 10:33 PM
Entelechy: Just for the record - I was an infant at the very end of FDR’s presidency, so while I am old, I did not vote for FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, or JFK! And unlike Reagan said he did, I am not so old that I voted for Lincoln!
Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 10:38 PM
I think the democrats should run on the proposal of impeaching the President. They talk enough about it, but they don’t have the backbone to make it an issue in the upcomming elections.
As for Hitlary, never count her out. She manages to be connected to way too many ‘occurances’. I’m not a conspiracy nut, but I don’t believe in coincidences either.
DannoJyd on August 21, 2006 at 10:51 PM
Umnumzana, roger :)
Danno, then we have to see to it that she doesn’t! I believe the nutroots will take care of her. They are right now trying to force her into a debate, ahead of the NY primaries, with her liberal opponent for the Senate seat. She refuses to debate but might be pushed into it. She can’t hide from them forever. She is not G-d and thus can’t decide what she will do or won’t do.
Entelechy on August 22, 2006 at 12:52 AM
Rick, the above is a quote from you. So in fact you are predicting other people’s opinions.
I think gov’t service (say 18-24 months) for all able bodied 18 year olds is a good idea because:
-a lot of kids that age are fairly immature and lack direction
-the military in 99% of cases makes a person a better person. So we don’t need that big a military, some type of service (VISTA type, national parks etc) would have the same effect. Some discipline and direction go a long way to helping kids develop the right kind of character.
-could earn credit toward (state) colleges
-kids are famously unengaged in what’s going on–look at voter turnout.
-I am tired of seeing the burden of protecting our country fall on a narrow band of the population. If we are at war, we all need to feel it.
What do you think?
honora on August 22, 2006 at 9:18 AM
Joe’s
Pablo, I apologize, I am not trying to be obtuse, but obviously I am. My point: Joe is a highly regarded Senator; he lost his primary because a lot of people are voting on one issue–the war. The war is hugely unpopular, ergo the side that is associated with that war may be in danger in the Nov elections. I will predict Santorum here in Pa will go down to a rather weak opponent based on this issue.
honora on August 22, 2006 at 9:23 AM
Iraqi casualties, the increase of which were the reason for the Baghdad security initiative. Get in the game pal.
honora on August 22, 2006 at 9:28 AM
Do you not see what you do? I make a positive point about FDR, ipso facto, he is “One of (my) gods”. I enjoy the give and take but honestly, this need to see everything in such simplistic terms is nuts.
How’s this: I admire Reagan but not his economic policy.
I admire Nixon but think he was clinically paranoid. I admire Clinton but think he was amoral in many ways.
I understand it’s easier to divide everything into two camps–and great if MY camp is all sweetness and light and the OTHER camp basically standing in for Satan. But generally speaking, in anything of significance, easy ain’t right.
That BTW is one of W’s problems IMHO. All black and white. (Here’s something that you can chew on: there is a new book out on Iraq–oh goody, there have been so few–wherein the author reveals that from conversations with W, that he (W) did not realize up until we invaded Iraq that there were different religious sects (Sunni/Shiite) that made up the country and that they were historic enemies. On the plus side, W was quite sure that “people looovvvveee freedom”.
honora on August 22, 2006 at 9:40 AM
Honora: What was wrong with Reagan’s economic policies? Yes the budget deficit went up to build up the military and to spend the Soviet Union into oblivion; but his tax cuts put more money in the hands of average Americans and when he left office the deficit was declining and the economy was booming. BTW Bush-I screwed that up a little by raising taxes.
Billy Jeff was handed a booming economy, and he used the end of the Cold War to gut the military and our intelligence community, which money he used to build the Left’s Welfare State and which set the stage for the 9/11 attacks. Then he handed Bush a recession, then the corporate scandals which hit our economy, then 9/11 which hit our economy even harder, then the war against terrorism which hit our economy and then Katrina that hit our economy; and yet because of his tax cuts and economic management we are lowering the deficit at a much faster pace than originally dreamed of, we have had a boom in the housing market, exceptionally low unemployment and our economy is strong and resilient. So, Billy Jeff, the country and the world directly benefited from what Reagan did, and despite Clinton screwing up the powerful economic engine he inherited, Bush, another Republican turned the econoomy around during a time when any Democrat President and Congress would have raised our taxes by huge amounts and stopped the economic growth we have all enjoyed.
You are very sensitive about many things, the term demi-god refers to the left’s almost blind defense and near worship of their leaders like FDR, JFK and Billy Jeff, it is not an atack on your character.
As to Bush and not knowing about various Muslim sects; so what? Are you telling me every President except him knew everything about every damn country in the world? The important thing was he sought information and got educated on the people and society of Iraq, he is a qucik study. Plus, what about your own lack of information when you didn’t mention the Kurds that are considered enemies of both the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Baath party?
Umnumzana on August 22, 2006 at 10:09 AM
Um: Oh for heavens sdke, you know as well as I do that Kurds are not in the game now, best guess is they will be their own independent region as they are geographically isolated. I think it’s important to know all you can know about a country before you invade it, but hey, that’s me.
You referred to FDR as MY god, I don’t think for a minute you were attacking my character, just jumping to conclusions that aren’t merited.
My issue with Reagan was “trickle down” economy, which didn’t. Also, Reagan raised taxes in his second term. We clearly disagree on taxes and the economy: I give credit to Bush I for raising taxes when he saw the deficit growing, to Gingrich for holding Clinton’s feet to the fire re spending, and to Clinton for balancing the budget. I know it’s damned near impossible for you to give Clinton credit for anything, but look how well the military operated taking out the Taliban and Iraq. Cohen did a very good job IMO–and oh yes, Cohen was a (moderate) Republican. You can’t have it both ways: it’s Clinton’s fault we weren’t prepared for 9/11 but not to his credit that the military was so well positioned.
It’s comical to me that you suggest Clinton screwed up “a booming economy”–remember “It’s the economy stupid!” Also you forget that Clinton left W a huge surplus, which has now gone bye-bye. And don’t blame it on the war, the facts don’t support that.
Clinton left W a minor recession, similiar to the one we are on the precipice of now in the opinion of many.
(And of course we both know that the economy is less affected by the president than by many other things.)
honora on August 22, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Honora: Now don’t get excited but, I agree that the economy is affected by many things other than just the President! Nonethless, the economic policies of the Presiednt do impact the economy as a whole. On the other hand, I think the false dot.com boom made the economy during Billy Jeff’s term appear much better than it actually was.
As to the war and the budget surplus; Are you telling me that the high costs of the war did not drive up the deficit? Yes, he could have burdened us with higher taxes to avoid a deficit and killed the economy, but thank God he didn’t! Plus, 9/11 itself dealt a serious blow to our economy, these attacks were a success largely because it impacted our economy directly with the costs to NYC and the Pentagon in lost income, high clean up and rebuilding costs, and the extraordinary costs of developing Homeland Security. Then add in the corporate scandals and that impact on our economy and the lives of people losing retirement money and shareholders losing their money. Then add in Katrina and other hurricanes clean-up at over 150 Billion dollars, all of which are extraordinary costs and would have devastated the economy had it not been for the Bush tax cuts and sound economic policies. I do not understand how anyone can look at the horrendous hits on our economy and compare that to the stock market, home building, new business booms, the increase in GDP and the low unemployment rates and not give Bush a great deal of credit for his handling of our economy.
I disagree about “trickle down,” our economic strength has impacted every life in this country for the good, and Bush-I in raising taxes almsot killed the golden goose. I also credit the Republican controlled Congress with much of the good economic news and the budget surplus during the Clinton years, not Billy Jeff!
Lastly, how can you not see that Billy Jeff gutted our intelligence services and our military during his term because he hated the military and the intelligence services? Cohen was at best a very liberal Republican and more like a conservative Democrat and he lead the dismantling of our military, while Rumsfeld, God bless him, through strength of leadership made it possible for our military to respond. Even then, he was blamed for the low supply of armored vehicles and other military hardware, which was totally the fault of Cohen and Billy Jeff!
With all due respect, I don’t think you give Bush and the Republican Party enough credit. But, if the Denocrats take control of Congress and the White in 2008, I guarntee you that our economy will implode and that damn fast because they will raise our taxes by astronomical amounts, and getting us out of Iraq we will see the Middle East explode in bloodshed. But, at least you’ll have Democrats in charge and that will make you feel good.
Umnumzana on August 22, 2006 at 11:50 AM
Honora,
You still haven’t answered the question regarding what you think will happen to Iraq if we just “pull-out”? Also, how will that help matters any? This is just politics as usual by the left – as long as we aren’t part of the mess, it doesn’t matter. You even admitted as much yourself when you previously posted that most of the fighting is sectarian right now (and not with us) – why would we pull out and let them completely slaughter each other? It makes no sense at all. In the long run, we will look worse for doing so (given how important world opinion is for liberals) – not to mention Iran is going to assert more influence in Iraq when we do leave.
As for you point on drafting 18 year olds (military, park service, etc.) – I have a serious problem with the government forcing programs down the people’s throats without an extraordinary reason to do so (a.k.a. socialism). Also, you contradicted yourself when you stated that we don’t need a big military – how big do you think the military would be if all 18 year-olds were drafted?
Further, Honora, you have posted a couple of times about you not knowing what the DNC’s plans (strategies, etc.) are – well, they don’t either. There is no plan (other than hoping things go bad for the administration so they can pounce on them).
Lastly, you are right about my comment regarding you protesting along with Murtha about the draft – that was a prediction – shouldn’t have done it.
Rick on August 22, 2006 at 12:18 PM
Rick, I said or meant to say, we wouldn’t likely need that big a military (all 18 yr olds) so the rest could be utilized in VISTA like programs or national parks, disaster clean up etc. I believe people should contribute something to their country. I have about had it with cheap drug store patriotism.
What do I think will happen if we leave Iraq? Pretty much what is happening now, only with a quicker end game. What else will happen: we will be able to concentrate on the real WOT, not this side show.
If they want to slaughter each other, well I think history shows, they WILL slaughter each other. I don’t want to be in the way. One thing we could do (but won’t, Bush lacks the imagination) is husband a deconstruction of Iraq into 3 independent nations. After all, Iraq was never a nation in the traditional sense, it was cobbled together by the Brits after WWI and frankly was held together by Saddam in an artificial way.
I realize this is kinda bitchy, but where were all you guys back before we invaded Iraq. I remember have this discussion with my conservative friends: me–the likely outcome of this is, best case, a theocracy, worse case, a civil war; them–ha, ha, ha. Oh you silly liberals. I know the reply is “that’s water under the bridge”. Perhaps, but it seems to me that having made one such huge blunder, the blunderers would re-access. But no, stay the course. We are, after all, in the final throes, right?
honora on August 22, 2006 at 1:24 PM
So Rumsfeld is responsible for all the good stuff associated with the military under his command; the bad stuff is Clinton’s fault.
Now there’s a reasonable argument.
honora on August 22, 2006 at 1:26 PM
Have to laugh so I don’t cry dept: Rumsfeld who has resisted labeling this a “civil war” is not saying “it’s not a classic civil war”.
Well then…
honora on August 22, 2006 at 1:30 PM
Correction: Rumsfeld is now saying…
honora on August 22, 2006 at 1:30 PM
You, Me and Malaki
With all the excitement between Israel and Lebanon, it’s almost too easy to forget about the conflict that made us all so depressed in the first place. What’s the latest on “that” bummer?
Well, six weeks ago, President Bush paid Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki a surprise visit in Iraq and praised the latest U.S./Iraqi joint initiative as, “the prime minister is taking immediate action to implement a plan to improve security and his top priority is around Baghdad. Operation Forward Together started this morning.” That operation, of course, was named by major General Koko the talking gorilla. It was either “Forward Together” or “Apple Together, Love Apple Love.”
However, since the launch of that major initiative, the situation has not only failed to improve, it’s actually “deteriorated,” with Baghdad seeing 34 major bombings and shootings for the week ended July 13, a 40% increase over the one-month period preceding it. The first sign you know your city is screwed: when you’re nostalgic for the time when there were only 24 major bombings and shootings a week.
The White House now admits its six-week old plan to boost security in Baghdad, quote, “has not achieved its objectives.” Now, instead of a new strategy, the U.S. will revise its objectives to something more manageable, like “pizza delivery in 30 minutes or its free.”
President Bush met with Prime Minister Maliki at the White House to try and solve the situation, promising, “If you find someone who’s kidnapping and murdering, the murderer needs to be held to account.” He then added, “And the kidnapper at least deserves a strong warning, maybe even a point on his license.”
Of course, what about motivating potential soldiers here in the U.S.? Well, the U.S. Marine Corps now has its own Myspace page, featuring information, downloads and a link to contact a recruiter. So far, more than 13 thousand Myspace users have registered as “friends” of the corps; a testament to the marines’ inspiring motto, “The Few, the Proud, the Anyone with an Internet Connection.”
It’s hard not to be a little depressed by the news. Sure, everyone knew this would happen sooner or later, but still… Myspace used to just be about the child predators, man. It just sucks to see it sell out and go all corporate.
from the Daily Show
honora on August 22, 2006 at 1:48 PM
Seems to contradict the whole liberal/sensitive to others/our fault/we need to fix-it leftist position, no? Kind of has a “screw them” sort of ring to it. Don’t you think we owe it to these poor people to keep them from complete destruction? Why is it that when the going gets tough, liberals can’t wait to get out?
Once again, what about Iran? They are not going to stay out of Iraq when we leave – they will make sure to be the Iraqi’s saviors. Also, where are we going to redeploy our military? If we leave Iraq, let them kill each other while we watch from the sidelines, preach to Iran (and the rest of that region) – do you truly believe we will be listened to? You think they hate us now – wait until we do cut and run. They (Al-Qaeda, Iran, etc.) will claim victory; once again, show that America does not care about them; claim that we just went in to make matters worse; and the list goes on and on.
Iran will end up with much more influence in the region. Israel will be in a much weaker position. Our allies in the region will have no choice but to abandon us – don’t you get it? Things are only going to get worse. All because of what?? Some polls showing that the American people have doubts about the current state of Iraq? It’s a conflict – who doesn’t have doubts? Because liberals can’t stand Bush and Rumsfeld (and Rove)? Most of the Dems were on board in ‘02 and ‘03 when this whole thing came down (and don’t say they were misled – that’s a crock).
The truth is, it’s all about politics. The Dems want to get Congress back and the White House in ‘08. They are going to keep running on this issue, because it’s the only one they can run on – it’s what the polls say, right? Bush doesn’t appear to be popular because of the war. However, I do recall some exit polls in ‘04 showing Kerry was going to win. Oh, but wait, as Cynthia McKinney said “the electronic voting machines are rigged” – damn that Rove!! He’s good.
Rick on August 22, 2006 at 3:29 PM
I wish people would get their terms right, especially the MSM…..
We *WON* the Iraq War in 21 days. A HUGE victory……What we’re having a problem with is keeping the peace.
:/
VonHelton on August 22, 2006 at 5:03 PM
VonHelton,
Great point. The Iraq War was over a long time ago, and now we are in the process of rebuilding Iraq. Unfortunately, we are running into some resistance. The MSM has blurred all of it and continues to call it “the Iraq War”. The Bush Administration has failed to clarify this, and for that reason, is getting killed for it. The average Joe on the street, who probably watches an occassional MSM newscast, is being led to believe we are still fighting the original war. We are still fighting a war in Iraq, but that is the War on Terror – which we are fighting on a global scale, and is much larger than just conventional military action. I really wish the administration clarified this point. In fact, not many have made the distinction (including Fox, many bloggers, and some radio talk shows). The elections are coming up and this point needs to be made.
Rick on August 22, 2006 at 5:50 PM
My blogging and like-minded friends, Umnumzana and Rick, this give-and-take stopped being worthwhile yesterday or early this morning. Anything beyond that is futile.
We can agree that honora is a nice, polite and intelligent lady. She’s also objective on several past or future Presidents. On Iraq she’s simply blindly wrong. Just forget about it.
It was nice but it has run its course and has become futile. She has made a great case why the liberals should never be referred to without quotes in front and after “progressive”. Also, that they should not be in charge any time soon. It’s simply too dangerous.
It’s not enough how many people died after we left Vietnam, and before we went to Kosovo, Rwanda, etc. – we need to let it happen again in Iraq, after all this effort. All rationality and humanity is gone and it’s simply sad.
I never aim to convince honora or anyone else how to vote. I just had more hope that we’d see eye-to-eye on the human suffering, given that honora mentioned the plight of Muslim women being featured on 60 Minutes, for ex. There are moments of lucidity and then darkness ensues. I’m sad about it.
Umnumzana, please don’t even go there. The polls are turning in our direction and the hype from the MSM is just that. Regardless what they are anyway, I never focus on them too much. None are too plausible. I have faith that the people, though naive, are not suicidal. These times are too serious. The Reps have problems and I disagree with them on much but on security and the WOT it’s very clear – there is only one option.
Rick, you give the best accounts of Iraq: what was, what is and what will be. Yes, the war was won but that was good for Mr. Bush, right on the heels of Afghanistan. Nothing good which followed was allowed to surface. There is so much not even the media know and that’s good.
It will be a highly interesting fall.
Entelechy on August 23, 2006 at 1:18 AM
Rick, I will ask you one last time: what do you think we should do in Iraq and Iran? In other words, what strategies do you suggest? (I stress strategy because it’s clear from Mon’s press conference your boy Dubya doesn’t know what a strategy is. When asked to articulate his strategy for “winning” in Iraq, Dubya’s reply: “The strategy is to help the Iraqis achieve their hopes and dreams, which is a democratic society.”
No numbnuts, that’s an objective, like world peace or ending hunger. Setting objectives is easy. It’s the strategy–the HOW–that is the tough part. Anyone who’s ever written a business plan knows that much. Not to mention the blithe comment about Iraqis wanting a democratic society. Really? Not in an Western sense of democracy they don’t.
In the same press conference, Dubya (again) talked about the war between waged on democracy by terrorists who hate democracy. Who is he talking about? The Hamas, the elected representatives of the Palestinians? Or Hezbollah, who hold a significant majority of seats in the democracy of Lebanon? Or the Shiite or the Sunni who are shooting it up in Iraq–you know, the flower of democracy in the middle east. Will someone please tell this fool that democracy and terrorism are not mutually exclusive, and that one doesn’t “fix” the other.
Saw a fabulous bumper sticker: Will someone please give this guy a blowjob so we can impeach him?
See where Joe L is breaking the land speed record of changing his stance on the war. Oh irony.
honora on August 23, 2006 at 10:20 AM
Mr Entelechy, Mr Entelechy, when will get our final grades?
honora on August 23, 2006 at 10:31 AM
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060701faresponse85412/larry-diamond-james-dobbins-chaim-kaufmann-leslie-h-gelb-stephen-biddle/what-to-do-in-iraq-a-roundtable.html
This is a very interesting discussion on Iraq. The comparison to Yugoslavia (versus the usual right wing Germany/Japan or left wing Vietnam) is illuminating. Would like to hear your POV. Cheers.
honora on August 23, 2006 at 11:39 AM
honora, after your post of August 23, 2006 at 10:20 AM, I take back the “nice, polite and intelligent” I assumed about you. The bumper sticker reference is puerile in these times. I thought we were discussing serious issues of our time. It was your ‘boy’ who did those things, in also dire times, neglecting his responsibilities for the country, and I still don’t talk badly about him. I know much about the internal decisions of the Pentagon and CIA from those times – you have no idea how derelict your ‘boy’ really was. The grades will come out in time. We’re in this for a looooong haul.
I’m not a Mr. and if you’d pay attention to detail, there would have been plenty occasions for you to notice, but it isn’t significant.
I had the very best and positive intentions to continue a dialogue with what I hoped to be a sincere exception to your party. I’m disappointed it didn’t turn out that way and I don’t wish to go on with the name-calling.
Having seen the same newsconference, and self being very critical of our Commander-in-Chief’s inability to communicate, I thought he was clear on differentiating ’strategy’ from ‘tactics’. We’re not running a business here but a WOT. To even bring up “objectives” is meaningless.
Let’s just leave it at that. With very best regards, sincerely,
Entelechy on August 23, 2006 at 12:45 PM
I get a kick out of these veiled references to the secret knowledge you are privy to. Rule of thumb: people who actually know secret stuff tend to keep it to themselves and not talk such nonsense.
I think you may have hit on the Bush administration’s epilogue. You know the old saying, if you don’t know where you’re going, any road will do.
honora on August 23, 2006 at 2:41 PM
Honora,
I agree with Entelechy. You have resorted to the classic liberal defense method of personal attacks. Sad, really.
Cheers.
Rick on August 23, 2006 at 7:22 PM
honora, you will have a chance to see Mr. Clinton, Sandy Berger and Ms. Albright being filleted during the ABC 2-nights docudrama about Sept. 11, 2001, on the nights of Sept. 10 and 11. It’s based on commission findings, a commission the Left bows to.
For the first time much of the truth about the dereliction of the Clinton Admin. will be aired. You will find out how bin Laden was really offered on a platinum platter to a President who was too busy defending himself from floozy-gate.
You will also find out why Mr. Berger was busy hiding 9/11 documents in his pants and how weak the CIA had become, how the agents were called out of Afghanistan, even knowing where/how to get bin Laden.
“Are there any real men left in Washington? Or are there only cowards?” will be a phrase we’ll all be very intimate with after 9/11/06. We’ll hear it over and over and over. Most interesting will be who said it.
Yes, the Bush Admin. didn’t know or do everything either but we’ve heard that story a million times already, though it will not hurt to see it repeated.
As to your personal attack, you made your own point. I hadn’t shared anything, and still am not, that which I shouldn’t. I’m very aware of that. But I wish you a long enough life to find out. And in time you will. I happen to believe that it is a good thing that the citizenry doesn’t know everything. We coldn’t sleep at night.
Nothing makes me happier than when the MSM think they know and they’re led to believe that they do. Or they dwell in their ignorance. I have smiled so many times over this.
On a personal note, I really wish you well and am sorry that it ended in Kos-fashion. I never read that and the DU sites, but my peers on this site refer to them often.
Entelechy on August 24, 2006 at 12:15 AM
““Oh I do indeed read the news. Since the Baghdad security initiative was rolled out in mid June, casualties have increased by about 50%.” — honora
Who died and made you CENTCOM?
Where do you get your facts?
Iraqi casualties, the increase of which were the reason for the Baghdad security initiative. Get in the game pal.
honora on August 22, 2006 at 9:28 AM
Well, ma’am. Since the US casualties listed on Iraq Coalition Casualties website in May 06 were 79, June 06 was 63, and July 06 was 47, I question your competence in math when you claim an increasing trend. Iraqi casualties were 1119 in May 06, 872 in June 06, and 1280 in July 06 and 772 in August to date. I also question your competence in math if you can define that string of figures as an increasing trend, in either case.
I don’t know where you learned your military history or your statistical analysis, but in a military that loses 4000 men and women every year due to accidents and training when we are NOT at war, a loss of 850 personnel per year in combat, while heartrending and unfortunate, is not a significant casualty count over 3 years. Our wounded are approaching 9000 now (don’t point to 19000 wounded as the catastrophic casualty figure you claim since 10,000 of those wounded soldiers are back on duty in 72 hrs, combat ready and capable).
Your claim of escalating violence in this war is a little out of place when it is Iraqis killing Iraqis and not American soldiers. In Rwanda 2 million (minimum) were killed in a 4 yr conflict, In Bosnia 250,000 were killed in a little less than three years. In Darfur, over a million people have been displaced and over 200,000 have been killed and the UN can’t even claim it is doing anything about it. The Congo has lost 1 million people over the last 4 or 5 years. And we’re supposed to be alarmed over the loss of 30,000 Iraqis a year killing each other themselves because they are too arrogant and mean to live with their own fellow Iraqis?
Color me unsympathetic. That bloodshed is their fault, not ours. That killing is on their hands, not ours. And your lamentations of the horror of it are hollow and useless when they want to kill each other at every opportunity, and America is the only thing keeping that from happening.
Why don’t you go protest where it will do some good? I’m sure there are plenty of causes which are worthy of your time and efforts — in Korea and Okinawa, where clearly America is not wanted, but where the locals are just impolite enough to say leave without actually wanting us to go and take our 9 billion dollars out of their economy.
Lady, you sure don’t have a clue about what warfare is about.
Subsunk
Subsunk on August 25, 2006 at 1:32 AM
Subsunk: So we should “stay the course” to keep these bloodthirsty people from killing each other? And I may not have a clue about warfare, but I have a clue about not having the stones to admit when you’re wrong. My comment re the escalating violence was clearly re the Iraqi on Iraqi killing. You insist on ignoring that so you don’t have to admit your mistake. Shame on you.
honora on August 25, 2006 at 12:50 PM
What’s classic is how you refuse to outline your ideas on Iraq and Iran. Kinda tough isn’t it?
honora on August 25, 2006 at 12:53 PM
Let me know when you find out who stole the strawberries.
honora on August 25, 2006 at 12:56 PM
“And we’re supposed to be alarmed over the loss of 30,000 Iraqis a year killing each other themselves because they are too arrogant and mean to live with their own fellow Iraqis?”
“Color me unsympathetic. That bloodshed is their fault, not ours. That killing is on their hands, not ours. And your lamentations of the horror of it are hollow and useless when they want to kill each other at every opportunity, and America is the only thing keeping that from happening.”
Subsunk: So we should “stay the course” to keep these bloodthirsty people from killing each other? And I may not have a clue about warfare, but I have a clue about not having the stones to admit when you’re wrong. My comment re the escalating violence was clearly re the Iraqi on Iraqi killing. You insist on ignoring that so you don’t have to admit your mistake. Shame on you.
honora on August 25, 2006 at 12:50 PM
You’re damn right we should stay the course. I won’t admit this policy is wrong. Because it is correct, or as close to correct as anything anyone has put out so far. My “stones” are completely intact, and are in evidence by the fact that, were I in charge, I wouldn’t quit fighting this war until Islam quit killing infidels, Iraqis stop killing their neighbors and them selves, and liberals quit supporting those who would rather kill them first.
You are known by the positions you support and the people you sympathize with. You support those who would kill you (that makes you the stupid one, not W), and me. You defy those who would protect you at all costs (that makes you unpatriotic), making their jobs harder with your whining restrictions, your illogical and spurious lawsuits, and your unfounded charges that everyone and everything “Rethuglican” is to blame for the mistakes made in the war and the world today.
I’ve seen life under the policies you espouse. I didn’t like it. My troops didn’t like it. And the Iraqis, Rwandans, Bosnians, French, Poles, Slavs, Czechs, Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, Filipinos and all the races who lived under totalitarian oppression and tyranny didn’t like it either. It took over 40 years to defeat Communism’s expansion and oppression which killed over 200 million people in its 60+ year history. Is the war against Islamic Terrorism not worth the same efforts?
As for the problem of Iraqi vs Iraqi conflict, only they can stop it. Only they will stop it when they are tired of killing and ready to raise kids again. This is entirely the Iraqi’s fault. And your analysis of an increasing trend is not justified by the facts I gave you, which you ignored, as is your consistent action when confronted with facts you don’t agree with (to be fair, it is a very human reaction. Everyone does it. It takes time to admit those things. I hope you’ve got the time to admit you were wrong when I am borne out several years from now).
I won’t admit I’m wrong on this. I’m not. If W said to leave tomorrow, he would be wrong. If Jesus Christ himself came back and said, just leave them alone and let them kill themselves until they are exhausted, I wouldn’t leave Iraq alone. Victory will take time, massive effort, and a consistent aggressive policy of pushing back on the rising tide of anti-Western Islam. If you won’t push back against the true oppressors in the world today, then get out of my way before I walk over you. I won’t regret it. I won’t apologize for it. And neither should any American who believes in Truth, Liberty and Justice for All, — not just Americans. I am not ashamed of thinking this way either.
If you and your kind don’t have the stomach to fight Islamic oppression, then you have no business hanging the mantle of liberalism and humanitarianism on your heads. You are false and as evil as the names you call those who feel the way I do.
If you can’t stand up for Freedom and Fairness, and can’t recognize the difference between them and Islamic law, then it is you who are irrelevant, you who are misguided and stupid, and YOU who is wrong.
Think whatever you like. But every single war that was ever won, was won by lasting until the other side exhausted itself and gave up. And winning this war, will be no different.
Press on,to Victory.
Subsunk
Subsunk on August 25, 2006 at 5:23 PM
Comment pages: