Video: Bush says of Iraq’s progress, “I’m not satisfied either”

posted at 1:15 pm on October 25, 2006 by Allahpundit

The boss live-blogged it. In a nutshell, we’re staying the course — flexibly — but our patience is not unlimited. I included the full exchange between Bush and David Gregory, which you’ll assuredly be seeing again tonight on Countdown with Keith Olbermann if you’re one of the six people who watches that show.

Gen. Casey says he expects a full takeover by Iraqi forces within 18 months but the military’s preparing for a long-term advisory role, at least. With “ethnic cleansing” going on and Maliki seemingly in no rush to stop it, it’s not clear how much influence they’ll have.

I’m also embedding the latest ad from the DNC, which represents the sum of their contribution to the Iraq debate.

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Bush ,IMHO,is a man who cares less about his “legacy” than in protecting America,unlike some other people in the Beltway.

bbz123 on October 25, 2006 at 1:19 PM

Well, I have to admit that I dislike the phrase “Staying the Course”. I would prefer we are “dedicated to victory“, or “we are staying focused on a stable Iraq“.

Staying the course” seems to lack the insinuation that we are adjusting to changes on the ground.

I don’t know of anyone who wants to be in Iraq for one second longer than we have to be.

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 1:27 PM

E L….yep in a nutshell……..I’m going to vote straight up Rep, the alternative is too scary…..but I have my issues with the Reps. Not enough to get on that blue train headed out into the bay.

Limerick on October 25, 2006 at 1:36 PM

Are we now cutting and running from staying the course?

Valiant on October 25, 2006 at 1:37 PM

Well, I have to admit that I dislike the phrase “Staying the Course”. I would prefer we are “dedicated to victory“, or “we are staying focused on a stable Iraq“.

“Staying the course” seems to lack the insinuation that we are adjusting to changes on the ground.

I don’t know of anyone who wants to be in Iraq for one second longer than we have to be.

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 1:27 PM

I have a question for you: someone asked Bush (paraphrasing); “what is this doesn’t work? What if in 18 months the Iraqis aren’t positioned to take over the security?”

Bush responded something to the effect, that’s a hypothetical, we need to concentrate on making sure it does work. Which is exactly the right answer for public consumption.

My question is, based on what you have seen to date with this administration’s conduct of this war post invasion, are you confident that they in fact do have a plan if this doesn’t work? Just interested in your opinion.

Also, I couldn’t decide if Bush looked angry or scared or both.

honora on October 25, 2006 at 1:38 PM

Are we now cutting and running from staying the course?

Valiant on October 25, 2006 at 1:37 PM

No, no, no, no. (This is a classic example of being hoisted on one’s own petard though isn’t it?) It’s showing some realism IMO.

honora on October 25, 2006 at 1:40 PM

Typical Dem ad. Bash Bush,but then don’t offer any plans or ideas as to what the “change in policy” should be. Oh wait, I remember,’cut and run’.

Oooooo…David. What a hard-hitting, provocative, truth-to-power question.

vcferlita on October 25, 2006 at 1:41 PM

My question is, based on what you have seen to date with this administration’s conduct of this war post invasion, are you confident that they in fact do have a plan if this doesn’t work? Just interested in your opinion.

honora on October 25, 2006 at 1:38 PM

Sorry Honora, I’m going to cheat here are refer to back to a post I made on my own blog.

The gist of the post is that the war in Iraq is ours to lose. Unless the Iraqis stand up and take control of their own destiny, we are going to continue to be in a stalemate.

The French couldn’t win our Revolutionary War for us, nor can we win the Iraqi’s future for them.

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 1:43 PM

rats, I seem to keep hitting the rotten post filter… hopefully the post I just made will show up shortly…

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 1:45 PM

I think Bush called David Gregory a dick. Or maybe he’s got him confused with Dick Gregory, comedian and diet mix salesman. Take a look at 11:11 ET, answering Gregory’s first question:

“Dick, our job is to prevent a full flail — full-scale civil war from happening in the first place.”

Jobius on October 25, 2006 at 1:47 PM

admit honora, democrats have no plans whatsoever in how to defend this nation & the “only” exit strategy for the democrats IS “Cut & Run” from Iraq

Starblazer on October 25, 2006 at 1:47 PM

since GregH won’t answer the question of “do you want the U.S. to win in Iraq”, I throw the question to you honora, do you want the U.S. to win in Iraq. a simple yes or no question

Starblazer on October 25, 2006 at 1:51 PM

Why I decided to vote Libertarian or How I learned to love politics.

LakeRuins on October 25, 2006 at 1:53 PM

Honora, short answer since my other post has the long answer.

Yes, I believe that Bush and the commanders on the ground have a plan. Yes, I believe it’s a winnable situation.

However, the lynch pin in all of this is the Iraqi’s, and (I feel) they have yet to do their part.

We can increase troop levels, we can bomb the country back into the stone age, but until the Iraqis stand up for Iraq, no good will come of it. We can lead them to water, but can’t make them drink.

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 1:53 PM

Bush ,IMHO,is a man who cares less about his “legacy” than in protecting America,unlike some other people in the Beltway.

bbz123

Yes that would certainly explain his open border policy…oh wait.

Bush, IMHO, has no clue what he’s doing anymore and is simply stubbornly sticking to policies that aren’t working no matter if it alienates Republicans from the voters. While I can credit him with a few positive changes, he has proven to be far too moderate in far too many areas in order to please true conservatives.

Benaiah on October 25, 2006 at 1:56 PM

Yes that would certainly explain his open border policy…oh wait.

Benaiah on October 25, 2006 at 1:56 PM

Nice Shot, and I agree…

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 1:58 PM

since GregH won’t answer the question of “do you want the U.S. to win in Iraq”, I throw the question to you honora, do you want the U.S. to win in Iraq. a simple yes or no question

Starblazer on October 25, 2006 at 1:51 PM

Yes, of course. (By win I mean leave a peaceful nation or nations. I don’t care if it’s democratic, I don’t care if it’s 3 nations states under one fed umbrella.) Do I think this is possible? I wouldn’t bet a lot on it, but it could be done. Would look at getting some new blood. The folks to date haven’t exactly covered themselves with glory, and by “folks” I mean Rumsfeld.

What do you mean by “win”?

ELF??

honora on October 25, 2006 at 2:00 PM

Yes that would certainly explain his open border policy…oh wait.

Benaiah on October 25, 2006 at 1:56 PM

I’m with you on being against his policy, but has it really been that popular? I thought it was one of the reasons his poll numbers were so low.

Esthier on October 25, 2006 at 2:07 PM

A Win: A stable Iraq, with a government of the people of Iraq, for the people of Iraq. A country that can defend and govern itself without interference from Iran/Syria/ or the US.

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 2:07 PM

Honora… since the post comment isn’t showing up… just go here

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 2:09 PM

Starblazer, if you could define what a “win” in Iraq is, perhaps I could answer it. If your definition is similar to the definition provided above by ELF, then yes, I would support a US victory in Iraq.

GregH on October 25, 2006 at 2:15 PM

I guess it boils down to being a boy scout when I was younger, I hate leaving anything in worse shape than when we got there.

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 2:18 PM

Look lefties….the reason BUSH is stumbling is the exact same reason ALL OF US HERE ARE STUMBLING….Stay, Go, Cut, Run, Fight, Don’t, This, That,…….Until we ALL WAKE UP and realize this is WAR nothing will change.

This ‘Great Islamic Civilization’ has had 1500 YEARS to pave roads, build sewage treatment, establish hospitals, and NOTHING. Afghanistan has had 5000 YEARS to pave a single road for pete’s sake. This religion of ‘peace’ is all illusion. Instead of making a just society they only make fanatics. It’s all about the gun. It’s all about the power. It’s all about the money. AND WE ARE IN THEIR WAY.

All you lefties who think it is about Palestine are about as smart as the friggin fish in my tank.

ok….I vented……..need another beer

Limerick on October 25, 2006 at 2:19 PM

We have to win. Our future depends on winning.

I believe it is achievable, but it will take generations to undo what radical islam has brought us to.

Win, win at all costs. Our future, our way of life depends on defeating radical islam.

You do see how radical islam is tearing apart the muslim communities, don’t you?

Be whatever the outcome for peace, but a radical islam cannot be allowed to continue.

Radical islam is embedded in generations of arabs muslims, it will take generations to undo radical islam.

This is the real problem and why we must win.
This is what the definition of winning is.

It isn’t just Iraq. Look at the larger picture.

Iraq is mouse nuts, compared to the larger picture.

Kini on October 25, 2006 at 2:24 PM

I guess it boils down to being a boy scout when I was younger, I hate leaving anything in worse shape than when we got there.

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 2:18 PM

And I guess this is one of the reasons so many of us questioned the wisdom of this war: if it’s a real possiblity that we will leave it in worse shape (in terms of stability and our best interests) was this a risk worth taking?

For myself, I’m not smart enough to answer this. Where my antipathy towards the administration comes, is that they didn’t ask the question and they (and their supporters) equated asking it to being somehow less than patriotic.

And before you say it, yes it is water under the bridge. But perhaps you can see where this is hard to swallow.

Interesting site BTW.

honora on October 25, 2006 at 2:24 PM

Stay the course has run its, erm, course. It blew the doors off the Dems back when their cut and run plans actually involved cutting and running. But changing strategies require changing tag lines. We need something new.

BohicaTwentyTwo on October 25, 2006 at 2:26 PM

I’m with you on being against his policy, but has it really been that popular? I thought it was one of the reasons his poll numbers were so low.

Esthier

I wasn’t saying it was popular. I was giving it as an example of why Bush definitely is not worried about protecting America more than his legacy.

Benaiah on October 25, 2006 at 2:28 PM

There has been alot of interference from Iran and Syria that wasn’t counted on. Should it of been? I don’t know.

If it was simply Iraqis vs. Terrorists, I think we’d of been done and out.

However with the Sunnis and Shias killing each other, it makes things harder than I suspect we expected.

It’s a very complicated situation.

It was worth it to get rid of Saddam. It was worth it to setup the current government (I was there for the elections last year at this time).

Is it still worth it? I don’t know… ask an Iraqi citizen.

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 2:31 PM

A Win: A stable Iraq, with a government of the people of Iraq, for the people of Iraq. A country that can defend and govern itself without interference from Iran/Syria/ or the US.

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 2:07 PM

Assuming that is possible and does happen (hypothetically), how should the US respond to the meddling from Iran/Syria that would surely come? Hands-off approach or ‘help’ them in defending themselves?

infidel4life on October 25, 2006 at 2:36 PM

Stay the course to victory, or cut and run like the cowards Osama has painted Americans to be. Democrats always forget the last part of that message.

President Bush had the guts to do that which Cigarman told America was necessary back in 98. The difference between the two is clear. Todays question is, are Americans gutsy enough to support the war, or do they want to cut and run. The answer will be told to the World on Nov. 7th.

DannoJyd on October 25, 2006 at 2:42 PM

In My Opinion, that’s what we are dealing with now. Neither Syria nor Iran want democracy to take root in Iraq.

Iran has been selling Shias and Insurgents IED parts. Syria has been a source for insurgents to cross into Iraq.

For all I know the Mullahs in Iran are the ones behind the Shia’s killing Sunnis.

If we divide Iraq into Sunni/Shia/Kurdish states, what is stopping the Shia’s from joining Iran?

If we can get Iraq to the point where she can stand, then we can worry about teaching it to walk. I think we’re still trying to get coordinated enough to crawl at this point.

In the end, I think we should cooperate with Iraq the same way we cooperate with Israel. If that means supplying weapons but not troops, so be it. It would be up to the Iraqi government how much or how little assistance they want.

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 2:42 PM

In the end, I think we should cooperate with Iraq the same way we cooperate with Israel. If that means supplying weapons but not troops, so be it. It would be up to the Iraqi government how much or how little assistance they want.

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 2:42 PM

I tend to agree there, but still there’s a good chance those same weapons would be used against us at some future point.

infidel4life on October 25, 2006 at 2:54 PM

Where my antipathy towards the administration comes, is that they didn’t ask the question and they (and their supporters) equated asking it to being somehow less than patriotic.

Honora, that seems like you’re making the assumption that the administration went into this with no thoughts on winning; or, if you prefer, how to win. That doesn’t make sense in a number of ways.

Let’s assume for a sec that the administration doesn’t give a rat’s a** about the soldiers. (I know you haven’t said this, but others have). Maybe the administration was just ‘glory-seeking’ for the sake of glory; hoping to have a legacy of ‘bringing democracy to the Middle East’. If that’s the case, do you think that they would go into Iraq not knowing if we could win or not? Because losing would surely leave them with a bad legacy; something that NO politician would want.

Or maybe the administration really *was* looking to bring democracy to the Middle East for democracy’s sake… again, they wouldn’t attempt it if they didn’t think they could win; the risk of failure would be too great.

True, the Iraqi war isn’t going as well as it could. But ‘say the course’ to me never meant “keep doing the same thing over and over and over ad nauseum”, it meant “continue our efforts to bring democracy’. Yes, I’m sure there’s mistakes that have been made… yes, I’m sure there’s things the administration could’ve done better. But to ‘cut and run’, or ‘move the troops to Okinawa’ is doomed to utter failure. And as others here have said, the Democrats have never presented a viable plan on winning in Iraq.

dalewalt on October 25, 2006 at 2:55 PM

True, with the Europe being taken over by the Islam radicals, we could be seeing our own weapons used against us from there too.

It’s not like we didn’t prop up Saddam regime against Iran, or the Afghans vs the Soviets.

How many weapons went into the hands of the viet-cong when we left Vietnam?

It’s life in the big city… it’s all a risk.

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 2:58 PM

1938 Chezchosolavia(good guys lost)
1939 Poland(good guys lost)
1940 France(good guys lost)
1941 Pearl Harbor, Sinapore, Hong Kong, Malaya, Java, Celebes, Thialand, Indo-China, Burma, Wake, Guam, Phillipines, Carolina Islands, all western Russia, Greece,
Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden (good guys lost)

WE DIDN’T HAVE A PLAN…BOOOOOOHOOOOOOO…NO PLAN………OOOOHHHH NOOOOO….NO PLAN….WHAT DO WE DO WHAT DO WE DO………..

FIGHT BACK.

Limerick on October 25, 2006 at 3:04 PM

The Opinion Journal offers a pretty clear look at the recent violence in Iraq…

The current American panic, by contrast, is precisely what the insurgents intend with their surge of October violence. The Baathists and Sadrists can read the U.S. political calendar, and they’d like nothing better than to feed the perception that the violence is intractable. They want our election to be perceived as a referendum on Iraq that will speed the pace of American withdrawal.

IMHO, we need to send more troops over there.

DannoJyd on October 25, 2006 at 3:05 PM

sorry all, I’m alittle tipsy today……too rude…..I never should have taken the day off.

Keep the Faith!

Limerick on October 25, 2006 at 3:09 PM

I’m sure Bush would love to give each and every American more details about how we are going to win in Iraq. I’m sure he’d love to sit us down and personally explain the tactics involved and the means by which we can judge progress. Unfortunately, he can’t, and it’s not reasonable to expect he could.

God bless our troops, and God rest the souls of the 80+ men and women who have died this month. And while I do not want to make light of the loss of 80+ troops… we have lost far greater numbers in wars previous. Under 100 month is still around 3 a day.

How many cities can boast a death rate of less than 3 a day due to drunks, shootings, acts of god, crime.

Chances are the death rate in Washington DC is higher.

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 3:10 PM

WE DIDN’T HAVE A PLAN…BOOOOOOHOOOOOOO…NO PLAN………OOOOHHHH NOOOOO….NO PLAN….WHAT DO WE DO WHAT DO WE DO………..

FIGHT BACK.

Limerick on October 25, 2006 at 3:04 PM

No, Limerick, we should get out of their country, give them a big hug, and promise never, ever, to draw a cartoon of Mohammed ever again. You right-wing war-loving, non-WASP hating, Rove-loving Bushie, you.

dalewalt on October 25, 2006 at 3:19 PM

You right-wing war-loving, non-WASP hating, Rove-loving Bushie, you.

dalewalt on October 25, 2006 at 3:19 PM

Your forgot “drunk, neo-con” LOL!

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 3:20 PM

I agree, the phrase “stay the course” doesn’t really resonate with people–I think in part because it’s an archaic term. I looked it up (I’ll admit, I was expecting a nautical origin), and its first recorded use was in 1916, alluding to a horse running an entire race. Now of course if that horse was a Democrat, it would run a little bit, quit, blame its lack of victory on the other horses, and then sue them to try to get the win in court.

ReubenJCogburn on October 25, 2006 at 3:23 PM

Hey….I never thought of that!…Peace. Love. Pass the Grey Poupon please!

You guys got it right. It shouldn’t be about what happened it should all be about what’s next. Forward. You guys know this war won’t go away even if we leave.

Cheers! (literally!)

Limerick on October 25, 2006 at 3:25 PM

And I guess this is one of the reasons so many of us questioned the wisdom of this war: if it’s a real possiblity that we will leave it in worse shape (in terms of stability and our best interests) was this a risk worth taking?

For myself, I’m not smart enough to answer this. Where my antipathy towards the administration comes, is that they didn’t ask the question and they (and their supporters) equated asking it to being somehow less than patriotic.

honora on October 25, 2006 at 2:24 PM

Honora, can you please provide a reference source for where someone in the Bush Administration questioned the patriotism of an individual that wondered how Iraq would look after the war.

It amazes me that people can say things like “they never wondered if this war might make Iraq worse!!1!” Do you honestly believe that no one in the entire administraiton and war planning effort considered the various outcomes before going to war?

This reminds me of the “no exit strategy” meme. What you fail to realize, honora, is that there’s a difference between being wrong (i.e. overestimating the will of free Iraqis) and not considering their will at all.

12thman on October 25, 2006 at 3:26 PM

which you’ll assuredly be seeing again tonight on Countdown with Keith Olbermann if you’re one of the six people who watches that show.

You are being kind, AP.

Rick on October 25, 2006 at 3:28 PM

Honora, that seems like you’re making the assumption that the administration went into this with no thoughts on winning; or, if you prefer, how to win. That doesn’t make sense in a number of ways.

I think they were naive and did not understand that Iraq was not a country in the traditional sense of groups of people joining together for common good and interests. There were a country largely thanks to Winston Churchill and had been under Saddam’s rule for decades. The notion that minus Saddam they would happily ride into the sunset as a democracy was foolish IMO. And make no mistake, this was the administration’s thought/hope/prediction. I don’t have to drag out the quotes.

Not to mention a rush to war based on what IMO was cherry picked intelligence.

I think they knew they could oust Saddam with relative ease. Their zeal to do this overcame the natural caution one would exhibit in any kind of regime change. Remember there were voices to predicted civil war; these voices were at best ignored, at worst ridiculed. Well, there’s a lesson there I think. The admin behaved rashly and arrogantly and IMO have put us and our troops in danger needlessly.

I am happy to see Bush is at least thinking about revamping the strategy though. Sometimes you can meet aggressive goals by setting less ambitious goals and building on those. Sometimes I think I am foolish to be at all optimistic, sometimes I think I am jaded not to be optimistic.

Perhaps Limerick has the best idea, bottoms up!!!

honora on October 25, 2006 at 3:31 PM

HONORA: You are a civilized man sir! Your questions and concerns mark you as someone who is trying to understand this whole mess instead of following the herd. Cheers to you sir!

Limerick on October 25, 2006 at 3:31 PM

Hey Limerick, I think Honora is a female. At least I think so… If I remember right. Seems like it was like in Spanish… the the a (HonorA) vowel being female or something.

She(?) gets testi when we get it wrong :)

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 3:36 PM

FYI, Limerick and anyone else who didn’t get the memo, honora is a lady.

I always assumed the name is after the brand of pearls, but what do I know. (That’s not at all my area of experise, but the g/f was watching the Home Shopping Network.)

ReubenJCogburn on October 25, 2006 at 3:36 PM

Limerick, Honora ain’t a civilized man.

DannoJyd on October 25, 2006 at 3:36 PM

ooops………my apologies madam!…….(the lights are too damn low in this bar).

Limerick on October 25, 2006 at 3:37 PM

And as of 3:36 PM, there’s nothing left of that target. :D

ReubenJCogburn on October 25, 2006 at 3:38 PM

oh, man, Honora’s last post was reasoned and well-thought-out (even if I didn’t agree w/all of it). Quick, someone hand me a beer and a shot!

dalewalt on October 25, 2006 at 3:51 PM

oh, man, Honora’s last post was reasoned and well-thought-out (even if I didn’t agree w/all of it). Quick, someone hand me a beer and a shot!

dalewalt on October 25, 2006 at 3:51 PM

..as my grandmother (God rest her soul) would say: “Even a blind pig gets an acorn once in a while!”

;^)

honora on October 25, 2006 at 3:57 PM

For myself, I’m not smart enough to answer this. Where my antipathy towards the administration comes, is that they didn’t ask the question and they (and their supporters) equated asking it to being somehow less than patriotic.

That’s a bunch of crap. I just love how the Dems are making every single election about Iraq – and then lose. You know why? Because most of the Dems were “for the war before they were against it”. We went in there, all looked good early on, and everybody was happy. Things got tough and the Dems changed their minds and said – this really sucks, it’s hard work, we need to get out of there – that Damn Bush, he lied to us!! Every liberal became an armchair general – second guessing the administration.

Which reminds me, whatever became of that Congressional investigation into statements made by our political leaders that allegedly led us into the war in the first place? It somehow went to the backburner when the Republicans fought to also include statements made by Democrats (as opposed to just statements made by Bush – claiming he misled us to war)

Rick on October 25, 2006 at 3:58 PM

I have to agree dalewalt… either Honora is either expressing herself better, or we’re just getting used to her. Maybe a bit of both…

I even find myself agreeing with Allah about KP.

HotAir, bringing Dems and Reps together…

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 3:58 PM

honora is a lady.

Rick on October 25, 2006 at 4:00 PM

here’s the democrats plan for this country “if” they win on November 7th & in 2008 -

1)Cut & Run (they call it redeployment)from Iraq

2) appease countries like North Korea & Iran – by letting them have nuclear power (well, nuclear weapons)

3)give constitutional rights to captured terrorists at Gitmo Bay (well democrats say that we have to be nice to them so that they can be nice to us)

4)give amnesty to all 12 illegal immingrants in this country & to keep the borders open so that they can keep giving amnesty to everyone (well, Democrats call it a “guest worker” program).

5)get rid of the NSA program so that the terrorists can call anyone they want & to plan another terrorist attack on this country. (of course democrats want to follow the law, even if thousands of american lives would be lost, so long as liberal democrats again, follow the law).

6)kill the “Patriot Act” because it infringes on the rights of terrorists in this country & heaven forbid, that we should ever infringe on those who want to kill us.

Starblazer on October 25, 2006 at 4:02 PM

correction on #1 – “Cut & Run ” from Iraq (well, democrats call it Redeployment, but we know what it really is)

Starblazer on October 25, 2006 at 4:07 PM

honora is a lady.

Rick on October 25, 2006 at 4:00 PM

Well, not always as you have probably observed!!!

;^)

Isn’t it funny that “lady” in the sense of well bred is not something you hear very often. Kinda sad I think. I always told my girls when they were growing up to “act ladylike”; they looked at me like I was a Martian.

honora on October 25, 2006 at 4:12 PM

Would you prefer broad?

Kini on October 25, 2006 at 4:23 PM

I always told my girls when they were growing up to “act ladylike”; they looked at me like I was a Martian.

honora on October 25, 2006 at 4:12 PM

If it makes you feel any better, many of us here at HotAir see your political views as coming straight out of Mars – just kidding…sort of.

Rick on October 25, 2006 at 4:25 PM

ah, the love and kindness here… GROUP HUG!!!

And when we get tired of the love and kindness, we’ll invite GregH back.

dalewalt on October 25, 2006 at 4:35 PM

GregH is still up to his old tricks.

Rick on October 25, 2006 at 4:57 PM

Yes, but GregH has his own blog as well… we could always go and troll him…

E L Frederick on October 25, 2006 at 5:00 PM

Honora:

Let’s capture the moment. How about some across the isle compromise. If you promise to vote straight Republican in 06 I promise to vote straight Democrat in 07!

Limerick on October 25, 2006 at 5:04 PM

Limerick,

How many beers is that now?

Rick on October 25, 2006 at 5:06 PM

mmmmmm….bartender? (mumble mumble)…….oh…….

You just got me cut off Rick…..$##@#$%#@!@

Limerick on October 25, 2006 at 5:09 PM

oh, man, Honora’s last post was reasoned and well-thought-out (even if I didn’t agree w/all of it). Quick, someone hand me a beer and a shot!

dalewalt on October 25, 2006 at 3:51 PM

Yep. While I seldom agree with her on almost anything, her civility and tone here are to be commended and respected.

Lively discussion among intellectually honest people is a very good thing.

techno_barbarian on October 25, 2006 at 5:25 PM

If it makes you feel any better, many of us here at HotAir see your political views as coming straight out of Mars – just kidding…sort of.

Rick on October 25, 2006 at 4:25 PM

Wait—I thought women were from Venus.

p.v. cornelius on October 25, 2006 at 10:01 PM

Heh, today I was awoken by phone, in a fancy Hollywood hotel (business trip). First thing, turn on the news. Presser announced. Time to shower, dry hair and get dressed. The Pres. walking out just in time.

Q&A – Mr. Bush pretty fluent. I always wonder how come he sometimes can speak and othertimes hardly at all. Gregory somewhat subdued. No Helen Thomas. Questioners pretty boring. Not even setting traps. Just fairly quiet. I know what they are feeling and in part thinking…Then Mr. Bush drops the ‘curtain bomb’ on them and here comes the best part:

I understand in Washington people have already determined the outcome of the election. Not this august group, of course

Time to change the world work. Then drive home to North San Diego.

HOT AiR time! So many threads, so little time. Find this one. Totally serious topic, good discussion, and total crack up.

Limerick, you’re the funniest and I’m glad you’re here.

honora, from one lady to another (under any interpretation of the word), you’re adopted by this clan. And it’s a good one, and ya know it! I know you’re grinning approvingly. Then, I spotted your intellect, wit and spiritedness a long time ago, even though we disagree often, but not always, i.e.

Also, I couldn’t decide if Bush looked angry or scared or both.

honora on October 25, 2006 at 1:38 PM

I was totally alert and he didn’t seem either. He was just himself, full of worries and confidence. I falt him for much but I believe he’s the man for these times. He’s got the fortitude and we sure need it. I loved it when he said accountability rests with him, while responding to the Rumsfeld question, which was lame. The reporters looked and acted scared.

p.v. cornelius, after I was already in stitches over the path this thread took, you topped it off with the “from Venus” comment. Killed me off.

But, I’m back to tell you – women and men are from Earth – they’re very different from each other and all we have to do is accept this as fact. Hah! Therin lies the challenge, the fun and the horror, because women:

- simplify your life
- duplicate your happiness and
- triplicate your expenses

…at best.

No beers, but cheers anyway.

On a very serious note – we can’t leave Iraq and we can’t bomb the entire region – we must concentrate our efforts to communicate better on what the WoT s/b called, what it is and what it will take on multi-levels, and in myriad ways to win it. If not, we won’t be around to banter about anything freely, on threads like this one.

Entelechy on October 26, 2006 at 3:03 AM

Honora:

Let’s capture the moment. How about some across the isle compromise. If you promise to vote straight Republican in 06 I promise to vote straight Democrat in 07!

Limerick on October 25, 2006 at 5:04 PM

Make that 08 and you’ve got a deal!!! (Sadly, my vote for Casey won’t matter, he’s in; more sadly, my vote for my Congressman won’t matter either as he is running unopposed. Which underscores my big issue: the gerrymandering that has only about 30 or 40 house seats competitive. I think you can make a case that all this re-districting over the years is unConstitutional. It certainly has made Congress unresponsive and irresponsible. Rant over for now.)

honora on October 26, 2006 at 12:05 PM

E L writes: “We can lead them to water, but can’t make them drink.”

Where is Jack Bauer or Chuck Norris when we realy need them?

E L also writes: “what is stopping the Shia’s from joining Iran?”

Iran is Persian. Iraq is Arab. They hate each other. Any cooperation going on between the Iran and the insurgents (both Sunni and Shiia) is the old middle east “the enemy of mine enemy” thing.

georgej on October 26, 2006 at 2:16 PM

Also, the Shiia in Iran consider themselves superior and elite to the ones in Iraq.

Entelechy on October 26, 2006 at 2:55 PM

I am responding to two points made by Honora in this thread.

Honora writes:

And I guess this is one of the reasons so many of us questioned the wisdom of this war: if it’s a real possiblity that we will leave it in worse shape (in terms of stability and our best interests) was this a risk worth taking?

For myself, I’m not smart enough to answer this. Where my antipathy towards the administration comes, is that they didn’t ask the question and they (and their supporters) equated asking it to being somehow less than patriotic.

The reasons we went to war against Saddam’s regime were stated in the findings in Public Law 107-243. There were about 2 dozen of them including notice that Iraq had committed at least 2 internationally recognized acts of war against America: Attempting to assassinate a former head of state, and firing upon US aircraft while flying UN sanctioned missions over the No-Fly zone.

But rather than recite this long list of casus belli, George Bush spoke to the American people and told them why.

“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”

President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

In the 2004 Presidential Debates, the President expanded this poing.

After September the 11th, America had to assess every potential threat in a new light. Our nation awakened to an even greater danger, the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder. We had to take a hard look at everyplace where terrorists might get those weapons. And one regime stood out: the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

We knew the dictator had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, a long record of aggression and hatred for America. He was listed by Republican and Democrat administrations as a state sponsor of terrorists. There was a risk–a real risk–that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons, or materials, or information to terrorist networks. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take….

…After September the 11th, our object in the war on terror is not to wait for the next attack and respond, but to prevent attacks by taking the fight to the enemy.

George W. Bush, 10/6/2004

It is unfortunate that you liberals chose to put your fingers in your ears and sing “LA-LA-LA-LA” instead of listening.

Why was war with Iraq (and Afghanistan) necessary?

And after the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers.

President George W. Bush, “Remarks by the President at Bush-Cheney 2004 Luncheon,” 3/8/2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040308-7.html

As to being less than patriotic. Yes. YOUR SIDE HAS BEEN. In your opposition to the war, your side has actively attempted to sabotage the war and give bin Laden what he cannot obtain on his own: Forcing America to cut and run in Iraq, the way he promised we would do.

And, the leaked (and then declassified) NIE makes it clear: Defeat (i.e., cutting an running) in Iraq means victory for Al Qaeda, and will result in an enboldened Jihad. Winning in Iraq means a near death blow to the entire Islamofacist movement.

The actions of liberals and leftist in their attempt to undermine this war has put all Americans in danger. Our enemy does not recognize your actions as anything other than a willingness of Americans to cave under pressure.

So, yes. YOU SIDE IS UNPATRIOTIC.

Because you can’t understand what the stakes are. Michael Walzer, editor of Dissent Magazine does, and he wrote:

…We can be as critical as we like, but these are people whose fate we share; we are responsible for their safety as they are for ours, and our politics has to reflect that mutual responsibility. When they are attacked, so are we; and we should join willingly and constructively in debates about how to defend the country.”

“Can there be a decent left?” Dissent Magazine, Spring 2002,
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/wwwboard/salon.html

Your side has NOT been constructive in the debate. It has been destructive because all you offer is “cut and run.” Oh. And BUSH LIED!!, NO BLOOD FOR OIL, and HALIBURTON!!

Honora also wrote:

Well, there’s a lesson there I think. The admin behaved rashly and arrogantly and IMO have put us and our troops in danger needlessly.

I’ve cited author and columnist Austin Bay several times now. Bay was a Lt. Col. in OIF, and was on Tommy Frank’s operations staff and help plan the invasion. He wrote:

“The essence of strategic art is to force an enemy to fight on your terms, not his, and ideally in a fight he cannot refuse….”

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had multiple goals — take down the country that harbored the architect of 9/11/01, and take down a dictator that (1) had use WMD against both foreign and domestic enemies, (2) was actively looking to acquire nuclear weapons (and yes, Joe Wilson LIED!), and (3) present Al Qaeda with a challenge that they had no choice but to accept.

Bin Laden and Al Zawahira have stated numerous times, that a DEMOCRATIC Iraq is completely unacceptable and is a major threat to their goals.

Invading Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter) was not a rash or arrogant act. It was a deliberate, strategic, OFFENSIVE strike upon Al Qaeda and the terrorist states in the middle east, of which Iraq was one. It was designed to force him to fight THERE, not in our country.

Our conduct of the war in both Afghanistan and Iraq was plainly and clearly designed to minimize civilian casualties and infrastructure damage.

We did NOT, for example, carpet bomb Baghdad, blow up their irrigation damn, or even strike their cultural heritage. And the same occured in Afghanistan.

We did not use our full military power against either of these countries because our goal was not the complete destruction of these countries but the removal of their government. If we wanted to, both Afghanistan and Iraq COULD have been turned into radioactive green glass, with 99+% population casualties with zero casualties to US personnel.

I cannot say if the insurgency as it became was foreseen, though the act of applying only enough force to kick out the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and Saddam in Iraq clearly suggests that the administration attempted to give the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq a chance at self government, if they would choose to take it.

Afghanistan accepted and embraced democracy; something new to a country steeped in thousands of years of tribal culture.

Iraq’s people accepted it as well. 12 million purple fingers, over 60% of the eligible population, speaks volumes about their beliefs and desire for democracy.

The most recent Iraq opinion polls at the Brookings Institution show two things: The Iraqi people want us out. But only after their country is stable. And in the mean time they are grateful for our presence.

Unfortunately, a relatively small number of people (20,000 out of a population of 26 million) disagree with the majority and have chosen terrorism (both sectarian and secular) instead.

You used the usual liberal mantra of putting “our troops in danger needlessly.”

Sorry to disagree with you but our country is engaged in a global war against a rogue branch of Islam. They struck numerous first blows against us, our embassies, our warships, and against two of our cities. The troops are successfully engaging the enemy on a battlefield of OUR choice. Our military is going in harm’s way because that is their job. The fact that our casualties are astonishing low in absolute terms is testimony that your (and liberalism’s) premise of “needless danger” is nonsense.

We need to be in Iraq because if we were not, THEY would be striking American cities instead. It really is not much more complicated than that.

I know I’m talking to a brick wall here, but the truth needs to be spoken.

georgej on October 26, 2006 at 3:25 PM

I think you can make a case that all this re-districting over the years is unConstitutional. It certainly has made Congress unresponsive and irresponsible.

honora on October 26, 2006 at 12:05 PM

Good point. I’ve never understood why redistricting can’t wait for the census anymore.

p.v. cornelius on October 26, 2006 at 3:50 PM