Bush to discuss Iraq progress at 10:30 White House presser; Update: Helen Thomas video added; Update: David Gregory video added; Update: Bush swipes (obliquely) at Armitage over Libby
posted at 10:32 am on July 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It just started. MM is liveblogging it; we’ll probably have a clip here afterwards. Here are the findings in bullet-point format in case you missed them in headlines last night. Some military progress, near-zero political progress.
Should be a barnburner. Meanwhile, I’ve got some updates coming. Standby.
Update: This was linked in the quote of the day last night but I’ll mention it again because it’s a must read. Why is a story about what the DCIA told the Baker-Hamilton group nine months ago appearing the same day that the Senate takes up withdrawal proposals? Hmmm.
Later that morning, around the same conference table, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden painted a starkly different picture [than Bush had] for members of the study group. Hayden said “the inability of the government to govern seems irreversible,” adding that he could not “point to any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around,” according to written records of his briefing and the recollections of six participants.
“The government is unable to govern,” Hayden concluded. “We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government that is balanced, and it cannot function.”
Later in the interview, he qualified the statement somewhat: “A government that can govern, sustain and defend itself is not achievable,” he said, “in the short term.”
A CIA spokesman denied that he said any such thing but another senior intel official confirms that was the gist. More:
According to the written record and others in the room, Hayden at one point likened the situation in Iraq to a marathon. He said there comes a point in each race when the runner knows he can complete the challenge. But Hayden said he could see no such point in Iraq’s future.
“The levers of power are not connected to anything,” he said, adding: “We have placed all of our energies in creating the center, and the center cannot accomplish anything.”…
He compared the Iraq situation to the prolonged warfare in the Balkans. “In Bosnia, the parties fought themselves to exhaustion,” Hayden said, suggesting that the same scenario could play out in Iraq. “They might just have to fight this out to exhaustion.”
He also allegedly listed the threats to Iraq in this order: “the insurgency, sectarian strife, criminality, general anarchy and, lastly, al-Qaeda.” The military said yesterday that AQ is the principal threat, although according to a military intel report, they’re responsible for 15% of the attacks inside the country. Gen. Bergner reconciled those claims at the briefing:
“Al-Qaeda senior leadership does provide direction to al-Qaeda in Iraq,” Bergner told reporters. “They do establish and provide resourcing and support the network,” he added, noting that Zawahiri recently released a video seeking international recruits for the war in Iraq…
Bergner defended the focus on al-Qaeda in Iraq. “They are clearly the main accelerant in sectarian violence and the greatest source of these spectacular attacks that are killing innocent Iraqis in such large numbers,” Bergner said. “Their numbers are very small, but the effect is very large.”
AQ is responsible for 80-90% of the suicide bombings according to his best estimates.
Update: David Gregory’s asking him about Woodward’s report on Hayden’s testimony right now. Bush says he asked Hayden about it this morning and he claims his testimony was, and I quote, “a little more nuanced” than Woodward would have it.
Update: Aunt Bethany strikes early, calling for UN peacekeepers to get in their and do the job American troops apparently aren’t doing. Bush responds with the transparent nonsense about how he tried to avoid war by going to the UN, but framing it in terms of Saddam’s refusal to disarm only paints him into the WMD corner. If the point of the war was to create a model democracy for the Middle East, what sense does it make to say “I tried to avoid war”?
Update: Here’s Gregory’s exchange with Bush. The Anbar awakening figures prominently in the answer.
Update: The LA Times takes Senate Republicans’ temperature and finds plenty of support for a change of course among fencesitters but opposition to any timetable. Whether that’s because they’re sincerely worried about the consequences or whether they simply feel trapped by their past rhetoric, only they know. And speaking of past rhetoric, Boehner deploys a word usually reserved for Democrats to describe the GOP defectors. He’s not talking about us, is he, wonders Dick Lugar’s spokesman.
Update: It wasn’t all about Iraq this morning. Someone from WaPo asked him about the Libby commutation, to which Bush replied by noting what a shame it was that so many millions of dollars spent on investigations could have been saved if only, ahem, certain people had come forward sooner.
Update: The punchline to all this heavy breathing, says David Ignatius, is that a consensus has already emerged. It’s called Baker-Hamilton, and while it may be militarily disastrous, it’s politically do-able. Which is the important thing.
Exit question: Is it really politically do-able, though? Hmmm.
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: « 1 [2]
That’s because BH was a political document, not a military plan. The main thesis of BH was that a nation divided can not sustain a prolonged war. They were right. They are still right. As long as this nation is divided we cannot fight a long war.
The bad news is that the jihadis are ready for a generational war.
TunaTalon on July 12, 2007 at 3:52 PM
I don’t consider it “nation building” at all.
The Iraq front of the war is about “swamp draining” or “killing the Islamist cancer.”
That’s why we shouldn’t pull back and we definitely shouldn’t leave–there are still more killer scumbags there that need to be “martyred” and the U.S. Marines are more than willing to make that happen!
Jen the Neocon on July 12, 2007 at 4:15 PM
We have already been doing Baker-Hamilton:
We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission…
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 12, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Cuffy, Our fearless leader can take some credit for that spin. President Bush did not say that Armitage was the leaker, or that Libby wasn’t. Anyone who believes that Joe Wilson is an honest man (90% of the MSM?) would think that Bush was talking about Libby not coming forward.
What, another bush communication problem? I’m shocked.
TunaTalon on July 12, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Jack Straw has pointed out that your argument completely ignores the fact that we have what folks used to call substantial “strategic interests” in the Middle East, so I’ll comment on the idea that we would benefit from letting the Russians, Saudis, Pakistanis, Iranians, and, lest we forget the gorilla in the room, the Chinese “handle” the problem for us. If you want to know what their solutions looks like, check out Darfur, where the Chinese appetite for oil is obviously unconstrained by any concern for human rights or collateral damage.
Indeed, a realistic look at pre-Karzai Afghanistan, suggests that al Qaeda’s rise owes more to Russian/Saudi intervention than to our own. In any case, al Qaeda is not a discrete enemy, nor a local entity, nor is it the only face of terrorism. Even if it were, as your predicate assumes, I find it hard to believe that you think intervention by everyone but the U.S. will lead to a better result.
Your suggested list of neighborhood enforcers have a lot in common. Their ruthlessness in surpressing internal opposition is more than matched by their willingness to toleratate & foment carnage to advantage elsewhere. They are also less sensitive to international law, not just international pressure. The imposition of sanctions, for example, which the Russians and Chinese routinely flout, simply eliminate competition from the western nations who observe them and cement the stanglehold on power among the corrupt dictators they prefer to deal with.
Terrorism is also not the only geo-political challenge we face which a non-interventionist foreign policy will impact. The very communication that makes this conversation possible is part of an irrevocably globalized economy which defies the traditional distinctions between local, national and international interests upon which your schoolhouse analogy so firmly rests. Geography remains critically important; what has changed is the relationship between immediacy and distance.
None of the folks you recommend are local players, and their incentives are not consonant with our own. You would not be forcing them to tend to their own backyards, you’d be empowering them. You’d be sacrificing Israel, of course, but if that doesn’t concern you, google up a world map and take a long hard look at India’s position after your thugs resolve Middle Eastern problems to their satisfaction. Russia is not — yet — quite strong enough to make good on threats to cut off gas to Europe, but left to their own devices by a non-interventionist U.S., that will soon change.
We have a vested interest in denying terrorists the global reach they’re ultimately so clearly determined to achieve, but we also have a vested interest in denying non-democratic powers the hegemony they’re clearly seeking too. What you’re talking about is throwing the really big guns into the briar patch — and they’d be only too thrilled to show you what real empire buidling looks like. You’d do well to contemplate the Chinese response to potential rejection in the U.S. marketplace at your local grocery store. Just how much of the world are you willing to let them handle for you? How much will it take, I wonder, for you to recognize the downside of non-intervention?
JM Hanes on July 12, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Sorry, above post addressed to rho
JM Hanes on July 12, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Um…why are suppose to care what these pricks in the press think? I don’t! I don’t listen and couldn’t care less what they think. Anyone that is influenced by them deserves what they get. Endless frustrations! They aren’t very smart or good at what they do and they are wrong most of the time. What are we doing watching them?
sabbott on July 12, 2007 at 5:02 PM
“Anything else?” asks MB4 on July 12, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Yes.
You owe a lot of people an apology over your “chickenhawk” remark of the other day.
georgej on July 12, 2007 at 5:04 PM
So, hitting AQ in Pakistan should be the goal.
And anywhere else they rise up with their tyrannical fascistic ideology.
“You are either with us or with the terrorists.” still holds true.
profitsbeard on July 12, 2007 at 5:15 PM
georgej on July 12, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Captain MB4 doesn’t think so, he believe that only REAL military people have the right to comment on military issues.
doriangrey on July 12, 2007 at 5:30 PM
So does Wesley Clark
tomas on July 12, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Well, both he and Clark are arrogant idiots if that is what they truly believe.
georgej on July 12, 2007 at 6:11 PM
He said “Fair and Balanced.”
- The Cat
MirCat on July 12, 2007 at 6:21 PM
I’m glad someone else noticed that, and shares my view of its idiocy. I posted something like this last night, in repoonse to an analogy about th Japanese running out of pilots / kamakazis towards the end of WWII
The Ummah has over a billion Potential Recruits, and there will be no ‘exhaustion’ in Iraq. Maybe if we tiptoe quietly out of the country, everything will be Okay and the bad people will leave us alone
maybe not.
and ‘rho’, you are truly, truly, a Tool
Janos Hunyadi on July 12, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Pelosi gives something to quiet the nutroots about her not being a sprint and surrender enough advocate.
The House of Representatives voted 223-201 Thursday to require most U.S. troops to leave Iraq by April 1, 2008
It is bound for a veto but dadgummit these cowards never quit. I wished they showed as much effort at beating the real enemy.
LakeRuins on July 12, 2007 at 6:46 PM
MB4 on July 12, 2007 at 2:38 PM
That still has nothing to do with someone saying someone’s a “wimp”. You do not need to be in combat to know the difference between courage and cowardice. This chickenhawk argument is bullshit. Running away from a fight (esp one that you are winning) wether you be a soldier, schoolteacher, or a congressman means your a wimp. Staying and fighting means you have courage. The Congressman not only stayed and fought he went towards the fight under his own will. Just because his body would not allow him to continue the fight has NO bearing on the topic.
The Senators and Congressmen who are fleeing in terror due to the polls are nothing but wimps. These men/women voted to go to war. They need to stand by their word and see the damn thing through. Those that run now should be defeated in NOV and the Congressional control be damned.
unseen on July 12, 2007 at 6:49 PM
MB4 on July 12, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Different things scare people. Some people may be hero under enemy fire yet if a terrorist held their wife at knife point may break and wet their pants. Or someone may be brave during a crisis but the thought of losing their job sends them running back to momma. The fight or flee response is human. Sometimes you fight sometimes you flee. A person will do both throughout their lives. The past holds no bearing on the present or the future. It is your present actions that determine you character. So take that to Murtha and smoke it.
unseen on July 12, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Let’s also not forget that the demand we surrender in Iraq is by and large the same political agenda (as opposed to military or strategic agenda) that the DEMs adopted with Vietnam. They have once again created a mental image in the public’s mind that we are losing and demanding surrender but note that they certainly don’t want to surrender while they are in power, they are demanding that Bush surrender so he can take blame for the genocide and loss of face that will follow.
The entire idea that the Islamist hate us and are committing terror attacks is because we are in Iraq or Afghanistan is idiotic. It follows the famous DEM principle of ignoring dozens of Islamist attacks since 1979 to 9/11/2001. There have actually been fewer Islamist terror attacks against the US since we took the war to them.
Bush certainly needs to address the left on Iraq but he needs to tell them that they are certainly welcome to surrender when and if they get back in the White House but that until then he is not going to hand Iraq over to Iran or Osama bin Laden.
Buzzy on July 12, 2007 at 7:05 PM
MB4
- full of elitism
- full of promotional expediency
- full of titles
- full of hot air
- full of highly dangerous idealism
- not so full of concrete solutions on the WoT
Please don’t come back and tell me that it’s not really a WoT. I really don’t care what one names it. The nemesis exists and we have to deal with it.
You assume that any of us care about that “international pessure” or that we exist to “be loved” like yours do.
First you suggest retreat…then this
Which one is it? Yours can only harp, harp, harp. Solutions or quit yammering. Doing nothing will speed up your heads on the blocks. And ours too.
And since when are Russia and SA known for solving world problems? more than the U.N.? or the EU? Again, concrete solutions and not fictitious or ideological babble.
Entelechy on July 12, 2007 at 7:18 PM
I am still having a very hard time trying to find how a renaissance dinosaur like Helen Thomas has anything even coming close to relevancy these days.
pilamaye on July 12, 2007 at 8:23 PM
President Bush said “fair and balanced” hahahaha Cue the lib conspiracies that the President is shilling for Fox News. hahahahaha
Mallard T. Drake on July 12, 2007 at 8:57 PM
For everyone that ever thought about jerking some old person’s driver’s license…How bout sending Helen Thomas to press pass pasture?
She makes me want to change my last name…..oh wait. My last name aint Thomas; but I’ll got-dam-gay-ron-tee that I will NEVER change my last name to Thomas unless it gets me power of attorney over her. If that happens, guess where she’s going! AT’S RIGHT! Press pass pasture.
spike on July 13, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Michael Yon: Harry Reid is wrong:
He’s wrong, he’s wrong. It has absolutely not failed, and in fact, I’m finally willing to say it in public. I feel like it’s starting to succeed. And you know, I’m kind of stretching a little bit, because we haven’t gone too far into it, but I can see it from my travels around, for instance, in Anbar and out here in Diyala Province as well. Baghdad’s still very problematic. But there’s other areas where you can clearly see that there is a positive effect. And the first and foremost thing we have to do is knock down al Qaeda. And with them alienating so many Iraqis, I mean, they’re almost doing it for us. I mean, yeah, it takes military might to finally like wipe them out of Baquba, but it’s working. I mean, I sense that the surge is working. Reid is just wrong.
bnelson44 on July 13, 2007 at 2:14 AM
I think as long as anyone of a jihadi persuasion is shooting at our guys and girls in Iraq, we need to stay and kill them until the Iraqi miltary can.
3 losses a day in a global war against Islamic imperialism is an incredibly minor casualty rate.
How the media and surrendercrats made this into a Cataclysmic Quagmire shows the Goebbels-esque power of the press and selective images.
The jihadis are not going away.
Unless we kill them.
We can do it in Iraq, at the moment.
Let’s use this opportunity.
They sure as hell deserve it.
profitsbeard on July 13, 2007 at 2:25 AM
Go Ducks!
MB4 on July 13, 2007 at 3:05 AM
unseen on July 12, 2007 at 6:49 PM
That still has nothing to do with someone saying someone’s a “wimp”. You do not need to be in combat to know the difference between courage and cowardice.(I agree with this. I was in RVN late in the war and never saw that much combat. Had I been sent earlier I would probably have been an FO and might well not be here now to bother you.) This chickenhawk argument is bullshit. (It sounds to me like you think that no one can be a chickenhawk. That it is somehow impossible. People who do not support our staying in Iraq are called all manner of things, but no one can be called a chickenhawk? Seems excedingly unfair and unbalanced to me) Running away from a fight (esp one that you are winning(Very doubtful)) wether you be a soldier, schoolteacher, or a congressman means your a wimp.(That makes no sense to me at all. None of these congressmen is running from a fight. None of them are EVEN doing any fighting. Well unless it is fighting for pork or campaign “contributions”. The troops are the only ones doing any fighting.) Staying and fighting means you have courage. The Congressman not only stayed and fought he went towards the fight under his own will. Just because his body would not allow him to continue the fight has NO bearing on the topic.(The congressman did no such thing. There was a draft then and the only way for most to honorably avoid being drafted into the Army, and for a while the Marines were drafting, was to go and join the Navy or Air Force or Guard or Reserves (which then were hardly ever sent to RVN). I don’t know where you get that the congressman fought. We do not know how legitimate his “back problem” was. I have my suspicions as that was THE classic way to try to get out back then. But even “assuming” that he wanted to stay and the Navy made him leave, he STILL did not as you say “stayed and fought”. Whom did he fight if he fought? The other Sailors during his 8 weeks in the Navy? I actually volunteer to be drafted into the Army. What can I say? Young and stupid (I prefer naive)? I could have stayed out completely as every time they took my blood pressure it was a little too high. When I went to a regular doctor it was just fine. I finally figured out that at a sub-conscious level I did not like being crowded like sardines at the packed to the gills induction center and my blood pressure would go up. Maybe I was a mountain man in a previous life. I had to get documentation from the regular doctor to get in. I can still remember the Army doctor saying “Are you sure you want to do this” and I said yes. But I am still a wimp and fleeing in terror and I suppose a coward. And Boehner is a big brave hero. Astounding.)
The Senators and Congressmen who are fleeing in terror due to the polls are nothing but wimps.(They are not fleeing in terror. They are on the other side of the planet from Iraq. At some point with Bush’s wide open borders and large numbers of Visas to the ME, I suppose they could come under attack, but that is a different matter. Actually that would be a good test of who ran I suppose.) These men/women voted to go to war. They need to stand by their word and see the damn thing through.(Most of them did, but I don’t see how that obligates them to support it until Shiites and Sunnis kiss and make up and build a wonderful nation together or until hell freezes over, which ever comes first! They voted for it on the belief that pretty much everyone had, including myself, that Saddam had WMD, not on some goal of “Nation building”. Not even Bush thought back then that “we” would have anything like 160,000 troops there now. It was not open ended. They did not give up their right to ever vote again.) Those that run now (Nobody is running! They are voting!) should be defeated in NOV and the Congressional control be damned.
Let me run a “scenario” by you. Do you know who Audie Murphy was? He was the most decorated U.S. Army soldier EVER!. The Army itself has said “There will NEVER be another Audie Murphy”! If he were still alive and was a congressman he might well vote to end this war. I know a fair amount about him and think that he probably would. But at the VERY LEAST it is very plausible. Would you then call him a wimp? Would you think that it would be OK for Boehner to call him one? He would just have to say yes Senator Boehner I am a whimp? Your definition of courage and coward, seems to be how someone votes on keeping our troops there. By that “logic” you would have to consider Audie Murphy to be a coward.
None of these congressman is in the military in Iraq. None of them is in any physical danger. Except for Webb (and maybe a couple others) none of them has a son in Iraq.
You certainly seem to be calling all congressmen, and non congressmen, who want to start ending this thing wimps and say that they are fleeing in terror, and you think that is all fine and dandy, but no one is suppose to even mention anything about “chickenhawks” This is the most one sided thing that I have ever heard of. Truly astounding.
Frankly this is getting a bit absurd. This should be a discussion about the issues, not me. I guess that I am just feeding it however. I will have to stop that now.
MB4 on July 13, 2007 at 3:08 AM
unseen on July 12, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Let me run a “scenario” by you. Do you know who Audie Murphy was?
He was the most decorated U.S. Army soldier EVER!. The Army itself has said “There will NEVER be another Audie Murphy”! If he were still alive and was a congressman he might well vote to end this war. I know a fair amount about him and think that he probably would. But at the VERY LEAST it is very plausible. Would you then call him a wimp? Would you think that it would be OK for Boehner to call him one? He would just have to say yes Sir Senator Boehner, I am a whimp? I am fleeing in terror. I am a coward. EVEN Audie Murphy in response could not call Boehner a “chickenhawk”? Your definition of courage and coward, seems to be based on how someone votes on keeping our troops there. By that “logic” you would have to consider Audie Murphy to be a coward.
None of these congressman is in the military in Iraq. None of them is in any physical danger. None of the yeas or the nays.
You certainly seem to be calling all congressmen, and non congressmen, who want to start ending this thing wimps and say that they are fleeing in terror, and you think that is all fine and dandy, but no one is suppose to even mention anything about “chickenhawks” This is the most one sided thing that I have ever heard of. Truly astounding.
MB4 on July 13, 2007 at 3:18 AM
I haven’t read this thread, so perhaps this has already been covered… but has anyone else noticed that the Democrats and the media are hyping this “Al Qaeda stronger today” noise, while spending the rest of their time attacking Bush for hyping terrorism as a scare tactic to play politics? So Bush is scaring us for politics because terrorism isn’t a big threat, but at the same time it’s a bigger threat than ever because Bush made it worse?
I’m interested to hear input from the resident libs.
RightWinged on July 13, 2007 at 6:10 AM
RightWinged, excellent observation.
This theory of “Al Queda’s stronger than ever because of ChimpyMcBushHilter’s screw-ups” and “There are no AQ in Iraq, so why don’t we leave?” is a cousin to the key tenet of their beliefs that Bush is an idiot while at the same time being a evil genius who masterminded the 9/11 attacks to seize more power…
if it wasn’t so insidious, it is to laugh!
Jen the Neocon on July 13, 2007 at 6:33 AM
Why does Helen Thomas remind me of John McCain?
They both need to call it a day.
TheSitRep on July 13, 2007 at 7:15 AM
Why my political opponents would hate me if I were President.
“You know, Ms. Thomas, plastic cosmetic surgery has come a long way…..I mean, really now.”
Hawkins1701 on July 13, 2007 at 7:54 AM
“Well, isn’t that special”, Helen Thomas and the Church Lady are one of the same.
MSGTAS on July 13, 2007 at 9:22 AM
MB4 on July 13, 2007 at 3:08 AM
Let me run a “scenario” by you. Do you know who Audie Murphy was?
He was the most decorated U.S. Army soldier EVER!.
Cough* Colonel David H. Hackworth cough*
doriangrey on July 13, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Worth re-posting. I guess liberals can talk out of both ends.
right2bright on July 13, 2007 at 12:08 PM
right2bright on July 13, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Hmmm, I believe you may have just uncovered the origins of the phrase “Talking out your a$$”…
doriangrey on July 13, 2007 at 12:18 PM
I always said Gregory is a Helen want-to-be.
SIJ6141 on July 13, 2007 at 1:26 PM
The problem with Bush’s lack of comunication skills is that he does not seem to feel the need to improve them.
davod on July 13, 2007 at 1:50 PM
None of these congressman is in the military in Iraq. None of them is in any physical danger. None of the yeas or the nays.
MB4 on July 13, 2007 at 3:18 AM
What are you talking about? There are other dangers besides physical danger that you can run from. The Congressman are running from their fear of not being relected. Which makes it even worse.
And yes I know who Murphy was. I also know he was a man of his word. If he gave his word to the soldiers to have their back he would keep it. Not like our “wimps/leaders” of today who stab our soldiers in the back at the first sign of hardship. We could play what/if all day.
Wimps are wimps. The Democratic controlled house and Senate are a bunch of wimps and traitors. They should be spit upon and tared and feathered if not worse.
Bush unlike Reid and Pelosi shows courage under political fire. Reid and Pelosi ad the rest of the thinned skin cry-babies fold and run at the first signs of political fighting by the nutroots. the lastest bill by Pelosi was only to cover Pelosi from Cindy. It’s all for show while our men/women are killing and being killed these scum destroy morale for VOTES.
unseen on July 13, 2007 at 2:21 PM
I think Helen Thomas is looking more and more like Jabba the Hut.
JellyToast on July 13, 2007 at 6:42 PM
This reminds me of one of Tony Snow’s best zingers on Helen Thomas.
“Well, thank you for giving the Hezbollah viewpoint on this.”
Hawkins1701 on July 13, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Sorry, I don’t agree with: “If the point of the war was to create a model democracy for the Middle East, what sense does it make to say “I tried to avoid war?”
(First of all, democracy is unattainable in a Muslim society and does not truly exist even in this country.)
There was and still is no (one) point of the WOT, except to save the civilized world from devastation. Dubya is on my manure list but not for this issue. However, it breaks my heart that he is trying to save the so-called ‘young democracy’ in Iraq when he is ready to destroy what is left of this one–by allowing the 3rd world to invade us and insidiously erase our rule of law and our language, border, culture.
I also wish he would throw the press a bone (that they can use to beat themselves) by emphasizing that we are fighting for the survival of the people of the world, not just Americans. Besides, the idea that the MSM and the left care about our soldiers or our interests abroad is well known to be false.
Christine on July 14, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Scooter skates–big whoop.
I wish someone had had the presence of mind to do a follow-up question on pardoning the border patrol agents who are in solitary confinement and the brave soldiers who are facing trials because they were doing their jobs…as if that would have made a difference. Heartbreak indeed.
Christine on July 14, 2007 at 3:09 PM
unseen - “What are you talking about?(You see, but you do not observe.) There are other dangers besides physical danger that you can run from. The Congressman are running from their fear of not being relected. Which makes it even worse.(You are not exactly a big fan of representative democracy are you? Congressmen are suppose to respond to the American people. Weren’t you glad when they did on CIR? Maybe not.)
And yes I know who Murphy (Are you so sure that if were still alive and in Congress that he would approve of what Bush is doing to the U.S. Army?) was. I also know he was a man of his word. If he gave his word to the soldiers to have their back he would keep it. Not like our “wimps/leaders” of today who stab our soldiers in the back (You seem to have a particular fondness for using libelous epithets.) at the first sign of hardship. We could play what/if all day.
Wimps are wimps(You seem to have an extreme fondness for using libelous epithets). The Democratic controlled house and Senate are a bunch of wimps and traitors(You seem to have an EXTREME fondness for using libelous epithets.). They should be spit upon and tared and feathered if not worse(I hope that someone in law enforcement is keeping a close eye on you.).
Bush unlike Reid and Pelosi shows courage under political fire (Sending others to fight in vain for his “legacy” hardly constitutes courage. If he had courage, rather than hubris, he would admit that he has been in error and show some concern for the U.S. Army and it’s soldiers.) Reid and Pelosi ad the rest of the thinned skin cry-babies fold and run at the first signs of political fighting by the nutroots.(Actually the “nutroots” mostly want them to cut funding and they are not doing that.) the lastest bill by Pelosi was only to cover Pelosi from Cindy. It’s all for show (I won’t agrue that too much.)while our men/women are killing and being killed these scum destroy morale (Who’s morale are they destroying? If our troops believed in “The mission” why would their morale be destroyed? Sounds like you do not think very well of the troops. So sad.)for VOTES(Those in power are suppose to respond to the voters, otherwise we would be living in a tyranny rather than a representative democracy. When I was in the Army I took an oath to defend the Constitution.).
FeralCat on July 15, 2007 at 6:16 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]