Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 3, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

IN WHICH I TRY MY HAND AT SPEECHWRITING....A short speech I'd like to see:

It's unfortunate that President Bush continues to play chicken with the well-being of our troops in the field. Up on the Hill we're working hard to pass a bill that fully funds the war in Iraq, but today the president warned that "if either the House or Senate version of this bill comes to my desk, I will veto it." Apparently it's more important for him to play political games than it is to get our commanders on the ground the funds they desperately say they need.

And what is it that's so important that he's willing to risk the safety of our men and women in uniform? His continuing insistence on open-ended war, with no benchmarks for progress, no accountability to the public, and no end in sight.

This is no place for politics. President Bush has a chance to sign a bill that contains every dollar he's asked for, along with sensible, flexible benchmarks for standing up Iraqi troops and finally bringing our soldiers home. In a time of war, it would be irresponsible for the commander-in-chief to veto this legislation while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds.

I can dream, can't I?

Kevin Drum 8:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (124)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Nicely done!

Posted by: J on April 3, 2007 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you want to hear that speech and I want to win the Powerball. I think our chances of success are about the same.

Posted by: FitterDon on April 3, 2007 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

Dream on, you Surrender Monkey. The Dems have no balls to say something like that. Bush could be a 3% in the polls, and they would still cower.

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on April 3, 2007 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

SOLDIER ON. Atrios refers to six-month periods as "Friedman Units," referring to the repeated requests to just wait another six months for things to turn around in Iraq. Unfortunately, the number of American service men and women killed in Iraq during the last six months, November 1, 2006 through March 31, 2007, was the highest in any six-month stretch of the entire war: 532. (The six-month period ending January 31, 2005, is next closest, with 526.) The past three months are also the only three consecutive months with 80 or more fatalities.

The war is getting worse, not better. The president, of course, probably has no idea about such statistics; if he doesn’t read newspapers, surely he can’t be bothered with empirics. He goes with his gut, enabling him to blithely demonstrate the same “resolve” that led to all the problems in the first place. He soldiers on.

In the past half year, another 532 Americans fell from the ranks of those able to soldier on in the literal sense -- that is, with a helmet and rifle in hand. Bush, meanwhile, will be soldiering on to vacation (yet again) tomorrow.

--Tom Schaller

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on April 3, 2007 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

That brush isn't going to clear itself. Hey, can't President Biggie Smalls get a surge from the National Guard?

Posted by: Kenji on April 3, 2007 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

He's used signing statements in the past to get around (*cough*) difficult legisation--what's his problem?

Posted by: has407 on April 3, 2007 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

You won't hear many harp on Bush's likely veto as cutting funding for the troops for the simple reason that they may soon be arguing to cut the funds themselves. Witness Sen Reid's recent statements. It is great to point out the President's absurdity, but we need our guys out of Iraq and don't want to make arguments that will preclude us from being successful in that.

Posted by: bubba on April 3, 2007 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, Reid did say something very much like that - only even shorter, and more to the point:

If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure."

Polls show the country is solidly behind pulling the troops, including defunding the war. The approval rating for Democrats goes up whenever they say no to Bush.

The only people Bush is talking to are his bitter enders. And no matter how noisy those bitter-enders are on blogs, the truth is they just don't matter anymore.

Posted by: CaseyL on April 3, 2007 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

It's unfortunate that President Bush continues to play chicken with the well-being of our troops in the field.

"chicken"? Don't liberals have anything besides name calling in expressing their disagreements with George W Bush and the Republican Party? As Glenn Reynolds said before "politeness does matter."

Posted by: Al on April 3, 2007 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

Al, you persistent little moron, "play chicken" is a common expression. It's not calling him a chicken.

And Glenn Genocide Reynolds is not an authority on anything.

Posted by: J on April 3, 2007 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

I'll say it again, since someone said it above:

This is what Reid said today, in fewer words. He even said it politely.

Posted by: mc on April 3, 2007 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

No dice, Drum. Here's a speech Pelosi should make:

"Today, I flew to Syria to talk with that kakistocrisy and in so doing, deliberatley uundercutting our President and our troops fighting the War on Terror, the greatest challenge our Republic has stood up to thus far in our nation's history.

I admit that I have been cravenly responsible for playing political yahtze with our soldier's lives and our President's efforts at fighting with the insurgency and Al Qeada. I have selfishly used taxpayer dollars to fund my own private airplane to lavishly fly myself around the country.

I have tremendously undercut our nation's ability to fight this war. Becuase of this, I will henceforth resign my position as Speaker in the House and my seat in the Congress. Good bye America."

I can dream, can't I.

Posted by: egbert (means business) on April 3, 2007 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

Yes! Bush can have the money for the troops! Just one little signature will do it. Sign on the dotted line. What's he waiting for? (Well, the bill's gotta get passed, but then, "Just sign it, George!")

Posted by: David in NY on April 3, 2007 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

Well, you're no Sam Seaborn, but someone really should say it;>

Posted by: Martin on April 3, 2007 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

Instead of "Apparently it's more important for him to play political games than it is to get our commanders on the ground the funds they desperately say they need," may I suggest that "desperately" be moved to between "say" and "need."

I don't think they say it desperately but that they say they need it deperately.

Posted by: dwight Meredith on April 3, 2007 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

So why don't the Dems want to end the war right now? Why wait a year to pull our troops out. Don't they realize that if they pass a bill calling for pullout in over a year they'll be responseable for every death that occurs before then.

Well maybe they think that we're making progress and can accomplish our goals in a year.

Nope it's just politics.

If Iraq was unwinnable and they cared about American lives they'd want to pull out now not in over a year.

Setting a non-binding future date shows how little they appreciate the intelligence of their radical left supporters.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 3, 2007 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

IN WHICH I TRY MY HAND AT SPEECHWRITING....

A short speech that I would like to see:

The slaughter of enemies is at hand. We have fielded a mighty army against the powers who have aligned against us. There are enemies everywhere, and if we are not vigilant in our support of that army, it--and the precious freedoms we hold dear--will be crushed like a flower in the tank treads of our many enemies.

Though we cannot know why our own Congress is virulently anti-American and unpatriotic, the disease of apathy and permissiveness is likely to blame, as well as any tolerance for backtalk. Backtalk is sedition and sedition is an ace in the hole for our enemies. We have to watch the population to see those who would hide in the shadows and then try to leap out and attack us like the terrorists did on September the Eleventh, Two thousand and One.

The time for backtalk is over. You are either with us or against us. We march on a road made of the bones of our enemies to victory.

Peace out, ya'll.
Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 3, 2007 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

Excellent and almost short enough for a sound bite.
However, I'm not sure your dreaming the impossible dream, when you hope Democrats will sound like that

Atrios quotes give 'em hell Harry Reid

"If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure."

The whole speech is roughly as good as yours with less substance but more negative words referring to Bush
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=271763&

Keep dreaming. It seems to be working.

Posted by: Robert Waldmann on April 3, 2007 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

There is a great post on The Carpetbagger Report from a few days ago about the mainstream media's (specifically Time magazine's) ignoring the prosecutor purge scandal.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10367.html


What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?

It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn’t talk about it.

Posted by: Swan on April 3, 2007 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

TruthPolitik: Why wait a year to pull our troops out. Don't they realize that if they pass a bill calling for pullout in over a year they'll be responseable [sic] for every death that occurs before then.

Retreating from a battlefield in an orderly manner--and without wholesale chaos and casualties--is one of the most difficult maneuvers imaginable. That is why--even if Iraq is unwinnable--a well-defined and orderly withdrawal period is appropriate. To do otherwise risks more lives.

Posted by: has407 on April 3, 2007 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

The political game the president is awful, both in substance and in the palability of his message. If he really meant what he says about Congress going on vacation, he has the power to bring Congress back to D.C. If he were just willing to talk to one of the coequal branches of government, they might be able to work out a settlement. But no as he says, "his proposal is his proposal."

Well Mr. President, you are an elected officer to a republic. You are not a royal heir. Our government functions through conflict and eventual resolution. You do not get everything you want, because you want it. Stop acting like a child; man up and compromise to end this disaster. In every military campaign, there have been failed efforts, but people did not continue to bang their head against the wall. Stop it! Stop being stupid! Everybody else sees it, but you; how are you so blind?

Posted by: Noah on April 3, 2007 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

Al: '"chicken"? Don't liberals have anything besides name calling in expressing their disagreements with George W Bush and the Republican Party? As Glenn Reynolds said before "politeness does matter." '

Fascinating, Al, just fascinating. You've completely run out of steam, the vast majority of the country is against you, senior Republicans are deserting like Iraqi police trainees, and all you have left is name calling about name calling. You and the other MRs in the pathetic trolletariat are toast. The checks have already stopped, I'm sure, and Dubya doesn't even have nicknames for ya. Time to think about finding some new skills at the local community college.

Posted by: Kenji on April 3, 2007 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

Oh Norman...
You make my Christian vulva drip....

Golly gee wilerkers...
Your more manly than Ollie North.

What caliber is your keyboard?

Posted by: Monica Goodling@whitehouse.gov on April 3, 2007 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

People may pay attention to noise, but few are persuaded by it. And when the noise-makers lack credibility, their loud, meaningless blather only turns people off; it is a sign of weakness.

Let the president make all the speeches he wants; he will sway no minds, and effect no change.

The Democrats are preferring to speak with deeds, not words. The less they say, the better.

Posted by: lampwick on April 3, 2007 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

THIS IS TOO MUCH:

Even for you Regressive-Democrats; in November of 2004, exactly 2 1/2 years ago (i.e., not 40 years ago), the USA people voted unambiguously for George W. Bush to be Commander-in-Chief during wartime. Congressmen and Senators are elected based on everything from potholes to payola to whatever local issues are important to their consitutents. No one wanted or today wants Nancy Pelosi to be our wartime leader. It's thus the Democrats who are playing politics; er, uh, funny how the deadline for withdrawal is August 2008 (hah - no political motivation there, just concern for the security of the USA from foreign threats . . . wink, wink). FUND THE TROOPS, THEN RUN FOR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IN 2008; DON'T TAKE ON A ROLE THAT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY YOURS; IT IS ONLY BY A CONTORTED READING OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE POWER OF THE PURSE MEANS THE POWER TO ACT AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. If Bush is truly not being a competent commander-in-chief, his performance will be the subject of debate among the 2008 candidates.

Regressive-Democrats: it's enough your poor-people destructive public polcies are clownish; don't be clowns, too.

TOH

Posted by: The Objective Historian on April 3, 2007 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

I certainly appreciated the politeness and civility Bush showed when he said voting for Democrats would embolden the terrorists.

Posted by: AkaDad on April 3, 2007 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

Review of Grindhouse that explains it in a way I can understand.

Remember, when George W. Bush was elected, and he said that thing about how, by 2008, we’d have “movies that would explode in our balls like a shotgun filled with handjobs”?

Well, that promise came true two days ago when I saw GRINDHOUSE in Hollywood. Except not only was it a shotgun full of handjobs exploding in my balls, but also my balls suddenly knew how to make fire using karate. All from seeing GRINDHOUSE, a movie that’s made of screaming car crash zombie boobs. . . .That’s what GRINDHOUSE is. It’s a taquito buffet that you puke up after getting hit with a motorcycle, and it turns into a bikini chick that blows you and kills your boss with a hammer.

Posted by: cld on April 3, 2007 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

I love the smell of desperate trolls in the evening, it smells like... victory.

Posted by: Doug H. on April 3, 2007 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

The real Monica Goodling only uses her gwb43.com email address....

Posted by: Disputo on April 3, 2007 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

Norman,

This is just funny:

"the precious freedoms we hold dear--will be crushed like a flower in the tank treads of our many enemies."

Tank treads? This is the sad thing about you supporters of the war; you don't understand war?!? How can that be? Our enemies don't have tanks. If they did it'd be easier. Because we could locate them and eliminate them. But they don't.

We can't find our enemy. Because our enemy is supported by major elements of that country. We have stirred up a nationalist & sectarian fervor that can't put out. We can step up the conditions for a political agreement or we can leave, but we cannot stay there for the 10's of years to put down an insurgency.

We're no good at occupying countries. We've been anti-colonist in past because, we were the first European colony to rebel against its parent nation. Why do you want to do what the Europeans failed at in the last century?

Posted by: Noah on April 3, 2007 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

lampwick:

Let the president make all the speeches he wants; he will sway no minds, and effect no change.

That's exactly it.

The vast majority of Americans regard his as a loser and a crook.

He is not a lame duck.
He is a bag of empty feathers floating on a stagnant polluted pond.

Go away Mr. Bush.
Go clear some brush or eat some pretzels or fuck Condi or... whatever....

Who gives a shit.
Just get the fuck out of the way...
Because:
The world and America are dead to you...

Posted by: ROTFLMLiberalAO on April 3, 2007 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

has407 "Retreating from a battlefield in an orderly manner--and without wholesale chaos and casualties--is one of the most difficult maneuvers imaginable. That is why--even if Iraq is unwinnable--a well-defined and orderly withdrawal period is appropriate. To do otherwise risks more lives."

So you're saying that calls for immediate withdrawal are wrong then? and we should stay another year.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 3, 2007 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rodgers You are either with us or against us. We march on a road made of the bones of our enemies to victory.

you can almost hear the 'fap, fap, fap, fap' from under the table as he was writing that.

Seriously though, i'd rather talk about redeployment to Kurdistan than a wholesale return to America. At least some kind of force to defend the Kurds while they continue self-rule.

Posted by: absent observer on April 3, 2007 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

thanku 4 that link, cld. that made my day.

Posted by: Disputo on April 3, 2007 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

Truthpolitik:

How long do you think this is going to take. How do you want to stay at war with Iraq? How does staying improve the situation? EVERYONE (wait, let me say that sgain)... EVERYONE (Bush, Cheney, Petraeus, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Clintons, Obama, Biden. even fucking Schwarzeneggar) says that the only way to solve this is a POLITICAL solution. That is, a political agreement between the major sect, tribes and nationalities of the Iraqis.

So, I ask my question again, HOW DOES STAYING IMPROVE THE SITUATION? The fact is, the burden of proof is on Bush and you, because the American people don't believe you.

Posted by: Noah on April 3, 2007 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK

the USA people voted unambiguously for George W. Bush to be Commander-in-Chief during wartime.

To the one calling itself the Disoriented Historian:

You are wrong on many, many levels. First of all, to vote unambiguously is to pervert the language. Don't mix your words like that. It makes you look like you crapped in your hand and wrote a mash note to someone insane.

Second, a good many of these liberals worked overtime to elect John Kerry. The American people rejected the change of administration and they rejected John Kerry. What they did not vote for was a President who put himself above the will of the US Congress. To be completely honest about the current state of affairs is to be consistent with what we true conservatives believe; and that is, there are checks and balances on the powers that be and the Congress has the power of the purse. If the Congress decides to cut and run and abandon our allies, then so be it. It would certainly not be the fault of George Bush if the Congress voted to end the Iraq war. In fact, the only way our good President can escape being rolled and basted with this turd is to let the Congress fall on its sword and take the blame for the loss of the war.

Of course, when morons like yourself post unhinged and ill-informed rants while people like myself are causing the liberals to run around in a tizzy, it makes it harder to bring things to fruition.

I've said it before and I'll say it again--you liberals are a bunch of mardy bums. And unhinged low hanging fruit like the Disoriented Historian make my life more difficult than it needs to be.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 3, 2007 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

I don't see anyone buying that who hasn't already drunk the Kool-Aid.

Posted by: Frank J. on April 3, 2007 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

We are not the band-aid. We are the splinter.

Time to leave Iraq.

Posted by: craigie on April 3, 2007 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

I'd add, and we all need to make a real commitment to our troops and our future. A real commitment means we need, each and everyone of us, to pay for it.

So good-by tax cuts.

Posted by: mark on April 3, 2007 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

Noah
"So, I ask my question again, HOW DOES STAYING IMPROVE THE SITUATION? The fact is, the burden of proof is on Bush and you, because the American people don't believe you."

Noah That's a question I do ask myself. And I do wonder if it's worth the american lives that it's costing. There may come a time to give up. The Shia and the Sunni Have been feuding for centuries and I don't know if we can change things. But I think we have to try. And I think that our congress has to support that effort. If you can't see through the Democrats political antics I'm sorry.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 3, 2007 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

Egbert-how about the three Republican congressman that also met wwith Syria's leader also this week? Should they resign also? Norman, your speech is the perfect distillation of fascism. I'm sure that was your intent. What a bunch of tools.

Posted by: Neal on April 3, 2007 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

Norman

I'd love to see your speech too, delivered by Dick Cheney. As he growled at the screen and said "The slaughter of enemies is at hand." he'd terrify Americans so much that we'd have Democratic administrations through our children's lifetimes. Especially when he threw in "We march on a road made of the bones of our enemies to victory." And I think it would be especially effective if he dressed as Genghis Khan.

Posted by: ChrisO on April 3, 2007 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

President Bush has a chance to sign a bill that contains every dollar he's asked for, along with sensible, flexible benchmarks for standing up Iraqi troops and finally bringing our soldiers home.

In fact, they do not even require that the troops be brought home. There are provisions for some troops to stay to fight al Qaeda, some to stay to protect US assets, and some to stay to train the Iraqi army. Those three tasks could easily require 160,000 soldiers -- indeed, some commentators already maintain that 160,000 is too few.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 3, 2007 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:

Excuse me, but Congress is not "trying" to pass the funding bill. They have passed it. Bush refuses to sign it into law. He is preventing our troops from getting their funding. And he's doing it simply because he does not want to be held accountable. He disregarded the advice of the Iraq Commission. And now, he is trying to disregard the mandate of the American people to their duly elected representatives in Congress.

--Alan.

Posted by: Alan Lewis on April 3, 2007 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

Simply put: President Bush is holding our troops and their families hostage to his political agenda.

Posted by: grape_crush on April 4, 2007 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

Right on, Kevin. Way to hit the sweet spot.

Posted by: Trypticon on April 4, 2007 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINK

What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?

Stuff this repetitive cretinism up your ass, Swan.

Fucking idiot.

Posted by: Bullwinkle on April 4, 2007 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

I feel sure Al Gore could have summed it up a speech quite nicely if the speech he gave today were anything like his acquiescence speech of 2000. Al Gore could easy have throwing Bush's political posturing BS right back in little Bushies face. Al Gore certainly had the talent.

Bush is all full of bluster and bullshit, and his speeches are truly meaningless and contemptible.

How about this:

Bush said: Americans would stand down as Iraqis stand up - whatever happened to that plan? Bush never talks about that plan anymore and why doesn't he?

Bush said: He would set "benchmarks" but how is anyone able to have any serious "benchmarks" without setting timeframes? Bush has NO goals, no objectives, no serious plans which is simply to that Bush has the same failed "stay the course" policy of open-ended war, Iraqi occupation.

The Bush administration, for the first time, in four years, is not brought to accountablity. When the GOP were in control, the deficient grew, the GOP past any bill they wanted in exchange of complete relinquishing of legislative oversight, necessary oversight for any US government administration.

Since that time, there has been too much fraternization with Jack Abramoff types of individuals, corruption and out of control K Street pandering while the this administration started using illegal wiretapping, talk of torture and an utter disregard for the Geneva convention. This administration disregard the victims of hurrican Katrine hurrican and still can't come to any serious accountablity. We have witnessed appointments of loyalist absence meaningfulling qualifications in far too many high officical appointments that require compete individuals.

BUT Not anymore - it's time Bush learn that in a country where the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, only the citizens of this nation decide what kind of government they will have, for this is what founder invisioned.

Harry Reid got that part right - Bush is not the decider, the American people are the deciders and polls clearly show that American have decided that there must be meaningful benchmarks and THERE must be accountablity in this government body.


Seriously,

Congress doesn't have to write an attack speech but one that clearly points out the many wrongs in way a good lawyer would point them out, gulity as charged just look at all the evidence and THEN talk about what directions most Americans are look forward too.


Posted by: Cherryl on April 4, 2007 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

...What they did not vote for was a President who put himself above the will of the US Congress....

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 3, 2007 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

But that is what they exactly did, didn't they. Unbeknownst to them, what we have as a preznut is a liar. N'est-ce pas!

Posted by: notthere on April 4, 2007 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

Truthpolitick:

"But I think we have to try."

Hope is not a plan. I wish only peace, prosperity for the people of Iraq and the entire Middle East. And I wish that all those who dream only of attacking American and killing the innocent to get their much deserved retribution. But wishing and hoping, don't make it so.

I know why you didn't answer the question I asked Truth. The reason is that you don't know. Nobody knows how a temporary lessening of violence (it's still pretty violent, just ask the citizens of Tal Afar) will solve the major political problems that have led to civil war.

I hate to think of the idea of losing. I'm an AMERICAN and for the past 200 years the general rule has been Americans don't lose (especially at wars). But rules are made to be broken. We can fight against those who killed our citizens of 9/11/2001, but not if we destroy our power base.

We must regain that aura of immense power and righteousness to successfully attack the terrorists behind that evil day. We cannot do that while we bleed constantly in Iraq. And we cannot leave in 5 seconds. There's a lot of infrastructure in that country that we are going to take back home.

Posted by: Noah on April 4, 2007 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

Well, you can't top this speechmaking... here's a quick 2 minute trip down memory lane that all americans should take.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcz4_JL5b7c

Posted by: Buford on April 4, 2007 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Norman has it right. We must make as Death upon his pale mount and smite the heathens in their lairs, sparing none to tender liberal sensibilities. Nay ride shall we atop their unchristened carcasses aroad to well-deserved victory to there rejoice and sing in robust voice, "Let freedom reign, America, America, America."

Posted by: The Objective Custodian on April 4, 2007 at 1:23 AM | PERMALINK

Simply put: President Bush is holding our troops and their families hostage to his political agenda.

That's what I've been saying since the presser.

And why is no one screaming bloody fucking murder that he is stepping up deployments of the remaining brigades to get them in the fight before the current funding is expended.

Some of those troops are being hustled back into battle after just under seven months stateside - simply so they can be political pawns on down the road.

Can we get our impeachment on yet?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

Buford -- very good link. Whoever put that together did a nice job.

Posted by: notthere on April 4, 2007 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

There is noone less presidential than G effing Bush.

His lies and misleading innuendo the last 2 days re the supplemental budget and Nancy Pelosi show that.

Those with an actual conscience are a minority. Those who are engaged and can differentiate fact from fiction are a minority. Sure, the majority of the nation is against the war, but in what way?

There are just not enough who sympathise with the military and what they are being put through. Right and left, the ignorance is deafening.

Posted by: notthere on April 4, 2007 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK

Not bad. One tiny nitpick is that I think I would change the last line of the first paragraph to: "they say they desperately need." It's minor, true, but the meaning changes also. In your version, Kevin, it makes the commanders sound look like they are begging, and depending on the tone, can be seen as a cynical look towards said commanders. In this tweaked version, you are placing the importance on the need, not those looking for the need, and is therefore a little more respectful of the military.

Otherwise, I don't think it's that farfetched of a dream. Considering the preemptive legislation coming from Reid and Feingold, I think we'll see a speech similar to this in the not too distant future. It's lookin' like dems on the hill are very close to finding their balls, and i don't think I could be happier if they actually did.

Mr. M

commentsfromleftfield.com

Posted by: Mr. M on April 4, 2007 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

BGRS, my last was aimed at you.

No. Sadly, no one is going to impeach this most murderous of preznuts.

Posted by: notthere on April 4, 2007 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK

I know Bush is grandstanding for political points, but why doesn't he just use a signing statement to ignore the withdrawal date or say he's going to abide by the Iraqi calendar or one where the Congress's withdrawal date is a dozen years in the future?

Posted by: Fred on April 4, 2007 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK

Noah

There is a lot of difference between hopeing and trying. Sometimes we keep trying when hope is gone and succede. Sometimes we hope for something but don't try hard enough and fail. If we keep trying we might succeed. I do agree that at some point you have to makea decision on how long to keep trying. But I don't think we've reached that point. Who Knows what will happen if we leave but I doubt it will be peaceful. It's more a religeous war than a civil war. One sect against another. More like Northern Ireland than Vietnam.
These are the same people that hit us on 9-11. Not every Iraqi or every Muslim but the violent ones Whether they are Shia or Sunni, Al Quaida or Hezbollah, Hamas or Fatah they'll fight among themselves and then turn on us.

By the way why did they attack us on 9-11.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 4, 2007 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

egsmell: "...deliberatley uundercutting our President and our troops fighting the War on Terror, the greatest challenge our Republic has stood up to thus far in our nation's history."


Yes, Hitler and Tojo were such small potatoes compared with the big, bad Arabs. Please, Mr. President, aren't there some more freedoms we can surrender in order to defeat them?

Posted by: Kenji on April 4, 2007 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

why doesn't he just use a signing statement...

Someone who knows more Constitutional Law than I do correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Congress is solely responsible for the appropriation of funds. His signing statement would only work in this regard if he were to write his own damned check from his personal account. (Hey! There's an idea! Maybe he can raise the funds to fight his vanity war through his Pioneers and Rangers!!!)

From Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

I also happen to think that the use of the military tribunals they are trying to pass off as fair trials are unconstitutional based on this passage from Section 8:[The Congress shall have the power] To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

Sounds like TruthPolitik is down to join Michelle Malkin's army of John Does...

Here's something no one ever seems to talk about. Would anyone like to know a great reason for getting out of Iraq? I mean, this is super totally awesome, and I think it bears repeating every once in a while. The employers of our government, those folks who decide who should be there, and then pay their salaries, by this I mean the voters, or in other words US, want the troops out.

For good or ill, that's the bottom line. Ultimately, when Bush pushes forth this war of his at this point, it's called insubordination. When he says he doesn't govern by polls (a flat out lie. The man's career has been based on polls, just the ones that tell him where his base wants him to go), this bothers me because that means he lost sight of his job in the first place. When you say you don't look at polls, that means that you are not listening to the people you are serving.

Posted by: Mr. M on April 4, 2007 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK

BGRS. For the first bill that he has threatened to veto, a signing statement would be all that's necessary, at least from my understanding of the bill considering the fact that the timetable language in it is not binding. He would, if he chose to allow that bill to pass into law, be perfectly free to ignore the will of congress to pull out of Iraq.

This second bill being pushed forth by Senators Reid and Feingold, however, from the sounds of it would be putting for language to pull out of Iraq that WOULD be binding, and something the president would have to adhere to by law.

Posted by: Mr. M on April 4, 2007 at 2:40 AM | PERMALINK

And damn it all I've been on hiatus from political blogging for about ten months now, I forgot how to hyperlink without blogger's assistance!

commentsfromleftfield.com

Posted by: Mr. M on April 4, 2007 at 2:42 AM | PERMALINK

Mr.M - to link, its (less-than)a href=""(greater than)text to make clickable(less than)/a(greater than).

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 2:48 AM | PERMALINK

I forgot - the URL you want to link to goes between the ""

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 2:50 AM | PERMALINK

Huh, thanks.

Comments From Left Field

Posted by: Mr. M on April 4, 2007 at 2:51 AM | PERMALINK

Oops, anyway, the things I was going to link to involved the whole John Doe Manifesto courtesy that sweet gal Michelle Malkin in response to Truthpolitik.

Anyway, thanks for that, I know this ain't the place, so we can stop talking about me being not all that smart anymore.

Comments From Left Field

Posted by: Mr. M on April 4, 2007 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK

No problem. Welcome back to political blogging!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

Funny you should mention that little bit of brownshirting. For April 1st I adopted the shrill delivery of a Malkin or a Coulter and got set upon by her flying monkey squad.

Being attacked by Munchkins is like being pecked at by ducks. It's kinda funny, and there is nothing sharp about it.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 3:07 AM | PERMALINK

And get this - all those who set upon me for channeling the shrill and the hateful and pointing it at the queen - commented anonymously and weren't smart enough to use John Doe.

Haven't they all taken the oath proclaiming "I'm John Doe" in the past few days?

Tools.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 3:11 AM | PERMALINK

I also happen to think that the use of the military tribunals they are trying to pass off as fair trials are unconstitutional based on this passage from Section 8:[The Congress shall have the power] To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

There's also that overlooked bit about how and when you can suspend habeas corpus.

Posted by: notthere on April 4, 2007 at 3:19 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah - that too.

These mendacious fuck-ups have sure committed a lot of mendacious fuck-ups, haven't they?

Have they done one single thing right? Just one?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 3:23 AM | PERMALINK

Have they done one single thing right? Just one?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 3:23 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, to anyone with intelligence, no.

Some how I think that is not a surprise.

Posted by: notthere on April 4, 2007 at 3:42 AM | PERMALINK

The 3rd paragraph should be first.

Posted by: The House Whisperer on April 4, 2007 at 3:57 AM | PERMALINK

I have got to stop coming here before I turn in. I get all pissed off and my heart-rate goes up, adrenaline starts to secrete into my bloodstream, and that is not conducive to sleep.

Gotta try tho - Since I have to be somebody in six short hours. GAK! I will NEVER take on another 8:00 am class! I am too old for that garbage!

Goodnight all!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 3:58 AM | PERMALINK

And I look forward to seeing the attorney general appear under oath at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on April 17th--Democrats have been busy interviewing various individuals this week; Gonzales was trying unsuccessfully to move up the hearing date after his right hand man Kyle Sampson threw him under the bus, although someone counted Sampson had said "I don't remember" 122 times during his hearing. It was said he was a cross between "Radar" from the M*A*S*H television series and a younger Karl Rove. Apt description.

Posted by: consider wisely always on April 4, 2007 at 4:01 AM | PERMALINK

George Brent Mickum, attorney for Guantanamo Bay detainees, presented information Sunday on Guantanamo Bay their situations, and the Supreme Court’s rejection Monday of detainees' appeals challenging their horrendous five year confinement to hell.
Mickum, an impressive man, represents clients subjected to threats on their lives, sleep deprivation, torture from continual light, stress positions, temperature extremes, starvation, and lack of potable water. He said they were given a mere ten sheets of toilet paper a day.
Cspan offers a repeat of the video from Sunday's Washington Journal--worth viewing.

Posted by: consider wisely on April 4, 2007 at 4:24 AM | PERMALINK

TruthPolitik writes:

These are the same people that hit us on 9-11.

No, they're not. The people that hit us are on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Posted by: Andy on April 4, 2007 at 4:42 AM | PERMALINK

TruthPolitik needs to read "Why George Went To War" by Russ Baker, 6/20/05 at
http://www.tompaine.com/print/why_george_went_to_war.php.

Posted by: consider wisely on April 4, 2007 at 4:48 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin's speech, edited for pith:
-----------------------------
President Bush continues to play chicken with our troops. Congress has passed a bill that funds them now and promises to help them get out soon. Today, the president said that "if either the House or Senate version of this bill comes to my desk, I will veto it." Yes, ladies and gentleman, we have
another hostage crisis in the Middle East: 150,000 brave Americans are being held hostage over there by a deranged madman who promises to let them come to harm if we take away his absolute power to run this war as incompetently as he sees fit.
--------------------------
Hillary, do you need another speech writer? I'm free.

Posted by: mc on April 4, 2007 at 5:59 AM | PERMALINK

One thing about the rhetoric on both sides of the veto strikes me as inherently tautological.

Bush accuses the Democrats of "playing politics" while Democrats, and Kevin Drum, accuse the president of the same thing. But the President, the Congress, Senate, whether Republicans or Democrats, are all (News Flash) POLITICIANS. Isn't accusing politicians of playing politics as meaninglessly tautological as accusing musicians of playing music?

I do understand that elected officials are also expected to formulate policy, legislate, debate & oversee etc., but all of those functions are, inevitably underscored by their impact on the politician/ political party's ability to gain popular approval, electability & votes. Playing politics is in fact nothing more than attempting to appeal (with varying degrees of success) to the electorate. Some politicking may involve the loftier tools of stirring rhetoric, inspirational leadership & the "vision thing". Much stoops to mere populism, exploiting fears & prejudices & divisive issues. But all of it is politics. All of it is courting the electorate & chasing the largest possible vote.

Criticising politicians for playing politics (which is their occupation & raison d'etre) is, however, worse than a meaningless tautology. It also muddies the significance of politics intrusion into inappropriate areas such as intelligence gathering/reporting, criminal investigation & prosecution & judicial independence. Political machinations in those areas should be regarded as matter of utmost gravity. By meaninglessly accusing politicians of playing politics in political arenas, we diminish the significance of playing politics in arenas where its' intrusion is criminal.


Posted by: DanJoaquinOz on April 4, 2007 at 7:44 AM | PERMALINK

Great speech... I guess you forgot to mention how much all of that pork will assist in enlarging the national debt. That bill is an embarassment. If Dems want the troops home, bring them home now, not a year from now. And stop playing around pretending you are standing up to the President... please... that's laughable. Come on Harry, Mr. Toughguy, cut off funding now if you think not one more drop of American blood should be spilled over this war...

Posted by: dee on April 4, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

I hate to think of the idea of losing. I'm an AMERICAN and for the past 200 years the general rule has been Americans don't lose (especially at wars).

Huh. That's news to us.

Posted by: North Vietnam on April 4, 2007 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Andy

I was trying to make the point that terrorist are terrorist no matter what group they belong to. The people that attacked us on 9-11 are no different than the people that are killing each other in Iraq right now. Sure we can withdraw right now and let them kill each other for a while. But can we trust the winner? I think we need to stay there and influence the outcome as much as possible.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 4, 2007 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

My disgust at spectacle the Dems are making of themselves as they rush to muscle the Repubs away from the trough is rising faster than sea levels. Same old shit, folks. Just taking care of their corporate sponsors and the wealthy. Same-same. Business as usual.


Hostile Takeover '08: Democrats Gone Wild
Posted by David Sirota
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/50103/#more

"Take a glance around the news-o-sphere today and you'll see the outlines of Hostile Takeover 2008: Democrats Gone Wild. Buried at the very bottom of a New York Times story marveling at Barack Obama's ability to shakedown wealthy Chicago scions for big cash, we find out that one of the Illinois senator's biggest donors is the family that owns one of the largest defense contractors in the world, General Dynamics. What a shock, then, that Obama hasn't discussed our bloated military budget even though polls show the public wants that budget reeled in. What a surprise to see Obama triangulating against potential plans to reduce funding for the Iraq War. But whether you believe the connection between defense industry contributions and politicians' rhetoric (or lack thereof) is real or not, what's perhaps even more shocking is the media's refusal to mention it as a possibility - even with the hard data staring reporters in the face.

Then there is this story in the Politico that adds to a previous story in Businessweek about how Wall Street CEOs are now being allowed to write the entire economic platform of prospective Democratic candidates. Here are a few excerpts:

"In a suite of offices three doors down Massachusetts Avenue from the Brookings Institution headquarters, Hillary Clinton's closest Wall Street allies are drawing up economic policy for the next Democratic administration. The offices belong to the Hamilton Project, a small think tank created by Robert E. Rubin, Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary and key economic adviser, and former Treasury deputy secretary Roger C. Altman, who would be a front-runner for the same job in a new Clinton administration...At the same time, Rubin is a key Wall Street ally of both Clintons, and a dominant player in Democratic Party economic policy. Altman served as a liaison between Sen. Clinton and Wall Street leaders...It's a bid for her attention placed by influential supporters and key fundraisers; along with Rubin and Altman, other key Clinton Wall Street allies, including New York bankers Steven Rattner and Blair Effron, serve on the Hamilton Project's Advisory Council. (The council also includes two Wall Street supporters of Sen. Barack Obama, Mark Gallogly and Eric Mindich.)"

This kind of thing is bleeding over rather publicly into the congressional arena. The Washington Post has a new story about Wal-Mart buying off Democratic lawmakers and staff in the U.S. Senate. Sebastian Mallaby, meanwhile, cheers on House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) for his efforts to represent his Wall Street donors' wishes by publicly humiliating economists asking Congress to respect the 2006 election mandate and make trade policy better represent the needs of working people.

All of this, of course, is happening at the same time Democratic elites in Washington are calling for the party to reject any "ideology" in favor of pure personality politics, a slick ruse designed to make sure no one actually asks who is buying what - a ruse that, big surprise, the Beltway press corps is swallowing whole. "

[snip]

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 4, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

I was trying to make the point that terrorist are terrorist no matter what group they belong to. The people that attacked us on 9-11 are no different than the people that are killing each other in Iraq right now.

So when do we invade Northern Ireland? Because the IRA, being terrorists, are by your logic no different than the people who attacked us on September 11th.

And while we're at it, we may as well also invade Colombia (to get the narco-terrorists) and Sri Lanka (to get the terrorist Tamil Tigers) and Spain (to get the Basque ETA)....

Posted by: Stefan on April 4, 2007 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

The people that attacked us on 9-11 are no different than the people that are killing each other in Iraq right now.

Yes, they are. Look, I know you're an idiot so I'll try to make this very simple: the people who attacked us on September 11th were Saudi Arabian and Egyptian al Qaeda terrorists operating out of Afghanistan motivated by a Salafist religious ideology.

Iraq, which we attacked and which had never attacked us, was a relatively secular state run by an auhoritarian strongman who was actually an enemy of al Qaeda. It had nothing whatsoever to do with al Qaeda or the September 11th attacks.

See the difference?

Posted by: Stefan on April 4, 2007 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

"terrorist are terrorist no matter what group they belong to"

I agree. (short list of recent ones)

'Contras'
'Freedom fighters' (Regan administration Jihadists)
'Militant Anti-Castro Cuban expats' (various)
'MEK' (Iranian terror group supported by US)

Of course, you also have the various 'regimes of terror' installed and/or supported by the US.

Pinochet - Chile
Somoza - Nicaragua
Pahlavi - Shah of Iran
Hussein - Iraq
Diem - Viet Nam
Marcos - Phillipines
Suharto - Indonesia
Various Argentine Juntas
Israel - Sharon (and others)
South Africa - various

Terrorism: def: Actions of violence against civilian populations that are not approved by the United States government.

Posted by: Buford on April 4, 2007 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK
I hate to think of the idea of losing. I'm an AMERICAN and for the past 200 years the general rule has been Americans don't lose (especially at wars).

Huh. That's news to us.
Posted by: North Vietnam

We never declared "war" on you. So you don't count.

Posted by: America on April 4, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

"Today, I flew to Syria to talk with that kakistocrisy

She only needed to take a cab to 1600 Pennsylvania avenue. And its kakistocracy like democracy not kakistocrisy like hypocrisy though I understand your confusion.

Posted by: ckelly on April 4, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Excerpt from the Link in the article:

It has now been 57 days since I requested that Congress pass emergency funds for our troops. Instead of passing clean bills that fund our troops on the front lines, the House and Senate have spent this time debating bills that undercut the troops, by substituting the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground, setting an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, and spending billions of dollars on pork barrel projects completely unrelated to the war.

Show me how any part of that paragraph is false. The bill receiving approval from Democrats includes both (1) a timetable, and (2) tons and tons of pork.

In other words, the Whitehouse is completely correct in their assessment, and once again lefty nutjobs like Kevin and the rest of the rabble on here are being intentionally dishonest.

Lying is part of your nature.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on April 4, 2007 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Do TOH's posts make more sense in CAPS LOCK?

IT IS ONLY BY A CONTORTED READING OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE POWER OF THE PURSE MEANS THE POWER TO ACT AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF

Nope.

Posted by: ckelly on April 4, 2007 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Show me how any part of that paragraph is false.

OK.

The bill receiving approval from Democrats includes both (1) a timetable,

True, which the American people, who want to end this war, support.

and (2) tons and tons of pork.

As has every previous Iraq War funding bill passed by the GOP controlled Congress. Per today's Washington Post:

"But such spending has been part of Iraq funding bills since the war began, sometimes inserted by the president himself, sometimes added by lawmakers with bipartisan aplomb...The president's own request last year for emergency war spending included $20 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery, $2.3 billion for bird flu preparations, and $2 billion to fortify the border with Mexico and pay for his effort to send National Guardsmen to the southern frontier.
The Republican-controlled Senate tried to load the 2006 bill with $4 billion for agricultural subsidies, $1.1 billion for the Gulf Coast fishing industry, $594 million for highway projects unrelated to Hurricane Katrina, and $700 million for rerouting a rail line in Mississippi....The 2005 emergency war-spending bill included $70 million for aid to Ukraine and other former Soviet states; $12.3 million for the Architect of the Capitol, in part to build an off-site delivery facility for the Capitol police; $24 million for the Forest Service to repair flood and landslide damage; and $104 million for watershed protection -- the lion's share meant for repairing the damage to waterways in Washington County, Utah, at the request of the state's Republican senators.

Another part of the speech that was false in that it was deliberately misleading was when Bush said

It has now been 57 days since I requested that Congress pass emergency funds for our troops

However, as ThinkProgresss points out:

During the reign of the Do-Nothing [Republican] 109th Congress, Bush submitted two major supplemental spending requests. Each request experienced a delay far more than 57 days with hardly a peep of anger from the Commander-In-Chief....

February 14, 2005: Bush submits $82 billion supplemental bill. May 11, 2005: Bush signs the supplemental. Total time elapsed: 86 days.

February 16, 2006: Bush submits $72 billion supplemental bill. June 15, 2006: Bush signs the supplemental. Total time elapsed: 119 days

Posted by: Stefan on April 4, 2007 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

The most egregrious part of Bush's speech, however, was this clause when he said "by substituting the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground...."

First, isn't Bush himself a politician? Doesn't he set policy for the war (he's the Decider, after all) and as such doesn't he routinely substitute his own judgment as a politician for that of the commanders on the ground?

Second, we live in a democracy, not a military dictatorship, where the people through their elected representatives rule. Putting the civilian leadership over the military is the essence of our Constitutional system. To suggest otherwise, as Bush just did, is frankly un-American and against everything this country stands for.

Posted by: Stefan on April 4, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Second, we live in a democracy, not a military dictatorship, where the people through their elected representatives rule. Putting the civilian leadership over the military is the essence of our Constitutional system.
Posted by: Stefan

That's debatable. I see no evidence that we do in fact any longer have a system which even resembles a democracy. We've been in the midst of a kind of slo-mo right wing coup for 30 years. Two presidential elections have been brazenly stolen.


'Few would argue, no matter what political stripe they wear, that the current government bears no more resemblance to the citizenry than it does to the socio-economic demographics of the population as a whole. Thus the vast majority of us have government without representation. It is government that does not serve the people, but treats them as its servants.'
Charles Sullivan, 'Government and Citizenship'
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/6547

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 4, 2007 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Biden was about to deliver that speech, but then he missed the train.

Or maybe he's over the limit on his MBNA card and couldn't afford a ghost writer.

Posted by: Slothrop on April 4, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Needs a stronger lead-in. Pound your point. Can't expect journalists covering speeches to listen to the whole thing, can you? Think good sound bites.

Posted by: catherineD on April 4, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Second, we live in a democracy, not a military dictatorship, where the people through their elected representatives rule. Putting the civilian leadership over the military is the essence of our Constitutional system."
Posted by: Stefan

Actually the United States is a REPUBLIC. If you will check the constitution gurantees a REPUBLICAN form of government and of course the pledge of allegience has the phrase "and to the REPUBLIC for for which it stands"

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 4, 2007 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

North Vietnam,

I said that was the general rule. Furthermore, I said that rule is sometimes broken. Look before you leap or else you end up looking like an idiot.

Posted by: Noah on April 4, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

TruthPolitick:

"I was trying to make the point that terrorist are terrorist no matter what group they belong to. The people that attacked us on 9-11 are no different than the people that are killing each other in Iraq right now. Sure we can withdraw right now and let them kill each other for a while. But can we trust the winner? I think we need to stay there and influence the outcome as much as possible."

But the people in Iraq are not the same as the people who attacked us on 9/11. That's the problem. Sure, there are some Al Qaida forces there, but the vast majority are internal Iraqi forces. These forces are fighting for different reasons, they have different goals and different tactics than Al Qaida. Just because they're Arab does not mean they're the same. Why are people, like TruthPolitick, who can't tell the difference between our enemies and non-combatants running this war.

Posted by: Noah on April 4, 2007 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

Well said on every account. I was thinking of responding, but you made my response unnecessary, because you completely demolished his point. And he thought we was so smart finding the one paragraph in the speech where Bush's lies were not obvious.

Truth,

Despite your accurate squabbling with Stefan's post. Whether this nation is a democracy or a republic does not change Stefan's basic point that the military does not set the policies of our government. Or at least according to the constitution they shouldn't.

Posted by: Noah on April 4, 2007 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Me: Second, we live in a democracy, not a military dictatorship, where the people through their elected representatives rule. Putting the civilian leadership over the military is the essence of our Constitutional system.

TruthPolitik: Actually the United States is a REPUBLIC. If you will check the constitution gurantees a REPUBLICAN form of government and of course the pledge of allegience has the phrase "and to the REPUBLIC for for which it stands"

Oh, that's so sad. Really, that's the best you can do? OK, just to humor you, how about this:

Second, we live in a REPUBLIC, not a military dictatorship, where the people through their elected representatives rule. Putting the civilian leadership over the military is the essence of our Constitutional system.

Happy now?

Posted by: Stefan on April 4, 2007 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
"Second, we live in a REPUBLIC, not a military dictatorship, where the people through their elected representatives rule. Putting the civilian leadership over the military is the essence of our Constitutional system.

Happy now?"

Don't know why I should be happy. But you are RIGHT and I agree with you.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 4, 2007 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

Noah this is what I said
"These are the same people that hit us on 9-11. Not every Iraqi or every Muslim but the violent ones Whether they are Shia or Sunni, Al Quaida or Hezbollah, Hamas or Fatah they'll fight among themselves and then turn on us."

I should have said These are the same type of people not the same people. Right now they are fighting for power within Iraq. But my belief is that without our presence any eventual winner would turn on us. Of course that may happen even with our presence.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 4, 2007 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

"The most egregrious part of Bush's speech, however, was this clause when he said "by substituting the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground...."

To add to Stefan's astute observations...Where was Bush's interest in the judgement of our commanders on the ground when they were against the surge to begin with?

Posted by: Barringer on April 4, 2007 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Actually the United States is a REPUBLIC.

Christ, not this silly nostrum again. They're not exclusive terms. Iow, DEMOCRACY is not exclusively DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

Look, you nits live in a REPUBLIC that is still somewhat of a DEMOCRACY.

You CAN be both; you ARE both. Just like France. And Australia currently a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY and a DEMOCRACY may well soon become a REPUBLIC and a DEMOCRACY.

(no mutual exclusivity, just as it's possible to be both AMERICAN and NOT AN OBTUSE DICK - I think)

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 4, 2007 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

I pledge allegence to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republicans for which it stand.

OOps can't have school children saying that.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 4, 2007 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

snicker-snack,

Thanks for handling that. Usually, I'm the one flying off the handle about that...

Posted by: cmdicely on April 4, 2007 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

,Usually, I'm the one flying off the handle about that...

I've given up....

Posted by: Stefan on April 4, 2007 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

I've given up....

I know, I know. But as with cm, that's one that drives me batty. And true as ever, non iligitamus carbonrundum.

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 4, 2007 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

Yikes, how'd that 'n' get in there!

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 4, 2007 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Truth,

But you're wrong the people fighting in Iraq now are not the same type of people who attacked us on 9/11. Some in that country use similiar tactics, but for very different reasons. They are blowing people up and constantly challenging our authority in that nation, because they do not see us as legitimate rulers there. We have no legitimate reason for being there. This is why a majority of the Iraqis consistently tell pollsters that There's no guarrantee that if we leave Iraq those people will turn against us. More likely, the eventual winners (the Shia) will be happy that we put them in power after 100 years of being shut out of power in Iraq.

Posted by: Noah on April 4, 2007 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

Ok Noah I'm glad to learn that these aren't the kind of people that will blow up innocent men women and children. And it will be great to have another Iran in the mideast.

Certainly their reasons for fighting among themselves are different from the ones that caused them to attack us on 911.

It seems like they'll kill for any reason.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 4, 2007 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

TruthPolitik,

you name itself pisses me off cause most surely it ain't so. Just another dumb-fuck know-nothing Yank.

It seems like they'll kill for any reason.

Ah, the dreaded unknowable 'they'. They're fucking humans dickhead, no different than you or I in that respect. Motivations remarkably similar. That has got to be your starting point to any understanding. THEN bring culture into it. And yeah, culture DOES have a big role to play but you don't even know where to start to play with it.

Have you ever lived in another fucking country, travelled around much, even have friends from other places? Do you speak any other languages?

No, eh?

Well, then why the fuck would you think your opinion about anything outside the U, S of A counts for anything?

(or inside the country for that matter; you can't know shit about an object if you can't make intelligent comparisons).

Scatalogically yours,

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 5, 2007 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

Can I second my good friend Snicker-Snack's opinion of you, "TruthPolitik" you mendacious, ethnocentric, jingoistic moron?

I have lived in the middle east a couple of times - in Turkey and in pre-revolutionary Iran. I have a whole slew of relatives in Israel.

You know nothing - hell, you know less than nothing - and morons like you give all Americans a bad name - and make me understand why other countries hate Americans. Hell, I am an American and despise a lot of my fellow countrymen for abdicating the Constitution and everything this country is supposed to stand for - so they can feel "safe" in a world that, well, ain't.

As for me, I would rather die free than live in bondage - especially if that bondage is a cage whose bars are made of my own pathetic fear.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 5, 2007 at 12:31 AM | PERMALINK

thanks, Blue.

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 5, 2007 at 12:41 AM | PERMALINK

Aw, shucks, s-s, t'waren't nuthin' but the truth...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 5, 2007 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

Well Guys It's too bad you have to lower
yourselves to name calling. I had hoped you would respect my opinions. I have lived in and visited other countries, the best man at my wedding was an Iranian.

Sorry you don't understand.

Hasta la vista

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 5, 2007 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

the best man at my wedding was an Iranian.

Did you remember to shave the mustache off that bride, sir?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 5, 2007 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

Like the job you're doing NR. Less face on than PR but in many ways more effective.

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 5, 2007 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Well Guys It's too bad you have to lower
yourselves to name calling. I had hoped you would respect my opinions. I have lived in and visited other countries, the best man at my wedding was an Iranian.

Let's just say, from what you've written that I doubt, doubt, doubt. Unless it was on an almost completely non-interactive basis like being on a base in Okinawa... and that my arguments atwixt the emphatic invective still stand. You invoke the dreaded 'they'. You have so much to learn about humanity.

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 5, 2007 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

"Did you remember to shave the mustache off that bride, sir"

She was too young to grow one

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 5, 2007 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

She was too young to grow one

There's a fellow named Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC who you've had the pleasure of meeting a few times, eh? Can't wait for that episode to come out.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 5, 2007 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly