I didn’t watch, as the Mountaineers were busy shelling the Terrapins. At any rate, why would I? Is there anyone who is under the impression he would say something new or interesting or honest? Take it away, Fred Kaplan:
President Bush’s TV address tonight was the worst speech he’s ever given on the war in Iraq, and that’s saying a lot. Every premise, every proposal, nearly every substantive point was sheer fiction. The only question is whether he was being deceptive or delusional.
The biggest fiction was that because of the “success” of the surge, we can reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15 by next July. Gen. David Petraeus has recommended this step, and President George W. Bush will order it so.
Let’s be clear one more time about this claim: The surge of five extra combat brigades (bringing the total from 15 to 20) started in January. Their 15-month tours of duty will begin to expire next April. The Army and Marines have no combat units ready to replace them. The service chiefs refuse to extend the tours any further. The president refuses to mobilize the reserves any further. And so, the surge will be over by next July. This has been understood from the outset. It is the result of simple arithmetic, not of anyone’s decision, much less some putative success.
No Way! Liberal Media! How dare you attack the decider! The NY Times:
Last night’s speech could have been given any day in the last four years — and was delivered a half-dozen times already. Despite Mr. Bush’s claim that he was offering a way for all Americans to “come together” on Iraq, he offered the same divisive policies — repackaged this time with the Orwellian slogan “return on success.”
Mr. Bush’s claim that things were going so well in Iraq that he could “accept” his generals’ recommendation for a “drawdown” of forces was a carnival barker’s come-on. The Army cannot sustain the 30,000 extra troops Mr. Bush sent to Iraq beyond mid-2008 without serious damage to its fighting ability. From the start, the president said that the increase would be temporary. That’s why he called it a “surge.”
You can’t trust them! They cut sweetheart deals to leftie groups while SILENCING groups on the right! LIES! The Washington Post:
PRESIDENT BUSH’S explanation of his latest plans for Iraq last night was marred by a couple of important omissions. First, the president failed to acknowledge that, according to the standards he himself established in January, the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq has been a failure — because Iraqi political leaders did not reach the political accords that the sacrifice of American lives was supposed to make possible. Instead he focused on the real but reversible military gains achieved in and around Baghdad and on the unexpected decision of Sunni tribes to take up arms against al-Qaeda, a development facilitated but not caused by the surge.
Mr. Bush also failed to mention one of the principal reasons for the drawdown of troops he announced. The president said that the tactical military successes meant that American forces could be reduced in the coming year to pre-surge levels. What he didn’t say is that the Pentagon has no choice other than to carry out the withdrawals, unless Mr. Bush resorts to politically explosive steps such as further extending deployments. Another way of describing Mr. Bush’s plan is that it leaves every available Army and Marine unit in place in Iraq for as long as possible. If the war were going worse than it is, the deployment schedule probably couldn’t have been much different.
Yeah. I didn’t miss anything by skipping the president’s speech- we all knew what he was going to do. He would get up in front of the camera, lie his ass off, spew some ridiculous bullshit about us winning, tell us things were getting better, and then go to bed, leaving the task of covering up his foolishness to a willing group of sycophants. Mission accomplished.
Bush is a confidence man caught up in the information age. Death of a salesmen. Lets call him Willy from now on.
You know, if they are this full of misinformation, this boring, this repetitive and banal, one questions why TV stations even agree to air it.
I don’t know if this is a precedent we want to see set, but would it be such a bad thing if the President gave a speech that no one would broadcast?
John – Did you mean to leave the “P” off the first word – turning it from president to resident? If you didn’t – way to go on the funny unintential put-downs.
Simple math for the resident idiot here:
If the 15 month deployments aren’t to be extended, and the 15 month mark is hit in April for a significant number of them, how can they be deployed until July without extending the deployments? How can there NOT be deployments in April?
July is 3 full months past April. We’re not talking plus/minus a week here. We’re talking about a full 0.25 of a year extra.
Mr. Cole, is there something military-ish about how this math “works”?
The Other Steve
The only response I can think of to another Bush speech.
“Don’t go away mad. Just go away. Please go away.”
The Other Steve
April would be the 12 month mark. July is the 15th.
I thought that was pretty simple math.
Yes, your cited reviews are correct, the speech was an exercise in cognitive dissonance. Within five minutes, it was clear that Bush and the speechwriters had just sat down and made up a set of easily refuted fairy tales about this war and the state of affairs in Iraq. Nobody who has paid the slightest attention in the last year could possibly believe a word the man said.
It was a Twilight Zone experience. It was like watching an episode of 24. I kept waiting for armed men to dash in from off camera and seize the president-imposter and tell us it was all a bad practical joke on us.
The good news is that outside of the Kool Aid Society, nobody believes this guy any more. The damage he is doing to Iraq is nothing compared to the damage he is doing to the Republican Party. And as long as the GOP members on the Hill continue to play his game, we win in the long run.
Bush can retire in a year and half and sing “I did it my way” at $75k a night, perhaps, but he’s doomed his party to marginalization for a long time, and that ultimately is good for America. Keep your eyes on the prize. Ignore the silly little drunk behind the curtain.
Are you spoofing?
Yeah; I didn’t listen to him — why should I, he’s a pathological liar, and a horrible one, at that…
When even a fawning syncophant like Chris Matthews can see through your bullshit, it’s time to quit your day job…
I think what they’re saying there is that the draw-down will start in April and finish by July, out of necessity.
Punchy – its not hard.
The “Surge” didn’t all happen at once.
The earliest showed up in Jan. 07 and they are going to be heading back around April. The latest showed up around April and they are heading back around July.
There is no fuzzy math here.
I watched the whole god-damned thing. The speech was written by Joseph Goebbels.
Afterward, CNBC had Huckabee on, and he agreed with Bush completely, so he’s on board. No one on that program questioned him about his support for the war. By the way, he’s a fucking idiot, likable or not.
Then, this morning, Morning Joe on CNBC had Mitt Romney on (what is Mitt short for?) He also completely agrees with Bush, and no one in the Morning Joe studio said anything, or questioned him in any way. He just came on, confirmed that Bush is right about everything Iraq and war-on-terra-related, and got a bye from everybody in that studio.
Must be that liberal bias I keep reading about.
That the lies are getting sloppier just shows how little the Deciderator gives a fuck. He knows that we know that as long as he’s in office as many troops as possible will be in Iraq. Success to Bush means the U.S. isn’t chased from Iraq while he’s in office. After that, who cares?
Bush’s lies in that speech were incredible. He even lied about the number of countries participating in the occupation wrong – according to the latest State Department release, there’s 25. Bush said 36. With these guys, its lies, not goofs – and they’re lying about very basic verifiable information. Unbelieveable.
See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/13/AR2007091302710.html?hpid=topnews?hpid=topnews
The question is–why are all the Republicans still stampeding after this guy? You’d think that at some point, one of them would have enough horse sense to stand up and say “with all respect, Mr. President, what you have just said is the greatest parcel of self-deluding bull I have heard in my life. The surge is NOT working, the Iraqis are NOT going to pull together without a long and bloody mess, and I see no reason why the US should spend itself into bankruptcy and totally destroy our military because they refuse to get their act together. We need to be efficient, we need to be serious, and we need to stop lying to ourselves and to the American people about the reality of the situation.”
The best part was the no doubt unintentional bathos of his quoting from the letter written by the dead soldier’s parents: “Freedom is not free”. Cornflake box banality + Bullshitting + General Petraeus = Bushspeak.
Any word on when the complete set of General Petraeus action figures will be released?
Willard. You know, like the horror movie about the rat-man.
Yet all the networks this morning just said “Bush to reduce troop levels next summer” and left it at that.
Everyone on MSNBC last night was bitching about how deceitful the speech was, but this morning its all about Bush’s wonderful troop level reduction.
Get ready for a repeat of Ohio 2004 next November.
Orwell, you died too soon. Bush and the 28%er fluffer brigades would have given you material you never could have dreamed up.
They carried Bush’s speech too early. Should have shown it much later as an aid for insomnia. At least then it could have been of value to some Americans.
After the speech I saw a follow up on Larry King by four prez candidates. BTW, Obama was pretty good. But what caught my attention was Mr. Straight Talker. From the transcript…
Yeah, you support the troops. Number of times over those four years while in the majority you pressed for an oversight committee hearing to examine the strategy and press Bush for changes in the big picture you saw as failure: 0. What a worthless piece of shit you’ve become.
Note to Petraeus who doesn’t have a clue about how the mission benefits his country: Clue-up, that bus you hear running in the background? It has your name on it.
The speech, as always, was aimed at those who eat the low-hanging fruit of the jingoberry tree.
From Hindrocket at Powerline:
Umm………err……… Oh, screw it; I got nothin’
I for one was absolutely mesmerized by the resolve and clarity of the Presidents speech last night. You just don’t get it, John. You hate America, apple pie, and puppies so much you can’t let yourself believe in the world George W. Bush is trying to create. It’s always permanent war this, torture that. You see, in the end, it’s irrelevant whether we’re winning of losing in Iraq, or whether our President is batshit insane, the important thing is we’ve got the biggest fucking bombs in the world and a guy in the White House who is itching to drop them on somebody. If you loved America, you’d get with the program John, and tell those pussy liberals you’ve adopted to fuck off.
Like, with artillery?
Or as analogy? But WVU is really a running team, so maybe it should be a tank-centric analogy.
Or do you mean, “shellacking?”
I hear jingoberries taste exactly like dingleberries.
I started to watch the “highlight” video at TPM, and I had to shut it off after this:
I had to stop it right there before I hurt my pretty new monitor.
What the fuck to you mean “we”, white man? Whatever has been happening in Iraq, and what comes next has no reflection on this country or the character of its people. The rest of us left you and your 28%ers and your fucking abomination of a war in the dust quite a while ago.
Your “moment of truth” is nothing but a bullshit soundbite in your vast narrative of lies. you are pretending to bring troops home, when all you are really doing (and not even committing any numbers, btw) is going back to the same unacceptable number of troops we had before this stupid surge. 2008 will end with the same amount of troops that 2006 did.
Last night’s speech was the same as any of the other ones—you continue to try to fool some (28%) of the people each time, cow Congress into supporting you, and punt the ball down the field and expect the next President to deal with your fucking mess.
Nicely done. You are full of shit, but it’s working. That is your only success—your brain-dead supporters will clap, the morons in the media will trumpet your “compromise,” the Republicans will point to this fake success, and the Democrats will roll over for whatever you want.
Fuck you, Mr President.
Pure, old-fashioned ant-Netherlandishism. We hate him for his ancestors and their perverse proclivities for living below sea-level, for their obsession with windmills, for their middle-brow artists like Vermeer (the original ‘painter of light’). American Dutchists — I hate those guys!
Nah, he’ll have 28% no matter what. People are dying in Iraq.
They got the Joementum now. Would you give that up?
Wait, don’t answer that.
A good question upthread from Mr. Grumpy:
Republican leaders may very well be saying that to The Decider, behind closed doors. Hell, that’s what the ISG back last year was all about.
But the question has two answers:
1) Bush is one stubborn son of a bitch, and he’s apparently immune to ordinary forms of persuasion. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the future of the GOP. The leaders of the GOP, at least those dwindling number who are not full-on loonie toonz like Bush, just don’t have any idea how to confront this kind of behavior.
2) Well, not quite true: they know what they’d have to do to stop Bush, and they won’t do it. They remember 1974 all too well: the GOP did “the right thing” by abandoning support for Nixon. And they got crushed at the polls, across the board. The Republican brand was crippled for years after; the moderate wing never recovered.
So for responsible Republican leaders, the choice is stark: do nothing to confront Bush while he drives the party and the country over the cliff. Or, confront him and drive the party over the cliff anyhow.
Does Hindraker know who Admiral Fallon is?
Stickler, I think your analysis is spot-on here.
For me, it’s one of the only ways to explain why Bush doesn’t have a “whole lotta’ bitches jumpin’ ship,” right now.
They figure they’re well and truly fucked one way or the other.
But let’s be clear here, what this means is they are more than willing to put party before country, whatever the human cost.
A million dead Iraqis, no problem. 29,000 American casualties, a small price to pay to secure Mr. Bushes’ legacy of victory.
Mr. Furious has it right:
We can officially kiss TanKKKredo’s Prez chances goodbye.
“ethnic intimidation”?? Shall we surmise the One Time was Hispanic?
Does Hindraker know who Admiral Fallon is?
They only like the military members who agree with them.
Ask them about Rumsfeld and force transformation and they will explain how the Pentagon was full of useless parasites in uniform that were holding this nation back.
I know, I’ve heard it before.
Well, of course:
But seriously — the Republican leadership tried the “disloyal but proper” approach in 1974. To them, the costs were too high. So, yeah, they and we are pretty well fucked in 2007.
On to Teheran!
I have never heard a single speech of Bush, not one ever! I heard the debate between Gore and Bush and that was it! Even after 9/11 when everyone put on their patriotic helmets and stuck a flag in every orfice, my only thought was “this guy is in charge and we are so screwed”!
My reaction to Bush on TV is like Kramer’s to Mary Hart on Seinfield.
What is with this instant, Manchurian Candidate deification of this guy? “General Petraeus is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”
It’s as if the right wing is so thoroughly conditioned that the mere introduction of some new savior is enough to trigger starry eyes and hard ons. Witness Guiliani’s claim that Clinton insulted the General – so what? What exactly is his reputation based on, anyway?
The Other Steve
I think you guys are handling this all wrong. I don’t give an ass rip about Patreus. He’s a soldier, paid to do what he’s paid to do.
As far as I’m concerned… the speech by Bush is a sign that we’re withdrawling from Iraq. Bush has been beaten like a wooden legged stepchild. He’s giving up. We’re bugging out of Iraq, starting with the 5700 by Christmas.
That’s how you deal with these people. You don’t argue facts, you argue perception. Facts mean nothing to them.
But you point out that Bush himself says we need to leave, and well… their arguments fall apart like fluff on the bunnies ass.
Just caught this comment from Josh Marshall (who’s usually a pretty mild-mannered guy:)
“Primitive animals will sometimes keep chattering or twitching their muscles even after their heads have been cut off. And that’s probably the best analogy today to the president’s continuing enunciation of his policies.”
Nobody likes to lose, anything, and particularly wars. America lives on the near mythic accomplishments of WWII and without any rational justification, moves that moment forward. Viet Nam was a failure so someone must be traitorous, we wouldn’t lose such a thing. Some people just cannot move past their disinclination to lose and their paternalist longings to look at the actual situation, their response is emotion based and about as rational as that generally is. So, we’ll watch the GOP go “off a cliff” and troops die, and some Democratic President will get the emotive blame for “losing.” Why these numbnuts are so important to Congress that they can’t just cut off the funding is a mystery to me.
A New Yorker posted an open letter in response to the Preznit’s speech. Pretty good IMHO:
I opposed the move on add when it came out, at least the headline. I prefer to leave childish name calling to people like Rush Limbaugh. I still don’t think it was right, but damned if it hasn’t revealed a lot about the Republicans. Now you have one of the major candidates for the Republican Presidency saying I ought to be thrown out of the country (he later retracted it, so I suppose that’s something), and now another leading candidate Guilliana accused Hillary of character assassination for having the temerity to ask the general tough questions.
Giuliani on Clinton
McCain on MoveOn.org
How dare we, how dare we? How dare we question the integrity of the general’s testimony? We poor heathen who are not worthy to kiss his boots. Our place is to listen and nodd and give long paeans to his honor and integrity and objectivity; anything less is just treason.
If things have come to this point, maybe a little name calling is in order, before we have to start having to write essays praising Dear Leader.
And again, I can’t believe it, but I’m not picking on crazy right wing radio talk show hosts, I’m listening to leading contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination.
Oh my God, she’s “questioning the general’s honesty”!!! How dare she? How dare she?
I wish I was making this up.
And now here’s a video from the NRCC explaining why we’re in Iraq. Evidently we were succesful in toppling Saddam and creating a democracy. But Al-Queda came and attacked and turned it into the central war on terror. And if we leave Iraq they will follow us home!
I wish I was making this up. Are there any adults left in the Republican party?
I would like to say something about military support for the war. I am sure that at some level soldiers have to be invested in the mission to go on risking their lives. However, officers, especially senior officers, are paid to have a more dispassionate view. If I have any knock on Petraeus, it is that he is more invested than he should be in his theories. Not dispassionate enough.
I have personally talked to several general officers, not ones in the paper, who up and volunteered to me that we should have left Iraq years ago.
When I watch “our military leaders”, I see Bush picking his commanders.. because they agree with him. Unsurprising, but the dopey pretense that the shoe is on the other foot is so completely absurd that it offends any sense of decency. Bush has forced out or retired a whole crop of officers, including Shinseki and Abazaid, because they disagreed with him.
Now to my point: We get the military the commander in chief wants us to have. The military leaders that Bush consults are hand picked to provide what he wants to hear; the ones that spoke up were moved or retired. I don’t deplore this, they are simply executing the policy of the commander in chief, doing their duty. It is the Commander in Chief that is the problem.
Anyone who doubts that 4-star (or higher) generals are capable of self-serving dishonesty is cordially invited to remember Eisenhower grinning on a stage with Joe McCarthy while the latter delivered a speech accusing George Marshall of being the conscious head of a gigantic Communist conspiracy. (Granted that Ike passionately hated Marshall personally, because the latter had ordered him to break up his wartime affair with his female jeep driver. Still…)
As for Bush’s speech: the question asked by an amazing number of commentators was whether the man has completely lost his mind. (Especially that business about the 36 nations supposedly sending troops along with us…)
Peggy Noonan finally cut bait in the Wall St. Journal, announcing that the speech “managed to seem both wooden and manipulative, which is a feat.” More suprisingly, she launched a good preemptive strike AGAINST the GOP’s plan to accuse the next Democratic President of “losing Iraq”:
“One sensed too that Iraq will in fact be issue No. 1 to be faced by the next president, whoever he or she is. That individual, in January 2009, will likely be faced by mischief makers of all stripes throughout the capital, with a question that is an artificial construct. ‘Did he see the mission through?’ Or ‘Did he lose Iraq?’ The latter would be most unjust, because we never had Iraq. We haven’t found it, in spite of our best efforts, because the people of Iraq never found it. And it was their nation to find. This seemed clearer than ever this week, which was part of the reason for the sighing.” If the Dems have any sense (admittedly open to question), they’ll keep that phrase in their speechwriters’ files.
I’m beginning to suspect that the Dave and Dubya Show snookered fewer watchers than we were afraid it would. If the Dems have the sense God gave a goose (see above), they’ll keep intense heat on the Congressional Republicans for continuing to enable this oaf.
Yup. This ought to be the frame that all the news stories about Petraus’s testimony use, as it’s completely obvious.
It’s funny, the administration is so discredited, even they know it. They have no choice but to idolized Petraus, because they know the public doesn’t believe a word they say. So Bush has to play the game of, I’m just doing what Petraus wants, because he knows as the President he’s lost all his capital, and he has to use someone else’s. If it wasn’t the case, there’s no way Bush, aka the decider, would play such a game.
I just read your observation again. I’m sorry, you had no observation, you were busy. I see that you always seem to be busy. That, as usual leads you to print somebody elses story. Then, you have the nerve to confirm such. You are a fake, you ever so loving followers, you are fools. For John, you need to do your own work, you can’t stand behind anything, you didn’t write it. The fools, start with a library of your own, search for answers, test your mothers and fathers thoughts but never lose respect, read the news from at least 10 different countries.
John is poison and suggests he has a cure, Tim can’t ever answer a question.
Really doesn’t matter, you just feed off each other. This blogs representation of followers is by far the lowest. Most blogs like “what color should a red rose be”, “how do dogs, do what they do”, “where in the ocean can I find salt water”. The listed blogs would have 5 to 10 times what you currently carry. That in itself would make me wonder.
I’ll bet that this sounded better in the original Polish.
Sheep here. I was actually watching Nick jr.
The Other Steve
JA just przeczytać twój obserwacja znowu. I’m zmartwiony , ty miał nie obserwacja , ty byliśmy zajęty. Rozumiem ów ty zawsze wydawać się zostać zajęty. Ów , jak zwykle blacha ołowiana do krycia dachów ty wobec druk ktoś inaczej magazynowanie. Wtedy , masz ten nerw wobec umocnić taki. Jesteś pewien sfałszować , ty kiedykolwiek tak kochanie stronnicy , jesteś błaznuje. Pod kątem Typowy Anglik , ty potrzebować wobec czynić twój własny praca , ty can’t stoisko z tyłu coś , ty nie zrobił pisać ono. Ten błaznuje , zacząć się od pewien biblioteka od twój własny , zrewidować pod kątem odpowiedzi , test twój matki i ojcowie myśli oprócz nigdy stracić poważanie , przeczytać ten nowiny z przy najmniejszy 10 różny kraje. Typowy Anglik jest trucizna i sugeruje on ma pewien uleczenie Tim can’t kiedykolwiek odpowiedź pewien pytanie. Rzeczywiście nie robi treść , ty just karmić od siebie nawzajem. Ten blogs reprezentacja od stronnicy jest o wiele ten najniższy. Najliczniejszy blogs podobny “what kolor powinien pewien czerwony róża be” “how czynić psy , czynić co oni do” “where w ten ocean puszka metalowa JA znaleźć sól woda. Ten podane blogs byłby mieć 5 wobec 10 czasy co ty rozpowszechniony uchwalać. Ów w sam byłby zrobić mi cud.
The Other Steve
Although I think it’s better in the original Russian.
Я справедливый читать ваш наблюдение снова. I’m огорченный , ты вспомогательный глагол для образования сложных времен нет наблюдение , ты быть деятельный. Я видеть тот ты всегда казаться к быть деятельный. Тот , как обычно лотовой ты к оттиск кто-то еще рассказ. Тогда , ты вспомогательный глагол для образования сложных времен грамматический определенный член нерв к подтверждать такой. Ты быть высшая отметка за классную работу свертывать в бухту , ты очень любовь последователь , ты быть шутовской колпак. Для Сортир , ты надобность к делать ваш ваш работа , ты can’t отставать что-нибудь , ты didn’t писать он. Грамматический определенный член шутовской колпак , начинать с чего-либо высшая отметка за классную работу библиотека яние) от ваш ваш , обыскивать для отвечать , испытание ваш мать и отец мысль только никогда терять уважение , читать грамматический определенный член новость от в наименьший 10 другой имеющий деревенский вид. Сортир быть яд и внушать он вспомогательный глагол для образования сложных времен высшая отметка за классную работу лекарство Tim can’t всегда отвечать высшая отметка за классную работу вопрос. Действительно оленья кожа вещество , ты справедливый питать придает значение удаления,отделения,расстояния друг друга. Этот blogs изображение яние) от последователь быть намного грамматический определенный член низший. Наибольший blogs похожий “what цвет в первом лице единственного и множественного числа обозначает будущее время высшая отметка за классную работу красный роза be” “how делать dogs , делать какой они do” “where в грамматический определенный член океан мочь Я находить соль вода. Грамматический определенный член слушать blogs воля вспомогательный глагол для образования сложных времен 5 к 10 время какой ты ходячий везти. Тот в сам воля делать меня удивление.
Just how much do you drink on any given night?
And now McCain is laying into Clinton, making fun of her for doubting the general. She seems to think she knows better what’s happening on the ground than she does, ha ha ha. Can you imagine? A sitting senator have a different view about events in Iraq than the sainted Petraus? How dare she! And of course Hillary is unfit to lead this nation until she denounces that add!
I’m still not voting for Hillary in the primaries, for me hr vote to authorize war was unforgivable, but her stock is going up for me. She had the guts not to lie down for the dog and pony show, the Republicans are tearing into her, and she’s not backing down.
Well, I watched the whole speech. I just had to see what rationale Bush would offer for doing what he wants: keeping the maximum number of our people over there as long as possible, regardless of realities on the ground.
Fred Kaplin’s observation–“Every premise, every a proposal, nearly every substantive point was sheer fiction. The only question is whether he was being deceptive or delusional”–was absolutely accurate.
Dan Froomkin’s It Came From Planet Bush piece over at the WaPo does a good job demolishing the lies, while not answering the deceptive/delusional conundrum. At this point I think Bush’s motivations are driven by both factors: he’s an outrageous liar living in his own world Cf. Downfall
Last night’s edition of Now on PBS, “Third Time Around” profiles the soldiers of the Third infantry Division and their families as they endure a third one-year + deployment to Iraq. It is obscene beyond words that these people’s lives are being sacrificed solely for Bush’s ego. Not even Petraeus can say if his strategy is making America safe but that doesn’t stop Bush from spewing his “the terrorists will follow us home” bullshit.
As for the Republican Party: Eff them for not acting in the national interest and pulling the props out from under this criminally incompetent Administration. I voted Republican most of my life, especially during the Cold War, but no more.
My thought exactly. JWW has demonstrated, once again, the tragic consequences of posting drunk.
We warn ’em all the time, and yet they keep doing it.
And now Fred Thompson is attacking the moveon add, and criticizing the Democrats for not denouncing it. At least he’s not denouncing Hillary for asking the general hard questions, I’ll give him that.
It’s funny, the Republicans have never had a problem with low blows (of a far lower order) before. The swift boaters got to suggest that Kerry’s war wounds were self inflicted (something far more loathsome than moveon has ever done), and George Bush never felt obligated to denounce them. All Republicans have left is the victim card, but will whining really appeal to the electorate? I thought they were the tough guys.
As far as I can see, the Republican’s have two messages on the occupation:
(1) Things are going great in Iraq. We must fight until we win, the sooner we win the sooner the troops can come home, but if we leave now, Al Qaeda will follow us home.
(2) Those Democrats sure are mean calling the general names and asking him hard questions.
I haven’t heard where Mitt Romney stands on this. Of the three leading candidates, he seems the most palatable, though his suggestion we should double Guantanamo was horrific.
For me the most interesting thing isn’t the Republican reaction the moveon.org add. It’s amusing to see Republicans get into a full lather over a single add that except for the name calling was well reasoned, when one of the major legs of the their last Presidential campaign was a high powered long term sliming of the Democratic candidates service in Vietnam. Frankly, their hysteria just makes them look pathetic; they have nothing else to talk about. They have nothing to say about the war (except it’s going great and we have to stick with it), they’ve got nothing to do but to attack the opposition, so from their point of view thank God Moveon gave them a target.
But what’s interesting to me is both McCain and Giuliani attacked Clinton for having the temerity to express skepticism about the general’s testimony, Giuliani going so far as to equate it with character assassination. Now that I find frightening. It’s beyond the pale to question the truth of the general’s testimony? We’re getting into Dear Leader territory here. I may be wrong, but I don’t think McCain has his heart in it, he looks to me like he’s pandering to the base (a sad state of affairs for a so called ‘maverick’). Giuliani I think is a believer, and he really scares me.
TOS — I think that it works best in the original tribble, actually.
And, in that case, it is *at least* warm and furry.
No need to listen to one of the drunk-driving C student’s new speeches. You can get the same effect much quicker by just fixing a railroad spike to the wall, pulling your pants down, and running back towards it at full speed.