posted on November 7, 2003 05:44:28 AM new
With a 54% disapproval rating and Iraq in a quagmire with no plan of exit and the US deficit over 500 billion, this is simply a crazy and frightening proposition!
President Bush said yesterday that the United States must commit itself to a decades-long transformation of the Middle East and termed the U.S. occupation of Iraq a turning point in the future of worldwide democracy.
In a soaring and passionate speech that consciously echoed Ronald Reagan's call a generation ago for a "crusade for freedom" against the Soviet Union, Bush spoke of the spread of democracy as a moral mission and the war in Iraq as part of an American obligation to extend freedom as it did in World War II and the Cold War.
"Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Tehran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation," the president said. "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."
Bush's speech was the latest effort by the administration to stop the slipping support for the U.S. occupation of Iraq at home and abroad. Though he had previously mentioned the spread of Mideast democracy as a justification for the invasion of Iraq, Bush elevated that rationale to primacy yesterday, making no mention of weapons of mass destruction and only passing reference to national security and terrorism.
A senior administration official familiar with the speech's preparation said the purpose was to "elevate the president's foreign policy to a moral cause, and remind people why they're fighting." The official said such a discussion "takes the whole thing out of troop levels and border patrols," subjects that have been vexing for the administration during the deadly Iraqi insurgency that has claimed the lives of 140 U.S. troops since Bush declared major combat over on May 1.
Even as Bush asked for endurance in the Middle East for "decades to come," the Pentagon announced details of a troop-rotation plan that will reduce the U.S. force in Iraq to 105,000 in May from the current 132,000. And even as Bush spoke about a hunger in the Mideast for the American message of freedom, the State Department issued an advisory warning of "the continuing threat of anti-American violence" in the region.
Though Bush spoke of a "willingness to sacrifice," a CNN-USA Today-Gallup Poll released yesterday showed that 54 percent of respondents disapproved of Bush's Iraq policies, up from 41 percent in August.
posted on November 7, 2003 05:58:27 AM new
Bush is like a man in a quicksand pool. He's sinking fast. But not Fast enough. Lets hope we can endure him another year.
posted on November 7, 2003 06:52:52 AM new
Bravo Peacniks, you are getting your wish... lots of brave soldiers deaths and a gerilla warfare taking place...
Helen, you do your little happy dance everytime your hear "Blackhawk down"?
If we would of went in there like the tiger we are capable of and shown those people we mean business... not "oooh the poor Iraqi people..." They only respect toughness and power, people like Helen caused the US to go soft and this is what we have come to.
So yes look in the mirror Helen and smile... you accomplished your mission and now more soldier will probably die.
But let's see how the money will do...
After all things are on the upswing here at home...
posted on November 7, 2003 07:01:51 AM new
From the San Jose Mercury News.....
Posted on Thu, Nov. 06, 2003
Democrats boxed in politically by Iraq situation By STEVEN THOMMA
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - (KRT) -
Despite persistent complaints about President Bush's policy in Iraq, few leading Democrats want to bring the GIs home anytime soon.
The closest the party's presidential hopefuls have to a consensus approach would leave American troops in Iraq indefinitely and hope for more international help - not strikingly different from Bush's policy.
The result is that the Democrats are in a box, eager to rip Bush for sending troops to Iraq without the support of many allies, but unwilling to advocate a withdrawal that they think would leave Iraq in turmoil, U.S. standing damaged abroad and their own political fortunes shaky if they were cast as weak.
"Early exit means retreat or defeat. There can be neither," retired Gen. Wesley Clark said Thursday, the latest Democrat to outline his plan for Iraq. "Failure in Iraq will not only be a tragedy for Iraq. It will be a disaster for America and the world. It would give the terrorists of al-Qaida a new base of operations … weaken our moral authority, destroy respect for our power in the Middle East and throw this region … into greater turmoil."
Several other Democratic presidential candidates take similar stands.
"Our honor is at stake," former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun said at a debate this week.
"We can't just cut and run," added former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.
One candidate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, wants to send more American troops.
------
Oh yeah....let's put a democrat in office who will continue to keep our troops over there.
The speech came after some division within the administration about how best to cast the hostilities in Iraq. A Republican source said some of the more politically minded of Bush's advisers argued "that the whole issue must be framed only in terms of American security."
The speech, while presenting no new policy, contained tough words for Iran, Syria and the Palestinian Authority, while labeling Cuba, Burma, North Korea and Zimbabwe "outposts of oppression in our world" governed by "relics of a passing era." Bush had gentler admonitions for Egypt, Saudi Arabia and particularly China, whose citizens, he said, will "insist on controlling their own lives."
posted on November 7, 2003 08:10:02 AM new
There were people, just like you helen, who said the same things when the US was in Germany.....very much like we are now in Iraq.
History shows it was a good thing people like you weren't listen to then, and I hope they won't be now either.
What are we Americans supposed to be doing here? Are we going to take over this place and stay here forever?´ "
Sound familiar? lol
So opened journalist Demaree Bess's article -- "How We Botched the German Occupation"--in the Saturday Evening Post of Jan. 26, 1946.
That was eight months after V-E Day, and Bess was sure that the Allies' military victory over Hitler was being squandered in the postwar.
"[i]We have got into this German job without understanding what we were tackling or why," he wrote.
Again, sound familiar?
"Not one American political leader fully realized at the outset how formidable our German commitments would prove to be. There was no idea, at the beginning, that Americans would become involved in a project to take Germany completely apart and put it together again in wholly new patterns."
Today, of course, few would argue that the United States "botched" the occupation of West Germany. Looking back from the early 21st century, it is clear that the transformation of the shattered Nazi Reich into a bulwark of democracy was one of the signal achievements of 20th-century statecraft. But on the ground in 1946, that happy outcome was nowhere in view.
What was in view was an occupation beset by troubles -- chaotic, dangerous, and frequently vicious. Just like the one in Iraq today.
posted on November 7, 2003 08:22:01 AM new
Stay on topic, dipshit.
Though Bush spoke of a "willingness to sacrifice," a CNN-USA Today-Gallup Poll released yesterday showed that 54 percent of respondents disapproved of Bush's Iraq policies, up from 41 percent in August.
posted on November 7, 2003 08:45:17 AM new
Calling names now? Typical when frustration sets in. lol
I am on topic. You said 'no plan of exit'. That was said then too.
Polls were super important to clinton, but not so to Bush, as most anyone can tell.
So while you continue to bash everything Bush is doing in regards to Iraq, I'll continue to show that your ideas are much further left than what the dem candidates are saying they will do, if elected.
Must really piss you off that they're not willing to just yank out troops out of there, and **admit defeat**, as you say you'd like them to do.
posted on November 7, 2003 09:00:02 AM new
Four out of seven comments on this thread are from you, linda. Looks like you are on the defensive? You're comparing Germany with Iraq???
Gee, You haven't mentioned Clinton and Hillary yet. Is that next?
Or maybe you will call me a socialist or suggest that I am a communist or that I don't support the troops or that I am an unpatriotic American or that I'm anti-American or that I love Saddam. LOL!
Stuff it, lindak and blather away. Maybe your neocon buddies will still listen to you.
posted on November 7, 2003 09:34:52 AM new
ROFLMHO -
Stuff it? lol Boy, you are pissed.
Four out of seven comments on this thread are from you, linda.
Now, besides telling everyone when they're off topic, looks like she wants to limit the number of responses, that is...IF they aren't agreeing with her.
Looks like you are on the defensive?
No, just pointing out that EVEN the democrats running for Bush's jobs don't agree with your 'ADMIT DEFEAT' and run position.
You're comparing Germany with Iraq??? The writer of my article, and many others just like it, take the position that in order to have some peace in the middle east, we, the US, just might have to stay for a while. And I agree.
Gee, You haven't mentioned Clinton and Hillary yet. Is that next? No, clinton was mentioned in the above stats I posted. See the wars he got us into where we still have troops there? Between this and you're missing the questions I posted at least 5 or 6 times yesterday.....you sure seem to be missing things lately.
And to mention him further, I'll say even he wouldn't support your stance of 'ADMIT DEFEAT' and pull those troops out. LOL Is that better?
Or maybe you will call me a socialist or suggest that I am a communist or that I don't support the troops or that I am an unpatriotic American or that I'm anti-American or that I love Saddam. LOL!
I could, but I've already done that.
Stuff it, lindak and blather away. Maybe your neocon buddies will still listen to you.
Helen
posted on November 7, 2003 11:26:46 AM new
The interesting thing is that someone who decries the actions of Germany in regard to this war would site them as a fine example of democracy in action. I agree with the point however the German people oppose the war and their leaders listen (a sign of democracy) unlike the leaders of this country who dictate policy without regard to the will of the people.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on November 7, 2003 11:47:06 AM new
Now, wait, Germany listens to its people, sign of Democracy. You say that the leader of the U.S. dicates what is going to be done, even though the 'will of the people' were against it? Were the majority of the people your talking about the anti war demonstrators?
Should we have taken a national vote on it?
The House and Senate agreed with the Administration then, are they not representing the people? (and that was both Dem and Rep alike)
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on November 7, 2003 01:59:31 PM new
Read the text of the speech, then go look at the Project for a New American Century's website. We are gradually moving away from the war on terror, and moving towards their goals.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
posted on November 7, 2003 02:49:52 PM new
Sure, all the time. Onthose tasks that are mine to do. I've never seen the need to jump into another person's office, kick them out, and run the place because I didn't like the way they were doing their job, though. Now, if the people working in that other office take it upon themselves to throw out the person in question, that's fine by me... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on November 7, 2003 05:06:04 PM newTime, is something that people don't want to give, nothing worth doing is going to only take a day or a month.
Very true, twelvepole.
They'd be willing to give it if clinton had asked....but because it's Bush...well...you know.
posted on November 7, 2003 05:13:20 PM new
One thing I think dave is overlooking is that Schroader was elected because he opposed the war. He wasn't already in office and then made his decision to support what his people wanted.
One can look at how upset they are with him right now. He wants to cut taxes saying it will improve their economy [10% unemployment] and they're have a fit with him for wanting to do so.
posted on November 7, 2003 06:27:33 PM newThey'd be willing to give it if clinton had asked....but because it's Bush...well...you know
That's where you're wrong. It wouldn't matter who was president--the plain fat is that we we shouldn't be in Iraq & were lied to in order to get us there.
And, really, I shouldn't be surprised that once more for no earthly reason Clinton was brought into something that has nothing to do with him. What I can't figure out is why Republicans & the rightwing are so bothered about Clinton's lies, but are able to totally ignore Bush's. Clinton's lies hurt no one but himself; Bush's lies have killed thousands. Guess it's all part of our Puritan background & sexual hang-ups... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on November 7, 2003 06:42:03 PM new
LOL Some on the left seem to be soooo touchy about the clinton's being brought into the discussion about Iraq. There is good reason for doing so.
Hillary supported this war.
Bill said many times Saddam needed to be removed from power.
Guess those facts bother some on the left when they are brought up to show agreement areas.
Nothing to do with sex, or puritans. But that was funny.
posted on November 7, 2003 07:16:34 PM new
First, what are you LOL at?
Nobody here is touchy about discussing Clinton and Hillary. We just find it strange that you bring them into every conversation It's simply irrelevant what Bill Clinton thinks now because he is not the president. It's not funny, as you say but it makes a discussion with you tedious and difficult. When I suggest that George Bush should be responsible for his lies and deception you invariably bring up information about what Bill Clinton thought in 1998 and what Bill Clinton thinks now and how Bill Clinton would handle the situation in Iraq. Wake up, linda. George Bush is the president and he is doing a miserable job.
posted on November 7, 2003 07:27:30 PM new
Yes, helen and I will continue to bring up THE FACT that clinton recently said that on the day he left office, he did NOT know if the weapons HE tried to destroy in Iraq, had been totally taken out, some taken out, or NONE taken out. He didn't know.
But somehow you lefties seem so VERY very sure YOU know, even though he didnt'.
This week he was on TV, NOT calling for the immediate withdrawl of our troops, and you would like to see, but to get NATO involved. But then....he doesn't get to make those decisions anymore.
posted on November 7, 2003 07:31:13 PM new
FYI Clinton did not get the US into Somalia it was Bush #1 that did that. About two weeks [might have been a little longer]before he was to leave office.Just a little something for the incoming President to deal with.
I do not believe that we can just pull out of Iraq. Now we are there we have to finish the job and that includes catching Sadam...remember him..don't hear much about that evil doer anymore.. It does not mean that we have to muck about in the Middle East for decades. We should be handing over as much as we can to Iraq civilians and bring in our own civilians to try to get Iraq up and running.
I still believe that we should not have gone there in the first place..not without the backing of the international community.You know, the way the democrats would have done it.
posted on November 7, 2003 07:37:23 PM new
Well...welcome back you leftie you.
Have any other excuses for clinton getting us involved in Kosovo, BOSNIA or Haiti?
And just FYI Germany, France and Russia DIDN't support clintons dec. 1998 bombing of Iraq either. The day after Russia had a fit at what he'd done. So...none of that 'how the dems would have done it ___t'
Between this and you're missing the questions I posted at least 5 or 6 times yesterday.....you sure seem to be missing things lately. 