DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: hnumpah on January 11, 2007, 10:20:19 AM
-
Bush rhetoric hard to square with facts
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Winning support among Middle Eastern countries is part of President Bush's revised strategy for Iraq. But he pitched the new plan by leaving out a pertinent fact: Anti-U.S. rhetoric in those nations has grown increasingly hostile since the execution of a man Bush never mentioned — Saddam Hussein.
Bush said in his speech to the nation Wednesday that he's sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region on Friday in a new diplomatic offensive to build support for Iraq. He portrayed average citizens in the Middle East as supportive of U.S. goals.
In fact, opinion leaders in the Middle East used Saddam's execution in recent days to rail against Bush.
In the past, the president mentioned Saddam's "evil mind" in building his case for war.
In contrast to Bush's view about Middle East opinion:
_The religious establishment in Saudi Arabia, which is rooted in the hard-line Wahhabi stream of Sunni Islam, has stepped up its anti-Shiite rhetoric. Last month, about 30 clerics called on Sunnis around the Middle East to support their brethren in Iraq against Shiites and praised the insurgency.
_In Friday prayers in the Qatari capital, influential Sunni cleric Sheik Youssef Qaradawi accused Iraq's Shiite government of "a genocide" against Sunnis and appealed to the Sunni world to intervene.
Bush's view Wednesday night: From "Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian territories, millions of ordinary people" are asking: "Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?"
Bush also declared the need to address Iran and Syria's support for insurgents.
Again, he left out a key fact: The president has refused to engage either country diplomatically, as many U.S. allies and the independent Iraq Study Group urged him to do.
Other contrasts in Bush's speech:
Reconstruction
The president promised stepped-up local reconstruction efforts. He ignored the facts on the ground that were cited in the October report of the special inspector general for Iraq.
The pledge Wednesday included doubling the number of State Department-led teams who help coordinate local reconstruction projects, and more money for quick-response teams to do local reconstruction and rebuilding projects.
The inspector general's report said continued violence and the lack of security seriously impeded reconstruction. Workers have been prevented from traveling to project sites and the lives of contractors at rebuilding sites are in danger.
The report quoted Iraq's minister of electricity as saying: "Every day I send repair teams, but they can't get to the area; there are too many insurgents. ... No one can help."
The U.S. commitment
The president stated the U.S. commitment in somewhat different terms than he had previously.
Bush said in his speech that he made it clear to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders "that America's commitment is not open-ended."
"If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people" he said Wednesday.
In the past he said, "We will stay until the job is done."
Description of the situation
Bush said on Wednesday, "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me."
This was in marked contrast to past statements by the president and his commanders that the U.S. was "on the brink of success," insurgents had been "brought to their knees," and "we have broken the back of the insurgency."
___
Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward contributed to this report.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_fact_check
-
Meanwhile the dem leadership will partake in symbolic votes.
-
Meanwhile the dem leadership will partake in symbolic votes.
And? You say that as if you expect me to care what the dems do.
I am more concerned that Bush doesn't seem to have a grasp on reality.
-
We disagree. I think The reality of securing baghdad and maintaining order as well as an economic and diplomatic effort is as real as it gets.
To be honest i think we need more than 20k troops to do this, but it is a start.
-
(http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070110/trever.gif)
-
We disagree. I think The reality of securing baghdad and maintaining order as well as an economic and diplomatic effort is as real as it gets.
To be honest i think we need more than 20k troops to do this, but it is a start.
Ah, at least that is a response to the article. To be honest, I think whining about the dems is pretty much a non-response.
And you might be surprised that we agree - Baghdad does need to be secured and order restored and maintained, and we need to make economic and diplomatic efforts, if we are determined to repair the damage we have done in Iraq.
I also agree that another 20,000 troops isn't going to be enough. So, is Bush out of touch with reality, or is it just 'a start'? Is he lowballing and bs'ing the American people yet again, hoping he can come back for more down the road?
Is he out of touch with reality, or bs'ing about how much the other countries in the Middle East support us, since we allowed Saddam to become a Sunni martyr?
Is he out of touch with reality, or bs'ing about the need to address Iran and Syria's support for the insurgents when he refuses to open any diplomatic lines to either country?
-
I believe he addressed Iran and Syria's support for the insurgents. Didn't a carrier group move into the region? Think the border will be as pourous?
And i think some of the leaders of other countries in the middle east support us. They migh just be playing to the street. Let's see what they do.
And i think 20k is good enough for now, i'd rather see 30-50k, but then we might not need them if the Iraqi's step up.
-
Why is it ok to send 50,000 more NOW but not when the thing started?
And what he's proposing now won't even take the level back up to what they were last year when we were getting creamed with 160.000 troops.
-
Why is it ok to send 50,000 more NOW but not when the thing started?
And what he's proposing now won't even take the level back up to what they were last year when we were getting creamed with 160.000 troops.
It's always OK to adapt to conditions on the ground. And the 163k will be tasked differently than they were. Simple as that.
-
Bush rhetoric is something the congress should squash like a tomato. Its is clear the president is choosing to ignore the reality, in a last ditch effort to save face. It is a huge gambol and Bush is using U.S. soldiers like poker chips. Bush is all in in a winner take game of Texas Holdem. This is not about winning the war in Iraq, it is about a president who is out of control. It is time for congress to control of the president.
-
It is a huge gambol...
gam·bol [gam-buhl]
–verb (used without object)
1. to skip about, as in dancing or playing; frolic.
–noun
2. a skipping or frisking about; frolic.
—Synonyms 1. spring, caper, frisk, romp.
gam·ble [gam-buhl]
–verb (used without object)
1. to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.
2. to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance: to gamble on a toss of the dice.
–verb (used with object)
3. to lose or squander by betting (usually fol. by away): He gambled all his hard-earned money away in one night.
4. to wager or risk (money or something else of value): to gamble one's freedom.
5. to take a chance on; venture; risk: I'm gambling that our new store will be a success.
–noun
6. any matter or thing involving risk or hazardous uncertainty.
7. a venture in a game of chance for stakes, esp. for high stakes.
—Synonyms 6. venture, hazard, speculation, flyer.
Works either way...
-
Good article.
<<Winning support among Middle Eastern countries is part of President Bush's revised strategy for Iraq.>>
How? Why should they help him colonize their neighbour? What can he offer them? A democracy next door? But his traditional Arab allies hate democracy. Last fucking thing they want to see next door is a real democracy. Let's say he's more truthful in private than he is in public, and offers them a genuine US puppet regime disguised as a democracy next door. Is that what they want next door, a more immediate threat to their sovereignty than the U.S. already poses?
<< But he pitched the new plan by leaving out a pertinent fact: Anti-U.S. rhetoric in those nations has grown increasingly hostile since the execution of a man Bush never mentioned — Saddam Hussein.>>
Kinda makes the average Arab oligarch think a little - - that guy on the end a the rope coulda bin ME! How much power do we really want to give this lying little infidel weasel anyway?
<<Bush said in his speech to the nation Wednesday that he's sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region on Friday in a new diplomatic offensive to build support for Iraq.>>
Now does THAT sound familiar or what?
<< He portrayed average citizens in the Middle East as supportive of U.S. goals.>>
They're INTO humiliation and punishment. Abu Ghraib was a particular thrill for them, but the massacre of Falluja ran a pretty close second. That rape of a 14-year-old and the massacre of her and her family was also a big hit with them.
<<Bush's view Wednesday night: From "Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian territories, millions of ordinary people" are asking: "Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?">>
And at the very moment he is asking that, American troops are breaking down Arab doors and invading Arab homes, brutalizing the occupants and hauling members of the families off to be beaten, tortured and killed in their secret prisons. Which every fucking Arab on the face of the planet knows, even if the American people are too fucking dumb to know about it.
<<Bush also declared the need to address Iran and Syria's support for insurgents.>>
Yeah, why don't they co-operate in the rape of a neighbour instead of helping the neighbour fight off the rapist?
<<The president promised stepped-up local reconstruction efforts. He ignored the facts on the ground that were cited in the October report of the special inspector general for Iraq.>>
It appears a substantial portion of the reconstruction funds are reserved for non-reconstructive purposes, but is this any time to stop the party?
<<Bush said in his speech that he made it clear to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders "that America's commitment is not open-ended." >>
With all due respect, it is open-ended as long as there is no time limit attached. He's really saying it won't stay open-ended. But if after all this time there has been no progress, the failure to set bench-marks means that no amount of failure will induce this guy to set limits. Ergo: it IS open-ended.
<<Bush said on Wednesday, "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me."
<<This was in marked contrast to past statements by the president and his commanders that the U.S. was "on the brink of success," insurgents had been "brought to their knees," and "we have broken the back of the insurgency." >>
Obviously, he was lying before. He did not even try to explain, if he wasn't lying before, WHY he thought the insurgents had been brought to their knees, why he thought the insurgency's back was broken and what finally convinced him otherwise.
-
Again, he left out a key fact: The president has refused to engage either country diplomatically, as many U.S. allies and the independent Iraq Study Group urged him to do.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_fact_check
Syria and Ian are engageing us in dplomacy by ensureig that four or five Americans get hurt every day ith supplys and cash given to the guys doing it.
Shouldn't we rey in the same diplomatic language?
-
Syria and Ian are engageing us in dplomacy by ensureig that four or five Americans get hurt every day ith supplys and cash given to the guys doing it.
You have no proof of this.
This is just your idle speculation.
-
Sorry about the misspelling of (gamble) and thank you for the correction. My point is this. The president's thinking is not rational and congress needs to override his proposals.
-
Sorry about the misspelling of (gamble) and thank you for the correction. My point is this. The president's thinking is not rational and congress needs to override his proposals.
Hey, no problem - it worked. The whole war seems to have been no more than a playful romp for King George.
-
Sorry about the misspelling of (gamble) and thank you for the correction. My point is this. The president's thinking is not rational and congress needs to override his proposals.
They certainly have that option.
And if they don't, will you blame Bush for Congress's inaction?
-
Sorry about the misspelling of (gamble) and thank you for the correction. My point is this. The president's thinking is not rational and congress needs to override his proposals.
They certainly have that option.
And if they don't, will you blame Bush for Congress's inaction?
You keep assuming the congressional Dem majority will be gutless wonders cause your Repub majority was, but the Dems don t have to be that brave cau they have the overwhelming support of US and will kick the Bushidiots ass from here to Sunday.
-
Then the table is set.
Will Congress do its duty as representatives of the vast majority of its citizens or will it shirk its responsibilities?
Guess we will just have to see how the drama unfolds.
-
Then the table is set.
Will Congress do its duty as representatives of the vast majority of its citizens or will it shirk its responsibilities?
Guess we will just have to see how the drama unfolds.
Yup it would be big fun if it werent for all the needless deaths caused by the Bushidiots fuckups.
-
. Didn't a carrier group move into the region? Think the border will be as pourous?
==========================================================
I am wondering how an aircraft carrier can make the Syrian or Iranian borders with Iraq more secure. It strikes me that even a very large ship would not have much effect.
I think that Juniorbush asked the military how many troops they could send and 21,500 was the maximum number. So he picked the highest number that they said was possible.
It turns out that the money that is financing most of the insurgents is coming from the Iraqi government, and most of their money is actually coming from us. WE ARE FINANCING BOTH SIDES OF A CIVIL WAR HERE BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE WHO SPEAK THE LANGUAGE.
There were SIX people who could carry on a conversation in Arabic in the US embassy in Baghdad.
SIX (6) SIX.
We can hire interpreters there, but they all have relatives and a side to choose in the civil war.
This was a moronic exercise in stupidity from the git-go.
-
Yup it would be big fun if it werent for all the needless deaths caused by the Bushidiots fuckups.
And you will blame the cowardly dems for any more needless deaths based on their inaction?
-
Yup it would be big fun if it werent for all the needless deaths caused by the Bushidiots fuckups.
And you will blame the cowardly dems for any more needless deaths based on their inaction?
They are acting pretty good so far. They fried Rice real well in the hearings. Things like this are the only weapons they have in a democracy. There is also a lot more talk of defunding the war going on as well.
-
Sorry about the misspelling of (gamble) and thank you for the correction. My point is this. The president's thinking is not rational and congress needs to override his proposals.
They certainly have that option.
And if they don't, will you blame Bush for Congress's inaction?
No I will place the blame on the new congress. The now have what they need to govern, no excuses, if they fail to use that authority, they will get the blame.
-
Sorry about the misspelling of (gamble) and thank you for the correction. My point is this. The president's thinking is not rational and congress needs to override his proposals.
They certainly have that option.
And if they don't, will you blame Bush for Congress's inaction?
No I will place the blame on the new congress. The now have what they need to govern, no excuses, if they fail to use that authority, they will get the blame.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo***************oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I am beginning to wonder just how much blame can be heaped upon the sitting Democrats.
You watched Pelosi lilke a bouncing ball with candidate Murtha, only to be shot down lickety split by a faction that was not mentioned in the press.
You watched prominent Democrats rush to rescue Joe Lieberman, whom most Democrats in the collective view as a traitor, and strangely, when questioned by the media, had a single reply: "Buddy." You know, the word of the day . . . ie, "augmentation." (Good reporters, these days, are probably drunk and calling their journalists brothers to compare texts and circling the operating word of the day, which they are, when the dinner bell rings, obliged to repeat from up top. Imagine how it feels to know the tactic and recognize the motive, and then made have to include it, without exposing it? They are outside the arena, nursing their wounded journalistic principles, and they hate their bosses, who are promoting those who are empty, fawning and compliant.)
How many constituents realize just where their elected Democrats stand?
You know that most of the country wants the war ended, and elected the Democrats in to do that.
Will they?
I see no professional pundit sitting on the end of THAT branch, saying so with any certainty whatsoever. And remember, this all conflicts with the whole of Democrative voters, who would sound a much clearer warcry.
Everybody talks about the legal crowbars, but in the end the reality will be one of willingness, not tactic.
Watching Republicans breaking free from the grip of the Neocons seems in my mind to make them more trustworthy than do some of these Democrats who seem to have a small coterie agenda which is kept scrambled in the mind of the great constituent collective. On every issue, they throw smokebombs, like ninjas. Could that mean that they benefit from the clouds?
I used to think the Democrats were not organized, by comparing them to the Republicans, who had Rove to weave them into a single, captive cloth. But now it seems worse than that. Now it seems that the Democrats are disconnected, like they have broken out into little gangs, little gangs for hire.
I would wager that the truth is that neither party truly represents its constituency like they used to. They work like the football arenas in the big cities. All but little goes out of state, to out of state investors. Most cities realize very little of the capital taken in. They are the opposite of a local enterprise. The host city usually just has crews to mop up the mess of the trained indulgence. But now, it seems specifically that the elected Democrats seem to represent, at least honestly, no constituency at all, above themselves.
Most Democrats nationwide, watching Murtha slay the dragon, would have had Murtha in. (He was the one sunofabitch who delivered what most Americans think elected Democrats lack--courage.) But, those constituents in the states continue to remain doubtful of their collective clout, because the media crafts and prunes, keeping them separate, and in the dark. The great virtue of NPR is that it connects the dots that the media intentionally refuses to.
Like all oppressives who have control of the state, they hate most he who would unite the tribes.
-
I'm willing to give the people I elected about a week more.
Why are they so meek and mild?
Murtha needs to have a serious heart-to-heart with the newbies. All of the congress, for that matter. Tell them: You are here, safe, well-fed. You are in a position of power. Only YOU can stop this or go down trying.
And then if they don't do it, cut them off, no more votes or money, no more anything. Ptui. They have to do more than show up.
-
Murtha will be facing his own problems if draining the swamp talk was real. Perhaps a better role model would be in order.
-
I'm willing to give the people I elected about a week more.
Why are they so meek and mild?
Murtha needs to have a serious heart-to-heart with the newbies. All of the congress, for that matter. Tell them: You are here, safe, well-fed. You are in a position of power. Only YOU can stop this or go down trying.
And then if they don't do it, cut them off, no more votes or money, no more anything. Ptui. They have to do more than show up.
A week to what?
What were they promising?
What was the alternative idea?