Bush rhetoric hard to square with facts

[hnumpah]

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

[BT]

Meanwhile the dem leadership will partake in symbolic votes.

[hnumpah]

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.

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

[hnumpah]

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?

[BT]

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.





 

[Brassmask]

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.

[BT]

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.

[larry]

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.

[hnumpah]

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...

[Michael Tee]

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.

[Plane]

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?

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[larry]

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.