Bush's Speech Last Night and Reactions To Same
Nick Gillespie | September 14, 2007, 9:16am
Move over Britney Spears--an even more recent soporific TV appearance has wiped the memory of your bomb performance at the VMA.
We're talking about President Bush from last night, where he failed to manage even Max Headroom level hurrahs from his tiny audience:
In a televised speech last night, President Bush said his "surge" strategy has produced positive results, which will allow the US to cut the number of troops in Iraq. The Washington Post say on the front page that Bush coined a new slogan to describe his latest strategy, 'Return on Success,' meaning that further progress will enable further withdrawals." However, Bush's remarks, in which he endorsed the recommendations of Gen. David Petraeus, are receiving generally skeptical coverage. The Washington Post says Bush "made a case for progress in Iraq by citing facts and statistics that at times contradicted recent government reports or his own words." On MSNBC, Chris Matthews said, "The idea we're one of 36 countries fighting the war I think is ludicrous and why the President would throw that out there, I think it only opens him up to ridicule."
More pans here.
The presidential candidates weigh in here. Snippets:
FORMER REPUBLICAN MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY:
"President Bush understands that our most crucial objective in Iraq is to make sure it does not become a safe haven for al-Qaeda and Jihadist terrorists. But that's just what would happen if Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have their way. Our troop presence has emboldened Sunni leaders to resist al-Qaeda. This is progress -- important progress."
DEMOCRATIC SEN. HILLARY CLINTON OF NEW YORK:
"What the president told the American people tonight is that one year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago. That is simply too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress and the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our brave troops home."
FORMER REPUBLICAN SEN. FRED THOMPSON OF TENNESSEE:
"Every day, our troops in Iraq demonstrate a heroic resolve to win. I wish Democrats in Washington would dedicate as much time and energy to winning as they do on how to surrender the fight."
DEMOCRATIC SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD OF CONNECTICUT:
"Not only is the president not offering us anything new; he's insulting our intelligence."
And let's be clear: When you're insulting Chris Dodd's intelligence, you've already given in to the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Bush's talk here.
rob | September 16, 2007, 11:58am | #
joe,
Let's have that laundry list of your "proven right" positions that you can't get anything remotely resembling consensus on thes threads or anywhere outside your partisan echo chamber.
You might be the most prolific poster in the history of Hit and Run (since you've avoide the fate of "Gary Gunnels.") There appears to be some pretty deep-seated need this place fulfills for you, and watching your commenting style leads me to believe that it is a pretty twisted set of needs...
Here's my "armchair shrink" analysis of your online persona:
You're addicted to conflict and you're addicted to profanely insulting other posters - an odd form of political sadism.
You're also so desperate for your fix that you're happiest alienating people who agree with you on other topics when they honestly disagree with you in other areas. Perversely, you're also obviously addicted to being proven wrong repeatedly and humiliatingly - like a guy with a gambling problem who is truly only satiated when he loses eveything.
You're an odd creature, motivated by your desire for attention in the form of an odd version of political and intellectual masochism.
You generate that attention by making ridiculously grandiose claims that you then attempt to support through ignorance rather than fact, and through rhetorical fallacies and cheap tricks, rather than honest discussion.
Because you enjoy causing others discomfort you attack them with these dishonest tactics, but you doing so creates opportunities for others to do the same to you. Probably because you crave the humiliation you get on these forums as much as (if not more) than you enjoy attempting to inflict it.
In other words, yeah, you and Dondero are basically the same guy. You're both cut from the same cloth and you both show up here on these forums for the same reason.
The only difference is that you need your fix nearly all day, every day, which is reflected by your posts on most of the threads while
Dondero just wanders in here for his whipping every once in a while - which probably means he has some other location to satiate his addiction.
joe | September 16, 2007, 12:26pm | #
Ah, I knew you couldn't stay away.
But ok, here the predictions I've made that came true.
The WMD threat was overhyped, and based on phony evidence.
There was no Saddam-al Qaeda connection.
We would not be greeted as liberators.
There would be sectarian violence.
We would not be able to install democracy by force.
There really is an insurgency, and it's growing.
Our invasion will make al Qaeda stronger, and allow them to ally themselves with Sunni Iraqis.
Our invasion would distract us from the war against al Qaeda.
The elections would be a setback, not an advance, for Iraqi political reconcilliation.
A civil war is breaking out.
The Iraqi government will be a tool of Shiite ambitions, and closely allied with Iran, leading it to wage the Shiite side of the civil war.
The surge will not bring about political reconcilliation.
Leaving (withdrawing, cutting and running, whatever you want to call it), as we did in Anbar, will not lead to al Qaeda taking over, but to Sunni Iraqis turning on their erstwhile jihadist allies.
As for your feelings about me, I'd want to change the subject to personal attacks, too, if I was trying to argue your political positions.
rob | September 17, 2007, 1:47pm | #
joe - To go with that laundry list, let's see the links, and some sign that there's a consensus on your positions here at HNR.
The fact that you can - off the top of your head - come up with a list that long pretty well confirms my "armchair shrink" bit.
Here’s the point by point reality check…
"The WMD threat was overhyped, and based on phony evidence."
- Feel free to insert a link to pre-invasion claims you made here. It’s amazing how many political figures you think of as the good guys “fell for” this because they had access to far more info than you did and yet you got it right with virtually nothing but TV and internet access. A guy spinning a roulette wheel has a chance of winning once in a while, right?
"There was no Saddam-al Qaeda connection."
- Feel free to insert a link to pre-invasion claims you made here. Or show your cards that Hussein didn’t support terrorism around the world – particularly against Israel – which inevitably also killed U.S. citizens.
"We would not be greeted as liberators."
- Patently false, depending on which part of population you're referring to.
"There would be sectarian violence."
- Feel free to insert a link to pre-invasion claims you made here. Of course when the strongman is taken out you get post-Tito Yugoslavia…
"We would not be able to install democracy by force."
- Feel free to insert a link to pre-invasion claims you made here. But oddly, you seem to think that trying to install democracy by force in the former Yugoslavi and in Afghanistan is "just peachy."
"There really is an insurgency, and it's growing."
- I think you actually did predict this... As part of your over-wrought "worst-case scenario” along the “it's a quagmire” that will kill almost every U.S. soldier who deploys to Iraq routine.
"Our invasion will make al Qaeda stronger, and allow them to ally themselves with Sunni Iraqis."
- That doesn't seem to be working out quite the way you claim.
"Our invasion would distract us from the war against al Qaeda."
- Feel free to insert a link to pre-invasion claims you made here. While you're at it, you could try to explain how "al Qaeda in Iraq" isn't part of fighting al Qaeda. Maybe you can repeat your claim that Saddam Hussein wasn’t directly involved in terrorism. (http://www.husseinandterror.com/ - it’s got lots of pictures, to make it easier for you to follow.)
"The elections would be a setback, not an advance, for Iraqi political reconcilliation."
- This certainly hasn't proven to be the case. You get credit for making the claim, just not for being right.
"A civil war is breaking out."
- Still hasn't happened, but there has been plenty of killing between various factions there. Like... hmmm... the former Yugoslavia, an engagement you think was an example of doing the right thing. What’s keeping the cork on civil war, joe? Perhaps a strong military force deployed to the region? Does that sound like any of the engagements you’re more hawkish on?
"The Iraqi government will be a tool of Shiite ambitions, and closely allied with Iran, leading it to wage the Shiite side of the civil war."
- Feel free to insert a link to pre-invasion claims you made here, or even in the wake of the invasion. (Rather than parroting partisan talking points already laid out for you.) Nevertheless, the idea that the Shiites would align closer to the Iraqis than their former Sunni oppressors isn't exactly a startling prophecy requiring brilliant analysis. (I don't think the Shiites are exactly on the same team you claim they are, though. It looks like an old standard to me – an internal group looking for support from an exterior power, who sees things more like they do than other internal groups. I also think you fail to account for the potential for nationalist friction between Iraq's & Iran's Shiites.)
"The surge will not bring about political reconcilliation."
- Military operations don't bring diplomatic solutions. War isn’t usually intended as a means of reconciliation (to double-tap the obvious). The best that military ops can achieve is to set favorable conditions for political solutions - unless you're looking for a WW2-style unconditional surrender and total military occupation that lasts decades. This isn't an example of you being an accurate "oracle," but a guy beating a straw man that even the proponents of the surge didn’t claim as a likely outcome.
"Leaving (withdrawing, cutting and running, whatever you want to call it), as we did in Anbar, will not lead to al Qaeda taking over, but to Sunni Iraqis turning on their erstwhile jihadist allies."
- Feel free to insert a link to prescient claims on this topic. Oddly enough, though, military control of an area with sufficient forces and combat power to hold and control an area is usually a prerequisite for post-conflict order sufficient to establish something other than the law of the jungle where people can begin to live somewhat normal lives. Most of your claims are either wrong, the result of 20/20 hindsight, or claims that have not been borne out one way or another because the events haven’t run their course.
“As for your feelings about me, I'd want to change the subject to personal attacks, too, if I was trying to argue your political positions.” – joe
No, you’d engage in the “politics of personal destruction” you enjoy so much - the insults and underhanded tactics you’re recognized for by all but the most gullible commenters and fellow partisans on these boards. (Shoreter version: Read my posts more carefully, because the previous sentence is a summary of my previous post.)
“How about some more?”
- Sure, why not. Since the previous examples didn’t work out so well for you.
“The troop levels will not be enough to pacify the country after the invasion.”
- Actually, as I recall, you just jumped on that bandwagon after the "there's not enough troops to successfully invade the country, it'll be a quagmire with 10's of 1,000's dead" bandwagon proved to be as untrue as the same claims made about Afghanistan failed to pan out.
"We will be there for years, not months or weeks."
- . Not exactly prescient, nor even counter-conventional wisdom there... You and Colin Powell and everyone from the first Bush presidency – and US foreign policy in general – adheres to the “Pottery Barn” principle (the belief that once you defeat a nation you are responsible for that nation’s internal security not just its external security). Acting like you invented the wheel doesn't make you the guy who actually
"This war will destroy the goodwill he had after 9/11 and weaken our influence in the world."
- 9/11 was a high-water mark for "goodwill" and "influence" for the U.S. as an "innocent victim." It didn't take long for some quarters to start claiming the U.S. dead had brought that on themselves by being members of a nation engaged in Middle Eastern affairs. Besides, pretending it would last forever, if only we hadn't invaded Iraq, is just naive - not Nostradamus. (On par with claiming that if you just keep your yard-work done that you’ll always be on good terms with everyone on Earth, regardless of fundamental differences.)
"Our occupation will not bring about democratic reform in the Middle East."
- Remains to be seen. You seem to be in favor of occupation as a means to bring about democratic reform in Afghanistan, though. What is it about the Middle East that makes you believe it is so much less friendly to democratic reform than Afghanistan?
"War supporters will fall back on the "those people have been killing each other for centuries" line when the failure of their Grand Strategy become impossible to deny."
- Watch joe construct straw men to set afire… "How about a little fire, scarecrow?" Sheesh.
"This war will endanger the Kurds' security and democracy."
- How so? By creating an environment where consistent combat airpower presence and employment no longer has to be applied (Operations Nothern & Southern Watch) to prevent repeated attempts at genocide resulting in mass graves?
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
