When you tell us that we are in the struggle of our lives...and then tell Americans to not worry and go shopping, you sort of trivialize it in their minds
Bush had the utmost chance to be the FDR type war leader after 9/11 and he blew it from the start.
I don't see a lot of hope in the frontrunners either |
|
Bush's numbers would improve if he actually had home land security do something that most voters perceived as making them safer.
Almost all Americans anticipate another attack but none of the major cities that I am aware of have any type of plan in place for such an attack. The average citizen has no direction from local much less national government on what to do if their city is attacked. |
|
|
From now on, when we are at war and the tough gets going, lets take a poll and let the citizens decide what to do with 150,000 soldiers. We'll call it the Fickle Finger of Fate Poll. A flag will be raised above the Capitol dome with a finger symbol on it sticking up into the wind to test what direction it is coming from. Soldiers will then do exactly what the finger poll says the next day.... Problem solved libs. |
|
The smell of rotten fish.
That explains Bush's numbers.
Funny, I didn't hear this whining about the stupidity of Americans back when Bush's positives were at 80%. |
|
|
could tell East from West .. |
|
|
heck .. 70% could not even tell you which way was East or West in their own town .. |
|
Clinton was NOT responsible for the first WTC bombing you dipshit. It happened less than a MONTH after he assumed office.
Romney's conversion is much less credible than Reagan's on abortion because Reagan didn't make his right as he was considering a presidential run.
Newt actually LOST the battle to Clinton...so why would we want him fighting the wife??
Ron Paul is such an isolationist that he essentially stood up in Congress and called Bush a coward for not proactively pursuing OBL into Pakistan and killing him....or when he submitted a bill that would allow the Prez to simply send small special forces units into other nations to take out specific terrorists(OBL, Al-Sadr, etc.)
Bush is doing a GREAT job by his lonesome "leaving terrorists alone." Osama is perfectly happy where he is, no one is going after him. Al-Sadr had 3 dozen seats in the damn government while he was still ordering the killings of our men and women.
We need Reagan-era "interventionism" and Goldwater-level fortitude when actually fighting the war so a belligerant fool from Texas can't dig us into such a deep hole with his incompetance that the liberal left begings flipping out too early...which is coincidentally exactly what happened in Vietnam. |
|
|
was speaking of his own chance of victory then I would say he should be committed. Absolutely! |
|
... did anyone else chuckle when Hugh wrote: "(HT: N.Z. Bear.)"?
Like Hugh doesn't breathlessly follow every word Flip Romney says.... |
|
"Bob I would consider it a complete victory when the IA takes control of all 18 provinces but I get a feeling from you that the only way you would consider a victory is if Iraq resembled Switzerland."
Roc: That isn't the White House's definition of victory in Iraq, at least as of November 2005.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html#part1
This in particular stands out: "An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country."
It's pretty unreasonable for you to sneer at Bob for (allegedly) setting unreasonably high standards. Your quarrel is with George W. Bush.
I do understand why victory must be redefined. We're not going to achieve anything close to our original goals. However, describing the relatively modest aim you lay out as "complete victory" is a little dishonest given the original goals of the war, wouldn't you say? Surely it's partial victory at best.
I would describe it as more of a consolation prize; it certainly wouldn't justify the war, which in retrospect was clearly a huge mistake. However, I think if we can achieve it in reasonable time and at reasonable cost (in both money and blood), we should consider ourselves lucky, declare ourselves the winners, and get the hell out of that barbarian cesspool. It's the best outcome we can hope for at this point.
And I'm still wondering about "victory in the broader war." |
|
Step One:
Stay the course. Obviously that's the only way to stabilize Iraq, stabilize Pakistan, eliminate terrorists, defuse Iran and Palestine and lower oil prices.
The evidence of these the current foreign policy's success is abundantly clear. Shame on the Dems for pretending it isn't!
Why fix what ain't broke, eh?
:-) |
|
The Dems sound chaotic on foreign policy.
What the big 3 have to do is come up with a coherent policy for defeating terrorism and keeping America safe.
That includes stabilizing Iraq, stabilizing Pakistan, eliminating the terrorists, defusing Iran and Palestine. They also need a rigorous Homeland Security and Immigration service plan.
That is a tall order and it is all related. Further, they need to find a way to drop oil prices, which is also related.
|
|
Well, whether I'm a liberal or not, I don't think I have the time to explain these things to someone who has such a shallow understanding of history...which is apparent from the loaded and fallacious terminology you choose to employ.
"Instituting the Islamic Republic of Iran." particularly stands out but the rest of the one-liners are pretty funny too.
You don't want explanations. You've already ignored them and have come up with some comfortable conclusions. Enjoy them.
|
|
|
" Men, all this stuff you've heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans, love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball players, the toughest boxers ... Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in Hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. " |
|
Ah, the familiar cry of the small minority. Everybody is brainwashed except me and my fellow 25 per centers!
I recall this cry from the few remaining Nixon supporters just prior to his resignation.
Some things never change. |
|
What alternative to the "current administration failed strategy" they plan to implement?
Sorry but judging by my life experience their approach to foreign policy usually means:
Giving away the Panama Canal Zone to Colombian drug dealers
Instituting the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Allowing Castro to export to the US most of his criminals and mentally ill citizens.
Turning Angola over to the Soviet Union.
Running out of Somalia because the other team scored a run in the seventh inning.
Using the American military mainly to hand out rice and blanket to foreigners.
Why and how am I to think that the Democrat's strategy is not simply to turn Iraq over to Syria and Iran? |
|
The problem isn’t convincing Americans that jihadists=the bad.
The problem is that you have failed to convince us that the best way to fight dispersed jihadist cells is to use the blunt instrument of large scale (and expensive) military intervention into nation-states paired up with a lingering (and even more expensive) occupation in that nation-state. |
|
...flawlessly the goofy-in denial-mind set of most Dems these days. Sad. Morally bleak.
It is far from being JUST ABOUT IRAQ. Your inability,as a party,to just not get that--or,not care to get it--is A-mazing. You're not Serious People. And, B-Rob,WE'RE AT WAR.
There are vast consequences to a Retreat. Yes,that's what I said: RETREAT. The Dem Buzz word "Re-Deployment" is mealy mouth Dishonesty.
The consequences of American RETREAT are strategically much greater than the Butcher Yard that Iraq would become. How your side refuses to see that is beyond the pale. We are killing Dark Age Islamist Sewage in Iraq by the hundreds every week. can you reach way down in your socks, Brainy Boy, and see the GOOD in that?
You remember,don't'cha, those monsters that declared War on us early in the Clinton admin.?
It's a Dirty Job,but our brave armed forces are doing it. There. NOT here. |
|
My definition of victory would be:
When the Military is doing police work rather than combat.
At that point, Iraq can take the helm.
Secondarily victory would be that the US has some permanent non combative bases in Iraq and Afghanistan that resemble Germany/Korea/Japan bases. Put otherwise: A non combative presence in the region.
Thirdly victory would mean Iraq does not purposefully harbor terrorists.
That would be a good day-who knows if it's possible, but that's my idea. |
|
... for your thoughtful comment. First, let me respond to your statement, "I get a feeling from you that the only way you would consider a victory is if Iraq resembled Switzerland." Not at all. My two points, as I've consistently stated them in comments, are (1)I don't KNOW what "victory" means in Iraq, and (2) people who keep pushing for "victory" seldom (if ever) give me any idea of what they mean by it.
You, however, do provide a definition: "I would consider it a complete victory when the IA takes control of all 18 provinces." Using that as the criterion, it would seem that the U.S.'s primary role should be to create -- i.e., train and arm -- an IA that is capable of taking control of all 18 provinces. Would you agree with that? Or should the U.S.'s role be broader than that? And if so, what should the role be, pending the creation of an IA capable of taking control of all 18 provinces?
Perhaps a more important question, in light of your definition, is: what happens if the IA is never able to take control of all 18 provinces? Under your definition, the logical answer to that question is that there will be no victory. So what will the U.S.'s role be at that point, i.e., at the point we (or the Iraqi government, or whoever gets to decide) recognizes that the IA can't take control of all 18 provinces?
I welcome your further comments, roc.
|
|
|
OK, some polls have only 30% supporting our WOT or if put in other terms, our war against jihadists that make up Islamofascists in many areas of this globe. 70% do not because, frankly, the Beltway GOP has never seemed to decide on how to explain this necessity to stop the jihadists. Bush comes out perhaps once every 5 months and makes a speech but the MSM of course, fractures it. The necessity of the 70% seeing that our nation is not going to be protected if we pull out of the ME and lose in Iraq is a hard sell. So is the public stupid? No. It is misinformed and brainwashed still by the MSM not the bloggers, not Talk Radio, not the new media. Hugh is so overoptimistic that the new media will set things right. Unfortunately, the public mostly gets its news info from the old media. And the WH and the GOP is simply inadequate in explaining our universal enemy. FDR and Churchill never had that problem in WWII. We all knew who the enemy was and what it would mean if they won the war. The MSM has told us Bush lied, people died and that is what lingers in the public's mind. Communications as Frank Luntz has avered is the key. The GOP does not have that. And Right wing blogs, Talk and the Net still cannot provide a counter to the Dem Party and MSM when it comes to the necessity of war. The adults in our nation may realize this but the hip MSM generation does not and that is why the Dems will probably win in '08. And no one but Rudy can speak out on this necessity. None of the other candidates has any cred on why we need to win this war. The Battle of Tours may be in the coming years but only if we understand the evil that Islamofascism really is. So far, the Left does not and its pacifistic socialism is winning the debate. |
|
last week while the libs were doing their best to torpedo any success the surge is having by voting on troop pullouts in Iraq. I suppose consultants and polling data told these guys to lay low for a few days.
Honestly, I'm disgusted with the whole bunch and that's not a good thing when we're looking at Hillary Rotten Clinton taking over the White House.
I will give McCain credit for being an exception with his comments on the senate floor but I no longer consider him much of a player in this race.
|
|
Bob I would consider it a complete victory when the IA takes control of all 18 provinces but I get a feeling from you that the only way you would consider a victory is if Iraq resembled Switzerland.
|
|
1. ScottM beat me to the punch with the same questions. Scott, sorry I had not read your comment before I inserted mine; I would have credited you.
2. Joe, under the heading "What is Victory in Iraq" (which may have been intended as a response to ScottM's question), says, "Our goal is to release the coiled spring without letting it unwinding out of control." This is exactly the kind of metaphorical language that does nothing to advance the debate. Joe, assuming tht this is your definition of victory in Iraq, can you define how we will KNOW when the "coiled spring" has been "released" far enough that it will not "unwind[] out of control"? |
|
Hugh says, "Campaign '08 should be a referendum on the necessity of victory victory in Iraq and the broader war...."
My question: What does "victory" MEAN in Iraq? What does "victory" MEAN in the context of the "broader war?" More precisely: how will we KNOW when we have achieved victory in Iraq and/or the "broader war?" What are the precise criteria?
In World War II, for example, we knew we had achieved victory against Japan when the Japanese government surrendered. Since we are not at war with the government of Iraq, there can be no similar criterion in the ongoing war there. And since Al Qaida is not a government, it doesn't appear that there can be such a criterion in the "broader war" either. So, Hugh (or anyone else who subscribes to the victory theory): can you please explain what the criteria for "victory" ARE -- using precise terms and not broad language or (worse yet) metaphors?
As before, I do not ask this question to be snarky, but because I believe it is a question that is (a) important and (b) generally overlooked.
Thank you.
|
|
... and we all know the kind of judges Reagan appointed to the supreme court.
if by qualified you mean romney actually touting his crisis management skills by talking about strapping a dog to his roof. It was ROMNEY that brought up that story. any fool would have known that would have backfired.
or if you mean by managing the big dig disaster.
who cares if he "saved" the olympics, In my idea of a democracy you get elected to serve your constituents. |
|
The Hilderbeast will beat Obama.
The guy to beat the Hilderbeast is Newt. Newt has done battle with the Clintons in the past.
The Clintons took credit for Newts ideas and then beat him in the game of politics. I doubt Newt would let that happen a second time.
Newt is by far a better debaiter then the Hilderbeast and he would put her in her place (which Billie Whoe has not been able to do).
If you do not put Newt in there then you might want to donate to Tom Tancredo because he is about the only one aside from Newt who can bring the GOP back to the right side of the Shamnesty issue.
If the GOP does not get the Shamnesty issue right and soon they are toast going the way of the Wigs. |
|
So he's committed to victory, but he wants to just continue the existing policies of the current president indefinitely, even though those policies and the administration's conduct has been routinely criticized from right and left, and 7 in 10 Americans disapprove of the president's job performance.
Sounds like a winner.
At the very least, he could come up with a few new ideas and try and convince us that the next GOP candidate isn't going to be Bush III. |
|
|
|
Romney went from pro-choice to life in the same way that many others - including Reagan (who signed an abortion bill as gov) and Thompson.
Romney seems to be the most qualified person running in the GOP and if he stays steadfast in the WOT, I'm voting for him.
|
|
I remember his using the exact same language when Romney was "Absolutely Committed To preserving and protecting a woman's right to choose."
This guy's ability to change skins puts a cameleon to shame. He's more like an amphibian or caterpillar because it's more like a metamorphosis. |
|
no matter what the polls say. One of the marks of great leadership is to take the right stand, no matter how politically unpopular, and rally people to your cause. Bush has not been successful a this for whatever reason.
I hope and pray that all the GOP candidates stay strong on the war. |
|
Either victory in Iraq or victory in "the broader war"?
Given that there is no opposing power with which to sign an armistice or peace treaty, how will we know when either war is over, and how will we know if we've won? |
|
Mitt Romney may be the only one with enough money to run for President with fund raising by the GOP all but dead.
How will the GOP with Martinez as captain of the ship overcome that Shamnesty Bill mess?
My contributions are going to the Minute Men and NOT the GOP. |
|