A desperate plead? (moral, contradiction, followers, hell, America)

[greatcalgarian]

US President George W Bush has said that the sacrifices being made to fight insurgents in Iraq are vital to the future security of the United States.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4631339.stm
Do you agree with Justin Webb :
The fact is that if Iraq is a disaster the American people are unlikely to blame themselves or their troops. Their president knows that the buck stops with him and last night he looked like a man with that knowledge weighing on his shoulders.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4631251.stm

[Sunstone]

I wonder how desperate is the war in Iraq? I get conflicting reports. Some say we're winning. Some say we're loosing. I suppose whether Bush feels the situation is desperate or not depends on the informaton he himself is getting.

[Shadow Wolf]

I have mixed feelings on it. I feel in one way, if we do pull out now thier is a chance that the Iraqi force will go back to thier ancient war with the middle east. But then again, theres always the chance thell invade us for revenge. Its a risky move.

[Original Freak]

I think most are saying the US is loosing, and the people with something to loose (AKA Shrub and his croonies) are saying we are winning, but it will take time.

[michel]

No solution and no apology as president runs out of ideas

Simon Tisdall
Thursday June 30, 2005
The Guardian

George Bush's speech to the country from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, was an opportunity to show he knows what he is doing in Iraq. It was a chance to demonstrate that, despite past mistakes, he has a plan that will work.


Mr Bush also needed to counter the widespread perception that his administration is in a state of denial over the mounting casualties and costs that are dramatically eroding his poll ratings.


</IMG>His Fort Bragg moment, if handled skillfully, might have enabled him to refute the Republican senator Chuck Hagel's widely quoted, armour-piercing jibe that the White House is "disconnected from reality [and] making it up as they go along".



But the president fluffed it.

Like a recidivist incapable of going straight, Mr Bush plunged back into the scaremongering rhetoric of last autumn's election campaign and once again deliberately conflated the Iraq war with the 9/11 terror attacks.

As before, he offered no way back and no joint, consensual path forward. Instead he ignored his critics, rewrapped himself in the flag, and gloried, from a safe distance, in the sacrifice of America's soldiers.

Oblivious to the inherent contradiction, he vowed to defeat a weakened, immoral enemy that was simultaneously ubiquitous and on the attack. "Terrorists who kill innocents on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania," he said. "There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11. For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch."

This last phrase possibly offered the best clue to Mr Bush's second-term Iraq strategy, such as it is. He may lack new ideas, but he knows what he is not going to do.

There would be no timetable for a withdrawal, he said, despite claims that the American presence is the main problem. Nor would there be an unpopular, but arguably necessary, increase in troop numbers until Iraq's post-Saddam institutions were secured.

Off-stage, Mr Bush's chief adviser, Karl Rove, was busily drawing divisive domestic battlelines, lambasting Democrats and other "liberals" who he said wanted "to offer therapy and understanding for our attackers".

Most tellingly, Mr Bush once again refused to admit any mistakes before, during or after the 2003 invasion. There would be no raking over the past, Dan Bartlett, his communications director, insisted. In other words, Mr Bush does wars. He does freedom and he does democracy, as defined in Washington. But he does not do apologies.

What the president's "not on my watch" remark suggested instead was that as long as he occupies the White House, there would be no significant reconsideration of the present "three-war" strategy. This comprises the war to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan; the global "war on terror" (which now increasingly targets Iran); and the selective, preponderantly diplomatic war for democracy in the Middle East and beyond. This is how Mr Bush is beginning to define a legacy almost wholly lacking in domestic policy achievements.

But if the president is not for turning, the US public increasingly may be. All the indications are that Mr Bush's unionist-style no surrender, hang tough, trust-me patriotism is wearing thin.

Polls suggest that Americans just do not buy it any more. They feel they have been duped.

The assembled Fort Bragg troops gave Mr Bush only one spontaneous round of applause - the rank-and-file equivalent of a catcall.

Yet all would change in a moment if there were another successful al-Qaida attack on the US mainland.

Paradoxically, if any such a dreadful event were to occur, America's defender in chief would be sure to claim personal vindication. In such a case, war without end might truly prove to be Mr Bush's lasting bequest to the American people.


source:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...517825,00.html

[Scuba Pete]

Too bad I can't Frubal Chuck Hagel! So Michel, please accept these for Chuck!

The Bush administration has systematically duped the American populace since he first took office. We won't know the FULL extent of this until he and his ilk are out of the Whitehouse.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by michel

Yet all would change in a moment if there were another successful al-Qaida attack on the US mainland.

And that is the saddest statement of the whole article. That's what got us into this situation. The knee jerk "let's get 'em!" response that blinded people to the fact that 9/11 had nothing to do with the attack on Iraq.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Melody

[quote-michel]Yet all would change in a moment if there were another successful al-Qaida attack on the US mainland.

And that is the saddest statement of the whole article. That's what got us into this situation. The knee jerk "let's get 'em!" response that blinded people to the fact that 9/11 had nothing to do with the attack on Iraq.[/quote]One word - Politics.

[Voxton]

Originally Posted by greatcalgarian

Do you agree with Justin Webb :
The fact is that if Iraq is a disaster the American people are unlikely to blame themselves or their troops. Their president knows that the buck stops with him and last night he looked like a man with that knowledge weighing on his shoulders.

I completely disagree with the bit about where the buck stops. The buck stops anywhere EXCEPT at the President's desk.

After the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy mea culpa'd -- and suddenly looked like a serious President.

After every problem/lie/scandal that popped up after the Iraq invasion, that chickenhawk's line was "We though fer SURE there were WMD/we got bad intelligence/thems just a few bad apples" etc...

And I dunno how the war is going, or if democracy will spring up there -- or even if it does, if it will still be worth it...

I didn't even want Kerry to win -- if he had, they could both wash their hands of Iraq: "I didn't start it!" and "You didn't let me finish it!" -- Now Rummy is saying it might take 12 years, so the Shrub will be able to wash his hands off it anyhow.