I think the President said exactly what needed to be said...an excellent speech! He summarized the need for presence in Iraq, the reasons, and the need to stay until the mission is complete. Liberals will, of course but regretably, rally against it, as expected. Yet, Bush and the American people see eye-to-eye on this need to finish the mission in Iraq... it is achieving democracy and defeating terrorists, who have chosen to make a stand in Iraq... The Armed Forces too understand Bush's mandate...it was heart-rendering to watch the Commander in Chief shaking the hands of the members of the 82nd Airborne! God bless the President! Each time I hear the President his message of truth rings true! I am so glad his message is stability and furtherance of his stated goal.... The USA will not leave Iraq before the job is done, depite the pathetic liberal cowardice being advocated to cut and run! "As the Iraqis stand up, the USA will stand down!" George W. Bush Onward!
Service in the armed forces, specially in time of war, is patriotic and honorable. Which is why George W. Bush rushed to join the Texas National Guard, without leaving much of a record what he was doing there. And why he picked Dick Cheney as his Vice President, who was fighting the Viet Cong stacking up academic deferments. Or why he is standing up for Bolton, the tough talking, flag waving, neocon whose last desire was to go fight and die in the jungles in Vietnam. The 4th of July initiative, I must say, will pay some dividends however. A nice, public relations, idea befitting an administration that is all about propaganda. Next time, however, if the American people decide that they want a tough talking, patriotic president who supposedly stands strong in time of war, they pick one that has at least served in one! This is the most hypocritical administration I have seen. Or or if Karl prefers another term, this is one that has sacrificed the least while riding the most on the sacrifices made by others. When I was listening to Bush speak, I couldn't help compare George W. Bush with Iran's newly elected president: one volunteered for service and for assignments deep behind enemy lines at time of war. If nothing else, he has earned the right to ask others to sacrifice. What kind of sacrifice has George W. Bush ever made to ask others to follow his lies in Iraq? Or, as it seems he might not in the so distant future, to have them follow his lies on an even much more dangerous assignment against Iran? I hope Americans will say no to everyone who stood with him come the 2006 elections. Republican or Democrat! Both parties are responsible for the mess the US finds itself in. Vote Liberatarian, Vote Reform or Green, vote for Democrats or Republicans who aren't tainted with the special interest groups that directly and indirectly steered America on this course. But don't vote for the status quo.
So it's not ok when a Democrat speaks his mind about a Republican, but it's sure as fvck ok when a Republican publicy blasts a Democrat? I'm sure it was ok when Clinton got blasted for the Lewinsky stuff, wasn't it? How come it is that Republicans have to resort to "fat smack" ???? "Fatso Michael Moore" "Fatso Kennedy"... YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWN
That's the only way they can associate themselves with the uneducated schmednecks by using this kind of lowly soundbytes.
I bet there's a comparable number of obese/overweight (aka fat) Republicans to the same-built Democrats. Only the Republicans won't admit it.
I believe the point was that these rebuttals were made even before Bush gave his speech. Here’s another example: Bush: Bloodshed in Iraq Is 'Worth It' Tue Jun 28, 7:06 PM ET … Obviously the contents of the speech were distributed before W delivered it.
I liked the setting. The Young Republicans Club of Greater DC must've been booked. 9/11 was, and always will be, perpetrated by Saddam and his followers. I bet polls still show Americans believe this lie.
Not sure where the exact expression arose Matt; but I use to understand it as a kid from cutting a tree for Christmas in the woods or elsewhere when applicable..."cut and run"=> it seemed to fit! I'm sure however there is a more precise and authoritative reference! In terms of liberals however, in the reference I used it above in prior post, "cut and run" seems to be what they are calling for; i.e., getting out of Iraq at all costs, before the mission is complete... that Senator Boxer broad was urging it today..."get out" she urged, before the mission was complete! As the President explained this evening, that won't happen...in fairness to all the soldiers that have given so much so far in this struggle, let's finish the mission! Senator McCain on FoxNews just urged this very sentiment: Finish the mission!
HaHa, Fox News, no surprise there. Schmox News...They must taught you how to say 'Fatso Kennedy', huh?
Can so many people really be so naive? There is no finish. In life, there is never a point at which you can proclaim "mission accomplished". This is not WWII: there is no formal army which one can meet on the field of battle, defeat, and conquer. This is an informal "war" that will only be over when one of the two sides changes. It takes more than two years, more than three years, more than a decade, more than our lifetimes to change a culture. The war in Iraq will go on until the entire Iraqi culture is changed. It is not plausible to mantain a military presence for an indefinate amount of time, until Iraq fundamentally alters its culture, all the while American kids are being killed. "Finish the mission" is a stupidity; an easy battle cry for people safe in their homes, fighting politics, religion, and ideology with other people's lives.
Well let me say this, I am a vet, I am not a liberal persay, I think for myself therefore I have no real use for either party in the US. That said, when are we going to get a definiative plan of action for Iraq from this administration? When are general statements going to go away and when will we hear about withdrawl dates, dates for Iraq's Forces to step up and do their job? He mentioned coalition forces, but which ones? What are they going to do? While we are talking about the insurgency, why hasn't anything been said to Syria about their porous border? Since that is a huge gateway for insurgents to enter Iraq, or run from Iraq to escape US forces, then why aren't we putting pressure on Syria in the forms of sactions, or even force?
Maybe Bush should hire Michael Moore to see whether he can round up some children of congresspeople to serve in Iraq?
I also saw McCain on CNN or CSPAN or something. Of course, i'm sure the "liberal media" doesn't count.
Not only do we have no plan of action, but perhaps more importantly, no defined goal. What exactly constitutes "mission accomplished". Is it a military victory? A stable democracy? What? The truth is that we never had a clear motive to enter into Iraq, and thus no clear solution. Without a cause, there is no solution. Was it to bring freedom? Okay, but it is impossible to define freedom and when we have succesfully "brought it" to the Iraqis. Was it to create a stable democracy? In that case, we will be in Iraq for a long, very long time. It took the US 100 years before we had stable democracy, 200 if we take into account that segregation was still legal until the end of the 1960 Are we really prepared to be in Iraq for 100 years? The answer can only be no. So, then, the question remains: if we are not going to stay indefinately, and no more progress can be made in the short term, why are we still there losing lives and resources and strength everyday? The answer is that to leave now would be an admission of failure on the part of the administration. We are still in Iraq, losing lives needlessly, b/c Bush won't admit that he made a mistake. This, to me, is disgusting.
I'm pretty sure it's a sailing term from the days of wind powered ships. I think it refers to a situation in which a ship at anchor is caught so suddenly by a storm that they are forced to cut the anchor cable and run before the wind to avoid sinking.
While I agree with the sentiment in your message, I wonder why do Americans ignore the fact that there is actually a plan -- albeit one that is not flushed out completely for them to see, debate, and judge? The PNAC charter is something that is signed up by practically all the prominent members of the Bush administration. If I recall correctly, besides the crowd usually referred to as neocons -- all of whose names are there, from Cheney and Rumsfeld down to many of the prominent officials in around this administration -- you even have Jebb Bush's signature on the document. And that outlines not just a "plan", but practically charts an imperialistic course to cover US foreign policy for this century! I am rather disappointed, indeed disgusted, with how the "mainstream" Democrats as well as the "mainstream" media fails to critically examine what Bush says. At most, they are satisfied to just play the script from the Vietnam era. Otherwise, in some ways, Bush hints at the "plan" all the time: to bring what he calls "democracy" throughout the Middle East, but which in reality is to bring the region under US control per the objectives set out in the PNAC. When that plan was being drafted and signed up by these folks, there was no 9/11! Iraq was always the first stop on this plan, and while events will influence whether and to what extent these people can pursue their full agenda, no doubt they aren't even going to stop just with Iraq if they can get away with it. The same way 9/11, WMDs, and the rest of the stories were convenient to what they had in mind regardless of whether any of it had anything to do with Saddam, stories about Iran's "mock elections", "nuclear weapons program", and the like, are part and parcel of the same lies. If there is any hesitation to go full scale with their plan, which included originally basically destroying the UN, undercutting the influence of any potential objectors in Europe, and to frigthen the Ameircan people into a hysteria that would silence any opposing voices at home, and then fight a series of endless wars, it is because their plan has hit a brick wall. Iraq has not played according to their script, while Iran has if anything strengthened its hand in the meantime.