Here's what I consider an ecouraging development/analysis (except of course the stage-managing part by the BushCo minion):
This was done under agreement from the troops to remain silent and respectful during the speech Respect - something civvies don't understand
It means that ABC is still trying to make amends for the Dan Rather incident, otherwise they would have passed on the speech, too.
I thought it was a really curious stage management decision by the White House to have the troops basically off stage, though. He usually gives speeches like this surrounded by soldiers. The format of this speech certainly created the impression of the troops sitting there resentfully in silence. It's curious because this White House is usually really good at creating the impression of overwhelming support.
Well, at least he didn't announce an invasion of Iran or Syria. He's still trying to link Iraq with 9/11, is he? I think this settles the "Evil vs. Stupid," "Liar vs. Misinformed" arguments in favor of "All of the Above." When are Jenna and Barbara enlisting? What other, slightly less high calling are they currently pursuing that's keeping them from defending freedom and avenging 9/11?
Instead of yelling out what they were really thinking, "What the fvck are you talking about you dumbass faux-Texan?"
They'd use fvck a lot more Remember the line in Doonesbury about the guy who said he'd been off active duty for so long he forgot how to use the f-word Easy his buddy said, use it like a comma
Not only do you know nothing about the modern military and Armed Forces Claymore, you know nothing about the Union Army under General George McClellan (circa 1861). The general's training of the Union soldiers throughout the year, and his advance on Richmond by way of the Peninsula the following spring, was entirely predicated on (1) the survival of the Army of the Potomac, (2) saving lives of trained soldiers while maintaining an advance guard for Washington's defense, and (3) developing a well-planned attack. As a former railroad engineer, General McClellan was not indecisive but cautious; a very important trait in light of the Union Army's rush to attack at Bull Run earlier in the year which resulted in a rout back to Washington. To rephrase, Little Mac McClellan cared for his troops well and exercised extreme caution with a well-planned attack throughout the 1860-1861 period; it was only later in 1862, at the Antietam Campaign, where the General's reluctance to attack might be criticized. Yet, in view of Lee's track record, General McLellan's caution at Antietam saved a lot of lives!
Old Abe also relieved Scott, Rosecrans, fired McDowell, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker, and demoted Meade...Lincoln's desperation with the leadership of the Army of the Potomac is well known; but that does not take away from the military acumen of its leaders!
I can't believe you used "Burnside" and "military acumen" in the same sentence....and the day after Shelby Foote passed. tsk tsk.
Why do you still believe this? What real evidence do you have, that nobody else in the whole wide world has, allows you to be so confident that our being in Iraq is doing anything at all to prevent another 9/11 ? Answer? None. There is a long list of far more likely safe havens for AQ and terrorists in general. Iraq was never truly on that list. Never, Ever, Ever. Fine. No one will disagree with you that the Iraqi people deserve to be given a chance. But when is 'the end'? And what exactly are we doing to get to that end? Bush said nothing of this in his dear speach last night. Nothing. Goals, maybe yes. War plan? Don't be so sure. Most liberals I doubt want to pull the troops. What everyone wants is a much clearer strategy than what we have thus far received from the President. People on both sides of the great national divide are starting to really notice that we are losing 60, 70, 80+ soldiers a month. People are starting to notice that there has been Absolutely.No.Slowdown. on the part of the insurgents AT ALL. Nothing we have done so far has eased the killing. Nothing we have done so far has stemmed the chaos. Nothing we have done so far has enabled us to begin thinking of bringing our troops home. Nothing. No, who would? The front on terror isn't in Iraq either. Do you really believe that the best and the brightest of the terrorists are in Iraq fighting a one sided war? Men capable of huge terror events, of serious death and destruction. AQ isn't in Iraq. Gangs, thugs, and violent criminals and trouble makers are in Iraq fighting the occupation. All the while AQ plans its next major attack against the U.S. We aren't hunting them where they are. You keep fooling yourself. They aren't "coming to us" in Iraq. That has got to be one of the most rediculous theories being sprayed about yet. WHY in the name of Allah would they do that? What sense does it make for AQ to focus on Iraq? They may have their fingers in the insurgency, but do not make the mistake of believing this enemy to be weak of mind enough to come rushing into the teeth of our military in Iraq. They are being left well enough alone in Syria, in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia, in the vast mountain ranges of Afghanistan. ANYWHERE but Iraq. Terrorists, not Iraqis. We will pay for our foolishness. Let him put his money where his mouth is. He stated very clearly that if more troops are requested, he will send more troops. Why do you think he added that line in? Why do you think one huge emphasis of the speech was on the wishes of the president for more young people to sign up? We need more troops in Iraq. We've always needed more troops in Iraq. But they aren't there to send. Recruitment numbers are down again and again. Resources are strained and drained. Troops are serving 3, 4, 5 tours as it is. They are breaking the all volunteer army and we will pay for it. Ignore? We mourn each new loss. We follow the stories, we read the reports. We know their names. We have friends and family in harms way. More and more are knowing the darkest side of war as some of those friends and family come home in flag draped coffins that no one is allowed to photograph. Ignore? I don't think so. Why is the Syrian border still open? Why have we lost as many troops this month as last? Why have more Iraqi civilians been killed this month than in any other month of the war? Why was mission declared accomplished all those moons ago? Why did we send too few troops to begin with? Why? this is fvcking stupid