To tell Bush that he needs to start looking at the reality of the war he's created in Iraq and stop wishing things were different.
The election already did that. Plus the president has been receptive to this report. What more do you want at this point?
His timing is perfect. The report came out today. His wording is not rude. His wording is truthful. This, however, is rude: U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 2902 Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 17 Total 2919
Calling the President rude and essentialy selfish while he is extending what can be considered the largest olive branch of his administration is a slap in the face. Why is everyone here so much more interested in being right than in getting things done? Now excuse me while I find a brick wall to bang my head against.
Receptive? Do you mean like saying that Jim Baker should go back to his day job? http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_061206.htm
Don't you think all involved are trying to fix that? Including the President? What do you think the point of the ISG report was?
Nearly 3,000 dead Americans, nearly 30,000 maimed Americans, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and who knows how many maimed Iraqis is far more rude and selfish than anything Al Gore can say to Chimpy.
Bang away - you're way off base, IMO. Bush has behaved like a bully for the last six years, and now he needs to suck it up and act like a grownup. If it takes harsh words to make it happen, so be it. This is HIS mess and he needs to take responsibility.
No, I do not think that Bush is trying to fix anything. He wants to "stay the course," whatever the hell that means.
No he doesn't, Ethiopia. Jesus you can be thick. The man is honestly looking for help. If you can't see that, there's no help for you.
If by "help" you mean "someone to agree with his pigheaded, intransigent opinion", then yes, he's looking for help.
That's exactly what they'll do. At least they'll "phase in" the suggestions, i.e. take the ones they like for this year but wait to implement all of them until the current budget cycle comes due. Does anyone know when the latest emergency appropriation is set to be spent? I think we'll get a compromise. There will be a big push ending in a pull back to a few bases far away from Baghdad. (What we should have done a year ago). One question being, what will happen to the green zone?
I don't think it is juvenile. I think that there's a very real possibility that Bush will reject the ISG recommendations because of the presence of his father's cronies. And Gore was letting the administration know that people are going be watching for signs of pettiness on Bush's part as it relates to those guys and their ideas.
Predictions: The Iraq situation is not going to get better. Bush will keep us there until the end of his term. At some point next year non-administration Republicans are going to freak out about the impications for 08.
People at the National Review have been freaking out all day because the report doesn't contain enough mentions of the word, "victory."
The problem is that Bush can state anything he wants but no one in the middle east is going to believe him. Al isn't one of the people who has to work with them. He's essentially outside of the system right now. See above.
The cover of Newsweek this week had James Baker and Lee Hamilton on the front with the question "Will Bush Listen?" So let's stop with the Al Gore is a meanie crap. The fact almost everybody in Washington thinks it's even a question tells you why we're debating this. If James Baker told me to take Algeria in Risk, I'm listening to James ********ing Baker. That's how good his foreign policy record is. He got Syria to support the first Gulf War. SYRIA! If Bush doesn't listen to him, he should be thrown out of ********ing office. It's a certainty Bush will go down as one of the worst Presidents in American history, if not the worst. The only question, and why he MUST listen to this report for the good of his party (nevermind the country) is whether Bush poisons the Republican Party's chances of getting elected for a decade or more the way that Margaret Thatcher or Brian Mulroney (exponentially better statesmen) poisoned their parties' chances of getting elected.