Tuesday, June 28, 2005

we can do it VS no we can't

Bush Defends Iraq Policy
"Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children 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. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home," he said.

As part of the PR campaign, Bush encouraged Americans to show their support for the military by flying the flag on the Fourth of July, sending letters to military members and helping military families. He also announced a new Department of Defense Web site: AmericaSupportsYou.mil.
Democrats encouraged "Americans" or "Whatever culture you consider yourself," to show their support by burning a flag or writing preemtive surrender treaties.

"He spoke with confidence and an unwavering resolve to stay the course and to achieve the goals on which we've set out," Warner said, adding that it's essential for the Iraqis to stay on a timeline in developing a constitution and holding elections.

The president outlined a very simple plan: we win, the terrorists lose. He said that America is exceptional, courageous, and willing to take on the hard work. The Iraqi army and police received praise for their courage and commitment to defend their country. The president said that we won't give up, gave examples of the progress that has been made and laid out the steps for the future.

This is in total contradistinction to the democrats plan: unilateral surrender to the terrorists, admit that America is chickenshit and squeamish at the sight of blood, and treat the courageous Iraqi soldiers as a joke.

NBC had Nancy Pelosi (who, as always, looked like she participates in the needle exchange programs that she is so fond of) with her rebuttal which can be summed up like this: Bush is a liar.

The Dems have been hoping for us to lose every war since their glory days in Vietnam. They insisted that we couldn't win the Cold War, (we should do unilateral arms reductions) media outlets like the NY Times were calling Afghanistan a "quagmire" just two weeks in, (that was right on the mark) and you and they are just hoping against hope that a ragtag bunch of wackos will beat us by blowing up civilians in crowded marketplaces. Let me say this clearly: Liberals hate America.

Transcript: Bush Speech on Iraq


Anonymous said...

Daniel: You just watch...the libs/and Trey Smith, will call it all a lie!

But as a Father of a Marine who has now neen in an out of Iraq three times, he would tell Mr. Smith and a host of others here in "little Beruit"/Portland, to do a few things I can't post here.

I am Coyote said...

As a veteran of the US Army and more specifically the Millitary Intelligence community with a focus on the middle east I still have a few questions.

However before I ask the questions I would like to posit another sphere of thought beyond the oh so simple "we can vs no we can't."

I believe we can however I still don't know what can is.

Are the insurgents in the final throws of their efforts? Or are we in a long hard slog? I have heard both from administration officials and that question was not answered tonight.

Are we going to be there 12 years as Rumsfeld said the other day? Or is it going to be a year and a half as other officials are predicting?

President Bush owes it to the men and women that are there now to define victory and go after it.

We keep hearing that we would not have won WW2 with the kind of press we have today. I might argue that in WW2 we knew what victory was. We knew that even though we were dying on foreign soil we were headed somewhere.

I still don't know where we are headed. Unless you accept some nebulous definition of victory like (in the words of President Bush) "as long as it takes and not a day longer."


Daniel said...

I think that victory is defined as when the Iraqi army can defend their own country. That includes several components including a reduction in the number of terrorists/frequency of attacks, increased training/numbers for the military, and societal disaproval of the terrorists.

I believe that all these things are forthcoming and that Iraq, the middle east, and America will all be better off.

I am Coyote said...

Well I am glad that at least you attempted to define it. You get props for trying anyway.

I would really really like to hear the President define it.

Anonymous said...

What I'm sure of is that if KERRY were president, we would have had less, not more of taking it too these people there.


I am Coyote said...

Don't take my criticism of Bush as an endorsement for Kerry.

Unfortunately the liberals in the Republican party have used that kind of deflective tactict for oh too long.

If Kerry were president we would probably have more illegals coming across the border. Does that mean we hush up about that too?

Daniel said...

If Kerry were president we would probably have more illegals coming across the border.

I'm not sure if that's true. See my post The cover-up that the media won't mention

I don't mind critizing Bush at all. I just don't think that the current war criticism is fitting for America. Any waffling, questioning, sniveling, etc is seen by our enemies as weekness.

I am Coyote said...

I am not of the school of thought that if you are in combat you give the President carte blanche for an unlimited amount of time.

There must be some definitions. Like what does victory look like?

Is victory like pornography? You will know it when you see it?

It should be a requirement of this administration to define what victory looks like then tell the American people "now let's go kick some a$$ until it looks just like THAT!"

Is victory the adoption of an Iraqie constitution?

Is victory a certain Iraqi police force level?

Is it a combination of the two?

Some say victory is moving on Syria and then Iran? Is that it?

Anonymous said...

Is victory the adoption of an Iraqie constitution?

Is victory a certain Iraqi police force level?

Is it a combination of the two?

These three for sure..an close the borders.

Ladies and gentlemen, like it or not,"WE ARE AT WAR!"

Knock off the politics and rhetoric...or we will lose not only the war, a bunch of us will lose our lives.. WIN THEN SORT OUT WHOSE AT FAULT.

I am Coyote said...

Anon I while I admire you rhetoric "win then sort it out," I want to know from the President what winning is.

My fear is that the goal of winning will get continually pushed back and we are all called upon to continually be quiet about any and all discussion.

What if in two months we find out that the goal of winning is somewhere in Iran? (as proposed by some neo-cons?) Do we still just sit back ang go rah rah?

Then after Syria we find out that the goal is actually located somewhere in Syria? Sit back some more?

Do we just accept that a continual conflict in the middle east should become a permanent plank in the Republican party platform?

Just define some goals Mr. President. Not asking for timetables here, but some quantifiable goals.

Anonymous said...

Just define some goals Mr. President. Not asking for timetables here, but some quantifiable goals. "said the coyote"

Listen, as we post an debate this, winning is all that matters!

DEFINE THAT! OK...the badguys are beheaded an Al-geezer runs the tape, then we know we won.