Friday, January 26, 2007
The Decision-Maker Knocks Down The Straw Men
Bushie's at it again:
Hmm - let's see. There was this plan and this plan and this plan. But Bushie doesn't want to hear about the Murtha plan or the Biden plan or the Iraq Study Group plan. He wants his plan. Because he's the decision-maker and he gets to make the decisions. Therefore he points fingers at critics and makes believe they don't have any alternative to his 21,500 troop surge plan.
I wouldn't mind so much about Bush's lie that only he has plan for Iraq that will work if I thought the surge plan was actually designed to solve the problems in Iraq. But it's not. It's designed to waste time just long enough for Bushie and Cheney to crawl off into the sunset and leave the mess in Iraq for the next administration to clean up.
That's the part that bothers me.
Luckily, 65%-70% of the country now see through these straw man arguments that the preznut and his merry men and women habitually engage in and few people (other than the true, true believers) are buying them anymore.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush, on a collision course with Congress over Iraq, said Friday ''I'm the decision-maker'' about sending more troops to the war. He challenged skeptical lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his buildup.
''I've picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed,'' Bush said in an Oval Office meeting with senior military advisers.
The president had strong words for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who are lining up to support resolutions opposing his decision to send 21,500 troops to Iraq. He challenged them to put up their own ideas.
''I know there is skepticism and pessimism and that some are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work,'' the president said. ''They have an obligation and a serious responsibility therefore to put up their own plan as to what would work.''
Hmm - let's see. There was this plan and this plan and this plan. But Bushie doesn't want to hear about the Murtha plan or the Biden plan or the Iraq Study Group plan. He wants his plan. Because he's the decision-maker and he gets to make the decisions. Therefore he points fingers at critics and makes believe they don't have any alternative to his 21,500 troop surge plan.
I wouldn't mind so much about Bush's lie that only he has plan for Iraq that will work if I thought the surge plan was actually designed to solve the problems in Iraq. But it's not. It's designed to waste time just long enough for Bushie and Cheney to crawl off into the sunset and leave the mess in Iraq for the next administration to clean up.
That's the part that bothers me.
Luckily, 65%-70% of the country now see through these straw man arguments that the preznut and his merry men and women habitually engage in and few people (other than the true, true believers) are buying them anymore.
Comments:
<< Home
reality, you wrote:
"It's designed to waste time just long enough for Bushie and Cheney to crawl off into the sunset and leave the mess in Iraq for the next administration to clean up."
Yeah right. The issue of the war is likely to decide the next election, which could certainly put a Democrat in the White House in 2008.
Your cynical view does not comport with reality. Bush and Cheney don't want to be recalled as the losers of the Iraq War or the two who cost the Republican Party its occupancy of the White House.
On both counts they want to win. They want to win the war for many reasons. Meanwhile, winning the war would most likely lead to another Republican in the White House. Losing the war, which would include your concept of time-wasting, would very likely put a Democrat in the WH.
If Bush wants to defuse the war issue and preserve Republican power, he must either WIN it before the election or stop it now.
Lyndon Johnson knew he was toast as the 1968 election approached. There's plenty about him to criticize, but admitting he was powerless to win in Vietnam was a bold and honest move. However, by leaving the war to the next president, he cost the Democrats the White House.
This time Bush and the Republicans would fare no better. And in the eyes of history Bush would suffer as Johnson has.
Your scenario serves no one, and as a strategy, it is the worst of several alternatives.
"It's designed to waste time just long enough for Bushie and Cheney to crawl off into the sunset and leave the mess in Iraq for the next administration to clean up."
Yeah right. The issue of the war is likely to decide the next election, which could certainly put a Democrat in the White House in 2008.
Your cynical view does not comport with reality. Bush and Cheney don't want to be recalled as the losers of the Iraq War or the two who cost the Republican Party its occupancy of the White House.
On both counts they want to win. They want to win the war for many reasons. Meanwhile, winning the war would most likely lead to another Republican in the White House. Losing the war, which would include your concept of time-wasting, would very likely put a Democrat in the WH.
If Bush wants to defuse the war issue and preserve Republican power, he must either WIN it before the election or stop it now.
Lyndon Johnson knew he was toast as the 1968 election approached. There's plenty about him to criticize, but admitting he was powerless to win in Vietnam was a bold and honest move. However, by leaving the war to the next president, he cost the Democrats the White House.
This time Bush and the Republicans would fare no better. And in the eyes of history Bush would suffer as Johnson has.
Your scenario serves no one, and as a strategy, it is the worst of several alternatives.
You're right, rbe. This admin is going to continue to get Americans killed in Iraq with no goal other than to try to save face. It's the same crime that got thousands of additional Americans killed in Vietnam.
You can't achieve a political goal through military action. How many times do we have to relearn that lesson?
You can't achieve a political goal through military action. How many times do we have to relearn that lesson?
# posted by 
: 11:08 AM
: 11:08 AM
abi, you wrote:
"You can't achieve a political goal through military action. How many times do we have to relearn that lesson?"
Oh. Tell that to Germany, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Spain, Yugoslavia et.al.
Moreover, looking at things from the perspectives of others, North Vietnam would disagree with you as would have the Soviet Union when it expanded its reach in Eastern Europe. And Castro did not rise to power through the electoral process.
Meanwhile, South Africa is probably the only nation in Africa that has experienced a revolution without warfare.
Post a Comment
"You can't achieve a political goal through military action. How many times do we have to relearn that lesson?"
Oh. Tell that to Germany, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Spain, Yugoslavia et.al.
Moreover, looking at things from the perspectives of others, North Vietnam would disagree with you as would have the Soviet Union when it expanded its reach in Eastern Europe. And Castro did not rise to power through the electoral process.
Meanwhile, South Africa is probably the only nation in Africa that has experienced a revolution without warfare.
<< Home
