Home Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Bush’s Speech Comments

Bush says: 

Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home.

Petraeus says he doesn’t know if we are safer.

Bush says:

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

No shit, Homer!

Bush says: 

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq.

And you will change the strategy when?

Bush says: 

The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made.

Past tense?  Let’s see here:  4 million Iraqis have been displaced due to sectarian violence.  Entire neighborhoods ethnically cleansed and those that aren’t live in fear of the knock at the door.

Bush says:

This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

Really, talk to the 4 million displace Iraqis and the sectarian cleansed neighborhoods. Will this aggressive Iraqi plan put those neighborhoods back together again?

Bush says: 

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.

Really?  All this time we were told we were winning.  All this time we were told we were making progess.  Where is the Iraqi government in all of this?  Conspicuously absent.

Bush says: 

The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort — along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations — conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

The Iraqi government can’t even pass a major piece of legislation for its own people and they are going to do this? 

Bush says: 

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not.

What? Bush finally read a letter or an email from one of his citizens?  Wow, what a revelation that he’s just figured out we may be questioning the ability of the Iraqi government to actually govern.

Bush says: 

We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists — and a strategic threat to their survival

.

So we haven’t been using our “full” diplomatic resources in the Middle East.  This must be one of those mistakes Bush was talking about earlier.

Bush says: 

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists — or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

Are these same people wondering why the Iraqi government stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom.  Americans are wondering as well.  Hmmmmm.... (that’s me wondering).

Oh and this is the best line of the night by far:
Bush says:

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved.

I don’t think victory will look like the one Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rummy thought they had achieved either. So please President Bush, it is your version of victory that you are now changing and continue to change.

With that I leave you all to comment.

Comments

In other words: “RIGHT NOW! I WANT IT RIGHT NOW! DELIVERY IN 30 MINUTES OR IT IS FREE!”

likwidshoe on September 14, 2007 at 01:49 am

Hey, Lik, That’s exactly how the Pres et al, billed this war.

Is that the best you have to offer?  Take a nap and come back later.

Puzzlefeet on September 14, 2007 at 03:59 am

Hey, Lik, That’s exactly how the Pres et al, billed this war.

Really? I seem to remember him telling us that this would be a long war.

Is that the best you have to offer?

No, it’s just all that I will make time for.

likwidshoe on September 14, 2007 at 04:33 am

But, but, but,the insurgency is in its last throes.  We’re kickin’ ass.  Come on Lik, get with the program.

Puzzlefeet on September 14, 2007 at 04:52 am

But, but, but,the insurgency is in its last throes.

What’s with the “but, but, but” shit? The insurgency has been in its last throes for awhile now. Is there supposed to be a time span on “last throes”? It’s a process, not a snapshot.

We’re kickin’ ass.  Come on Lik, get with the program.

You’re the only one who is saying differently.

Is defeatism tiring? Just curious.

likwidshoe on September 14, 2007 at 04:59 am

puzz, I see that you are showing your usual twisted support for the war and for the prez, Do you really think that your innuendo would fool anybody, except leftists who are already foolish?


The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

docdave on September 14, 2007 at 08:08 am

Strange that people who identify themselves as “Democrats” would be near ruthless in attaining and consolidating their own positions of political power, but so unimpressively feeble and equivocating in their efforts to sustain and encourage the spread of democracy.

Perhaps if democracy is not such a worthwhile goal after all, maybe a name change is called for.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on September 14, 2007 at 08:27 am
Avatar for HG

Puzzle,

Your post sounds basically like you’re in your last throes.  It is completely reactionary sarcasm offering NOTHING except maybe retreat? 

Puzzle how many wars has America fought that weren’t necessary in your opinion? 

The casualties of war are a reality that must be overcome if victory is to be achieved.  4 million displaced Iraqis is no reason to retreat.  Just think what they’d be coming back to if we did. 

I get the impression that with most of you liberals no war would ever be supported except maybe in hindsight. 

Puzzle the only thing the left has offered is a prescription for defeat in Iraq, nothing else.

HG on September 14, 2007 at 08:48 am

"Commentary” on the President’s speech from our resident BDS sufferer/Defeatocrat?  How predictable!


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 14, 2007 at 09:12 am

Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show.
By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 10, 2007
Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

The results show “there are two cognitive styles—a liberal style and a conservative style,” said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.

Participants were college students whose politics ranged from “very liberal” to “very conservative.” They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.

M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.

Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.

Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.

Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley’s Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said the results “provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity.”

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

Admin edit: click the link to read the rest.

ellinas on September 14, 2007 at 08:43 pm

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts...

They’re busy thinking up lies, rewriting history and changing the topic as this thread demonstrates.

The next time you decide to go off-topic with a self serving “study”, just give us a link to the story.

likwidshoe on September 14, 2007 at 09:12 pm

lik post the whole sentence.why you left the rest?
Like so:

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

ellinas on September 14, 2007 at 09:41 pm

I know ellinas. I edited your comment up above to make the link into an html link. You had accidentally given us it as an e-mail link, making it unclickable. I also shortened your comment. “Fair use” laws say that we can’t just copy verbatim entire news posts, even though places like Google do it and somehow get away with it. We turn a blind eye to a lot of stuff around here, but let’s not push the copyright envelope.

likwidshoe on September 14, 2007 at 09:45 pm

ellinas - lik post the whole sentence.

I would have if I was responding to it. I wasn’t, so I didn’t.

Pretty simple.

So much for that accuracy.

likwidshoe on September 14, 2007 at 09:47 pm

e: They are conflicted about all the lies, half-truths, fabrications and rationalizations they need to push the crap they push.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 14, 2007 at 09:54 pm

This is your response:

They’re busy thinking up lies, rewriting history and changing the topic as this thread demonstrates

.”
likwidshoe on September 15, 2007 at 12:12 am
To which I reply:
So much for that accuracy.
Pretty simple alright.
ellinas on September 14, 2007 at 09:55 pm

You’re now going to repeat back what others have said?

Okay.

Let us know when you have a point. I’ll be sure to read it.

likwidshoe on September 14, 2007 at 09:58 pm

You’re now going to repeat back what others have said?
likwidshoe on September 15, 2007 at 12:58 am

Lik the shoe fits. Wear it.

Robert108,how are you dear old friend?

ellinas on September 14, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Lik the shoe fits. Wear it.

What shoe? What are you even talking about? You completely lost me ellinas. I have no idea where you’re trying to go, which you’ll now probably use as some kind of insult.

likwidshoe on September 14, 2007 at 10:14 pm

This shoe Lik:
“So much for that accuracy.”

I repeated it because it made sense.
Your comments lacked accuracy.
Pretty simple.

ellinas on September 14, 2007 at 10:22 pm

I repeated it because it made sense.
Your comments lacked accuracy.

What, exactly, was inaccurate about about my comments? Give specifics.

Pretty simple.

If you say so. I’d say that you’re being vague and obtuse. It’s as if you don’t understand that the sentence I had referred to contained two separate points. I was responding to the first point and had ignored the second. You see this as lacking “accuracy”, which makes no sense to those of us who understand sentence structure.

likwidshoe on September 15, 2007 at 12:06 am

Egh, forget the question ellinas. You talk using sentence fragments. You don’t understand any of what I’m trying to explain and you have no idea what was supposedly “inaccurate” about my comments.

“Accuracy” indeed. Have fun patting yourself on the back with your posting of self serving studies.

likwidshoe on September 15, 2007 at 12:19 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.