[quote=alterego[the things the President says are much more important than the puny in comparison Admiral, so I imagine the mock conferences are pretty hard core.[/quote]
With answers like this repetition of Condi’s canard:
I suspect that Bush’s handler’s softballed the prep sessions.
SimonXin re Bush’s watch, does he even wear one?
Yeah…It was a bit of an inside reference to Sam Stone on my part. A few months ago, Sam Stone was arguing a point that went something like this (clearly I paraphrase from memory here): “The French should have been more willing to go along with us on the U.N. resolution immediately before the Iraq war because Powell’s speech was very convincing at the time and was widely viewed that way, even if we now know in retrospect that it to be largely wrong.” I argued that in fact I think there were plenty of people who were not so impressed by Powell’s presentation (and linked to a couple of opinion pieces in The Nation), to which Sam’s response was that, well, everybody he listened to, including some Democrats in Congress, were impressed by Powell’s presentation and the leftists over at The Nation have to be discounted [never mind that we now know they were right] because they would never have believed anything short of Saddam holding a nuclear weapon in his hand or some such thing.
So, to make a long story short, my point to Sam was that maybe the general consensus he heard thinking that Bush had done an acceptable job in the press conference is the same general consensus that had given Powell rave reviews on that speech. (And, maybe they are just as correct now as they were that time.)
I heard the ‘mistake’ clip on the radio and have to agree with Sam. I had the feeling that if he said the wrong thing it would have repercussions beyond the scope of what the press conference was for. My concern is more about Iraq than about 9/11 or the election, though. In light of the Iraq situation I think flubbing a question was preferable to an unintended or unconsidered policy statement.
No, plenty of people on the left believe it’s a war, Sam, and believe that it’s being fought badly, resources are being misallocated or outright squandered, way too many innocent lives are being snuffed out, and now we have a whole 'nother problem with uprisings in Iraq and hostages being taken. Christ, it’s come full circle with the hostage-taking and Bremer’s “we won’t negotiate for hostages” remarks. Is there another Ollie North in the wings with a boatload of missiles for sale?
Rumsfeld has singularly fucked up the follow-throughs in Afghanistan and Iraq so badly I can’t believe he still has a job.
Also, I’m always astonished at the way the right sneers at the ‘law enforcement’ approach to combatting terrorism. How can you deny there’s a place for it? The law enforcement approach - you know, based on stuff like gathering evidence and catching the bad guys can be pretty darn effective if you ask me. There’s a place for military action (taking down the Taliban, for instance) and a place for “law enforcement”, especially in ‘a different kind of war’ where we’re combatting a stateless enemy.
On re-reading this attempt at a sentence, I should note that one small way in which Sam’s argument differed from what I have presented here is that his was not grammatically-challenged.
What, no in between? We’re getting the conservative-Christian light-v.-dark mojo going here.
This theme recurred a number of times through the press conference, and AFAICT it’s standing on air. No in-between? I don’t believe it. Let’s roll tape.
From the opening remarx:
And in the responses to questions:
I fully expect Bush to put the best face possible on his policies. If I were President, I’d do the same. But this is absurd. Surreal. Did we just wander into the Left Behind series, or something? There are outcomes in between a democratic Iraq that begins a wave of democracy across the region, and some disastrous outcome that turns the entire Mideast into a warren of terrorist states. (As Juan Cole points out, neither Turkish democracy, Iranian theocracy, nor Saudi Arabian monarchy have spread throughout the region. Nor did Saddam-style secular dictatorship.)
There are plenty of in-betweens, including an Islamic state that is somewhere in between democracy and theocracy, without any interest in exporting terror. So Bush’s grandiose assertions are just plain stupid. And even if they were:
He’s right about this: if we get driven from Iraq, our enemies will celebrate. But the time to count the cost (Luke 14:28-33) was beforehand. Bush was too busy then telling us it wouldn’t be that hard; he didn’t bother telling us that if we won the war but lost the peace, Osama bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. would use that event “to recruit a new generation of killers.”
Nah. The f*ckhead-in-chief thought it would be a cinch, so he didn’t bother telling the American people what the risks were. Hell, we tried to tell him, but did he listen? No.
I really like Powell... and if he was the president instead of Bush the USA would still be respected. Sending him to the UN with that silly speech was Rumsfeld's doing... to humiliate his opponent.
I still remember that UN speech... I sat down really thinking the US was going to show some top secret stuff and reveal good reasons for so much warmongering. When it was over... darn did I feel sorry for Powell.
I guess your point is correct jshore…
I am saying neither. I would prefer that he not negate his earlier statements about Muslim culture by suggesting that we’re Freedom Crusaders on a Mission From God. GWB began by saying he believes in freedom, in democracy because he sees it work in our country. Fine. Now we want to ensure that freedom in Iraq. Also fine. But invoking it as God’s will, God’s plan for the Middle East…I found that frightening.
Again, I didn’t have a problem with the statements that followed “I will not lose my job,” and, in fact, thought the whole thing would have been better without that initial statement. (GWB said something to the effect of hoping the American public would stick with him to see the situation in Iraq to its completion; the “hang with me through thick and thin” has emotional pull, and he even said it fairly well. But the statement began ominously, I felt.)
I would never go there. It’s way too inflammatory and insulting of a comparison.
Of course, Bush never said those were the only two choices. He said that Iraq would either be a peaceful democracy or a haven for violence and terror.
I admit that it’s hypothetically possible that the people of Iraq could end up with a benevolent non-democracy that abhors violence and terror, but I haven’t seen any evidence that such a faction exists in Iraq, let alone that it’s the choice of the majority of Iraqis. It seems clear that in order for Iraq to not end up with a democratic government, that democracy will have to be ripped from the fingers of the Iraqi people. The only method by which anyone has opposed democracy thus far has been through violence and terror (see al Sadr), and the theocracies they’ve endorsed have been far from benevolent and opposed to terror.
Cite?
Because I seem to remember Bush saying the exact opposite.
Sounds to me like you were the one that wasn’t listening.
Saying you take responsibility for something has absolutely no meaning if you haven’t done much of anything to correct the problem(s) for which you are taking responsibility. Bush and team should have had heads rolling by now. But instead all the old players, who supposedly didn’t do a good job, are still in place. Bush has done nothing to remove the failures and bring in new blood. Perhaps he is afraid of the books they would write and the interviews they would give about the internal workings of this administration?
I re-read the whole thing. There’s no mention of the risk of helping to recruit a new generation of killers by invading Iraq.
So you admit that you made up the assertion that Bush said it would be easy?
. . . Well, that’s a start.
Moving on to this second assertion (which I didn’t address in my first post), you originally said:
I’m a little lost on what your point is. Are you suggesting that you were duped because you didn’t realize that if our reconstruction efforts didn’t succeed, then terrorist organizations would use the failure to recruit more terrorists?
No, that can’t be it, because you also suggest that this point is plainly obvious, and that you tried to warn Bush about it. So you clearly knew about the risk.
Are you suggesting that the American people didn’t know about the risk of terror attacks stemming from our actions in Iraq?
Nah, that can’t be it. Because 1) that’s obvious, and the American people aren’t idiots; 2) the media addressed that topic repeatedly; 3) it couldn’t have been secret because you somehow found out about that risk; 4) you apparently warned Bush and everyone else about that risk; and 5) Bush addressed the risk of terrorist attacks flowing from our operations in Iraq (emphasis added):
If your point is that Bush never explicitly said that if we failed, terrorists would use that to recruit new members, then my question for you is, So what?
Where’s the cakewalk now?
Bush Gets WMD Claims Wrong Again:
Has Bush ever gotten anything right on WMD’s? How many chances should he get?
What’s plan B for fixing Iraq?
Exactly my point.
Sounds like an either/or to me, even as you express it. But if your quibble is that I’m exaggerating, keep reading: if it becomes a haven for violence and terror, Bush says the consequences go well beyond that: Iraq would become “a threat to America and the world”, “the consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable: every enemy of America…would…us[e] that victory to recruit a new generation of killers,” if we fail in Iraq, we can’t defeat terror elsewhere because “the defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere.”
But success in Iraq will not only change Iraq, but will “change the world” (he said this 4 times) because “a free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East will have incredible change.”
Why do you say this? What faction is there in Iraq that has said it will export terror beyond its borders?
You can’t rip something from anyone’s fingers that doesn’t exist yet. But we’ve opposed democracy in Iraq too. According to Juan Cole, we’ve blocked even local elections in Iraq, except in a handful of towns.
Cite?
Because I seem to remember Bush saying the exact opposite.Sounds to me like you were the one that wasn’t listening.
[/QUOTE]
May 1, 2003 wasn’t ‘beforehand’. Looks like you were the one that wasn’t reading.
By May 1, 2003, we were already in for the duration. Even if Bush was playing dress-up on the aircraft carrier under the “Mission Accomplished” sign.
First, re-check your posted bys. You’ve me mixed up w/ someone else.
So, the answer to that question is, “No, I don’t say that I made an assertion that Bush said it would be easy.”
I did note that Bush didn’t warn us in the speech you selected about how the invasion of Iraq, “if we won the war but lost the peace, [it could be] used ‘to recruit a new generation of killers.’”
This is where you must have me confused with someone else.
First of all, I see now that I misattributed some of RTFirefly’s quotes to SimonX. Sorry about that, SimonX.
None. But it’s reasonable to conclude that Islamic radicals who currently use terror (see al Sadr) would export terror beyond its borders, if they came into power.
Baloney. The mere fact that elections haven’t happened yet doesn’t mean that “we’ve opposed democracy in Iraq.” It just means that we haven’t had elections yet.
Do you seriously contend that we’re never going to allow elections in Iraq? Or do you just arguing semantics?
It was “before” the occupation. But if you’d like me to keep going back in time, how about this from Dubya’s speech on Oct. 7, 2002:
Regardless, you’re changing what you said. You said that “Bush was too busy then telling us it wouldn’t be that hard.” Now you’re asking me to prove that he said it was going to be easy (which he obviously did). So I call B.S. Please provide a cite where Bush said “it wouldn’t be that hard.”
So you’re criticizing Bush for not specifically warning you of a risk that you were already aware of? What a ridiculous standard.
Can I also criticize Kerry for not telling me about the problems with treating terrorism as a matter for intelligence and law enforcement? And can I criticize Clinton for not warning me that if those tomahawks missiles miss ObL, then he’s going to use that to recruit more terrorists?
And, hey, you haven’t told me about the weaknesses in your position! What’s up with that?
You’re right. Sorry about that.
That’s correct. It’s not in that speech. But I never said it was.
Only if you can cite anywhere that he said that it is only a matter for intelligence and law enforcement.
AKA “Pardon me, but your Rush Limbaugh is showing.”
That’s not what I said. I never said “only.” But here’s the quote that matches what I did say, from the January 29th Democratic debates:
Sorry, I don’t listen to Rush. AKA “Maybe you and Al Franken should start checking your facts.”
Why is that reasonable? There have been all sorts of rulers around the world who have been harsh on their own subjects without promoting terror on a transnational level.
In America, our Founding Fathers participated in their various colonial legislatures and city and town governments. Think of how much more improbable anything remotely like our Constitutional system would have been if they hadn’t had those experiences.
The obvious first step towards democracy is not the national level, but the local level. By blocking the attempts of the Iraqis to have local elections (which counts as opposing democracy on my scorecard) we’ve minimized the chances of democracy working in Iraq.
Think last week might’ve played out differently in towns that had been run by the locals since last May, rather than still run by the CPA?
So, we had the opportunity to back out after the invasion was completed, but before the occupation? That’s news to everyone.
It’s late, and my Googling seems to be weak. But OTOH, your memory is short. In the fall of 2002 and winter of 2003, Administration spokespersons were all over the news, telling us this war wasn’t going to take very long, cost very much, etc., etc. If your memory doesn’t run back that far, I’m sure I can dig a few cites up for you tomorrow.
I’m criticizing him for not warning the American people of a risk that those of us who were paying more attention than most, and could therefore see through the BS, were aware of. Can’t see how that’s particularly ridiculous; maybe you can enlighten me.
You can do whatever you like; it’s a free country. Might do those things in an appropriately-titled thread, though.
Pygmies, budgies, Kuala Lumpur. Why do you ask?