• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

It's all a big game

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
For the Bush supporters, it's all a big game, a reality TV show, and they don't want to lose. No matter how many Americans die, how much money we spend, they are digging in their heels rather than be shown wrong. Disgusting. Entire article; link below. :(

"Watching President Bush in recent weeks has become a grim kind of reality TV show. In almost every news conference, speech and photo opportunity, the topic is the same: what to do about the grinding war in Iraq. Bush has let the facade crack open -- admitting that his strategy for victory isn't working -- but then he struggles to rebuild it with new words of confidence.

The stress of the job -- so well hidden for much of the past six years -- has begun to show on Bush's face. He often looks burdened, distracted, haunted by a question that has no good answer. When a photographer captures him at ease, as in a sweet Texas-romance picture of Bush and his wife, Laura, that appeared in People magazine last week, it's as if he has escaped the Iraq sweatbox.

I grew up in a Washington that was struggling with the nightmare of a failing war in Vietnam. The government officials of that time were people who behaved as if they'd never known failure in their lives. They had the rosy confidence of the chosen -- "the best and the brightest," as David Halberstam put it. But then the war began to grind them down. I see that same meat grinder at work now. Bush and his officials are strong characters; they work hard not to let you see them sweat. But the anguish and exhaustion are there.

Bush is not a man for introspection. That's part of his flinty personality -- the tight, clipped answers and the forced jocularity of the nicknames he gives to reporters and White House aides. That's why this version of reality TV is so poignant: This very private man has begun to talk out loud about the emotional turmoil inside. He is letting it bleed.

Bush opened the emotional curtain at a news conference last week. A reporter noted that Lyndon Johnson hadn't been able to sleep well during the Vietnam War and asked Bush if this was a "painful time" for him. He gave an unexpectedly personal answer: "Most painful aspect of my presidency has been knowing that good men and women have died in combat. I read about it every night. And my heart breaks for a mother or father or husband or wife or son and daughter. It just does. And so when you ask about pain, that's pain."

Bush's "state of denial," as Bob Woodward rightly called it, has officially ended. He actually spoke the words "We're not winning" last week in an interview with The Post, coupling it with the reverse: "We're not losing." But in truth, he cannot abide the possibility that Iraq will not end in victory. So a day after his "not winning" comment, he half took it back, saying: "I believe that we're going to win," and then adding oddly, as if to reassure himself: "I believe that -- and by the way, if I didn't think that, I wouldn't have our troops there. That's what you've got to know. We're going to succeed."

Policy debates in this White House are often described as battles between competing advisers -- Dick Cheney wants this; the Joint Chiefs favor that; Condi Rice favors a third outcome. This kind of analysis implies that Bush isn't really master of his own house, but I think it's a big mistake. The truth is that with this president, the only opinion that finally matters is his own. And he's a stubborn man. Military leaders can tell him it's a mistake to surge troops into Baghdad, but that doesn't mean he will listen.

Bush says he doesn't care what happens now to his poll numbers, and I believe him. He broke through the political barriers a while ago. I sense that, as he anguishes about Iraq, he has in mind the judgment of future historians. He said it plainly in an interview in October with conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly: "Look, history is interesting. I read three books on George Washington last year. And my opinion is that if they're still analyzing the first president, the 43rd president ought to be doing what he thinks is right. And eventually, historians will come and realize whether . . . the decisions I made made sense."

What makes reality TV gripping is that it's all happening live -- the contestants make their choices under pressure, win or lose. So too with Bush. He is making a vast wager -- of American lives, treasure and the nation's security -- that his judgments about Iraq were right. The Baker-Hamilton report gave him a chance to take some chips off the table, but Bush doesn't seem interested. He is still playing to win. The audience is shouting out advice, but the man under the spotlight knows he will have to make this decision alone."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600776.html
 
I agree, we need to just walk away, let what ever happens be how history unfolds. then in ten years we can sit back and fight the muslim bastards here in this country!

I bet you have a pretty good view of your stomach with your head buried so far up your ass.
 
Personal insults. That's good. When someone doesn't have a point to make, they offer personal insults. Makes me happy to see you reduced to that level.
 
if dis qusting had the job she would do the only thing she knows how to do CUT AND PASTE and then rothflhfao that she is very very good at
 
I'm giving Dis the opportunity to let us know how the problem can be fixed as it stands today.

I have heard the war was to get Saddam (we got him, now what)
I have heard the war was for oil (there is more oil under Canada and Alaska so don't ya think Bush would have invaded here first, cheaper and closer)
I have heard the war was plotted out by Bush and was a huge conspiricy theory. (WTF??? This doesnt make sense even my most confused of days, I can get pretty darn confused)

OK so if these are the causes of the war how would Dis fix it? If I understand Dis's arguement, this is not a war about terrorism.
 
if it were a Dem pres, Dis would be gung ho for killing as many Iraqis as possible. she has clearly proven herself to be a flaming liberal caught in the spin
 
Well I have heard three different theorys about the war ( they seem to change as the wind blows) and have not heard one answer to the problem... Seems kind of odd to me. I'm sure the president could use some advice, I would not want to be in his shoes at all. He was in office for like a week? when the SHTF. Doesnt seem like he had enough time to come up with an attack on his own country. Eh, I could be wrong...
 
Well I was giving an opportunity in a non hostile way to show me their side. Still no response...anyone surprised. I am always open to discussion but I need to hear the actual arguement without name calling and mud slinging. Take that away and the argument seems to go away.....
 
Judith said:
Well I was giving an opportunity in a non hostile way to show me their side. Still no response...anyone surprised. I am always open to discussion but I need to hear the actual arguement without name calling and mud slinging. Take that away and the argument seems to go away.....

Judith I have twice left what I felt was a good idea for deployment of troops out of Iraq and both times I posted, none of the repupub's cared to answer back...and Mr Memanpa was the one who asked for my idea and then not even a ty for writing it from him...I go with the motto silience means acceptance on those issuses...So if you care to take the time to search it out,you will find I have answered your question the best i could....
 
K, I'll go take a look. Do you happen to remember the name of your thread? If not I will be able to find it. Thanks nonothing
 
nonothing said:
Judith said:
Well I was giving an opportunity in a non hostile way to show me their side. Still no response...anyone surprised. I am always open to discussion but I need to hear the actual arguement without name calling and mud slinging. Take that away and the argument seems to go away.....

Judith I have twice left what I felt was a good idea for deployment of troops out of Iraq and both times I posted, none of the repupub's cared to answer back...and Mr Memanpa was the one who asked for my idea and then not even a ty for writing it from him...I go with the motto silience means acceptance on those issuses...So if you care to take the time to search it out,you will find I have answered your question the best i could....

i am not sure which idea you are refering to for re deployment that was so much different from one of kolos that it deserved a TY for, perhaps you can enlightn us all!!!
 
Judith said:
Well I was giving an opportunity in a non hostile way to show me their side. Still no response...anyone surprised. I am always open to discussion but I need to hear the actual arguement without name calling and mud slinging. Take that away and the argument seems to go away.....

I have no answer to Iraq. I've said so. And it doesn't matter if I did have an answer. The Iraqi Study Group came up with a plan; Bush ignored it. Generals on the ground in Iraq have said over and over that there needs to be a political settlement between the people in Iraq before peace can break out. 140,000 American soldiers can't force a political settlement on the Iraqi people. Surely you can understand that simple fact. Sending another 55,000 troops won't make a speck of difference. Withdrawing most American troops will force the Sunnis and Shiites to either work together or kill each other. Personally, I don't care which they decide to do, but not another American soldier should give his life for this mess that Bush created.

As for the reason behind the war it's very simple. George W. Bush wanted to get Saddam. He and the Bush Bunch felt that we should have gone on into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. This gave George W., a man who dodged his own war, a chance to do something his Daddy didn't do: get Saddam.

But he told the American people Saddam had WMDs and would give them to terrorists who could bring them to the US. This country was still reeling from 9/11 and looked to him to protect us. Obviously, it wasn't true. Saddam didn't have WMDs.

Bush ignored the fact there were no WMDs for a few months, then he started the "save the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator" publicity campaign. But they found out pretty quick that most Americans aren't interested in saving the Iraqi people, especially at that price.

So the "War on Terror" slogan was born. That has held up pretty well until the last year. The military (including Rumsfeld) wanted that slogan changed because it suggests that the "War" on Terror is something that can be won by the military. Our generals have said over and over, on the field and in front of a Congressional Committee that peace in Iraq depends on a political settlement between the Iraqi factions, Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis. So what's Bush to do? He fired "the best SecDefense" ever (according to Cheney). While there effectively was not a SecDefense, General Casey and General Abizaid both said they didn't need more troops in Iraq. Gates got confirmed and went to Iraq, sat down with those guys and (IMO) straightened them out as to who they worked for: George W. Bush. Now they say they may be able to use more troops after all. It's a sad situation to see how this Administration has insulted, abused, and disrespected our military leaders in this country. We've lost many expereienced, intelligent, top Army leaders during Iraq because they couldn't live with themselves and carry out the orders Rumsfeld gave them. It will be a long time before we have the people with integrity and skills to replace them. And our country is less secure for it. :(
 
Judith said:
Well I have heard three different theorys about the war ( they seem to change as the wind blows) and have not heard one answer to the problem... Seems kind of odd to me. I'm sure the president could use some advice, I would not want to be in his shoes at all. He was in office for like a week? when the SHTF. Doesnt seem like he had enough time to come up with an attack on his own country. Eh, I could be wrong...

He had been president for about nine months when 9/11 happened. He was fully briefed by the previous Administration to the threat of Al Quaida. The information on the attack on the USS Cole was there for him to follow up on, he hadn't. He was on vacation much of that time! Can you believe that? :roll: When the attack was reported to him, he turned to his terrorism advisor (who he had demoted) and said "Did Saddam do this?" That was his first thought, that he had an opportunity to pin 9/11 on Saddam, thus an excuse to attack Iraq. Richard Clark, the advisor, told him who had done it. At first the White House denied the discussion, but Clark had witnesses who were there, so the White House backed off. The man had a grudge against Saddam, he's said so. They ignored the professional military who said we needed to send in "several hundred thousand" troops and withdrew thousands of troops as soon as they took Baghdad! General Franks took his staff back to Florida, including his people who spoke the language and his intelligence people! They believed they could have a quick, quiet little war, get in and out, secure the oil for American countries, and everyone would be happy. Bush would have his trophy, Saddam, the US would have a secure source of oil for generations to come.

As for why we haven't invaded Canada for their oil, that's silly. Canada is our friend. He could never sell an excuse to invade Canada to Congress or citizens of the US. You're not foreign to us; Iraqis are a different color, they live different lives; they worship differently. It was an easy sell to lots of people. Plus, like I said, we were still reeling from 9/11.
 
nonothing said:
Judith said:
Well I was giving an opportunity in a non hostile way to show me their side. Still no response...anyone surprised. I am always open to discussion but I need to hear the actual arguement without name calling and mud slinging. Take that away and the argument seems to go away.....

Judith I have twice left what I felt was a good idea for deployment of troops out of Iraq and both times I posted, none of the repupub's cared to answer back...and Mr Memanpa was the one who asked for my idea and then not even a ty for writing it from him...I go with the motto silience means acceptance on those issuses...So if you care to take the time to search it out,you will find I have answered your question the best i could....

Congressman Jack Murtha has been calling for a redeployment for a couple of years now. The Republicans have ridiculed and insulted this 20+ year Marine as a "coward." But today more and more Republicans are starting to come around to Murtha's position. Iraq is a disaster, a quagmire, and Bush is apparently willing to let another 3,000 Americans die to drag this thing out for the rest of his term. Whatever happens, he doesn't want to be the man who "lost" Iraq.
 
bush, cheney and rumsfeld have already lost iraq and weakened the usa a great deal in the process.
 
don said:
bush, cheney and rumsfeld have already lost iraq and weakened the usa a great deal in the process.

That's the truth. We'll be paying for this fiasco for generations to come.
 

Latest posts

Top