The White House spin cycle

[Disagreeable]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/

"The White House spin cycle (David Shuster)

I don't know if things are getting better or worse in Iraq. But I do know, from a close friend who works at the White House, that the Bush administration is now panicked over the erosion of public support for the occupation. One can see that by reviewing the President's radio address and looking at the comments made recently by other administration officials.
First, the president's radio address: On Saturday President Bush defended the war in Iraq saying, "We went to war because we were attacked." Huh? In September 2003, the President himself stated, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th attacks." (For the record, the 9/11 Commission is on the side of the Sept. 2003 President Bush — The commission found there was "no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.")
On Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said criticism of the handling of the war isn't justified because "The administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq." What? That was said... but it came from Senators pouring cold water on the administration's optimistic pre-war predictions. What were those predictions? Vice President Cheney (March 16, 2003) said, "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators... I think it will go relatively quickly... in weeks rather than months." Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on Feb. 7, 2003 said, "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Former Budget director Mitch Daniels (March 28, 2003) stated, "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
Iraq will not require sustained aid? Hmmm. Today, Congress voted to send the Pentagon another $45 billion for operations in Iraq. That brings the total amount appropriated so far, for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to $322.40 billion.
The administration seems to think that by shifting the justification for the war or changing what administration officials said 3 years ago, the president's poll numbers will magically turn around. The pretzel shaped logic of this strategy is mind-boggling. And one begins to wonder if the gang that helped President Bush win a 2nd term has been stuffed into a closet.
The math on this is simple. If the war was going well, the public would support the occupation of Iraq, regardless of whatever reasons the administration gave for the invasion. The problem is, according to republican Senator Chuck Hagel, "The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along."
And now, the public is tired of this deadly trip through fantasyland — a place where White House P.R. strategies seem to matter more than holding anybody accountable for the war's mistakes and mismanagement."

BTW, this is for Steve. Just wanted him to know that there are other opinions out there for Americans to read.

 

[Steve]

I find it a liberal piece of bad writing ,( had I turned in such crap in high school , I would have been flunked) , and this guy was paid to write?

next time you would like to submit something "just for me" at least find a writer who can write, a readable piece, not some wandering pointless crap....

 

[Sierraman]

I had to read that whole thing just to find out at the end that it wasn't even for me, but for Steve. Boy, do I feel bad. Couldn't you have told us it was for Steve at the beginning.? :lol:

 

[Disagreeable]

I find it a liberal piece of bad writing ,( had I turned in such crap in high school , I would have been flunked) , and this guy was paid to write?

next time you would like to submit something "just for me" at least find a writer who can write, a readable piece, not some wandering pointless crap....

Typical. You don't want to discuss things from the article like

"We went to war because we were attacked." Huh? In September 2003, the President himself stated, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th attacks." (For the record, the 9/11 Commission is on the side of the Sept. 2003 President Bush — The commission found there was "no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.")"

or: "Vice President Cheney (March 16, 2003) said, "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators... I think it will go relatively quickly... in weeks rather than months."

or: "Rumsfeld on Feb. 7, 2003 said, "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

or: "Budget director Mitch Daniels (March 28, 2003) stated, "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."

You just want to complain about the writing quality!! :lol: :lol: Of all the people on this board, Steve, you've got no room to complain about writing.