Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Bush is probably smirking at how much gullible 51,000,000 people are. Can’t really blame him. Past a certain point, its the victims who deserve the blame.

Aldous.

AP,

Here’s the part you left out:

On the other hand, there were some really fine units in Fallujah, for example, in Najaf, that did their duty. And so the — our military trainers, our military leaders have analyzed what worked and what didn’t work. And I met with General Abizaid and General Casey in the White House last week. And I think it was before the — yes, I think it was Thursday morning, if I’m not mistaken — I was going to say before the interminable press conference — I mean press party. Anyway. (Laughter.)
Here’s what — first of all, recruiting is strong. The place where the generals told me that we need to do better is to make sure that there is a command structure that connects the soldier to the strategy in a better way, I guess is the best way to describe it. In other words, they’ve got some generals in place and they’ve got foot soldiers in place, but the whole command structure necessary to have a viable military is not in place. And so they’re going to spend a lot of time and effort on achieving that objective.

Guess everything’s not so bad after all.

As a red voter, I’ll be more than happy to apologize on President Bush’s behalf for the fact that he wasn’t able to achieve perfection immediately. I’m sure he’ll do better during his second term.

Traveler, the point is, Bush is now admitting there aren’t “nearly 100,000 fully trained and equipped Iraqi soldiers, police officers, and other security personnel” at work in Iraq like he previously claimed there was.

Liar or victim? Your choice.

AP,

Got a link? The article about President Bush’s Press conference didn’t give a number, unless I missed it.

There have been some cases where when the heat got on, they left the battlefield. That’s unacceptable. Iraq will never secure itself if they have troops that when the heat gets on, they leave the battlefield.

So pessimistic. What kind of a message does this send to our valiant ally, Iraq?

My gut instincts tell me that Bush’s pessimistic announcements of the last few days are a way of prepping the ground for some major revelation, probably during the State of the Union speech or at the inauguration. Bush is not afraid of changing course sharply (e.g., his foreign policy before and after 9/11), and he’s not afraid of making people angry, especially when they have almost two years to forget before voting again. I don’t have an inkling as to what his new tack will be, but I’m guessing it’s not going to make many people smile.

This could get ugly.

Dubya:
“There have been some cases where when the heat got on, they left the battlefield. That’s unacceptable. Iraq will never secure itself if they have troops that when the heat gets on, they leave the battlefield.”

Look at President Pot calling the Iraqi Kettle Black. The guy who got his Daddy to get him out of going to Vietnam and then went awol when he was supposed to be on call at any moment if needed, dissing troops who take off in the heat of battle.
What a mountain of irony covering up a load of sh*t.

“…And so the American people are taking a look at Iraq and wondering whether the Iraqis are eventually able — going to be able to fight off these bombers and killers.”

So, all this death and destruction for nothing? Well, at least Halliburton and Bechtel got rich on all those tax dollars of ours, eh?

But perhaps there is the slimmest of chances that this flip-flop-in-progress has been brought about by this newly released poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=347784

From the ABC News Poll:

However, 60 percent said the Iraqi elections scheduled for late January should go forward regardless of the security situation.

In other words, a majority of Americans are signaling that no matter how many Iraqi voters and election officials are killed, regardless if the target of 80% percent participation is not met, and even if the rest of the world views it as an illegitimate election - they are fine with it.

It is clear, the new strategy is two pronged - Save Face, Blame Iraq!

You’re hearing it throughout the Conservative Echo Chamber - ‘If they want Democracy, they’re gonna need to stand up and fight for it!’ - which goes nicely with the President’s dismay over the Iraqi forces not living up to expectations. No mention they’re hastily trained, poorly equipped and armed, and #1 on the Insurgents Hit Lists.

Meanwhile, as The Traveler expresses, our culpability and accountability gets another pass, as the line in the sand is moved yet again. We Lefties are seen as traitors for questioning the handling of the war, but it is you Bush Apologists on the Right who have argued that its execution has been nothing less than perfect (Andy Card called Rummy’s job performance ‘superb’, recently).

I been hearing right wing politicos stating that Insurgency will die down after the “election.” Now they are hinting that may not happen. As I stated before Bush is hanging onto Rumsfeld for his eventual goatscaping. Alawi has now hinted at Civil War being the post election result.

A Shia domination will lead to many results that Bush will not like or support. So much for “democracy”.

It is clear, the new strategy is two pronged - Save Face, Blame Iraq!

Haha! Bert, I saw that coming a year ago.

Bush’s plan so far, is for US civilian authorities to “didi mau” by June 30, so he can proclaim “mission accomplished” in time for the November elections. Anything that happens after that can hardly be blamed on him, right? It would be the Iraqi people’s fault, or the UN’s mess. - 24 January 2004

So far I have a perfect prediction record with the Bush administration. The trick is, it’s impossible to be too pessimistic or contemptuous of their abilities. :)

We here this figure of 80% of Iraqis voting in the upcoming “election”.
Where does this figure come from?
American voters have been practicing this right for over 200 years.
When was the last time that 80% of American voters participated?

Rocky, I think the 80% figure is based on the large - some would say “incredibly” large - number of Afghanis who recently voted. Minus 25% for the disenfranchised Sunnis. :)

The problem with the Bush administration is that it mistakes optimism for momentum. You can be optimistic about a war, and have the momentum go against you. At the same time, you can reserve strong doubts as to the progress and the success of one’s efforts, and nonetheless have momentum going for you in the war.

Both can be bad. In the former, you might allow your illusions to steal your opportunity to redeem the situation and turn the tide. In the latter, you may pass up opportunities because you don’t believe they exist, even though the chance is yours. So, one would want to avoid heedless pessimism as much as heedless optimism; both can lose battles.

Still, it is far easier to win from a skeptical but committed perspective, rather than a more credulous version. In moving to win in Iraq, we must not simply dismiss the resistance as inconsequential, anymore than a potential flood victim should consider the first few inches of water as meaningless. Even defeat must have its start somewhere.

After months of trying to warn the Republicans of the rising tide of violence and potential violence in Iraq, it’s not surprising that Democrats are beginning to lose hope. You would too, if you saw the other side grab all the power and stubbornly pursue a continuation of failed policies. How can we win, those people would ask, if these folks won’t even recognize what trouble they are in?

In short, the lost hopes of many Democrats are born of their frustration with a impractical administration stubbornly carrying out a dysfunctional policy. I hope they can reform, personally, but I have no idea how we go from here, with the Bush adminstration and all.

Just yesterday, I felt like all the air had gone out of the room. 13 soldiers dead at one throw. I read further and find that people had known the tent was vulnerable, and that their concerns had been expressed, and had gone unheeded.

My question to Republicans is this: how long must we hand the advantage to the insurgents? How long must we carelessly let them build their momentum and inflict their violence on soldier and civilian alike before we come to recognize the size and the scale of the commitment necessary? Bush got us into this war, now it’s his job (more than ever) to get us out without bringing this country to shame.

Armor, troops, and a clear, well-founded appreciation of our situation. Nothing else will bring about a result in Iraq we can take pride in. We’ve said it all along. Now’s the time for Republicans to start listening.

This morning Bush referred to Iraq as a “mission for peace.”

We’ve tried spreading “peace” by invading a country. We’ve tried spreading “peace” with M-16’s, Abrahms tanks, Cobra helicopters, and for some strange reason, there is no peace. It’s just a mystery why the Iraqis will not fight alongside the occupiers of their country, or why the Sunnis will not fight to put the Shias in control of the country.

When we saw that sign, “Mission Accomplished!” I missed the visual signals of our peaceful intentions. Looked like the President was wearing a flight suit, and standing on an aircraft carrier addressing troops.

I must have misheard him when Bush said “Bring it on!”

Well what should all those red state rebubicans expect from a man like Pres. Bush who seems perfectly willing if not outright enthusiastic about prepetuating American Militarism.We’ll see when the casulty list tops 10,000. Its a shame it’s come to this. I at least thought Bush or somebody in his cabinet would have rememberd Vietnam, maybe they just don’t care. In the end I have a feeling they’ll be saying oops! I think those awful liberal DEMOCRATS were RIGHT!!

I misjudged the Iraq conflict. I was familiar with the horrors of the Hussein regime and I couldn’t believe that anyone wouldn’t want to be free of this sort of thing. I also talked to many Kurds, who seemed heroic and resolute in their long struggle against despotism. They reminded me of Poles, who I had seen stand up to Communism and that affected my judgment. My experience in E. Europe was not applicable. I expected that the Iraqis would seize the opportunity to be free. No proud person likes an occupying army, but I expected the Iraqis would be proactive in helping themselves.

The situation is different and so my expectations and goals are different. The Kurds have lived up to expectations. The Shiites are on the proper path, but the Sunni are not and the situation as a whole is not. We can admit to being wrong, so what do we do.

The free and democratic Iraq along a Central European model is probably not going to happen, but there are acceptable alternatives. The Kurds have been resolute and honorable. We (the U.S.) betrayed them twice in the past. We should not do it again. Our first responsibility is to make sure they have what they need to protect themselves. “Free Kurdistan” has been a de-facto reality for a dozen years. There is no reason to go backwards. The Shiites probably can protect themselves without our help. That is why they are enthusiastic about elections. So after the elections what happens? The Shiites are the big winners. The Kurds maintain their regional autonomy and the Sunnis … don’t know. Faced with the reality of an Iraq ruled by Shiites with Kurds as junior partners, neither of which has any reason to love the Sunni minority and their Baathist connections, maybe the Sunnis will wise up and get with the program. It should not be an American program after the election.

In any case, this Iraq, bad as it might become, is still better than an Iraq rules by Saddam and his psycho sons. And it has the potential to evolve into something better. American troops will probably have to remain in some places, but they should be areas where the local population wants them (probably Kurdistan and some parts of the south). Let the new Iraqi government deal with its own recalcitrant citizens, or not. We have to let it go and see what happens. We need only be flexible enough to respond to changing conditions.

Damn, Jack! If I heard Bush voice that first paragraph, my respect for him would shoot through the roof. Even moreso if he followed it with a plan that acknowleged the reality.

As for the rest, a whole bunch of people are going to be saying, “I told you so.”

Despite the majority of American’s opposition to a unilateral, non-UN-sanctioned invasion, we all wanted the occupation and reconstruction to succeed. Still do, but the way the operation’s been run, I guess we’ll be lucky if Iraq is a moderate Islamic fundamentalist theocracy.

AP

I can say what I want because nobody cares what I think. Bush has more at stake. If I were him, I don’t think I would be as candid either.

I guess I should make this clear, that I never found the objective of removing Saddam Hussein to be a bad thing, in and of itself, but to me, it was essential that we be prepared both to answer for why we were doing it, and what we would do after that. When the invasion began, I was on the fence about it, waiting for the evidence to come in.

I think a great number of people were thinking the same thing. If we had found evidence of, or (god forbid) had been attacked with WMDs, Bush could have landed a number of people on his side, at least for the time being. The alienation of a major portion of Europe would have had a justification.

But given the target, many people could have forgiven a great deal, had he not also added the additional error of failing to properly plan for, equip, and man the occupation that followed. It’s bad enough to make one mistake and cost us reputation, it’s worse to make another mistake and cost people their lives.

That’s where Democrat’s attitudes on the war come from. Not only did Bush make a mistake in the way he invaded, but he continued his disgrace in not managing the war properly.