Democrats & Liberals Archives

So Now You Want to Listen to Critics

Once again, George Bush has caused me to do a double-take. Recently he said to his critics “To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.” WHAT!!?? …

Now you want to listen to your critic's opinions on what to do. 3 years late and 400 billion dollars short, Mr. President. You should have listened to Colin Powell when you were making your decision to go to war, to General Shinseki who said he would need upwards of 500,000 troops, to the UN who said they had found no weapons of mass destruction, and the list goes on. Bush has been running a game plan for most of 4 quarters that has yielded nothing but punts and turnovers and at the two-minute warning asks the booing fans, "well, what do you want me to do now?" It's too late to offer a plan that will work because nothing can pull Iraq back from the abyss now. You waited too long to make any positive corrections.

Well here's some you didn't listen to
Well Mr. President, I wanted you to use diplomacy when it could have worked. I wanted you to focus on making Afghanistan work (it is now becoming almost as much of a disaster as Iraq). I wanted you to choose a path that did not require the sacrifice of 3,000 Americans and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. I wanted you to have the sense to see that there would be an insurgency and ethnic strife and headed it off before it became entrenched, I wanted you to not give billions of our dollars over to Haliburton in no-bid contracts that have been squandered. I wanted you to not give billions in tax cuts to your filthy-rich supporters while handing a ridiculous debt to my child and grandchildren. I could go on.

Wisdom from the senate. . .

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Echoed Bush's sentiment claiming that Democrats have no plan but to leave. Mr. McConnell, had you used some of your power of oversight for the six years your party controlled the senate Iraq might not be in the situation it is now.

John McCain (R-AZ) has probably the most tired argument for continuing this disaster of a war by saying that if we leave Iraq they will follow us here. This is insane, why would a Sunni or a Shiite follow us here to fight their civil war? They only want us out of the way so they can have at it - the US leaving would give them that opportunity. This is also similar to the equally lame "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" argument. Well, Mr. McCain, if we hadn't started a war over there for no reason there would not be anyone in Iraq to "follow us here."

Posted by Tom Snediker at January 14, 2007 2:19 PM
Comments
Comment #203226
Bush said lawmakers “have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success.”

Seems to me there were many alternatives offered during this whole unholy war that had better chances for success. He ignored them all, including his generals, the men whose judgement would seem to me most valuable.

Unless he means success in convincing him.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 14, 2007 5:31 PM
Comment #203235

Tom,

Great article. I would like to add that Bush is now turning to those who “told him so” to bail him out:

On Iraq, U.S. Turns to Onetime Dissenters
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/13/AR2007011301372.html

I simply think it’s too little, too late. We’ve stretched that “thin green line” to the breaking point. We’re asking far too few Americans to sacrifice far too much, and we have very little left to fall back on.

Holy cow, Bush just figured out that we need more souls in the Army and Marine Corps. Must’ve been an epipheny. I’d love to know just what meds Bush is taking.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 14, 2007 6:46 PM
Comment #203269

Fred Kagan, author of the surge plan is an expert on Military tactics in the new century.

If we’re talking Russia.
And if the new century is the 19th.

What’s more, he dropped the number of soldiers needed for the plan from 80,000 to 30,000. The good news is the plans for the cavalry charge and the orders for the Muskets and cannons were scrapped along with them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #203281

Holy moly.

Thanks Stephen. That helps to explain things.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 14, 2007 11:47 PM
Comment #203285

Stephen: Kagan’s plan demonstrates he does not even understand 19th century Russian military history. But, W has never been interested in listening to any of us who actually know of what we speak — especially if we have actually served this country in combat.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at January 14, 2007 11:55 PM
Comment #203338
I’d love to know just what meds Bush is taking.

None. Which *IS* the problem.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 15, 2007 12:44 PM
Comment #203395

Tom,

You speak the words, I feel. Just what part of “you’re a friggin’ moron”, doesn’t he understand?

Posted by: gergle at January 15, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #203479

Good article Tom Snediker. Welcome to Watchblog.

StephenD:
“Fred Kagan, author of the surge plan is an expert on Military tactics in the new century.

If we’re talking Russia.
And if the new century is the 19th.”

[Sigh] Just Perfect. But who else would these madmen have chosen, really? I’m sure Kag-ee has done a heckuva job with the plan — after all, having your only scholarly work focus on the topic of Napoleon made him the obvious choice for this vitally important task.
Personally, I think this now means Bush and his Neocon pals should be automatically exiled to St. Helena.

“What’s more, he dropped the number of soldiers needed for the plan from 80,000 to 30,000.”

“Surge” becomes Trickle — Troops Screwed.

“The good news is the plans for the cavalry charge and the orders for the Muskets and cannons were scrapped along with them.”

Yet, this being the “New Way Forward” and all, they also made sure to to scrap decently armored vehicles as well — to ensure there would be plenty of cannon fodder for the glory of The Emperor Decider.

Incidentally, it was a nineteenth century political rabble rouser and pamphlet writer whose name was Chateaubriand who first brought the term cannon fodder into popular use. A harsh critic of Napoleon, Chateaubriand used it to describe the mans neglect and abuse of his soldiers:
“the contempt for the lives of men and for France herself has come to the point of calling the conscripts ‘the raw material’ and ‘the cannon fodder’.”

Such contempt for the lives of men is repeated each and every time an imperialist madman rises to power.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 15, 2007 11:44 PM
Comment #203533

jc - I wouldn’t canonize George Bush quite yet. He will go down as one of the two or three worst presidents in US history - maybe only Buchanan’s fiddling while Rome was burning could top this disaterous presidency.

“If the liberal Democrats had showed up to do their part in the beginning of the war this game would be over.”

uhh… they Democrats were not even consulted on any aspect of this war other than the misguided Dems that voted for Bush’s war resolution and Joe Lieberman who is still carrying Bush’s water. There is not a single thing that the Dems have done to harm Bush’s war effort. W has done it all by himself.

“By the way we will still let the left celebrate the Victory.”

I, for one, will wait before getting my party favors out.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at January 16, 2007 2:00 PM
Comment #203584

jc,

No one really believed a President would actually lie so blatantly and so clearly against the best interests of the nation simply in order to get re-elected. Who knew the guy was such a prick.
Does that answer your question?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 16, 2007 6:41 PM
Comment #203758

JC said:

Tom care to explain to me how a mongloyed like G.W.can mislead those Bright Democrats most of which were on commitee’s that over see Intelegence and and foreign affairs for years before G.W. took the Oath of Office.

JC - I never called W. a mongoloid (with an i) and I certainly did not say that the Dems were geniuses. What I said was that it was very disingenuous to say that his critics should propose a plan that he has absolutely no intention of listening to much less considering.

I also never said that even the Dems who served on the intelligence committee before Bush started this war nor Bill Clinton all of whom believed that Saddam had the weapons that he did not have were decieved by Bush. What Bush did was to take what everyone suspected to be true and tried to make it a hard fact. Then, he blundered his way into a war without any thought of the consequences because he was so arrogant to think that just because he willed it to happen that it would. He took actions that destablized Iraq way past where it was when Saddam was in power. He empowered the Iranians by letting the Shiites take the Iraqi government. The stupidity was to think that his view of democracy is everyone’s view of democracy. Bush seems to think that democracy is a government that allows American corporations unfettered access to cheap labor and cheap natural resources. The elections in Iraq have shown that the Iraqi people believe democracy is getting the most power for their ethnic/religious group in order to dominate the other groups in the country.

JC - It is obvious that you are in love with George Bush but you shouldn’t let that cloud reality and the facts. To be honest, I wish “the sleeping giant” as you put it would awake and he would spend his last two years displaying some competency (even a little would be nice). He is screwing this country into the ground fast and I would applaud anything he does that stops our decent into the abyss. This is wishful thinking. I want my country to succeed, to prosper and to be governed competently no matter what party has power I just think that this doorknob of a president has come up woefully short.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at January 17, 2007 7:28 PM
Comment #203786

JC-
First and foremost, the easiest way to lie, one that any idiot can manage, is simply not to say anything when asked. We asked him what his evidence was. He provided incomplete, out of context, poorly sourced information, but he had the power to conceal that from us. Are we supposed to be psychics, pulling what he didn’t tell us out of thin air, or are we to be contrarians, just contradicting him flatly, regardless of the available evidence?

Most Americans aren’t intelligence experts, and they shouldn’t have to be. Most of the Bush administration didn’t have intelligence analysis training, but they tried to second guess the conclusions of the real experts, so they could get what they wanted. They neglected many of the practices and rules of dealing with intelligence assets and reports, and fed the American people information that the CIA considered erroneous, and took out of drafts being handed to people for public consumption. Then, to both compound the offense and add insult to injury, they turned around when it all blew up in their faces, and told America the CIA failed them.

One of the major reasons that this could done with all the bright Democrats and Republicans on the committees, is that Bush pulled security clearances for all but a handful of Congressmen and Senators, and those who had those clearances couldn’t publically speak of what they had been told. They had to keep their mouths shut while sanitized versions of the NIE on Saddam’s weapons was put out in lieu of the much more qualified and reserved report made by the intelligence community.

You want to champion him for standing up where the UN would not, but in retrospect, there was nothing to stand up for, and had the Bush administration had the balls to be open to any other scenario than Saddam having weapons, we could have had one less front in the War on Terrorism to deal with, and that is generally a good thing, because you don’t have to hold back on kicking the ass of whoever’s on the first front. Remember that Hitler was defeated in no small part because he chose to fight a two-front war. That’s always a bad position to be in.

Courage would have been considering other course of action in this war than that which saved his ass. He had the balls to tell us in one of his latest interviews that he had asked the American people for sacrifice by being disquieted by what we saw on TV, when early on in the war, we would have been very willing to get behind Bush trying to win the war, rather than timidly choosing to win the election alone.

Every moment he procrastinated to put off the political consequences of admitting he was wrong, was a moment that gave the enemy more of the advantage they need in causing the failure of Iraq as a nation. What he’s trying now is to fricking little, too fricking late.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 17, 2007 11:20 PM
Post a comment