Bush says night is day

[DrChinese]

Bush says that the violence in Iraq proves his strategy is working. And night is day, too, I guess.

From MSNBC:

"THE MORE PROGRESS we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity that’s available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become," Bush told reporters at the White House.

He said those who are continuing to engage in violence "can’t stand the thought of a free society. They hate freedom. They love terror. They love to try to create fear and chaos."

But Bush, sitting next to civilian U.S. Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer in the Oval Office, said he remains "even more determined to work with the Iraqi people" to restore peace and civility to the wartorn nation.

Said Bremer: "We’ll have rough days ... but the overall thrust is in the right direction and the good days outnumber the bad days."

Talk about living in la-la land. According to Bush, the worse it looks in Iraq, the better it really is. Oh, and the better it looks, the better it really is too. As we all know, who needs facts when spin works just as well?

U.S. out of Iraq.

 

[Ziggurat]

U.S. out of Iraq.

Translation: let the extremists win. Let the people who attack red cross buildings drive out anyone trying to help Iraq, so it can fall back into the hands of the worst of humanity. In other words, abandon Iraq, because you never cared about it in the first place, so why would it matter to you if it spirals into total chaos? What, you think people who attack red cross buildings are going to be content to ONLY see us leave, and won't try to establish their own extremist government by violence? Talk about living in la-la land.

 

[Ion]

Re: Re: Bush says night is day

Translation: let the extremists win.
...

You mean that Bush (U.S.) is not the current extremist in Iraq?

 

[Crossbow]

Since Bush does not bother to do his own research, he is very dependent upon his staff to provide him with correct information. Therefore, if his staff provides him with bad information then one should not be surprised when he boldly parrots that bad information.

It seems like the only way to introduce new data to Bush is to introduce a new staff. However, Bush does not like changing his staff so I expect the bad flow of information will continue unless the noise level becomes so loud that it can be heard inside the Oval Office.

Go figure!

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Bush says night is day

You mean that Bush (U.S.) is not the current extremist in Iraq?

Are you so stupid as to actually need to ask that question? Some people load up an ambulance with explosives, drive it to a red cross facility, and blow it up. You tell me, is that an extremist, or is that somehow justified resistance to the occupation? What do YOU think the goal of such actions is, worm?

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush says night is day

Are you so stupid as to actually need to ask that question? Some people load up an ambulance with explosives, drive it to a red cross facility, and blow it up. You tell me, is that an extremist, or is that somehow justified resistance to the occupation? What do YOU think the goal of such actions is, worm?

What are you going to do, convince him that day is actually day? Good luck.

Extreme measures don't equate to "extremism." It's not like we're rounding up Iraqi civilians and executing/torturing them without trial.

That was Saddam's game.

Our endgame is a democratic nation. Saddam's endgame was more and more Saddam. Tell me who's the extremist here?

 

[DrChinese]

Re: Re: Bush says night is day

Translation: let the extremists win.

What are we still doing there? Saddam is gone and there are no WMDs.

And perhaps the Iraqis think they are better off without us! Are we going to install a government like our own? Complete with a puppet favorable to us? After all, we helped the Shah stay in power for years in Iran, something I am sure has not been forgotten by many. And for that matter, we supported Saddam until he strayed.

All we have to do is declare victory and come home. We shoulda done that in Viet Nam, too. Don't we ever learn?

 

[DrChinese]

Since Bush does not bother to do his own research, he is very dependent upon his staff to provide him with correct information. Therefore, if his staff provides him with bad information then one should not be surprised when he boldly parrots that bad information.

Parrot...good analogy! So there is a bird in the Bush...

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Bush says night is day

What are we still doing there? Saddam is gone and there are no WMDs.

And perhaps the Iraqis think they are better off without us! Are we going to install a government like our own? Complete with a puppet favorable to us? After all, we helped the Shah stay in power for years in Iran, something I am sure has not been forgotten by many. And for that matter, we supported Saddam until he strayed.

All we have to do is declare victory and come home. We shoulda done that in Viet Nam, too. Don't we ever learn?

Faulty analogy. What we're doing in Iraq is in direct contradiction to the previous policy. So were we wrong then, or now? It can't be both.

We propped up the Shah, which was not only morally wrong but impractical. We're doing the same in Saudi Arabia. Should we invade them as well, or is the economic reason for that support justified?

You drop a lot of provocative (in the rabble-rousing, as opposed to insightful way), but never offer any solutions. Anyone can criticize. Critics and assh*les, you know what they say...

Victory is not removing Saddam. It's building a popular democracy. They've said that since the beginning; don't blame Bush because you weren't listening.

 

[headscratcher4]

Unfortunately, through lies, deceit and intentional misinformation and misdirection, Bush has committed the United States to Iraq.

Sadly, we must stay, for leaving now is to let, literally, the forces of darkness win -- whether Moslem extremists or the return of the Baath-facist regime.

This is George Bush's legacy.

His said, absolutely Orewllian interpretation of events -- i.e. the desperation of the extremist attacks prove we are winning -- has that wonderful ring of Tonkin Gulf, Kruschev's "we will bury you..." speech, and Joseph Gobels trying to explain the retrain from Stalingrad. Pathetic.

The solution isn't for the US to withdrawal. The solution is for the US to realize that multinational forces and funds are needed to stabilize Iraq. To can, fire, ax, remove, publicly expose the people in the Administration who said it would be a cost-effective cakewalk, to let the American people fully understand that, with the wonders of the tax cut, our adventure in Iraq is going to cost much more than was ever suggested by the powers that be (i.e. we will be paying for this long after the boost from your tax cut is spent paying for the cost of your rising health insurance...).

As one commentator in the NYTimes concluded yesterday, we had all better hope that Bush was willfully lying to the American people and the world about Iraq, what it would cost, and our plans for that country, because if he was telling the truth as he believed it, than we really did elect someone as dumb as all of the Bush haters have claimed.

No, alas, I fear we cannot leave Iraq just yet, but it is time to hold the Administration who got us there -- with their claims of Saddam having a nuclear program within months of a bomb, with their claim of chemical weapons stored all across the country, and with their claim of overt and clearly identifiable links to terrorist organizations -- responsible.

The young men and women of this country who will die in the next several months in defense of this ill-conceived policy deserve nothing less.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Bush says night is day

What are we still doing there? Saddam is gone and there are no WMDs.

We're helping them rebuild. We're rooting out the remnants of the Baathist regime. We're hunting for Saddam. And we're helping to provide security. But maybe you don't want these things for the Iraqi people. Maybe you sympathise with people who bomb red cross facilities.

And perhaps the Iraqis think they are better off without us!

Evidence, please?

Are we going to install a government like our own? Complete with a puppet favorable to us?

We're going to install a democracy. The Iraqi people will then install whoever they like to lead that democracy.

After all, we helped the Shah stay in power for years in Iran, something I am sure has not been forgotten by many. And for that matter, we supported Saddam until he strayed.

Ah yes, that tired old argument: we helped make the problem, so we should refrain from fixing it.

All we have to do is declare victory and come home. We shoulda done that in Viet Nam, too. Don't we ever learn?

Yeah yeah, Iraq=Vietnam. Except it doesn't. And do you think people who bomb red cross facilities are going to be satisfied with us pulling out of Iraq, and will just leave the place in peace after that? You're advocating covering our own backside at the expense of Iraq possibly spiralling into chaos and the hands of such extremists. You have the same callous disregard for Iraq as Ion has, you don't care about them at all, all you want is a failure for Bush. How delightfully self-absorbed.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Victory is not removing Saddam. It's building a popular democracy. They've said that since the beginning...

I beg to differ. "They" trumpeted WMD as the alpha and omega of going to town. SH was secondary. And every other reason? Hoped for byproducts, but not the goals of "victory."

 

[Silicon]

I agree with headscratcher.

We need to clean this up, not merely leave.

We need to elect someone who will choose the hard solution of doing it right, rather than the easy solution of leaving.

Bush, et al seem committed to the hard solution, but I am ... shall we say... unconvinced of their ability to competently solve the problems they face.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

No, alas, I fear we can not leave Iraq just yet, but it is time to hold the Administration who got us there -- with their claims of Saddam having a nuclear program within months of a bomb, with their claim of chemical weapons stored all across the country, and with their claim of overt and clearly identifiable links to terrorist organizaitons -- responsible.

The young men and women of this country who will die in the next several months in defense of this ill-conceived policy deserve nothing less.

Hear, hear.

 

[Ziggurat]

The solution isn't for the US to withdrawl. The solution is for the US to realize that multinational forces and funds are needed to stabilize Iraq.

I agree completely, but I would like to note that these ARE things we're trying to do. The funds, particularly, are what Iraq needs the most (much more than more external forces), and on that front, France and Germany are really coming up short.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/23/sprj.irq.main/index.html
"As far as Germany and France are concerned, really, this was a regrettable position they had," Allawi said. "I don't think the Iraqis are going to forget easily that in the hour of need, those countries wanted to neglect Iraq."

To can, fire, axe, remove, publically expose the people in the Administration who said it would be a cost-effective cakewalk, to let the American people fully understand that, with the wonders of the tax cut, our adventure in Iraq is going to cost much more than was ever suggested by the powers that be (i.e. we will be paying for this long after the boost from your tax cut is spent paying for the cost of your rising health insurance...).

Hey I even agree with this, though I think I may be in disagreement with you over the fact that I think this endeavor was still worth it, though it was misrepresented and at times mismanaged.

Cheers

 

[DrChinese]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush says night is day

1. Faulty analogy. What we're doing in Iraq is in direct contradiction to the previous policy. So were we wrong then, or now? It can't be both.

2. We propped up the Shah, which was not only morally wrong but impractical. We're doing the same in Saudi Arabia. Should we invade them as well, or is the economic reason for that support justified?

3. You drop a lot of provocative (in the rabble-rousing, as opposed to insightful way), but never offer any solutions. Anyone can criticize. Critics and assh*les, you know what they say...

4. Victory is not removing Saddam. It's building a popular democracy. They've said that since the beginning; don't blame Bush because you weren't listening.

1. Huh?
2. We should not invade sovereign nations that do not directly attack us.
3. "Critics and..." - now THAT is insightful.
4. Victory is building a popular democracy, eh? Like we did in Vietnam? Or Iran? Or Afghanistan? etc. etc. How would we know how to put together such a government in a place as complex as Iraq? That is the entire point of the thread... we pretend that our dabbling in Iraqi politics is for the "better good" of the Iraqis, when we don't know what the results will be. We are guessing!

Bush is claiming that the violent reaction of Iraqis "proves" we are getting closer to a better result - specifically: democracy. So tell me, what would have to happen to indicate it is not going well? How will we measure this new objective, since our previously stated objectives (removal of the evil human-rights-abusing Saddam, elimination of WMDs which are an imminent threat to the US and UK) are now completed?

My solution: U.S. out of Iraq. Now. (So am I still a critic without a solution? Or is my solution "too impractical" to satisfy your requirements? Afraid Saddam will re-emerge?)

By the way, what country is to be the next target of our global forced and violent push into democracy? I guess we should ask Wolfowitz to get that answer.

 

[Skeptic]

Gee, that's interesting...

Whenever Hamas or Islamic Jihad or some other organization kills jews in israel, the left excuses it by saying that it is, surely, an act of "desperation" and that we should understand the "real reasons" behind it (e.g., it's all the jews' fault.)

But when Bush claims the same is true with the bombings in Iraq--that it is an act of desperation--heaps of abuse are launched at him. Doesn't Bush KNOW such suicide bombings are not act of desperation, but of people hell-bent of killing Americans no matter what?

Well, Dr. Chinese & co., you can't have it both ways... either both Hamas's and these suicide bombings are acts of desperation, or neither are. Which one is it?

 

[DrChinese]

Gee, that's interesting...

Whenever Hamas or Islamic Jihad or some other organization kills jews in israel, Dr. Chinese & co. excuse it by saying that it is, surely, an act of "desperation" and that we should understand the "real reasons" behind it (e.g., it's all the jews' fault.)

But when Bush claims the same is true with the bombings in Iraq--that it is an act of desperation--heaps of abuse are launched at him. Doesn't Bush KNOW such suicide bombings are not act of desperation, but of people hell-bent of killing Americans no matter what?

Well, Dr. Chinese & co., you can't have it both ways... either both Hamas's and these suicide bombings are acts of desperation, or neither are. Which one is it?

You have me confused with someone else. I don't condone terrorism, and I don't support the Palestinians over the Israelis. As to whether the terrorism is "acts of desperation", I have no idea whether it is or not; and I am not sure I understand the significance of the phrase. All I know is that it is not going smoothly in Iraq, and you don't have to be a genius to know that.

 

[Skeptic]

You have me confused with someone else. I don't condone terrorism, and I don't support the Palestinians over the Israelis.

I didn't mean you personally, I meant the "left" in general, which is why I referered to "Dr. Chinese & co". and not just to "Dr. Chinese." I have edited my previous post to reflect this.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush says night is day

4. Victory is building a popular democracy, eh? Like we did in Vietnam? Or Iran? Or Afghanistan? etc. etc.

No, like we did in Germany or Japan, two countries we actually invaded and occupied (something we didn't do in either of the examples you listed).

My solution: U.S. out of Iraq. Now. (So am I still a critic without a solution? Or is my solution "too impractical" to satisfy your requirements? Afraid Saddam will re-emerge?)

So what do YOU think would happen if we just left now? You keep saying we should do this, but yet you won't say what would happen if we did pull out. What do YOU think extremists who bomb red cross facilities would do if we left? You haven't proposed a solution, you've proposed abandoning the problem completely. You can't even say what you think would happen afterwards if we did just leave now.