It sucks to be a Democrat these days
by JohnHuang2
Nag, nag, nag. That's all Democrats do these days about Iraq. Morning, noon and night. Not an hour goes by without the Griping and Grumbling Democrats griping and grumbling about how terrible things are going in Iraq. They opposed the invasion, but nag that Bush should've used more troops for the invasion. They opposed using force, but nag that Bush should've used overwhelming force to crush Iraq's army completely. They also nag that there's no Iraq army; we scared the bejeebers out the Iraq army during the invasion with too much firepower and too many U.S. troops. Faced with overwhelming firepower, the Iraq army fled the battlefield. (Invading with French troops deploying white flags could've prevented this, but Bush "wasted every opportunity to build an international coalition," Sen. John F. Kerry pointedly notes). Bush won the war too decisively, in short. It produced a power vacuum. Had Bush had a little more Quagmire during the invasion -- as Big Media predicted he would -- we would not be in a Quagmire now. But, oh, no, Bush, stubborn as always, had to do it his way, winning the war in record time, proving infallible media predictions wrong, ignoring the injury to media egos this would cause. Not only that, but Bush refused to carry out solid Media invasion scenarios of ecological and human disaster. No food crisis, no refugee crisis, no environmental crisis, no civil war, no Arab uprising, no raging oil fires, no Scud Missile strikes on Israel, no tens of thousands of dead G.I.s, no al-Qaeda revenge here -- no wonder we're in so much trouble now!
As a huge body-bag surplus threatens huge body-bag job cuts, "The Q-word (Quagmire) is getting some air as America settles down for a winter at war," writes Tony Karon of TIME magazine.
"The Q-word," he writes, "has been popping up with increasing frequency as the war in Iraq drags without any bankable signs of progress. Webster's Collegiate dictionary defines a quagmire as 'soft miry land that shakes or yields under foot' and as 'a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position.' It has been part of the U.S. political lexicon ever since it seemed an apt description of the U.S. experience in Vietnam. In the last week Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has had to devote a considerable amount of his time explaining why it's a misnomer for the current situation in Iraq. He was responding to the steady rumble from the media, politicians, Iraq experts and even some U.S. allies that the operation (in Iraq) has the hallmarks of a classic military-political quagmire -- unclear goals, no visible victory post and no convincing exit strategy."
"The military insists things are going according to plan," adds Karon, "and that the critics are forgetting the initial warnings from the Pentagon and the White House that this would be a long, complicated war in which previous definitions no longer apply...Still, the pundits' concern (about the deepening quagmire in Iraq) is understandable."
Regarding Operation Iron Hammer, Karon writes that "The bombing thus far has not dislodged the Taliban..."
Huh? The Taliban? Hold on there. Doesn't make sense. Must be a typo. I'll double-check.
Uh-oh.
Major screw-up.
Yes, I did it again, FReepers. You'd think I'd be more careful after that last screw-up of mine, but, oh, no, just had to screw-up again. How embarrassing.
The Karon article I've been quoting was not about Iraq but about Afghanistan -- days before the Taliban fell! Sorry for the confusion, FReepers. Next time, I'll really, really be careful ;-)
Meanwhile, in a wholly unthinkable and unprecedented development, there are reports that Bush isn't well liked by Britain's freakazoid antiwar Left, with anti-Americanism running high among groups devoted to anti-Americanism.
More shocking still, there are credible reports that antiwar protesters there are protesting, the protesting prompted by war in Iraq (funny, I thought they said the war was bogus) and Bush's visit for talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair in the first full state visit by a U.S. President. Organizers expect a massive 1% of the British public to show up for the protests. Only 59,920,000 Brits will sit out the protests. The protesters, displaying an impressively firm grip on fairyland, their anger at Bush for toppling Saddam sizzling, will make believe they're toppling Bush by toppling a make-believe statue of Bush in central London on Thursday. (Strange again. I thought they said the U.S. lost the war. This should be a victory march, not a protest).
The Stop The War Coalition, which sponsored the protests, includes such perfectly mainstream, everyday groups like the Workers Power (which praises "mainstream" suicide bombers), Green Socialist Network and Socialist Alliance (which praises 'mainstream' Castro), Socialist Workers Party (committed to 'mainstream' killing and global revolution), the Socialist Party (committed to Socialism as key to well-being and prosperity), Lawyers against the War, Globalise resistance, Al-Awda, etc. These groups, Ba'athists from the Ba'ath wing of the Ba'ath Party, say Bush is a bloody terror mastermind who duped Blair into helping Bush's global war policy. (Who knows -- maybe Bush planned the Kennedy assassination!) These groups also say Bush is really, really dumb.
The protesters are so peaceful and mainstream, "London police have mounted an unprecedented security operation," CNN reports, with concrete barriers "erected outside Buckingham Palace, while the Metropolitan Police have scheduled 14,000 officer shifts" to guard against assassination and other civil disobedience by the peaceful protesters.
A new poll by The Guardian newspaper shows how mainstream these mainstreamers truly are. In the survey, published Tuesday, only 62 percent of Britons consider America "a force for good" in the world, while a whopping 15 percent agreed with Howard Dean that America is an "evil empire." The survey also found that only 47 percent consider themselves bloody warmongers like Bush, supporting the decision to topple Saddam, although the number of bloody warmongers is up from 38 percent in September. The Guardian blames the rise in bloody warmongers in Britain on reports of suicide bombings in Iraq. No doubt the suicide bombings were either a fraud made up in Texas (see Teddy Kennedy) or the suicide bombers were working for evil Halliburton (see Henry Waxman, who's still investigating Enron). Yeah, yeah, go ahead, dismiss Kennedy if you want; I say the Neanderthal-baiter has a point when he says Bush has driven our policy in Iraq off a bridge, letting it drown in a tide-swept neo-con pond while Bush safely swims to shore. This policy is a car wreck! er, train wreck...
Analysts and keen observers say the trip could prove a PR nightmare for Bush. They say the danger for Bush is that Americans, seeing images of angry mobs on the streets of London burning U.S. flags, shouting anti-U.S. slogans and images of Left-wing crazies acting like Left-wing crazies could move voters in Missouri to say, 'Well, that does it for me. I can no longer support Bush or the war if Left-wing crazies in Britain don't support Bush or the war.' And we all remember how, after massive street demonstrations here in the U.S. last March, Bush was forced to cancel the war on Iraq -- NOT. Which is why the crazier the mobs, the angrier the mobs, the more Americans will rally to Bush.
Meanwhile, USA Today reports that "President Bush's job approval rating is sagging, and in several other categories he is at or near the lowest point of his presidency, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds."
Seven months after major combat operations were declared over, Iraq is still not a perfect democracy and as the war "drags on, (Americans are) nearly split over the president's leadership: 50% approve of the job he is doing, and 47% disapprove," says USA Today. "That equals the lowest approval and highest disapproval of his presidency."
Not only that, but in utterly horrific news for Vulnerable Bush, Democrat registration nationwide has surged again, soaring from 33 percent of total registration to 45 percent currently! We know this because, among the 1,004 interviewed in the USA Today-Gallup survey, no less than 457 were "Democrats or Democratic leaners." If the massive shift in registration continues apace, all Americans will be registered Democrats in about a month. The rebounding economy doesn't matter, say experts. Bush's reelection will depend on conditions in Iraq, not pocketbook issues here in the states.
Bush is finished! Doomed, I tell ya! Dean can measure the drapes in the White House.
In a related development, ABC News reports that "public views of the war in Iraq are holding steady" and the President's "job approval rating has stabilized as well."
"According to an ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Bush's overall job approval rating stands at 57 percent, about the same as it was in late October and fairly stable since," says ABC News. "These are positive results for the White House," and "62 percent of Americans say U.S. forces should remain (in Iraq) until order is restored, despite the casualties."
The rebounding economy does matter, poll results show. Bush's reelection will depend more on pocketbook issues here in the states, than on conditions in Iraq.
Bush is unfinished! Undoomed, I tell ya! Howard Dean can not measure the drapes in the White House.
It must suck to be a Democrat these days.
We were told Bush, in his speech, would defend his decision to take military action in Iraq. That his address to a group dignitaries and academics Wednesday at London's Banqueting House would take pains to puncture misconceptions, in Britain and elsewhere, on the reasons for going to war. That Bush, marking the first full day of his state visit, would seek to answer critics, bend over backwards to moot perception of him as unilateralist, 'go-it-alone,' 'my-way-or-the-highway' cowboy from Texas. This will be a fence-mending speech, said keen observers. Bush, "stung" by criticism across the globe of fracturing old alliances, would try to pay tribute to multilateralism and consensus-building, stressing the "need" to work closely together, to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, holding up the French as paragons of humility. One thing's for sure, said brilliant pundits: Bush won't dare even mutter the word 'evil' from that podium. Certainly not in his first major speech of his 3 1/2-day visit as Britain's guest. Not on a continent so morally superior to the U.S. it gave birth to darling boys Hitler and Stalin.
If those were the reasons for this speech, then I must concede this speech was a Miserable Failure. Bush Miserably Failed to looked defensive, instead he looked bold, decisive, resolute, in charge. Using strong and forceful language, Bush was the portrait of confidence, grit, determination, and spunk. He was colorful and funny at times, clear and direct at all times. If looking weak and timid to mollify critics was the goal here, gee whiz, Bush did a terrible job! Showing sheepishness or insecurity, doubt or unease, are things that Bush has never been good at. Bush doesn't do sheepishness, period.
To illustrate, take this passage:
"The evil is in plain sight. The danger only increases with denial. Great responsibilities fall once again to the great democracies. We will face threats with open eyes and we will defeat them."
Now, let me ask you: Is this any way to look fickle, hazy, unsure, iffy, lame, indecisive? Is this anyway to reassure Euroweenies that America is adrift -- wimpy, wobbly and unsure of itself? With all due respect, if the idea here was for Bush to talk like the French, the speech on every level was a Miserable Failure! Bush did an awful job of looking frail, shaky, hesitant, bewildered. Sorry, Charlie, but looking poised and self-assured is no way to win hearts and minds in Euroweenieland.
Bush added that "We did not charge hundred of miles into the heart of Iraq and pay a bitter cost of casualties and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins."
While critics expected an 'I'm-So-Sorry-I-Liberated-Iraq, And-I-Promise-Never-To-Liberate-Again' speech, what they got was bold, unabashed American assertiveness and vision instead. Right between the eyes. Mettle, conviction and poise gushed from that podium. If looking spineless and feeble was the goal, Bush completely blew it! Throughout the speech, not a hint of fecklessness, not a sign of wishy-washy. There was more than ample opportunity for Bush to look limp, but Bush missed every one of them. Truth is, Bush may be great as Commander-in-Chief, but this is a President who can't come across as shallow and insipid. Bush, try as he might, just can't do wishy-washy. When you're hampered with so many skills and talents as leader, doing shallow and insipid can be a struggle. Bush is just not good at being ineffectual. He's terrible at not planning for the future. He can't seem to get the knack of thinking small. Euroweenieship requires thinking small. The average Euroweenie has more girly-boy in his little finger than Michael Jackson has in her/his/its whole body. So, if convincing Euroweenies that Bush is Euroweenie was the goal, this speech was doomed from the start.
No matter how you slice it, Bush failed the test of Euroweenieship.
Which means Bush passed the test of leadership with flying colors.
Great job, Mr. President.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
