Posted on 05/27/2004 8:22:14 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
LOL, I can agree with that.
Why would the fly the American flag Joe? They have one of their own. Joe, you want us to be beaten in Iraq. You have other uses for our military right here at home don't you?
Its because the bad guys will attack them in the middle of the night if they snich on any of them. They act like the mob did in Chicago in the 1930s.
Great post Billybob. Here's a vote for you, a vote that you're not banned. As you say, Bush could've done better. What's the matter, is having truth on your side suddenly a liability? Is that how far we've decended as a society?
Then again, perhaps a War College should become aquainted with the 'new' warrior. Meet the terrorist. He'll not wear a uniform, won't line up for battle, but will, at his chosing, kill you and your family if you let him close enough.
Your mission, should you decide to rid yourself of this slimey-sh*t is to take it to his hometown. Take it to his family. "Look folks, you seem like nice people but this sh*tboy you've produced is out to hurt innocent people and we've got to do something."
"If he acts out and kills innocents, we'll have no choice but to whack him. But know this, if he merely plans to kill innocents and we find out, we'll take him out, along with whomever might be in the room at the time. There are no guarantees." "Best advice, talk sh*tboy down from his position 'cause if you can't, we will."
I can assure you that upwards of 80# of the curriculum at Yale was "cliche and inane" also. Least it was a century or so ago, when I went there. LOL.
John
LOL tex, making me the issue again eh? Dang tex, is this the best response you can muster? Jezzuz.....
ROFLMAO, Hey Einstein!!!! Maybe it's because they're Iraqi's...... NOT Americans?
I strongly agree with your point that Bush should have incorporated the historical context of occupying a country in order to turn it around. It would have been a master stroke for him to quote the old NY Times article as it would have been harder for the lamestream media (I like your name for them)to trash the Times. Even though it is accurate technically, I would have avoided at all costs the word occupying. With respect to this omission, I agree that it is a lost opportunity that belonged in the context of his plan/vision.
ON the other hand I strongly disagree with quotes from Patton and other such strong leaders. For those of us who don't have this homogenized jaded view about the nature of the Iraq mission, those quotes make us stand taller and prouder. It would be preaching to the choir. Perhaps some have to be converted back into the Bush fold, although I can't imagine any rational reason to vote for Kerry. More importantly, would be the press distortion of Bush being a war mongerer that would negatively penetrate the populace.
You can see it now with Bush being resolute that he is labeled an arrogant cowboy.
Another consideration is the longer term view. There will be a number of speeches by Bush. The June 30 deadline along with all of the events that will unfold will need to be discussed as the campaign roles on.
The key agenda item in the press was the 5 point plan. It was important for the public to hear that he had a plan. Labeling it as a 5 point plan is effective in getting this point across. It is an easy concept for the media to both understand and report and it is easily understood by the people. In this regard, the speech was successful (even though it missed a critical opportunity to mention historical context). Another thing that Bush said that was critical was that there is likely to be more bad news near the June 30 transfer - both before and after. Bush should get out there and address this situation weekly. If events are bad he should remind the people that he predicted that the terrorists would try and disrupt Iraqi sovereignty. He should reaffirm his 5 point plan as well as our resolve.
Back the pony up! Who is asking for him to be banned? He posted his opinion and others have countered with theirs. Is it now forbidden or in poor taste to offer a different position? Have you ever watched old newsreels of Churchill speeches? His delivery was horrible. The same with Roosevelt and even Reagan. Reagan was not a great orator in the classical sense he just hit emotional buttons better than most people.
LOL, This is proof that we are dealing with a single issue Freeper, cause this guy is completely clueless
And yes, pointing out any Bush underacheivements may lead to bannishment.
How come we don't see American flags flying from their businesses and homes if they appreciate us so much? Where is all of this Iraqi support for what we are doing for them?
I just don't see it Tex.
Hey Einstein!!!! Maybe it's because they're Iraqi's...... NOT Americans?
What, we are suppose to be the liberators not appreciated? Who you kidding professor?
Let me guess, you agree with Tex that the huge majority of Iraqis support the U.S. and are willing to lay their *own* lives down?
No one can say this with a straight face slick. LOL! Your BS is deep, and sticking you're head in the sand will only make it worse.
Baloney. You are still here ain't ya?
I agree that better historical context would be better.
In fact, I'd make a broader critique. Bush needs to give more examples, context, and justification period. So many times, he simply makes a statement. Instead he needs statement, then example/anecdote/justification, re-statement... and Reaganesque examples would help.
The speech did its job - to lay out the plan. but it is also correct to give context as to *why* plans are what they are, why they change and what *wont* change as we succeed in Iraq and *why* this shows we are actually on track to success in Iraq...
(he got into this a bit with the 'quick victory meant saddam's thugs melted into the civilian population).
He needs to justify *why* we are at war.
He needs to justify *why* we can claim we are winning it.
(point out not just hospitals opened, but how much has been done wrt security, the transitional law, etc.)
He needs to justify *why* we can be confident Iraq will be democratic (he was good here, he mentioned the elections of local councils).
Bush needs far more factoids in his speeches. The press is NOT mentioning these things to the people. How many people in the US even know that local elections have been held in Iraq already? Doesnt that simple fact deflate the whining defeatists who claim democracy cant work in Iraq?
You are so right!!!
I gave a critique of the speech in the previous post. I dont retract it, but I realize that I should say it was quite a good speech and the big scandal is the press' unwillingness to cover it.
Look, this first speech was the executive summary with 5 more to follow. The next 5 will deal with each part of the 5-point plan in more detail.
Iraqis ALREADY HAVE SHED BLOOD FOR THE NEW IRAQ.
One Iraqi martyr is the Governing Council President.
There have been over a thousand Iraqi victims and martyrs in the past year, killed by assassination or terrorism.
I dont think there is an unknown here. The claims of 'cowardice' were a misplaced appelation to some green ICDC members trained only for border duty who were sent to fallujah and turned tail. That's a yardstick of training, not of Iraqi courage.
You sir, are a malcontent that has a bone to pick, just as many of those on the left. You are far too blinded by your own personal issues to see the truth.
95% of Iraq is stable and it's the other 5% that dominate the mainstream news that keeps mental midgets like yourself believing that we are failing in Iraq. Keep it up Joe, at least you're good for something!
You put lots of effort into the article and I commend you for your thoughtful composition, but...
It appears that "history" is your hot button. In all honesty it doesn't appear the President was trying to impress his local audience with his knowledge of the history of warfare.
In my view he was attempting to reach a broader audience with some detail of the plan being executed. The War College was a convenient, friendly venue.
If it is your intent to send this article for publication, it seems to me you are making a much greater mistake than that for which you fault the President. Professions of loyalty and support, as you have evidenced in the past, would dictate, in my opinion, that corrections/criticisms be issued in private rather than in the public press.
I would guess you do not have many opportunities to voice your thoughts to the President in person, but, since the subject matter doesn't appear to be something that will lose the war, or lose the election, perhaps it can wait until you do have that opportunity.
I think it was good of you to post your thoughts here before going public. I trust you'll meditate a bit on what might occur as unintended consequences.
Perhaps. But if so, I *do* hope he goes back to the "justifying the war" question and does a *detailed* justification of the Iraq war:
Lay out the saddam/al Qaueda connections we *now* know;
point out the WMD evidence we now have;
point out the other threats;
point out how Iraqi liberation changes the war-on-terror situation;
points out success at rooting out oil-for-food corruption, etc.
He needs to consider the political angle of making the American electorate comfortable with the justification, purpose and progress towards victory of the effort in Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.